I call them extremist because that’s what they are. Since when are they for less intrusive central authority when they try to use the power of central authority to tell other people what they can do in their own bedrooms, with their own bodies, and with their own families? When they want to use the power of central authority to abolish the rule of law and replace it with the rule of Trump? If all they wanted to be was fiscally conservative, they could try working within the framework of give and take deal making that used to be how things got done.
Not just abortion, but transgender issues, same sex issues, and while I’m at it I can include all the limits they want to put on what teachers teach, what books libraries have on their shelves, what shows and events people go see…The list seems endless. None of these things are really any business of the government’s, Federal or State.
Perhaps I am lumping members of Congress with state governors and legislatures together in this, but since they all seem to be pulling in the same direction, so be it. On these social issues the left isn’t working to replace family with government, it is working to replace a rigid, narrow definition of what people are allowed to do in their personal life with a more open and flexible one. It is replacing “Live as I do or else,” with “Live and let live.”
You know what I would do if my library puts on a drag queen story hour and I don’t want my kids to see it? I don’t go on that day. But I don’t feel like I should throw a hissy fit to prevent the people who want to go from going. Not my business. And if I don’t like my public school teaching about LGBTQ issues, I can send my kid to private school or homeschool, but I don’t demand that LGBTQ parents and kids, who are also citizens and taxpayers, be made invisible because it makes me feel icky. (By the way, it doesn’t make me feel icky, I’m just giving examples for clarity!!) And before anyone complains that their tax dollars shouldn’t go towards something they don’t approve of, please be aware that your tax dollars, and mine, have always gone towards things we may not personally approve of. I personally cannot stand that a portion of my tax dollars go to subsidize the fossil fuel industry, one of the most profitable and also damaging industries of all time. All I can do is vote for people that feel as I do and hope they can change that, but if it doesn’t change, I understand that means either not enough people feel as I do, or that the powers that be have decided it is somehow in the nation’s interest, or (and this is what I suspect) that someone’s pockets are being lined to keep the subsidies flowing.
Thomas, like Steinbrenner and ex-POTUS, knows exactly what he’s doing and that it’s wrong. He just doesn’t care about others. That makes him...and them...sociopaths.
I’m not sure how others feel, but I know in regard to Clarence T. I personally feel helpless. We can be horrified and disgusted but what can we do to change this? We can vote in people we hope are ethically and morally responsible but what are they going to do? Maybe I’m missing something. Trump can say General Milly should die because he is disloyal, corrupt people like Santos continue on while the Democrats hold their folks accountable, the government is threatened with shutdowns ( the people who decide that of course get paid) while they hold hearings for an impeachment inquiry that has no basis. The world feels upside down.
Our system is based on consent of the governed. The Founders meant for agreement to come through consensus as much as possible. When Democrats vote against spending authorizations that in no way meet their criteria for a yes vote they are not voting for a shutdown. The sides are not far apart because Democrats are totally unreasonable, rather, an extremist element in the GOP is determined to force a shutdown.
That small minority may be representing the wishes of their districts, but they should not be allowed to run the whole show they way they are now. The Democrats and traditional Republicans (such as they are) had already worked out a deal, and these few Freedom Caucus members are drunk on the power they have over Kevin McCarthy and are willing to torpedo everything. Their ideas on spending are not mainstream. They do not work well with others. They don’t care that many Americans have different ideas and priorities than they do, and that their voices deserve to be heard as well.
The Democrats don’t actually want a shutdown, but they certainly don’t want to vote for extreme cuts, and I have the feeling they also don’t mind seeing McCarthy suffer, so they will let this play out and it is Republicans who will take the blame, as it should be. Until Kevin McCarthy is willing grow a pair and marginalize his extreme right wing, he and therefore everyone else will have to dance to their dysfunctional tune.
Overall, they want to alter 2024 spending levels to match those of 2022, which, when you factor in inflation, would mean pretty steep cuts across the board: the social programs, national parks, food and drug inspection, etc, etc. Specifically they want to ADD money to build more border wall (an ineffective and environmentally damaging waste of money), they want to cut funding for Ukraine, the IRS (That makes no sense to me at all. If you want to cut deficits, why hobble the agency responsible for collecting the money??), they want to make cuts to the Justice Dept. and the FBI, I guess because they don’t like the fact that Fearless Leader has come under all his indictments.
Does Washington spend too much and waste vast amounts of money? You’ll get no argument from me there. Real, grownup, thoughtful discussion about what works and what’s needed is an absolute necessity. But our economy is growing and doing pretty well right now. The 2.1% GDP growth rate is about average for the past 20 years. Unemployment is historically low levels. Inflation is still a worry, true, but consumer spending is still strong despite that. The extremely wealthy are practically swimming in money like Scrooge McDuck, thanks to Trump’s tax cuts. Government spending is not so much the problem, it’s that they spend more than they take in. If I were a Freedom Caucus member and I was really serious about getting my fiscal house in order, instead of cutting things willy-nilly, I would look around to see where I could raise some more money. Rescinding the tax cuts for the rich is low hanging fruit. They could pay more and still be fabulously wealthy. I would dedicate the extra tax solely to paying down the debt. Oh, but that not only goes against their ideology but might cut off their campaign donations.
Steinbrenner-Trump, and a local landlord. 'Nuff said. What would happen if enforced laws required that all politicians and their immediate families were made to reveal their "gifts" and investments? Methinks that's why these stories don't become front page news or highly publicized court cases.
I stopped being a Yankees fan because of George Steinbrenner. I’m still a fan of the United States despite Defendant Trump.
Billy Martin had it right, "The two were meant for each other. One's a born liar, and the other's convicted." Steinbrenner was the convicted liar. And one of those convictions was for obstruction of justice. That’s Trump’s specialty.
I’m not sure how Judge Roberts got away with the saying the role of judges is to call balls and strikes. His hearing was not for the role of a judge, but of a Justice, chief of of the 9 Justice Supreme Court. The role of calling balls and strikes falls to every court below SCOTUS, but SCOTUS has a higher calling: establishing justice within the system. Their job is not to assure compliance with the rules but to assure the rules as written fit within the structure of justice for all. They wield a power equal to the Legislative and Executive branches and the analogy to calling balls and strikes is specious within that context.
Exactly what I said. Legislation is a set of rules, judges “rule” on cases pertaining to them, but some cases fall in a gray area in the rules. Those cases work their way to SCOTUS which looks at those rules and determines if the rules are Constitutional and just - since the whole point of writing the Constitution was to define a political system where just powers are derived from consent of the governed. The job of SCOTUS is to ensure that the parameters for calling balls and strikes is just. As I noted, balls and strikes are not the purpose of SCOTUS. Thanks for letting me clarify the Constitution for you.
Well, my friend, you are welcome to your opinion of what the purpose of the Constitution was but unfortunately it stands in stark opposition to the actual facts of history.
The reality of the Constitution was to create stronger federal authority and a clue to that can be found in the title of the set of essays co-written by great New Yorkers Alex Hamilton and John Jay (along with Madison) collectively titled the Federalist Papers.
Your assertion, “The problem with Progressive interpretation of the Constitution is that it assumes rights that do not exist. They confuse pursuit of with right to” is, unfortunately, utter nonsense so I understand that in holding that belief the rest of your opinions would be so far off the mark.
Many years before the Constitution Jefferson defined the role of government which would later be refined within the Constitution itself. He wrote about “men” having certain rights, listed a few as examples but here is the important part, “ to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
So, as it happened John Jay was tasked with establishing the rules and procedures of SCOTUS. He did not even hear a case until the 3rd court term so if his job was to call balls and strikes he did a lot of sitting on his hands. But that wasn’t his job. He was a Justice, not a judge, and as such he set rules and procedures.
Well, that’s very good news! So the 2nd Amendment cannot support an unencumbered personal right to bear arms! Very good to know! Thanks for supporting a limited 2A.
But now people have lost free access to the library limited because some yahoos feel entitled to creating an atmosphere of threat! What has your philosophy wrought?
I get it, you’ve bought into that idea conservatives and some libertarians push.
Unfortunately it is nonsense.
A cursory reading of the papers of the Founders shows a wide range of ideas on the necessary powers of government. The real limit in this discussion is your limit on the breadth of ideas you will accept as valid interpretations of what the Founders believed and I, for one will not accept that you have the intellectual power to know and understand and be able to distill their voracious minds into simple conservative pablum.
And finally, take a quick read of the 9th Amendment.
Trump has always been and always will be a liar. That's his way of life. It boggles my mind the vast number of people who do not recognize his despicable ways. If they do, and still support him, I find reprehensible. We as a country need to get back on track, or we are doomed.
According to what I learned watching the Republican debates recently, a stated fact was that Biden has only increased the deficit by 50 percent while under Trump it was increased 70%. These are the FACTS.
But those extremists threaten our democracy. Trump spent two more trillion than Biden has so far. But yes, we must reign in spending - absolutely!
I call them extremist because that’s what they are. Since when are they for less intrusive central authority when they try to use the power of central authority to tell other people what they can do in their own bedrooms, with their own bodies, and with their own families? When they want to use the power of central authority to abolish the rule of law and replace it with the rule of Trump? If all they wanted to be was fiscally conservative, they could try working within the framework of give and take deal making that used to be how things got done.
Not just abortion, but transgender issues, same sex issues, and while I’m at it I can include all the limits they want to put on what teachers teach, what books libraries have on their shelves, what shows and events people go see…The list seems endless. None of these things are really any business of the government’s, Federal or State.
Perhaps I am lumping members of Congress with state governors and legislatures together in this, but since they all seem to be pulling in the same direction, so be it. On these social issues the left isn’t working to replace family with government, it is working to replace a rigid, narrow definition of what people are allowed to do in their personal life with a more open and flexible one. It is replacing “Live as I do or else,” with “Live and let live.”
You know what I would do if my library puts on a drag queen story hour and I don’t want my kids to see it? I don’t go on that day. But I don’t feel like I should throw a hissy fit to prevent the people who want to go from going. Not my business. And if I don’t like my public school teaching about LGBTQ issues, I can send my kid to private school or homeschool, but I don’t demand that LGBTQ parents and kids, who are also citizens and taxpayers, be made invisible because it makes me feel icky. (By the way, it doesn’t make me feel icky, I’m just giving examples for clarity!!) And before anyone complains that their tax dollars shouldn’t go towards something they don’t approve of, please be aware that your tax dollars, and mine, have always gone towards things we may not personally approve of. I personally cannot stand that a portion of my tax dollars go to subsidize the fossil fuel industry, one of the most profitable and also damaging industries of all time. All I can do is vote for people that feel as I do and hope they can change that, but if it doesn’t change, I understand that means either not enough people feel as I do, or that the powers that be have decided it is somehow in the nation’s interest, or (and this is what I suspect) that someone’s pockets are being lined to keep the subsidies flowing.
WHAT policies do you like? Please?
Thomas, like Steinbrenner and ex-POTUS, knows exactly what he’s doing and that it’s wrong. He just doesn’t care about others. That makes him...and them...sociopaths.
I’m not sure how others feel, but I know in regard to Clarence T. I personally feel helpless. We can be horrified and disgusted but what can we do to change this? We can vote in people we hope are ethically and morally responsible but what are they going to do? Maybe I’m missing something. Trump can say General Milly should die because he is disloyal, corrupt people like Santos continue on while the Democrats hold their folks accountable, the government is threatened with shutdowns ( the people who decide that of course get paid) while they hold hearings for an impeachment inquiry that has no basis. The world feels upside down.
Our system is based on consent of the governed. The Founders meant for agreement to come through consensus as much as possible. When Democrats vote against spending authorizations that in no way meet their criteria for a yes vote they are not voting for a shutdown. The sides are not far apart because Democrats are totally unreasonable, rather, an extremist element in the GOP is determined to force a shutdown.
Right on the mark! Go Mike!
That small minority may be representing the wishes of their districts, but they should not be allowed to run the whole show they way they are now. The Democrats and traditional Republicans (such as they are) had already worked out a deal, and these few Freedom Caucus members are drunk on the power they have over Kevin McCarthy and are willing to torpedo everything. Their ideas on spending are not mainstream. They do not work well with others. They don’t care that many Americans have different ideas and priorities than they do, and that their voices deserve to be heard as well.
The Democrats don’t actually want a shutdown, but they certainly don’t want to vote for extreme cuts, and I have the feeling they also don’t mind seeing McCarthy suffer, so they will let this play out and it is Republicans who will take the blame, as it should be. Until Kevin McCarthy is willing grow a pair and marginalize his extreme right wing, he and therefore everyone else will have to dance to their dysfunctional tune.
Overall, they want to alter 2024 spending levels to match those of 2022, which, when you factor in inflation, would mean pretty steep cuts across the board: the social programs, national parks, food and drug inspection, etc, etc. Specifically they want to ADD money to build more border wall (an ineffective and environmentally damaging waste of money), they want to cut funding for Ukraine, the IRS (That makes no sense to me at all. If you want to cut deficits, why hobble the agency responsible for collecting the money??), they want to make cuts to the Justice Dept. and the FBI, I guess because they don’t like the fact that Fearless Leader has come under all his indictments.
Does Washington spend too much and waste vast amounts of money? You’ll get no argument from me there. Real, grownup, thoughtful discussion about what works and what’s needed is an absolute necessity. But our economy is growing and doing pretty well right now. The 2.1% GDP growth rate is about average for the past 20 years. Unemployment is historically low levels. Inflation is still a worry, true, but consumer spending is still strong despite that. The extremely wealthy are practically swimming in money like Scrooge McDuck, thanks to Trump’s tax cuts. Government spending is not so much the problem, it’s that they spend more than they take in. If I were a Freedom Caucus member and I was really serious about getting my fiscal house in order, instead of cutting things willy-nilly, I would look around to see where I could raise some more money. Rescinding the tax cuts for the rich is low hanging fruit. They could pay more and still be fabulously wealthy. I would dedicate the extra tax solely to paying down the debt. Oh, but that not only goes against their ideology but might cut off their campaign donations.
Wow, Barbara, I LOVED what you wrote! Hope I meet you sometime. Keep writing!
Steinbrenner-Trump, and a local landlord. 'Nuff said. What would happen if enforced laws required that all politicians and their immediate families were made to reveal their "gifts" and investments? Methinks that's why these stories don't become front page news or highly publicized court cases.
Good writing as usual Beatriz!
I stopped being a Yankees fan because of George Steinbrenner. I’m still a fan of the United States despite Defendant Trump.
Billy Martin had it right, "The two were meant for each other. One's a born liar, and the other's convicted." Steinbrenner was the convicted liar. And one of those convictions was for obstruction of justice. That’s Trump’s specialty.
I’m not sure how Judge Roberts got away with the saying the role of judges is to call balls and strikes. His hearing was not for the role of a judge, but of a Justice, chief of of the 9 Justice Supreme Court. The role of calling balls and strikes falls to every court below SCOTUS, but SCOTUS has a higher calling: establishing justice within the system. Their job is not to assure compliance with the rules but to assure the rules as written fit within the structure of justice for all. They wield a power equal to the Legislative and Executive branches and the analogy to calling balls and strikes is specious within that context.
Exactly what I said. Legislation is a set of rules, judges “rule” on cases pertaining to them, but some cases fall in a gray area in the rules. Those cases work their way to SCOTUS which looks at those rules and determines if the rules are Constitutional and just - since the whole point of writing the Constitution was to define a political system where just powers are derived from consent of the governed. The job of SCOTUS is to ensure that the parameters for calling balls and strikes is just. As I noted, balls and strikes are not the purpose of SCOTUS. Thanks for letting me clarify the Constitution for you.
Well, my friend, you are welcome to your opinion of what the purpose of the Constitution was but unfortunately it stands in stark opposition to the actual facts of history.
The reality of the Constitution was to create stronger federal authority and a clue to that can be found in the title of the set of essays co-written by great New Yorkers Alex Hamilton and John Jay (along with Madison) collectively titled the Federalist Papers.
Your assertion, “The problem with Progressive interpretation of the Constitution is that it assumes rights that do not exist. They confuse pursuit of with right to” is, unfortunately, utter nonsense so I understand that in holding that belief the rest of your opinions would be so far off the mark.
Many years before the Constitution Jefferson defined the role of government which would later be refined within the Constitution itself. He wrote about “men” having certain rights, listed a few as examples but here is the important part, “ to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
So, as it happened John Jay was tasked with establishing the rules and procedures of SCOTUS. He did not even hear a case until the 3rd court term so if his job was to call balls and strikes he did a lot of sitting on his hands. But that wasn’t his job. He was a Justice, not a judge, and as such he set rules and procedures.
Well, that’s very good news! So the 2nd Amendment cannot support an unencumbered personal right to bear arms! Very good to know! Thanks for supporting a limited 2A.
But now people have lost free access to the library limited because some yahoos feel entitled to creating an atmosphere of threat! What has your philosophy wrought?
I get it, you’ve bought into that idea conservatives and some libertarians push.
Unfortunately it is nonsense.
A cursory reading of the papers of the Founders shows a wide range of ideas on the necessary powers of government. The real limit in this discussion is your limit on the breadth of ideas you will accept as valid interpretations of what the Founders believed and I, for one will not accept that you have the intellectual power to know and understand and be able to distill their voracious minds into simple conservative pablum.
And finally, take a quick read of the 9th Amendment.
I LOVE what you said! Go Mike!
Trump has always been and always will be a liar. That's his way of life. It boggles my mind the vast number of people who do not recognize his despicable ways. If they do, and still support him, I find reprehensible. We as a country need to get back on track, or we are doomed.
You said It!!!
Wow! Your columns are fantastic! I LOVE Yogi! Keep ‘em coming!
According to what I learned watching the Republican debates recently, a stated fact was that Biden has only increased the deficit by 50 percent while under Trump it was increased 70%. These are the FACTS.