January 21, 2009

Hillary confirmed.

Only Vitter and DeMint vote no.

AND: McCain helped.

41 comments:

Palladian said...

"Finally that bitch is safely out of the way!"

TMink said...

^5 Palladian!

I was just gonna post what Bill thought after she was confirmed.

Great minds.

Trey

Maguro said...

"Finally that bitch is safely out of the way!"

Bill's thoughts or Obama's?

Palladian said...

Haha, I was actually imagining quite a few people whispering that under their breath.

garage mahal said...

"Finally that bitch is safely out of the way!"

That's Madame Secretary Bitch to you, Bitch.

Palladian said...

"That's Madame Secretary Bitch to you, Bitch."

Madame sounds so kinky!

Maguro said...

Madame sounds so kinky!

If Vitter had seen that, he wouldn't have voted against her!

Simon said...

I think it's a deeply troubling comment on the Senate - all of them, not just the majority - that Salazar and Clinton's ineligibility to the office passed nem con (the only nay votes being hollow politicking). So far as I can tell, not a word was said about it. That is an inauspicious start.

garage mahal said...

LOL. Bill wishes that was her real rack though.

If Vitter had seen that, he wouldn't have voted against her!

If she had diapers on Ibet he would have ;)

Ann Althouse said...

I knew that link would go there.

Simon said...

I mean, it might be one thing if there had at least been a debate. There are arguments that can be made for why Clinton and Salazar could get around the text. Not any remotely persuasive arguments, but points nonetheless, and some scholars have half-heartedly trotted them out. But for it to pass with not a comment, not a vote, nary a whisper is obscene.

rhhardin said...

Constitutional prohibition of increased emollients is waived in the case of old women.

Eli Blake said...

No, Vitter is still mad because he had to pay for the same service Bill Clinton got as a perk.

Palladian said...

"I mean, it might be one thing if there had at least been a debate."

Debate? There will be no more debate, my friend! What's to debate? We are what we have been waiting for™!

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quayle said...

From a utilitarian perspective, it is a pretty good idea to use our very best liars to deal with other nations.

It isn't easy to beat the Clintons, so good luck to the French and other European diplomats.

And in the middle east, we've matched the profiteering thugs of Hamas with our own profiteering thugs.

America is growing up in the world.

Revenant said...

Simon, I think the reason it didn't come up is the reasoning behind that particular Constitutional provision don't apply here. The idea was to prevent Congresscritters from creating some lucrative new job in which to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense. Nobody in their right mind thinks Clinton or Salazar is taking a Cabinet job for the money. The job could pay zero dollars a year and Clinton, at least, would still take it. She's already rich; she's in it for the power.

Yes, it is technically unconstitutional, but the government commits so many truly egregious violations of the Constitution on a daily basis that it is impossible to care about something so trivial. Its like worrying that a bank robber did 60 in a 55 zone during his getaway.

Revenant said...

From a utilitarian perspective, it is a pretty good idea to use our very best liars to deal with other nations. It isn't easy to beat the Clintons, so good luck to the French and other European diplomats.

Eh. Bill was a brilliant liar. Look at Kyoto, for example -- he managed to convince the bulk of Europeans not only that he wanted it ratified, but that it HAD been. He didn't even send it to the Senate!

His wife, on the other hand, does not share his talents. The fact that she lost to Obama pretty clearly shows that. :)

1jpb said...

So, Vitter was the GOP point person against the second $350 billion.

And, now he's noise against HRC.

It's interesting that he's doing things that could raise his profile on the national stage. He could become the face of the BHO opposition. I wonder if Vitter can count on the media to service him.

Maybe in six months he'll succeed in joining the other high profile GOP media stars (Rush, Palin, JTP.)

vbspurs said...

Palladian wrote:

Madame sounds so kinky!

You're not kidding! Remember?

- "Darling, I love my country. It may not be as great as we want it to be YET, but it's the best one around."

"You know what, Wayland? I've been thinking of tossing my little hat into the Presidential race."

- "President? You Madame?"

- "Why not?! I'd love to see a bitch in the White House just once"

I know my Muppets.

Cheers,
Victoria

ricpic said...

Has McCain been named the Democratic whip yet?

Simon said...

Rev, the mismatch between the rule and the reason was remarked on as far back as Joseph Story's Commentaries - and it doesn't change the breadth of the clause's rule. "Technically unconstitutional"? So it's to be set aside when inconvenient - or when the people don't care? Then we discard it in its entirety, one cut at a time. I don't accept that result.

This will be and should be litigated, as soon as someone with standing is found; between Salazar and Clinton, the pool should be broad enough. But it is a poor commentary on our new President and our most recent batch of Senators, an august body that have rarely so accurately deserved Milton Berle's observation that one can lead a man to Congress but you can't make him think.

Michael H said...

Clinton "has the full package," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the Senate

Words fail me.

Darcy said...

ricpic said...Has McCain been named the Democratic whip yet?

Oy! Don't write that out loud, please.

Revenant said...

"Technically unconstitutional"? So it's to be set aside when inconvenient - or when the people don't care?

Congress ignores the fact that its powers are enumerated and treats the Commerce Clause like a blanket license to do anything it wants, pretty much every day it is in session. The Supreme Court, even the so-called "originalists" and "textualists", sign off on this regularly.

If the entire government ignores both the letter and the intent of the Constitution on a daily basis with no more than a tiny percentage of the population caring in the slightest, why exactly should anyone be surprised that nobody notices or cares when something as trivial and pointless as the emollients clause gets violated without any debate?

I wonder -- during the debate over whether or not to bail out the Big Three automakers, how many Congresscritters actually took the time to note that doing so was forbidden by the Constitution? Would it be shocking if the number was zero?

Pogo said...

Hillary confirmed.

She's catholic?

Michael H said...

Hillary confirmed.

She's catholic?


A consecrated virgin, if you believe Bill.

fcai said...

Say hello to Senator Kennedy.2 - is this a great country or what?

1jpb said...

Say hello to Senator Kennedy.2

Not what I heard.

MadisonMan said...

Not what I heard.

Sorry, you can't write only that. You have to write what you heard.

Cedarford said...

Simon said...
I think it's a deeply troubling comment on the Senate - all of them, not just the majority - that Salazar and Clinton's ineligibility to the office passed nem con


Revenent answered your trivial pursuit, well.

I would add that the states mirror the Fed Constitution in barring legislators from creating offices and positions with the intent of enriching themselves, family, or "loyal supplicants".
Yet we have many legislators going over to the executive in the States, to offices and agencies they may have voted to fund or grant perks to.

None of the states have had significant challenges.

I am far more concerned about legislators and executive staff in government becoming corrupted by the revolving door - whereby they are enriched or aggrandize more political power by playing footsie with lobbyists or private industry they are supposed to watch over. With their reward perpetuation of power by donor bucks or a big, fat salary and bonus awaiting them as they leave their "public service".

Pretending that people who vote across the board COLAs or decide that per diem rates need to be augment when the dollar is in the toilet for those officials traveling internationally?

Pure chickenshit no one but worshippers of the literal word of the Sacred Parchment care about.

Consider it from the other side. Members of the executive and judiciary that see the legislative branch make good rational calls on spending money for themselves for COLAs, per diem adjustments, and new technological means that make them more effective (transition from trains and steamers to more expensive but faster and more personally convenient air travel, PCs, blackberries for Legislators and staffers). Who then explain to members of the Executive and Judiciary that they get nothing. Because literalist legislators wish to keep their "options" open because of the "emolients" matter. A substantial number of legislators, who wish to have at least the option of pursuing executive and judicial power for themselves after a long and lucrative legislative career - if they don't choose the revolving door into private industry and/or lobbying their old cronies..

*********************

Palladian said...

"Pure chickenshit no one but worshippers of the literal word of the Sacred Parchment care about."

We call those people good Americans. We all know you'd like to use "the Sacred Parchment" to light the fire under the Jews.

Nichevo said...

Let me take another angle. I have a liberal friend, and old liberal friend, who is gloating as delicately as he can about how Obama will have 8 years, HR will do 8 as SoS and then be Pres for 8. I plead history to him but he is the History-is-bunk, this is NEW type of mind.

Don't we agree that nobody finishes out 8 years; that HRC will be too old; and that he is getting a little ahead of himself?

Or does this happen all the time? I'd like to have some kind of support for my replies to him.

Simon said...

Palladian said...
"We all know you'd like to use 'the Sacred Parchment' to light the fire under the Jews[, Cedarford]."

Nicely done.

Revenant said...
"Congress ignores the fact that its powers are enumerated and treats the Commerce Clause like a blanket license to do anything it wants, pretty much every day it is in session."

It does, and that's disreputable, too. Indeed, I've proposed in comments and posts passim that courts entirely abandon the presumption of constitutionality except in cases where there are explicit findings going to the Constitutionality of the act. Congress has done nothing in recent decades to imply it even believes in the limits of its power, let alone respects them.

You know, it's sad. When I first moved to the United States, I revered and respected Congress. Then I spent time learning about it, watching it in action, and reading its work product, and realized just how well-founded the traditional American contempt for Congress really is. I have deep respect for the institution - I just wish its members behaved in a manner suggesting that they do, too.

"The Supreme Court, even the so-called 'originalists' and 'textualists', sign off on this regularly."

Not convinced. Examples of Scalia and Thomas treating it as such? Even Scalia's Raich concurrence, which comes closest to what you're describing, is hardly a "blanket license."

"If the entire government ignores both the letter and the intent of the Constitution on a daily basis with no more than a tiny percentage of the population caring in the slightest, why exactly should anyone be surprised that nobody notices or cares when something as trivial and pointless as the emollients clause gets violated without any debate?"

Until the public cares enough to amend the Constitution - and I for one will fight most attempts to do so - it should be followed. What's that phrase - "yesterday's mistakes cannot baptize tommorow's"?

Michael H said...
"A consecrated virgin, if you believe Bill."

Happily married men don't stray.

TitusPanicInTheStreetsofDundy said...

Vitter wears diapers and has to pay for sex. But he is really a very christian family values man.

I like the fact he is a whore but the paying for it and diapers thing is a little beneath me.

TitusPanicInTheStreetsofDundy said...

Vitter wears diapers and has to pay for sex. But he is really a very christian family values man.

I like the fact he is a whore but the paying for it and diapers thing is a little beneath me.

Beth said...

Maybe in six months he'll succeed in joining the other high profile GOP media stars (Rush, Palin, JTP.)

He's coming up for re-election.

Eli Blake said...

Just a reminder: Republicans have to have 41 votes to maintain a filibuster.

Right now they have 41 Senators.

Including McCain.

I suspect they won't maintain very many filibusters (not to mention that they also would have to prevent Lindsey Graham, Arlen Specter, the two women from Maine and the retiring George Voinovich not to stray off the farm.)

Oh, happy day. The Obama recovery plan will get through Congress, Republicans can get with the program or they can complain. But it's going through.

peter hoh said...

Simon wrote: Happily married men don't stray.

Such naivete is sweet. Simon, get back to me after you've been happily married for a couple of decades.

Simon said...

Eli, the Senate GOP are smart enough to know that their careers are over if they don't do everything they can to stop Obama's plan. No matter what they do, their Democratic constituents will want to be rid of them, and if they buckle, their GOP constituents will want to be rid of them, too. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but woe betide the politician who pisses off most of the people.

Bob said...

Chuck Schumer is a happy man today as the NY fight for microphones is ended. Both Hillary and Caroline gone in a single day.