am I the only one angry about the news?

[JohnRoberts]

I am optimistic that the tea party movement really represents a shift in government accountability demanded by voters, and it will take a couple more election cycles to clean up the senate due to staggered elections (only 1/3 every 2 years).

I'm with the Tea Party in some respects, but which so-called "Tea Party" politicians give you cause for optimism? I haven't seen one who seems committed to any ideals, including those of the Tea Party.

I have low regard for all politicians.

The thing about the tea party that I find encouraging is voters actually paying attention to candidates, after they are elected. The old days of say whatever it takes to get in office, then do whatever you want later, just doesn't play any more.

Even President Obama has lost the independent centrist swing voters who were encouraged by his promising speeches before he was in office, but are now disappointed by what he did with that mandate since. The list of broken promises, is not unusual  for politicians but can be a problem when voters are paying attention.

The election next year will hinge on jobs. In the classic words of james Carville "it's the economy stupid" and I find it remarkable that growing more real jobs (not just short term construction) and growing the private economy, which are in his actual self interest to get re-elected, still seem so difficult. The pipeline delay is just another red flag for any thoughtful people paying attention. 

The only tea party politicians deserving of any respect will be those who keep their promises and practice limited government. This can only be determined over time, not from campaign speeches.

The republicans are a little too happy because they were out of power when this started and not in the spotlight, but in many ways they are as culpable as the democrats, and the microscope will get around to inspecting them after we clean up the more dangerous offenders who still wield power.

They were in power when this all started, but are happy enough to propagate the myth that the meltdown somehow started on 1/21/2009. Many people believe, for example, that TARP happened under Obama. I'm curious as to why you identify the current administration, full of thieves and enablers as it is, as the more dangerous threat? When I look at the Tea Party-endorsed alternatives who have never shown or expressed any commitment to deal in reality with he problems of budget, endowments, lobbyists, etc., another four years of democratic rule looks like the lesser of two evils.

The last presidential election was run against the much hated George Bush, even though he wasn't even running. I don't expect that to work very well this time around, while they will probably work hard to divert attention from the current conditions. The past administration is no longer a threat to bankrupt us, because they are no longer in office. The house is no longer a serious threat since the last election broke up that pork party with immediate voter feedback (2 year election cycle for house members) by voting the worst bums out.  The senate will take longer to turn around, but I am optimistic that 2012, will probably reverse that free spending majority, and by 2014 that bowl will be flushed at least once. 

I won't make predictions about capturing the white house in 2012 since that really will depend how the economy is doing a year from now, and if I could predict that with any precision, i'd be rich.  I believe the economy is better right now than the news pukes paint it, but if the administration keeps doing what they are doing, they will keep getting what they are getting, even when it is in their self interest to do otherwise.

JR

 

[living sounds]

I think it's pretty damning that two notorious conservative supreme court justices reportedly just attended a dinner sponsored by the very law firm argueing the conservative side of the health care law case - the very same day the court decided to take up that case. IMO the cozying up between business and government currently (or rather, for decades now) is a far bigger problem than any financed-by-taxes entitlement programs... The fact that the some members right at the top of the judicial branch have questionable ethics standards shows just how bad things are right now...

 

[JohnRoberts]

I think it's pretty damning that two notorious conservative supreme court justices reportedly just attended a dinner sponsored by the very law firm argueing the conservative side of the health care law case - the very same day the court decided to take up that case. IMO the cozying up between business and government currently (or rather, for decades now) is a far bigger problem than any financed-by-taxes entitlement programs... The fact that the some members right at the top of the judicial branch have questionable ethics standards shows just how bad things are right now...

You're entitled to your opinions about our judiciary, but notorious?

That didn't take long. SCOTUS is sure to come under attack from the liberal press because they agreed to hear arguments and decide the constitutionality of several key aspects of the health care bill.  The sooner the better as far as I am concerned.  I was a little surprised when the administration fast tracked this to be argued before the election, while they ducked and covered to not face the pipeline decision, a much lesser issue IMO.  Perhaps they expect public opinion to play in the SC decision (it shouldn't). It should be decided on the points of law. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of lawyers, despite sometimes feeling like the latter.

I don't have health insurance and don't want to be forced to buy it, by my government. What's next a law that we all need to buy an electric car from GM (for the common good)? Declaring the health care law unconstitutional would be a hollow victory since we are now a few years later with little real progress, just further down the wrong road. We needed reform years ago. We are wasting precious time.

I don't agree with the philosophy of several justices and several past SC decisions but serving on the court is not the honey pot for extracting wealth from government service, the congress holds the purse strings (while they don''t hold them very tight). I'm no fan of government pukes, but even I am not inclined to impeach the integrity of the SC justices (even the ones I don't like). Please give me something stronger than a dinner. Do you think they are that easily swayed?  By the time Judges reach this level they are pretty well known and vetted for dubious behavior. We do have our share of lower court judges that need some remedial law training as does any large group, but the supremes have been through the gauntlet and passed. 

JR

PS: Speaking of the judiciary... I saw a recent article about our jail population and backlog in civil courts because criminal courts are so overloaded. Justice delayed is justice denied, so this is not something to be comfortable with. While better that criminals are caught and prosecuted than to openly flaunt our laws, which diminishes our rule of law, but inspection of what these people are being prosecuted for, reveals some interesting trends.  Drug selling, illegal immigration, and a new rising category is legislative overreach where some feel-good law, like protecting some endangered animal, gets a farmer or homeowner in trouble when he kills a dangerous animal threatening his family in his back yard, etc. The criminalization of many relatively harmless drugs (remember prohibition), and gross mismanagement of illegal immigration, are problems that our legislators perpetually kick the can down the road instead of seriously addressing. Just because congress passes a law making something illegal, does not solve the problem. They need to address root causes, not just band aid the symptoms.

 

[living sounds]

PS: Speaking of the judiciary... I saw a recent article about our jail population and backlog in civil courts because criminal courts are so overloaded. Justice delayed is justice denied, so this is not something to be comfortable with. While better that criminals are caught and prosecuted than to openly flaunt our laws, which diminishes our rule of law, but inspection of what these people are being prosecuted for, reveals some interesting trends.  Drug selling, illegal immigration, and a new rising category is legislative overreach where some feel-good law, like protecting some endangered animal, gets a farmer or homeowner in trouble when he kills a dangerous animal threatening his family in his back yard, etc. The criminalization of many relatively harmless drugs (remember prohibition), and gross mismanagement of illegal immigration, are problems that our legislators perpetually kick the can down the road instead of seriously addressing. Just because congress passes a law making something illegal, does not solve the problem. They need to address root causes, not just band aid the symptoms.

On this I can wholeheartedly agree. The drug war is a disaster. I can really recommend that show "The Wire" to see how the legislation plays out in reality.


As for the judges, there were serveral incidents which probably didn't get reported much in the conservative side of the media, like the involvement of Clarence Thomases wife with a tea party group. And many are stockholders etc., I don't think that should be the case for a judge.
But the real problem is with their decisions, which are so obviously based on ideological viewpoints rather than law, especially the Citizens United decision (which the actual citizens disagree with by huge margins). Or the other 'notorious' decision that handed Bush the presidency. And lot's more. It's not really based on the law, it's based on pretty extreme ideological viewpoints, this is pretty obvious IMO.

 

[JohnRoberts]

On this I can wholeheartedly agree. The drug war is a disaster. I can really recommend that show "The Wire" to see how the legislation plays out in reality.

While I should stop while you're agreeing with me, I don't consider television drama as responsible sources of current events. Entertainment programs have served as vehicles for proffering social and political opinions for so long we become immune to it, unless we actually know the history and real events, in which case it can become distracting. 

But this isn't new, even the old twilight zone and original star trek episodes were little morality plays tied up in neat fictional constructs.

I can't speak about the veracity of the wire since I never watched it. I don't find the subject matter appealing.

As for the judges, there were serveral incidents which probably didn't get reported much in the conservative side of the media, like the involvement of Clarence Thomases wife with a tea party group. And many are stockholders etc., I don't think that should be the case for a judge.

I'm not sure where to find a conservative side of the media (Fox? WSJ?). The mainstream media here seems overwhelmingly left of center.

Judges are entitled to have a life and own property. It's not like they are overpaid as judges. They are supposed to recuse themselves from cases where they have personal interest in the matter. There has been discussion that Kagan should recuse herself from the health care review because of her past work representing the administration regarding this legislation, and one of the conservative judges for a different reason, but last i heard all justices were planning to participate in this opinion. 

While I don't expect Kagan to be sympathetic to my views, I will trust her to make her decision based on her understanding of the law and not her partisan preferences. There should be enough brain power in the room to reach the right decision. Whether I think it's right or not it becomes the law of the land.

But the real problem is with their decisions, which are so obviously based on ideological viewpoints rather than law, especially the Citizens United decision (which the actual citizens disagree with by huge margins). Or the other 'notorious' decision that handed Bush the presidency. And lot's more. It's not really based on the law, it's based on pretty extreme ideological viewpoints, this is pretty obvious IMO.

Operating at the highest court level often requires working without a net (without precedent). The general biases of these jurists is so well known that is part of their selection process. Often they surprise their handlers and tack in some new direction after some time on the bench but i will not question their legal bonifides or validity of their decisions. 

I can disagree with some of their past decisions without disrespecting the validity of those decisions. There are several lower courts that seem to overreach their authority, but if important enough decisions will get kicked up to the high court to settle. And special interest groups are often maneuvering to retest old court decisions they don't like. 

JR

PS: I hear that publicity over the Abramoff book (and 60 minutes TV showcase of it) has triggered congressional hearings to review the law regarding congress and trading on insider information. This is not a new concept as there have been bills proposed to address this for years that never reacher muster. Maybe the public sentiment will be strong enough this time around to change this, while the attention span of the public is about a week, so they better hurry, and hope some other breaking news doesn't bump this out of the daily news cycle. 

 

[living sounds]

While I should stop while you're agreeing with me, I don't consider television drama as responsible sources of current events. Entertainment programs have served as vehicles for proffering social and political opinions for so long we become immune to it, unless we actually know the history and real events, in which case it can become distracting. 

But this isn't new, even the old twilight zone and original star trek episodes were little morality plays tied up in neat fictional constructs.

I can't speak about the veracity of the wire since I never watched it. I don't find the subject matter appealing.

This show is different in almost every aspect, they went for realism whenever possible and whereever it counts. And while some things like character developement are constructed so they drive the narrative the actual day-to-day events are made to be as real as possible. It's quite a revelation to watch this, since all the long-ago-lerned expectations of narrative causality don't apply. The guys who made it worked for many years as police or police reporters themselves, and based the show on these experiences and many real life characters. And as for morality, yes, they show the decline of the working class and the results of the drug war, but also corruption of the political process and within the Democratic party. It's not black-and-white in any way, very intelligent and with great depth. It is the highest rated fictional show at every relevant review portal, realistic as well as a piece of art. I sound like a fanboy here, but for a reason. 

BTW, I think there's nothing wrong with agreeing, at least once in a while.  8)

 

[living sounds]

This is interesting: