5 Signs the United States Is Undergoing a Coup

Interesting part of the article that was apparently, conveniently edited out of the part posted here:

I am not enough of a Supreme Court buff to have any confident idea of what the majority will rule on the Obama health care plan.

But confidence in the very idea that the Roberts majority will approach this as a "normal" legal matter, rather than as one more Bush v. Gore front in the political wars, grows ever harder to maintain, especially after the latest labor-rights ruling. It is worth reading carefully this lead editorial in yesterday's New York Times. In short, the same five conservative Justices who in their pre-appointment phase had inveighed against "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench," while promising to live the gospel of judicial "humility" if confirmed, went out of their way, in a ruling written by Samuel Alito, to decree new law contrary to what Congress had ordered and other courts had long approved.*

Normally I shy away from apocalyptic readings of the American predicament. We're a big, messy country; we've been through a lot -- perhaps even more than we thought, what with Abraham Lincoln and the vampires. We'll probably muddle through this and be very worried about something else ten years from now. But when you look at the sequence from Bush v. Gore, through Citizens United, to what seems to be coming on the health-care front; and you combine it with ongoing efforts in Florida and elsewhere to prevent voting from presumably Democratic blocs; and add that to the simply unprecedented abuse of the filibuster in the years since the Democrats won control of the Senate and then took the White House, you have what we'd identify as a kind of long-term coup if we saw it happening anywhere else.**

If this comes down as another 5-4 judicial "activism" load of crap from the Righties on the Court, we will KNOW that our system of "fair and equal justice" is a pleasant relic from the past....

Democracy4Sale wrote: Interesting part of the article that was apparently, conveniently edited out of the part posted here:

I am not enough of a Supreme Court buff to have any confident idea of what the majority will rule on the Obama health care plan.

But confidence in the very idea that the Roberts majority will approach this as a "normal" legal matter, rather than as one more Bush v. Gore front in the political wars, grows ever harder to maintain, especially after the latest labor-rights ruling. It is worth reading carefully this lead editorial in yesterday's New York Times. In short, the same five conservative Justices who in their pre-appointment phase had inveighed against "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench," while promising to live the gospel of judicial "humility" if confirmed, went out of their way, in a ruling written by Samuel Alito, to decree new law contrary to what Congress had ordered and other courts had long approved.*

Normally I shy away from apocalyptic readings of the American predicament. We're a big, messy country; we've been through a lot -- perhaps even more than we thought, what with Abraham Lincoln and the vampires. We'll probably muddle through this and be very worried about something else ten years from now. But when you look at the sequence from Bush v. Gore, through Citizens United, to what seems to be coming on the health-care front; and you combine it with ongoing efforts in Florida and elsewhere to prevent voting from presumably Democratic blocs; and add that to the simply unprecedented abuse of the filibuster in the years since the Democrats won control of the Senate and then took the White House, you have what we'd identify as a kind of long-term coup if we saw it happening anywhere else.**

If this comes down as another 5-4 judicial "activism" load of crap from the Righties on the Court, we will KNOW that our system of "fair and equal justice" is a pleasant relic from the past....

And what would a 4-5 decision be called in your sick world if the 5 represented liberal justices? Disneyland?

OK bush had a lot to do with our problems of today, he also had a democratic congress his last two years. Obama along with congress was Democrat for his first two years. So 4 years of basically a Democratic Congress nothing done, things just got worse with Bush gone. Now we have a repub house and demo Senate Demo President still nothing done. So this is no more a Bush did it or Bush did this or Bush did that. Obama is the Captain of the ship and it is slowly sinking and getting worse. It is his watch that simple.

You can save that "Democrats had control of congress" crap for someone who's stupid enough to believe it...(i.e., all of the right-wing Republicans). When you've got a filibuster on EVERY vote and it requires a 60-vote majority to pass ANYTHING, that's not a "Democratically-controlled Congress". That's a bunch of do-nothing obstructionist children throwing a tantrum because they couldn't have their way.

But I can tell you this.... The next Congress is going to take the idea of "filibuster" and "obstruction" to a whole new level. I can hear the stuck-pic squeals now when EVERYTHING the teabagger wackos try to do gets blocked...And if we are lucky enough to regain a 60-vote majority in the Senate, eating crow is also going to take on a "whole new meaning"....

Democracy4Sale wrote: You can save that "Democrats had control of congress" crap for someone who's stupid enough to believe it...(i.e., all of the right-wing Republicans). When you've got filibuster on EVERY vote and it requires a 60-vote majority to pass ANYTHING, that's not a "Democratically-controlled Congress". That's a bunch of do-nothing obstructionist children throwing a tantrum because they couldn't have their way.

Both side have the filibuster. Both sides have Citizens United. Both sides have an even playing field. It's all how well you play the game. Whine, whine, whine.

No, no more Bush did it... does not lift his responsibility for the tanking of the economy. No but he had a Democratic Congress absolves Bush from his share of the blame.

The economy's dive is the problem of all of the above. Bush didn't do enough to prevent this. The congress didn't do enough to prevent this. Obama hasn't done enough to repair the damage. The congress hasn't done enough to repair the damage.

It is Obama's watch. Just remember when and where this started. They both share the problem. One started it, the other was hired to fix it. Neither has done the job we hired them to do.

Soulshiner wrote: No, no more Bush did it... does not lift his responsibility for the tanking of the economy. No but he had a Democratic Congress absolves Bush from his share of the blame.

The economy's dive is the problem of all of the above. Bush didn't do enough to prevent this. The congress didn't do enough to prevent this. Obama hasn't done enough to repair the damage. The congress hasn't done enough to repair the damage.

It is Obama's watch. Just remember when and where this started. They both share the problem. One started it, the other was hired to fix it. Neither has done the job we hired them to do.

Oops... (maybe if he has 4 more years?)

Democracy4Sale wrote: You can save that "Democrats had control of congress" crap for someone who's stupid enough to believe it...(i.e., all of the right-wing Republicans). When you've got a filibuster on EVERY vote and it requires a 60-vote majority to pass ANYTHING, that's not a "Democratically-controlled Congress". That's a bunch of do-nothing obstructionist children throwing a tantrum because they couldn't have their way.

But I can tell you this.... The next Congress is going to take the idea of "filibuster" and "obstruction" to a whole new level. I can hear the stuck-pic squeals now when EVERYTHING the teabagger wackos try to do gets blocked...And if we are lucky enough to regain a 60-vote majority in the Senate, eating crow is also going to take on a "whole new meaning"....

Don't forget that the Democrats did avoid the need for a 60 vote majority for at least some cases when they invoked the Nuclear Option in 2011, which they fought against with all they had back when the Republicans considered it during the Bush years.

So if/when the Republicans again get a majority in the Senate, we'll see if they will fill more empowered to also use the Nuclear Option, now that the Democrats have used it.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/gird-your-loins-democrats-invoke-nuclear-option-in-senate/

Soulshiner wrote: No, no more Bush did it... does not lift his responsibility for the tanking of the economy. No but he had a Democratic Congress absolves Bush from his share of the blame.

The economy's dive is the problem of all of the above. Bush didn't do enough to prevent this. The congress didn't do enough to prevent this. Obama hasn't done enough to repair the damage. The congress hasn't done enough to repair the damage.

It is Obama's watch. Just remember when and where this started. They both share the problem. One started it, the other was hired to fix it. Neither has done the job we hired them to do.

thought that is what I said, but you did make sound somewhat more direct

Democracy4Sale wrote: You can save that "Democrats had control of congress" crap for someone who's stupid enough to believe it...(i.e., all of the right-wing Republicans). When you've got a filibuster on EVERY vote and it requires a 60-vote majority to pass ANYTHING, that's not a "Democratically-controlled Congress". That's a bunch of do-nothing obstructionist children throwing a tantrum because they couldn't have their way.

But I can tell you this.... The next Congress is going to take the idea of "filibuster" and "obstruction" to a whole new level. I can hear the stuck-pic squeals now when EVERYTHING the teabagger wackos try to do gets blocked...And if we are lucky enough to regain a 60-vote majority in the Senate, eating crow is also going to take on a "whole new meaning"....

unless something has changed it takes both the house and senate to pass laws.