Fascists Take Over. Dems Fret About–Decorum. Why Dems Suck: Item Infinity Plus Two:
Ten Democrats joined with House Republicans on Thursday to censure Rep. Al Green for his protest during President Donald Trump’s address to Congress this week — a formal condemnation of the Texas Democrat’s actions.
Divergent tactics were on full display during the Tuesday night address, with some Democrats holding signs, walking out or boycotting it altogether. Others took a more muted approach, following the guidance of House Democratic leadership, who had urged members not to mount high-profile protests and to show restraint during the address, cautioning that the GOP could seize on such actions.
Oh, no! The Rethugs could seize on such actions!:
The 10 Democrats who voted with Republicans to censure Green were: Ami Bera of California, Ed Case of Hawaii, Jim Costa of California, Laura Gillen of New York, Jim Himes of Connecticut, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Jared Moskowitz of Florida, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington and Tom Suozzi of New York.
“I don’t mind being one of 10 Democrats who said, no, there’s a deeper principle at stake here, which is reverence for this institution,” Himes said after the vote, adding that lawmakers need to act “with the decorum and with the civility that says to the world that we are a serious country.”
“I have no love for Donald Trump, but I do have reverence for the Office of the President,” he told CNN’s Pamela Brown.
Trump will be sure to give Himes a pat on the head as he’s led to the electoral gas chamber. This is not a time for ‘good Jews’.
An Example Of What ‘Reverence For The Office Of President’ Means:
The Trump White House has taken its attempt to seize direct control over the entire executive branch to a new level and laid out a startling legal rationale for the move in a previously unreported email obtained by TPM. If successful, Trump would be making a dramatic end run around the Senate’s advice and consent power for certain appointed positions.
TPM has obtained the email in question, which contains the broadest assertion of presidential power over independent agencies yet made by the second Trump administration. In it, Trent Morse, deputy assistant to the President and deputy director of presidential personnel at the White House, stakes out a legal position that would undercut the Senate’s power to confirm new officers at agencies like USADF, experts say. Trump, Morse asserted, would have the “inherent authority under Article II” to appoint acting officials without going through the Senate’s process of advice and consent.
Anne Joseph O’Connell, a professor at Stanford Law School, called the argument “so much more of an executive power claim than a lot of what they’ve done.”
“Why have a confirmations process?” she told TPM. “We wouldn’t need a confirmations process – and that’s written into the Constitution.”
Personal to Jim Himes: Stick your reverence up your ass. The only heroes are those who challenge what’s going on. Loudly and relentlessly. This is not a Presidency, it’s the evisceration of our republican form of government. Here’s yet another example (I could literally cite dozens every day) of your reverence in action:
The Trump administration said Friday that it is ending collective bargaining at the Transportation Security Administration, effectively revoking union protections for thousands of airport security officers.
In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security claimed the move would “safeguard our transportation systems and keep Americans safe.”
“Eliminating collective bargaining removes bureaucratic hurdles that will strengthen workforce agility [and] enhance productivity and resiliency, while also jumpstarting innovation,”
the agencyMusk said. (‘Workforce agility’)?Workers at TSA, which Congress created in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, do not enjoy the same union rights as employees at most other federal agencies. Bargaining rights can essentially be extended or rescinded at the will of the administrator.
Carville Argues Dems Should ‘Roll Over And Play Dead’. Which is exactly what they’re doing, and shouldn’t be doing:
(Carville’s) argument is simple and incredibly dangerous: give the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves and they will do it. Their inability to govern, he argues, is self-evident and when they shut down enough social programs, people will notice and Democrats can swoop in and save the day.
Here’s the thing: it is not true, and it is a massive, world-historic error to think that it is. (Ask the post-first world war German Social Democrats – they also believed that the Nazis would disgrace themselves and be rejected by the public once their true colors were shown. It didn’t end like that.)
The rapid-fire destruction of institutions that we’ve seen from the Republicans since Trump’s second inauguration should tell any thinking person that these are not the bumbling incompetents that the pundit class claims. Republicans and the billionaires who fund them are consolidating power right in front of our eyes. This isn’t simple looting; it’s state violence against the most vulnerable sectors of our society and a final, the decisive evisceration of every gain made during the civil rights movement and every social welfare program that somehow survived the Reagan era.
There is no guaranteed Republican self-destruction coming down the pike; we cannot simply wait this out. By abdicating their responsibility to the working class, the Democrats (and their mega-donors, so often shared across the aisle) are telling on themselves. Their commitment to privatization, neoliberal imperialism and their corporate donors – to capitalism – means they cannot be credible opposition to a political movement that stands for all of these things (but without the paint job).
Meaning we have to do it ourselves:
So what does this mean for the working class? We have to build that credible opposition ourselves. There is no one coming to save us – we are the cavalry.
Will Ten Proposed Amendments Make SB 21 Better? I don’t know, but I’ll be listening. Will Bryan Townsend, who has a clear conflict-of-interest, run the bill? I can usually get some sense as to how certain articles will or won’t generate feedback. I’m honestly surprised at how little response has surfaced for this one. It’s as if everybody knows it, but doesn’t want to say anything. It’s a blatant conflict-of-interest, OK? And every single corporate lawyer in Delaware knows it. As do all the members of the Delaware State Senate.
Delaware Supreme Court Sides With Gov. Meyer On Port Nominations. He has the authority to withdraw the names. Now, can he just get on with the business of nominating his own people? You know, to put an end to this all-around unforced error?:
In its analysis, justices said the Delaware Constitution places the appointment in the executive branch and submitting nominations to the Senate is just the first step in the process and is the purview of the governor. It rejected the argument by lawmakers that names that have already been submitted to the Senate cannot be withdrawn because those nominations are “appointments,” which is the Senate’s exclusive jurisdiction.
What do you want to talk about?