I’m just guessing that Clarence Thomas would still vote with the conservative court majority whether or not his wife was the head of a right-wing group that got $550K in donations from unnamed sources. Ezra Klein said it pretty well the other day:
I’ll only add that the arguments being tossed around by the two sides are essentially meaningless. There’s no “right” argument here. No one doubts that health-care reform would be constitutional if Antonin Scalia decided to pursue his passion for beekeeping and allowed President Obama to appoint his replacement. The only reason there’s any question about the law’s constitutionality is that conservatives appointed five of the nine sitting justices, and conservatives have organized against the constitutionality of a proposal they once considered not just constitutional, but desirable as a matter of public policy.
And so it goes. Politics is politics, and the Supreme Court is, at this point, deeply and unquestionably political. I continue to think it unlikely that they will want the sort of direct confrontation with the political system, and with the Democratic Party, that overturning health-care reform would entail. But only time will tell.
If there’s any better reason to vote for a Democrat than the need to nominate and confirm decent Supreme Court justices, I don’t know what it is.
aimai
The times article linked here says that Virginia Thomas’s acceptance of large sums of cash from the right wing and its donors “raises questions for *some* who study judicial ethics.” That’s how far we’ve fallen. Is there any serious student of judicial or any other ethics who don’t think this is a problem? Who wouldnn’t have questions? Fuck it.
aimai
The Grand Panjandrum
Amen, brother. Afuckingmen. For all the weak tea coming out of the Senate these days, the thought of Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader and Jim DeMint as his wingman is more than I can stomach.
PTirebiter
Equally frightening is the right wing’s push to take over supreme courts at the state level. Depressing.
beltane
@aimai: You know how the media is: if 9 out of 10 people they interviewed express serious misgivings about Thomas’ corruption, it counts for less than the lone wingnut who says this type of corruption is the essence of FREEDOM and is exactly what the founding father’s wanted.
WereBear
I think success ruined the conservatives. They were far better off as pie in the sky promisers and stealth legislative spoilers.
Without the Iraq War overreach, they would still be running things; gradually squeezing the life out of consumer protection, blustering about the economy as it gradually ground to a halt, telling people we had to keep paying outrageous prices for everything or our corporations would collapse and then where would we be?
When the rubber actually hit the road, it all fell apart.
superdestroyer
Does the left really want to support the idea that a person is subject to the commerece clause just because they exist. The ruling means that there is nothing the government cannot do or require of people.
The left should be the last group that wants to give so much power to the government. But I guess that appeal to more government goodies is worthy giving up the idea that there should be limits on the government.
c u n d gulag
So the wife of a SC Justice gets money from unnamed sources to run an organization that’s anti-government (but only when it’s run by Democrats, of course).
And her husband was part of the majority in the “Citizens United” decision that allows corporate entities to donate money to political causes and politicians.
Here’s another word that Clarence Thomas has either never heard, or doesn’t understand: RECUSE!
“Clarence and Virginia Thomas: A Love Story!”
Where a judge put on the SCOTUS as an affirmative action hire, falls in love with his wife – the future Tea Bag Hag!
Hilarity ensues.
Hypocrisy reigns.
The country falls apart.
And we all goose-step our way to the “Dominionist States of America – United for Jesus.”
JPL
@beltane: The same is true about Global Warming. If you want to present the issue fairly, you have nine folks pleading the case against one.
That darn liberal media.
Annie
It still amazes me that people listen to Ginie rail against government-sponsored health care, while she will receive government-sponsored health care for life, at the same time she is adding to the family wealth with contributions from people who either don’t have crap (but hate our Kenyan President) or corporations and rich people trying to protect their own entitlements while denying others theirs.
There is really nothing Ginie has to offer in a policy debate except an insane belief in her own self-worth, and the capacity to get individuals to part with their money and give it to her. She is married to one of the weakest Supreme Court justices EVER, one that truly benefited from affirmative action.
Other than they are “pro-life,” whatever that means, nothing in the way the Ginie and Clarence live their lives remotely suggests a belief in small government, individual responsibility, and traditional values, supposed scared conservative values.
Alwhite
yeah, the two we got through with all 3 branches solidly in D control perfectly define the current Dem rally cry:
WHAT DO WE WANT?
marginally more moderate incremental improvment.
WHEN DO WE WANT IT?
at some vaguely defined point in the hopefully not too distant future.
Sure they are better than Atonin “Fat Tony” Scalia but that is faint praise.
henqiguai
@Top
This assumes too many Americans (Republicans in particular, conservatives in general, and the generic low-information voter) don’t already assume the conservative five aren’t already optimal; if not still too liberal.
[email protected] ! Y’all type too freakin’ fast.
Dennis SGMM
@Annie:
For goodness’ sake, kid; when conservatives get something from the government it’s because they deserve it. When non-conservatives get something from the government it’s soshulism.
Napoleon
@superdestroyer:
Yes – SATSQ
We wouldn’t have the voting rights act without it being read broadly.
beltane
@Napoleon: While these clowns are railing against the government taking their freedoms, the corporations are monitoring their every bit of communication, their every purchase, and are seeking power and dominion of every least bit of their existence, including ownership of their DNA. I guess actual slavery is preferable to affordable health care to these people.
El Tiburon
Hardest message to get out there. Republicans learned long ago he who controls the courts controls the world.
Now, only if obama would nominate a true liberal next time around if given the chance.
Xenos
@superdestroyer:
Well, once the W. administration hobbles the states’ abilities to regulate on behalf of consumers, who need medical care as a direct result of happening to exist, then what other choice do we have? Until now the Democrats did not have a big enough liberal wing to get universal coverage through. Once W. started federalizing this stuff, are we supposed to sit all helpless-like and let predatory capitalists run amok, or do we do like every other country facing these problems do, and come up with some sort of sensible system, even if it injures your sensitive libertarian sensibilities?
W. was so irresponsible that he empowered, nay, compelled this extension of ‘Soshalism’. Bitch at him, why don’t you?
WyldPirate
No one on this planet needs to be struck down dead by a heart attack or a bolt of lightning than does Fat Tony Scalia.
That motherfucker makes me want to scream every time I hear that chickenshit such as “9original intent” and “dead document” (I’m probably off on the later).
Excuse me, fat Tony, just why, exactly, did the framers of the Constitution mean for it to be immutable and unchangeable when they put a mechanism in place to amend the goddamned thing?
Fucking asshole.
And giving corporations “personhood” rights wrt to “free speech”? What the fuck is that? Then the same goddamned corporations are shielded (at least the goddamned monsters running them are) by limited liability available through incorporation?
Goddamned Supremes are probably bribed by corporate interests just like the motherfucking congresscritters; we just haven’t got wind of it yet.
Omnes Omnibus
@WyldPirate:
Actually, originalists believe that the Constitution should be amended if change is needed. They argue that is wrong to interpret the document in such a way as to reflect a changed or changing world. In their view, if a section of the Constitution does not work due to economic changes of a shift in morality, the only method to fix the problem is to amend. The document means what it said at the time it was written. The amendments mean what they meant at the time they were written.
kay
I’m glad media are finally pushing back on her nonsense. She’s been comparing herself to Rendell for two years, and it’s ridiculous.
Not only does Rendell have to disclose donors, but he’s elected, and accountable to voters and the whole state government apparatus around ethics issues, unlike Mrs. Thomas, who is accountable to no one.
I was interested to find this out:
I’ve read a lot on Bush v. Gore, and I was aware of Scalia’s conflicts, but I did not know that Mrs. Thomas was staffing the Bush White House prior to her husband’s decision to install former President Bush.
Amazing.
henqiguai
@El Tiburon (#15):
If only there were sufficient Senate votes to confirm said true liberal candidate next time around…
El Cid
We need to stop all the partisan extremism and learn how to come together with people from the other side. Like Clarence Thomas.
Mike in NC
@kay:
Wow, that’s sort like claiming that FOX News is “Republican-leaning” instead of being a full-fledged propaganda arm of the party.
danimal
@henqiguai:
And here we go again…commence liberal flame war in three…two…one.
Is it me, or is there a sort of deja vu/looking glass quality to liberal blogs?
Bill H
You say that because you are a Democrat, and I would to some degree to agree with you becuase I am a Democrat. A Republican would say exactly the same thing, only he would substitute the word Republican.
People make statements like this as if it were an absolute, but it is not. It is a matter of opinion. It is your opinion that Democrats would appoint “decent justices,” because they would support positions which are “better” in “your opinion.” Statements made in this absolute form are what lead to stridency and polarization. The justices appointed by the “other side” are not “decent justices.” They are, apparently, dishonorable judges who espouse loathsome policies which “decent” judges would not support.
No possibility exists that Republicans are honest, well-meaning people who care deeply about the same things that you do and just happen to disagree with you on how those things should be managed. No, they are people who appoint “indecent justices.”
Cacti
@aimai:
It seems like since Bush v. Gore, the right wing of the Court has decided to just drop the charade that they give a fig about impartiality, propriety or ethics.
See…
Scalia’s duck hunt with Cheney
Alito mouthing off during the SOTU
Thomas’s wife raking in piles of post-Citizens United cash
beltane
@kay: Our passive acceptance of the theft of the 2000 election will likely be looked back upon as the beginning of the end for the notion of the USA as a democracy. We only have a right-wing in this country; the left has been cowed down to nothing but people like us writing angry blog posts.
El Cid
This is illegitimate criticism, just like those people who thought it improper that Phil Gramm’s wife was heading the Commodities Futures Trading Commission overseeing the regulation of Enron as Phil Gramm relentlessly pursued the all-American deregulation of derivatives.
beltane
@Cacti: Why bother continuing with the charade? It’s not like the country rose up after Bush v. Gore. No national strike, no street riots, not even a single minor disruption. The silence of the American people sent the right the clear message that they would be allowed to get away with absolutely anything, and they have gotten away with everything.
El Cid
@beltane: Isn’t it enough that we have elections? Why do we have to go to the partisan extreme of demanding they be ‘legitimate’ or ‘accurate’? Cuba seems to do just fine having elections, as did Mexico for 70 years, and they weren’t all uptight about how ‘free’ those were.
WereBear
That is correct. This bird has flown… and been shot in the face.
Cacti
@beltane:
One would have to go back to the Court of Melville Fuller to find another SCOTUS that was such a complete handmaiden of big business, wealth, and power.
Which is completely unsurprising considering the modern GOP’s desire to return us to the gilded age.
Corner Stone
@Bill H:
You are correct. That possibility does not exist.
MTiffany
“If there’s any better reason to vote for a Democrat than the need to nominate and confirm decent Supreme Court justices, I don’t know what it is. “
A ringing endorsement of my “fierce advocate” if there ever was one.
WyldPirate
@Omnes Omnibus:
It seems as if you are picking nits, OO.
I get what you are saying, but I still think that it’s an idiotic stance for the “originalists” to take.
Granted, I’m no lawyer (and from what I’ve read here I gather you are), but it seems as if there are two very serious problems regarding the originalists argument, that, granted, you briefly summarize in that short paragraph.
Problem one is that it is difficult for people (or Supremes) to divine the “original intent” of the times. And yes, I know that they have some historical evidence to go on. They (the originalists) can’t put themselves in the mindset and cultural influence on the legal interpretations of the framers of the time. Problem two is that there would essentially be little change–as well as culturally garbled interpretation of constitutional challanges–if every challenge were interpreted as if each was suspended in the “amber” of the time in which it was written.
Talk about gridlock…if the USSC worked liked that, it would make the current Senate seem like speed freaks.
All of this is basically irrelevant, though. Fat Tony is a fucking hypocrite like most conservatives. He picks and chooses when he wants his “originalist” stance to apply. Nothing illustrates that more than Bush v. Gore.
Cacti
@Bill H:
That ship sailed with Watergate.
kay
@El Cid:
I get the feeling that anytime anything even remotely critical is written about Tea Party people, the media outlet responsible gets huge push-back.
There’s this timid, cowering tone media adopts when they’re covering the Tea party. Like they’re whipped dogs. These articles are always so carefully crafted not to offend anyone.
They’re afraid of them, basically.
beltane
@kay: The teabaggers are exactly like Islamic radicals in this respect. Any media figure who dares criticize them in even the most minor way is likely to get the Salman Rushdie treatment. Markos posts his hate mail every week. It is eye-opening, yet probably small-potatoes next to the threats and venom directed at mainstream journalists.
They will never admit it, but most of them are probably afraid for their physical safety. These teabaggers are violent and nasty.
stuckinred
@beltane: They’re all show and no go, fuck em.
Moses2317
Other great reasons to vote Democratic:
ending pre-existing condition exclusions
Wall Street reform
$65 billion increase in student loans
credit card industry reform
appointment of competent people to run the government
turning around the economy, despite the Republican war on jobs
because these people don’t want you to
Winning Progressive
Cat Lady
@beltane:
There were protests, but if a tree falls in the forest and
the pressno one is there to hearbroadcastit, does it make a sound?Honus
@aimai:Also remember, the donations were from unnamed sources. We don’t even have a right to know who is buying our judges. This is truly medieval. The wingnuts are worried about sharia law taking us back to the tenth century, while they worship this type of privileged anonymous patronage and the public torture and humiliation of prisoners as practiced by Joe Arpaio.
kay
@beltane:
I’d be interested to find out what happens when one of these stories are printed. It’s just a feeling I have. That careful tone is really consistent, and there’s often a follow-up story that challenges or takes the edge off the first critical story.
I keep remembering how incredibly effective conservatives were at manipulating media during the run-up to the Iraq war.
That’s always in the back of my mind now, when any powerful or influential conservative is involved in anything.
If they sold that (and they did) they’re very, very good at this.
Brachiator
@El Tiburon:
Fortunately, Obama is too smart to do something so wretchedly dumbass. Republicans do this and get goons like Scalia, Thomas and Roberts, whose ideological rigidity makes them inherently bad jurists. Much of Scalia’s supposed originalism masks an arbitrary bias towards corporatism. A recent Harvard Political Review article noted:
And Scalia may have tipped his hand to indicate his view in any future same sex marriage case by again asserting a static view of the 14th Amendment because it does not explicitly mention gays.
But the larger point is that ideological litmus tests suck.
One of the best justices we ever had was David Souter. Liberals originally hated him with a passion. But Souter, whom many thought would passively follow behind Scalia, instead became his most astute critic, and in opinion after opinion laid the philosophical groundwork for demolishing Scalia’s petty originalism.
Mnemosyne
@Bill H:
Which “honest, well-meaning” Republicans are you thinking of who just have the country’s best interests at heart? Jim DeMint? John Boehner? Mitch McConnell? Saxby Chambliss? Paul Ryan? Please specify.
If you’re talking about the rank and file and not the leadership, the honest, well-meaning Republicans left the party after Hurricane Katrina when they realized that the Republicans in power were perfectly happy leaving American citizens to starve after a natural disaster, and most of them have moved on to become independents or even Democrats. The only ones left are the racist teabaggers.
RedKitten
@beltane:
Let’s not forget angry and crazy as well. It’s disgusting, when you think about it, that so much of the public discourse is dominated by these extremist whackadoodles.
Honus
@Bill H:An objective review of their respective records and actions (acceptance of favors for themselves and their spouses from those whose agendas they actively promote from the bench) reveal Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts to be activist, result-oriented corporate hacks. The same analysis shows that Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor are respected, thoughtful centrist jurists. This is an objective truth, not my opinion as a democrat. So yes, this is false equivalency.
beltane
@kay: All it takes is brutality, not brains. The Dick Armey/Dick Cheney crowd are notorious thugs who will not hesitate to use the stick whenever a carrot is not effective. Look at what they did to Valerie Plame and Dan Rather, just to name the first examples that come to me. Hell, look at how they treated John Ashcroft when he was semi-conscious in his hospital bed. They are utterly ruthless and will destroy anyone and anything to get their way.
Honus
@PTirebiter: Not take over, buy. Let’s be clear on that. See Brent Benjamin, West Virginia.
fucen tarmal
its a shame the left wing doesn’t have any committed gun-crazy psychos. dropping a couple of the bodies from roberts,scalia, alito, thomas, and the “swing” kennedy, would help this country immensely.
until then the scrotus will rule with an iron teabag.
uloborus
@El Tiburon:
I’m very happy with who he nominated and installed. We got an expert judge who’s devoted to what the law ACTUALLY says and a widely respected constitutional scholar with a liberal bent who has an uncanny ability to get cooperation from people who ought to hate her.
Those seem like pretty good choices!
Barry
@beltane:
Adding on to Beltane’s remark, and extending -Klein wrote:
“I continue to think it unlikely that they will want the sort of direct confrontation with the political system, and with the Democratic Party, that overturning health-care reform would entail. But only time will tell.”
Oh, I’m sure that they do. I *think* that they’ll choose the “gut it and say we didn’t” approach, because that’s even better, but the SCOTUS and the GOP don’t fear the Democratic Party much.
beltane
@fucen tarmal:You know what happens to committed left wing, gun-toting psychos. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Code Pink ladies showed up at a GOP town hall brandishing guns and carrying signs with that Jefferson quote about the tree of liberty?
beltane
@Barry: One wonders how hard Americans will be kicked down before they get angry. Is there any limit to how much abuse they will take? Are they putting tranquilizers in processed food these days?
Honus
@WyldPirate: If original intent was important to Scalia, how could he write that the Second Amendment protects a Washington resident’s right to personal safety invokes the ability to be able to hold a revolver in one hand and dial the phone with the other, when neither telephones or revolvers existed at the time the amendment was written, and there is not a word in it, or anywhere in the constitution about a right to personal defense?
El Cid
@kay:
I get the feeling that that has been going on for Republicans for my entire life that I’ve been politically aware.
Omnes Omnibus
@WyldPirate: I wasn’t picking nits. It was an admittedly brief and superficial summary of originalist logic. In your response, you very quickly identified two of the main reasons that the logic is BS. I have never subscribed to it as a definitive method of interpretation Like legislative intent, it can be useful, subject to a shitload of caveats, as a tool to help decide between two reasonable interpretations of a particular clause.
Evil Parallel Universe
I had given up being a meaningful commentator,^ but I think I had a good week with my “big project” (also known as my job working for equity), the weather is beautiful and am about to go meet friends at the dog park, and, apparently, I think my opinions NEED TO BE HEARD – at least this morning; on this topic:
The Courts always been “political,” it’s not something new. From Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott, Brown v Board of Ed, Buck v Bell**, etc., and for this particular conversation the Lochner era cases…..and then the overturning of the Lochner Era cases, etc., etc. ***
Anyway, my very valuable two cents. Now, off to the dog park, where Che will lead his pack of 4 boxer friends in mayhem (he’ll actually go do his thing while they run like horses till their tongues are hanging out. Boxers are the most amazingly athletic dogs).
^ This is probably a one off blog by beyond the occasional one in a pet post, and I don’t feel right right bringing my “method blogging” – i.e. omniscient blog persona here, but I guess I sort of miss it.
** I am a lawyer (from one of those fancy law schools, so beware my East Coast, Ivy League elitism). I wrote my 3rd year “thesis” on the procedural and substantive due process rights of the mentally ill (I know, what could be more geeky and ELITE dammit), of which Buck v Bell is a leading, or the leading, case. If you want to read about what I (and many other people) consider “conservative ” political views affecting “health care” issues in terms of the law, that is a great case to start with – one where a conservative point of view is all for government control of healthcare and healthcare decision making. And remember, Oliver Wendell Holmes (no Clarence Thomas, but whose record will be forever blighted by Buck) came to those conclusions as a leading Trascendentalist, which to me proves that communing with teh god in your own head is never a good idea. I realize that Buck upheld a state law and didn’t deal with commerce clause, but I still think it fits in any debate regarding the politicization of the Supreme Court, b/c they allowed it. You can disagree. And fuck Transcendentalism again…..and again. Basically, the political forebearers of teatardism (who to me are the inheritors of a particular eugenic view of the world) were for
deathsteralization panels before they were against them.*** If any of you have children who are in or going to law school and going to take a Constitutional Law course, tell them to answer any exam questions as if they were taking a Poli Sci course – it’s all the same thing – and they’ll do well.
WyldPirate
@Honus:
Honus, perhaps you missed my point. I don’t think “original intent” means diddly-squat to Scalia unless he wants it to in specific situations.
Translation–he is a fucking hypocrite that is as full of shit as a Christmas goose.
C1687
Can someone explain how Liberty Central can be seriously considered a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt non-profit group? Really, I’d like to understand this. By Virginia Thomas’s own words, it’s clear that the main goal of the group is political.
Joey Maloney
@beltane: I agree with this. I thought at the time that the Selection was a Rubicon, a bell that can’t be unrung.
My personal opinion, which at the time I was most tiresome at inflicting on anyone who would hold still for it, was that a generation of the absence of good civics education in the early grades, had left the citizenry with the idea that Democracy was something that ran on automatic pilot, that no one had to do anything at all, never mind anything hard or inconvenient, in order to preserve the Republic and the rule of law.
And then we couldn’t be bothered to do even the most minimal action – preventing people with obvious and thoroughgoing contempt for those things from getting ahold of the levers of power.
There’s no going back. Now that they know it’s possible, more and more of those people will be running for office and getting elected to office. Short of some kind of revolution, we’re just living on sufferance now.
Nellcote
@beltane:
There’s an awful lot of random pharmacuticals in the drinking water these days.
uloborus
@Joey Maloney:
Teehee. You people are adorable. Trust me, this isn’t even close to the worst corrupt powergrabbing nonsense the US has suffered. There is nothing new under the sun, and the long-term trends have always been positive.
Which is not to say we shouldn’t deplore and oppose the horrible crap going on now. I’m just sayin’ that rumors of the death of the Republic are greatly exaggerated.
Joey Maloney
@uloborus: Enlighten us, then: what in history was worse than the Supreme Court colluding in a coup d’etat? I’m sure your answer will be most edifying.
Elizabelle
The Richmond Times Dispatch (aka “The Disgrace”) chronicles the Tea Party’s Virginia convention.
At which Mrs. Justice Thomas spoke.
And that nice Dick Morris too.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2010/oct/09/teap09-ar-551788/
“Scrap taxes, tea partiers say as convention opens”
The Tea Partiers are proposing a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate income tax and individual income tax.
To attract business to Virginia.
Which is funny, because a huge reason for locating in Virginia is its well educated workers (good state universities and public schools) and quality of life.
The Tea Partiers are organizing trips to Delaware to campaign for that bewitching candidate up there.
Patriots all around.
superdestroyer
@Xenos: @Xenos:
You reply was incoherent. The left wants to allow states to have different drug laws (See California), different marriage laws (See Mass.) and different election laws. But then the left wants the federal government to have unlimited power to control the personal actions of individuals. Not businesses, not those involved in commerce but everyone. Why is left so eager to get more government goodies that they are willing to have the government regulated everything.
My guess is that virtually all progressives believe that the rules will apply to others but not themselves.
Grumpy Code Monkey
@henqiguai:
Something that really needs to be drummed into the average Murkian’s head is that the President doesn’t run the show; Congress runs the show with the President. Electing the MUP was a good start, but there are still a couple of hundred bums that need to be thrown out posthaste.
Uloborus
@Joey Maloney:
I suggest you examine the elections of John Quincy Adams and Rutheford Hayes. A close election being referred to the Supreme Court who were obviously biased is A) not a new high for ratfickery or B) a coup.
Yutsano
@superdestroyer: Uhh…what? I don’t even know what the hell you’re trying to say here.
ruemara
@El Tiburon:
WTF is a true liberal? Define it for once instead of whining about how Obama needs to appoint one. If you can’t, can it.
Cacti
@ruemara:
Is a true liberal like a true scotsman?
Yutsano
@Cacti: Oh great. It’s one of those abracadabra secret magical formula type thingies. No wonder Harry Potter sold so well.
Mark S.
I have a question. I read one time that some 1908 (or thereabouts) Supreme Court case ruled that Congress could prohibit corporations from making campaign contributions. Does anyone know which case that was?
Arclite
This might apply to the president (since he chooses the nominee) but it does not apply to the congress. When GWB was picking out Roberts and Alito, the general Dem consensus was to “let the president have his picks.” This is something I vehemently disagree with. The Dems should have been screaming from the rooftops and doing everything to torpedo the nomination when such radical picks are made. But the point remains: the Dems rarely, if ever, protest a Repub nominee, no matter how radical (excepting Bork).
Uncle Clarence Thomas
> If there’s any better reason to vote for a Democrat
> than the need to nominate and confirm decent
> Supreme Court justices, I don’t know what it is.
I do, and I fully support President Obama appointing more white women to sit, or lay, by my side on the Supreme Court. I assure you, yes we can all get a long…. This calls for a toast — Diet Cokes all ’round!
Uloborus
@Arclite:
The Democrats are trying to run a functioning country. This involves playing nice with assholes so the government doesn’t grind to a halt. The Republicans have stopped caring if the government functions. It’s a miracle any legislation has passed in the past two years.
Allan
@Cacti: Well, Jane Hamsher taught us all during the HCR battle that Bernie Sanders isn’t one, so you may be on to something.
Grumpy Code Monkey
@superdestroyer:
For example? What “personal actions” does the left want to control?
uloborus
@Grumpy Code Monkey:
Are they different from personal actions like abortions or getting married?