Hall of Shame
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Since 1949, Durhamites have slept soundly, secure in the knowledge that, in our town, erection can be depended upon. Now, thanks to the power of the internets, we can spread that security all over the world.
8 Comments:
Neither Bayh nor Daniel Inouye is a surprise.
Landrieu thinks appeasing Republicans will earn their votes in November, despite her reputation as a brain-dead do-nothing.
Feinstein is a moron (as evidenced by taking Muksey at his word on torture).
McCaskill is trying to tie-up the military vote.
Salazar is a DINO.
Carper is a disappointment, as is Mikulski, Stabenow and Webb.
Ben Nelson is another DINO; Bill Nelson skews conservative.
Conrad and Johnson are from the wild and wacky Dakota Territories.
By
Dan S., at 2:12 PM
More appalling is the rejection of the exclusivity amendment. (Especially considering that the 1978 law included exclusivity in the body of the legislation.)
Hell, with this kind of disregard for basic legal provisions and oversight in key areas of the Executive Branch's power, the Senate might as well cross-out the 22nd Amendment with a sharpie and start chanting "Four More Years!"
By
Dan S., at 2:18 PM
Right.
But all Republicans, even such "moderates" as Snow and Collins from Maine, as well as "Maverick" John McCain, voted their party line.
Democrats need to start thinking that way, especially when it comes to such core Democratic principles as the rule of law, or they'll quickly be in the minority again.
and they'll deserve it after this bullshit.
By
Barry, at 2:27 PM
Rule of law. Of is it just the rule of laws you like.
By
Locomotive Breath, at 7:38 PM
I really shouldn't do this, but what the fuck.
Nobody is telling the Senate or the judiciary or the law enforcement agencies not to uphold the law as passed by the Senate. Criticizing the actions of the legislative body, specifically a subset of Senators from one party, is not the same as ruling by fiat, as pretty much anybody who passed the 5th grade is capable of understanding.
Perhaps when you continue your education you'll be able to recognize that distinction.
Besides, i would have thought the Constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws would work in both directions. Perhaps someone will file a lawsuit to test that proposition. But i wouldn't expect you to be familiar with that particular document.
By
Barry, at 10:30 PM
Democrats need to start thinking that way, especially when it comes to such core Democratic principles as the rule of law.
You're complaining that Democrats that voted for a law don't understand the rule of law. Could it just be possible that they know something you don't.
By
Locomotive Breath, at 11:27 PM
Update on the telecom law, as posted yesterday at Engadget. Check it out, if only for the illustration they chose:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/15/telecoms-immunity-for-domestic-spying-dies-on-house-floor/
By
Marsosudiro, at 1:28 PM
No not that Barry. Now that I've registered I'm so very much less anonymous than before.
Supreme court won't review Bush domestic spying case
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a legal challenge to the warrantless domestic spying program President George W. Bush created after the September 11 attacks.
The American Civil Liberties Union had asked the justices to hear the case after a lower court ruled the ACLU, other groups and individuals that sued the government had no legal right to do so because they could not prove they had been affected by the program.
[snip]
Rule of law
By
Unknown, at 11:14 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home