Taxing Our Patience, Con't

The Great GOP Tax Scam will soon be law, and while Republicans are more than happy to congratulate themselves on "saving the American people more of their own money" the reality is that most of us are screwed.

The hostility to redistributive democracy at the ideological center of the American right has made standard policies of successful modern welfare states, happily embraced by Europe’s conservative parties, seem beyond the moral pale for many Republicans. The outsize stakes seem to justify dubious tactics — bunking down with racists, aggressive gerrymandering, inventing paper-thin pretexts for voting rules that disproportionately hurt Democrats — to prevent majorities from voting themselves a bigger slice of the pie. 

But the idea that there is an inherent tension between democracy and the integrity of property rights is wildly misguided. The liberal-democratic state is a relatively recent historical innovation, and our best accounts of the transition from autocracy to democracy points to the role of democratic political inclusion in protecting property rights. 

As Daron Acemoglu of M.I.T. and James Robinson of Harvard show in “Why Nations Fail,” ruling elites in pre-democratic states arranged political and economic institutions to extract labor and property from the lower orders. That is to say, the system was set up to make it easy for elites to seize what ought to have been other people’s stuff. 

In “Inequality and Democratization,” the political scientists Ben W. Ansell and David J. Samuels show that this demand for political inclusion generally isn’t driven by a desire to use the existing institutions to plunder the elites. It’s driven by a desire to keep the elites from continuing to plunder them.

It’s easy to say that everyone ought to have certain rights. Democracy is how we come to get and protect them. Far from endangering property rights by facilitating redistribution, inclusive democratic institutions limit the “organized banditry” of the elite-dominated state by bringing everyone inside the charmed circle of legally enforced rights. 

Democracy is fundamentally about protecting the middle and lower classes from redistribution by establishing the equality of basic rights that makes it possible for everyone to be a capitalist. Democracy doesn’t strangle the golden goose of free enterprise through redistributive taxation; it fattens the goose by releasing the talent, ingenuity and effort of otherwise abused and exploited people.

At a time when America’s faith in democracy is flagging, the Republicans elected to treat the United States Senate, and the citizens it represents, with all the respect college guys accord public restrooms. It’s easier to reverse a bad piece of legislation than the bad reputation of our representative institutions, which is why the way the tax bill was passed is probably worse than what’s in it. Ultimately, it’s the integrity of democratic institutions and the rule of law that gives ordinary people the power to protect themselves against elite exploitation. But the Republican majority is bulldozing through basic democratic norms as though freedom has everything to do with the tax code and democracy just gets in the way.

We live in, and have lived in all my life dating back to the Reagan era when I was a toddler, an era where protecting the wheels of government from getting dirty from the unwashed masses has always been the point of the federal government.

With the singular exception of Obamacare (which will soon be completely broken thanks to this tax bill) the American federal government has always been classified as "the enemy of the people" while simultaneously I have been told all my life that the word "democracy" itself is dirty word, that it represents the basest tyranny of the majority, but only when the wealthiest among us disagree with that majority.

This bill is going to wreck the economy and the Republicans know it, the real test comes when the GOP is voted out of office and they can go back to blaming the Democratic majority voted in next year for not fixing things quickly enough in 2019, something that should lead to a brand-new GOP majority in Congress in 2020 (and a second Trump term) by my calculations.

By the way, this is where wealth inequality in America was at five years ago, before the GOP bill makes it exponentially worse.  We're already the most unequal developed country on earth by a long shot.  We're now headed deep into New Gilded Age territory.



Maybe I'm a cynic, but Poly Sci has been a pretty harsh mistress all my life, and History is far more violent than she is.

Suddenly Sonia Times Two

ABC News is reporting that the White House is preparing to handle not one, but two possible retirements from the Supreme Court over the next few months.

Court watchers believe two of the more liberal members of the court, justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, could decide to step aside for reasons of age and health. That would give the president his second and third chance to shape his legacy on the Supreme Court.

Last week, when Obama took the nearly unprecedented step of criticizing the court's opinion in a major campaign finance case during his State of the Union speech, some believed he was showcasing for the American people that presidential elections, and Supreme Court nominations count.

"With all due deference to separation of powers," the president said, " last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

Doug Kendall, of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center, said the president's message was clear: "President Obama's spirited reaction to Citizens United at the State of the Union indicates he fully understands the importance of the federal judiciary and the ability of the Supreme Court to stand in the way of his administration's agenda."

Kendall hopes Obama's dressing down of the majority will translate into greater attention to the judicial nomination and confirmation process.

Although five of the six justices who attended the speech sat poker faced when Obama made his comments, Justice Samuel Alito, who voted with the majority, reacted by shaking his head in irritation.

If a justice from the conservative block like Alito were to would retire, there could be a seismic shift on the court, likely giving Obama the chance to reverse the court's majority voting bloc. But speculation has centered on the liberal end of the bench.

And therein lies the problem.  As HuffPo's Sam Stein pointed out last year, at least one Senate Republican has to vote to allow any nominee to pass the Judiciary Committee, and it would take 60 votes in the overall Senate to beat that block.  The Republicans could in fact completely filibuster any pick.  They didn't on Sonia Sotomayor.  But 2009 wasn't an election year either, and Arlen Specter's party swap gave the Dems 60 votes.  That's no longer the case now.

It's entirely possible that the GOP will demand conservative Alito/Roberts style justices or they will simply filibuster the proceedings for months or longer.  They don't care.  Why not simply force a 7-person court (and get 4-3 rulings on everything with the Roberts/Alito/Thomas/Scalia bloc) until the GOP gets a President in to replace Ginsberg and Stevens with even more conservatives?  Why would the GOP not want to shut down the Judiciary at this point to continue their Tyranny of the Minority?

I'm no parliamentarian or legal expert, but it seems to be I've been right when I've said time and time again that the GOP has no shame and will see this government burn before giving Barack Obama any victories.  By making sure government can't work and blaming the people in charge, the Republicans gain power.  Since the Democrats still treat the Republicans as rational actors, the GOP wins again and again.

So somebody tell me why won't this turn into another GOP victory?  The Teabaggers are talking about bringing back literacy tests and other voting requirements to disenfranchise millions.  The GOP leader in the House says there's no difference between the GOP and the Teabaggers.  They are insane and will demand wholeheartedly that the GOP prevent anyone even remotely sane from reaching the bench.

You think Joe Biden will fix the filibuster rules?  Forget about it.  The Dems will fold again and again on this.  Have they passed health care reform?  Repealed DADT?  Reined in the banks that cost us trillions?  They've done a lot, but on the really important stuff they've dropped the ball.  And none of it will get done until the Dems agree that the Republicans have abdicated their responsibility to govern and would rather destroy America and its people than to allow a Democrat to improve anything for anyone.

This will be no different.  Watch.

Last Call For The Return Of The Blue Wave

Enough of the doom and gloom. Several of you made the point that 2018 was where Trump's racism lost.  There is one unalloyed, really good piece of news for Democrats right now, and that's a large number of House Republican retirements in 2019 heading into 2020.

Three House Republicans said last week they would not seek another term next year, catching party strategists off guard. Those announcements came earlier than in a typical election cycle, when members who are ready to hang up their voting cards usually wait until after the August recess or after the Christmas break.

Republicans in Congress strategizing to win back the House say the rush to the exits reflects the depressing reality of life in the minority and a pessimistic view of the GOP’s chances of regaining the majority.

“We are in the minority. That is never much fun in the House,” said one senior Republican member of Congress, who asked for anonymity to provide a candid assessment. “The odds are against us retaking the majority.”

Transitioning from the all-powerful majority to the back-bench minority can refocus one’s outlook on public service, said Tom Davis, a former Virginia congressman who ran the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).

“Moving from the majority to the minority changes your mindset about why am I here, am I getting things done,” Davis said. “It’s a very frustrating life for some of these members right now. There’s been no pay raise for 11 years. You’ve got to maintain two households.”

The job of serving in Congress itself has changed in recent years. Members of Congress now routinely skip town hall meetings to avoid being confronted by angry constituents, they are frequently asked to defend President Trump’s Twitter habits and the House Republican Conference is increasingly influenced by a small group of hard-right conservatives.

“Serving in the era of Trump has few rewards. He has made an already hostile political environment worse. Every day there is some indefensible tweet or comment to defend or explain. It is exhausting and often embarrassing,” the member of Congress said. Even if Republicans were to win back the majority, “our edge would be narrow which means we would live under the tyranny of the Freedom Caucus. Frankly I wonder if this conference is capable of governing.”

Republican strategists say they are bracing for a new wave of exits after members check in with their families over the August recess. Two dozen Republicans won their reelection bids in 2018 by fewer than 5 percentage points; another 25 won by fewer than 10 points.

“There are going to be a lot more [retirements] to come,” said one consultant who works for House Republicans. “Between people finding themselves having to actually work hard for the first time in their long, lazy careers and members who came in in the majority and now hate life in the minority, it's just getting started.”

2018 did prove that defending Donald Trump is a losing proposition.  House Democrats had their best midterm in decades, and turnout was through the roof.  Unlike the polls, the retirements and the 2018 wins are facts.

Having said that, with Trump on the top of the ticket in November 2020, things could be different enough that  Republicans could easily win the House back and then some.  There are a lot of swing districts that Democrats are going to have to defend, and the gerrymandering issue is still a problem that Democrats will have to fight in states like Ohio and Michigan, Florida and North Carolina, where even massive Democratic margins will break against gerrymandered firewalls.

But defending Trump is becoming increasingly impossible for Republicans not named Trump, and that toll is becoming higher and higher for Republicans both in the White House, and increasingly in Congress.

[UPDATE] And another Republican, Mike Conaway of Texas, announced his retirement tonight.

Marco And Greg Awesome Show, Great Job!

They keep telling me the smart money is on the GOP's great "moderate, establishment conservative hope" in Marco Rubio, but the reality is Rubio is far to the right of the entire country on issues like same-sex marriage and having abandoned his own immigration plan for political expediency, he's now publicly pushing the fringe notion of a convention of states to rewrite the Constitution.

America was built on the revolutionary idea that our rights come from God, not from government. To protect those rights, our founders created a government of the people, by the people and for the people. But today, that government has been hijacked by politicians and bureaucrats who disregard the will of the people, rack up trillions in debt and expand the federal bureaucracy into more and more aspects of our lives. As president, I will promote a convention of states to amend the Constitution and restore limited government. 

The framers of our Constitution allowed for a constitutional convention because they knew our citizens were the ultimate defense against an overbearing federal government. They gave the American people, through their state representatives, the power to call a convention made up of at least 34 states, where delegates could then propose amendments that would require the support of 38 states to become law. 

This method of amending our Constitution has become necessary today because of Washington’s refusal to place restrictions on itself. The amendment process must be approached with caution, which is why I believe the agenda should be limited to ideas that reduce the size and scope of the federal government, such as imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court and forcing fiscal responsibility through a balanced budget requirement. Limiting the agenda will prevent the convention from being overtaken by special interests.

Let's keep in mind that this has never happened before.  The convention of states method of amending the Constitution has never been used, not even once.

Secondly, term limits for Congress has long been ruled unconstitutional and for good reason, where term limits are in place for state lawmakers, lobbyists control the agenda much more easily.

Finally, a balanced budget amendment would destroy the economy overnight.

Ahh, but it seems Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott is taking Marco Rubio's advice and is running even further to the right with it..

Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday called for a constitutional convention to gather and adopt nine new amendments he proposed in what he’s billing as “the Texas plan.” 

“Departures from the Constitution are not the aberration. Now they have become the norm,” said Abbott, speaking at an event by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank in Austin. His proposed amendments — which include allowing a two-thirds vote of the states to repeal any federal law and preventing Congress from regulating economic activity that takes place all within the borders of one state — would “put teeth in the 10th Amendment” and guarantee states’ rights, he said.

It's all about states' rights when there's a black president, I guess.

Here are Abbott’s proposed amendments: 

“1. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

“2. Require Congress to balance its budget.

“3. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law. 

“4. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law. 

“5. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision. 

“6. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law. 

“7. Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution. 

“8. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds. 

“9. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.”

If you're wondering what tyranny of the majority looks like, here's your road map.

Forces Of Evil In A Bozo Nightmare

Banned all the music with a phony gas chamber
'Cuz one's got a weasel
And the other's got a flag
One's on the pole, shove the other in a bag

With all apologies to Beck, of course.

Anyway, speaking of bozo nightmares and flags, Donald Trump loves him some Confederate symbolism, and it's certainly helping his campaign in more than just Southern states.

A year later, the backlash against the Confederate flag has spurred a counter-backlash, one that is playing out in countless skirmishes in courtrooms, township council rooms, bedrooms and Facebook posts, especially in the South. In the six months after the Charleston shooting, the Southern Poverty Law Center documented 364 Confederate flag rallies around the South. That doesn’t include a spurt of growth in the number of flags on private lawns and on bumper stickers.

“It’s like they say: Take one flag down and 1,000 go up,” says Tim Boone, who as founder of Rebel-lution, one of the many pro-flag activist groups that formed last summer and handed out “No votes for turncoats” stickers targeting the newly unpopular Haley and anyone else who might vote to take down a flag. 

The backlash has extended to the national scene as well. Haley, once floated as a veep choice, is no longer mentioned in elite GOP circles. She’s expressed a desire to see the Citadel remove the rebel flag from its chapel, but her hands are tied by the state Legislature. Haley has linked the tone of Trump's rhetoric to the kind of violence seen last year in Charleston, but she’s still indicated she’ll support him as the presumptive Republican nominee for president. 

Trump, meanwhile, has utterly dismissed the South Carolina governor, and he’s drawing support from many Confederate flag supporters who condemned Haley for her actions last year. And in contrast to his remarks about the flag a year ago, Trump has shifted rightward; many of those in the bizarre coalition of racists, anti-government radicals and states’ rights activists who’ve led the battle charge for restoration of the rebel flag believe the GOP presumptive nominee is dog-whistling encouragement to them. 

Not racist, just number one with racists.  Also just kidding, he's a racist. Let's stop pretending otherwise.

Trump’s face appears on the cover of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s annual report on domestic extremism, which found that from 2014 to 2015, right-wing hate groups grew 14 percent to almost 900. The Ku Klux Klan grew from 72 chapters to 190, although some of that growth came from the two largest groups splintering into smaller cells. Anti-government patriot/liberty groups, which have flourished over Obama’s two terms, grew to nearly 1,000. 

Despite his 2015 flag statement, his “New York values” and his status as a genuine Yankee, those groups, along with the rest of the disparate coalition that has vocally supported the Confederate flag over the past year, have aligned behind Trump. 

“I’m voting for him despite that [his statement about the flag],” says Boone. “The reason I’ll vote for Trump is probably the reason I feel most of the country is going to vote for him: They’re sick of the political correctness. We’re so worried about the minority getting their feelings hurt, with the flag, with transgender bathrooms and all that. Sometimes, the minority has to understand that their feelings get hurt too, and majority rules most of the time.”

Understand that this theory of Boone's here is called the Tyranny of the Majority for a reason. It's nothing new, John Adams was kicking it around in 1785 for a reason, guys. The notion that majority rule also means that rights and needs of the minority are ignored is frankly a founding principle of the country that took centuries to address, and even then only partially.

We're still having that struggle today, and the reason why Trump is so popular is that he wants to end that struggle, and not in a good way.

The Endgame Of The GOP Long Game

We know exactly what the final days of America as we know it looks like, because I've been warning you about it for nearly 15 years. When conservatives in California tried to rewrite that state's constitution with Prop. 8 in 2008, I warned you what was coming:

 

The really disturbing precedent here is that civil rights can be taken from a minority under the guise of "the will of the people." Under that logic, why not institute a new era of Jim Crow laws aimed at African-Americans or Latinos under a proposition vote? Why not put the practice of Islam in the US to a vote, and close down all mosques should the measure pass?

If you believe that you can take basic human rights like marriage away from a group based solely on sexual preference, you should be able to take rights based on religion, race, age, gender, or any other discriminatory criteria.

The danger that this effort represents is tantamount. The supporters of this effort will not stop there. Once you codify into law the ability of the many to take away the rights of the few, it will be used against any and every group. Once you've established a threshhold that one group cannot cross because of their minority status, all that remains is to steadily lower the bar until that group has no civil rights at all. Why not revoke the rights of gays and lesbians period? Why not apply the same standard to Muslims or Jews? Doesn't the Islamic or Jewish idea of marriage differ with the Christian one? Isn't that the argument used to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry?

 

And as I said back then, the endgame was always the ultimate example of working the refs by remaking the rulebook to make white supremacist Christian nationalism not only legal, but required. National Republicans like Marco Rubio have been openly talking about rewriting the Constitution through a convention of states for years now.

America was built on the revolutionary idea that our rights come from God, not from government. To protect those rights, our founders created a government of the people, by the people and for the people. But today, that government has been hijacked by politicians and bureaucrats who disregard the will of the people, rack up trillions in debt and expand the federal bureaucracy into more and more aspects of our lives. As president, I will promote a convention of states to amend the Constitution and restore limited government. 

The framers of our Constitution allowed for a constitutional convention because they knew our citizens were the ultimate defense against an overbearing federal government. They gave the American people, through their state representatives, the power to call a convention made up of at least 34 states, where delegates could then propose amendments that would require the support of 38 states to become law. 

This method of amending our Constitution has become necessary today because of Washington’s refusal to place restrictions on itself. The amendment process must be approached with caution, which is why I believe the agenda should be limited to ideas that reduce the size and scope of the federal government, such as imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court and forcing fiscal responsibility through a balanced budget requirement. Limiting the agenda will prevent the convention from being overtaken by special interests.

The whole point of locking in state legislatures with extreme gerrymandering is to get to 38 Republican state legislatures in order to amend the Constitution completely, and get a Supreme Court that goes along with it.  It won't matter what blue states have to say when the tyranny of the majority becomes real and permanent.

This isn't an exercise, either. State lawmakers are invited to huddle in Denver starting on Sunday to learn more about the inner workings of a possible constitutional convention at Academy of States 3.0, the third installment of a boot camp preparing state lawmakers "in anticipation of an imminent Article V Convention."

Rob Natelson, a constitutional scholar and senior fellow at the Independence Institute who closely studies Article V of the Constitution, predicted to Insider there's a 50% chance that the United States will witness a constitutional convention in the next five years. Whether it happens, he said, is highly dependent on Republicans' success winning state legislatures during the 2022 midterm elections.

But not everyone in the conservative constitutional convention movement believes such a gathering is so imminent. It will likely take years more work to reach their goal, if they ever do. At minimum, Republicans will need to flip several Democratic-controlled state legislatures and convince remaining GOP holdouts of the necessity for a convention.

Republican white nationalists can and have done tremendous damage to the country without a constitutional convention.  But if they get to this point, the game ends.

For all of us.

Filibuster Futility

Democrats in the Senate are finally trying to tackle filibuster reform with a new measure from Sens. Tom Harkin and Jeanne Shaheen.  Steve Benen:

If approved, the measure would not do away with extended debate altogether. Harkin proposes a new procedural model: the first go-around, the minority could demand a 60-vote majority, as is the case now. But if 60 votes aren't there to end debate, a week or so later, 57 votes could bring the bill to the floor for a vote. If 57 votes aren't there, it drops again and again, and after a month or so, a bare majority could approve cloture.

Does Harkin/Shaheen stand much of a chance? It's best to keep expectations low -- it would take 67 votes to approve Harkin's measure, which makes it extremely unlikely that this will succeed. But I can't wait to see what kind of support this generates, and exactly who does (and does not) sign on as co-sponsors.

Also note, the existence of the legislation creates an opportunity for a larger public debate. Most of the public assumes that if a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate, and the White House all support a piece of legislation, the bill becomes law -- unaware of the fact that this is no longer the case. The more attention Harkin/Shaheen gets, the better the chance of informing the public.

Likewise, the public also doesn't realize that abuse has gotten completely out of control -- from 1949 to 1970, there were 30 cloture votes. In just 2009, there were 39. That's insane.

What's insane is that the Dems are trying this when all 41 Republicans will say no and kill this measure  It's fultile. Steve thinks it will help to draw attention to the optics of the filibuster itself:

My suggestion to Harkin's office is to come up with a helpful frame for the debate. I recommend: "restoration of majority rule." When a bill reaches the Senate floor, they should count up the "yea" votes, count up the "nea" votes, and the bigger total wins. This is the way the Senate was designed to operate; this is the way the Senate used to operate.

Republicans will in turn play the fascism card.  It'll be held up as the only way America has in order to stop the tyranny of the Democrats and King Obama.

It's a nice plan.  It will fail.  The best part will be the Village idiots clucking and fainting that the Dems are not giving their GOP betters the means to block any and all legislation.  That will mean a backlash from Dems against this measure too.  It'll fail   Evan F'ckin Bayh, Joe F'ckin Lieberman, Ben Nelson, etc will all hate this.  It'll fail 80-20 easy.

In the end, this won't matter at all.  It's futile.

Last Call

Wouldn't be a week around here without the nuttiest wingnut in Congress, Michelle Bachmann.  She headlined a "kill the bill" rally at the State Capitol in St. Paul.

A day after congressional Democratic leaders announced their final legislative push to enact a bill to overhaul the nation's health care system, opponents rallied to send a noisy contrary message. Rally organizers said 4,000 people attended, but Capitol police estimated the crowd at 2,000 or fewer.

Dozens of times, the crowd members, a combination of Republicans, social conservatives and Tea Partiers, chanted, "Kill the bill! Kill the bill!" urged on by a half-dozen speakers.

The headliner and clear crowd favorite was Republican Sixth District Rep. Michele Bachmann, who said Democrats "are spending us into bondage we can never dig ourselves out of."

Gazing out over the flag-waving, sign-wielding crowd, she said: "This is awesome. This is our country. We own it!"
Bachmann and other speakers urged listeners to vent their outrage to Democratic members of the state's congressional delegation in the days leading up to the final vote on the bill, potentially within a week.

Among the signs being waved was one that listed Marx, Lenin and Stalin, followed by Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Obama, Pelosi and Reid were repeatedly invoked as political villains.

"For some reason," said Second District Republican Rep. John Kline, "President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid can't hear you. I can't understand that."

Saying, "We need to start over," Kline was greeted with a roar of approval, causing him to rhetorically invoke Obama, Pelosi and Reid again: "Can you hear this?"

Glad to see you're still lying about your numbers, wingers. Matt Osborne has the proper response to this nonsense.

Word-salad garnished with nontroversy: “Obama…Pelosi…Reid…They don’t represent us…right now.” Because there was no election in 2008, or because elections do not have consequences? Congress has, in fact, voted on the bills and will now hold further votes on them in perfect legal order. The Constitution does, in fact, allow Congress to levy taxes (“mandate”) and appoint enforcement officers (IRS), and such laws are, in fact, binding. Either the representative from Minnesota lacks a basic understanding of civics, or she’s encouraging sedition.

The “post-American president” line invokes John Bolton. Having ripped the words from their context, “some” is a cowardly little word here that lets her invoke all the birther-deather-Van Jones nonsense without having to.

No Hate, Prop 8: The Morning After

Logan Penza at The Moderate Voice argues that because same-sex marriage continues to have a significant majority of Americans against it, that Judge Vaughn's decision will only end up fueling that opposition into increasingly more radical approaches to end it, namely a "Roe v Wade" style approach where state legislatures doing everything they can to limit gay rights or to make exercising them so onerous that they are nearly impossible to engender, or even a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage completely.

Even if the Supreme Court does uphold the law, the result could even then not be final.  The reason the Republican Party has exploited the gay marriage issue in recent elections is because polling consistently indicates clear majorities in most states against it.  (And although civil unions result in a much more complex set of voter preferences, the judge’s decision throws that compromise option out.)  It is highly questionable whether the backlash against a Supreme Court affirmation would result in a successful constitutional amendment permanently enshrining anti-gay prejudice, but you can be sure it would be a long and hard fight.  This is the problem with using court decisions as a replacement for the hard work of education and persuasion in making sweeping social changes.

Lest anyone should misunderstand, let me note that I personally support marriage rights for gay couples.  I think court decisions are a very bad way to achieve that goal, for the reasons discussed above as well as because court decisions tend to lengthen political conflicts rather than resolve them.  It is worth remembering that in 1973 there was a clear trend among the states in favor of abortion rights.  The main accomplishment of Roe may have been to make abortion formally legal, but the decades-long firestorm of controversy has made actual exercise of those rights difficult in many areas of the country.  Using the courts is a way to an emotionally satisfying quick “win” on issues where the legal elite runs ahead of broader social attitudes, but that emotional rush often leads to a big crash in the longer term.  Temporary success can lead to long-term failure that is even more firmly entrenched than it was before.

I also don’t think that every desirable social policy enjoys the status of constitutional right.

But the game is definitely on and the result will be one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions in the last 50 years.

Penza is correct here.  31 states have held elections on referendums or state constitutional amendments to ban same sex marriages and they went 31 for 31.  38 such election victories would be needed to ratify a Constitutional Amendment that passed two-thirds of the House and Senate.  It's certainly within the realm of possibility and both sides of this legal fight know it.

And while Penza does have a very valid point, namely that the battle over gay rights in this country has now entered a new and much more high-stakes stage, and that the battle is far from over, the reality is that there are times where the judicial leading the way on social justice protecting the rights of a unpopular minority from the tyranny of the majority is absolutely necessary, especially when the legislative and executive will not act.  Clearly this is one of those times.

Still, Penza's warning resonates all the more powerfully now, given the fanatical fundamentalist motivation of the opponents of Prop 8 and the Republican plan to rewrite the Constitution, and not just on gay marriage either.

As I said last night, the fundamental argument here is whether or not you believe the goal of American democracy is to enshrine the rights of the popular, or to extend rights to all Americans.  We eventually to get around to the right choice on that as a people, but the battle is always long, hard, and bloody.

Another Supreme Misfire

Given the Supreme Court has gutted the Civil Rights Act, nobody should be surprised that yesterday they upheld Michigan's right to ban affirmative action in college admissions in a 6-2 decision (with Justice Kagan recusing herself.)  Justice Sotomayor's dissent was impressive, however.

In my colleagues' view, examining the racial impact of legislation only perpetuates racial discrimination. This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination. As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter.

And that's the lynchpin of the argument: in 2014, race still matters.  Chief Justice Roberts has told us multiple times that it simply does not.

The dissent states that “[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race.” ... But it is not “out of touch with reality” to conclude that racial preferences may themselves have the debilitating effect of reinforcing precisely that doubt, and—if so—that the preferences do more harm than good. To disagree with the dissent’s views on the costs and benefits of racial preferences is not to “wish away, rather than confront” racial inequality. People can disagree in good faith on this issue, but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate.

Unless the balance of the Supreme Court changes, we're only a couple of major cases away from a 5-4 decision ending affirmative action in this country.  Maybe after that point, Roberts will discover race still matters.

Because it'll sure matter to those of us who aren't white. The Boston Globe's Derrick Z. Martin:

The tyranny of the majority won. Access to college for African Americans and Latinos suffered another major defeat. Instead of surveying the destruction of opportunity that is occurring at this very hour, the Supreme Court cowered behind a purist reading of the Constitution and upheld the 2006 decision by Michigan voters to ban affirmative action in higher-education admissions.

The decision upheld the right of white voters to continue to roll back the clock.

The ballot initiative was sought by anti-affirmative action forces still smarting over the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision that upheld the use of race as one of many diversity factors at the University of Michigan law school. Michigan is 80 percent white, and ban supporters undoubtedly assumed they could tap into enough resentment over affirmative action to win.

They were correct. The initiative won with 58 percent of the vote. In a CNN exit poll, Proposal 2, as it was called, received 64 percent white support (including 70 percent among white men). It mattered not that African Americans voted against the proposal by nearly a 9 to 1 margin.

Unfollow me if you want to, but I am sick of anyone who is white telling anyone who isn't that racism is over and that we should just get over it already.

Starting To Sound Like Me There

Of the non-economists out there who have been sounding the economic alarm bells, BooMan Tribune's Steven D has been on top of the situation for quite some time now.  Today he has another layman's read of the economic nightmare we're in, and like myself he believes that as bad as 2009 has been out on the front lines, 2010 will be worse.  It's a very sobering analysis, even by my standards.  Emphasis mine:

The Tea Baggers and their talk of a tax revolt and railing against the mythical socialist takeover of America by the Obama administration isn't the problem.

The problem is that we've been scammed by Wall Street financial firms (the megalithic survivors) into juicing their balance sheets while getting less than zero in return for our billions of dollars of bailout expenditures by the Fed and Congress and trillions more for Federal guarantees of Wall Street's toxic junk financial derivatives.

In short, our investment of tax dollars in an essentially opaque, unregulated, subsidized and protected financial sector is proving to be a very, very bad bet for the future of any real economic recovery for the vast majority of Americans who don't work for Goldman Sachs and their ilk. This isn't a rational free market by anyone's definition. It's a con game, one that Obama's economic team has been more than willing to ignore in the interest of helping their friends, even if that means unacceptably high unemployment and lower investment in the real drivers of our economy -- small businesses, workers and manufacturing.

(More after the jump...)

The Big Lie, Con't

Amazingly enough, the Arizona GOP audit of the 2020 vote in Maricopa County found that Joe Biden not only won the state but did so by a slightly larger margin than the official count.

A monthslong hand recount of Maricopa County’s 2020 vote confirmed that President Joe Biden won and the election was not “stolen” from former President Donald Trump, according to early versions of a report prepared for the Arizona Senate.

The three-volume report by the Cyber Ninjas, the Senate’s lead contractor, includes results that show Trump lost by a wider margin than the county’s official election results. The data in the report also confirms that U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly won in the county.

The official results are set to be presented to the Senate at 1 p.m. Friday. Several versions of the draft report, titled “Maricopa County Forensic Audit” by Cyber Ninjas, circulated prematurely on Wednesday and Thursday. Multiple versions were obtained by The Arizona Republic.

The Cyber Ninjas and their subcontractors were paid millions to research and write the report by nonprofits set up by prominent figures in the “Stop the Steal” movement and allies of Donald Trump, but Cyber Ninjas CEO Doug Logan said that would not influence their work.

The draft reports reviewed by The Republic minimize the ballot counts and election results and instead focus on issues that raise questions about the election process and voter integrity.

Election analysts say those findings are misleading and built on faulty data.

The draft report shows there was less than a 1,000-vote difference between the county's certified ballot count and the Cyber Ninjas' hand count.

The hand count shows Trump received 45,469 fewer votes than Biden. The county results showed he lost by 45,109.

The draft audit report says, however, the election results are inconclusive.

Maricopa County Board Chairman Jack Sellers said the overall results in the draft report confirm “the tabulation equipment counted the ballots as they were designed to do, and the results reflect the will of the voters.”

“That should be the end of the story,” he said. “Everything else is just noise.”

 

Sellers is right, this should be the end of the story, the end of Trump, and the end of the GOP. Republicans who supported the Big Lie should be laughed out the room, shamed out of office, and charged with fraud.

 

Of course, as Robert Kagan reminds us, the noise is but the opening stanza of the dirge of catastrophe that awaits our democracy in the years ahead.

 

The United States is heading into its greatest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War, with a reasonable chance over the next three to four years of incidents of mass violence, a breakdown of federal authority, and the division of the country into warring red and blue enclaves. The warning signs may be obscured by the distractions of politics, the pandemic, the economy and global crises, and by wishful thinking and denial. But about these things there should be no doubt:

First, Donald Trump will be the Republican candidate for president in 2024. The hope and expectation that he would fade in visibility and influence have been delusional. He enjoys mammoth leads in the polls; he is building a massive campaign war chest; and at this moment the Democratic ticket looks vulnerable. Barring health problems, he is running.

Second, Trump and his Republican allies are actively preparing to ensure his victory by whatever means necessary. Trump’s charges of fraud in the 2020 election are now primarily aimed at establishing the predicate to challenge future election results that do not go his way. Some Republican candidates have already begun preparing to declare fraud in 2022, just as Larry Elder tried meekly to do in the California recall contest.

Meanwhile, the amateurish “stop the steal” efforts of 2020 have given way to an organized nationwide campaign to ensure that Trump and his supporters will have the control over state and local election officials that they lacked in 2020. Those recalcitrant Republican state officials who effectively saved the country from calamity by refusing to falsely declare fraud or to “find” more votes for Trump are being systematically removed or hounded from office. Republican legislatures are giving themselves greater control over the election certification process. As of this spring, Republicans have proposed or passed measures in at least 16 states that would shift certain election authorities from the purview of the governor, secretary of state or other executive-branch officers to the legislature. An Arizona bill flatly states that the legislature may “revoke the secretary of state’s issuance or certification of a presidential elector’s certificate of election” by a simple majority vote. Some state legislatures seek to impose criminal penalties on local election officials alleged to have committed “technical infractions,” including obstructing the view of poll watchers.

The stage is thus being set for chaos. Imagine weeks of competing mass protests across multiple states as lawmakers from both parties claim victory and charge the other with unconstitutional efforts to take power. Partisans on both sides are likely to be better armed and more willing to inflict harm than they were in 2020. Would governors call out the National Guard? Would President Biden nationalize the Guard and place it under his control, invoke the Insurrection Act, and send troops into Pennsylvania or Texas or Wisconsin to quell violent protests? Deploying federal power in the states would be decried as tyranny. Biden would find himself where other presidents have been — where Andrew Jackson was during the nullification crisis, or where Abraham Lincoln was after the South seceded — navigating without rules or precedents, making his own judgments about what constitutional powers he does and doesn’t have.

Today’s arguments over the filibuster will seem quaint in three years if the American political system enters a crisis for which the Constitution offers no remedy.

 

This is happening, out in the open, and it is happening now.  2020 was a dress rehearsal. The 2024 revision will, unless it is stopped, put America into a hell of authoritarian make where the only party will be the GOP, and we will join the many other dictator "democracy" states: the Philippines, Brazil, Turkey, Poland, Russia, where the reality of elections is permanent one-party rule by a tyrant dynasty for decades, cemented by military power.

We barely escaped it last time.  We won't be so lucky in 2024. Trump is setting the stage for a coup if he loses, and more importantly, he's setting the stage to normalize challenging and even nullifying and overturning election wins by Democrats in the years ahead.

Pay attention. It only gets worse from here.

The Mendacity Of It All

Friday the Moonie Times printed an editorial calling for the impeachment of Obama if the "Slaughter Rule" was used.  It's not going to be.  Should health care pass today without it, do you think the Wingers will suddenly stop calling for Obama's impeachment?  Well, let's take a look at Jeff Kuhner's screed.

Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints. The power of the federal government has exploded. He has de facto nationalized key sectors of American life - the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energy-rich land from Montana to New Mexico. His cap-and-trade proposal, along with a newly empowered Environmental Protection Agency, seeks to impose massive new taxes and regulations upon industry. It is a form of green socialism: Much of the economy would fall under a command-and-control bureaucratic corporatist state. Mr. Obama even wants the government to take over student loans.

Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure's sweeping and radical aims - the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda.

Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives. It has badly fractured the country, dangerously polarizing it along ideological and racial lines. Even a majority of Democrats in the House are deeply reluctant to support it.
Numerous states - from Idaho to Virginia to Texas - have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law. They will declare themselves exempt from its provisions, tying up the legislation in the courts for years to come.

Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party's congressional majority and - most disturbing - our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country's stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia. 

No mention of the Slaughter Rule there in the heart of his tirade.  Gee, I'm going to take this as a "No, we're going to try to impeach him anyway as soon as we can" kind of thing.

The Slaughter Rule was a flimsy excuse anyway.  The Republicans used deem-and-pass dozens of times the last time they controlled the House in 2006-2007.  No, the real problem here is Obama Derangement Syndrome as it always has been.

These self-same crusaders of liberty and freedom cared not when Bush and Cheney shredded the Constitution. spied on US citizens, took us to war under false pretenses and cost us thousands of brave soldiers and trillions of dollars.  All this was normal, everyday occurrence in the world of the Winger.  Attempt to regulate health insurance in order to expand coverage to millions of people that don't have it, and suddenly it's tyranny, socialism and time for armed revolt in the streets.

Republicans were perfectly fine with a ginned up war and wiretapping, torturing, and incarcerating Americans without their consent, without trial, and without recourse just because the President said so.  But use the Republican idea of an insurance mandate, and it's The End Of America.

The logic begs the real question as to why these idiots are threatening violence and armed revolt against a government that's the first to be led by an African-American Democrat.

Then again, I believe I've answered my own question.

An Exercise In Pattern Recognition

Doug J at Balloon Juice argues that the similarities between Cordoba House and the Prop 8 ruling, that is "Democrats defending an unpopular minority through the Constitution", is part of a much larger pattern.

Reflecting on the twin horrors of gay marriage and the wholesale destruction of a Burlington Coat Factory outlet in lower Manhattan, I see a lot of similarity between the two issues. Frum Forum makes the point that all Obama said last night is that that “our laws grant people the right to do what they please with their own property….One’s rights don’t evaporate upon the majority taking offense”.

That extends to Arizona's  SB1070 law as well.  Republicans want to take rights away from people and only let the majority have them in a mob mentality government.  Democrats want to extend, protect, and guarantee rights to all Americans, including the unpopular minorities.

To paraphrase Raymond Chandler, it is not funny that someone should be dehumanized, but it is sometimes funny that he should be dehumanized over so little, and that his dehumanization should be the coin of what we call civilization.

Dehumanization is the currency of the Republican Party.  Latinos, gays and Muslims are the Others.  They're not Real Americans.  Their rights must be curtailed through the will of the majority because they are unpopular.  Republicans want to apply the Constitution through Rasmussen polls.  Only the approved religions get to build here.  Only the approved relationships count as marriage.  Only the approved people born here count as citizens.

Everybody at some point is a minority in some way, shape, or belief, folks.  What happens when the Tyranny of the Majority tries to take that away from you?  This is not a government by mob rule.  It's not administrated through Facebook posts or Sunday show rants or op-ed columns.  It's a government by Constitution where your rights are guaranteed even if you are an unpopular minority, and especially if you are an unpopular minority.

History will remember which party made the tough calls to stand up for these minorities for their rights, and which party tried to profit politically off of nothing but fear of and hatred for an unpopular minority.  You do have a clear choice in 2010 at the polls:  expanding rights to include all or limiting them to just the majority.

Is that what Americans should be all about?  Too many times in our darker parts of history the answer was yes.  We come around eventually, but it takes time.  It also takes people recognizing that hatred for what it is, the most base, cynical form of emotional manipulation, and resisting it.

The Makers And The Takers

Over at Balloon Juice, Mistermix points out this NY Times piece on the fact that government money is going to middle-class government-hating Tea Party types and not the poorest Americans.  It's a fascinating read, but the real issue is that behind the obvious hypocrisy, there's good ol' Puritan Shame.

The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year. 

And as more middle-class families like the Gulbransons land in the safety net in Chisago and similar communities, anger at the government has increased alongside. Many people say they are angry because the government is wasting money and giving money to people who do not deserve it. But more than that, they say they want to reduce the role of government in their own lives. They are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it. They say they want less help for themselves; less help in caring for relatives; less assistance when they reach old age.

That's a load of crocodile tears, of course, as the piece goes on to explain.

But the reality of life here is that Mr. Gulbranson and many of his neighbors continue to take as much help from the government as they can get. When pressed to choose between paying more and taking less, many people interviewed here hemmed and hawed and said they could not decide. Some were reduced to tears. It is much easier to promise future restraint than to deny present needs. 

“How do you tell someone that you deserve to have heart surgery and you can’t?” Mr. Gulbranson said. 

He paused. 

“You have to help and have compassion as a people, because otherwise you have no society, but financially you can’t destroy yourself. And that is what we’re doing.” 

It's interesting to note what the real argument is here, because it's not being said.  And the real issue is there are Tea Party folks like Mr. Gulbranson of Minnesota who believe that what the government gives them is fine.  It's what the government gives all those other people that needs to be cut.   

And the even bigger issue is that the whole point of the GOP austerity movement is to demonize and "other-ize" enough of the American population so that the concept of austerity can be sold to the American public.  "It's not you who will get hurt, it's all those undeserving slobs on the dole who will be."  It exists to transfer wealth upwards to the top.  It seeks to leverage the tyranny of the majority in order to take rights from minority groups and keep them out of power so that people like Gulbranson can maintain their middle-class status.  It's literally class warfare.

Only the reality turns out to be the one percent at the top are going to take it all and leave middle-class America devastated, all over the fact the people at the top have enough money to influence people that millionaires and billionaires are the only minority class worth protecting, and that the notion that the 50%+1 of America is enough to permanently remove the rights of all other minority classes.  There's a logical endpoint to that kind of thinking, of course:

It's working, of course.  And if more folks like Mr. Gulbranson here vote and people like you don't, then they win.

Let's Do It My Way Or Else

The GOP is pushing the "Republican Health Care Plan" again in an effort to peel off wavering Democrats and kill the plan altogether.

Now that Democrats have lost their 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Republicans have some ideas for how their stalled health overhaul can get started again: Find some bipartisanship.

"I don't know one Republican who does not want health care reform. I don't know one Republican who would not try to work together with the Democrats," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah, on CNN's Late Edition on Sunday. But, warned Hatch, "We would have to start over. There are a lot of things we can agree on right off the bat."

Over on NBC's Meet the Press, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky picked up right where Hatch left off. "You start with junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals, interstate competition among insurance companies," he said.

Now despite the fact that Orrin Hatch is lying through his teeth (exactly zero of the Senators in the GOP want any health care reform) and Mitch McConnell thinks he's Senate Majority Leader already, not everyone is fooled by this.

But there's a problem with that, says Len Nichols, who heads the health policy program at the nonpartisan New America Foundation. If you take most of the ideas that Republicans are shopping around at the moment, "then we're back to a policy that frankly was rejected by the Republicans when they had a majority."

Medical malpractice is a good example. Republicans have long advocated for a bill that would cap so-called noneconomic damages — those for victims' pain and suffering — at $250,000. It passed the Republican-led House eight times between 1995 and 2005. But it never even won a majority in the Republican-controlled Senate, despite several attempts. Republicans have long blamed the failure on the influence of trial lawyers, but Nichols says there's also just a lack of consensus on the issue.

That's right, the Republicans couldn't even get 50 votes in the Senate for their own health care plan even when Bush was President and they had the majority.
(More after the jump...)

It's Okay Because They Care

Peggy Noonan once again misses the point of the Town Hall Blitz movement and completely buys into the GOP rhetoric that these are completely spontaneous and massive uprisings against the tyranny of providing affordable health insurance.

What has been most unsettling is not the congressmen’s surprise but a hard new tone that emerged this week. The leftosphere and the liberal commentariat charged that the town hall meetings weren’t authentic, the crowds were ginned up by insurance companies, lobbyists and the Republican National Committee. But you can’t get people to leave their homes and go to a meeting with a congressman (of all people) unless they are engaged to the point of passion. And what tends to agitate people most is the idea of loss—loss of money hard earned, loss of autonomy, loss of the few things that work in a great sweeping away of those that don’t.

People are not automatons. They show up only if they care.

What the town-hall meetings represent is a feeling of rebellion, an uprising against change they do not believe in. And the Democratic response has been stunningly crude and aggressive. It has been to attack. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, accused the people at the meetings of “carrying swastikas and symbols like that.” (Apparently one protester held a hand-lettered sign with a “no” slash over a swastika.) But they are not Nazis, they’re Americans. Some of them looked like they’d actually spent some time fighting Nazis.

Then came the Democratic Party charge that the people at the meetings were suspiciously well-dressed, in jackets and ties from Brooks Brothers. They must be Republican rent-a-mobs. Sen. Barbara Boxer said on MSNBC’s “Hardball” that people are “storming these town hall meetings,” that they were “well dressed”, that “this is all organized,” “all planned,” to “hurt our president.” Here she was projecting. For normal people, it’s not all about Barack Obama.

Really, Peggy? I'll tell you why these people are out here protesting government from being in their Medicare, hanging Congressmen in effigy, and making death threats against their elected officials over this. It's not health care supporters doing this to Republicans, folks. They do care, alright. She's actually correct that people are being motivated to show up. But the reasons are not universal. I'm sure there are people who are at these meetings to get questions answered. But for the most part, they've been lied to about this health care program by the Republican Party and the Village, and they're having those fears exploited by the people who refuse to accept the truth about Obama legitimately being their President. It's a potent and nasty combination.

Let's talk about the multiple instances of Republicans lying to their constituents and saying senior citizens will be "forced into euthanasia"under the plan. Let's talk about the lie where tens of millions of Americans "will lose their health insurance" under the plan. Let's talk about the lie where a "government takeover" will lead to "rationed care". Despite the fact that Republicans in Congress are the least trusted group in America on improving health insurance for the country, they've managed to mobilize these small groups of intense protesters very well through these lies.

Now we combine these lies as motivating factor with the most pernicious lie of them all about Obama's birth certificate, and the results are toxic. These GOP mobs like to be called mobs, after all. They are using the health care town halls as an excuse to bully and shout down Democrats, fueled by El Rushbo referring to Democrats as Nazis, Glenn Beck referring to the President as a racist, and Lou Dobbs and the other birthers questioning the legitimacy of Obama's citizenship. The Republicans have planned these uprisings using these people as a base.

Remember, the plan to kill health care reform is really the plan to "break Obama." For the normal people, it may not be about Obama. For the birther whackjobs making up the vast majority of these protests? You're damn well right it's all about "breaking" the first African-American president we've had.

It's not working, Peggy. America can see right through the hate here. The Village Idiots like Nooners here giving them a smokescreen is only going to make this worse, too. You can't play the indignation card when you're too busy playing the racist hatemonger one.

Gaming Out The Financial Reform Vote

Although the most likely scenario is that the test vote today is filibustered and there's another week or two of negotiations before the bill gets a second shot, Brian Beutler of TPM plays out the five other scenarios that could happen in today's Senate test vote for Wall Street reform:

The GOP blinks: The fact of the matter is that, if a deal really is imminent, there's no harm in putting legislation on the floor and amending it when the compromise is reached. And for that reason, some Republicans don't really see the point of taking a politically toxic vote just to make a symbolic point. For that reason, it's possible that one or more of them will decide to break from the party. Most Republicans at the center of this debate--Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Banking Committee Ranking Member Richard Shelby, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)--say they think all 41 members will stand together, thus sustaining the filibuster. But somebody could blink. One leading candidate: Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). She's sounded most amenable to working with Democrats. She supports tight regulation of derivatives, and with the Dem bill trending in the direction of stiff new rules governing the trading of those products, she could bite.

The Dems blink: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could choose to delay the vote. Frankly, this isn't very likely: Dems are actually somewhat eager for the GOP to go on the record blocking debate on reining in Wall Street. But if Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd appeals to him--if a deal with Shelby is at hand, say--he could back off for a day or two.

A Dem Spoiler: If tonight's supermajority test vote fails 59-41 on a party-line vote, with all Dems on one side and all Republicans on the other, Democratw will be able to draw a stark contrast between themselves and the GOP. What would muddy that contrast significantly, though, is if there's a lurking spoiler on the Democrats' side of the aisle. If Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) or another conservative Democrat decides to side with the GOP tonight, be prepared to hear a lot from the GOP about "bipartisan opposition" to the Democrats bill.

They reach a deal: As of this morning, Shelby has said a deal before tonight's vote is unlikely. But you never know! If a breakthrough happens, Republicans could drop their filibuster, or Democrats could move the vote back, and the legislative process will proceed smoothly.

The GOP drops out: Reid's decision to force a vote is nothing if not a power play. And Republicans are nothing if not petulant. If they're looking for an excuse to drop out of negotiations, or take them in a painstakingly slow direction, they could throw a hissy fit over the vote, and throw the legislative process into complete disarray. They're not threatening to do that by any means. In fact Shelby, Corker, and McConnell have all said they'll deal with the vote, while talks with Democrats continue in the background--the vote, they say, won't poison the well. But this is the GOP. They've practically made a habit of drawing out negotiations over major legislation until the last moment, then finding some excuse for backing out. So let's not rule that out.

Of the five remaining scenarios, #5 is by far the most likely, followed by #3.  In fact I think #5 there is almost as likely as today's GOP filibuster and delay play.  In fact combine the two: Most likely is that the vote fails 59-41, the Dems attack the GOP as in the pocket of Wall Street, and the GOP pulls out and says that the entire bill has to go back to the beginning, and that there will be no reform otherwise.

It depends on if Corker or Snowe crack.  But having that happen without the ConservaDems bailing, especially Evan Bayh, will simply not happen.  No, I forsee the GOP making a complete fingerpaint on Grandma's new tablecloth mess of things here tonight.  Word is they will offer their own bill and use that to delay the Democrats as long as possible, perhaps long enough to make sure that nothing passes, or else they will pick up their ball and go home, because that's all they are capable of as a party anymore.

Watch.  I was never convinced that this was going to pass, and I'm even more skeptical now.  Obama may be the man, but...he needs a Republican to vote to break the filibuster.  And as long as that doesn't happen, the GOP tyranny of the minority will continue.

If the Republicans win here, Obama's agenda is dead.

[UPDATE] Surprise!  Ben Nelson just stabbed the Dems in the back and voted to filibuster and the GOP is already claiming "bipartisan opposition to this partisan bill".   It's option #3 in the list there.  Good call, TPM crew.

Now the GOP will most likely pick up their ball and go home, declaring the bill dead unless completely rewritten.  And Ben Nelson's vote now makes it very difficult to hit the GOP on blocking this, unless they're willing to go after Nelson too.

My God, Democrats are stupid.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The Tea Party Tips Their Hand

At the Virginia Tea Party Patriots convention this weekend, the state's Republican Governor, Bob McDonnell, has just unveiled the newest weapon on the "tyranny of the majority" front.

Gov. Bob McDonnell said this afternoon that he would support a federal constitutional amendment that would allow two-thirds of the states to collectively repeal a federal enactment.

He committed to the action during a panel discussion on government reform at the Virginia Tea Party Patriots convention. The amendment is being promoted by the tea party and, in Virginia, Speaker of the House William J. Howell, R-Stafford.

Panel moderator Robert D. Holsworth asked McDonnell if he would support the amendment, and if he would commit to help getting it through the next legislative session.

"Yes, I support it," McDonnell said. "A supermajority like that helps to strike that balance between state and federal authority and I think would help to breathe new life into the system of federalism that our Virginia forefathers fought so valiantly for 200 years ago." 

Right, and our forefathers were smart enough to know the difference between a representative republic and a populist mob calling itself democracy, too.

Guess what's the first thing on the list to be repealed?  Sure, these guys could use it to take out health care reform, but that's thinking too small.  If you're going to give the American people the power to dismantle decades of federal improvements by whipping up a mob with the power to decimate its own self-interests, why stop at health care?

Why not roll back civil rights, eliminate Social Security and Medicare, take out all the executive agencies that you don't like, like the Department of Education or the EPA?  The Teabaggers are shooting for the whole wad here because they know repealing all the different Amendments they want to get rid of is going to be time-consuming and may fail.  Put everything into one big huge superveto amendment and use it to rip up the federal government via a mob powered by unlimited campaign donations!

Absolutely count on hearing about this amendment proposal going forward, folks.  It's the ultimate in tyranny of the majority.

Legislating Bigotry, Part 2

My home state of North Carolina continues to push codifying hate into the state constitution as Republicans (and more than a few Democrats) in the state House overwhelmingly passed a bill to permanently reduce LGBT citizens to second-class status.

The North Carolina House of Representatives passed today, 75-42, a proposed anti-LGBT state constitutional amendment that would ban marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships and other relationship recognition for same-sex couples.


The House took up the amendment after its rushed passage through the chamber’s Rules Committee earlier this afternoon. It came as another surprise move by Republican legislative leaders, who had previously announced, though sneakily, that the amendment would be heard today in a Senate committee. Sources say two GOP senators had excused absences, leaving the body without the votes for passage.

The newest version of the amendment, SB 514, moves the ballot date from November 2012 to the primary election in May 2012. Speaker of the House Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) said the date change was a way to “remove politics” from the issue.

Yeah, because by holding the Hate The Gays vote during a hotly contested Republican primary race in May, it "removes politics" from the issue.  What it does of course is assure the bill will have zero problems passing as North Carolina Republicans take aim at yet another minority group they wish to destroy.

Having said that, there were more than a few Democrats who pushed back.

One of the strongest speeches against the measure came from Forsyth County’s Larry Womble.

“This proposed piece of legislation is clearly an example of discrimination,” Womble said. “It is discrimination in its highest form…We’ve been so silent on some of the atrocities committed in this state against other people, human beings; the only difference is it might be the texture of their hair, the pigmentation of their skin or the color of their eyes. We are again today discriminating against people who are citizens. They are not criminals. They’ve not broken any laws. I assume they register and vote. They go to school. They work. They want to ascribe to the best that this society can offer…North Carolina is bigger than this. North Carolina is better than this. We need to rise to the occasion as we have done before when there’s been issues that are not right and not fair.”

Sadly, my home state's long and storied history of hatred shows that North Carolina is only "bigger and better than that" only when it is dragged kicking and screaming into doing so after decades of discrimination and embarrassment as a national laughing stock.  Sadly, this still puts it ahead of neighboring South Carolina by a generation or two in that respect.

As I have said time and again, the tyranny of the majority is alive and well in America and is one of the chief tools of the Republican Party.