NO WE CAN'T: An Incomplete List of Things We Shouldn't Even Bother Trying to Do, as Democrats

[coti]

Because They're Just Impossible.

Maybe it would take less time to list the two or three things we CAN (or could, when we had massive majorities in the House and Senate, AND the Presidency) do, as some people would judge our chances. But posting about passing legislation for "National Urinal Cake Week" or resolving that "Cheerios is the healthiest and tastiest breakfast cereal of them all!" itself just seems so pointless.

So, what should we cross off the list as totally unattainable? What's not even worth THINKING about as a goal for our country, so you've heard here on DU?

1) Passing the public option

2) Rescinding Don't Ask-Don't Tell without Congress

3) Rescinding tax cuts for those with incomes of over a MILLION dollars a year

4) Voting in the Democratic Presidential primary for 2012

5) Talking about what we shouldn't bother trying to do, as Democrats, because the political environment is so terrible, which we can't change either


I'm quite sure there's a lot more out there, since things suck so bad, which means both that there's a lot of work to do and that it's impossible to do it. So feel free to post whatever ELSE it is we shouldn't even bother trying to do. You could probably pick up ideas from other threads, too. After all, it's pretty much all we've heard for the last two years whenever it came to doing something that actually mattered!

[BzaDem]

1. Are you actually claiming that the Senate didn't try to pass a public option? Or try to rescind tax

cuts for those with incomes over a million per year?

Or that there is a legal way to rescind DADT that wouldn't allow a President Palin to rescind Medicare?

Why do you think that just because something "actually matters" that it is feasible?

[coti]

2. No, the Senate took the public option out of their bill and never voted on it.

And they still can rescind the tax breaks for the wealthy, by allowing them all to expire.

But- lemme guess- we can't do that, right?

[BzaDem]

3. "But- lemme guess- we can't do that, right?"

Sure, we could do that, if we simultaneously take a 310 billion anti-stimulus to the economy on the backs of the poor and middle class this year, and ANOTHER 310 billion anti-stimulus to the economy on the backs of the poor and middle class next year.

[coti]

6. And return taxes to Clinton-era levels. Can we NOT do that? nt

[BzaDem]

9. There is a difference between raising taxes in a Clinton economy and raising taxes in THIS economy.

So while eventually returning to the Clinton era tax levels for everyone is fine when the economy is in good shape, it would be disastrous in this economy.

(Returning to Clinton era rates for the rich is fine even in this economy, since tax rates generally don't influence how much they spend, but returning to Clinton era rates for the middle class would be devastating in this economy.)

[coti]

13. This economy that has resulted from the same tax cuts the President plans to extend.

I'm hearing a lot of middle-class folks just saying, hell, rescind them all. They know this tax plan isn't working or creating jobs.

Further, cutting the deficit so much, so quickly, would free up a lot of money that we were just going to hand over to people who weren't going to do anything productive with it. The Feds could take that money and do something like start a massive retooling of our industry and homes for green energy. We could get the economy going pretty quickly- and actually create JOBS.

[BzaDem]

15. Cutting the deficit so quickly would not free up ONE DIME, because Congress sets spending levels

(not the President).

If we had the full 4 trillion tax cut expire, that would be 4 trillion out of the economy. Not a single dime extra would be spent.

[coti]

21. And now we CAN'T do such a program, because we lost the House.

Would have been a great program, though.

[BzaDem]

24. Oh sure, a huge spending program would have been great. But that is completely independent of taxes.

In an ideal world, we would keep both the middle class tax rates and have a large spending program. (Until the economy recovered, at which point we would have to cut the deficit and probably raise taxes.)

[coti]

28. OK- can't raise taxes or spend more money until economy recovers, which won't happen with no jobs

and a huge deficit.

Alright! The list is definitely lengthening! This is good.

[coti]

22. Add that to the list: Massive green energy retooling program nt

[BzaDem]

25. The stimulus contained a large amount of money for green energy. He tried to get even more in the

cap and trade bill, but after Republicans broke off negotiations there was no way such a bill would even get a majority in the Senate (let alone 60 votes).

[coti]

26. Note to self: Don't bother with cap and trade. Got it. nt

[BzaDem]

30. Why should he bother with cap and trade? Do you think a Republican house would even let it get out

of committee?

What is this obsession with trying to do things that have a 0% probability of happening?

[coti]

32. I know! Seriously. And that's pretty much everything, right? Is there anything else you can think

of? You can include the past two years, too.

I'm just trying to get it all out there in one place.

[coti]

35. Frankly, I'm amazed anything has ever gotten done in D.C. at all! How'd we even get the Capitol

built as our place to go hang out while we weren't able to do anything?

[BzaDem]

36. There's a difference between "not being able to do anything" and "not being able to do everything."

[coti]

38. Sorry, anything that MATTERS. There's always National Urinal Cake Week! nt

[BzaDem]

41. There's a difference between "anything that matters TO YOU" and "anything that actually matters."

For example, the vast majority of Democrats approve of Obama's healthcare law, the stimulus, and financial reform. The fact that there are a few that don't doesn't mean they aren't monumental accomplishments.

[coti]

45. No, they don't- not the informed ones. They only approve of any of that out of loyalty.

They don't want the polls being taken of them used against Democrats.

Anybody who isn't going to defend Obama to the death and actually knows what they're talking about will acknowledge (privately) that HCR was nothing but roping in customers for and giving away our tax dollars to the insurance industry, that financial reform had no teeth at all, and that the stimulus bill didn't come anywhere close to creating enough jobs.


HCR made things worse, in fact. Did you see the Commonweath Fund study that just came out saying that the health insurance premium for a family of four could be well over $20K/year in 2020?

[BzaDem]

46. The tiny group that thinks otherwise is completely and utterly uninformed.

Not only are they uninformed, but in 10 years, they will have a completely different position and try to pretend they never thought otherwise. Just like the people in the 30s who thought Social Security should be killed because it "wasn't good enough."

You go right on and keep thinking otherwise though :hi:

[coti]

49. You're probably right- in 10 years, when we're all paying $20K+/yr for insurance, we're gonna flip!

And we're gonna say, "Thank you SO much, Obama, for forcing us into this totally broken system without imposing any real regulations and no competition at all on the industry!"

[BzaDem]

51. See? You try to act all informed, but then you say there are no real regulations on insurance cos.

:rofl:

[coti]

53. Which one? The one where everyone is forced to buy in, EVEN people with pre-existing conditions?

Do you consider that a "regulation?"

Or the ridiculously low and easily manipulated MLR? Is that it?

[BzaDem]

57. Why would forcing someone to buy-in with a pre-existing condition be more problematic

than forcing someone to buy-in without one? The ones with pre-existing conditions benefit exponentially more than those without any.

You only have to buy in if the premium is less than 8% of your income.

In addition to guaranteed issue and community rating, the government now bans lifetime and annual caps, bans recessions with external appeals process, mandates what benefits are in what plans, minimum actuarial values, free preventative care, and a non-ridiculously-low and non-easily-manipulated-MLR (notwithstanding your bogus assertion to the contrary).

[coti]

58. How do those keep COSTS down- which is what we're talking about?

Especially when the Commonwealth Fund says that's not exactly how it's going to go down?

[BzaDem]

60. I was replying to your assertion that there were "no real regulations" on the insurance companies.

Though as to cost, there are cost controls in the bill, including the MLR, bundling provisions, comparative effectiveness research, and state negotiations through prudent purchasing on the exchanges (along with a lot of more-specific cost controls, such as those relating to hospital re-admissions). I would have preferred more cost controls, but that is not an argument for not passing the bill or that the bill isn't a huge achievement.

[coti]

62. That's not an argument for not passing the bill? Controlling costs was the whole point!

Sure, you can just force everyone into the system, but if you don't control costs, all you're going to do is make the insurance companies rich and fleece the middle class.

[BzaDem]

65. No it wasn't.

Controlling costs was one of the points. Expanding access was another.

If you are correct that costs aren't controlled, then no one will be forced into the system (since no one will be mandated to do anything if it costs more than 8% of their income). The idea that we should not extend access to 30 million people (15 million of them on a GOVERNMENT program, Medicaid) because we couldn't get perfect cost controls NOW is absurd.

[coti]

67. Controlling costs IS expanding access. The best way to expand access, in fact. nt

[BzaDem]

69. No, it isn't "the best way." Even in countries like Switzerland and the Netherlands,

where they control costs significantly, there would still be a high percentage of the uninsured if it weren't for subsidies (and a mandate).

Republicans say the same thing about controlling costs -- they say the best way to expand access is to control costs. Therefore, no subsidies required. That is false.

[coti]

75. That's what Republicans SAY, that's not what they MEAN, though. They don't want cost-controlling

regulations or competition.

Subsidies do also help with access, but without cost controls all you're going to do is bankrupt the federal government. That's exactly what everyone is worried about now, isn't it? Healthcare ballooning the deficit?

I'd rather have cost controls and no subsidies than subsidies and no cost controls. Plus, subsidies are easier to pass legislatively once you've controlled costs.

[BzaDem]

79. We couldn't get a public option. It was subsidies and moderate cost controls or NOTHING.

"Plus, subsidies are easier to pass legislatively once you've controlled costs."

No way. In order to have a super strong cost control like a public option, you need everyone paying the same thing, you need a framework like exchanges, and you need insurance regulations (so the public option doesn't go bankrupt trying to compete with cherrypicking insurance companies). That's what we got.

A bill adding a public option on top of the existing framework could be done in 10 pages. A bill forcing price controls on insurance companies and providers could probably be done in less than 50. Both are a far cry from the 2000 page bill setting up the system required for a future public option or future price controls to work.

The bill we passed enshrines the idea that the federal government is responsible for affordable healthcare into the fabric of our society. Once it takes into effect, it will essentially be unrepealable, and Congress will have no choice but to keep optimizing the system. This was as opposed to before, where there was very little incentive for Congress to EVER take up healthcare at all.

[coti]

83. "Congress will have no choice but to keep optimizing the system." But CAN they? Can WE, as Dems?

Boy, we'd better hope, eh?

Doh, there's that hope word again. We're not supposed to do that, either.

[BzaDem]

89. For example, once Medicare was enacted and people were using its benefits,

it became an accepted part of American society, and it become (for the most part) political suicide to call for its repeal. They have been passing laws trying to improve Medicare ever since.

With this law, we have stated as a society that it is now the responsibility of the Federal government to ensure access and lower costs. That in and of itself is even more important than any little provision in the bill. Before this law, there was NOTHING that incentivized Congress to worry about healthcare for people under 65. It only got taken up once every 20 years or so, and any large reforms usually failed.

Now, with the federal government so intimately involved in the costs and access for people under 65, Congress will have no choice politically but to optimize it once people begin utilizing its benefits.

It will become political suicide to call for a repeal of the pre-existing condition clause. (You already see many Republicans dancing around this.) But if that clause is stuck, then the mandate is stuck too, since you can't have guaranteed issue/community rating without a mandate. But if the mandate is stuck, then so are subsidies. You will have an army of 30 million voters making up to 88k/year (many of whom will be Republicans) who will not stand for their benefits being taken away, similar to the army of Seniors that protects Medicare.

The pre-existing condition clause basically locks in the whole thing. It will eventually become political suicide to call for its repeal (probably within a few years of 2014), and this will mean the only option is to further optimize (rather than repeal) the law.

[coti]

92. I dunno, man- for a Congress and Democratic Party that can't do anything, that's a tall order. nt

[BzaDem]

94. We obviously can do something -- we just enacted the 2000 page healthcare law after a year of

fighting about it.

Likewise, we continue to this day to change Medicare (see doc-fix, etc).

[Lorien]

98. "Health Care"? Um, NO-that's a health insurance profiteering bill

and the year was nothing more than political theater created to get Progressives to swallow a giant 2000 page stack of horseshit without complaint.

[KharmaTrain]

10. The Senate Did Vote On The PO...

When they voted on the House bill last year and it lost. That's how the bill ended up going to reconciliation where the PO was stripped out once and for all before the Senate passed it.

[coti]

14. Oh, that's right, they stripped it out when they only needed 51 votes, when it had like 56 before.

I'd FORGOTTEN about that little piece of trivia that made absolutely no sense at all and actually made it seem like the Senate was going out of its way to destroy the public option.

[KharmaTrain]

16. It Was Throwing Us A Bone...

Good reason you and many others forgot...the vote was done quick and it was a forgone conclusion, this was an attempt to placate us while the final deal was being hammered out behind closed doors. The option was dead the day Baucus and the insurance company lobbyists said it was.

[coti]

19. And then the Medicare buy-in got stripped out too. And that's when Dean said "Kill it." And then

we lost the House in a landslide.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Because Obama had already promised no public option

To his corporate patrons. That secret bargain is now public record. The Senate just had his back (I wish they had ours!).

[Recursion]

74. You have it backwards

The Senate brought up the House bill and it didn't have 60 votes because Lieberman was against the public option. So they wrote a version that didn't have it and it passed. Then Brown got elected, so the Senate bill was as much as we were going to get, so the House passed it and the Senate did a reconciliation vote on it. The reconciliation vote couldn't pass a public option because a reconciliation vote can't add to the deficit past 10 years, and nobody could come up with a public option that didn't add to the deficit.

[coti]

4. The essential question at issue, here, though, is whether the Democrats are actually TRYING.

ARE they trying, when it comes to important issues?

So far, the best effort they've made has been with the tax cuts- and that's been with virtually zero help from the President.

[BrklynLiberal]

5. +1

[BzaDem]

7. Of course they are trying!

Where were you during the healthcare debate?

They got a public option through the House. A public option in the HELP committee. A public option on the merged HELP-Finance bill to the floor (that got 60 votes to proceed to the bill).

When it became clear that there weren't 60 votes for an actual public option in the final bill, they worked for 10 days trying to come up with a compromise, and that was the Medicare buy-in. That actually had 60 votes until Lieberman changed his mind after he realized that progressives liked it.

On DADT, they got it through the House. They got it through the Senate Armed Services committee (which was even harder). The President got Gates and Mullen (chairman of the joint chiefs) to support legislative repeal, and even got one of the service chiefs to support it (and got 2 of the others to support it after a year or two). So far, he has 2 Republicans on board, and he might actually be able to pass it into law.

On the tax issue, they took votes on the middle-class tax cuts in both the House and the Senate, despite pressure not to do so from moderates in both the House and the Senate.

[coti]

8. The PRESIDENT- the one brokering all the deals- our country's leader- is he trying?

Or should we bring him in here to add to the list?

[BzaDem]

12. On DADT, the President did a huge amount of work setting the groundwork for repeal. Getting the

military to change their minds about this (absolutely essential for the repeal to actually happen) is no small feat.

On the tax issue, the President has gone around the country and given at least 100 speeches about Republicans holding the tax cuts hostage.

On the public option, he similarly gave a HUGE number of speeches (including the SOTU) advocating not just for the public option, but for the specific reasons on why we needed one. This was despite knowing that it was basically impossible to get one, given that we needed unanimous support for it in the Democratic caucus and we didn't have it.

The truth is that in terms of domestic policy, there is only so much the President can do. He can make his position public, give speeches, convince others in the executive branch to advocate for his policies, and talk to legislators (and he has done all 4 frequently), but he can't pass policies or force Congresspeople to change their minds.

[coti]

18. He made a lot of those speeches after he'd already made the backroom deal getting rid of it.

The public option, I mean.

On DADT, he made a deal with Congress that prevented him from doing anything himself, then they (predictably) reneged on it- after the military came out with their study saying it should be repealed. And he didn't reneg on his half. And he appealed the federal court ruling striking it down, too.

[BzaDem]

23. From what I understand, the "backroom deal" was that there would be no public option tied to

Medicare. But that was a non-starter in the first place -- that couldn't even get close to passing the House, let alone the Senate. The resulting public option that passed the House was not tied to Medicare at all.

On DADT, the President appealed the court order because there was higher court precedent that already upheld the law. Think about what it would mean if he didn't appeal. In the 1930s, there is Supreme Court precedent upholding the constitutionality of Social Security. Let's say some teabagger brings suit in some court with some right-wing judge, and that judge holds Social Security is unconstitutional. Would you want President Palin to be permitted to simply "not appeal," EVEN THOUGH there was Supreme Court precedent upholding the very law at issue?

As for the "deal" he made with DADT, nothing he did binds himself in the future. If he doesn't get it repealed, he could absolutely use stop-loss powers and stop discharges temporarily under DADT. But that could only last legally until we are no longer calling up reserve forces, so it wouldn't allow anyone to come out publicly. That solution is far less preferable to legislative repeal, which is why he is waiting until legislative repeal becomes impossible before he considers using stop-loss.

[coti]

31. Nice: Can't not appeal when unjustly discriminatory precedent exists...must return to winger court

to further beat down victimized demographic and set more precedent.

[BzaDem]

37. Um, yes. That's how precedent works. We have a court system where higher court precedent trumps

lower court precedent.

[coti]

42. Actually, no, that's NOT how it works. There's nothing in the Constitution saying the Justice Dept.

HAS to appeal all rulings with PERHAPS contradictory precedent.

It ain't contradictory until it's been RULED so.

[BzaDem]

44. It's called faithful execution of the laws. This wasn't "perhaps" contradictory precedent.

This was contradictory precedent. The exact part of the section of the statute in question was already upheld many times. That's why the liberal 9th circuit already agreed to a stay.

[coti]

47. Where is your precedent saying a President has to appeal such a ruling?

This is Constitutional law, teabagger-style.

As far as the clause you mentioned, itself, if the President believes the law to be unconstitutional- which it is, and which judge found- and he then appeals the ruling, wouldn't he then be acting unfaithfully in executing the laws?

Or does he not believe DADT to be unconstitutional?

[BzaDem]

48. Ya want to know what would REALLY be teabagger-style? A view that allowed any president to de facto

repeal any government law he wanted to, so long as he could find a single district court judge out of over 700 to say so.

The Supreme Court decides what laws are Constitutional, not the President. See Marbury vs. Madison, 1803.

[coti]

50. LOL Marbury v. Madison. In other words, "No, I've never seen that precedent."

"Nor do I know anything about Constitutional Law." Because, no, I don't think Marbury v. Madison does it. You're confusing judicial review (the JUDICIAL branch having the power to declare laws unconstitutional) with...something that doesn't exist.

You know, there's something else in the Constitution that you should famliarize yourself with- it's called separation of powers. The President is the head of the EXECUTIVE branch. He makes a lot of "executive" decisions, like whether to appeal rulings. The three branches have SOME checks on each other, but the President being forced to appeal a ruling by another branch isn't one of them.

[BzaDem]

52. Please tell me how "faithful execution of the laws" is consistent with NOT faithfully executing any

law that you can find any district court judge to strike down despite supreme court precedent upholding the law.

[coti]

55. It takes the courage of conviction to do the right, constitutional- as the judge said- thing.

It matters that this is an innocent group of people being oppressed, to begin with. I think faithfully executing the laws means just the opposite of what you think it means, in a case like that.

Besides, the Justice Department didn't bring this case, you know. Further, you act as if people bringing cases can just "shop around" for judges around the country because they're all federal. They can't. Each court has to have personal AND subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant and the case, respectively. That limits options.

[BzaDem]

59. Um, the 21-state lawsuit attacking HCR was filed hours away from the law offices of the plaintiffs,

solely to ensure that the judge in question was a right-wing judge.

Of course you think faithfully executing the laws means not faithfully executing the laws. That is completely consistent with your other precisely wrong statements about other issues throughout this thread.

[coti]

61. Well, the court must have had personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

That doesn't mean that all courts had it- I'm sure they didn't- which is what you seem to be implying.

Proper venue is also an issue. If the feds don't like the court, they can file a motion for forum non conveniens.


Finally, when a judge tells you that a law is a particular way, that's the law until and unless you appeal it- THAT'S your perfect example of "judicial review." There are no forced appeals, anywhere, for outcomes you don't have a problem with. The judge says what the law is, and there is nothing "unfaithful" about acting in line with that ruling. That's why he made the ruling to begin with.

Only someone as well-versed in Constitutional Law as you, someone who would cite Marbury v. Madison as some kind of precedent forcing the executive branch to appeal a ruling, would say that what the judge said was not the law of that case.

[BzaDem]

63. I didn't say the injunction she issued wasn't a valid injunction at the time it was issued.

I simply said that the command to faithfully execute the laws implies that Obama needed to appeal the ruling, given the contrary precedent upholding the law by a higher court. To say otherwise is to imply that any President can de facto repeal any law they want, simply by waiting for an adverse district court ruling. It's amazing how many people here claim to be against the idea of a unitary executive -- unless they don't like the outcome, in which case they favor conceptions of presidential power that allow de facto repeal of any law any district court feels like striking down. Just amazing.

If you feel that there is a single district court judge in the entire United States of America that would not have personal and subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case arguing for striking down the healthcare law, please tell me his or her name and district.

When McCain-Feingold was signed into law, President Bush said at the signing ceremony that he had grave constitutional concerns about the bill. Yet his justice department didn't just defend the law -- they enthusiastically defended the law, even after an adverse district court ruling -- all the way up to the Supreme Court, where they won a 5-4 decision in 2003 upholding essentially the entire law.

[coti]

66. Implies? Implies. Are you saying this is custom? Not the law?

That's not what you were saying earlier.

Are you now saying that nothing in the LAW says that he HAS to appeal the ruling?

[BzaDem]

68. It is absolutely the law. "Implies" doesn't just mean by custom. The Constitution is the supreme law

of the land.

Your view of the law appears to be that Constitutional provisions have no force of law unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise, which is of course a bogus view of the law.

[coti]

70. You're flat-out wrong. A judge- not necessarily the Supreme Court- has to INTERPRET the

Constitution, given the circumstances of a case, for it to have any meaning.

THAT'S why I called your approach to Constitutional Law "teabagger-style." No actual ruling, no interpretation by a judge that it truly means what you say it means, just reading a 4-word phrase in the Constitution and saying well, this is pretty vague, but surely it upholds MY point of view, whatever the circumstances may be.

[BzaDem]

71. Oh OK, so all of Bush's actions were perfectly OK, since the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on them

Got it.

[coti]

72. Oh, well just go arrest him then, since you don't feel you have to wait around for some authority to

declare what he did illegal. Then some other guy off the street can arrest you, then I'll arrest him, and back and forth and back and forth. Who needs a judge?

No, his actions certainly weren't "OK." But they weren't RULED unconstitutional- unless, of course they were.

[BzaDem]

73. I didn't say they his actions were ruled unconstitutional. I said they violate the constitution. n/t

[coti]

77. Ok, so...like I said, you gonna go arrest him? nt

[BzaDem]

80. No, I never said Bush was going to be arrested. I simply said he violated the Constitution. n/t

[coti]

82. In your opinion, or is that the law? Do you get to say what the law is, or do judges,

ruling on the actual facts of the case and on their interpretation of the Constitution?

[BzaDem]

86. Bush actually violated the Constitution in an objective sense.

I'm sort of surprised you are hinting that he didn't (at least until a court says so).

That kind of logic leads to perverse reasoning. John Yoo once said "the 4th amendment does not apply to internal military operations." John Yoo is factually incorrect.

Now, we might not ever hear that from a court, since if people don't know their 4th amendment rights are being violated (and can't prove it), they won't have standing to sue. Not now, and not ever.

But that doesn't mean what Bush did is consistent with the Constitution.

[coti]

88. Soooooo....go arrest him. Geez. What are you waiting for? Objectively, you'll be right.

It just won't be LEGAL.

You can ponder the difference between "legal" and "objective" while the Secret Service beats on you and throws you into the back of a black SUV.

And I'm not hinting that IN MY OPINION he didn't violate the Constitution- he did- but, as far as the LAW is concerned, until that ruling has been made by an honest-to-goodness judge, he didn't.

The same goes for the rest of the Constitution. It requires interpretation by a JUDGE.

[BzaDem]

90. Once again, I NEVER said he was going to be arrested. YOU are the one saying that it is impossible

for one to violate the Constitution if they won't be arrested for it, not me.

[coti]

91. I didn't say he was GOING to be arrested, either. I just don't know why you don't do it, since

you, apparently, have the authority to give a lawful interpretation of the Constitution and bind others by it.

For the record, to clarify what you said I said (which isn't what I said), I'm saying that one has not, by law, violated the Constitution until and unless a judge rules so, whether such a violation is a crime subject to arrest or not.

[BzaDem]

93. I didn't say I had the authority to arrest anyone for any reason or bind anyone for any reason.

I said he violated the Constitution. That's it. You keep bringing up arrest, binding others, etc. Not me.

Though since we're just going in circles here, let's look at an entirely different question. Do you believe the President SHOULD have the power to de facto repeal any law that any district court judge out of 700 throws out? Do you believe any Republican President should have the power to throw out any Democratic Congress' law, as long as someone brings a case somewhere and gets a single district court judge out of 700 to throw it out?

[coti]

99. Sure you said that you had the power to create a binding interpretation of the Constitution. You

said you didn't need a precedent. You didn't need a judge to say anything about it, at all, while considering facts of this case or even another one.

All you needed was those four words in Article II- "faithfully execute the laws"- and you were able to declare with no doubt whatsoever that Obama was bound, by the law, to appeal the DADT decision.

I'm just saying, hey, if you have that kind of authority, why not make use of it with Bush, too? Why not declare what BUSH did unconstitutional, at least, in the same way you would have done if Obama hadn't appealed? Sure, maybe you're not feeling up to slapping the cuffs on old Chimpy yourself, but you could at least call the police with proper jurisdiction and have them arrest him. You know, put a warrant out or something.

[BzaDem]

102. I have said what Bush did was unconstitutional at least 3 times in this very thread.

"Why not declare what BUSH did unconstitutional, at least, in the same way you would have done if Obama hadn't appealed?"

That's exactly what I did do multiple times in this very thread.

So how about answering my separate question? Do you feel that a President SHOULD have the power to de facto repeal any law that someone finds a single district court judge out of 700 to strike down?

[coti]

103. Well, sure. If you can invalidate a law you don't like, why can't he? At least he's a lawyer.

Not to mention the President.

[coti]

64. The only exception to that is death penalty cases, in some states, where there are mandatory

appeals.

[Lorien]

100. If they are, then they're doing so in a sad, pathetic, disorganized manner

repugs all get on message and everyone knows where they stand. Dems have no message and have no leadership; that's a huge part of the problem.

[LiberalEsto]

11. Don't forget: having HOPE

Don't even think about hope, change or having decent jobs.

[coti]

20. Yup- hope, change, strike those. Heck, those went out the window pretty quick, didn't they?

Things are awfully....similar...to the way they were 2 years ago. Worse, really.

[Jamastiene]

27. MAKE him do it.

Obama told us to MAKE him do it when he got elected. That has proven impossible too.

[coti]

29. Don't even THINK about MAKING him do it. He can't! Q.E.D.

Duh!

[BzaDem]

39. Some people would only be pleased if Obama were to formally dissolve Congress. If anyone complained,

they would want him to ask, "you and what standing army!"

[treestar]

43. Make Lieberman do it, too

Really do you take that campaign fluff so literally? You knew at all times that Congress would be in on it, too.

[meow mix]

33. hope and change!

i cant imagine what he would run on in 2012 lol, anything he says is going to sound ludicrous now unless he talks about status quo

[coti]

34. Are we sure he CAN run in 2012? What does Congress have to say about that? nt

[treestar]

40. No you should never quit

But the public option was, in fact, impossible in the 2009-10 Senate.

[Bette Noir]

54. We'll never know, because it was blocked from the beginning.

[treestar]

56. Not true. When we knew Lieberman would not allow a vote on it

and he was Senator No. 60, we knew it could not come from that Senate.

[Edweird]

76. Not so much 'can't' as 'won't'. These things COULD be done - they just aren't.

[kenny blankenship]

78. Apparently we can do things Republicans want to do.

So why bother with voting for Democrats? Forget third parties, we don't even need second parties. There's only one legitimate political party in America, the Republicans. They're the only ones with permissible ideas. If you doubt it, just ask any elected Democrat.

[bvar22]

81. K&R...and some other things we shouldn't even try:

*Ending unnecessary WARS/OCCUPATIONS

*Reducing Military Spending

*Modify Trade Treaties to protect American jobs

*Strengthen the Safety Net

*Prosecute and War Criminals

*Break Up the "Too Big to Fails"

and don't even bother to bring up these things:

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."---FDR

All THAT stuff is so OLD Democratic Party.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[coti]

84. "The right of every family to a decent home"...!!! Who even THOUGHT of that? CRAAAZY!

Oh, it was FDR.

[bvar22]

87. Sad, isn't it.

Once upon a time,
there WAS a "Democratic Party."
I'm old enough to remember. :cry:

---bvar22
Once a mainstream, centrist FDR Democrat.
NOW, a member of the "fucking retards" wing of the "New Democrat Party".

[somone]

95. Soon many won't have a pot to piss in

while the rich and their friends decide which tropical island to buy/visit.

[Lorien]

101. Don't forget ACTING ON CLIMATE CHANGE and biodiversity loss

if we ignore those for too long NONE of the other issues will matter in the least.

[Xenotime]

85. Here are some more...

Can't close GitMo
Can't pass cap and trade
Can't get troops out of Iraq
Can't get troops out of Afghanistan
Can't spread Hope
Can't spread Change


Can't do shit.

[Octafish]

96. We can't seem to do much about WAR.

That's a bad sign.

[Lorien]

97. Don't forget ending two wars and acting on climate change

During the past two years the war in Afghanistan has been expanded and big corporations have been freed to pollute as they please. Now there's even an attack on wolves, bears and whales by team Obama. They just can't seem to help themselves; they have to out Right Wing the Right Wing.

[coti]

104. Kick nt