Note to Democrats: it’s not about getting “100 percent of what you want.” If the principle of the 3 percent voted down matters, than that’s that. If one believes that judicial filibusters are unconstitutional or unfair or, perhaps even, have a deletarious effect on potential nominees and those awaiting justice, then one is too many.
Yes, Bob Smith did try to filibuster 2 Clinton nominees; nobody denies that. Fortunately, the party overwhelmingly broke with him (as happened in many issues). The Republicans overwhelmingly rejected Smith’s Constitutional interpretation and logic and now they’re rejecting the same reasons coming from the Democrats. That’s consistancy. Levin’s waffling back-and-forth, in contrast, is not.
On Kuhl again, in response to Hutchinson: Kuhl ruled [partially] against a woman whose privacy had been violated. The incident was awful, but that doesn’t mean that a bad decision is called for. That’s exactly why Kuhl would be a good 9th circuit judge: because she puts principles above ends, even in a case with a tremendously sympathetic plaintiff.
Minimum wage, overtime “protection,” and unemployment insurance: these are great jobs issues, sure…
“They’re worried about 4 people; I’m worried about 3m people.”
And now “environmental rollbacks” by the Bush administration: first, it’s not true, no matter how long her scroll is. Second, environmental regulations are like poison for job growth.
Crude to say it, but should Boxer form a socialist caucus with Bernie Sanders? Given her views on government’s control of the economy, it would make sense. To be fair, she is getting tired.