Politics: A new beginning

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Speak for yourself. I mean, the fact that you are cynical doesn't make us all cynics.

Really? So, you actively oppose all of the judicial filibusters, as a misuse of the system? You were aghast at the Torreccelli replacement? At Jefford's switch? You honor - not just accept, but honor - the SC's decision in Bush v. Gore, because it is the court's role to decide such controversies? Cool.

Face it. You, like most everyone else, are consistent mainly to your own desires. You have made substantive arguments, and you have made process arguments, the choice of which has depended on how you wanted an issue to go and which argument served your needs. Your definition of a cynic seems to be "one who disagrees with me".

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Well, how do you reconcile his campaign promises regarding the budget with what he'll actually have to do? Do you think AS just didn't know he'd have to cut programs?

S_A_M

To what are you referring?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Really? So, you actively oppose all of the judicial filibusters, as a misuse of the system?

I don't have a problem with the process there. Your side does, which is why it's thinking of changing the rules re filibusters, just as it changed other procedures relating to judicial nominations.

You were aghast at the Torreccelli replacement? At Jefford's switch?

Aghast? No. It certainly didn't smell right. OTOH, the principle of giving voters a choice is a strong one.

You honor - not just accept, but honor - the SC's decision in Bush v. Gore, because it is the court's role to decide such controversies? Cool.

I'm not sure what you mean. I think it was wrongly decided on the merits, and that the Court reached out to decide a matter that should have been settled in the state court. Exactly how does this make me a hypocrite or a cynic?

Face it. You, like most everyone else, are consistent mainly to your own desires. You have made substantive arguments, and you have made process arguments, the choice of which has depended on how you wanted an issue to go and which argument served your needs.

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail to you. I have other tools.

Your definition of a cynic seems to be "one who disagrees with me".

What I just said.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't have a problem with the process there (filibusters. Your side does, which is why it's thinking of changing the rules re filibusters, just as it changed other procedures relating to judicial nominations.

Point was, the filibusters represent a huge extension of the historical process edging severely into incivility - just as does the TX redistricting. Yes, both are legal (as set out just now with the FedCrt.) But you're telling me you have a problem with the TX process? Wordplay. I stand by my assertion.

[bilmore]

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Point was, the filibusters represent a huge extension of the historical process edging severely into incivility - just as does the TX redistricting. Yes, both are legal (as set out just now with the FedCrt.) But you're telling me you have a problem with the TX process? Wordplay. I stand by my assertion.

Do you guys remember the play (and the TV show) "The Odd Couple"?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Do you guys remember the play (and the TV show) "The Odd Couple"?

I wanna be Oscar!

(He gets beer. Felix gets . . Josh.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Point was, the filibusters represent a huge extension of the historical process edging severely into incivility - just as does the TX redistricting. Yes, both are legal (as set out just now with the FedCrt.) But you're telling me you have a problem with the TX process? Wordplay. I stand by my assertion.

A principled discussion about the processes involved in judicial appointments would have to take account of the various ways the members of the Senate, including members of the minority, could block or have a say in judicial appointments, a process that has been changed in recent years by Republicans. It is no secret that the GOP has been on a campaign to remake the judiciary in a Federalist image. If you ask a question about filibusters, while ignoring the rest of this, you are stacking the deck. If the question is, would I prefer the way judicial nominations were traditionally handled to where we are now, the answer is, absolutely. Just as I feel about the TX redistricting.

That's how a principled discussion would unfold. You, clearly, are not interested in these principles, but only in the reductionist "you only like the results you like" argument. You are, at the least, consistent.

[notcasesensitive]

Has this been discussed here yet? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/07/nyregion/07DIAL.html

Family settles for $3 million with City of NY.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
A principled discussion about the processes involved in judicial appointments would have to take account of the various ways the members of the Senate, including members of the minority, could block or have a say in judicial appointments, a process that has been changed in recent years by Republicans. It is no secret that the GOP has been on a campaign to remake the judiciary in a Federalist image. If you ask a question about filibusters, while ignoring the rest of this, you are stacking the deck. If the question is, would I prefer the way judicial nominations were traditionally handled to where we are now, the answer is, absolutely. Just as I feel about the TX redistricting.

That's how a principled discussion would unfold. You, clearly, are not interested in these principles, but only in the reductionist "you only like the results you like" argument. You are, at the least, consistent.

Nice head fake.

No, wait, it's not a nice head fake when you're spotted. Never mind.

The subject at issue, as you know, is not the substantive argument over the filibusters, not the redistricting of Texas. It's your assertion that you are above chosing when to use an integrity-of-the-process argument and when to use a substantive-fairness-of-results argument depending on which best serves your desires.

You are here defending the legality and correctness of the filibusters, making a "but-you-guys-do-it-too-and-first" argument to support yourself, and adding in that your protection of the balance of the judiciary merits such a deviation from past trends. In short, a substantive-fairness-of-the-results argument. An integrity-of-the-process argument would not work for you here, as this round of filibusters represents a large move away from past trends and away from a civil process of governance.

In Texas, you do the opposite - you avoid speaking of the point that the new map results in a more accurate representation of the wishes of the people, in a one-person-one-vote sense, and argue instead that it is uncivil and a huge change from the only-every-ten-years process. So, here, as it suits your desired result, you make the integrity-of-the-process argument.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
To what are you referring?

I'm not gonna take up the "AS lied" chant, but this article sure gave me pause, especially in light of the fact that he is threatening to take the worker's comp reform to the november ballot if the legislature doesn't fix it by March 1.:

Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has established two new fund-raising committees, including one that is not subject to any campaign finance restrictions.

The just-created California Recovery Team committee already has taken in nearly $200,000, mostly in large contributions that exceed the $21,200 limit on contributions to a governor.

Because it is set up as a lobbying committee and is not specifically designed to help Schwarzenegger get re-elected, there are no limits on contributions.

The committee is designed to finance "grassroots lobbying" efforts such as public rallies and letter-writing campaigns. Schwarzenegger has said he wants to "go directly to the people" if lawmakers do not take action on his major proposals.

"It's designed to provide a platform for the governor to take his legislative and ballot measure priorities directly to the public -- through appearances, earned media events and perhaps even paid advertising," Schwarzenegger political adviser Marty Wilson told the Associated Press.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AGRC431AE1.DTL

Seems to me that these "large contributions" smell just as bad as Davis's roundly criticized pay-to-play fundraising practices. Not that AS lied, but he did sell himself as not being beholden to the "special interests" because of his unique position as a wealthy celebrity.

Something that bears watching, I guess.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I'm not gonna take up the "AS lied" chant, but this article sure gave me pause, especially in light of the fact that he is threatening to take the worker's comp reform to the november ballot if the legislature doesn't fix it by March 1.:



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AGRC431AE1.DTL

Seems to me that these "large contributions" smell just as bad as Davis's roundly criticized pay-to-play fundraising practices. Not that AS lied, but he did sell himself as not being beholden to the "special interests" because of his unique position as a wealthy celebrity.

Something that bears watching, I guess.

Huh? What is wrong with setting up issue specific funds? Isn't that the essence of the first amendment?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Many of the R's around here operate on the assumption that everything is partisan, and are accustomed to throwing brick-a-brats charging that we Dems are attacking Georgie Boy's positions just because those positions are held by a cowering, selfish, priggish little simp of a rich boy (Hi Bilmore!). Meanwhile, of course, they dismiss anything said by any Democrat simply because it is said by these brave, self-less people of the people.

Well, I'm going to say something nice about one of the Imbecile-in-Chief's recent positions.

It strikes me that Bush is heading in the right direction on immigration policy, and it is my sincere hope that the ultimate legislation he crafts does everything he is advertising and more. We are and always ought to be a country of immigrants.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
The subject at issue, as you know, is not the substantive argument over the filibusters, not the redistricting of Texas. It's your assertion that you are above chosing when to use an integrity-of-the-process argument and when to use a substantive-fairness-of-results argument depending on which best serves your desires.

The way you've defined the question sounds like something out of a late-night bullshit session in the freshman year of college, and I have to agree that your sort of jaded cynicism is always a good response in such conversations. There are no absolutes here. The only reason to respect process is that doing so serves a larger end. We all agree that if the police think someone in NYC is about to set off a dirty bomb, they should not bother to go get a warrant before they do something about it. So what if decades of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence suggests otherwise?

You are here defending the legality and correctness of the filibusters, making a "but-you-guys-do-it-too-and-first" argument to support yourself, and adding in that your protection of the balance of the judiciary merits such a deviation from past trends. In short, a substantive-fairness-of-the-results argument. An integrity-of-the-process argument would not work for you here, as this round of filibusters represents a large move away from past trends and away from a civil process of governance.

Of course filibusters are legal. Your guys want to change that. They generally haven't been used on judges, but this is only because the GOP has gotten rid of the other procedures Senators could use to block nominees. So the larger point is that by referring just to filibusters, and not to the other procedural changes re judicial nominations, you are asking an unfair (or unprincipled) question. I said this in my last post, and though you decided to ignore it, it is still true.

In Texas, you do the opposite - you avoid speaking of the point that the new map results in a more accurate representation of the wishes of the people, in a one-person-one-vote sense,...

No, dumbass, I said that changing the map may "more accurately represent" party affiliation but less accurately represent other important things. Cattle ranchers may want to be represented by a cattle rancher, and not by a Dallas banker, and so on. I've said this twice, and you are just not bothering to read my posts. You may not be reading this one, either. Here, I'll call you Lizard Breath, and see if you respond to it in your next post. Maybe that will work. Your problem may just be that you cannot conceive of other "wishes" that people might have, apart from voting Republican. Which ties back nicely to this conversation about your cynicism and apparent lack of principal.

....and argue instead that it is uncivil and a huge change from the only-every-ten-years process. So, here, as it suits your desired result, you make the integrity-of-the-process argument.

I think that I said that it is divisive, not that it is uncivil, although it does appear to have been uncivil. That was RT's point, I think. It's divisive because it's a zero sum game, with no prospect of social benefit.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It strikes me that Bush is heading in the right direction on immigration policy, and it is my sincere hope that the ultimate legislation he crafts does everything he is advertising and more. We are and always ought to be a country of immigrants.

I'm with you on this one whole heartedly, and I would insist that any Democratic nominee express views that he (or she) would head in a similar direction.