Tonight both the House and the Senate passed a measure to fund the federal government until February 18, 2022. The new legislation will prevent a government shutdown. The measure passed the House by a vote of 221 to 212 with only one Republican, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, voting yes. “This government should be shut down,” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) said. “You want to know why it should be shut down? Because the people in here. The people in here cannot control themselves.”
To hear "Margorie Three Names" indicate that the House needs to be shut down because it is full of "people in here cannot control themselves" is the most blatant use of projection I've seen in quite a while. You be right, Madam Three Names, but you are looking in a mirror, and at people like Ms. Boebert, Mr. Gaetz, and Mr. Gosar. Out of control yes, stripped of committee assignments or censured, yes, under investigation for child sex crimes, yes, or a gun fetishist, yes. It is not the "other side of the aisle", ma'am.
Can you hear the drums in the distance? I sure do! They are a little faint but very soon we will hear them loud and clear. Biden pressed for a covid mandate and he got it. A shutdown was diverted and Biden won again. Now we must get rid of the filibuster so that we can pass the John Lewis Act and get people fed and housed. Marjorie Three Names can go take a flying hike to the deep depths of the earth because she is tge one who can’t control herself.
It's December. Republicans voted to shut down the government and give us the gift of chaos for the holidays. Mark Meadows tells us that tfg-orange-humanoid had COVID symptoms at the debate with Biden and came late so there was no time to take a test. His crew refused to wear masks so all were stinking Petri dishes at that event and others. Democrats-- make your New Year's Resolution now and stop being bullied. There was a rule that a test had to be taken before the debate. If opponents don't follow the rules, stop the proceedings until the rules are followed. What is the sense of having rules if the bullies ignore them? Greene and the others are proudly collecting fines for their behavior. No committee assignments ? How about a pay cut? Assert yourselves and end the filibuster, pass voting rights bills and earn your vacation. We are 10 months away from an election that will surely end Joe Biden's legacy and the progress made toward normalcy this year. 212 in congress are salivating at the thought.
We should all keep in mind that Trump is still a Russian agent, acting for the benefit of his sponsor in the Kremlin, and manipulated by his handlers in Moscow. That the former president is likely an unwitting provocateur makes him that much more effective and thus more valuable. He's pulled 99% of the Republican Party along with him as either passive or active participants in the strategic weakening of the US and NATO vis-a-vis Russia, thus enabling Putin to destabilize the American political process almost at will. That must put a Cheshire Cat smile on the face of the former KGB agent. "So who really won the Cold War?" he purrs.
The more I read, the more I come back to the concern that avoiding the Freedom to Vote Act is the tipping point issue. Without the Freedom to Vote Act secured, all else is play acting. How do you provide lasting, positive change for the American people, if we keep having to land at Omaha Beach? In the elections of ‘18 & ‘20, Dems worked to take the high ground. And now we hear crickets and see molasses in winter about real effort to secure voting rights. What’s the game-plan without voting rights secured?
One has to wonder whether Greene was referring to herself, not to mention Lauren Boebert. Talk about elected officials who can't control themselves! Well, that's not exactly true. Today was just another performance for the cameras. Imagine if the government did shut down, and their constituents suffered financially and in other ways. They would change their tune. Actually, though, It's like they're playing poker, everyone knows their bluffing, and they have no chips in the pot. In other words, it's an act, a game, and most definitely not governing.
I find the level of financial penalties to the lawyers laughable, if not obscene. Lawyers can recover those financial "losses" by increasing their billable hours causing pain on a plaintiff with lesser means, which they do already as a strategy to defund plaintiffs. Why do we think most women end up in poverty after a divorce, as an example. They should have penalized they where it hurts: practicing law.
Mark Meadows, abject pathetic piece of something one scrapes off their shoe, so abjectly pathetic he's willing to say he lied to please The Liar. This sort of stuff only used to happen in Stalinist totalitarian systems like North Korea.
“This government should be shut down,” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) said. “You want to know why it should be shut down? Because the people in here. The people in here cannot control themselves.”
... uhm yes ..., and that would be ... uhm - er, herself ... Boebert ... and their fellows in league ...?
Thank you Heather.
As a child, I was taught that right is might rather than the other way around. As a seasoned adult I see that lovely axiom is under serious threat - certainly not for the first time. I hope enough players with good moral character, influence and chutzpah will prevail over the foolish and the greedy. 🙏🏻🤞🏻
Why. Oh why does congress repeatedly refuse to just raise the debt ceiling and be done with it? This repeated excercise toys with the credibility of our government and as Heather writes, toys with our national safety and puts our strongest NATIONALDEFENSE AT RISK!!
It is seeming like treason, a high crime and misdemeanor, to diddle around with our economic credibility becase “ they feel like it”. And what about Trump knowing he had covid marching into the first debate???? He knew for 3 ddays and kept it secret! Does that fall under the heading of criminal intent? He KNEW. I just don’t get it. How has he gotten away with this and how are all these members of congrss toying with our economic status and strength in the world like its nothing but a decision up for grabs every 30-60 days!
I cheered yesterday when I heard that the Jan 6 committee would hold public, televised hearings. Get out the popcorn and pull up a chair folks. It's about to get very interesting. We might finally see some of those involved squirm in their seats as they come before the American people.
FROM ‘SUPREME’ TO ‘STENCH’ COURT?
(The word ‘stench’ comes from Justice Sotomayor)
Chief Justice John Roberts us much less of a player on the “Roberts Court” since there now are five conservative (or extremely conservative—at least Thomas and Alioto) justices. I believe that the core principle of Roe v. Wade is in jeopardy, the prospect of SC approval of meaningful federal voting regulations is scant, and the Court will tend to favor state over federal rights in its interpretation of the Constitution’s 10th Amendment. President Biden may have to rely on aggressive Executive Orders (as did Trump).
Roberts must be pissed at Two-Card-Monte McConnell and Trump. Roberts has been concerned∂ about how the Roberts Court will be viewed in history. This was reflected in his convoluted reasoning in his 2012 Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) opinion. After sharply criticizing the law, he threw in a Hail Mary by stating that the mandate could be construed as a tax and was therefore ruled to be valid under congressional authority to “levy and collect taxes.” [Chief Justice John Marshall had a similar Hail Mary in his historical 1803 Marburg v. Madison opinion.] At that time commentators found Roberts’ judicial argument ‘unusual’ and concluded that Roberts did not want to Roberts Court historically blamed for killing Obamacare.
Two years earlier, in my opinion, Roberts had muddied his copybook by being the swing vote in Citizens United, which ruled that prohibiting corporate (and union) political expenditures violated their First Amendment rights. In 2015 Roberts was also the swing vote in degutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As he expressed it “Our country has changed….While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.” [This has permitted Republicans, in the absence of Section 5, to impose a broad range of voting impediments in nearly two dozen states.}
The hope tat Roberts would be a swing vote has been dashed by the McConnell/Trump duo. When Antonin Scalia (a constitutional ‘originality’) died, in 2016 President Obama nominated Merrick Garland. Two-Card-Monte McConnell gave him a crooked shuffle, proclaiming that he wouldn’t consider his nomination until a new president was elected. In early 201y Trump slipped Neil Gorsuch into Scalia’s seat.
On July 9, 2018 Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy (a moderate). In a contentious Senate hearing, the McConnell/Trump duo were imperial in their staccato support, with Kavanaugh receiving a 50-48 Senate confirmation.
With the September 16, 2020 death of Ruth Badger Ginsburg, McConnell shamelessly reversed his ‘Garland dictum’ and Amy Coney Barrett was propelled on to the Court on October 27, 2020 (just before Trump was defeated and a 50/50 Senate). Justice Stephen Breyer, age 83, is being urged to resign before the 2022 Senate elections.
Very few people know or care about the Supreme Court’s history. Initially the Court was not viewed as a key element in the Constitution’s checks-and-balances, lacking both respect and distinction. Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835) created a strong federalist Supreme Court. Chief Justice Brooke Taney (1836-1964) was best remembered for Dred Scot v. Sanford (1857), when he rules that African Americans could not be considered citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories of the United States. Taney sympathized with secession, challenged Lincoln’s wartime use of habeas corpus, and was threatened with confinement by members of Lincoln’s administration.
FDR, after an overwhelming re-election in 1936, sought to clip the Supreme Court’s wings. He was angry that the SC had negated some of his early New Deal legislation. [In fact, many of these 100-Day bills were poorly crafted. The National Recovery Act was rejected 9-0 and another New Deal law was unanimously declared unconstitutional in an opinion written by liberal Justice Louis Brandeis.]
I consider it highly unlikely, with the possible exception of term limits, that Supreme Court ground rules will be altered.
Last night I watched part of HCR's Facebook talk from the day, before going to sleep. I woke up around midnight from a dream in which an alien invasion was happening, taking over the planet. As dreams do, it morphed into the realization that 'movement conservatives' were the aliens, and they were pushing their false narrative of rugged individualism to cover their real game plan, which was to create the greatest form of collectivism ever - the Borg-like 'hive mind' (for any Star Trek fans out there). It was 'bait and switch' on steroids.
If we pay attention, we can hear the old states' rights arguments from the periods Heather covered in that talk yesterday, the idea that 'if states vote for it, it's democracy and the federal government has no say in it'. Listen to Sen. Mike Lee, Utah, yesterday, arguing that the vaccine mandates are unconstitutional because the federal government has no role there. Listen to the arguments at the Supreme Court yesterday, where several Justices did likewise.
While Heather's talk yesterday was meant to reassure us that we've been here before and always pulled back from the brink, I fear that the odds of lightening striking twice in the same place are not as substantial as I'm comfortable with!!
Wait, Texas bill restricts access and opportunities to vote, but at same time lessens the penalties for illegal voting? How did the politicians possibly spin this?
So relieved to hear that Biden has cut back on drone strikes!
Peace only comes through discussion, and drone strikes put us and them in the worst possible mental as l place to even consider negotiation.