Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Eight Reasons to Stop Freaking Out About the Supreme Court's Next Obamacare Case
What makes liberals so nervous about the Supreme Court’s decision to hear arguments in a case that could wipe out Affordable Care Act insurance subsidies in dozens of states isn’t just that the stakes are so high, but that they understand something basic about the right and Obamacare.
If you haven’t noticed, the right hates Obamacare. Even if you don’t read a ton of significance into the Court’s decision to grant the challengers cert, it’s easy to imagine five justices reasoning themselves into buying the challengers’ story here, or of just doing great violence to the law as willful activism.
But that’s really the only reason for the left to worry. Outside of these conservative precincts, the challenge is rightly viewed as a cynical effort to gut the ACA. For the challengers to prevail in what’s ultimately a political campaign, they will have to overcome not just the weakness of their own legal arguments, but the political and substantive concerns weighing against them.
Here are eight reasons for the ACA’s supporters to stop freaking out—at least for now.
1. The Legal Case Is Extremely Weak
It’s easy to argue that the language in the ACA statute pertaining to insurance subsidies is ambiguous. It’s also easy to argue that, taken in context, these provisions unambiguously provide for subsidies in every state, no matter what. It’s much harder to show that the law unambiguously precludes these subsidies in states that don’t set up their own exchanges. Watching the right is like staring into an abyss. There’s almost no recognition of the fact that nearly all of the federal judges who’ve looked at this case have sided with the government, and that the two circuit court judges who sided with the challengers saw their opinion vacated. But that’s what happened—and it’s because the merits favor the law as implemented.
2. The Roberts Court Is a Business Friendly Court
And Chief Justice John Roberts himself is a business friendly justice. The Chamber of Commerce basically bats 1.000 with him. An adverse ruling would cause immense harm to powerful corporate interests like private insurance companies, hospitals, and other stakeholders, all of whom oppose the challenge.
3. The Ruling Would Be Embarrassingly Hypocritical
The four other conservatives on the Court have already acknowledged that the ACA scheme requires subsidies to flow everywhere. As Yale law professor Abbe Gluck noted back in August, the conservatives’ dissent in the last major ACA challenge stipulated that the scheme Congress devised wouldn’t work if the subsidies were eliminated. The dissent reads:
In the absence of federal subsidies to purchasers, insurance companies will have little incentive to sell insurance on the exchanges. Under the ACA’s scheme, few, if any, individuals would want to buy individual insurance policies outside of an exchange, because federal subsidies would be unavailable outside of an exchange. Difficulty in attracting individuals outside of the exchange would in turn motivate insurers to enter exchanges, despite the exchanges’ onerous regulations. That system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated. Without the federal subsidies, individuals would lose the main incentive to purchase insurance inside the exchanges, and some insurers may be unwilling to offer insurance inside of exchanges. With fewer buyers and even fewer sellers, the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.
As Gluck observed, these arguments “are textual, structural and contextual arguments—arguments about what the statute means, drawing from how the act’s different textual provisions fit with one another and are read in light of one another, in the entire statutory scheme. These are not extratextual or legislative history arguments." It follows that if justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy want to nix the subsidies, they’ll be tacitly admitting that they read the statute incorrectly. But if the statute is so easy to misconstrue, then it's probably ambiguous. And if that’s the case, the federal government should win. Not that anything requires these justices to be consistent or honest, but if they’re being honest, they’ll uphold the statute.
4. An Adverse Ruling Could Be Self Correcting
Even if all five of the Court’s conservatives decide they agree with the challengers’ interpretation of the statute, they will have to consider whether or not that interpretation renders the statute unconstitutional—either because the scheme it implies is unconstitutionally coercive, or because it didn't advise states about the conditional nature of the subsidies before those states decided whether or not to establish their own exchanges. If the new interpretation renders the statute unconstitutional, then the onus will be on the Court to rewrite the law in a way that makes it constitutional—i.e. by requiring subsidies in every state.
5. Executive Discretion Is at Stake
The Roberts Court might hate Obamacare, but it might just hate the idea of the courts usurping executive discretion over the interpretation of statutory ambiguities even more.
6. An Adverse Ruling Would Be Immoral
Irrespective of the legal questions, and questions about judicial temperament, the justices will be made well aware of the fact that a knee-jerk ruling in favor of the challengers will kill people.
7. An Adverse Ruling Would Be Politically Damaging to Republicans
As much as Obamacare supporters want this challenge to fail, conservatives recognize that the aftermath of an adverse ruling would put the right in a really challenging spot. Democrats would have an easy answer to the chaos unleashed, and if Republicans stood in the way, they would bear the consequences. The politics would in many ways resemble the politics of government shutdowns. You don’t win fights by saying, "I'll only fund the government if the President agrees to X, Y, Z." By the same token, I don’t think Republicans would be able to withstand the blowback from constituents and industry stakeholders by saying they’ll only reinstate the subsidies under severe conditions. The right’s leverage would be illusory. If you don’t believe that this is at least a possibility, then read through this conversation between several bright young conservatives. If the conservative justices are willing to void the subsidies, then they’re willing to be political operators—but if they’re willing to be political operators, then they’ll examine the politics from all angles.
8. An Adverse Ruling Would Define Roberts's Legacy, for the Worse
Nobody knows for sure, but when Roberts saved the ACA back in 2012, the conventional wisdom held that he did it to avoid tarnishing the Court's legacy under his stewardship. Roberts's m.o. is to steadily advance conservative interests without over-reaching, thereby discrediting the very Court responsible for these advancements. If that analysis is correct, then it makes no more sense for Roberts to annihilate the ACA now than it did two years ago.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120231/king-v-burwell-supreme-court-case-shouldnt-worry-liberals-yet
The solution in #4 will be most satisfying.
F6 - You nailed it...Big Oil owns Oklahoma.
re;
pro_se -- we get our second freeze of the season tonight (first one, of course, was this morning) -- and now they're talking maybe some snow Sunday night
a 4.8 from fracking? -- that's pretty impressive -- has Oklahoma gotten around to legislating a special tax credit for the first fracker to set off a 7.0 yet?
Texas high school makes playoffs at 0-10
In this Sept. 9, 2014, photo,Jerry Rice congratulates players after running a drill as he coaches the Scarborough High School football team in Houston. Players at Houston's Scarborough High School knew before the season started there was a chance the downtrodden program would make the playoffs at 0-10. (AP Photo/Houston Chronicle, Cody Duty)(Credit: AP)
DALLAS (AP) — Houston Scarborough coach Ajani Sanders understands there are people who don’t think his 0-10 team with a 57-game losing streak should be in the Texas high school football playoffs. And he isn’t worried about what the score might be against perennial postseason contender West Orange-Stark on Thursday night. Sanders talked to his players about winning this week. Just like he does every week. “They’ve asked me … ‘Coach, you just got beat 66-6. Why are you so excited?’” Sanders said. “All I want in life is an opportunity. Hey, this week is opportunity No. 11.”
The possibility of Texas having what is believed to be its first winless playoff team was set in motion earlier this year when Scarborough was placed in a five-team district by the state’s governing body of public high school sports. Not long after, one of the schools was almost shut down before being spared — but without athletics. Since four teams make the playoffs, Scarborough was thus guaranteed getting in before the season started. The same thing could happen next year because the realignment process runs in two-year cycles.
So the Spartans worked out Monday in front of a few camera crews. The opposing coach got phone calls about what he was going to do to keep the score from getting out of hand. Sanders? He just has more motivational material — beyond an early-season pep talk and visit from Hall of Fame receiver Jerry Rice — as he tries to build a program almost from scratch.
“Week 1, we lined up, we thought we were going to end the streak,” said Sanders, whose team is in Class 4A, the third-largest in the state. “Week 2, the same thing. Week 3, here it is, here’s the week that we end the streak. And that’s how we play. We don’t go out and say, ‘Hey, we’re going go out here and try to survive.’” But that’s what everyone else will be thinking Thursday night. If the game turns into a blowout, the first sign of it will mean West Orange-Stark coach Cornel Thompson has to decide whether, when and how to keep the score down.
That wasn’t part of Thompson’s game plan early in the week, though.
“We’re just like any other week,” said Thompson, in his fourth year leading a program that routinely makes the playoffs and won back-to-back state championships in the 1980s. “Somebody’s going to get beat in the state of Texas in some classification … that shouldn’t get beat. And it dang sure better not be the Mustangs of West Orange-Stark.”
Assuming Thompson’s team “takes care of business” — a popular phrase for him as he fielded inquiries about his potential dilemma this week — he will have the spotlight for any possible displays of sportsmanship.
“He’s got this incredible chance to have a teaching moment for all of his players that they’ll remember for years and for the players on the other team that won’t be traumatized and will remember for years that compassion plays into a lot of things, even something as competitive as sport,” said Dan Lebowitz, executive director of the Center for the Study of Sport in Society at Northeastern University.
Sanders’ team has lost by an average score of 53-8 this season, including defeats of 66-0 and 65-0. But that’s an improvement over last season, before he took over as head coach, when the Spartans were shut out six straight games. As much as he likes to note the improvement, Sanders isn’t hung up on margin of defeat.
“I trust that these coaches out there, they’re not going to embarrass the kids,” said Sanders, who left a job as an assistant at another Houston-area school because he wanted to be a head coach and he thought his teaching could reach beyond the field. “I’m not going to help the score get run up on me either. I’m not going to be passing the ball every other play if it’s getting out of hand.”
Four teams make the playoffs in most of the six classifications in Texas, where 12 state champions are crowned because each class is divided into two divisions. And even though 672 of the state’s roughly 1,300 schools make the football playoffs, plenty of teams with winning records are staying home while Scarborough plays in what Texas kids like to call the “second season,” since the playoffs go on for six games in most classes.
Sanders isn’t ashamed. Quite the opposite, in fact.
“Our deal is we’re going to play for all those teams that lost out on tiebreakers,” said Sanders, whose team is still 23 games short of the state record of 80 straight losses by Houston Davis from 1985-93. “We’re going to go out there and we’re going to try to honor those guys by going out there and playing a good, hard game of football.”
And he won’t be worrying about the final score.
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/12/texas_high_school_makes_playoffs_at_0_10/
ONLY in Texas...
Colorado High School Sued Over Ban On Student Prayer Group
DENVER, Nov 10 (Reuters) - A conservative group that successfully pushed an Arizona school district to tamp down its sexual education curriculum has now filed suit in Colorado, accusing a high school of unlawfully blocking student efforts to gather together for prayer. The group, the Alliance Defending Freedom, said school officials cited the separation of church and state when they banned religious speech during recess and other "open periods" at Pine Creek High School, north of Colorado Springs. Academy District Twenty, which covers Pine Creek High School, said in a statement in response that non-curricular groups, which include religious groups, may only meet before classes begin and after they end.
School officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the suit.
"Public schools should encourage the free exchange of ideas," Alliance Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco said in a statement on Monday, after the lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on Friday. "Instead, this school implemented an ill-conceived ban that singles out religious speech for censorship during free time."
The issue of prayer in schools is the latest flashpoint in a broader liberal-conservative clash over control of curricula that also flared up last month in Colorado in a fight over the content of an advanced history course. The Arizona-based Alliance was part of efforts that led a school board in that state to vote to remove information about contraception from a biology textbook after the board's conservative majority said it broke state law.
The Alliance got involved in the Pine Creek case after a senior, Chase Windebank, said he and other students were stopped from meeting in an unoccupied choir room twice a week to pray, sing Christian songs, and discuss topical issues from a religious perspective. It said the school told the students the meetings, which had been taking place for three years, could continue, but that any religious speech must stop.
Lawyers for the Alliance, which describes itself as a non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to live out their faith in freedom, wrote to the school last month saying the policy violates the First Amendment.
Academy District Twenty said the meetings took place during a period known as "seminar," which is considered instructional time. "Noncurriculum-related groups, which include religious groups, are permitted to meet both before and after instructional time," it said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/11/colorado-student-prayer-group-ban_n_6136580.html?cps=gravity
Pure unadulterated bullshit.
Uh-huh. ...& given the standard 3% deviation it comes out as a wash.
...Republicans in Congress enjoy a 42% approval rating. Obama, on the other hand, sits at a 39% approval rating.
F6, A rant: Somebody best start working some magic of some kind or t'other real soon. A friend just called me from Boise City, OK where it's 11 above w/snow. We've felt 4 quakes TODAY w/ the largest just awhile ago @ 4.8.
The snow is 8 weeks early & T. Boone Pickens needs to cease fracking NOW.
Buzzlight, Are you either a Texan or a Harvard grad?
Nowwaitadamnminit...have you EVER met a smart Hahvahd grad? (...or Texan?) For reference, go visit with F6. Hell, even for a Texan... Know what I mean?
(Grin!!!)
Please specify what you perceive to be the negative connotations alluded to by the use of the word 'chink(s)'.
YES.
Oh...'plucking'. Sorry about that.
I find it truly odd that you and your kind continually lambaste all & sundry with vivid descriptions of the RESULTS of your actions while adroitly evading mention of either the true cause OR any solution not including minimum wage reduction or further reductions of environmental regs.
Discovering a depth of abject ignorance of that magnitude in someone she thought she knew well likely DID ruin her mood. What part of that don't you comprehend?
What kind of help do you think the average middle class American needs?
...either because of early retirement or because they've just lost hope,
Early retirement portrayed as "bad"?
If people quit job hunting because they've "lost hope", do they also 'lose' their appetites, their need for rent, utilities, transportation, etc.?
In other words, your agenda has about as much kinship with reality as your religion does.
What goes around... eom.
U.S.D.A. to Allow Chicken From Chinese Companies
Genuine General Tso’s chicken may soon be on the plate.
The Department of Agriculture will allow Chinese poultry processing companies to ship fully cooked, frozen and refrigerated chicken to the United States.
...Earlier this year, a major meat supplier to McDonald’s got caught up in a food scandal after a Chinese television station broadcast video showing workers in its Shanghai plant doctoring labels on chicken and beef products and scooping up meat that had fallen on the ground and putting it back on conveyor belts for processing. The country has also had frequent outbreaks of deadly avian influenza, and the Food and Drug Administration attributed the deaths of more than 500 dogs and some cats to chicken jerky treats from China.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/business/usda-to-allow-chicken-from-chinese-companies.html?_r=0
Chicken-pluckin' Chinks win...
U.S.D.A. to Allow Chicken From Chinese Companies
Genuine General Tso’s chicken may soon be on the plate.
The Department of Agriculture will allow Chinese poultry processing companies to ship fully cooked, frozen and refrigerated chicken to the United States.
...Earlier this year, a major meat supplier to McDonald’s got caught up in a food scandal after a Chinese television station broadcast video showing workers in its Shanghai plant doctoring labels on chicken and beef products and scooping up meat that had fallen on the ground and putting it back on conveyor belts for processing. The country has also had frequent outbreaks of deadly avian influenza, and the Food and Drug Administration attributed the deaths of more than 500 dogs and some cats to chicken jerky treats from China.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/business/usda-to-allow-chicken-from-chinese-companies.html?_r=0
Maybe Tyson is in trouble?
Made with, by, and for dogs?
Doesn't matter. Just nominating her outlines certain areas of weakness the Reps wanna conceal. Mitch can reveal is true agenda VERY prematurely...OR he can sacrifice a proven loser and show himself to be a 'statesman'. His choice.
Doubt it... The Attorney General From Brooklyn
President Obama will reportedly pick Loretta Lynch, a U.S. attorney in New York, to replace Eric Holder at the Justice Department.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/Loretta-Lynch-Eric-Holder-Attorney-General/382507/
Betcha this is just a warning shot re; the ChiTown hardball that's coming Christy's way that will nail him as the GOP's Sacrificial Chump should McConnell get testy.
The Attorney General From Brooklyn
President Obama will reportedly pick Loretta Lynch, a U.S. attorney in New York, to replace Eric Holder at the Justice Department.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/Loretta-Lynch-Eric-Holder-Attorney-General/382507/
ChiTown hardball - Christy = GOP's Sacrificial Chump?
Just think, Peg...when the retailers start their Xmas hiring soon all of our pet trolls here will be EMPLOYED! ...Many for the very first time too - isn't that great?
AMERICA...the only nation where even trolls can find employment! I think I'm getting the Xmas Spirit - I think I'll go spend a nickel today!
Ta Ta
You're hired. It's only 28 hrs/wk of course but at least itsa step up...right? No union so you're upwardly mobile.
You're not exactly the bright light at the end of the tunnel are you? May I suggest you do a Ladies' Night Out with MS40 for lessons on cogency?
Have a great day.
...& you're complaining? You're outa luck, I don't let amateurs touch my shoes. As for the GoF...those clowns didn't need any help being clueless.
Realpolitik...
Sick of Republican shenanigans: Why Obama may not get snookered this time
Jim Newell Thursday, Nov 6, 2014 06:00 AM CST
There was a predictable conventional wisdom heading into Wednesday’s post-election press conference that President Obama would need to announce some sort of vaguely defined course correction, or at least show contrition. That he would need to develop a list of center-right policy proposals to discuss with Mitch McConnell over some sort of ice-breaking lunch. That he would have to abandon the partisan posture that allegedly hung his party out to dry on Tuesday night.
What a shocking development it must have been, then, to see the president not completely change his set of beliefs and priorities overnight after his party fared poorly in a midterm election.
He reiterated his intention to take whatever executive action on immigration he legally can by the end of the year while also encouraging Congress to deliver a comprehensive immigration reform bill that he knows will never come. He said he will veto the bills he believes are bad ideas, such as a repeal of the Affordable Care Act or of its most crucial components. He will be open to working on the right-of-center policy positions that he’s always been annoyingly open to: trade deals and corporate tax reform. He still wants to fix bridges and roads and increase the minimum wage. The only major policy that he seemed to introduce — and it’s an important one — was in welcoming an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to define the war against ISIS.
He’s basically the same guy he was the day before the election, and that’s going to send many in Washington to their fainting couches. Why can’t he abandon his plans for executive action on immigration? Why won’t he fire someone? Why won’t he agree to sign everything the Republicans send him? Doesn’t he realize he has to change if he wants to accomplish things with Republicans?
Lest we forget, though, he’s been through this once before, after the 2010 elections. And he appears to have learned the right lessons from that: No changes in his behavior are going to cause a rapprochement with Republicans.
Remember the big, sad show he put on after 2010, the last time he was pressured into changing his ways overnight? It makes you wince. Hiring Bill Daley, a person who had no idea what he was doing, to serve as chief of staff in order to curry favor with the “business community.” Signing a two-year extension of the top-bracket Bush tax cuts. Allowing Republicans to trick him into negotiating over a raise in the debt ceiling. Trying countless times to pursue a “grand bargain” deficit deal on taxes and social insurance programs.
What he got in return for these efforts was nothing. (And thank God, by the way, that he didn’t get a grand bargain.) The Republican Party refused to negotiate with him, because the current Republican Party’s identity is forged on being oppositional to Barack Obama. If it were to agree with him on some significant piece of legislation, then that would make Barack Obama something less-than-Satan, which would make the Republican Party … what?
Let’s do a thought experiment. Say Barack Obama dropped his plan to take executive action on immigration in order to foster cooperation with Republicans on passing comprehensive immigration reform. What would happen? He’d be denounced by a significant portion of the Democratic base, perhaps irreparably. And then the Republican leaders in the House and Senate would proceed to do exactly nothing on immigration, because it’s not in their members’ interests to cut a comprehensive immigration reform deal with Barack Obama. And then Obama, because he is the president, would get the blame for nothing “getting done” in Washington. What possible reason is there for him to delay executive action on immigration? He can either improve the lives of millions of people, excite the members of his party, and have Republicans hate him or improve the lives of no one, depress the members of his party, and have Republicans hate him.
Otherwise, it’s not exactly clear what he could do for a “fresh start.” The closest and therefore most lazily applied reference is to President George W. Bush’s response to his party’s 2006 midterm loss, when he fired Donald Rumsfeld. Obama could fire someone, but whom? There is no equivalent to a Rumsfeld in this administration. Bush lost that election because of the Iraq War, and Rumsfeld was the surly household name running the Iraq War. There is no analogous figurehead in the Obama administration waiting to be lopped off. And it’s not like Rumsfeld’s firing ceased the Bush administration’s prosecution of the war, anyway. One of the first things Bush did with his new Democratic Congress was ask for (and receive) funding to deploy tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq.
If Obama seemed unusually calm in his press conference Wednesday, it’s because he felt no pressure to present himself as something other than the center-left technocrat that he is. He learned after 2010 that it doesn’t matter whether he presents himself as a center-left technocrat, a center-right technocrat, a budget hawk, John Boehner’s golf buddy or whatever: Those who are intent on seeing him as a radical leftist hell-bent on America’s destruction will see him as a radical leftist hell-bent on America’s destruction, because that’s the narrative that works for them.
But sure, if Mitch McConnell wants to have a drink, they can have a drink.
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/06/sick_of_republican_shenanigans_why_obama_may_not_get_snookered_this_time/
Hide'n watch...the script has changed.
Maybe, just effing MAYBE...he finally lost his temper following his pro forma congratulatory call to a certain Kentucky Republican whose response wasn't quite as civil as desired.
Can you shine shoes?
Is this TrollTown?
Peg, you can bet that report will be MOST interesting. Maybe THAT'S why the trolls are hitting on the issue, trying to 'poison the well' early as usual.
lol
re;
Private Employers Add 230,000 Jobs in October, the most since June and exceeding economists' expectations.
-reuters.com, 11/5/14
U.S. Labor Dept issues their detailed report this Friday.
What goes around...
Congrats, GOP: You just won control of Congress with a Democratic president
An open letter to Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and their crew, from yours truly:
Dear Republicans:
Congratulations. You just took control of Congress for the next two years. It must feel great. You should celebrate now, because pretty soon you're going to realize it's going to be an agonizingly long two years—as long as Democrats follow these three simple pieces of advice:
1. Now that Republicans control the Senate and the House, they need to supply the votes for everything—no more bailouts from the Democratic caucus, bailouts that made sense when Democrats controlled one of the chambers.
2. The president should wield the veto liberally, vetoing every measure to come from Congress that would undermine things like Obamacare or damage the government's ability to deliver the services the country expects from it—and congressional Democrats should support his vetoes.
3. The president should take executive action wherever he can, within the constraints of the law, to accomplish goals like creating a humane immigration policy and dealing with climate change. If the Republicans don't like it, they can impeach him.
Again, congratulations guys. You've achieved the goal that Mitch McConnell set out for you, and you did it by systematically trying to prevent Democrats from implementing progressive policies. Just keep in mind that turnabout is fair play, and if Democrats are smart, that's exactly what's going to happen.
Best regards,
Jed
I'm not trying to sugarcoat the GOP's win. It does suck, especially for nominations. And it sucks that we're not going to get any new progressive laws passed, though it's not like we would have gotten any with a Republican House. But—at the risk of repeating myself—the president is still the president is still the president is still the president. Obamacare isn't going anywhere. He can still take executive action to get a limited amount of things done. And just about the only two things Republicans can do without the president's signature is shutting down the government and impeaching him. And unless the GOP magically reinvents itself into a rational governing party, that's exactly what Democrats should let them do. 2016 will be here soon enough.
http://www.dailykos.com/
Congrats, GOP: You just won control of Congress with a Democratic president
An open letter to Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and their crew, from yours truly:
Dear Republicans:
Congratulations. You just took control of Congress for the next two years. It must feel great. You should celebrate now, because pretty soon you're going to realize it's going to be an agonizingly long two years—as long as Democrats follow these three simple pieces of advice:
1. Now that Republicans control the Senate and the House, they need to supply the votes for everything—no more bailouts from the Democratic caucus, bailouts that made sense when Democrats controlled one of the chambers.
2. The president should wield the veto liberally, vetoing every measure to come from Congress that would undermine things like Obamacare or damage the government's ability to deliver the services the country expects from it—and congressional Democrats should support his vetoes.
3. The president should take executive action wherever he can, within the constraints of the law, to accomplish goals like creating a humane immigration policy and dealing with climate change. If the Republicans don't like it, they can impeach him.
Again, congratulations guys. You've achieved the goal that Mitch McConnell set out for you, and you did it by systematically trying to prevent Democrats from implementing progressive policies. Just keep in mind that turnabout is fair play, and if Democrats are smart, that's exactly what's going to happen.
Best regards,
Jed
I'm not trying to sugarcoat the GOP's win. It does suck, especially for nominations. And it sucks that we're not going to get any new progressive laws passed, though it's not like we would have gotten any with a Republican House. But—at the risk of repeating myself—the president is still the president is still the president is still the president. Obamacare isn't going anywhere. He can still take executive action to get a limited amount of things done. And just about the only two things Republicans can do without the president's signature is shutting down the government and impeaching him. And unless the GOP magically reinvents itself into a rational governing party, that's exactly what Democrats should let them do. 2016 will be here soon enough.
http://www.dailykos.com/
YES!
-I give up.- Don't. The only way to rid ourselves of their idiocies is to forcibly expose them to the cold glare of reality. Their ethos didn't win anything...Dem apathy ushered them in.
C'MON PEOPLE, WHAT, EXACTLY, DID THE STUPES 'WIN'?
The ONLY 'mandate' they've ever had is our permission to make asses of themselves. Helping them toward that end is our duty and privilege. In our political system a simple majority is pure anathema...a prison of ideology managed by the Hounds of Hades.
Let them shout their vaunted superiority to all and sundry.
We know better...
Due to the genius of The American Way they need our permission to actually accomplish anything.
Lean back...and enjoy.
Yup! Da vetoes are gonna be fun!
Ubetcha!