Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

There is no compromise when it comes to body autonomy. You either have it or you don’t.

Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

“That’s what the insurrection act is for!”

Their freedom requires your slavery.

Just because you believe it, that doesn’t make it true.

Hi god, it’s us. Thanks a heap, you’re having a great week and it’s only Thursday!

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

White supremacy is terrorism.

It’s easy to sit in safety and prescribe what other people should be doing.

Republicans can’t even be trusted with their own money.

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

“The defense has a certain level of trust in defendant that the government does not.”

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

You are here: Home / Organizing & Resistance / Don't Mourn, Organize / Late Night Open Thread: The Sit-In Continues

Late Night Open Thread: The Sit-In Continues

by | 330 Comments

This post is in: , , , ,

My personal Rep, who’s done good replacing Ed Markey when he moved to the Senate:

It ain’t bragging when you’re sharing a leadership role with Rep. John Lewis.

TIL (today I learned) that my senior senator and my favorite Blogmaster share a birthday!

Reader Interactions

330Comments

  3. 3.

    Denali

    So happy to see Democrats seizing the narrative! Maybe this is finally the tipping point!

  4. 4.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Ari Melber MSNBC ✔@ AriMelber
    Note what’s happening now: Paul Ryan pushing for a vote to water down rules for Wall Street advisers.

    was there no draft of a bill honoring Motherhood, Apple Pie or making potato salad the official side dish of the this Fourth of July? a post office to be named after Myrna Loy? why would he give the Dems a gift like this?

  5. 5.

    ThresherK (GPad)

    “Turning off the cameras”?

    Best GOP tech expertise since Ollie North ‘deleted’ his emails from the IBM PROFS system during Iran-Contra.

  6. 6.

    randy khan

    Really, the optics couldn’t be worse for the Republicans – they tried to shut down the video (hilariously unsuccessfully) and now they’re trying to counter the protest by holding votes not just on other bills, but on bills that make them look venal and anti-consumer. (I mean, really, can you explain why financial advisors shouldn’t be required to act as fiduciaries for the people they advise?)

  9. 9.

    lamh36

    ‏@MichaelSkolnik 7m7 minutes ago
    John Lewis has asked Democrats to stay the night in the House. #NoBillNoBreak #HoldTheFloor

  12. 12.

    lamh36

    @ebenet 1m1 minute ago
    All I know is, if they forcibly remove @repjohnlewis I’m flying to DC and whoopin some ass. Heroes!

  13. 13.

    RK

    We shall overcome? Congressmen protesting their own chamber? This is really quite pathetic.

  15. 15.

    MomSense

    Fucking asparagus is yelling at Rep. Sherman now. Wow I never thought I would see anything like this.

  17. 17.

    lamh36

    @igorvolsky 45s46 seconds ago
    HOLY FUCK: Gohmert is on the floor yelling “RADICAL ISLAM KILLED THESE PEOPLE” at #NoBillNoBreak

  19. 19.

    MikeBoyScout

    Someone very near where you are right now is angry and frustrated that Congress won’t even vote on proposed solutions to control gun violence.

    And they’re not registered to vote in the November election.

    You have the power to help change this.

    If we all do our little bit we can win the whole kit and caboodle.

    Yes.We.Can

  21. 21.

    lamh36

    @JPL: right…said on the other thread…other Dems may leave, but John Lewis here for the long haul…I’d bet

    @mkraju
    A number of Dems, including John Lewis, are signaling they are staying on House floor for the night. (Hoyer said he’s headed home for rest)

  24. 24.

    Anyone but Trump

    Just tried to contact my idiot congressman Trent “scumbag” Franks, voice mail full, cannot leave a message. Douchebag…

  25. 25.

    burnspbesq

    Fuck with the fiduciary rule while the whole country is watching? Ryan is redefining “dumb as a post” in real time.

  28. 28.

    Johannes

    Proud of my party tonight. John Lewis acting as the heart of the House. All of these women and men, so many written off by the Berniebros as “sell outs” and “Establishment” showing how it’s really done. Bravo.

  30. 30.

    Johannes

    Proud of my party tonight, especially of John Lewis. This is how it’s done–and by the very people Sandersnistas wrote off as “sell outs” and “Establishment.” Bravo.

  34. 34.

    Gin & Tonic

    I had a pass to the House gallery this afternoon, coincidentally. There was a 3 hour wait. People wanted to see history. I couldn’t do the wait.

  35. 35.

    RK

    This dysfunction is clearly a call for new leadership in DC–in the name of Donald J Trump. :)

  36. 36.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Paul Ryan tried to break the Lewisbuster with a pro-Wall St bill, and now somebody sent Festus Asparagus in to heckle? Jumpin’ Jeebus, what’s next? Tom Delay? Linda Tripp? The rotting corpse of Jesse Helms wheeled in by Mean Jeanne Schmidt?

  37. 37.

    lamh36

    Ryan’s “stunt vote” didn’t even work…smh

    John Boehner is laughing his orange azz off right now.

    @thehill 6m6 minutes ago
    JUST IN: GOP fails to block Obama’s financial adviser rule after attempt to stop Dem sit-in http://hill.cm/FsJLtfz

  44. 44.

    dmsilev

    Massachusetts knows: America — and #NoBillNoBreak — runs on @DunkinDonuts.

    Hah. Proof indeed that Sen. Warren is a New Englander.

    I remember reading during the Marathon Bomber manhunt that all businesses in the Boston area were closed except for a few Dunkin Donuts that were “meeting the needs of law enforcement”, and thinking that that was probably the most Boston news story ever.

  46. 46.

    Felanius Kootea

    @lamh36: Nice! I wonder how long the Republicans can ignore this or keep dismissing it as a stunt.

    Glad the financial adviser veto override failed. They truly have no shame. Republicans: helping financial advisers fleece retirees since ???

  47. 47.

    NMgal

    My rep was there, at least as of 2 hrs ago: Tweeted a pic of himself sitting on the floor next to Lewis. Way to represent for northern NM, @repbenraylujan ! I’ve contacted his office in support.

    I think the congresscritters weighed the risks and saw that per poll after poll the public is overwhelmingly fed up with inaction. Yes, the gun fetishists and some of the rural folk who actually have use for guns (and therefore reflexively distrust “gun control”) may look askance, but the numbers are overwhelming.

    When I first saw the news about the sit-in, I also surprised myself by tearing up. I’m not even sure why.

  49. 49.

    dmsilev

    @sigaba: My memory is vague, but I think at one point he tried to ‘cast aspersions’ on someone or something, but because he’s an idiot it came out as ‘cast asparagus’.

  52. 52.

    MomSense

    @sigaba:

    Gohmert became flustered at the end of a contentious session questioning Eric Holder and said something like stop casting aspersions on my asparagus. The next time Holder was questioned by Gogmert, Holder finished by asking him about his asparagus.

  53. 53.

    hovercraft

    @lamh36:
    There were reports of the capital police gathering, but I’m assuming that someone told the republitards not to do it. I’ve no doubt that the house leadership would have tried to forcibly remove them, and may yet. I mean poor repubs, Dumpsters pivot speech drowned out, Obamacare replacement ( ????) drowned out, today was supposed to be a new page a reset and the dems stole it. Trump was doing so well he made up with the bible thumpers, he refrained from saying crooked Hillary for a whole speech and all anyone can talk about is this bs. Not fair.

  57. 57.

    mike in dc

    I hope the crowd outside gets larger every day. The vision of a crowd filling the National Mall while the Dems sit in inside. At some point they either will cave, or they will suffer lasting political damage which further puts the House in play in November. Either way, we advance.

  59. 59.

    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)

    Late for the “good luck with your asparagus” comment from Holder – but I remembered.

  61. 61.

    BruceFromOhio

    Is there any reporting on exactly who is sitting in? I thought I saw an OH (D) out there at some point, but now cannot find it.

    Once again, ecstatic to be a Democrat. Tie that fucking dumpster fire anchor around every single one of their skinny little two bit soulless ratfuck criminal necks, and drown ’em all in unflinching publicity.

  63. 63.

    patroclus

    If Sam Rayburn were Speaker, he’d handle this fairly quickly. He’d let the House work its will and have a vote. If that’s what the Members wanted; he’d “cave” and let them have a vote. That’s what the House is for – to vote on things. If he opposed the legislation, he’d figure out some other way to kill it, but he wouldn’t stand in the way of a vote. He’d certainly try to structure the vote as favorably as possible through the use of the rules, but even if he couldn’t, he’d still let em vote. Why is that so hard for Ryan to understand? Rayburn wasn’t big on speechifying – one of his aphorisms was “if you’ve got the votes, vote.” The Republicans presumably have the votes, so why don’t they vote? What’s the big deal?

  64. 64.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    I call bullshit on these two VSPs, one of whose names is one I see quoted a lot even though I don’t know who he is (their twitter bios say they work for Uber-VSP Charlie Cook)

    Dave Wasserman ‏@ Redistrict 37m37 minutes ago
    Our system of government is not designed to withstand this degree of geographic polarization in the electorate.
    –Taegan Goddard @ politicalwire
    –Watching the House floor tonight is proof that our federal government is completely dysfunctional. Whatever your leanings, it’s not right.

    A vote. That’s all this is about. Paul Ryan won’t call a vote because he knows it will make life hard for him and his members.

    This is along the lines of a piece by Chait from this morning, in response to a longer piece with a similar plaint of those above, Chait points out that all the dysfunction and chaos they’re keening about are a result of the Republicans pandering to a base they despise almost as much as they fear.

  69. 69.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    President Nixon continues to keep track of local politics…

    Richard M. Nixon ‏@ dick_nixon 51m51 minutes ago
    .@ SpeakerRyan Dick Leinenkugel wants to get into politics. Perhaps you could take his job.

    The Private Sector beckons, Bro!

  71. 71.

    Felonius Monk

    @patroclus:

    The Republicans presumably have the votes, so why don’t they vote? What’s the big deal?

    It puts them on the record.

  72. 72.

    dmsilev

    @GregB: Wasn’t today the day Hastert reported to prison? He may not be available for conference calls at the moment.

  74. 74.

    Luthe

    Never have I been so proud to be represented by Elizabeth Etsy and Chris Murphy*. This shit is personal for them (and for me).

    *Murphy represented the 5th District until the 2012 election, when he became Senator and Etsy won the Rep. seat. Sandy Hook is in the 5th.

  75. 75.

    MomSense

    Was this being planned secretly for awhile or is this the John Lewis badass version of a flash mob?

  76. 76.

    patroclus

    @amk: Yeah, I understand that they don’t want a vote because it would be politically difficult for them, but their business is politics – that’s what they’re there for. If they can’t stand the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. Voting on things is what they supposedly got elected for – it’s their jobs. Sometimes, they should do them. Another of Rayburn’s aphorisms was “let the House work its will” and “let the chips fall where they may.” Ryan doesn’t know how to function as a Speaker of the whole House yet – if he ever will. This is embarrassing.

  77. 77.

    dmsilev

    @Felonius Monk:

    It puts them on the record.

    Yep. They could either vote for the bill, in which case the NRA’s primary-o-matic machine would spin up (if not now, 2 years from now. The NRA does remember these things), or they could vote against, in which case they get to see ads with grave-voiced announcers saying “Congressman Jones voted to allow terrorist suspects to buy assault rifles. Why does Congressman Jones hate puppies” run against them. Best bet for them is really to chicken out and avoid taking a vote at all. Hopefully, that won’t be an option.

  80. 80.

    gene108

    I wonder what the media narrative will be?

    The headlines is how most folks get their news.

  83. 83.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Tim Shorrock ‏@ TimothyS 6m6 minutes ago
    My thoughts and prayers go out to Louie Gohmert.

    Dan Pfeiffer ‏@ danpfeiffer 41m41 minutes ago
    Paul Ryan would have a lot more credibility in this situation if he hadn’t shut down the government bc Ted Cruz told him to

  84. 84.

    nutella

    @redshirt:

    @mike in dc: Bernie’s vision of a 100,000 people screaming up at Congress is coming true!

    Maybe he should have stuck around for it.

    More amazingly bad timing from Sanders.

  86. 86.

    hovercraft

    @dmsilev:
    Yes, tonight is his first night in his Minnesota jail cell. So sad that a great man was persecuted for acts that occurred so long ago. His great contributions like the Hasstert rule tarnished.
    Snark

  88. 88.

    Eric U.

    wonder how long this is going to be going on. We’re going down there tomorrow evening, should be close enough to go stand outside of congress for a while

  93. 93.

    ? Martin

    @MomSense: If I had to guess, it was planned. The fiduciary rule veto override looks like the opportunity to exploit as the optics of that alone are pretty bad, so it adds some additional leverage to GOPs that are vulnerable. Seniors are constantly exploited financially, who the fuck votes to make that easier?

  94. 94.

    patroclus

    @hovercraft: Well, the Hastert Rule wasn’t his only legacy. He also let Mark Foley run rampant through the House male pages. And there was the CFTC Modernization Act, which helped cause the 2007-08 financial crisis. And the Patriot Act. And the Iraq War authorization.

  98. 98.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @redshirt: he has a big speech to write (and an even bigger ego fit into it) about the importance of open primaries in the states he deems relevant to the Party he joined a few months ago

  101. 101.

    Peale

    @randy khan:

    Can you explain why financial advisors shouldn’t be required to act as fiduciaries for the people they advise

    Yes. There’s more money in taking commissions from rotten food sellers and passing it off to consumers as marbled steak.

  102. 102.

    Kropadope

    I’m really glad that they’re taking a stand. I just wish they had chosen a different aspect of our lax gun laws to attack.

    While I agree that a person who is not safe to allow on a plane shouldn’t be allowed a gun, I don’t think the No-Fly list as currently implemented is constitutional. People are put on this list without any sort of trial. Isn’t trying someone before punishing them a foundational part of our government?

  105. 105.

    No One You Know

    Tweeted, called, and left message.

    I had an intern give me a tour less than a month ago, and threw that tidbit in for the Honorable, to boot. Hope this helps.

  106. 106.

    patroclus

    @Kropadope: How would they be punished? They would still be free, unincarcerated, unfined and unsanctioned. Why is purchasing an assault weapon or flying on a particular plane a fundamental right and not merely a privilege?

  107. 107.

    ? Martin

    Let’s not all forget that this is happening in opposition to the Senate refusing to give Obama’s SCCA pick a hearing. I wonder if this is how things felt in 1850.

  108. 108.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Kropadope: The primary purpose of this effort is to highlight the absolute refusal of the GOP to even discuss gun regulation. The GOP has the votes to defeat the legislation.

  110. 110.

    Groucho48

    I watched the Libertarian Town Hall. (Main takeaways, they both think Clinton is a capable politician they disagree with but think Trump is nuts. Once Obamacare is gone, the Free Market will cut health care costs by 80%, the Fair Tax is the way to go, no taxes on corporations, of course, mealy-mouthed on foreign interventions, kept repeating Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and that’s fine, but avoided any discussion of all the Republican efforts to limit abortion rights. So, same old, same old.)

    Anyway, kept CNN on as it switched to coverage of the sit-in. I must admit, their coverage was definitely oriented towards the Dems. Yes, they had a fair number of Republican attack dogs on who did their usual schtick, but, the CNN team actually pushed back a lot more than they did when the Dems were talking. Their main Dem was a Representative (I kept missing his name, I’m afraid.) who was very articulate and well-spoken.

  111. 111.

    ? Martin

    @Kropadope:

    While I agree that a person who is not safe to allow on a plane shouldn’t be allowed a gun, I don’t think the No-Fly list as currently implemented is constitutional. People are put on this list without any sort of trial. Isn’t trying someone before punishing them a foundational part of our government?

    I agree, but at the same time, I am *extremely* confident that if you tie guns to the no fly list, that the NRA will demand that the no fly list get a due process provision. From the Dems standpoint, they solve two problems with one step. And that’s part of why the GOP opposes this – I think they like the no fly list as-is.

  112. 112.

    aimai

    @patroclus: For all we know the person on the list might not be a US citizen. Do non US citizens have 2nd Amendment rights to be abridged? Inquiring minds want to know.

  118. 118.

    Groucho48

    @aimai:

    A talking head mentioned a bit ago that of the 82000? names on the list, 80000 were foreign citizens.

  119. 119.

    Anne Laurie

  120. 120.

    patroclus

    @aimai: “Persons subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.” have constitutional rights, but my point is that neither flying on a particular plane nor purchasing a M-15 is a fundamental constitutional right and especially not under the 2nd amendment which specifically caveats the right with the “well-regulated” clause.

  122. 122.

    redshirt

    @Omnes Omnibus: It also picks a narrow, easy subject to understand – the no fly list. What Republican would argue with keeping guns from Islamic warriors here to kill Americans?

    These Republicans of course. Because even one small restriction in gun laws is a mortal defeat for the NRA, since it will lead to more. That’s everyone’s calculation. This law is just a way to start the process.

  123. 123.

    Adam L Silverman

    @lamh36: It’ll be interesting to see what happens with Ryan. The longer it takes for him to reassert control over the chamber and the House floor, the weaker his speakership will become.

    I’m just glad cooler heads have prevailed, someone got Congressman Gohmert out, and GOP leadership seems to have realized turning out the lights, cutting power and A/C, and locking the doors would be bad. It is never good to have to guesstimate how small a authoritarians will behave when pushed.

  124. 124.

    Kropadope

    @patroclus:

    How would they be punished? They would still be free, unincarcerated, unfined and unsanctioned. Why is purchasing an assault weapon or flying on a particular plane a fundamental right and not merely a privilege?

    They are being restricted in their ability to travel and owning particular property by the government, how is that not being sanctioned?

  125. 125.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    I think this tweet was sent sometime before lunch…
    John Weaver ‏@ JWGOP 2h2 hours ago San Jose, CA
    Somewhere @ speakerboehner is on his 2nd glass of Cabernet. #Isaluteyou

  127. 127.

    No One You Know

    @MomSense: And to think that both words are related to Aspergers: a condition of being aggressive, invasive, tone-deaf to social nuance; rather like a spurge plant. Or the current congresscritter in question.

  129. 129.

    Carl W

    @? Martin:

    The fiduciary rule veto override looks like the opportunity to exploit as the optics of that alone are pretty bad, so it adds some additional leverage to GOPs that are vulnerable.

    Why do the Republicans care so much about the fiduciary rule? Surely they knew they had no chance of a veto override. Why would they schedule a vote on a measure that has no chance of passing and has bad optics? Does that mean they actually think the optics are good, and if so, why on earth would they think that?

  132. 132.

    Viva BrisVegas

    @patroclus:

    especially not under the 2nd amendment which specifically caveats the right with the “well-regulated” clause.

    But didn’t Scalia, that rigid textualist, determine that this particular clause of the Second Amendment was meaningless?

  134. 134.

    Lamh36

    Shoot I can’t even hang I’ve got to go to sleep. Big ups to @repjohnlewis & @RepKClark and all the #HouseDemocrats! #holdthefloor #NoBillNoBreak

  135. 135.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Jesse Lee ‏@ jesseclee44 25m25 minutes ago
    2013: @ SpeakerRyan called closing background check loopholes “obvious”

  136. 136.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Kropadope: I can’t own an 8″ howitzer. Am I oppressed? I know how to use them better than the vast majority of people on the planet.

  137. 137.

    Adam L Silverman

    @hovercraft: If the Obamacare replacement policy paper, and I use that term loosely, is as bad as the foreign/defense/security one released the Thursday before the Orlando shooting and lost in the shuffle because of that, they Speaker Ryan should be happy he’s been drowned out. That thing is so bad I can’t even figure out how to do up a proper, not snarky, policy analysis post about it and I’ve been trying for almost two weeks.

  139. 139.

    maya

    @patroclus:

    2nd amendment which specifically caveats the right with the “well-regulated” clause.

    Scalia said that that part didn’t mean anything. The founding sharpshooters, were just taking a shot at militias, perhaps? and it had nothing at all to do with the citizen’s right to bear arms. Something like that. And we all know what a “texturist” Scalia was. He could also peer into the minds of men dead over 200 years and knew exactly what they were thinking and what they meant, even if those S s looked like F s. We lost a great big brain when Anton died. Let’s have a moment of filence.

  141. 141.

    hovercraft

    @Carl W:
    Much like the 60 repeal Obamacare votes, to show the base they are fighting the Kenyan. Donald is beating them with the base because he is seen as the only one willing to fight the tyrant. This shows that they too will fight for them. Unfortunately those 60 votes had the opposite effect, they showed the rubes that it was all a scam, those votes were meaningless. Now they have a true champion who will get it done.

  142. 142.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @MomSense: Al Giordano ‏@ AlGiordano 18m18 minutes ago
    C’mon. Stephen Lynch is thanking John Lewis for inviting him to a sit-in. Stephen from Southie. Dems are ready for the Super Bowl.

  145. 145.

    Kropadope

    @amk: I also think there are more important gaps in our gun laws that also have better potential for consensus-building. Why not focus on the gun show/internet loophole?

    I’ll tell you why, it’s about November and wanting to write attack ads about Republicans being soft on terrorism. I don’t honestly think that’s strong ground for them anyway. Even though they ought to win arguments about who is better to address terrorism a logical basis, the conventional wisdom and our media narrative won’t allow that to happen.

  146. 146.

    Miss Bianca

    I think I have a crush on Rep. Lewis. I mean, I know he has taken principled stands on social justice issues for many, many years – this being but the last, and arguably one of the greatest. But really, it’s his dance moves – brought to my attention by aimai – that have slain me.

  147. 147.

    Mnemosyne

    @Kropadope:

    And the Democrats shouldn’t publicly expose them as the total cowards they are because … ?

    For me, the greatest part of this entire situation is that John Lewis knows what the Republicans don’t: the whole point of a sit-in is to make your opponents overreact and behave like assholes. Mission accomplished, Rep. Lewis. Well played.

  148. 148.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Miss Bianca: I used to like him, then I read a comment on a blog from an emo-prog Bernie Bro. Now I know he’s hopelessly inadequate.

  149. 149.

    Fair Economist

    @patroclus:

    If Sam Rayburn were Speaker, he’d handle this fairly quickly. He’d let the House work its will and have a vote.

    That’s the price for empowering the crazies. Allowing the occasional protest vote is the standard and (normally) easy solution but if Ryan does he becomes a “2nd Amendment Squish” and it’s just a matter of time before he’s Cantored.

  151. 151.

    Kropadope

    @Mnemosyne:

    And the Democrats shouldn’t publicly expose them as the total cowards they are because … ?

    That’s not it at all. They should be using a different facet of our inadequate gun laws to publicly expose them as cowards.

  152. 152.

    Mnemosyne

    @Kropadope:

    I’ll tell you why, it’s about November and wanting to write attack ads about Republicans being soft on terrorism and gun violence

    Fix’d. It’s a two-fer, possibly even a three-fer if they can manage to get a do-nothing Congress reference in there at the same time.

    (Fixed formatting fail.)
    We’re not supposed to be shocked that politicians are playing politics, are we?

  153. 153.

    patroclus

    @Kropadope: They can still travel, just not by plane. They can still own property, just not military weapons. I don’t see the sanction, and certainly not imprisonment or monetary fines. Do you know the difference between a privilege and a right. Can I purchase unpasteurized milk? Can I purchase nuclear material? Do I have a right to fly on the space shuttle? I just don’t see your point at all.

  154. 154.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Kropadope: No, It is about the GOP being so in thrall to the NRA that they will not allow votes that even do something at the margins.

    ETA: Is it designed to have political effect? Yes. It’s politics. I get the impression that you don’t like politics. Ugly bargains, half loaves, etc.

  155. 155.

    patroclus

    @maya: Scalia’s dead. Heller may be good law as to D.C. ordinances; a new Court can rule on this bill as an issue of first impression.

  156. 156.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Viva BrisVegas: Actually he made it explicit that the Federal, state, and local governments could still reasonably regulate firearms, but that there was an explicit individual right, separate from the militia clause, of individuals to own firearms. And he tied this, at least partially, to self defense in the home.

  157. 157.

    Kropadope

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I can’t own an 8″ howitzer. Am I oppressed?

    You’re not allowed to own that because that’s the law that applies to everyone. Equal protection under the law.

  158. 158.

    hovercraft

    @Adam L Silverman:
    From what Steve Benen says it’s not a real plan

    “You’ve asked for it and tomorrow, House Republicans will release our plan to replace Obamacare.” Whether or not this actually constitutes a “plan,” however, is open to some debate.

    The New York Times is correct that we now have an “extensive description” of the House Republican vision on the issue, but an “extensive description” does not a plan make. There’s still no legislation; there are still no numbers; there’s still no substance to score and scrutinize.

    The Huffington Post summarized the problem nicely: “Speaker Paul Ryan wants to replace 20 million people’s health insurance with 37 pages of talking points.”

    So go luck trying to analyze a plan with no numbers. Bait an switch, so Ryan can pretend to be a policy wonk, get the media to praise him, and not have to answer any awkward questions.

  159. 159.

    Miss Bianca

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Right, because we all know that he got the idea of marching for civil rights from Bernie Sanders! Who’s so powerful and principled a leftie that he can’t even *appear* to support his House comrades, lest his essence overwhelm the cause!

    Bleurgh…sorry, I can’t even…

    @Kropadope: Man, you’re *never* happy unless you’re miserable, are you, Eeyore?

  160. 160.

    Jeff Spender

    Berners on my page are giving Bernie credit for this. Ugh, they can’t even acknowledge John Lewis.

  162. 162.

    Mnemosyne

    @Kropadope:

    Too bad. They’re using this one, and they’re doing it right now, this minute. You can bitch about them not doing it your preferred way, or you can help move the ball forward. Your choice.

    Or, to quote a smarter man than me:

    When you got skin in the game, you stay in the game
    But you don’t get a win unless you play in the game
    Oh, you get love for it. You get hate for it.
    But you don’t get nothin’ if you wait for it.

  163. 163.

    Adam L Silverman

    @hovercraft: I’m not sure that extensive vision covers the foreign/defense/security policy one. Position statement maybe? There’s a lot of platitude talking points presented as the policy sort of fleshed out with narrative that isn’t particularly deep.

  165. 165.

    Mnemosyne

    @Kropadope:

    You’re not allowed to own that because that’s the law that applies to everyone. Equal protection under the law.

    I’m fine with banning civilian ownership of semi-automatic weapons for everyone, not just people on the watch list.

    There, problem solved.

  166. 166.

    Anne Laurie

    @Carl W:

    Why would they schedule a vote on a measure that has no chance of passing and has bad optics?

    Apparently there’s rules about how bills *must* be considered in the order in which they were filled, and the ‘Let Wall Street Rob Your Granny’ law was next in the hopper.

    So Ryan was stuck with his ‘optics’. Not clear, by my current reading, whether the order of the bill had anything to do with the timing of the sit-in…

  167. 167.

    patroclus

    @Kropadope: People in the military get control over howitzers every day. The law doesn’t apply to everyone equally. Unfair!!! I’m being oppressed!!! My rights are being violated!!!!

  168. 168.

    ? Martin

    @maya:

    Scalia said that that part didn’t mean anything. The founding sharpshooters, were just taking a shot at militias, perhaps? and it had nothing at all to do with the citizen’s right to bear arms. Something like that. And we all know what a “texturist” Scalia was. He could also peer into the minds of men dead over 200 years and knew exactly what they were thinking and what they meant, even if those S s looked like F s. We lost a great big brain when Anton died. Let’s have a moment of filence.

    Pretty well documented that the ‘well regulated militia’ referred to the state militias that were necessary in the south to put down slave rebellions. The concern was that without the amendment, the Constitution only allowed the federal government to raise an army and only reliably when the nation was under invasion. A slave rebellion was neither an invasion nor was an abolitionist President likely to raise an army for that purpose. Worse, an abolitionist President could raise that army *of slaves* which was done to some limited extent during the Revolution.

    So the 2nd amendment exists solely for the purpose of allowing white male landowners in the south to own guns and form a militia to preserve slavery. That’s all. When the 14th amendment was passed, the 2nd should have been repealed. The bullshit about it being there to protect against federal tyranny is bullshit – it was all about preserving tyranny against african americans.

  173. 173.

    patroclus

    @Kropadope: Farmers who own cows get to drink unpasteurized milk every day but I can’t even purchase it. The law doesn’t apply to everyone equally!! Unfair!! I’m being oppressed!! My rights are being violated!!!!

  176. 176.

    Kropadope

    @patroclus:

    They can still travel, just not by plane. They can still own property, just not military weapons. I don’t see the sanction, and certainly not imprisonment or monetary fines. Do you know the difference between a privilege and a right. Can I purchase unpasteurized milk? Can I purchase nuclear material? Do I have a right to fly on the space shuttle? I just don’t see your point at all.

    Owning and operating a car is a privilege, we don’t deny it to people without the due course of law. You can purchase unpasteurized milk if you and the farmer comply with the appropriate procedures. The same things disallowing you from owning nuclear material and flying the space shuttle disallow the entire public from the same. It is not as though everyone were allow to own nuclear material and you particularly were prevented from owning it by a faceless government bureaucrat based on unverified information.

    Not being ble to fly on a plane could potentially be a big deal, by the way. Trips that could be made in hours would take days or weeks. This could make particular destinations untenable and be a major problem for someone who travels for work.

  179. 179.

    J R in WV

    @NMgal:

    Maybe you teared up because John Lewis is a hero, has been for decades, still is at 76!

    If that doesn’t do it, what would?

  180. 180.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @? Martin: It is really dangerous to assume that any one explanation was responsible for votes for the various Amendments. In the South, slave rebellions may have been the motivator. In New England, fear of abductions and raids by Native Americans was a more likely motivator. Assuming that there was any one cause for any word in the Constitution is a mistake.

  181. 181.

    Carl W

    @Anne Laurie: Yeah, somebody upthread mentioned the idea that the sit-in was specifically timed to also bring attention to this vote. I hope it’s true — good work sit-in organizers if it is!

    But my question wasn’t “why vote on that bill in the middle of the sit-in”, it was “why schedule multiple votes on Let Wall Street Rob Your Granny at all”? Aren’t they worried about “Let Wall Street Rob Your Granny” TV ads?

  182. 182.

    sigaba

    @Kropadope: One of the problems with insisting stridently that the Constitution guarantees the right of people on a terrorist watch list to buy semiautomatic weapons, is it makes the Constitution look ridiculous and impractical.

    I would think it would be enough that these people can still buy pistols…

  183. 183.

    Kropadope

    @amk:

    So, you think it’s all about politics? Nothing to do with actual governance?

    I think it’s both, but I think the choice they made was bad on the politics and worse on the governance. I thought the way the no-fly list has been implemented has been wrong from the beginning, people have a right to a court proceeding. This was true under Bush and I’m not changing my mind because Democrats are trying to piggy back gun control onto it.

  184. 184.

    Miss Bianca

    @? Martin:

    When the 14th amendment was passed, the 2nd should have been repealed.

    Yes, oh yes! That is one hell of an insight. But we are not honest with ourselves.

    ETA: And of course, as O2 points out, there are complicating factors. But it’s funny how the complications all have something to do with race, ain’t it?

    @Mnemosyne: You are the Girl On Fire, tonight! Mnemosyne Everdeen, represent!

  185. 185.

    TaMara (HFG)

    Apologies is someone already posted: Democrats sing We Shall Overcome to protest Ryan

    House Democrats interrupt Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan by singing We Shall Overcome as the speaker attempts to hold a vote on a matter unrelated to the issue of gun safety, which is what Democrats are calling for.

  187. 187.

    Kropadope

    @? Martin:

    Federal law says that you cannot own a gun if you have been convicted of domestic violence – even a misdemeanor.

    Convicted. Exactly.

  188. 188.

    Adam L Silverman

    @efgoldman: Apparently they’re coming to try now. They’re going to use parliamentary procedure to come back into session, have a vote on a bill, adjourn, come back into session and vote to go into formal adjournment until 5 July. This should get interesting real quick and its a potentially explosive situation.

  189. 189.

    patroclus

    @Kropadope: Corporations licensed pursuant to the Public Utility Act can possess and purchase nuclear material but I am prevented from doing so. Astronauts who flew the space shuttle and who are certified by NASA are allowed to do so but I am not. In each case, an arbitrary government has made distinctions between some corporations and people and me by making decisions on who it thinks should have access to nuclear material and space vehicles. Similarly, the government can make distinctions on who can fly in planes and who can own military weapons. There is no essential difference between the examples. The government has the constitutional power to make these distinctions because neither flying, drinking unpasteurized milk, owning military weapons, owning howitzers or owning nuclear material is a fundamental right – they are all merely privileges.

  190. 190.

    hovercraft

    @Adam L Silverman:
    I would say that encapsulates most republican ‘policy’ with the exception of tax policy and even then they wave the magic wand of dynamic scoring to make the math work. Everything else is sloganeering and platitudes. I was vastly amused during the gop primary when the other candidates bitched about Trumps lack of policy prescriptions, he simply took their playbook and ramped it up to a thousand.

  195. 195.

    Kropadope

    @sigaba:

    One of the problems with insisting stridently that the Constitution guarantees the right of people on a terrorist watch list to buy semiautomatic weapons

    Except that’s not what I’m arguing at all. I’m arguing that there needs to be more accountability in the implementation of the terrorist watchlist.

  198. 198.

    Kropadope

    @patroclus:

    Corporations licensed pursuant to the Public Utility Act can possess and purchase nuclear material but I am prevented from doing so.

    You can, however, form a corporation and take the appropriate measures to have it licensed pursuant to the Public Utility Act.

  199. 199.

    hovercraft

    @Adam L Silverman:
    The irony is that they’ve always slammed Obama for just giving speeches all rhetoric, but that is all that they are. It’s what was so funny about Trump’s speech today, it’s all projection. They’ve no new ideas since Reagan, no matter the result. Conservatism cannot fail, never mind Kansas or Louisiana.

  200. 200.

    sigaba

    @Kropadope: I think the terrorist watchlist as it exists is totally defensible. It may have a lot of people who are obviously on it by mistake but these are administrative errors and do not pose any sort of threat to fundamental rights. We could ALL be on the damn thing, by definition the thing can’t be based on due process.

  202. 202.

    Mnemosyne

    @Miss Bianca:

    I am so far beyond pissed off at this point that I can barely express it. And that goes double for the whiny fucks who claim to be on the left but just can’t see their way clear to preventing mass murder.

    Forty-nine (49) people are dead and assholes are still fucking carping about the motherfucking no-fly list, because civil liberties are more fucking important than actual LIVES.

  204. 204.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @amk: I just hope he’ll bless us by answering Bernie’s call to run for office and show all these pussies and incompetents how a real progressive gets things done.

  205. 205.

    Kropadope

    @patroclus:

    No I cannot. The laws apply differently to different people and between corporations and people.

    If you’re still talking about getting pasteurized milk, you can. A pharmacist I work with makes a point to get unpasteurized milk. It’s a giant pain in the ass, but she’s allowed to do it. I think here, though, you weren’t actually replying to the comment you were “replying” to, you’re just stuck on repeat.

  206. 206.

    psycholinguist

    So, as a compromise. How about we take the last 5 years of legislation that republicans have managed to pass to limit citizens from voting (I think that one’s in the Constitution as well) and replace “vote” with “go buy a gun”. I’d settle for that outcome.

  207. 207.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Kropadope: You do get that this is a symbolic thing that was never going result in legislation, right? The GOP support the “no fly list” but they would okay people who are on it to buy weapons. Is there no contradiction in your mind?

  209. 209.

    patroclus

    @Kropadope: Let’s try again. Pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control makes lists of individuals that have their money automatically frozen if they attempt to use the U.S. banking system to transmit money. In practice, it is EXACTLY like the no-fly list. Are OFAC’s freeze orders unconstitutional per your absolutist view?? According to your theory, it is a punishment to freeze one’s money and OFAC applies these rules arbitrarily to Specially Designated Nationals, Specially Designated Terrorists and Specially Designated Narcotics Operatives. The USSC has upheld these regulations many many times. Please explain in detail why the USSC is wrong and OFAC cannot in fact freeze this money.

  210. 210.

    Kropadope

    @Mnemosyne:

    Congratulations — with your insistence that nothing can be done unless it’s done in your exact preferred way

    Wow, strawman much? There are many things that can be done, just the one they chose was one of very few that I would believe to be wrong.

  212. 212.

    sigaba

    @Kropadope: Is this about guns for you at all, or is the gun issue just a pretext to talk about the terror watchlist?

    I mean, the other way we’d go about it is to say, the 2nd amendment is wrong and indefensible, and creating a law that regards gun ownership as a privilege, revocable at will, is a good thing, because it undermines the expansive interpretation of the 2nd amendment. People’s right to bear arms shouldn’t be subject to Due Process.

  213. 213.

    Fair Economist

    @Mnemosyne:

    Forty-nine (49) people are dead and assholes are still fucking carping about the motherfucking no-fly list, because civil liberties are more fucking important than actual LIVES.

    “Civil Liberties” to do things nobody should be able to do in the first place, even.

  214. 214.

    eemom

    @patroclus:

    Scalia’s dead.

    Ah….thank you.

    No matter how fucked up things get, the sight of those beautiful words restoreth peace, tranquillity and hope unto my soul. #cuprunnethover

  215. 215.

    Kropadope

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    You do get that this is a symbolic thing that was never going result in legislation, right? The GOP support the “no fly list” but they would okay people who are on it to buy weapons. Is there no contradiction in your mind?

    I do get that it’s symbolic and likely won’t result legislation, but I don’t really like the symbolism.

    And, yes, there’s a very obvious contradiction in the GOP position, but isn’t there always?

  216. 216.

    patroclus

    @Kropadope: I think that it is you that are stuck on repeat. Your pharmacist is privileged and I am discriminated against and you seem fine with it and if someone on the no-fly list wants a military weapon, you’re fine with that too.

  218. 218.

    Mnemosyne

    @Kropadope:

    Wow, strawman much? There are many things that can be done, just the one they chose was one of very few that I would believe to be wrong.

    Yeah, so weird that every time you were totally on the verge of supporting action by the Democrats, they just happen to pick the one action that you think is wrong.

    Funny how that happens for you every single time the Democrats actually take a stand.

  219. 219.

    MomSense

    @patroclus:

    The other aspect of this is that this bill forces the Republicans to either admit that the terrorist watch list is more bullshit security theater or it exposes that they don’t really care about keeping America safe from terror if it means pissing off one of their powerful interests. If the terrorist watchlist needs more oversight, more safeguards, better process then let’s improve it or eliminate it. I don’t buy their civil liberties concerns if they are only raised in the context of unfettered access to weapons. We’ve all been schlepping mini toiletries in plastic baggies to prevent a non existent threat but some asshole who supports ISIS can buy an AR-15 no questions asked? Enough games.

  220. 220.

    sigaba

    @Omnes Omnibus: I’m not even sure gun ownership is defensible on libertarian grounds, there have been a lot of libertarians in history that didn’t give two shits for gun rights (Rand and Hayek come to mind, or Chomsky).

  222. 222.

    hovercraft

    @Mnemosyne:
    The year so far from The gun violence archive.

    2016
    Total Number of Incidents 24,900
    Number of Deaths(1) 6,381
    Number of Injuries(1) 13,162
    Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed/Injured(1) 270
    Number of Teens (age 12-17 Killed/Injured(1) 1,380
    Mass Shooting(2) 150
    Officer Involved Incident
    Officer Shot/Killed(2) 153
    Officer Involved Incident Perpetrator Shot/Killed(2) 385
    Home Invasion(2) 1,045
    Defensive Use(2) 766
    Accidental Shooting(2) 1,086
    Gun violence and crime incidents are collected/validated from 1,500 sources daily – incidents and their source data are found at the gunviolencearchive.org website.

    1: Actual number of deaths and injuries
    2: Number of INCIDENTS reported and verified

    Numbers on this table reflect a subset of all information
    collected and will not add to 100% of incidents.

    Data Validated: June 23, 2016

  224. 224.

    Kropadope

    @Mnemosyne:

    Forty-nine (49) people are dead and assholes are still fucking carping about the motherfucking no-fly list, because civil liberties are more fucking important than actual LIVES.

    Surely there must be a way we can prevent criminals and terrorists from getting guns while still ensuring the information we use to do so is accurate and that the process is transparent and accountable.

    @redshirt:

    Why not instead get on board the effort for gun regulation?

    Does being on-board mean I need to applaud on own goal?

  225. 225.

    Adam L Silverman

    @efgoldman: We are off the map. Even the GOP Caucus attempt to hold the floor open in 2008 for that energy bill was not like this. I have long argued that our legislative structure had not aged well and become sclerotic. Some of this simply because of how it was originally structured, some because of changes in regard to each chamber over the years (for instance the capping the total number of House seats in the 1930s to prevent power in the House from shifting from rural districts to urban ones), the resorting of the parties beginning with the Civil Rights movement and their final consolidation into essentially coherent parties, Congress’s ceding power to the Executive Branch, etc. What we’re watching is a real time demonstration of this. I have no idea, regardless of how this specific action is resolved, where the House goes from here.

  226. 226.

    Mnemosyne

    @Kropadope:

    How about closing the gun show loophole, which is the other bill that Democrats are demanding a vote on tonight?

    Wait, let me guess — that just happens to be your second biggest moral objection when it comes to gun control, so they shouldn’t stage a failed vote on that one, either.

    Someone in the thread below said that the third bill that Democrats want a vote on is to allow the CDC to study gun violence again, but I can’t find a link for that. Doesn’t matter, I’m sure that will turn out to be your third-strongest civil liberties objection.

  228. 228.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Kropadope: You know the point of what started today. You have admitted it. If you want to argue, please offer something new.

  229. 229.

    hovercraft

    @efgoldman:
    Thanks Obama.
    It’s all his fault, every time they think they’ve got the democrats right where they want them, they get out foxed. Only 7 months to go and then happy days, they will start winning all the time.

  230. 230.

    patroclus

    @MomSense: Well, various arms of the federal government maintain quite a LOT of lists – the most important are the OFAC rules I mentioned above, but there is also the Commodity Control List, the Munitions List, the Jackson-Vanik List, the Arab Boycott list, and a whole lot of lists have popped up since the Patriot Act, including the no-fly list. And they are maintained and administered by different agencies and are not necessarily shared or consistent. OFAC has been around since WWI and it is perhaps the most extensive and the most upheld by the Courts – that’s why I’m curious as to whether kropadope will even try to address them. Kropadope is right to be concerned about them, many of them are haphazardly enforced and it can be difficult to get off them. But their constitutionality is really not in question – most of them concern foreign affairs and the Courts usually give wide deference there. Yes, they should be updated; yes they should not be so stovepiped, yes, there are legitimate due process concerns; yes, most of them are arguably good policy.

    But they are all legal – kropadope is on weak legal grounds here and he should know it.

  232. 232.

    Kropadope

    @Mnemosyne:

    Wait, let me guess — that just happens to be your second biggest moral objection when it comes to gun control, so they shouldn’t stage a failed vote on that one, either.

    Perhaps before putting words in my mouth, you should make sure I didn’t already say otherwise.

    Someone in the thread below said that the third bill that Democrats want a vote on is to allow the CDC to study gun violence again, but I can’t find a link for that. Doesn’t matter, I’m sure that will turn out to be your third-strongest civil liberties objection.

    This is also an excellent idea. I didn’t mention it, but you’re wrong about my position. Jesus Christ, you straw man almost as hard as the Republicans.

  233. 233.

    karen marie

    @Kropadope: If you can’t get on a plane, why should you be able to have a gun. There does need to be more infrastructure for adjudicating challenges though. But that’s a detail to be worked out, not a reason to not do it.

  234. 234.

    Adam L Silverman

    @MomSense: If I may, and not to upset Mnem, I want to step back a sec and talk about this in terms of actual security policy, not anything to do with guns. And the this is both the no fly and terrorism watch lists. While I don’t have any real specific details as I don’t need to know them and they’re classified, I see two specific problems. The first is that being placed on one or both watch list seems to be somewhat capricious. The second is that because of that, and is the case with so many of our Intel and security reforms post 9-11, we have far too much noise to signal in the information we’re working with. In the attempt to see and hear everything, we have no way to actually see and hear anything. We’re drowning in data. Instead of being careful and targeted in how we expanded what we were doing, we did it in a panic. And since money was flowing freely, there was no impetus to do it in a controlled manner.

    I now return everyone to their regularly schedule comments.

  236. 236.

    Elizabelle

    Proud of the House Democrats, and what a thrill to see John Lewis leading a sit-in on the House floor. You go, Dems.

    What good news to wake up to.

  237. 237.

    Mnemosyne

    @Kropadope:

    So, of the three bills under consideration, you agree with two of them, but since there is one (1) out of the three you disagree with, the whole sit-in should have been called off.

    If I may quote our gracious host from the thread below:

    Of course it’s a fucking publicity stunt. They are trying to publicize the fact that the house won’t even vote on stuff that 85% of the god damned country wants to happen. They’re trying, in vain, most likely, to shame you shameless sociopathic motherfuckers into doing something.

    You disagree with 1/3rd of the publicity stunt, so therefore you don’t support it at all.

  238. 238.

    patroclus

    The no-fly no-buy bill would be just as constitutional as the OFAC rules and, arguably, far less intrusive on civil liberties because the OFAC rules involve money and the proposed bill just access to military-grade weaponry. With a new USSC and 5 votes to over-rule the implications of Heller, the kropadopian argument would be unlikely to prevail – it would be clearly constitutional. But the Dems should probably cave and put in some due process provisions for getting appropriate judicial review of the lists and their administration to satisfy the kropadope’s of the world and to attract more votes. And they should probably do that OFAC and the other numerous lists as well as part of a comprehensive review of all such lists. With a Democratic majority that might be possible – as long as the crazy do-nothing party controls Congress, it would stand no chance of passage.

  239. 239.

    Adam L Silverman

    Holy Crap! Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz is actually doing something in Congress. The Apocalypse is upon us!

  241. 241.

    Tazj

    @Mnemosyne: Thank you for saying this. Too many liberal pundits and bloggers have been focused on this no fly list, like the Democrats are throwing the whole constitution away just because they want to vote on a bill that will never pass. Fine, fix the no fly list, I don’t care that people might not get their guns fast enough. And no, I don’t think I’ll ever come to regret that. Finally, off to sleep,

  242. 242.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Omnes Omnibus: I don’t understand your question. I mean I understand the words, but I don’t understand what you’re asking.
    (I’m also somewhere between a summer cold and bronchitis, so it may just be me…)

  243. 243.

    Mnemosyne

    @Adam L Silverman:

    FWIW, I’ve thought for years that the no-fly list needs to be brought under control. Frankly, in our current climate, probably the best way to do that is to make the NRA come out against it, but they won’t do that unless it threatens their demesne.

    So I’m happy to force the Republicans and Wayne LaPierre to publicly explain why it’s more dangerous to let someone fly as a passenger inside a plane than it is to allow them to buy a semi-automatic rifle and a bunch of high-capacity magazines.

  244. 244.

    hovercraft

    Luke Russert is a turd, democrats have hurt the granny starver’s feelings by yelling shame at him while he was in the speakers chair. Now he won’t be able to work with them on the debt ceiling and all the other important things that have to get done because of this. I guess he is preparing us for the second coming of Newt.
    The difference is that Ryan needs the democrats because of the kamikazi caucus who will never vote to increase the debt limit so who gives a shit?

  245. 245.

    Kropadope

    @karen marie:

    If you can’t get on a plane, why should you be able to have a gun. There does need to be more infrastructure for adjudicating challenges though. But that’s a detail to be worked out, not a reason to not do it.

    You are one hundred percent correct here. I will add, though, that if we’re going to be expanding the scope of this list’s power, now might be a good time to address the accountability shortcomings. Perhaps doing so may help allay concerns that this law may be abused (i.e. suddenly everyone is a terrorist who can’t fly or own guns),

    What do you think happens when we have policies like this in place and creatures like Trump get elected?

  246. 246.

    guachi

    @Adam L Silverman:

    And the this is both the no fly and terrorism watch lists. While I don’t have any real specific details

    I do.

    as I don’t need to know them and they’re classified, I see two specific problems. The first is that being placed on one or both watch list seems to be somewhat capricious.

    Can’t say you’re wrong here.

    The second is that because of that, and is the case with so many of our Intel and security reforms post 9-11, we have far too much noise to signal in the information we’re working with.

    LOL. This is such an understatement.

    In the attempt to see and hear everything, we have no way to actually see and hear anything.

    It’s by far the hardest skill in SIGINT; determining what’s actually useful information.

  248. 248.

    BR

    @Adam L Silverman:

    I’m curious what you mean by this — why wouldn’t the House just go back to its usual after the sit in ends? People in many discussions have been talking about this as if it’s the end of the republic but we’ve had all sorts of shutdowns and filibusters and other nonsense in both chambers of congress and afterwards things just keep going as usual.

  250. 250.

    patroclus

    @Adam L Silverman: The OFAC lists are FAR more extensive than the terrorism watch lists and the no-fly lists. OFAC has tens of thousands of individuals and entities on their lists and banks are required to maintain sophisticated software systems to spot and identify all potential transfers of money through the U.S. banking system by anyone placed on them. These are the “crippling” targeted sanctions that politicians are always blathering on about with respect to Iran and Russia. There is a whole cottage industry associated with compliance with these rules in the financial industry. Contrary to kropadope’s theory, they are all clearly constitutional but remain very unknown to the wider public. They function almost exactly like the no-fly list but are WAY more extensive – the reason I asked kropadope about them is because they blow his argument away, but he doesn’t seem to want to address them at all.

    All of the lists need to be reviewed and updated and due process rules should be more firmly established.

  251. 251.

    Amaranthine RBG

    @Adam L Silverman:

    You’re right of course. But even a very clearly defined nd carefully vetted “watch list” would still be problematic from a constitutional perspective.

    Allowing certain people’s rights to be curtailed, not because of anything they have done, but something they might to do in the future is a bit problematic, to say the least.

    It’s shocking that people who probably identify themselves as liberals and democrats are on board with this.

  252. 252.

    Kropadope

    @Mnemosyne:

    You disagree with 1/3rd of the publicity stunt, so therefore you don’t support it at all.

    You mean, I disagree with a third of a publicity stunt so you treat me like I don’t agree with it at all. I only ever argued against the no-fly portion and some people act like I personally perpetrated Sandy Hook. This is the same paranoid “enemies all around us” miasma of hostility that I’ve been complaining about.

  253. 253.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Mnemosyne: I’m not arguing against you, nor what the House Democratic Caucus is doing. I understand what they’re doing and why, which is all about publicizing the issue and making it a problem for both the GOP and the NRA.

    A discussion of how to actually make effective policy on the issue is for another day.

  254. 254.

    Ferd ofthe Nort

    You know…. Mr. Trump has spoken yesterday. No-one is paying attention.
    He suddenly became invisible. Others have all the attention…

    It is one thing to not make news while you are doing other things, but that was his long promised blockbuster speech.. Utterly up-staged.

    Invisible man may become mouthy man to regain spotlight. This morning might get interesting.

  255. 255.

    Adam L Silverman

    @guachi: I’m being circumspect as are you in your response in a lot of that comment.

    Also, we have whole data bases built for information that still don’t function properly. And when I say don’t function properly I mean you can’t do a keyword search! I had to explain that to several 2 stars about a month ago. “Gentlemen, that data still exists and I know who has control of it. Once we’re clear of the building I can do a digital introduction, but I don’t think its actually searchable – as in they still don’t have a keyword search interface so there may be no way to get anything out of the database.”

  256. 256.

    Kropadope

    @Mnemosyne: How can I forget something I didn’t know? I never understood what a bunch of idiots were angry about, said to myself “sexist assholes gonna be sexist assholes,” and duly ignored the whole thing.

  258. 258.

    Adam L Silverman

    @BR: There has never been a filibuster in the House. The closest we’ve ever had to what we’re watching is the 2008 GOP attempt to hold the floor open for a vote on their caucus’s energy bill. I don’t know that anything will change. I don’t know that anything won’t. I just know that what we are watching is unprecedented. And I don’t know what the effects may be. And I’m not sure I know enough to even try to estimate what they might be.

  259. 259.

    Kropadope

    @Mnemosyne:

    When you say that a publicity stunt shouldn’t happen because you disagree with one-third of it, yes, that puts you on the side of the NRA.

    What was the very first sentence of my very first post?

    I’m really glad that they’re taking a stand.

    Oh, yeah.

  261. 261.

    Adam L Silverman

    @patroclus: I’m aware of OFAC and what it does. And you’re correct that they’ve been determined to be Constitutional. You are also correct that OFAC, and its cousins, need serious review.

  262. 262.

    Scapegoat

    @Kropadope:

    While I agree that a person who is not safe to allow on a plane shouldn’t be allowed a gun, I don’t think the No-Fly list as currently implemented is constitutional. People are put on this list without any sort of trial.

    This.

    I recall a few years ago hearing a story about a student (or professor?) who was accidentally (or without cause, maybe a name similarity?) placed on the “no fly” list and the nightmare involved in trying to get this resolved.

  263. 263.

    patroclus

    @Amaranthine RBG: Well, that’s the difference between “rights” and “privileges” that we were discussing above. Yes, obviously, curtailing people’s rights is not what we want, but curtailing their privileges is a different matter. Do you have a “right” to send money to Cuba? Does any Syrian immigrant have a “right” to send money to and from relatives in ISIS-controlled areas? Do you have a “right” to have a bank account? Does one have a “right” to fly? To purchase a military-grade weapon? If these are merely privileges rather than rights, isn’t some curtailment a good idea to prevent mass shootings? To prevent terrorism? The proposed no-fly no-buy bill touches on these concerns and distinctions and it’s not an easy call. I consider myself to be a liberal and I’m okay with a complete ban on the ability to purchase a military-grade weapon – limiting that merely to those on a terrorism watch list has constitutional issues but seems WAY more constitutional that a complete ban would be.

  264. 264.

    Mnemosyne

    @Kropadope:

    Uh-huh. If only they would have done it the right way, you totally would have supported them. Sadly, they did it the wrong way, so it’s important for you to stand on the sidelines and sadly shake your head about their missed opportunity to do the right thing the right way.

    Sorry, but I’m sick and tired of that fake-“thoughtful” bullshit. Either you support the sit-in, or you don’t. If you support it, you don’t waste paragraphs lamenting the reasons.

  265. 265.

    patroclus

    @Adam L Silverman: The first House filibuster took place in 1914 and was led by Robert Lee Henry, the new Rules Chairman, in order to get agricultural bills to the Floor over the will of the Majority leader Oscar Underwood and to force Wilson to get off the fence and support them. Henry just stopped having meetings of the Committee and had his acolytes object to any unanimous consent request and force a 2/3rds majority on all other votes. It worked – and got the Warehouse release bill and the Federal reserve Act onto the Floor. Howard Smith also did the same thing many times much later. This is not a unique situation; although to trust our ill-informed media about it is not a good idea.

  266. 266.

    Amaranthine RBG

    @patroclus: It may not be a popular opinion in some quarters, but as of now the Supreme Court has held that keeping and bearing arms is a right.

    If it is merely a privilege then the categorical problems do go away.

  267. 267.

    Adam L Silverman

    @patroclus: How about a guy who wrote his dissertation on Congress and does all his research on it. When I asked him earlier today he made it very clear: this is uncharted territory – it has not happened before. I don’t know your credentials, but I know his and his reputation. The standing rule in the House to limit debate was created in the 1840s. Before that it was an informal custom to not speak for extended periods of time. Honored more or less depending on who had the floor and how much stature they have.

    ETA: I’m not looking for a fight. Everyone’s tired by now as its late and in my case I’ve actually got a cold and feel like rubbish. But the House changed its rules to formally prevent filibusters 176 years ago. What ever Henry did or didn’t do, it wasn’t allowed under House rules.

    ETA2: I think what you’ve identified is the normal power that the Rules Committee Chair has to hold the floor open for a vote. This is done on occasion, but it isn’t a filibuster.
    (I’m only staying awake at this point to see what happens at 2:30 AM EDT)

  268. 268.

    Kropadope

    @Mnemosyne: There are plenty of good arguments to be made for tightening our gun regulations. They can be made without inaccurate characterization of other arguments and gratuitous appeals to emotion. It’s really sad that lies and shame are the best you can muster.

    Some people don’t agree with you on the approach we should take to these mass murders. That doesn’t make them culpable for the murders. It’s not enough to simply do something, anything, to address terrorism and shooting rampages, what specifically we do matters.

  270. 270.

    Mnemosyne

    @Scapegoat:

    Again: the point of the sit-in is not to bolster the no-fly list.

    The Democrats don’t have enough votes to pass the bill, so the point of the sit-in is getting Republicans on record explaining why a passenger seat on an airline is more dangerous than a semi-automatic rifle and a half-dozen high-capacity magazines.

  271. 271.

    Kropadope

    @Mnemosyne:

    Sorry, but I’m sick and tired of that fake-“thoughtful” bullshit. Either you support the sit-in, or you don’t.

    I can support it and still have qualms. I would prefer to have an honest debate about those qualms over having my motives questioned, my positions lied about, and redirection toward squirrels; but honest debate is becoming less and less popular around here. That’s life.

    If you support it, you don’t waste paragraphs lamenting the reasons.

    Attempts to assimilate me will not succeed.

  272. 272.

    Amir Khalid

    @Scapegoat:
    I think you’re referring to a Malaysian doctoral candidate at Stanford, Rahinah Ibrahim. She had to complete her doctorate remotely, and is now dean of design and architecture at Universiti Putra Malaysia, the public university where she has been teaching for many years.

  273. 273.

    Mnemosyne

    @Kropadope:

    I know, it’s so weird that people get upset that 49 people were murdered in a nightclub for being gay.

    It’s not enough to simply do something, anything, to address terrorism and shooting rampages, what specifically we do matters.

    What we’re doing is forcing the Republicans to go on record in support of mass murderers so we can defeat them in November, take control of the House, and pass some actual sensible gun legislation. You seem to be opposed to that plan. Why?

  275. 275.

    patroclus

    @Adam L Silverman: He should inform himself about Henry’s history. Prior to that, Joe Cannon had served as both the Speaker and the Rules Chairman and was known as “King Cannon” – the great challenge to him took place when the minority Dems and some progressive Republicans joined forces four years earlier to depose that concentrated power. And the Dems thereafter, when they won the majority, set up the Committee system with seniority rules that is (more or less) in place today. Henry thus became an “independent” Rules Chairman and could act independently to the Democratic leadership of Speaker Champ Clark and Majority Leader Underwood. Henry agreed with the Wilson/Underwood program but he wanted more influence and he wanted agricultural bills passed and signed by Wilson. He therefore refused to pass any rules at all in September 1914 until Wilson agreed to move on ag bills and he (and Rayburn and Sisson, his lieutenants as well as others) just objected to any unanimous consent requests on the Floor bringing all action to a complete halt for about two weeks (because any action without a rule requires a 2/3rds vote). Wilson caved and the Lever Act, the FRA, the WRA and several others got enacted because of the House filibuster.

    Now, this was done by the Rules Chairman – not the minority – so he’s right that this particular action was not taken. But you said that this was the first-ever House filibuster – technically, it’s not. Robert Lee Henry, from Waxahachie Texas, did it a century earlier and got results!

  277. 277.

    eemom

    @Amaranthine RBG:

    It may not be a popular opinion in some quarters, but as of now the Supreme Court has held that keeping and bearing arms is a right.

    Fuck you, you disingenuous, ignorant, pompous asshole.

    “The Supreme Court”, consisting of a 5-4 majority headed by unabashed right wing whore Antonin Scalia, may he rot in agony, overturned 200 years of common sense, ORIGINALIST precedent that accorded meaning to the words “well-regulated militia”, to produce a result that effectively wrote those words out of the Second Amendment….in violation of the most fundamental rule of Constitutional construction and the manifest intent of the framers. Also known amongst your ilk as “judicial activism.”

    Fuck you.

  278. 278.

    Adam L Silverman

    @patroclus: Again, as I added to my original response @Adam L Silverman: The House formally voted in 1840 to amend its rules to limit debate to formally prevent filibusters. That rule has not been changed in 176 years. Not even by Henry. He was not engaging in a filibuster.

  281. 281.

    Adam L Silverman

    And they brought the mace! They’re going to force this. Expect the Sergeant at Arms to take it up and wield it to force/enforce order and the House’s rules.

  282. 282.

    SoupCatcher

    Granny Starver has entered the chamber. Hiding behind the opening prayer, apparently.

  283. 283.

    Kropadope

    @Mnemosyne:

    I know, it’s so weird that people get upset that 49 people were murdered in a nightclub for being gay.

    Does being upset change what makes sound public policy?

  284. 284.

    patroclus

    @Adam L Silverman: Yeah, I know. He was known as a gregarious happy-go-lucky guy, but he hid some inner demons. His importance, however, was that he was one of Sam Rayburn’s early mentors and through that filibuster, showed him how the Rules could be manipulated to force action. Rayburn never went that far on his own, but he wasn’t above occasionally threatening a President with stopping all action in order to get agreement on something that he wanted. Presidents usually would just cave under such a threat. Also, Howard Smith, in the 1950’s, as Rules Chair, kind of did the same thing when he just disappeared to his Virginia farm and refused to convene Committee meetings if he didn’t like a particular civil rights bill. That was sort of filibuster, and Rayburn finally got back at him by “packing” the Rules Committee in 1/61 to regain control. Since then, Rules Committee Chairmen have generally obeyed their Speakers. But Henry and Smith (and Rayburn, at least as threats) definitely used their versions of filibusters. Your eminent source will probably confirm what I’ve written, if s/he’s as scholarly as you say.

  285. 285.

    Steeplejack

    @MomSense:

    I don’t buy their civil liberties concerns if they are only raised in the context of unfettered access to weapons. We’ve all been schlepping mini toiletries in plastic baggies to prevent a non existent threat but some asshole who supports ISIS can buy an AR-15 no questions asked?

    Nicely distilled.

  287. 287.

    gwangung

    @Mnemosyne: Only thing I can figure out is that he’s gaming this out one or two moves in advance, while the rest of folks are thinking three or four moves out. This action is not a direct means to an end to be achieved shortly; the payoff is much further down the line, rendering the current form a bit irrelevant.

  288. 288.

    Adam L Silverman

    @patroclus: We’re having a semantic argument that’s not getting us anywhere. What you’re calling a filibuster is just the Rules Committee Chair using his power to manipulate the House rules to hold a vote open. This happens now and then, and yes, he did develop the pattern for using it. But the House amended its formal rules in 1840, and has never changed them back in 176 years, to limit debate to no more than one hour in order to prevent filibusters.

  291. 291.

    Mnemosyne

    @Kropadope:

    Does being upset change what makes sound public policy?

    Is there a different way to explain “the goal is to take back control of the House”? Because I’ve already explained that to you, like, six different ways, and you keep getting hung up on the red herring of a bill that doesn’t have a chance in hell of passing even if the Republicans allow a vote. Why does a sacrificial bill designed to push Republicans into making a vote that can be used against them in November also have to be good public policy?

  293. 293.

    Adam L Silverman

    Since nothing seems to be happening, I’ve got to rack out. This cold is unpleasant.

  297. 297.

    Kropadope

    @Mnemosyne:

    Why does a sacrificial bill designed to push Republicans into making a vote that can be used against them in November also have to be good public policy?

    What do you think is easier to use against Republicans, a vote against good public policy or a vote against bad public policy?

  298. 298.

    SoupCatcher

    @Adam L Silverman: Well, if you rack it as soon as you bring it into the chamber, what’s the point? They should be required to hold it threateningly, a la the living chess pieces in History of the World, part 1.

  299. 299.

    gwangung

    @Kropadope: Politics, son, is often skew with policy.

    Good policy is nuanced, subtle and has shades to handle ambiguity. That often makes for a poor weapon. As Democrats have found out time and time again in the past.

  302. 302.

    patroclus

    @Adam L Silverman: Yes he was. And it totally flummoxed Wilson, who finally had to write him a letter in which he agreed to the Warehouse Release bill (it’s in Wilson’s papers, which I’ve read) as well as a series of other ag bills which followed. Even Underwood, who up til then, had been the major force on the House (the Underwood Tariff etc…) was confounded and had to admit that Henry had successfully used his position to force action. Now, Henry never made a speech about it and he didn’t label it a “filibuster” but that’s exactly what it was. He and his lieutenants successfully stopped Floor action on everything for a time until he got his concerns addressed, which is more or less the definition of a filibuster. This was in 9/14, right after a major agricultural conference had descended upon D.C. demanding “valorization” which was their definition of governmental action to keep farm prices at parity with what they thought it should be. WWI had just started in Europe and cotton prices had fallen precipitously and the farmers wanted action. And Wilson, while in favor of reform on other issues (the FTC, the Clayton Act, the Fed), wasn’t in favor of direct action to help farmers (in Henry’s view). Henry just decided to force the issue with his “filibuster.” And it turned out to be a major turning point for farm policy – thereafter, Democrats took the lead in enacting all sorts of farm-related bills. The warehouse release bill allowed farmers to borrow money based on stored cotton that they couldn’t sell due to the price drop and allowed them to make it another year before the Fed District banks got set up that could extend more credit. Other acts created the famous “county agents” who provided advice about conservation and crop rotation. To be sure, it’s obscure, but it certainly happened.

  306. 306.

    Kropadope

    @Mnemosyne: Obviously I don’t agree with your perspective on this optics of the no-fly-no-buy bill, now can you turn down the condescension a touch?

  307. 307.

    Adam L Silverman

    @patroclus: A filibuster is not simply ceasing all action and holding up all business. A filibuster is unlimited debate on whatever question (bill/resolution) is pending and the inability to muster enough votes to bring that debate to an end (cloture). This has been prohibited in the formal House rules since 1840, which is why what Henry did wasn’t a filibuster. Its not the same thing.

  308. 308.

    gwangung

    @Kropadope: You don’t seem to understand politics. Why are you OK with that?

    We’re not having a policy debate here. This is politics, plain and simple.

  310. 310.

    Mnemosyne

    @Kropadope:

    Okay, I’m going to make one more attempt to spell this out for you:

    If Republicans vote for the bill, the NRA and gun-huggers will rip them to shreds for not defending the maximalist position on gun rights.

    If Republicans vote against the bill, Democrats will rip them to shreds for letting terrorists have free access to guns.

    It’s a trap that even Paul Ryan is smart enough to try and avoid, and you think it’s about public policy. Jaysus.

  313. 313.

    Kropadope

    @gwangung: I understand the politics of this just fine. Democrats are helping Republicans establish that we should all be hiding under our beds pissing our pants about terrorists and Trump’s Muslim ban is just around the corner.

  314. 314.

    patroclus

    @Adam L Silverman: What he did was certainly a filibuster. He stopped all action on the Floor for two solid weeks and forced Wilson to agree to his demands. Notwithstanding the rules you cite, he manipulated the rules, forced meaningless debate (just like in the Senate) and nothing could be voted on or passed. It is most certainly a precedent and I’m sorry you can’t see it. And once again, apologies for bothering you – I foolishly thought it was an interesting precedent. I won’t bother you again.

  316. 316.

    SoupCatcher

    @Kropadope: Look, you can either be right or you can get something done. Activist or organizer. We can see where you are on that continuum. Most of us happen to be on the other side.

  317. 317.

    Adam L Silverman

    @patroclus: Your not bothering me and I’m neither mad, nor irked by the discussion. Though I am going to bed shortly.

  318. 318.

    gwangung

    @Kropadope:

    I understand the politics of this just fine.

    Heh. That’s a good one…made me laugh.

    But I aint got time to teach the pig to sing, so….

  319. 319.

    Calouste

    Well, the mask has really come off the Bernistas in this thread. Turns out they are ammosexual libertarian ratfuckers. I’m shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

  320. 320.

    Kropadope

    Bzzzzt…the Democrats are doing it, therefore is perfect to the last detail…bzzzzt…

  323. 323.

    Kropadope

    @Calouste: So, I agree with the zeitgeist on two of the three gun policies as well as the fact that the Democrats made a good procedural move. I even think that any security reason preventing someone from flying should prevent that person from having a weapon. However, because I don’t believe that the no-fly list has an accountable enough standard for a ban of either, I’m an ammosexual libertarian ratfucker? The libertarians I know will be shocked to hear this.

    Talk about your purity ponies, sheesh.

  324. 324.

    TS

    @Kropadope:

    I understand the politics of this just fine. Democrats are helping Republicans establish that we should all be hiding under our beds pissing our pants about terrorists and Trump’s Muslim ban is just around the corner.

    You really don’t have a clue – this is IQ losing remark – probably lower than Trump’s ideas.

  325. 325.

    Applejinx

    @Calouste: Oh, settle down. Not everything has to be about Bernie sucking and how bad his supporters are.

    Do you realize this is more important than Bernie’s ex-run for President? This is the new Democratic Party. This is the party that Hillary Clinton will represent. And I’m proud of it.

    Let them fix the no-fly list after tying Second Amendment rights to it. Me, I’m for the full Australian solution, impractical as it is: full disarmament. I will be down exactly zero guns (shock! horror!) and some of my friends here in Vermont would be pretty upset and annoyed.

    I don’t think it’s necessary to have owning guns get you a death penalty, or people brandishing guns to be shot on sight. It would just be more difficult for psychopaths to get guns if owning them (especially in trafficking quantities) would get you imprisoned for a good long while. Not like we don’t have prisons panting for more ‘clients’. It all kind of strangely works out.

    People who absolutely insist on keeping their guns can be real-life criminal revolutionaries, which they would very much enjoy. It just means that they can’t go parade around in public without immediate law enforcement response. Let them be openly domestic terrorists and be done with it, rather than ‘domestic terrorists but we have to behave as though they’re salt of the earth’.

  326. 326.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    @? Martin: I think it’s too broad to say that state militias were universally tied to fears of slave rebellions. See Volokh’s summary of “bear arms” provisions in state constitutions. Several “free” states had provisions about the right to bear arms before the Civil War. And lots of states seemingly just grabbed previously used language as boiler-plate.

    I like the more expansive language about “standing armies being a threat to liberty” that some states have. It makes it clear that our times are very, very different than then. But of course, Scalia thought the context of the Amendment had no meaning other than the one he wanted to impose…

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  328. 328.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    @Mnemosyne:

    What we’re doing is forcing the Republicans to go on record in support of mass murderers so we can defeat them in November, take control of the House, and pass some actual sensible gun legislation.

    This.

    “Elections have consequences” as they say.

    If K wants sensible legislation, he needs to see that politics has a huge role because it helps determine who actually has the power to vote on that legislation.

    Jimmy Carter campaigned to the right of his opponent when he ran for Governor, but governed to the left. Sometimes “messy” things have to be done in the process of getting closer to the path we want to take…

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  329. 329.

    Miss Bianca

    @patroclus: you’re not ‘interested’ in anything but showing off how smart you are. And then passively-aggressively “apologizing” for dragging others into the weeds. Not sure where that falls on the continuum of Internet annoyance creatures – somewhere between a troll and a sea l*on. Some poor form of bird-dog that’s mistaken his purpose…

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks