Filibuster Update

I have given the Republicans no slack for their seeming willingness to blow up the Senate by exercising the nuclear option, but if the Democratic activist I saw on Hardball tonight is any indication, it is going to happen, and I can;t fault the GOP.

This idiot, having learned nothing, said that the Democrats should filibuster Scalia, Thomas, and she would have to think about Sandra Day O’Connor. If three sitting justices are too extreme for the modern Democrats, then they have lost their damned minds.

67 replies
  1. 1
    Libertine says:

    Ahhhhh…the far left has been heard from. Knowing how they think anybody to the right of Laurence Tribe is “too conservative”. ;-)

    I think O’Connor would be an outstanding choice for Chief.

  2. 2
    M. Scott Eiland says:

    John, I think you miscategorized this one, though since the person you’re quoting seems to be well into the moonbat zone, “Democratic Stupidity” might not be quite fair either.

  3. 3
    KC says:

    Come on John, this person was put on Hardball for the sensationalism of it. My boss is as liberal as they come and she thinks the best of O’Connor (although she doesn’t always agree with her). If Bush chose O’Conner to head the court, Dems would breathe a sigh of relief, and it would be a long sigh at that.

  4. 4
    John Cole says:

    Yeah- Wrong Category. It was supposed to be the loony left.

    O’Connor is rumored to be one of the retiring justices. She will never be chief.

  5. 5
    Rick says:

    Gee, John, congratulations on waking up and smelling the coffee.


  6. 6
    Libertine says:

    I hope O’Connor isn’t retiring!!!

    Well how ’bout Souter for Chief? He was put on the court by the elder Bush. ;-)

  7. 7
    ppgaz says:

    All politics is theater, all the time.

    Hardball is theater raised (lowered) to the level of vaudeville, or circus, all the time.

    Nobody is going to filibuster those judges.

  8. 8
    ppgaz says:

    Clarence Thomas for Chief Justice?

    Hmm, maybe, if Gomer Pyle is not available.

  9. 9
    Demdude says:

    I saw that Hardball. I have no idea where they came up with her.

    As a lifelong active Democrat, I have no idea where she was coming from. It’s pretty much understood in my circles that we will go for blood when it is time to replace a moderate or liberal judge. A switch from one conservative to another isn’t going to get the full court press.

    I wonder what her Democratic credentials really are?

  10. 10
    Libertine says:

    Well get ready to fight if O’Connor, Bader-Ginsburg or Stevens step down Demdude. No way in hell that Bush is going to nominate a moderate judge or anybody who isn’t VERY conservative.

  11. 11
    AlanDownunder says:

    Libertine, I would welcome a true conservative. Bush will nominate a raving activist.

  12. 12
    Libertine says:

    Absolutely AlanDownunder. The next nominee for the SCOTUS will be a right-wing activist judge. I would love to see a judge with the solid conservative judicial philosophy like Kennedy or O’Connor. I wouldn’t have a problem with that scenario but unfortunately I see it being someone like Scalia or Thomas…

  13. 13
    Nash says:

    As was said earlier, this opinion was by a ringer, not anyone speaking to reality. If anyone thinks the Democrats are going to filibuster judges whom they already have supported, e.g., 98-0 in the case of Scalia, they also need to go read their European Wall Street Journal to find out whether Fox News is biased or not.

    At least it gives John a ten minute break from the “welcome back” peanut gallery, that is until reality intervenes again.

  14. 14
    Doug says:

    That darn liberal media at work again. Scalia is, at times, a partisan hack; but he’s a thinker. When he puts his ideas above his politics, I respect him — even if I don’t like where his ideas take him. If Bush gets to nominate a Chief Justice, Scalia is the clear choice, imho. And the Dems won’t filibuster him.

  15. 15
    Doug says:

    That darn liberal media at work again. Scalia is, at times, a partisan hack; but he’s a thinker. When he puts his ideas above his politics, I respect him — even if I don’t like where his ideas take him. If Bush gets to nominate a Chief Justice, Scalia is the clear choice, imho. And the Dems won’t filibuster him.

  16. 16
    Libertine says:

    To me there is a big difference between an Associate Justice and the Chief, Nash. But when Rehnquist steps down I don’t think the left will go nuts if Bush nominates a very conservative judge to replace him because I will not change the philosophical make-up of the Court. The real test will come if any of the 3 aforementioned moderate/liberal justices step down during Bush’s 2nd term.

  17. 17
    Libertine says:

    Doug I lost all respect for Scalia when he signed onto the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore…Mr. “States Rights” showed his true colors in that case.

  18. 18
    Nash says:

    Of course there is a difference, libertine, but if you think that is going to induce the Democrats in the Senate to filibuster Scalia, I’m sorry, but you just don’t have a politically tuned bone in your body.

  19. 19
    Nathan Richter says:

    I can’t quite figure out what the problem with this “nuclear option” is. Doesn’t it merely mean “majority wins?” I wasn’t aware that was such an imminent threat to Democracy as we know it…

  20. 20
    Nash says:

    “I can’t quite figure…”

    The jury is out on whether that is stupidity disguised as sarcasm or merely stupidity masquerading as stupidity.

  21. 21
    CaseyL says:

    It was called “Nuclear Option” because it would have nullified every procedural, parliamentary rule the Senate operates under. No rules at all, except whatever the majority decided on an ad hoc basis.

    Frist likes the idea because, like many on the far Right, he likes unfettered majoritarianism – as long as it’s his Party in the majority.

    I admit, a part of me was miffed by the compromise. I was morbidly fascinated by the prospect of seeing the wingnut-theocrats fulfill their wildest legislative dreams. I wanted to see that rough Beast stop slouching and get to Babylon already, dammit.

  22. 22
    Sojourner says:

    Scalia’s ethical problems should keep him from being chief justice. Also, he seems to value his role as maverick too much to be effective as a chief justice. And his image as a serious thinker was put to rest in Bush v. Gore.

    Thomas has the same problem of not playing well with others. And Thomas’s rejection of New Deal provisions, which the vast majority of Americans support, makes him too far right to be acceptable.

  23. 23
    Tim F says:

    Worry not my friend. Bush would sooner give up drinking (hic) than back down from the wingiest of wingnut nominees.

    About tweety, tell me when he doesn’t have on some loud-mouthed itiot. His Zell Miller gag was the equivalent of a guy breaking a chair over Geraldo’s face – not an escalation, but a distillation of what his show is all about.

    Besides, How many Bush nominees got through without a fight? Whoever this guy was, he probably wasn’t an elected Democrat.

  24. 24
    rilkefan says:

    We’re talking about the O’Connor who, on hearing the initial reports that Gore had won in 2000, said something to the effect of, “Oh no, now I won’t be able to retire!” Anyway, she’d make a good CJ, and Scalia is certainly smart enough.

  25. 25
    Rick says:

    Weak sister O’Connor is fading. One thing we can be sure of is that Dubya won’t nominate (ppaz bait here) Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg.

    I note Casey strikes out again.


  26. 26
    M. Scott Eiland says:

    I see the Alterman Chorus is crying in their Kool-Aid over the 2000 election again–has anyone invented a drinking game for blogs for use when the Sore Loser cliches start popping up? It might make reading them less tedious.

  27. 27
    Demdude says:

    I see the Alterman Chorus is crying in their Kool-Aid over the 2000 election again–has anyone invented a drinking game for blogs for use when the Sore Loser cliches start popping up? It might make reading them less tedious.

    Well Scotty, any time we bring up and the past it is something that you don’t agree with, it’s a cliche?

    The election was decided by the SCOTUS. That is a fact. And believe me if the shoe was on the other foot, your crowd would have created the “Excellent in Broadcasting how the 2000 election was stolen from us institute”. Give me a break.

  28. 28
    Halffasthero says:

    The Democrats would not filibuster O’Conner under any circumstances. I did not see that hardball but I am certain of one or two things. Nothingis ever what it seems. If she brought up O’Conner for possible filibuster, she could be doing it to plant a seed in Bush’s head. He then nominates her out of spite and the Dem’s then support her 100%. I don’t see them not supporting her.

  29. 29
    Rick says:

    The election was decided by the SCOTUS. That is a fact.

    Delude: the Florida voters decided the election by going narrowly for Boooosh. There was never any point in the Florida tally being reported election night where Gore was ahead. Trailed from 8 p.m. Eastern until the last precincts reported.

    SCOTUS–in its way–certified this victory. Perhaps you heard there were some recounts that confirmed this judgement?

    Please, everyone, forget O’Connor. As John Cole points out, she’s one of the likely retirees, not a Justice with a Future.


  30. 30
    joejoejoe says:

    I’m a lefty and saw that segment and couldn’t believe it. Harry Reid himself has said Scalia would make a good Chief Justice.

    I think many of the “Politcal Strategists” that appear on TV for both parties are truly minor hacks just eager for a little face time.

  31. 31
    jeff says:

    Just to mention that cable ‘news’ rarely puts the best represetitives on from either party. They are trying to generate sparks and fights and ratings, not discussion. We get a lot more worked out in these threads than TV and cable news ever does. And now on with the debate….

  32. 32
    Sojourner says:

    Scalia would be an appropriate choice for this ethically challenged administration.

  33. 33
    Darrell says:

    Weren’t the Repubs trying to eliminate the fillibuster option for judicial nominees only while keeping the fillibuster optioin in place on legislation? And wasn’t this the case because historically, the Senate had never before, or almost never before, used the fillibuster to block an up or down vote for judicial nominees?

    I honestly don’t know for sure. But if my understanding is correct, this appears to be cut and dried case of the Democrats becoming so extreme as to break longstanding Senate tradition which never before had been used to block judicial nominees.

    Did Repubs ever once use the fillibuster to block a full Senate vote on any of Clinton’s nominees? No? How about any of Jimmah Carter’s nominees? LBJ’s? Inquiring minds want to know

  34. 34
    Rick says:


    The only exception was a famous Abe Fortas case, in which instance he was already a sitting justice, nominated by lame-duck LBJ to be Chief.

    His opposition (ethical issues) was bi-partisan, and a debate ensued in the Senate. A vote to end debate–cloture–failed. But the nomination was withdrawn when the nose-counters realized that a significant majority of the Senate was going to vote “no.”

    So this was no Mr. Smith Goes To Washington myth of Schumer-like counterfeiting, where an embattled (and principled; aren’t they always?) minority saves the Republic. Fortas’ candidacy was doomed, and he left the Court in some disgrace a year later.

    And folks here purport to entertain qualms about Scalia. Sheesh.


  35. 35
    Sojourner says:

    The Repubs made ample use of blue slips and Rule IV during the Clinton administration. They had no need to use the filibuster.

    Hypocrite Hatch used these rules himself to stop Clinton nominees but refused to allow the Dems the same courtesy when the Repubs regained power.

    I’m sure the Dems would be quite happy to return to the rules in place under Clinton. No more filibusters, guaranteed.

    One reason why the Dems are so angry with the Repubs is the utter hypocrisy and lack of ethics of the Repub leadership.

  36. 36
    Sojourner says:


    You bet people have qualms about Scalia, at least those of us who expect our justices to display the highest levels of ethical behavior. Scalia has repeatedly crossed the ethical line and, as a result, has ruined his good name. He may be a very smart man but he sure as hell is ethically challenged.

  37. 37
    Geek, Esq. says:

    The Dems would probably generate a lot of noise about Scalia–because he’s the brand name for judicial conservatives, but wouldn’t fillibuster him or anything. They’d save that for the next SC nominee, especially if that person sounds anything like Clarence Thomas.

    Scalia as a Chief Justice would actually be a good thing for me and my fellow libruls. It’s a political position, and Scalia resembles John Bolton in that department. Not someone who’s going to assemble coalitions.

  38. 38
    Sojourner says:


    I’d never thought of it that way. Scalia has my full support as chief justice.

    Long may he reign.

  39. 39
    M. Scott Eiland says:

    Sadly, Geek and Sojourner are correct to the extent that Scalia would not be a good CJ due to personality issues. Unfortunately, his brilliance as a Justice may land him a position that, unfortunately, he won’t be particularly good at.

  40. 40
    Rick says:

    The Repubs made ample use of blue slips and Rule IV during the Clinton administration.


    Of course they did, mimicking the Dems tactics against Poppy’s nominees, which themselves may have mirrored some pubbie stalling on Truman nominees, in retaliation for some Whig vs. Republican Democrats feud of the Age of Jackson, getting even for the fact that Carthage “started it first,” not Rome.

    The point is, vote on ’em all.

    I detest the blue slips (nice: what it really is is “blackball,” but that doesn’t sound so innocent), and the fact that any name can stall in committee. And that an ideologue-packed committee (I’ve got my nominees for that characterization, which list I suspect differs a shade from yours) can block action by the entire body.

    A President sends up a nominee, and a committee clock runs for hearings. Then the body votes. Genuine “extremists” won’t get over 25% of any vote.


  41. 41
    Sojourner says:


    You have a good deal more confidence than I when it comes to trusting politicians to vote against their parties.

    The serious lack of enthusiasm for Bolton among many Repubs is obvious yet they continue to vote for him out of fear of their leadership. Thankfully, Bolton is not up for a lifetime appointment so the worst case is he embarasses the current administration.

    I prefer the checks and balances the Constitution provides the minority party to reject the extremists proposed by the other party.

  42. 42
    Rick says:


    Doesn’t exist, as you imagine. The fillibuster is a Senate tradition/invention. However much I wish it would have been “Constitutional” for the (admittedly majority) Dems to fillibuster the Brennan nomination, and the Reps the Ginsburg nomination.

    But they made the Court by passing handsomely, no matter that “some people say” (an old journalism trick) they’re “extremists.”

    But certainly, let’s admend the Constitution to require a Senate supermajority on this…and how about lots more stuff, like regulation and tax increases?


  43. 43
    Rick says:

    I mean “Sojourner”

  44. 44
    Sojourner says:

    The Constitution doesn’t require an up or down vote either. However, the Constitution does require the Senate to make and follow its own rules.

    Brennan was before my time but Ginsburg was only officially nominated after Hatch approved her. Bush could save this country a good deal of grief by following Clinton’s lead. Instead, it has turned into a macho power contest. So much for uniting rather than dividing. Although he might have meant uniting the members of each party.

  45. 45
    Rick says:

    Well, then we’re back to Forehead Paul Begala’s “stroke of the pen/law of the land/kinda cool” days. I gave the Dubya campaign a few C-notes. Maybe he can appoint me ambassador to the principality of Monte Carlo. No need to bother the Senate with a vote.

    This is getting better.


  46. 46
    Sojourner says:

    That does appear to be the direction the Repubs want to go. Don’t include the Dems in the creation of new legislation and forget about that advise and consent stuff. Just shut up and cast your losing vote. Let Bush get whatever he wants – an unprovoked war, gut environmental regulations, shift even more wealth to the very rich.

    I continue to be surprised that the so-called conservatives, who supposedly don’t trust the government, want to hand total control over to one party.

    How odd is that?

  47. 47
    Rick says:


    Twelve of my first 25 years on Earth I had the near-Treblinka experience of “total control” by the Democrats. Atop that suffering came the Nixon Reign of Death.

    And now, 3 years running of “total control” by the GOP. Our republican experiment is obviously over. We should turn our affairs over to an NGO of our betters.

    The horrors my parents and grandparents suffered from 1933-1947 under “total control” of one party. Prolly not a coincidence that’s TWO YEARS longer than the concurrent Third Reich.


    P.S. Yes, a mocking tone. But your concerns mirror those outlandish ones of the Freepers of the late 90s. We endure, we Americans.

  48. 48
    Darrell says:

    Let Bush get whatever he wants – an unprovoked war, gut environmental regulations, shift even more wealth to the very rich

    Behold how the left so often perceives the day’s issues: “unprovoked war”, “gutting” of environmental regulations, robbing the poor to give to the rich. Such a balanced and insightful perspective

    Problem is, Senate Dems have interpreted their ‘advice and consent’ powers into obstructing the will of the majority of their fellow elected Senators. You raised a good pt on the blue-slips, but that practice is nothing but ‘blackballing’, as Rick correctly described it. It should be done away with too, no matter if the President is Dem or Republican.

  49. 49
    Sojourner says:


    Your mocking fails to address the issue I raised but it is your first-amendment right to respond however you choose.


    Which will of the majority are you referring to? The majority who are represented by Democratic senators?

  50. 50
    Rick says:


    Let’s put things to a vote and find out about the majority.

    Or, if Dubya’s nominees are actual extremists, they’ll be defeated, after Sen. Voinovich joins Sen. Boxer in a good cry.


  51. 51
    Sojourner says:

    Just to refresh your memory, the Repub senators clearly are unwilling to vote against their own party leadership even when they would like to. So your assumption that a vote reflects the sentiment of the majority of the senate is highly questionable.

    You should understand that since you claim that Ginsburg is an extremist yet her nomination was successful.

    I’m sorry that you’re having trouble falling this dialogue. Perhaps it’s best to end it since you’re struggling so much.

  52. 52
    Rick says:

    Just to refresh your memory, the Repub senators clearly are unwilling to vote against their own party leadership even when they would like to.

    After my pointed reference to Voinovich, clearly it’s not *me* that’s struggling and having trouble following the dialogue.

    You’re also failing to reckon with the overly praised “moderate” and “maverick” seven Senators in last week’s peace-in-our-time deal. Really toed the party line, they did.

    And a subtler point is that it’s easy to pronounce someone an “extremist” (as I do, and as various Senators, special interest panicmongers, and bloggers do), but in a representative body of 100, they come out in the wash.


  53. 53
    Sojourner says:

    I’m not sure why you believe Voinovich supports your argument. The reality is he clearly wanted to stop Bolton in committee but lacked the guts. His cowardice supports my argument not yours.

    As to the 7 who tried to prevent the conservatives from trashing the Senate, it’s way too early to draw any conclusions. DeWine, for example, has stated that he is prepared to vote with his party if the agreement isn’t honored. Since it remains unclear what the agreement actually entails, it’s only a matter of time that he gives in. Hardly an act of courage. DeWine is simply trying to hold onto his label as a moderate but will cave quickly under even modest pressure.

    As to the extremist label, it’s pretty obvious that the vast majority of Americans would be appalled by Janice Rogers Brown’s positions. Americans do not want to give up environmental laws, labor laws, and other protections. So yes she qualifies as extremist yet she will be approved. Why should I have any confidence that the Repubs won’t force through loons like Brown when they are, in fact, doing exactly that?

  54. 54
    Rick says:

    …it’s pretty obvious that the vast majority of Americans would be appalled by Janice Rogers Brown’s positions.

    But not the vast majority of Californians–cobalt blue state that it is–reelecting her.

    So, it’s not obvious, Sojourner. Merely something you wish to believe.

    Voinovich’s craveness doesn’t support your point–he’s not jumping through admin hoops. Same for the more sane Thune.

    Trust me, when you turn out the lights tonight, you’re safe from the Rovian hordes.


  55. 55
    Sojourner says:

    Oh please. One Californian already chimed in a while back about how little they knew about her. That’s been a dead argument for weeks. Dozing again?

    If Voinovich weren’t jumping through admin hoops, he would have voted to reject Bolton. That was obvious to everyone except, apparently, you. You must be one of those faith-based Repubs.

    Let’s see: The administration did nothing to stop 9/11, started an unprovoked war, has trashed the economy, and is gutting environmental regulations. Yep, I feel real safe.

  56. 56
    Rick says:


    On the say-so of one inattentive Californian–claiming observation of all– I must disregard the verdict of the people (the bastards), and the presumptively authoritative ABA? So glad that’s settled to your satisfaction.

    Doesn’t seem like PMS Voinovich is going to vote on Bolton. If the admin had the lion-trainer hoop skills of your fevered imagination, the “nucular” (as my mind-controlling master sez) option would’ve been exercised weeks and weeks ago.

    Unprovoked? Did you stop paying attention to Iraq in ’91? Trashed the economy? What happened to that “reality-based” claim? As long as a single damp patch of ground in Amurika remains regulated at a “navigable water,” the gutting claim is alarmist boob bait.


  57. 57
    Sojourner says:

    That inattentive Californian was backed up by other people who talked about how difficult it is to get information about a judge’s position. Nice try but no cigar.

    If Voinovich votes against him on the senate floor, Bolton’s nomination will still pass. A no vote from him means absolutely nothing. Stopping him in committee would have killed the nomination. Once again, nice try but no cigar.

    What did Iraq do to us since ’91? Was it all those Iraqis on the airplanes on 9/11? Whoops, those were Saudis. Was it the close ties between Hussein and al Qaeda? Nope. Can’t be that. Was it all those WMD that mysteriously left the country?

    Um, check out the debt, check out the unemployment level, check out the failure of salaries to keep up with inflation. This may be your idea of a booming economy but it sure ain’t mine.

    What flavor of Kool-aid did they serve you today?

  58. 58
    Rick says:


    Wow, back up by others! Very definitive refutation of her–what?–75% of the vote. If she’s so unsettling, it’ll be debated; if “disturbing,” defeated. She was unobjectionable up until Nan Aron and Ralph Neas issued their marching orders to their marionettes in the Senate. Cigar for me!

    Voinovich not having attended or paid attention in committee gave him little cause to oppose a nominee. But getting deeper in touch with his feminine side, he’s opposing him now. Again, not on the Dubya page, and again, Rick enjoys another cheap Swisher Sweet cigarillo.

    Saddam chronically violated the terms of the armistice–most notably by firing on our patrolling aircraft, and expelling the U.N. inspectors. Remember, even Clinton felt compelled to treat to brutalitarian to a Tomahawk shower now and then, and the ejection of the inspectors was the goad for the 1998 declaration of regime change as a policy aim. Then there are his ties with AQ, and his fingerprints on the first WTC attack (one or more of the bombers was holding an Iraqi passport). Whoops, this is getting to be like a smoke filled room here.

    Debt, bad. Unemployment level is practically Clintonian in it’s post-WWII low level. What inflation–about 2% Wages & productivity are strong, in the American tradition.

    Sounds like you’ve been taking your Krugman-aid straight up. Notice the spanking for mendacity he got from the outgoing ombudsman? To be treasured always.


  59. 59
    Sojourner says:

    Don’t forget the Kool-aid with those cigars!

    If you want to believe that Californians knew her record and positions when they voted for her, that’s up to you. You’re certainly willing to believe quite a lot of what W is feeding you so why not.

    No, she was unobjectionable until people started looking at her record. Why is it you refuse to address her positions? Can we assume that you’re against environmental regs? Cough, cough. Against labor laws? Make those kids work 60-hour weeks! They’re not going to need an education. Screw ’em. Yeah, that’s our kind of judge!

    How do you know how much attention Voinovich paid to the Bolton nomination? Certainly, Bolton’s record is quite well-known. But then anyone who disagrees with your boy, Shrub, by definition has something wrong with him.

    I doubt that anybody really knows how many unemployed there are. If you look at the number of new jobs created, the number of jobs lost, and the number of people entering the job market each month, the numbers suggest that the unemployment rate is higher. But then this administration tends to be rather loose with the facts. Remember the claim about a drop in the number of terrorist attacks last year when, in fact, the number increased? Whoops. And all the claims about the effectiveness of abstinence programs? Ain’t anal sex just the best?

    I’d forgotten that Clinton started a war in Iraq. Perhaps my memory was overwhelmed by all the wag the dog claims coming from your side of the aisle. And certainly Hussein’s refusal to let the weapons inspectors in was a problem. Whoops – he DID let them in. It was W who pushed them out. Imagine that.

    One or more of the bombers had an Iraqi passport? Using that criterion, why didn’t Bush go after the Saudis? They had 15 citizens on those planes. That logic’s a bit weak.

    Ties with al Qaeda? Yeh, being the good Muslim that he is, Saddam and bin Laden were best friends. Take another sip of that Kool-aid.

    I guess you missed Krugman’s shredding of the Ombudsman in response. Spanked the guy real good.

  60. 60
    Rick says:

    Can we assume that you’re against environmental regs? Cough, cough. Against labor laws? Make those kids work 60-hour weeks! They’re not going to need an education. Screw ’em. Yeah, that’s our kind of judge!


    Thanks for the cigars, and the mirth.

    Now you run along and peddle your otherworldly, pretend “facts” to the Kossack/MoveOn loons. Their still going long on “crazy.”

    And, like you, I suspect, going long on Reynolds Wrap for headwear.


  61. 61
    Sojourner says:

    As usual, Rick is big on mocking and decidedly lacking on facts and logic. I ask you a legitimate question and you can’t even pretend to provide an answer. I had always assumed that the Kool-aid would wear off after a while but it looks like it causes permanent cognitive defects.

    My sincere sympathies for your loss.

  62. 62
    tvd says:

    “Wow, back up by others! Very definitive refutation of her–what?–75% of the vote. If she’s so unsettling, . . . ”

    In a retention election. She wasn’t running against anyone!

  63. 63
    Rick says:


    You asked numerous questions, and I feel free to ignore or address as the spirit moves.

    Which one(s) are so legitimate that it/they should challenge me? You appear to subscribe to a paranoid/apocalytpic (call it FReeperesque, let’s say), rather than calm/rational style, so I’m ingesting huge amounts of salt. As noted, you appear to have a set of facts at your fingertips entirely independent of the real record.

    Er, tvd–“extremists” can be lowered over the side. Can you say Rose Bird?

    Why would a dismaying extremist be unopposed of deep-blue California, one wonders?


  64. 64
    Sojourner says:

    It appears that you choose to ignore all of my questions in favor of name calling. A good strategy for the intellectually challenged but not particularly interesting. Nor is your reliance on a single election as evidence of support for a judge’s ideas. Repetition may be useful for learning how to add but in a political discussion, quickly indicates the presence of a limited mind which has nothing else to offer.

    I will accept your argument when you provide proof that her ideas were readily known in the days leading up to the election. I know that information is not available in a number of states and have no reason to believe California is different in that respect.

    In the mean time, as evidence against popular support for her ideas, check the poll numbers for Bush’s overhaul of social security. Hardly suggestive of a mandate for loony tune ideas such as returning to the pre-New Deal days.

    In place of blind ideological repetition, perhaps you could offer a new argument or idea. Unlike you, I find insults in place of discussion to be quite boring.

  65. 65
    Rick says:

    “Ditto.” The cigar smoking is much more satisfying.

    The last SS reform poll showed 52% approval, that by not-GOP stalwart Zogby.

    As with every such poll, the devil is in the details. Meaning how the questions are framed. Here, of course, the absolute truth is the reform proponents best friend.

    I have no great stake in that fight, since if the cigars don’t kill me and I live another 17 years, I’ll start collecting my share from the younger generation. And I likely will have gone to my reward before the 2042-or-whatever collapse.

    Reform now won’t affect my old-age dinner plans (Friskies or Whiskas) much either way.


  66. 66
    Sojourner says:

    Last poll I saw showed 63% against. And each time Shrub goes on the road to sell it, the number gets higher.

    Absolute truth being best for the reformer? How about guaranteed cuts in benefits for added debt of $2-3 trillion dollars. Oh yeh, that’s a winning argument.

  67. 67
    Rick says:


    Benefit cuts are built in to the current, unsustainable system. As indicated by my Great Age, I may not suffer them, but just the “young folks.” There being screwed for sure by the current “risky scheme.”

    Absolute truth: changes in Social Security are *going to be made.*

    All the wailing is just political positioning.

    Here’s the most recent poll (Zogby):


Comments are closed.