Althouse: "Every senator uses whatever leverage they have to help their states. That’s the way it has been. That’s the way it will always be."

December 21, 2009

"Every senator uses whatever leverage they have to help their states. That’s the way it has been. That’s the way it will always be."

David Axelrod expects us to deal with the nasty aspects of American federalism.

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming...

Did your state win?

113 comments:

chuck b. said...: So much for "Together we are going to change Washington!"; 12/21/09, 12:01 PM
gopinexile said...: So Ann,

Are you voting for Feingold next year?; 12/21/09, 12:01 PM
chuck b. said...: (I never held out much hope for changing Washington.); 12/21/09, 12:03 PM
Eric said...: Yep, that's the way it's been since we transitioned from a federal government to a national government.; 12/21/09, 12:04 PM
hawkeyedjb said...: When the Chinese find out what we've been doing with their money they're gonna want it back.; 12/21/09, 12:10 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: It has not always been that way.

Eff them all. Vile, power-hungry, money-grubbing snakes.; 12/21/09, 12:10 PM
jayne_cobb said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/21/09, 12:12 PM
vbspurs said...: When Marco Rubio becomes our new Florida Senator next year, we'll be winning even less with Obama as President. Thank God.

Cheers,
Victoria; 12/21/09, 12:18 PM
holdfast said...: Of course, now Washington has more and bigger plums to dish our - an order of magnitude bigger. This is no longer about the location of an Army base or two.; 12/21/09, 12:18 PM
Michael said...: Once the bill is passed, can't we sponsor some new legislation that would undo all of the bribes?

Republicans should be able to get at least 30 of 40 votes, and hopefully there would 30 of 60 Democrats willing to go along with it.

That would force Democrats to put their names up for or against just the bribes, and if passed, would punish those who took bribe money to begin with, and might save a few hundred million dollars in the long run.; 12/21/09, 12:24 PM
Sorin said...: And the moral of the story: You just can't keep a near dead man down.; 12/21/09, 12:34 PM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: Swell, now we'll get all those savings from the Medicare cuts and from greater efficiency.

Yes we will.

Paul Krugman believes this and he's a Nobel laureate. And if you don't believe him you're a wingnut.; 12/21/09, 12:35 PM
traditionalguy said...: The English like to say "in for a penny, in for a pound". The Democrats just proudly revoked the American form of limited government. We are all in for a penny now and the Democrats will to see us in for a pound. All over some uninsured people. The freedom to make and keep our own money has been stolen from us over this Free Insurance illusion. We need 40 days of mourning.; 12/21/09, 12:36 PM
chickelit said...: This is just the President's way of helping his grandparent's kind of folks.; 12/21/09, 12:37 PM
vbspurs said...: The best thing about this Bill, if you're a twisted, mean person such as myself, is that young people and the aged are the ones most harmed by it. You think they realise it'll be paid with Medicare cuts, as well as when insurance companies are FORCED to accept previous conditions, they will raise premiums on the young and healthy to survive? I don't think so.

And which two demographics, other than black Americans, voted for Obama overwhelmingly? The young and the aged.

You know, it strikes me that Democratic politicians always do this to their supportership. They stick it to them, and these people applaud and keep on voting for them. "Don't ask / don't tell", "workfare" and "Three strikes and you're out" all come to mind, immediately.

Meanwhile, when we Republicans get screwed, we sit up and take note on who is screwing us -- and you can bet we don't elect them again. I wouldn't vote for Charlie Crist for dog catcher now.

Cheers,
Victoria; 12/21/09, 12:44 PM
Original Mike said...: These one-state deals are an outrage.

I suggest all of the challengers in the States Who were Screwed campaign against incumbants who vote for this deal by running adds highlighting these deals.; 12/21/09, 12:45 PM
Methadras said...: What are you people complaining about? You will get your bread, you will get your circus, and when 50% of the people can vote themselves money, well, then this country as you know it will be over. What's left to do after American Universal Healthcare? Why amnesty of course. Bye United States, it was fun while it lasted.; 12/21/09, 12:48 PM
bearbee said...: Axhole; 12/21/09, 12:49 PM
chuck b. said...: Can't fault Axelrod's pragmatism here.

Love us some pragmatism.; 12/21/09, 12:53 PM
hombre said...: Clearly, we have allowed our political system to become infested with creatures who, giving them the benefit of every doubt, believe it is appropriate to compromise their integrity and the integrity of the process for causes they deem to be "good."

If we don't give them the benefit of every doubt, they are just thieves.; 12/21/09, 12:54 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: All tiny Western states that would otherwise be totally ignored by the federal government. Federalism working as intended.; 12/21/09, 12:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Three words: line item veto.

And it's absolutely long past time to begin holding both major parties to the standard of limited Constitutional government. It's a binary: you either support it in practice or you don't. If you don't, you get voted out. If you mess with that process (I'm looking at you, ACORN, SEIU...) you get shot.; 12/21/09, 12:58 PM
dwbh said...: Well, yes, Montana did win some time ago, thanks to Sen. Baucus' hard work in the Senate Finance Committee this summer. And Senator Enzi of Wyoming got approximately a jillion of his amendments in the final bill.; 12/21/09, 12:59 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: I think adding a third house of Congress is the solution.

This new house would have one duty. Any law more than five years old could be repealed by a simple majority.

Line item veto doesn't fix what's already been done. We need a mechanism to get rid of old laws, not just block new ones.; 12/21/09, 1:00 PM
Ned said...: Paul Snively said...

Three words: line item veto.

TWO Words...TERM LIMITS; 12/21/09, 1:04 PM
former law student said...: Three words: line item veto.
Two words: Constitutional amendment.; 12/21/09, 1:05 PM
Henry said...: Rhode Island lost 13 months ago when the execrable Sheldon Whitehouse swamped Lincoln Chaffee.; 12/21/09, 1:05 PM
Palladian said...: "Paul Krugman believes this and he's a Nobel laureate."

So is Barack Obama. And he'll believe anything.; 12/21/09, 1:07 PM
former law student said...: TERM LIMITS

In California has resulted in same amount of ideology and partisan politics, without the experience to quash bad bills:

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_1104BCRB.pdf; 12/21/09, 1:10 PM
Palladian said...: No one elected into government should be allowed to serve more than two brief terms, no more than 4 years each, ever, anywhere. That should include Supreme Court Justices.; 12/21/09, 1:10 PM
Gahrie said...: Every candidate for national office for at least the next four years should be forced to answer the following question:

"Will you vote to overturn every aspect of the recently passed health care bill?"; 12/21/09, 1:12 PM
Palladian said...: Everyone incumbent prior to my new term-limit law's passage shall be ineligible for further office.

If this doesn't work, we might need to get all Robespierre on their asses.; 12/21/09, 1:13 PM
Gahrie said...: Palladin:

While I agree with term limits in theory..your suggestion would just turn over our government to the permanent bureaucracy and staffers.; 12/21/09, 1:13 PM
chickelit said...: Palladian wrote:
If this doesn't work, we might need to get all Robespierre on their asses.

I know eligible voters who still don't give a crap about all this--those are the people that need going after--the apathetic.; 12/21/09, 1:19 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: It's just Monopoly money - so who cares?

Oh wait, Obama is now saying we need to be careful about the Monopoly money. Thank you, oh great leader.; 12/21/09, 1:20 PM
bagoh20 said...: ""Three words: line item veto.""
"Two words: Constitutional amendment."

One word: Apathy.

Mine wins!; 12/21/09, 1:28 PM
KCFleming said...: A surgeon I know announced today that he is, instead of going part time, retiring. "To hell with it" was the sentiment, given the looming 20% cut in fees accompanying this bill.

Expect more of the same. Democrats forget that the MD population is as old as the nursing population and approaching their own retirements, leaving a massive staff shortage at the same time they want health care workers to take a huge cut in pay.

Two phrases you should get used to seeing over the next few years:
Nurses strike.
Doctors strike."; 12/21/09, 1:35 PM
Anonymous said...: If Republicans take back the House next year, their first order of business should be to repeal this. Sure, they may not have the Senate, and the President might threaten a veto, but a if the House resolved that not a single bill would pass, except military funding, they could get this monstrosity reversed.; 12/21/09, 1:40 PM
Roger J. said...: the American people deserve what they got--they can fix it if they want to, but I dont see that happening--after a couple of years, whatever final health care bill emerges from conference will be taking over, and the American people will accept it. We should all remember that a majority of the American people have given us our elected representatives. Fuck us all (except for me, of course, who is too old to be hurt by this bill.); 12/21/09, 1:45 PM
Big Mike said...: Does anybody know a good Con Law professor who could weigh in on whether the concessions made to Nelson violate Article 1 Section 8?; 12/21/09, 1:49 PM
Big Mike said...: @gopinexile, of course she will. Ann Althouse is a professor at one of the furthest left state universities in the Midwest. She will vote for Feingold.; 12/21/09, 1:51 PM
Alex said...: Whine, whine, bitch, bitch, whine. Typical Althouse bitch-fest after the Dems win another victory!; 12/21/09, 1:58 PM
Alex said...: God bless Noam Chomsky.
God bless Lawrence Tribe.
God bless Nelson Mandela.
God bless the Marxists!; 12/21/09, 1:59 PM
Unknown said...: chuck b. said...

(I never held out much hope for changing Washington.)

Think black plague.

Michael said...

Once the bill is passed, can't we sponsor some new legislation that would undo all of the bribes?

It's called repeal and should include TARP, stimulus, and the bailouts.

traditionalguy said...

The English like to say "in for a penny, in for a pound". The Democrats just proudly revoked the American form of limited government.

What the Demos revoked was the concept of "consent of the governed". They don't govern any more, they rule.

Roger J. said...

the American people deserve what they got--they can fix it if they want to, but I dont see that happening--after a couple of years, whatever final health care bill emerges from conference will be taking over, and the American people will accept it.

This assumes we don't go the way of the Weimar Republic, since we don't have the capital to back up our current obligations, much less any new ones. That, of course, would mean cap and trade doesn't pass. In that event, there's no doubt - Weimar, here we come.; 12/21/09, 2:03 PM
KCFleming said...: Titus forgot to sign off as Alex again.; 12/21/09, 2:03 PM
Joe said...: BTW, congrats Henry for having one of the biggest assholes ever as your Senator. Did Rhode Islanders collectively lose their minds or something?; 12/21/09, 2:09 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Whine, whine, bitch, bitch, whine. Typical Althouse bitch-fest after the Dems win another victory!"

Congratulations!!!. Be proud! Well Done!

Doesn't really feel good though, does it?

Make no mistake, in the mid term, this is a major victory for conservatives, and liberals know it. Sucks having no one else to blame though.; 12/21/09, 2:13 PM
Roger J. said...: edutcher: good point re Weimar. Perhaps the chinese can save us by not buying any more of our increasingly worthless paper--then we can print more money and go into hyper inflation in order to pay for this monstrosity along with the others this last 15 months. -yeah--that Weimar thing might be a possible model.; 12/21/09, 2:13 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: There is a man-rule somewhere that says guys named Sheldon or Barry or Faultleroy or Milton are not to be trusted.

This man-rule was discovered way before Obama was on the scene. It may explain whay he changed his preferred tag from Barry to Barack.

I do not make this stuff up.; 12/21/09, 2:18 PM
knox said...: I thought this was about doing "what's right," not procuring favors and big bucks?; 12/21/09, 2:19 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Palladian:

I say Fuck the terms limits and make them become part-time legislators [cut their pay in half]. And let's gut their staff budgets too by at least 50%.

Heh, I may have just fixed the deficit.; 12/21/09, 2:22 PM
Kev said...: No one elected into government should be allowed to serve more than two brief terms, no more than 4 years each, ever, anywhere. That should include Supreme Court Justices.

I'm a tad more generous than Palladian (I'd give them a decade at most), but otherwise I agree.

While I agree with term limits in theory..your suggestion would just turn over our government to the permanent bureaucracy and staffers.

Gahrie, there's an answer to that as well: Term limits for all in government, whether elected, appointed or hired. That would include all the bureaucrats and staff, and it would turn public "service" into true service, as opposed to what it is now.

I'd even go a bit more hardcore by suggesting that government work would not be allowed to be an entry-level position; a certain length of time (the same ten years, maybe?) would have to be spent in the productive class as a prerequisite for being hired.; 12/21/09, 2:22 PM
Jon said...: @ vbspurs

And which two demographics, other than black Americans, voted for Obama overwhelmingly?
The young and the aged.

Actually, 65 and older voted for McCain. In fact, Obama only won among those under 45 (from 45-64 it was a tie).

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1023/exit-poll-analysis-2008; 12/21/09, 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...: "That would include all the bureaucrats and staff, and it would turn public "service" into true service, as opposed to what it is now."

It's not "service' it's a life-style choice. "Public service"..gag a maggot.; 12/21/09, 2:34 PM
Michael said...: I have always thought it would be a good idea to pay these vulgar people by the laws they rescind. Say $1,000 per legislator per law removed from the books. The easy ones would go first, everyone would make a bunch of money, but as we progressed we would have real debate about those laws that were, in fact, necessary for our safety and well being. I think this could go on for quite some time. Unfortunately, we have named these buffoons "lawmakers" and they have taken this to heart with a vengeance. A new and horrible vengeance.; 12/21/09, 2:54 PM
John Stodder said...: I posted something like this in the Coburn thread, but maybe it's more relevant here. Clearly term limits, line-item veto, part-time legislature and -- a great idea by the way -- the third house of Congress that gets to overturn old laws by majority vote...none of these will happen. Elections happen.

Assuming the health care bill is passed and signed, do the Republicans base their 2010 campaign on the goal of a veto-proof majority to repeal it? If they threw in some of the other dreck from Congress '09 into this omnibus repeal appeal they might find a surprising amount of success. And if they don't do this, the tea-party contingent will.

In terms of available legislative seats, achieving such a goal is unlikely, but the sense of urgency around the attempt justifies a galvanizing type of campaign -- a mirror image of the netroots enthusiasm that helped get Obama elected.

"Repeal Obama" is kind of catchy. And it goes to what the electorate seems to want. I don't think it's nearly enough motivation to get people to vote on the theme of "Don't let them have 60 again." It's what's been done this year that is at issue. The public has not yet been asked to vote on this kind of sweeping takeover of health care.

But it's only an effective referendum if the proposed outcome is actual repeal, not just sand in the gears of implementation. Democrats can and should take part in this, by the way. If a Democrat wants to sign a pledge to repeal the bill, he or she should not be targeted.; 12/21/09, 3:02 PM
KCFleming said...: Screw the "throw the bums out in 2010" crap.

I want to look into a recall vote.
No joke.
Anyone know how that works for House and Senate?
Can the Prez be recalled?; 12/21/09, 3:03 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Lars:

Agreed.

The misnomer "Public service" has given us career pols who excel at feeding-at-the-public trough like Ted Kennedy and his spawn, John Kerry, Arlen Specter & his spawn, Sebelius, etc; 12/21/09, 3:03 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Pogo:

This has to be an election where the new guys promise to honor term limit pledges, to repeal as much shit as possible, to get back to basics and to cut spending by 10-15% minimum. ....The overriding voter mantra must be "we ain't paying for all this shit anymore".; 12/21/09, 3:06 PM
Palladian said...: I'm sorry but I still think "Going Robespierre" is the best option. Let's do it right on the Capitol steps...; 12/21/09, 3:16 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Is it any more sleazy than the promises made to get the final holdouts to vote for Medicare, Part D?; 12/21/09, 3:17 PM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: Short term: hurts the liberals.

Long term: big win.

Compare how the major parties in other industrialized nations treat their national healthcare. It's untouchable.

Pass a program, build up a constituency for it, ennervate the private sector, increase benefits. Voila! An untouchable entitlement program.

Works until the entire system collapses. But as Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead.; 12/21/09, 3:18 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I like that idea too Palladian. But let's hold on a minute because I just heard Prez Obama say he is going to cut the deficit.; 12/21/09, 3:19 PM
kentuckyliz said...: I'm cynical.

I see dead people.

Every election day.

Dead men voting even when the polls are still open.

Writing to the Secretary of State with a request to de-register dead people doesn't work, even when done by his widow, even with a notarized copy of the death certificate, even when sent certified mail return receipt.

As long as dead people keep voting, all the little measures in the world mean nothing.

Maybe I should join ACORN and sabotage it from the inside.

wv outgall; 12/21/09, 3:20 PM
mariner said...: chuck b.:
So much for "Together we are going to change Washington!"

No Chuck, they were right.

They HAVE changed Washington, and those of us who wondered whether it could get worse now have the answer.

wv: imptnes -- the center of Democrats' promise to end the culture of corruption; 12/21/09, 3:32 PM
Superdad said...: "All tiny Western states that would otherwise be totally ignored by the federal government. Federalism working as intended."

This is not federalism as intended. The Senate (as intended) was supposed to be the vanguard of states' rights - not the redistributors of dollars. This attitude is a direct result of making Senator’s directly elected. Senators used to have to worry about making sure they did not step on the toes of the state level officials but once they began popularly electing them there was no incentive to guard the independent sovereignty of the states. You can thank a populist for the increased involvement of the national gov’t.; 12/21/09, 3:35 PM
garage mahal said...: Obama signed the anti-rape bill into law today.

All together now:

BOOOOOOOOOOOO; 12/21/09, 3:37 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Rape wasn't against the law already? Who knew.

wv: suphell: How you greet the future on its current trajectory.; 12/21/09, 3:41 PM
garage mahal said...: Apparently not Freeman.; 12/21/09, 3:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, that is the way business is done. That's why the Founders limited government's reach, to forestall the day, soon coming, when their beloved republic sinks into a sea of corruption and debt.; 12/21/09, 3:51 PM
Michael Haz said...: I see dead people.

Every election day.

Welcome to the United States of Chicago.; 12/21/09, 3:53 PM
John Stodder said...: Compare how the major parties in other industrialized nations treat their national healthcare. It's untouchable.

Pass a program, build up a constituency for it, ennervate the private sector, increase benefits. Voila! An untouchable entitlement program.

That's the E.J. Dionne-esque conventional wisdom, but how does it apply to a bill whose benefits won't kick in until 2013? Assuming nothing upsets Obama's applecart and the bill goes into law as expected, untouchability only kicks in another five years after that, and this assumes voters see actual benefits similar to the UK's or Canada's.

No, there are going to be at least two elections, perhaps three, that will be referenda on health care, any or all of which could change what's happening.; 12/21/09, 4:12 PM
X said...: Rape wasn't against the law already? Who knew.

rape-rape was already illegal. this closes the rape loophole so that no longer do judges and juries have to make the false choice of is it rape or rape-rape.; 12/21/09, 4:15 PM
John Stodder said...: Blogger Freeman Hunt said...

Rape wasn't against the law already? Who knew.

12/21/09 3:41 PM

Blogger garage mahal said...

Apparently not Freeman.

12/21/09 3:45 PM

Obviously, garage knows rape is illegal in all 50 states.

Apparently, he also believes that a crime really isn't being taken seriously unless it is ALSO in the federal laws. Per garage, those local cops and DAs, nationwide, can't be trusted to protect the people they are sworn to protect, nor respond to the local electorate that puts their bosses in office. Sadly, we yokels are perfectly willing to let rape go unpunished, so, per garage, THANK GOD, the feds have finally stepped in to end the plague of unprosecuted rapes.; 12/21/09, 4:18 PM
bagoh20 said...: I guess they passed the anti-rape law right after they voted to rape us. It's all in the timing.; 12/21/09, 4:20 PM
Roger J. said...: Reform? easy:

Repeal the 17th and 18th Amendments! Let legislatures elect senators and abolish the income tax; 12/21/09, 4:22 PM
ricpic said...: "And furthermore, I solemnly swear to help my state by bankrupting it. So help me, Hannah."; 12/21/09, 4:24 PM
jayne_cobb said...: John Stodder,

Don't forget that the taxes kick in far earlier than any purported benefits (roughly 3 years earlier).

This, coupled with the fact that rates are likely to rise as a result of this legislation, could make it far easier to repeal (or at the very least gut) any law.

Granted this is dependent on a large GOP victory in the various elections which is far from certain.; 12/21/09, 4:25 PM
former law student said...: THANK GOD, the feds have finally stepped in to end the plague of unprosecuted rapes.

Well, if it was your own 20 year old daughter who had been gangraped by US government contractors in Iraq, her first week on the job, maybe you would appreciate her need for legal recourse.

In the case that prompted this law, instead of providing her recourse, KBR locked the victim in a shipping container.

The Senate (as intended) was supposed to be the vanguard of states' rights - not the redistributors of dollars. This attitude is a direct result of making Senator’s directly elected.

Huge states with tiny populations have always needed more Federal resources than they could afford. Remember the US Cavalry protecting Maureen O'Hara from being savaged by savages?

Senators used to have to worry about making sure they did not step on the toes of the state level officials but once they began popularly electing them there was no incentive to guard the independent sovereignty of the states.

Conservatives have already tossed out the window the notion of guarding the independent sovereignty of the states, when they urged that individuals be allowed to buy health insurance across state lines.; 12/21/09, 4:32 PM
John Stodder said...: Granted this is dependent on a large GOP victory in the various elections which is far from certain.

It is and it isn't. If the election shapes up to be a wave of protest, it's likely that some Democrats will run on a pledge of repeal and/or join the cause after the new Congress is seated. I hope that happens, because frankly I'm not all that thrilled that Republicans are going to benefit from all this. They haven't earned squat. But because our republic is limited to two viable parties, the only way we can communicate with these lordly capitol solons is by taking their power away, and that's a zero sum equation.

wv: pubba == a great bar in Arkansas.; 12/21/09, 4:33 PM
garage mahal said...: Sadly, we yokels are perfectly willing to let rape go unpunished, so, per garage, THANK GOD, the feds have finally stepped in to end the plague of unprosecuted rapes.

You sound like Republicans that voted AGAINST prosecuting rape. Pretty sick.; 12/21/09, 4:33 PM
John Stodder said...: Well, if it was your own 20 year old daughter who had been gangraped by US government contractors in Iraq, her first week on the job, maybe you would appreciate her need for legal recourse.

Seriously, no law covered this?

If not, that raises issues about how the contractors are governed.

No state could claim jurisdiction, i.e. the girl's home state, or the contractors' US headquarters?

Jack McCoy would've figured out an angle.

Obviously, if there is a loophole that allows US contractors to prey on US citizens overseas, then I'm glad they plugged it. But I find it kind of hard to believe. 'Til now, were rapes effectively legal in US Embassies and customs offices?; 12/21/09, 4:38 PM
garage mahal said...: And Republicans almost unanimously wanted to keep rape legal. Sick sick sick.; 12/21/09, 4:41 PM
garage mahal said...: Thank God for Al Franken!; 12/21/09, 4:42 PM
former law student said...: Don't forget that the taxes kick in far earlier than any purported benefits (roughly 3 years earlier).

Benefits will start immediately ($5 billion to cover those denied coverage for preexisting conditions, closing the "donut hole" for Medicare Part B), while no individuals will see a tax increase till 2013 (assuming they don't decide to get a boob job next year, and assuming the cosmetic surgery tax stays in the bill.); 12/21/09, 4:49 PM
Kev said...: It's not "service' it's a life-style choice. "Public service"..gag a maggot.

Agreed, Lars; that's why I put "service" in quotes. I suppose that, at one time in our nation's history, people in elected office actually served the public, but nowadays, they're only serving their pocketbooks, egos, etc.

Clearly term limits, line-item veto, part-time legislature and -- a great idea by the way -- the third house of Congress that gets to overturn old laws by majority vote...none of these will happen.

But they could happen, if enough people got off the couch and made them happen. Wouldn't a revolution of this kind be preferable to the kind with guns? Even the most dense Congresscritter would figure that out after a while...; 12/21/09, 4:49 PM
bagoh20 said...: Yea, Republican want rape to be legal. Garage, that could be the wikiexample for "trolling"... or lie (same thing). You wouldn't lie or troll would you?; 12/21/09, 4:50 PM
John Stodder said...: garage, you're either missing my point or missing the irony.

There are lots of crimes on the books in each of the 50 states, for which an additional layer of federal law is redundant and potentially problematic. Law enforcement should be accountable at the most local possible level. I vote for Sheriff and District Attorney in my county. If they aren't doing their jobs, they can be replaced. However, the head of each US Attorney's office prosecutor is an appointee of the US Attorney General. He is she is accountable only to them. If they aren't doing their jobs, I have to convince voters in all 50 states to help us get rid of them.

This is why it is neither callous nor anything particularly "sick" about at least questioning the need for a federal law against rape. Because the practical effect of the law as you presented it is to grow the ambit of federal prosecution, when in fact we should be trying to trim it back.

Now, as FLS explains it, there was a loophole that prevented prosecution of an American citizen raped by employees of an American contractor in Iraq. If so, that's entirely different than what you presented.

I realize the point of your post was to bait critics of the president, and to equate those of us who are enraged by the outcome of the health care legislative process with those who favor rape. Well, at least you didn't call us racists! But it was probably a waste of time to have taken it seriously.; 12/21/09, 4:52 PM
former law student said...: Yes, John, state law did not cover crimes that happened overseas, and the DoJ took the position that binding arbitration clauses in contractor employee contracts that prohibited civil suits, precluded criminal prosecution as well.; 12/21/09, 4:53 PM
garage mahal said...: Just going off how Republicans voted bagoh20. You have any idea why they would be in favor of a young woman not being able to have her day in court after a brutal rape?; 12/21/09, 4:54 PM
ricpic said...: Well, I can agree that Maureen O'Hara was worth protecting. After that you lost me.; 12/21/09, 4:58 PM
garage mahal said...: And I just find out Republicans voted against the troops, again.

So, Republicans love rape [or can at least tolerate it], hate the troops, and pray for death. Sheesh.; 12/21/09, 4:58 PM
KCFleming said...: Oh, go to hell, garage, with your stupid side-issue crap.

You and the rest of the Democrats have unilaterally voted for the nationalization of the banks and healthcare.

In a scant 12 months you've repeatedly raped the taxpayers and their children, too. Just fuck off. This ain't the time for your bullshit.; 12/21/09, 5:02 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Well, if it was your own 20 year old daughter who had been gangraped by US government contractors in Iraq, her first week on the job, maybe you would appreciate her need for legal recourse.

If it were my 20 year old daughter, I would be happy that money can be wired worldwide, and that violence can be so easily bought in the Middle East.

If there was a loophole for contractors that is now closed, that's a good thing.; 12/21/09, 5:03 PM
KCFleming said...: BTW, Al Franken, I mean Senator Acorn, got no deal outta this.

Suckaaaaah!

My Senators voted to dismantle the best health care system in the world, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt".; 12/21/09, 5:10 PM
ricpic said...: I pray for death...but I don't really mean it.; 12/21/09, 5:12 PM
mccullough said...: This law forbids federal defense contractors who receive more than $1 million in contracts from requiring employees to arbitrate claims of discrimination and sexual assault.

It has nothing to do with criminal law. The federal criminal laws prohibit this already and apply extra-terroitorially to defense contractors and their employees overseas.

For those employees who do not work for defense contractors, including even those who work for federal contractors like ACORN (sorry, couldn't resist) and have arbitration clauses in their employment agreements, their attempt to hold their employers liable for rape committed by co-workers will still have to be through arbitration.

So, according to the garage mahal logic, Republicans are in favor of rape in all cases and Democrats are in favor of rape in all cases not involving federal defense contractors.; 12/21/09, 5:31 PM
vbspurs said...: Actually, 65 and older voted for McCain. In fact, Obama only won among those under 45 (from 45-64 it was a tie).

Oh, thanks Jon! I may have skewed the result as I live in Florida, with our specific aged population (with so many Jewish Democrats having voted for Obama).; 12/21/09, 5:36 PM
jayne_cobb said...: Garage, the Dems. have supported Byrd, the Kennedys, Kevin Jennings, Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank. Think about what that all entails.

Now stop trying to change the subject.; 12/21/09, 5:36 PM
John Stodder said...: the DoJ took the position that binding arbitration clauses in contractor employee contracts that prohibited civil suits, precluded criminal prosecution as well.

Ah. Now we see the problem. And it kind of makes my point, at least in spirit. A locally-elected DA would never take such an asinine position unless the law was crystal clear

Which gang of DOJ extremists took this position? Bush extremists or Obama extremists? I could see either of them talking themselves into such a stupid cul-de-sac.; 12/21/09, 5:38 PM
mccullough said...: No one in the DOJ took the position that arbitration clauses bar criminal prosecution. They do not.

The DOJ declined to prosecute. Nothing stopped it from prosecuting (and nothing now does).

By the way, the law contains a "national security loophole." If the Secretary of Defense invokes "national security" then the victim can't sue.

So Democrats are in favor of rape when the Secretary of Defense is okay with it, under the garage mahal logic.; 12/21/09, 5:42 PM
jayne_cobb said...: What's funny is that Reid basically just said that anyone who didn't take abribe was stupid.

I suppose that makes a certain corrupt and horrifying kind of sense.; 12/21/09, 5:47 PM
William said...: There will, of course, be many problems after this bill is enacted. You will be told that the remedy for these problems is a public option or, better yet, a single payer system. It will never, ever end. Certainly not in the truncated lifetimes of those now under Medicare supervision....Does anyone think that now the mortality rates here will plummet and coincide with those in Europe? Does anyone think that the left will call attention to that fact and wonder about the discrepancy....The varying mortality rates can be explained by the fact that European cigarettes taste like crap and, until recently, were a great deal more expensive than American ones.; 12/21/09, 5:58 PM
ricpic said...: ...the truncated lifetimes of those now under Medicare supervision.

You got that straight. And you wanna know a dirty little secret? In the thrill department nothing compares to the tingle our compassion mongers will now experience at giving the thumbs down to a faltering alter cocker.; 12/21/09, 6:09 PM
former law student said...: So the DoJ is pro-rapist? This explains their inaction, but does not explain why the DoJ is pro-rapist.; 12/21/09, 6:40 PM
ricpic said...: Respectable Death

"My pitchfork is ready, is yours ready, Sir?"

"No. And get away from me, cur"

And so they both lost for one wouldn't stir.; 12/21/09, 6:41 PM
Eric said...: All tiny Western states that would otherwise be totally ignored by the federal government. Federalism working as intended.

Nope. Federalism working as intended would be all states being "ignored" by the federal government. What you're describing is a spoils system.; 12/21/09, 7:53 PM
Methadras said...: ricpic said...

I pray for death...but I don't really mean it.

I actually did and then I heard Billy Mays died. Now I feel bad.; 12/21/09, 8:26 PM
Paul said...: The ones who believe in rape are the Democrats who are systematically raping the entire nation, which they so fervently despise, being the party of Marxist brainwashed useful idiots since the sixties

And really, talking about garage mahal and logic? Logic is to garage what music is to the Taliban.; 12/22/09, 1:17 AM
Gahrie said...: Roger J:

Repeal the 17th and 18th Amendments! Let legislatures elect senators and abolish the income tax

Preach on brother! I've been saying this for years......; 12/22/09, 2:06 AM
AllenS said...: John Stodder said..."Obviously, garage knows rape is illegal in all 50 states"

Rape is now illegal in all 57 states.; 12/22/09, 5:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Two phrases you should get used to seeing over the next few years:
Nurses strike.
Doctors strike.

Yup. I'm a doctor and I can tell you we are already moving towards creating the biggest, baddest union you ever saw. Card check and all the other unionist sops from the Obamites will only help the process. Treat us like bus drivers, ahem, "providers", and we'll behave like Teamsters. Alinsky rules #4 and #10 will be operative.

Chaos is coming, and we'll make God-damned sure the Democrat filth are blamed for it.; 12/22/09, 1:39 PM
Unknown said...: No. Everyone loses.; 12/24/09, 9:26 PM