Recently we saw an attempt by Harry Reid to encourage the GOP Senators to drop their filibustering of any Democratic proposed bills with an all night session. In reviewing years past tactics in the Senate I came across the following as a means of stopping debate and ending any attempt to filibuster.
1) Limit speeches to 2/day on any one subject.
2) Adjourn at the end of each day instead of recessing thereby limiting debate on a bill. (prevents a filibuster)
Any comments on effectiveness?
Sunday, July 29, 2007
FDR & The Supreem Court
Is this an approach the Dems will have to take after the 2008 election?
In November 1936, Roosevelt won re-election by carrying all but two states. Although FDR did not make the Supreme Court an issue in his campaign, he nevertheless considered his landslide election as a mandate for federal court reform. He knew he had to act quickly since many New Deal laws passed during his first term were headed for the Supreme Court(& their Conservative Majority).
Working quietly, Attorney General Cummings drafted a bill that, on the surface, appeared to streamline the entire federal court system. But the real target was the Supreme Court. Cummings proposed that Congress pass a law granting the president the power to nominate an additional judge for every federal judge who, having served a minimum of 10 years, did not resign or retire within six months after reaching age 70. In effect, this would enable FDR to add up to six more justices to the Supreme Court as well as nearly 50 more lower-court federal judges. Of course, the Senate would still have to approve his nominations.
The "Court-Packing" Fight
Much to the surprise of President Roosevelt, his court-reform plan came under serious attack. The press soon began to refer to it as FDR's "court-packing" scheme. The president was compared with Hitler (GWB?) in seeking dictatorial powers. Even some liberal New Deal Democrats in Congress voiced their reservations.
Supporters of the bill decided to concentrate their efforts in the Senate. Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Cummings presented the administration's case. "The proposed increase in the number of judges is not for the purpose of enslaving the judiciary," he said. "The purpose is to rejuvenate the judicial machinery, to speed justice, and to give to the courts men of fresh outlook who will refrain from infringing upon the powers of Congress."
But most of those testifying before the Judiciary Committee rejected FDR's plan as little more than a cover to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices. The plan, they claimed, would make the court more political,(like where we are today?) thus undermining its independence. Critics argued that since there were no age regulations placed on the president or members of Congress, there should be none on federal judges either. Others claimed that it was not the Supreme Court justices who were overturning Roosevelt's New Deal laws, but the Constitution itself.(so today GWB modifys the meaning of the Constitution to fit his desires?)
"The Switch in Time"
In the midst of the "court-packing" fight, a series of unexpected events occurred that finally sank FDR's court-reform bill. On March 29, 1937, the Supreme Court reversed itself and upheld a state minimum-wage law very similar to laws that the court had previously struck down. This case was decided by another 5–4 vote. But this time the four conservative justices were in the minority. Shortly afterward, the Supreme Court ruled as constitutional both the Social Security Act and the National Labor Relations Act, two key pieces of New Deal legislation. These cases, too, were decided by slim 5–4 majorities. (It's amazing how the threat changed at least one Justices spine.)
As it turned out in the years that followed, the Supreme Court upheld virtually all of FDR's New Deal reforms. Over the span of his remaining three terms in office, Roosevelt got to name a total of eight new justices to the Supreme Court. In the end, he did get to "pack" the court with men of his choosing. This "Roosevelt Court" took a more liberal direction in interpreting the Constitution, at least for a while. But the question remains, even today, whether the Supreme Court can truly be an independent body completely separated from political influences.
From the CFR: Constitutional Rights Foundation
In November 1936, Roosevelt won re-election by carrying all but two states. Although FDR did not make the Supreme Court an issue in his campaign, he nevertheless considered his landslide election as a mandate for federal court reform. He knew he had to act quickly since many New Deal laws passed during his first term were headed for the Supreme Court(& their Conservative Majority).
Working quietly, Attorney General Cummings drafted a bill that, on the surface, appeared to streamline the entire federal court system. But the real target was the Supreme Court. Cummings proposed that Congress pass a law granting the president the power to nominate an additional judge for every federal judge who, having served a minimum of 10 years, did not resign or retire within six months after reaching age 70. In effect, this would enable FDR to add up to six more justices to the Supreme Court as well as nearly 50 more lower-court federal judges. Of course, the Senate would still have to approve his nominations.
The "Court-Packing" Fight
Much to the surprise of President Roosevelt, his court-reform plan came under serious attack. The press soon began to refer to it as FDR's "court-packing" scheme. The president was compared with Hitler (GWB?) in seeking dictatorial powers. Even some liberal New Deal Democrats in Congress voiced their reservations.
Supporters of the bill decided to concentrate their efforts in the Senate. Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Cummings presented the administration's case. "The proposed increase in the number of judges is not for the purpose of enslaving the judiciary," he said. "The purpose is to rejuvenate the judicial machinery, to speed justice, and to give to the courts men of fresh outlook who will refrain from infringing upon the powers of Congress."
But most of those testifying before the Judiciary Committee rejected FDR's plan as little more than a cover to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices. The plan, they claimed, would make the court more political,(like where we are today?) thus undermining its independence. Critics argued that since there were no age regulations placed on the president or members of Congress, there should be none on federal judges either. Others claimed that it was not the Supreme Court justices who were overturning Roosevelt's New Deal laws, but the Constitution itself.(so today GWB modifys the meaning of the Constitution to fit his desires?)
"The Switch in Time"
In the midst of the "court-packing" fight, a series of unexpected events occurred that finally sank FDR's court-reform bill. On March 29, 1937, the Supreme Court reversed itself and upheld a state minimum-wage law very similar to laws that the court had previously struck down. This case was decided by another 5–4 vote. But this time the four conservative justices were in the minority. Shortly afterward, the Supreme Court ruled as constitutional both the Social Security Act and the National Labor Relations Act, two key pieces of New Deal legislation. These cases, too, were decided by slim 5–4 majorities. (It's amazing how the threat changed at least one Justices spine.)
As it turned out in the years that followed, the Supreme Court upheld virtually all of FDR's New Deal reforms. Over the span of his remaining three terms in office, Roosevelt got to name a total of eight new justices to the Supreme Court. In the end, he did get to "pack" the court with men of his choosing. This "Roosevelt Court" took a more liberal direction in interpreting the Constitution, at least for a while. But the question remains, even today, whether the Supreme Court can truly be an independent body completely separated from political influences.
From the CFR: Constitutional Rights Foundation
Bush Family History
Recently Tom Cat of "Politics Plus" posted an excellent article on the Bush family history which was put together by OpEd.com. If you have not seen it yet it describes how Grandfather Prescot Bush amassed his fortune through any means necessary. Even playing both sides leading up to WW II. In reading the story I was struck by the continued reference to Nazi ism and all that that conjures up in our current day mind set. To me, the use of that word does not properly describe what was taking place then (and still now). It obscures the deeper concerns of these events by using a term that means many things to many people without clearly enunciating the basic driving force. And what is that driving force you ask? To me it is "Super Nationalistic Capitalism"or in other words FASCISM. As far as I'm concerned Prescot Bush was nothing more than a latent and greedy Fascist who passed his genes down to his megalomaniac grandson George. Review the list of 14 characteristics that describe fascist philosophy for a full understanding. Of course, fascism was also an underpinning of Nazism.
What are your thoughts?
What are your thoughts?
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
TSA Warnings
U.S. authorities warn of "dry runs" at airport
I'm not quite sure how to react to this report. Is it just another statement to keep the "fear" factor in front of the general public in some perverted manner to gain sympathy for our imperial leader and his "protect the homeland" program? Or is it just another example of overreaction? Have the TSA personnel not been properly trained to look for anything suspicious and they need to be reminded? I assume the TSA itself, if they are doing their job properly, are testing the "system" with their own "dry runs". Is that representative of the 4 items characterized as potential dry runs? Also, why only target the airports? What's your reaction?
WASHINGTON, July 25 (Xinhua) -- The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has alerted law enforcement officers across the country to be on the lookout for what could be "dry runs" for a terrorist attacks at airports.
The TSA sent an unclassified advisory on July 20 to law enforcement agencies, after series of suspicious incidents occurred at U.S. airports, raising the possibility that recent activity could be "pre-attack security probes," U.S. media reported Wednesday.
The advisory, which has been widely reported, detailed four incidents from the past 11 months in which screeners found unusual objects with items such as wires, switches, tubes, cell phone components that could mimic bomb components in passengers' checked or carry-on bags.
"The unusual nature and increase in number of these improvised items raise concern and TSA personnel should continue vigilance for groupings of ordinary items that look like IED components," the alert said.
The bulletin warned that terrorists could be conducting repeated operations to desensitize security officials. (this seems like a long reach)
The TSA, however, downplayed on Wednesday the significance of the advisory. (why make a deal out of it then)
"This bulletin is not classified nor does it contain secret material," the TSA said in a statement.
The TSA said the advisory was one of more than 90 unclassified bulletins sent to police during the past six months to provide information to front line officers.
"There is no intelligence that indicates a specific or credible threat to the homeland," the TSA said.
The United States has tightened security at its airports since the Sept. 11 attacks, by manning airports with additional security personnel and installing high-tech devices to screen both passengers and their baggage.
I'm not quite sure how to react to this report. Is it just another statement to keep the "fear" factor in front of the general public in some perverted manner to gain sympathy for our imperial leader and his "protect the homeland" program? Or is it just another example of overreaction? Have the TSA personnel not been properly trained to look for anything suspicious and they need to be reminded? I assume the TSA itself, if they are doing their job properly, are testing the "system" with their own "dry runs". Is that representative of the 4 items characterized as potential dry runs? Also, why only target the airports? What's your reaction?
WASHINGTON, July 25 (Xinhua) -- The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has alerted law enforcement officers across the country to be on the lookout for what could be "dry runs" for a terrorist attacks at airports.
The TSA sent an unclassified advisory on July 20 to law enforcement agencies, after series of suspicious incidents occurred at U.S. airports, raising the possibility that recent activity could be "pre-attack security probes," U.S. media reported Wednesday.
The advisory, which has been widely reported, detailed four incidents from the past 11 months in which screeners found unusual objects with items such as wires, switches, tubes, cell phone components that could mimic bomb components in passengers' checked or carry-on bags.
"The unusual nature and increase in number of these improvised items raise concern and TSA personnel should continue vigilance for groupings of ordinary items that look like IED components," the alert said.
The bulletin warned that terrorists could be conducting repeated operations to desensitize security officials. (this seems like a long reach)
The TSA, however, downplayed on Wednesday the significance of the advisory. (why make a deal out of it then)
"This bulletin is not classified nor does it contain secret material," the TSA said in a statement.
The TSA said the advisory was one of more than 90 unclassified bulletins sent to police during the past six months to provide information to front line officers.
"There is no intelligence that indicates a specific or credible threat to the homeland," the TSA said.
The United States has tightened security at its airports since the Sept. 11 attacks, by manning airports with additional security personnel and installing high-tech devices to screen both passengers and their baggage.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Circle of Neo-Con Chatter on Iraq
Following is a Letter To The Editor in our local newspaper by a concerned citizen. Is this a case of deliberate media spin, or media incompetence. I agree with the writer, how about you?
Your July 15 editorial "Trust Petraeus", unwittingly or not, gave the false impression of being factual, objective and frank.
It was not Gen. Petraeus but Frederick W. Kagan, a prominent neo-conservative writing an article for the American Enterprise Institute, who was the acknowledged architect of the "surge", or escalation, in Iraq. Petraeus is carrying out this troop escalation and will report to Congress in September. Do you suppose he will report failure when he has previously said we need to stay in Iraq for many years?
You also cite Kimberly Kagan of Harvard's John Olin Institute of Strategic Studies as saying that Petraeus' efforts have "had some measurable success".Did she decide this by talking to the troops who are actually doing the fighting or by getting Pentagon briefings or by talking with her husband? Oh, yes. She is the wife of "surge" architect Frederick W. Kagan.
Your July 15 editorial "Trust Petraeus", unwittingly or not, gave the false impression of being factual, objective and frank.
It was not Gen. Petraeus but Frederick W. Kagan, a prominent neo-conservative writing an article for the American Enterprise Institute, who was the acknowledged architect of the "surge", or escalation, in Iraq. Petraeus is carrying out this troop escalation and will report to Congress in September. Do you suppose he will report failure when he has previously said we need to stay in Iraq for many years?
You also cite Kimberly Kagan of Harvard's John Olin Institute of Strategic Studies as saying that Petraeus' efforts have "had some measurable success".Did she decide this by talking to the troops who are actually doing the fighting or by getting Pentagon briefings or by talking with her husband? Oh, yes. She is the wife of "surge" architect Frederick W. Kagan.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Should Congress Impeach Both NOW!!!
Are there any valid reasons out there for the impeachment of Bush & Cheney? I quite frankly have felt both should be impeached based upon their imperial and cavalier attitudes that have lead us into an unnessesary war for the benefit of a foreign government and the greed of some corporate companies. My emotional side said “dam the torpedos, full speed ahead”, go getum Nancy and stop this war.. However, my rational side said” we only have 1 1/2 years left, lets fight them on funding and any other basis we can rather than risking a tremendous turmoil for the country.
Then I watched Bill Moyers Journal on PBS 7/13/07. I was floored by the discussion Bill had with a journalist and a scholar. They provided me with the best reasons yet as to why BOTH Bush and Cheney need to be impeached NOW, before the end of their term. It has less to do with “them” and their imperial manner than with what they are doing to the Constitution of the U.S. and the precedents they are setting for the future. They are slowly shreding the Constitution leading us into future dictatorships by abrogating the oversight resposibilities of Congress. They alluded to the fact that this “enhancing” of powers by the Executive branch has been happening over the years by many administrations through the “Chiness water drop” method. It was hard for me to believe that previous admins. have also instigated such nefarious power grabs. I decided to do more research and discovered a piece by Bill Moyers done a few years back that details the historical progression of presidential power enhancement starting with Harry Truman in the 1940’s. This is an hour and a half video, well worth seeing the whole thing. Type the following URL into your browser.
http://brasschecktv.com/page/122.html
We should request ALL our representatives to view both of Moyers programs. If that doesn’t galvanize action, then citizen response will be required!!!!
Then I watched Bill Moyers Journal on PBS 7/13/07. I was floored by the discussion Bill had with a journalist and a scholar. They provided me with the best reasons yet as to why BOTH Bush and Cheney need to be impeached NOW, before the end of their term. It has less to do with “them” and their imperial manner than with what they are doing to the Constitution of the U.S. and the precedents they are setting for the future. They are slowly shreding the Constitution leading us into future dictatorships by abrogating the oversight resposibilities of Congress. They alluded to the fact that this “enhancing” of powers by the Executive branch has been happening over the years by many administrations through the “Chiness water drop” method. It was hard for me to believe that previous admins. have also instigated such nefarious power grabs. I decided to do more research and discovered a piece by Bill Moyers done a few years back that details the historical progression of presidential power enhancement starting with Harry Truman in the 1940’s. This is an hour and a half video, well worth seeing the whole thing. Type the following URL into your browser.
http://brasschecktv.com/page/122.html
We should request ALL our representatives to view both of Moyers programs. If that doesn’t galvanize action, then citizen response will be required!!!!
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Alive and Kicking
Have you ever had a time when you have not been able to accomplish a thing? The last few months have been like that. Between entirely gutting our kitchen ( and moving/storing the furniture, applainces etc) and making it more handicap accessible for my wife and trying to maintain a couple of acres along with dismantaling my 24' above ground aluminum pool (for recycling) I have had precious little time to update my blog. All I could do is save articles for later commentary. I also have to admit that I have gotten so damn angry with current government events that I would have lost all capability for rational commentary anyway.Things are now beginning to settle in so hopefully I can continue my blog...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)