Comments on: Truths and Consequences

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:10:15 +0000

Melissa, Michelle Bachman really does spell her name Michele Bachmann.

By: Melissa

Melissa — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:52:10 +0000

Please use spell check. I like your writing but reading misspelled words is like hearing nails on a chalk board.

By: Pen

Pen — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:56:23 +0000

Dunc, explain how an executive can aborgate a law passed by congress? (DADT)

I think you’re very right about that Greg. I’m not understanding how American expectations of their president even remotely fit in with what it seems to say in the US constitution.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:29:56 +0000

“Obama could have simply declined to appeal DADT and DOMA in the courts, showing the same leadership the Republican governors of Florida and California did.”

That is simply not true. The justice department is supposed to work independently. An executive directive to the Justice department is very rare, troubling, problematic, and if it happens it is usually in the form of appointing special council and this is not an appropriate use of that.

Yes, it is technically possible but that is the ethical equivalent of Nixon firing Cox. (sort of, hard to draw an exact parallel).

I do believe that an executive order to the military to acknowledge the judges decision and not practice DADT until further notice would be acceptable, but if DADT became legislative dogma afterwards that would cause havoc.

It is very frustrating but it is not appropriate to blame Obama for making a bad decision. Well, he did make the same mistake every single person I’ve ever seen run for president make: promise to pass or change lawas when he’s only going to be the president and not the congress.

By: Boo

Boo — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 12:59:29 +0000

Obama could have simply declined to appeal DADT and DOMA in the courts, showing the same leadership the Republican governors of Florida and California did. Done, let’s move on. Alternatively, the Democrats in Congress could have chosen not to freeze moderate Republicans who had shown some indication they would be willing to come along on DADT repeal out of the amendment process to the Defense Reauthorization Bill.

He says he’s for LGBT rights while actively fighting against them. He does not have to fight against them, but he does.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 03:52:45 +0000

You are correct about pork barrel vs earmarks, but we conflate the two in our national psyche because we are too stupid to handle the complexity of it all.

Doesn’t really matter, though. Paul played to the ignorance of his supporters by promising to not engage in earmarking. Live by the dumb-ass lie, die by the dumb-ass lie.

Paul, you are missing the point . The same exact people are insisting that the ten commandments of the christian bible are the basis of the law, and they are insisting that Abrahamic scripture be emblazoned on the walls of our public institution. But not the Muslim stuff. To suggest that this is about keeping church and state separate is abysmally ignorant of you. I assume that is the willful, politically motivated kind of ignorance because no actual person can actually be that ignorant. Right?

By: Paul Murray

Paul Murray — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 03:46:27 +0000

I had thought that “earmarks” were the means by which Congress exercised its authority to specify how the executive may spend money. Pork-barreling is one thing, earmarks as such quite another.

As for Sharia law – I don’t see any problem a state saying that the laws of the land are those laws made by state congress, not those promulgated by a religion, and that the judiciary has no business enforcing laws that are not actually laws at all. A pity they didn’t make it a little broader.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:49:10 +0000

We have a majority rule of 51 percent for many things, then the filibuster cancels the majority unless it is overridden (in the senate only) and you need 60 votes to override that, and then there are some things that require a “super majority” (there are various super majorities).

And exactly two parties. That’s not in the constitution but we are somehow stuck with it.

By: Dunc

Dunc — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:38:32 +0000

This may be a miscommunication issue due to my living in a culture where multi-party parliamentary systems of government are the norm… To me, “clear majority” just means there are more members of Party A than all others combined.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:29:16 +0000

Dunc, you asked “Dems had clear majority in both Houses, right?” and the answer is no, the Republicans have filibusterer power. That means that if the Dems would vote 51-49 for something, it does not happen because the Republicans stop it.

Of course, they can change that if the simply vote to change the rules at the opening of session next term.

Or maybe the dems can start making “nuclear threats” like the repubs do. Or, as you are generally suggesting, grow some balls.