HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Proud Liberal Dem » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 176 Next »

Proud Liberal Dem

Profile Information

Name: Duge Butler Jr.
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 12:13 AM
Number of posts: 13,625

About Me

Social Worker/Case Manager working for State of Indiana. Huge Star Wars/Transformers fan. Hopeless news & politics "junkie" and wannabe writer. Married with children/step-children.

Journal Archives


It had never occurred to me that somebody might try this or that Congress would have such sweeping powers to classify all kinds of bills as "trade bills". Seems doubtful that it would be that easy (but never turn your backs on Republicans). I thought that the Fast Track Authority (based on my admittedly shallow knowledge of it) just gives POTUS more flexibility to negotiate trade agreements and Congress to approve it on an up-or-down vote. I never imagined they might be able to use it on all kinds of things (like ACA repeal)
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Jun 29, 2015, 04:23 PM (2 replies)

How does TPP or Fast Track Authority affect the filibuster

or give Republicans complete control? They won't be able to make anything and everything into a "trade bill" (I think?). Anyway, there is no guarantee that the Republicans will hit a "trifecta" in 2016 or even maintain both chambers in Congress.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Jun 29, 2015, 03:34 PM (1 replies)

It's simply maddening

If anybody thought that SCOTUS making their ruling the other day would decisively stop all of the right-wing/Republican nonsense about marriage equality, they were sorely mistaken. SCOTUS threw down the gauntlet and told us that what the Constitution says about marriage equality but we need to brace for the wave of right-wing stupidity/hypocrisy/craziness that is just beginning, unfortunately. *sigh*

Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Jun 29, 2015, 03:26 PM (0 replies)

I agree

What I'm mostly worried about is them spending time and taxpayer monies passing laws as an "end run" around allowing marriage equality, however I'm unsure how well any of their initiatives will fare, ultimately. RFRA-like were initially all the rage but it backfired on them in, of all places, Indiana. Giving public officials the "option" of refusing to issue marriage licenses is going to create a mess and not all of them will go along with it, anyway. Refusing to issue marriage licenses to ANYBODY and/or requiring marriages to be licensed ONLY by churches is going to create all kinds of constitutional/legal headaches and many HETEROSEXUAL couples will be upset as not all heterosexual couples belong to and/or practice any religion. There will probably never be any way that they will get a SSM ban into the constitution. There is simply no clear way to circumvent SCOTUS' ruling on SSM but the wingnuts and fundies won't stop trying, at least for awhile.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Jun 29, 2015, 12:50 PM (0 replies)

I think that another thing is public officials having to issue marriage licenses

However, as PUBLIC officials, they are (supposed to be) bound to (secular) law and shouldn't get any (religious-based) exemptions from doing their job, which, of course, is serving the public. If we start carving out all kinds of exemptions for public officials in the course of performing their assigned duties, the system isn't going to be able to work right and, besides, serving ALL of the public is what PUBLIC officials are supposed to be doing. Anybody who can't- or won't- do what they were hired to do needs to move on and find a job more aligned with their religious beliefs (they ARE out there!).
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Jun 29, 2015, 12:31 PM (0 replies)

Roberts surely didn't want to be seen as leading the Supreme Court

that stripped subsidies from 6-7 million Americans. Aside from that, it was a seriously dumb (and IMHO frivolous) lawsuit to begin with. This in mind, I hope that he is equally mindful of throwing the same-sex marriages of a lot of people into legal jeopardy in the ME case.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Jun 25, 2015, 03:53 PM (1 replies)

It counts as a (major) success for Barack Obama's Presidency

they intended for him to have NONE. Not only that but he succeeded in getting a new federal program going in an age where government- according to Republicans- is not supposed to be doing anything other than privatizing itself, giving tax breaks and taxpayer monies to wealthy and corporate interests, and launching more and more wars of occupation. Government doing something to help people is NOT supposed to be happening, according to current Republican dogma.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Jun 25, 2015, 03:51 PM (0 replies)

I may be in the minority here

but I think that, despite his more rightward leanings and some of his rulings, CJ Roberts is more pragmatic/impartial than his right-wing brethren on the Court. Both him and Kennedy, though more on the conservative side, have become a somewhat unpredictable ("wild card") voting bloc on the Court.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Jun 25, 2015, 03:40 PM (1 replies)

Of course

had SCOTUS gone the opposite way, there's no way they'd be complaining about that. They'd be extolling the virtues and wisdom of SCOTUS. We'd be grousing about a negative decision, albeit for different reasons. It was a stupid lawsuit that really should never have seen the light of day at SCOTUS though I guess I'm glad that it has been reviewed and settled once and for all. When I first heard about the lawsuit, I became worried, particularly when a federal appeals court had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and moreso when SCOTUS agreed to take up the case but at least it's definitely settled now and the Republicans, whom never had a viable plan fix things if SCOTUS ruled for the plaintiffs, can go back to their wailing and teeth gnashing.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Jun 25, 2015, 03:35 PM (0 replies)

All they really have left at this point

is to elect a Republican President and solidly Republican Congress in 2016 and they can basically do what they want. People might suddenly realize they want the law when they figure out everything that they might be losing but the Republicans won't care. If they do NOT hit the trifecta (which I don't think that they will), I don't see how it's ever going to happen. By 2020 it will have been law for 10 years and well-embedded in the system. Nobody would be able to undo it by then without massively disrupting things (worse than how it would have been disrupted by a King victory now). Can the Republicans even successfully run on repealing ACA in 2016? It didn't work in 2012 and that was BEFORE the subsidies/marketplace kicked in. Despite their claims to the contrary, ACA is helping, not hurting, people and will continue to do so, especially if we can get a progressive President and Congress to further expand the law to benefit more people. Republicans are basically desperately tilting at windmills at this point IMHO. It's sort of pitiful, really. Assuming the Court rules like I think that they will in the SSM case, Republicans will pretty much be in the same position there as well- "sound and fury, signifying nothing". I, for one, welcome their butthurt!
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Jun 25, 2015, 03:21 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 176 Next »