Put this up for your status all day: No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. And no one should be forced to buy insurance from the companies that caused this mess without having a public option as an alternative.
Putting her in to convince Democrats to compromise...? Would that be centrists, such as Bayh, or liberals such as such Harkin? To get Bayh to support the public option or Harkin to abandon support for it? I fear we know which team the coach would use her for and I, for one, prefer to see her working for the two-state solution; not the health care enrich-insurance-companies-with-47,000,0
This is just Nelson's opening bid in a time-honored bidding game. Nelson wants something, something big, say a huge expansion of Offut AFB near Omaha. He has just picked his price and laid it down. Whatever it is he wants, we now know its price: the public option in health care reform. Just watch this play out. Rham will find something Nelson already has and threaten to take it away from him, saying, "Bill, two can play this game. Is this really what you want to do?"
Claire McCaskill: former county prosecutor, state auditor, now Senator, and active campaigner for Obama.
I totally agree that some real-world experience is needed on a court so larded with academics who have never tried a jury trial; faced the voters; had to compromise to get legislation enacted; or, met a payroll. Not that intelligence has to be sacrificed, ala Roman Hruska's defense of Nixonian mediocracy; more that intelligence needs to be nuanced with real-world experience. When the Court interprets legislation it would help to have a legislator (as O'Connor was) who knows how the cake was baked. When the Court considers criminal or civil rights law, a smart lawyer who has been in the trenches (as Marshall had been) can make sure that the purity of principle does not cripple legal principle as police apply it on the streets.
You cannot litigate a matter twice. In your lawsuit you must join all issues you have or waive them. Then you litigate your case and appeal it if you must, but that is it. When the state supreme court rules, that case is over.
I agree with your premise, how it must be framed. Under MN law, however, the certificate of election may not be issued until the state litigation is over. In that litigation the Minnesota Supreme Court must rule first.
So, there are several steps before that certificate may issue. On April 6, the 400 ballots are counted. Soon therefter (within a week?) the three-judge court enters its final judgment. Then, Coleman appeals to the MN Supreme Court. That appeal will probably be fast-tracked by the Court and, assuming it affirms the judgment of the three-judge court, it will issue its decision perhaps as early or mid-May. At that point, the certificate of election should be issued and Franken immediately, within hours, should be swworn in and take his seat in the Senate.
The Republicans may well try to take the case to federal court but the federal courts will not want to hear the case after the careful manner in which the state three-judge court considered all the issues. While the Republicans bounce the case around in federal court, Franken should be voting in the Senate.
Seating Franken in the Senate, it is threatened -- by the illustrious Senate Coryn -- will set off nuclear war. Let them try because that will backfire, just as it did when Gingrich attempted to shut down Congress in pique at Clinton.
here in Missouri by an automated call that said it had four questions on an issue of national importance that would take less than two minutes to answer. It then provided "background", saying that for years union members had been able to vote in secret, using a "secret ballot", and thus avoid pressure to vote one way or another on the important question of forming a union. It then said that there was legislation pending in Congress to do away with the "secret ballot". It then asked if I favored legislation that would do away with the "secret ballot" in union elections?
The next three questions were about union membership, gender, and age.
The phrase "secret ballot" was used at least three times, maybe four, all in the context of a right of workers, a right that someone proposed to strip them of.
But Brown's argument, made by Krueger, is getting cut to shreds, as well it should. While I share the view that Prop 8 is terrible, Brown's argument is crazy. They argue that if an initiative is passed creating an "inalienable" right, say, for women but not men to wear red hats inside courtrooms, that new inalienable right cannot be struck down for any reason by the courts because the people declared it inalienable.
Watching the argument live, who is the woman justice sitting just to the stage-right of the Chief Justice (she has reddish brown hair)? She is a moron, and likes to filibuster while saying nothing.
She said she was in the majority that found in favor of gay marriages last year (with which I agree) but seems to support upholding Prop 8. So much hangs in the balance and that balance is in the hands of at least one pretty clueless justice. Yikes.
...how to make the Republicans keep talking or abandon the filibuster. If the Dems are present, the quorum call establishes a quorum very quickly and it is back to either the debate or the vote.
When health care comes to the floor of the Senate, if the Democrats are all prepared to stay on or near the floor, and promptly answer every quorum call, the Republicans would have to continue talking before CSPAN and a million TIVOs unless they relented and allowed the vote.
Would not it require the Democrats to be present, on the floor? In other words, if we want to force the Republicans to engage in a speaking filibuster, our side has to be there to listen, and answer the quorum calls. In my view, that would be worth it. Think of all the video clips off CSPAN that could be collected as the Republicans obstruct health care legislation.
This, of course, assumes that Reid can keep his team together.