You’re all set, the GOP has the house

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Meanwhile republicans vote back in the Holman Rule, from 1875

allowing lawmakers to reduce or eliminate federal agency programs and to slash the salaries of individual federal employees.

During the House floor debate, Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.), an ally of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), blasted federal officials as “unelected bureaucrats, the true, real swamp creatures here in D.C.,” saying they had “run roughshod over the American people without consequence.”

I guess there are no Republicans working in government or will they use past voting records to determine who stays and who goes.

Installing loyalists and calling it draining the swamp wow republicans are twisted




If you’re a federal employee, this now becomes a risk that you have to think ‘I may get myself get in hot water or have my salary dropped to zero or my job could get axed’”

But none of it will get pass the senate
But they’ll waste the time grandstanding
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wayne, using your exact words, can I simply say "there was a reason" and that's good enough? Or is that only good enough for you to use?

I'm not an extremist. But there are unelected people in DC who are very powerful and have been there way too long. Obviously not every federal employee fits into that category. But there are some.

In a democracy, only those we elect should be able to make policy. That way we can vote them out if we don't like what they're doing.
Not judges, not bureaucrats. Do you disagree? That's a sincere question, not a gotcha question.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Wayne, using your exact words, can I simply say "there was a reason" and that's good enough? Or is that only good enough for you to use?

I'm not an extremist. But there are unelected people in DC who are very powerful and have been there way too long. Obviously not every federal employee fits into that category. But there are some.

In a democracy, only those we elect should be able to make policy. That way we can vote them out if we don't like what they're doing.
Not judges, not bureaucrats. Do you disagree? That's a sincere question, not a gotcha question.

1st I said everything happened for a reason and are easily explained and justified

The gop has not shown explanation or a justification for needing an 1875 rule. Or investigating the investigators


Of course their are unelected bureaucrats in DC we have a supreme court full of them

Not sure why unelected maters when the position . Doesn’t require it

Of course the GOP won’t name these unelected positions and would they just replace them with other unelected people?who have pledged allegiance to them not the nation?

To answer you question as I understand it.

Federal bureaucrats don’t make policy they interpret laws and apply the rules and make decisions because congress has empowered them to do.

The reason judges seem to be making policies is the congress won’t fix what’s broken and some courts like the SJC. Are accepting cases they should be refusing. So state’s attorney keep going back because their nonsensical arguments keep being entertained

We have a court taking a case based on a woman’s business

That only exists on paper?



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Of course their are unelected bureaucrats in DC we have a supreme court full of them

Not sure why unelected maters when the position . Doesn’t require it

Of course the GOP won’t name these unelected positions and would they just replace them with other unelected people?who have pledged allegiance to them not the nation?

To answer you question as I understand it.

Federal bureaucrats don’t make policy they interpret laws and apply the rules and make decisions because congress has empowered them to do.

The reason judges seem to be making policies is the congress won’t fix what’s broken and some courts like the SJC. Are accepting cases they should be refusing. So state’s attorney keep going back because their nonsensical arguments keep being entertained

We have a court taking a case based on a woman’s business

That only exists on paper?



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Of course their are unelected bureaucrats in DC we have a supreme court full of them

Not sure why unelected maters when the position . Doesn’t require it"

I guess I didn't say it well. If someone isn't elected, that means "we the people" can't vote them out, which means they are not answerable to us. That's why they should not be setting policy. Especially supreme court judges who are there for life, that's exactly why my side likes to say "they shouldn't legislate from the bench", because we have no mechanism to keep them in check. That would be totalitarian. Setting laws and policies were meant to only be the purview of people who are elected by us. The job of unelected bureaucrats is to implement policy, not to create it. If you think about it, it's very logical and democratic. In a democracy, policies and laws should only be created by those who are directly answerable to us.

Obviously in the real world there are grey areas. But we should strive for that ideal, not venture too far away from it.

I'm not a thoughtless conspiracy nut. You know that I believe Biden won fair and square. But I do believe there are unelected people out there, who have bene there way too long, who have way too much power. That's what MAGA folk refer to as "the swamp". It's healthy to keep that to a minimum.

"Federal bureaucrats don’t make policy"

They aren't supposed to. Sometimes it ends up happening though. That's what happened when SCOTUS legalized abortion, that was obviously legislating from the bench. When the attorney general decides that parents protesting school board meetings are committing a federal crime. Anthony Faucci had too much power. Lobbyists have too much power (like the NRA, for example). Defense contractors have too much power.

I'm not saying everything is completely broken. I think it can be improved.

But it won't be improved. The GOP likes to talk, they don't always like delivering.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The reason judges seem to be making policies is the congress won’t fix what’s broken

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But the constitution doesn't say judges can change their role if congress isn't doing a good job. It's up to the voters, not the courts, to fix a broken legislature. What you just said, seems to imply that you agree with me.

Judges aren't supposed to make decisions, based on whether or not they personally like what congress is doing. That's the definition of totalitarianism.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But the constitution doesn't say judges can change their role if congress isn't doing a good job. It's up to the voters, not the courts, to fix a broken legislature. What you just said, seems to imply that you agree with me.

Judges aren't supposed to make decisions, based on whether or not they personally like what congress is doing. That's the definition of totalitarianism.

Tell that to the conservatives majority in the us supreme court

And Republicans who want them to legislate from the bench

IT’s Republicans who are pushing
The The independent state legislature theory posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies

There’s a thread that links the partisan gerrymandering of congressional maps in North Carolina, attempts to dissolve the Wisconsin Election Commission, and efforts to overthrow the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. In each case, the participants have invoked a dubious interpretation of the Constitution called the “independent state legislature theory.”

Long relegated to the fringe of election law, the theory will soon be front and center before the Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear a case concerning the North Carolina congressional maps in the fall. If the Supreme Court were to adopt the theory, it would radically change our elections.


Then, after the 2020 election, President Trump and his allies used the independent state legislature theory as part of their effort to overturn the results. For a third time, the Supreme Court declined to adopt the theory. But three sitting justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch —endorsed it.

But this court took up the case with the 3 above acceptance of the case


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Tell that to the conservatives majority in the us supreme court

And Republicans who want them to legislate from the bench

IT’s Republicans who are pushing
The The independent state legislature theory posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies

There’s a thread that links the partisan gerrymandering of congressional maps in North Carolina, attempts to dissolve the Wisconsin Election Commission, and efforts to overthrow the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. In each case, the participants have invoked a dubious interpretation of the Constitution called the “independent state legislature theory.”

Long relegated to the fringe of election law, the theory will soon be front and center before the Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear a case concerning the North Carolina congressional maps in the fall. If the Supreme Court were to adopt the theory, it would radically change our elections.


Then, after the 2020 election, President Trump and his allies used the independent state legislature theory as part of their effort to overturn the results. For a third time, the Supreme Court declined to adopt the theory. But three sitting justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch —endorsed it.

But this court took up the case with the 3 above acceptance of the case


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never said the GOP is free of hypocrites. But our democracy is healthier if elected officials, and only elected officials, legislate and make policy. Roe V Wade was a massive violation of that ideal.

"Tell that to the conservatives majority in the us supreme court"

You are basing your attack, on how you are assuming a future case will go.

But as I said, the GOP has plenty of hypocrites.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I never said the GOP is free of hypocrites. But our democracy is healthier if elected officials, and only elected officials, legislate and make policy. Roe V Wade was a massive violation of that ideal.

"Tell that to the conservatives majority in the us supreme court"

You are basing your attack, on how you are assuming a future case will go.

But as I said, the GOP has plenty of hypocrites.

But our democracy is healthier if elected officials, and only elected officials, legislate and make policy

I’d say Having a potus and his party willingly trying to overturn an election is far more of a concern then republicans claiming unelected bureaucrats are a danger


But the GOP are doing exactly what I said they would do.


the Republican-led House is poised to vote on two abortion-related measures. One would condemn attacks “on pro-life facilities, groups, and churches,” while the other would force medical practitioners to provide care to infants who survive an abortion — a very rare occurrence

Funny their bills seem to be once again influenced by Fox News headlines

'Slow-walked justice': FBI insists it is prosecuting attacks on pro-life centers amid claims of politicization
A pro-life activist says the FBI has 'slow-walked justice' for pregnancy center attacks because of politics

More than 100 pro-life orgs, churches attacked since Dobbs leak
DOJ has yet to announce any arrests in attacks on pro-life centers


Republicans doing what they do best playing the victim and suggesting conspiracies are at play


I Just need gun bill . And they checked all my boxes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I’d say Having a potus and his party willingly trying to overturn an election is far more of a concern then republicans claiming unelected bureaucrats are a danger



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So we can't discuss anything other than January 6...forever?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

But our democracy is healthier if elected officials, and only elected officials, legislate and make policy

I’d say Having a potus and his party willingly trying to overturn an election is far more of a concern then republicans claiming unelected bureaucrats are a danger


But the GOP are doing exactly what I said they would do.


the Republican-led House is poised to vote on two abortion-related measures. One would condemn attacks “on pro-life facilities, groups, and churches,” while the other would force medical practitioners to provide care to infants who survive an abortion — a very rare occurrence

Funny their bills seem to be once again influenced by Fox News headlines

'Slow-walked justice': FBI insists it is prosecuting attacks on pro-life centers amid claims of politicization
A pro-life activist says the FBI has 'slow-walked justice' for pregnancy center attacks because of politics

More than 100 pro-life orgs, churches attacked since Dobbs leak
DOJ has yet to announce any arrests in attacks on pro-life centers


Republicans doing what they do best playing the victim and suggesting conspiracies are at play


I Just need gun bill . And they checked all my boxes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"One would condemn attacks “on pro-life facilities, groups, and churches,”"

Are you opposed to condemning such attacks?

"the other would force medical practitioners to provide care to infants who survive an abortion — a very rare occurrence"

Yes, it's rare. But are you opposed to the bill?

I don't think independents are adamantly opposed to requiring that care Wayne. Only a very callous person would oppose that.

"Republicans doing what they do best playing the victim"

They're not playing victim. They're trying to help actual victims.

If America wanted babies to be ;left to whiter and die, and if America wanted pro life buildings to be attacked, I don't think America would have given house control to the GOP.

Wayne, elections do in fact have consequences. If you thought the GOP was going to legalize late term abortions on their first day, that's on you.

You posted quotes from folks saying the FBI isn't taking those attacks seriously. You posted nothing to suggest those people are wrong. Are we supposed to take your word for it?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But the constitution doesn't say judges can change their role if congress isn't doing a good job. It's up to the voters, not the courts, to fix a broken legislature. What you just said, seems to imply that you agree with me.

Judges aren't supposed to make decisions, based on whether or not they personally like what congress is doing. That's the definition of totalitarianism.

The Constitution doesn’t say they can’t, so…..
Totalitarianism’s having a cult appointed now constituting a majority of the Supreme Court and imposing their religious beliefs.
Kinda like the guys who wear the robes in Afghanistan
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signs executive orders on first day of term ( Should say she Blew a dog whistle)

The first one she signed institutes a promotion and hiring freeze for all state government workers.

Another executive order will prevent government agencies from implementing new regulations without her approval.

“We are going to continue to limit the scope of government and empower Arkansans,” Sanders said.

Sanders also signed an executive order aimed at prohibiting “indoctrination and Critical Race Theory in schools.”

Maybe she should take care of bigger issues in her State .

Here entire work history is working for daddy minus orange daddy good luck Arkansans day 1 governing by decree Gotta Love Republicans




Health Care 48th Education 41st economy 41st Infrastructure 43rd
Crime & Corrections 48th