Open thread June 23, 2015 Dan Crawford | June 23, 2015 9:40 am Tags: open thread Comments (15) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
Fast-Track Trade Bill Clears Key Hurdle in Senate
Ok, this was expected. But what does it mean? Is this going to become law, or is this just political stuff to make some folks “look good”??
it means we all should hurry and call Obama and ask him not to sign it..
Rjs must be snarking. It’s going to become law.
no Jack, i was holding out hope…we are about to be so screwed it defies the imagination.
rjs – Call Obama? TPP is his baby. It’s his legacy. I wouldn’t bother to call “O” about this
i dunno. we could HOPE he’ll CHANGE his mind.
we could offer him a grand bargain, like trade SS for TPP.
guys at the top think in high abstractions. they are only chess pieces, after all.
no real people were hurt in the making of this movie.
I can hear the large sucking sound once again of the massive job losses that Ross Perot warned us about 25 years ago. We have not learned from our past mistakes so we are bound to repeat them. I think its time to buy China stocks once again. Good Buy.
The surprising (and depressing) change from earlier trade deals is that the Dems aren’t even trying to make it look like a tough battle. They usually use the closeness of these votes as fundraising triggers; “Help elect a legislator who will stand against these corporate giveaways etc.”
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised – a secret agreement whose terms aren’t subject to legislative review or amendment is passed via a process which implicitly rejects popular appeal. Ok I get it.
Dems need the fascists’ money
Decision of the Fourth Circuit is affirmed in King v. Burwell. 6-3. This means that individuals who get their health insurance through an exchange established by the federal government will be eligible for tax subsidies.
It appears that Chief Justice Roberts is trying hard to avoid being the Chief of the most reactionary and arbitrary Supreme Court in our country’s history. At least he recognizes that he’s allowed Scalia, Alito and Thomas to make a mockery of Constitutional interpretation for too long a time. Try to remember that our most “liberal” Chief Justice, Earl Warren, of our most liberal Supreme Court was also a Republican. But that was at a time when the Court was still making an effort to pass judgement in a rational manner.
Republicans of Warren’s time had diversity of opinions on most issues. Now “Rockefeller Republican” is a topic for cultural anthropologists.
“’Rockefeller Republican’ is a topic for cultural anthropologists.” That is funny.
Scalia: “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”
So, Scalia recognizes that a certain interpretation is required in order to save the ACA, but still feels it should be “obvious” that the correct interpretation is the one that destroys the ACA.
Because Congress clearly intended it to implode?
Yes Scalia is arguing that not only did the card say “The Moops Invaded Spain” but that the Moops actually did so AND that the ostensible Defenders of Spain secretly invited them to invade.
He should have just stuck with “Hey that is what the card says! We don’t make the rules” (Even though of course that is what in the end the Supremes do). At least it wouldn’t have failed the laugh test outright.