Bush supports improved health care...OK, not really

Watched bits and pieces of the replay of the prez's news conference today. When asked a question about Social Security and "private accounts" he said,

"You've heard me say, I like to say this, if it's good enough for the Congress, it is -- it ought to be good enough for the workers..."

Now, it seems to me that if it's good enough for investment accounts shouldn't the same test apply to health care plans?

Oh....wait a minute...diverting SSA money to "private accounts" would benefit Wall Street while providing first rate health care would only benefit average Americans. Silly me. What was I thinking? Trying to hold the President to his own words?

Going "Nuclear" in the Senate

A right leaning BBS-aquaintance complained about the Senate Democrats holding up W's judicial nominees and the threat of the "nuclear option" of ending cloture, saying...

...it is a means to force the Senate to abide by its Constitutional role of Advise and Consent - ALL of the Senate, not the very few on the Judiciary Committee who want to forestall said votes.

My response to him follows...

While it is true that in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution limits the power of the Executive by requiring the “Advice and Consent of the Senate”, it does not specify exactly what that really means. We naturally infer some sort of vote of confirmation. But how should that vote proceed? Well, let’s look to the Constitution once more and we will see in Article I, Section 5 it reads in part “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings”. The filibuster has been within the rules of the Senate for well over 200 years. The US Senate’s own website informs us that ” Unlimited debate remained in place in the Senate until 1917. At that time, at the suggestion of President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted a rule (Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote -- a tactic known as "cloture." My point in citing all this is that the Senate is indeed conforming to its Constitutional role. These measures were put in place intentionally to protect the minority. That is why, too, that it is the Senate and not the House that has the Advise and Consent role.
I agree with John Podesta when he said in a C-SPAN presentation,

By removing the safeguard offered by the filibuster, the nuclear option would seriously and perhaps irreparably damage an institution that has functioned since its inception under customs and traditions that ensure an atmosphere of careful deliberation and mutual respect. Ultimately, this is not a dispute between the left and the right. It’s a matter of right and wrong. It’s a choice between safeguarding our system of checks and balances or destabilizing it; between upholding the Senate’s coequal role in the confirmation process or diminishing it.

Scott, you quoted Senator Leahy to support your call for “an up or down vote”. Read here what some noted Republican Senators have to say about this “nuclear option”:

Senator John McCain on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews (4/14/05):
MATTHEWS: “But, bottom line, would you vote with the people for the nuke -- what is called the nuclear option, to get rid of the filibuster rule on judgeships?”
MCCAIN: “No, I will not.”
MATTHEWS: “You will stick with the party on that?”
MCCAIN: “Oh, I will vote against the nuclear option.”

Senator Bob Dole on CNN’s Late Edition (4/17/05):
“You know…I’ve said you got to use extreme caution. It’s got to be a last resort. You’ve gotta try negotiation; you gotta try everything.”
...
“My advice to Bill Frist is that… gotta be a last resort You’ve got to make every effort to come to terms.”

Senator Chuck Hagel on CNN's Late Edition (4/17/05):
“Well, I think Senator McCain's argument is a good one, but I would make a little deeper argument here as to how we have to be very careful.
It seems to me, we ha ve two very important issues that are about to collide unless cooler heads prevail.
One is the rights of minorities in the Senate, and Senator Feinstein is absolutely correct. The United States Senate is a very unique institution. One of the reasons it is… it is at the core of its responsibilities, the protection of minority rights. That is very important.
And the other interest that is important, and we have some constitutional obligation for, is advise and consent for presidential nominees, including giving those presidential nominees a vote.
So, those two interests are about to collide here, and I think what Senator McCain is saying is obviously correct. But I would go even deeper to say, it's important that we protect the institution of the Senate and the tools of minority rights because if those are eroded, you will then put the institution on a slippery slope.”

In the name of the Executive, the Legislative, and (eventually) the Judicial: the unholy trinity of a single-party government, part 1

The Wasington Post: Senator Links Violence to 'Political' Decisions (free registration required)

Yeah, yeah, yeah...been away awhile. Well, we're back now so just deal with it. And damn but there's been some shit in the meantime hasn't there? Condi as SoS...Gonzales now as AG...Morton up for Embarrasser to the U.N....Wolfie to head the World Bank....the sad, sick Schiavo circus... But let us turn our attention at this time to the right wing's attack on the judiciary.

Apparently checks and balances are for wimps as the Republican's set their sights on cow-towing the judicial branch like they've done to the media. Both Morning Sedition and The Randi Rhodes Show on Air America Radio touched on the Washington Post story today. At first listen it sounded like they were reading way too much in Senator Cornyn's words but let's look at them:

It causes a lot of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority that they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions...
I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence.

Now note this: the senator spoke these words (according to the WP account) "in a nearly empty chamber". In other words, he did not just submit the text of his remarks to be added to the record. He wanted to be seen saying them and he wanted them recorded in his voice. He wanted his words in the media. Not just on record for some future campaign but out there right now in the ether of public opinion and ersatz-news.
Okay, so he's a glory seeker. Duh, he's in politics. But the only "recent episodes of courthouse violence" have absolutely nothing to do with "activist" judges. These were acts commited by criminals violently dissatisfied with the outcome of their respective cases. So where is the correlation? Answer: there isn't one. Okay, so...what is he saying? Hmm...there's been violence against judges...judges are making decisions "unaccountable to the public"...this causes resentment that "builds up and builds up"...which results in violence... OH, I get it: Luco Brassi sleeps with the fishes and you activists judges had darned well better watch your back, get it?
Or, it could just be that Senator Cornyn is just fecking idiot. After all in the same speech, he criticized the Supreme's 5/4 decision that said it is unconstitutional to execute someone for a crime commited when that person was a child. Apparently if the jury really wants to execute children and the state law says they can, the feds should just but out of the state's affairs. Interesting take from the party that contorted the federal legislative body into advanced positions of the Kama Sutra in order to block the workings of the state of Florida with regards to Terry Schiavo.
Politicizing the judiciary is an unfathomably dangerous path to go down. But this little roadtrip is being brought to you by the same folks who want to monkey with the Constitution so that those pesky fillabusters (which worked so well for them when they blocked 65 Clinton's judicial nominees) won't stop them from dressing up more puppets in black robes.