Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-06/friday-news-roundup-domestic
The US employment rate falls to 8.2 percent. The Justice Department affirms both judicial review and the President’s health care comments concerning the supreme court. Congressman Paul Ryan joins Mitt Romney on the campaign trail leading some to wonder if he’ll be on the GOP presidential ticket. Top officials of a government agency goes through a massive shake up after a lavish Vegas trip is revealed. And why a conservative group is facing a boycott because of the Trayvon Martin case.A panel of journalists joins guest host Tom Gjelten of NPR for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Greg Ip
U.S. economics editor, The Economist, and author of "The Little Book of Economics: How the Economy Works in the Real World."
Shawna Thomas
White House producer, NBC News.
Chris Cillizza
author of The Fix, a Washington Post politics blog, and managing editor of PostPolitics.com.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Lower himself to the level of political partisan hack?
Really?
Where have you been for the past 30 + years?
What color is the sky in your paranoid world? There isn't a plot to undermine the very structure of the government. He made a statement to his constituents/base about what he thinks the Supreme Court should do. This isn't any mystery to anyone, including the Supreme Court. Even if there were, how would a President criticizing the Supreme Court undermine it? The President criticizes the other branch of the government on a daily basis and vice-versa. Is this criticizing between Congress and the President "undermining the very structure of our government"? If it is this country would have collapsed long ago.
If there is any one group that can be said to be undermining the government, and I am not saying there is such a conspiracy, it would be the group that set up unwarranted wiretaps on US citizens, a clear violation of the 4th amendment (there are more than the 2nd and 14th you know). They also detained, criticized and silenced ordinary citizens who dared to voice a contrary opinion (dignity anyone?), violating the 1st amendment to redress greiveances. Old King George would be proud!
I do not understand the comment "He was right". The SCOTUS doesn't make rulings based upon what they would like to see in America: they make determinations as to what is contained within the Constitution. Furthermore, the money is flowing like water and our sainted President has jumped into the river with both feet.
Some of the posts here are unbelievable.
Complaining that President Obama isn't "dignified" after Bush 43? Really?
Complaining about President Obama attacking the SCOTUS when he actually referenced Republicans' standard complaint about activist courts? Hmmh.
Complaining that President Obama has divided the country after Republicans have done everything they can to destroy our country over the last 4 years because they hate our president so much? Yea, well.
Best of all: Defiantly stating we'll see how the November election comes out after spending the last 4 years ignoring the 2008 election resust.
Sad. The Republican game is up. You're going to have to leave the 19th century and join Democrats in the 21st century if you ever expect to win another election without stealing it.
He is just following the law as Mitt Romney when he only paid 15% on his income.
Mike Sergeant:
Apparently, we were on the same page with our thoughts. I must've been writing my comment at the moment you were writing yours.
Good cheer.
nice quote i totally agree with you; SLTouis
StLouis wrote:
"The SCOTUS doesn't make rulings based upon what they would like to see in America: they make determinations as to what is contained within the Constitution. "
EXACTLY the right point and perfectly stated - either what they would like to see, or what they think is good for America. Their job is to interpret the Constitution as it applies to individual cases. As a former lecturer at Harvard Law, I would have thought the President would know that and wouldn't have to depend on lowly peons like you and me to point it out. If he's as smart as everybody on the left thinks he is though, maybe he KNOWS the law IS unconstitutional and is doing everything he can to save his signature legislation.
You always hear about how "personalble" Barak Obama is, and what a "nice guy" he is. I heard somebody the other night though, describe him differently and it struck a chord. He is rude. This is twice he has shown rudeness to the Court - his CO-EQUAL branch of government. He has been rude to foreign dignitaries from allied countries. Not really Presidential. Presidents can be firm, but they should be gracious. This President is not.
The Supreme Court won't throw out the individual mandate. Why not? Because the insurance industry badly wants the mandate, and this court is in the business of giving corporations what they want.
You heard it here first. The individual mandate will stand.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"Yup, next thing you know dem “outside agitators” will be busy protesting segregation, poll taxes, and demanding all kinds of “equal protection of the law”!
It’s time dem “darkies” knew their place"
------------------------------------------
Are you mocking Booker T. Washington? A liberal would say that makes you a racist.
To the last (lee from virginia) caller's point that militiamen were required to "purchase" guns, so the govt CAN force one to purchase health insurance:
As the constitution was non-existent during the revolutionary war, I'll assume you meant the later Militia Act of 1792.
The militia act of 1792 states, " This act provides that...every able-bodied white male citizen...of the age of 18 years and under the age of 45...be enrolled in the militia...Every citizen so enrolled...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt "and...not less than twenty-four cartridges..."
Notice;
1) It did not require anyone to PURCHASE a gun, only to provide himself with one.e.g. have one available if neccesary-possibly borrowed.
2) It did not require EVERYONE to provide themselves with a gun. Age, racial, and gender restrictions were imposed.
3) This is an act justified under congress' article I section 8 powers to "raise and support armies", "regulate land and naval forces", "call forth the militia", and "provide for "organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia"-NOT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. The powers to regulate the military are plenary and unchallengable. No one can dispute that the govt has right as it deals DIRECTLY with maintaining the stated goals of the preamble, in particular the goal to "provide for the common defense".
As this act rests upon a different power than commerce, your point is moot and invalid.
Oldbrit wrote:
"You're going to have to leave the 19th century and join Democrats in the 21st century if you ever expect to win another election without stealing it."
--------------------------------------
Democrats still won elections after JFK stole the 1960 election. And JFK didn't rely on the SCOTUS for a decision, he actually rigged the results.
"According to journalist Seymour Hersh, a former Justice Department prosecutor who heard tapes of FBI wiretaps from the period believed that Illinois was rightfully Nixon's. Hersh also has written that J. Edgar Hoover believed Nixon actually won the presidency but in deciding to follow normal procedures and refer the FBI's findings to the attorney general—as of Jan. 20, 1961, Robert F. Kennedy—he effectively buried the case."
Mike Sergeant wrote:
Lower himself to the level of political partisan hack?
Really?
"Where have you been for the past 30 + years?"
Except for FDR I am not aware of any president who launched an attack on the supreme court at this level, particularly while they were deliberating the case in question. Prove me wrong! if anything here is unprecedented it's Obama's behavior, the fool went after the validity of the court at it's core, this plays well with the socially maniacal left but it is a direct threat to our form of government. Admit it, that's just fine with you communists.
Obama's quote: "that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."
If this comment does not demean the relevance of the supreme court, then what does?
@ecgberht - That's right! Congress never pulled any partisan politics stuff until Obama showed up. He has single-handedly corrupted the last bastion of democratic purity on Earth.
@Oct21 - I think once the Court ruled in favor of "Citizens" United they lost some credibility with rational thinking folks. Corporations are citizens? Common sense says no. But the Supreme Court responded to it as if it were a trick question on some Existentialism 101 exam.
Oct 21,
Doesn't demean it any more than the members of the Co-Equal branch of government called the Congress does. I have heard this exact same refrain from various members of Congress for 30 years. If it is acceptable for one Co-Equal branch (and Congress is a co-equal branch of government check your Constitution to verify) of the government to do say the exact same things the president did it is acceptable for all co-equal branches to do it.
I fail to see how it demeans the relevance of the court based firmly on the premise that was articulated in an earlier post that SCOTUS rules on the Constitution not public opinion, or political pressure. Again I make the point of what can the President or Congress do to the court to sway the opinions of the Justices? Absolutely nothing. It was a brilliant move by the Founding Fathers. The Justices are free to rule on cases based on their interpretation of what the Constitution says without fear of reprisals by political forces. The President could say that the court is filled with a bunch of lily-livered pole cats and do nothing to demean and belittle the role the court serves in this government.
Ip: "The President got his facts wrong. It is not in the slightest bit unprecedented for the SCOTUS to overturn the will of Congress.
Gjelten: "And Obama is the first Constitutional lawyer we've had as President in a long time."
Ip: "People need to double check the degrees they got when they went to his classes"
Gjelten better hope Diane Rehm didn't hear this exchange. Rehm doesn't like anyone, particularly a sub host, to challenge her official position on this issue.
AngelD wrote:
"@Oct21 - I think once the Court ruled in favor of "Citizens" United they lost some credibility with rational thinking folks. Corporations are citizens?"
"Rational" boy that's a loaded word. The left hates "corporations" for irrational reasons, any ruling or opinion that remotely favors the corporation is viewed as irrational. I think the courts ruling on Citizens United was clearly constitutional. Congress still has the ability to craft legislation effecting campaign financing. I consider public employee unions and to a lesser extent private employee unions to be a much greater threat to our election system than corporations, corporations cannot guarantee even one vote, just the opposite for the money laundering/bribery system in place with unions.
Mike Larson wrote: stated
"The GOP is doubling down on their war on women:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/05/rnc-chair-gop-war-on-women-fiction...
It must be true because a women don't care about contraception:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/03/nikki-haley-women-dont-care-about-...
I love it -- let's just hope the Repubs continue this all the way to the election. ;)"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOS Mike, SOS Mike. When will you liberals learn.
jlynwood wrote:
"From where i sit, it is the teabaggers that have successfully divided this country. It was the republican congress that kept two wars off the books for years, creating a perception that the nation was doing fine,"
-j-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
jlynwood:
The nation was doing just fine until 2007. Unemployment was as low as 4.5% toward the end of 2006. Today it is around 14% if you include those looking for work an those who are working part-time. Remember 120,000 new jobs for March is far from good.
jlynwood continue
"It was republicans who decided that they were not willing to work with the president for a large portion of this term to try to ensure that he would not get reelected. The divisions in the country were not initiated by Obama, he made every effort to work with the other side, many times to the frustration of his supporters. The deficit spending was in place before Obama arrived in the office"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jlynwood: Obama had the control of both houses in the first two years. He rammed the Recovery Act and ACA without Republican support, this is one of the reasons the Dem's lost the house in 2010.
As far your comment "that deficit spending was in place when he got there", you are reading the wrong tea leaves. Obama added 5 Trillion to the deficit, money we don't have.
AngelD wrote:
"I think once the Court ruled in favor of "Citizens" United they lost some credibility with rational thinking folks. Corporations are citizens? Common sense says no. But the Supreme Court responded to it as if it were a trick question on some Existentialism 101 exam."
AngelD,
Every once in a while someone comes along still trying to make this tired argument, and I have to school them on the CU case with the following post:
The Citizens United case is not about what is and is not a person. It is about speech. The decision centered on the right of Citizens United to produce the film "Hillary: The Movie". Let's say the court decided the other way and prohibited its distribution. Now, it's 2012, Mitt Romney is running for President and Michael Moore wants to put out a movie dissing the Mormon faith. Can he do it? That is the problem with an adverse decision in this case. It essentially sets a "sloppy" precedent whereby, CU is denied its speech, but who decides whether Moore can release his movie? or Oliver Stone his next movie? Who decides if, say a parody is too close to reality and shouldn't be shown? It becomes a sloppy mess.
That is why (and this is THE KEY POINT), the court, AND THE FOUNDERS, said, "allow everything". If there are questions of slander, libel, or other factual issues, take the producers to court, otherwise, shut your pie hole and produce your own movie.
The final caller Lee (Lea?) from Norfolk laid out a couple red herrings:
> Lee claims the "Individual mandate" is OK because in colonial times landowners were required to be in the militia and provide their own weapons (muskets) and ammo. Well, colonial times predate the Constitution. Even were the militia mandate post-Constitution, it would be under the militia clause, which is really a State function, not the federal commerce clause.
> Lee claims the Second Amendment is "interpreted" to mean that people can carry "machine guns" around in their trunks. Fact: In most states you need a special permit just to transport even an unloaded pistol from a hardware or gun store to your home in the trunk of your car. Very, very, very few people are licensed to even own a machine gun. Who does have machine guns in the trunk, and who I worry about, are the nation's trigger-happy cops. (Of course there was a famous case in Detroit where a SWAT officer left a submachine gun in his unmarked vehicle while he went to a ball game -- the gun was gone when he came back.)
d-Arcy wrote:
"The final caller Lee (Lea?) from Norfolk laid out a couple red herrings:
Very, very, very few people are licensed to even own a machine gun."
--------------------------------------------
True, caller Lee demonstrated her ignorance on the subject, but in actuality, there are many NFA weapon owners in the country. Private citizens are not required to be licensed to own these weapons, but rather send a transfer form to ATF and pay a $200 tax. Only those who manufacture and deal in these weapons require a SOT license.
Contrary to the ramblings of Ron Paul acolyte, Oct21, these weapons are not "banned."