The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Reconciliation and Filibuster

Here is Ezra Klein, of The Washington Post, explaining US Senate procedures for passing legislation, or at least part of the procedure.

Some of you will be happy to know that Mr Klein really stuck it to the Republicans over over-use of the Filibuster.

On the other hand, he also points out that the current limitations on "Reconciliation" are due to the Democratic members trying to get back at the Republicans for what they did during the Bush (44) Administration.

Regards  —  Cliff


Jack Mitchell said...

In a nutshell:

"The point, of course, is this: If you have 51 votes for your position, you win," said Gregg.

He added, "Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate (that) has been used before for purposes exactly like this on numerous occasions... Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so."

ncrossland said...

Nice bit of take what you want to hear and call it "truth." The youtube clip was in fact a piece in which Gregg refuted an earlier stand he took on reconcilliation. Moreover, as Jack seems to be implying, Gregg's earlier remarks were not about healthcare reform legislation, but in fact, a budgetary issue being advanced by the Reps and disagreed to by the Dems. If anything, the clip only emhasizes the reality that the foundational rule of Congress is that whichever party is the majority, their agenda gets moved forward. Power politics.

And, again I remind, the US is NOT a is a Republic....a fundamentally different kind of animal.

ncrossland said...

As we talk of "reconciliation and filibuster" and, of course, the underlying Constitutional validity of the process, I stumbled on this wonderful little piece that includes a quote by The One,

"The abuse of federal political power to intervene in areas such as Americans' private health care could exist only in a nation that no longer holds its leaders accountable to its constitution and that has governmental leadership that regards itself as above its people and its constitution. Sadly, I was listening to an interview the other day in which President Barack Obama described the U.S. Constitution as 'an imperfect document ... a document that reflects some deep flaws ... (and) an enormous blind spot.' He also said, 'The Framers had that same blind spot.' In so doing, the president established a rationale and justification for disregarding the Constitution. Even worse, he placed himself above the Constitution and those 'blind Framers,' who just couldn't see the big picture as he does today. After all, he's the constitutional scholar, and the Framers were just, well, the creators of the document!" --columnist Chuck Norris

My sense is that the opposition to all of The One's sweeping and patently fascist legislative agenda is not the individual parts, or perhaps even their goals, it is the contemptual arrogance demonstrated and expressed by The One and his Administration with regard to our foundng documents and their direction for governance of WE the people.


Jack Mitchell said...

Need I remind you, Neal, that Gregg was "ramming through legislation" as was his party's prerogative, based on the "power politics" you cite.

Gregg's "power" was derived by the victory of George W. Bush, who LOST the popular vote to Al Gore. C'est la guerre.

President Barack Hussien Obama was elected by a margin of 192 Electoral votes or nearly 10 Million votes by citizens. He is The Won!

PS. In the clip I provided, when Gregg was for using reconciliation, it was for allowing drilling in ANWR.

ncrossland said...

Your logic is interesting Jack. Bush won by electoral is the requirement for Presidential elections. That the "popular vote" was greater isn't germane. In point of fact, BO's win was largely because he targeted (successfully) big electoral college states. So why is it bad for Bush...or the GOP...but good for BO? This seems to be a theme in Democrat thinking.

And why aren't we drilling in the ANWR??? Well, Gore would be one answer, and then there are the foreign oil interests that the Dems just don't want to discuss. What on earth makes anyone think that the GOP are the only ones who have corporate interests. As a matter of "proof" take a quick look at how much Big Pharma has paid out to get BO in office and keep him there. Nobody in the Dem camp has said a peep about the obscene profits of Big Pharma.....because it is more politically advantageous to blame Medical insurance on the GOP...and make IT the reason for high health care costs. Have you bought any high end antibiotics lately????

Jack Mitchell said...

"The Won" has a mandate for change. I think that is germane.

I'll be glad when he gets to the gettin' to it.

You're an intresting man, Neal, quoting Etienne de la Boetie & Chuck Norris. I dare not challenge such a broad swath of wisdom.

ncrossland said...

Oh come on know you do.....