Supreme Court appointment

[Proud Foot]

So this whole precedent thing seems like total bull shit. 

[dramaman]

So this whole precedent thing seems like total bull shit.

When has that word NOT described GOP obstruction in the last 7 years?

[forummm]

So this whole precedent thing seems like total bull shit.

When has that word NOT described GOP obstruction in the last 7 years?

Sometimes the excrement in question could be sourced from a horse or dog, or from a cow more generally.

[Yaeger]

I'd like to know how the President is taking the advice of the Senate Republicans in nominating a conservative to the bench. Is he even considering their advice, which he should per the Constitution. Or is he just considering nominating whoever he wants and screaming "obstructionism!" if his nominations are stalled or denied?

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court"

[forummm]

I'd like to know how the President is taking the advice of the Senate Republicans in nominating a conservative to the bench. Is he even considering their advice, which he should per the Constitution. Or is he just considering nominating whoever he wants and screaming "obstructionism!" if his nominations are stalled or denied?

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court"

He responded to their advice in part by nominating such a moderate judge.

Orrin Hatch, who has spent years as chair/ranking member the Judiciary Committee, said in public on the record a few days *before* Obama nominated him that Merrick Garland would be the best nominee that the Republicans could hope for. And has praised Garland repeatedly over the years and even wanted him to be nominated for prior Obama-era vacancies.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/131676/orrin-hatch-said-no-question-merrick-garland-confirmed-supreme-court

The Senate doesn't have to approve the nomination. They can hold hearings, decide to vote no, and make the case for their no votes. But refusing to even do their job is ridiculous.

[TRBeck]

The nomination approval process is how the Senate provides advice and consent.

They are refusing to do so.

[Yaeger]

I'd like to know how the President is taking the advice of the Senate Republicans in nominating a conservative to the bench. Is he even considering their advice, which he should per the Constitution. Or is he just considering nominating whoever he wants and screaming "obstructionism!" if his nominations are stalled or denied?

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court"

He responded to their advice in part by nominating such a moderate judge.

Orrin Hatch, who has spent years as chair/ranking member the Judiciary Committee, said in public on the record a few days *before* Obama nominated him that Merrick Garland would be the best nominee that the Republicans could hope for. And has praised Garland repeatedly over the years and even wanted him to be nominated for prior Obama-era vacancies.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/131676/orrin-hatch-said-no-question-merrick-garland-confirmed-supreme-court

The Senate doesn't have to approve the nomination. They can hold hearings, decide to vote no, and make the case for their no votes. But refusing to even do their job is ridiculous.

I completely agree. However, so is the President in not nominating a palatable nominee for the Republicans to confirm. Garland's 2nd Amendment history makes him a non-starter. It's a give-and-take, and it's an issue if neither side is willing to meet in the middle.

[beltim]

I'd like to know how the President is taking the advice of the Senate Republicans in nominating a conservative to the bench. Is he even considering their advice, which he should per the Constitution. Or is he just considering nominating whoever he wants and screaming "obstructionism!" if his nominations are stalled or denied?

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court"

He responded to their advice in part by nominating such a moderate judge.

Orrin Hatch, who has spent years as chair/ranking member the Judiciary Committee, said in public on the record a few days *before* Obama nominated him that Merrick Garland would be the best nominee that the Republicans could hope for. And has praised Garland repeatedly over the years and even wanted him to be nominated for prior Obama-era vacancies.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/131676/orrin-hatch-said-no-question-merrick-garland-confirmed-supreme-court

The Senate doesn't have to approve the nomination. They can hold hearings, decide to vote no, and make the case for their no votes. But refusing to even do their job is ridiculous.

I completely agree. However, so is the President in not nominating a palatable nominee for the Republicans to confirm. Garland's 2nd Amendment history makes him a non-starter. It's a give-and-take, and it's an issue if neither side is willing to meet in the middle.

That's obviously not true if a three-time Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee thinks Garland's a "qualified candidate," and would be a "consensus nominee."

[Yaeger]

I completely agree. However, so is the President in not nominating a palatable nominee for the Republicans to confirm. Garland's 2nd Amendment history makes him a non-starter. It's a give-and-take, and it's an issue if neither side is willing to meet in the middle.

That's obviously not true if a three-time Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee thinks Garland's a "qualified candidate," and would be a "consensus nominee."

What's obviously not true?

[beltim]

I completely agree. However, so is the President in not nominating a palatable nominee for the Republicans to confirm. Garland's 2nd Amendment history makes him a non-starter. It's a give-and-take, and it's an issue if neither side is willing to meet in the middle.

That's obviously not true if a three-time Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee thinks Garland's a "qualified candidate," and would be a "consensus nominee."

What's obviously not true?

The bolded. 

[forummm]

I'd like to know how the President is taking the advice of the Senate Republicans in nominating a conservative to the bench. Is he even considering their advice, which he should per the Constitution. Or is he just considering nominating whoever he wants and screaming "obstructionism!" if his nominations are stalled or denied?

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court"

He responded to their advice in part by nominating such a moderate judge.

Orrin Hatch, who has spent years as chair/ranking member the Judiciary Committee, said in public on the record a few days *before* Obama nominated him that Merrick Garland would be the best nominee that the Republicans could hope for. And has praised Garland repeatedly over the years and even wanted him to be nominated for prior Obama-era vacancies.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/131676/orrin-hatch-said-no-question-merrick-garland-confirmed-supreme-court

The Senate doesn't have to approve the nomination. They can hold hearings, decide to vote no, and make the case for their no votes. But refusing to even do their job is ridiculous.

I completely agree. However, so is the President in not nominating a palatable nominee for the Republicans to confirm. Garland's 2nd Amendment history makes him a non-starter. It's a give-and-take, and it's an issue if neither side is willing to meet in the middle.

That's obviously not true if a three-time Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee thinks Garland's a "qualified candidate," and would be a "consensus nominee."

What you fail to understand, is that Hatch said those things *before* Obama nominated him. Since Obama has nominated him, his record has now been irreparably besmirched.

[beltim]

I'd like to know how the President is taking the advice of the Senate Republicans in nominating a conservative to the bench. Is he even considering their advice, which he should per the Constitution. Or is he just considering nominating whoever he wants and screaming "obstructionism!" if his nominations are stalled or denied?

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court"

He responded to their advice in part by nominating such a moderate judge.

Orrin Hatch, who has spent years as chair/ranking member the Judiciary Committee, said in public on the record a few days *before* Obama nominated him that Merrick Garland would be the best nominee that the Republicans could hope for. And has praised Garland repeatedly over the years and even wanted him to be nominated for prior Obama-era vacancies.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/131676/orrin-hatch-said-no-question-merrick-garland-confirmed-supreme-court

The Senate doesn't have to approve the nomination. They can hold hearings, decide to vote no, and make the case for their no votes. But refusing to even do their job is ridiculous.

I completely agree. However, so is the President in not nominating a palatable nominee for the Republicans to confirm. Garland's 2nd Amendment history makes him a non-starter. It's a give-and-take, and it's an issue if neither side is willing to meet in the middle.

That's obviously not true if a three-time Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee thinks Garland's a "qualified candidate," and would be a "consensus nominee."

What you fail to understand, is that Hatch said those things *before* Obama nominated him. Since Obama has nominated him, his record has now been irreparably besmirched.

That's a pretty good summary for Republican opposition to so many of Obama's policies.
Step 1: Advocate for a policy
Step 2: Obama advocates the same policy
Step 3: Refuse to implement policy because Obama advocated it

This is just the more recent example.

[MoonShadow]

I'd like to know how the President is taking the advice of the Senate Republicans in nominating a conservative to the bench. Is he even considering their advice, which he should per the Constitution. Or is he just considering nominating whoever he wants and screaming "obstructionism!" if his nominations are stalled or denied?

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court"

He responded to their advice in part by nominating such a moderate judge.

Orrin Hatch, who has spent years as chair/ranking member the Judiciary Committee, said in public on the record a few days *before* Obama nominated him that Merrick Garland would be the best nominee that the Republicans could hope for. And has praised Garland repeatedly over the years and even wanted him to be nominated for prior Obama-era vacancies.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/131676/orrin-hatch-said-no-question-merrick-garland-confirmed-supreme-court

The Senate doesn't have to approve the nomination. They can hold hearings, decide to vote no, and make the case for their no votes. But refusing to even do their job is ridiculous.

I completely agree. However, so is the President in not nominating a palatable nominee for the Republicans to confirm. Garland's 2nd Amendment history makes him a non-starter. It's a give-and-take, and it's an issue if neither side is willing to meet in the middle.

That's obviously not true if a three-time Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee thinks Garland's a "qualified candidate," and would be a "consensus nominee."

What you fail to understand, is that Hatch said those things *before* Obama nominated him. Since Obama has nominated him, his record has now been irreparably besmirched.

That's a pretty good summary for Republican opposition to so many of Obama's policies.
Step 1: Advocate for a policy
Step 2: Obama advocates the same policy
Step 3: Refuse to implement policy because Obama advocated it

This is just the more recent example.

Yeah, that's politics.  So what?  The Senate can use any criteria it wishes to confirm or deny a SCOTUS nominee.  If they do so simply because Obama nominated him, then they won't even be the first senate to do so for similar reasons.

[dramaman]

I'd like to know how the President is taking the advice of the Senate Republicans in nominating a conservative to the bench. Is he even considering their advice, which he should per the Constitution. Or is he just considering nominating whoever he wants and screaming "obstructionism!" if his nominations are stalled or denied?

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court"

He responded to their advice in part by nominating such a moderate judge.

Orrin Hatch, who has spent years as chair/ranking member the Judiciary Committee, said in public on the record a few days *before* Obama nominated him that Merrick Garland would be the best nominee that the Republicans could hope for. And has praised Garland repeatedly over the years and even wanted him to be nominated for prior Obama-era vacancies.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/131676/orrin-hatch-said-no-question-merrick-garland-confirmed-supreme-court

The Senate doesn't have to approve the nomination. They can hold hearings, decide to vote no, and make the case for their no votes. But refusing to even do their job is ridiculous.

I completely agree. However, so is the President in not nominating a palatable nominee for the Republicans to confirm. Garland's 2nd Amendment history makes him a non-starter. It's a give-and-take, and it's an issue if neither side is willing to meet in the middle.

That's obviously not true if a three-time Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee thinks Garland's a "qualified candidate," and would be a "consensus nominee."

What you fail to understand, is that Hatch said those things *before* Obama nominated him. Since Obama has nominated him, his record has now been irreparably besmirched.

That's a pretty good summary for Republican opposition to so many of Obama's policies.
Step 1: Advocate for a policy
Step 2: Obama advocates the same policy
Step 3: Refuse to implement policy because Obama advocated it

This is just the more recent example.

Yeah, that's politics.  So what?  The Senate can use any criteria it wishes to confirm or deny a SCOTUS nominee.  If they do so simply because Obama nominated him, then they won't even be the first senate to do so for similar reasons.

Its when the Senate simply refuses to act, in fact PREEMPTIVELY UNILATERALLY DECLARES IT WILL NOT ACT WHATSOEVER, that I declare they have officially crossed over to the dark side. It's the same bull shit mentality that shut down the government because they think that because they hold a portion of legitimate power they should be able to call ALL the shots.

[forummm]

I'd like to know how the President is taking the advice of the Senate Republicans in nominating a conservative to the bench. Is he even considering their advice, which he should per the Constitution. Or is he just considering nominating whoever he wants and screaming "obstructionism!" if his nominations are stalled or denied?

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court"

He responded to their advice in part by nominating such a moderate judge.

Orrin Hatch, who has spent years as chair/ranking member the Judiciary Committee, said in public on the record a few days *before* Obama nominated him that Merrick Garland would be the best nominee that the Republicans could hope for. And has praised Garland repeatedly over the years and even wanted him to be nominated for prior Obama-era vacancies.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/131676/orrin-hatch-said-no-question-merrick-garland-confirmed-supreme-court

The Senate doesn't have to approve the nomination. They can hold hearings, decide to vote no, and make the case for their no votes. But refusing to even do their job is ridiculous.

I completely agree. However, so is the President in not nominating a palatable nominee for the Republicans to confirm. Garland's 2nd Amendment history makes him a non-starter. It's a give-and-take, and it's an issue if neither side is willing to meet in the middle.

That's obviously not true if a three-time Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee thinks Garland's a "qualified candidate," and would be a "consensus nominee."

What you fail to understand, is that Hatch said those things *before* Obama nominated him. Since Obama has nominated him, his record has now been irreparably besmirched.

That's a pretty good summary for Republican opposition to so many of Obama's policies.
Step 1: Advocate for a policy
Step 2: Obama advocates the same policy
Step 3: Refuse to implement policy because Obama advocated it

This is just the more recent example.

Yeah, that's politics.  So what?  The Senate can use any criteria it wishes to confirm or deny a SCOTUS nominee.  If they do so simply because Obama nominated him, then they won't even be the first senate to do so for similar reasons.

No, that's not politics--that's just stupid. When you get handed a gift that you asked for, just take it and move on with your life. Victory dance optional.

[dramaman]

I'd like to know how the President is taking the advice of the Senate Republicans in nominating a conservative to the bench. Is he even considering their advice, which he should per the Constitution. Or is he just considering nominating whoever he wants and screaming "obstructionism!" if his nominations are stalled or denied?

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court"

He responded to their advice in part by nominating such a moderate judge.

Orrin Hatch, who has spent years as chair/ranking member the Judiciary Committee, said in public on the record a few days *before* Obama nominated him that Merrick Garland would be the best nominee that the Republicans could hope for. And has praised Garland repeatedly over the years and even wanted him to be nominated for prior Obama-era vacancies.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/131676/orrin-hatch-said-no-question-merrick-garland-confirmed-supreme-court

The Senate doesn't have to approve the nomination. They can hold hearings, decide to vote no, and make the case for their no votes. But refusing to even do their job is ridiculous.

I completely agree. However, so is the President in not nominating a palatable nominee for the Republicans to confirm. Garland's 2nd Amendment history makes him a non-starter. It's a give-and-take, and it's an issue if neither side is willing to meet in the middle.

Exactly WHERE from Garland's record are you getting this BS 2nd Amendment crap about Garland. My understanding is that Garland's record on the 2nd amendment is sketchy at best. It's like some folks have declared that Garland MUST be unacceptable and thus invented this supposed 2nd Amendment hostility that as far as I know is more imagined than real.

[forummm]

I'd like to know how the President is taking the advice of the Senate Republicans in nominating a conservative to the bench. Is he even considering their advice, which he should per the Constitution. Or is he just considering nominating whoever he wants and screaming "obstructionism!" if his nominations are stalled or denied?

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court"

He responded to their advice in part by nominating such a moderate judge.

Orrin Hatch, who has spent years as chair/ranking member the Judiciary Committee, said in public on the record a few days *before* Obama nominated him that Merrick Garland would be the best nominee that the Republicans could hope for. And has praised Garland repeatedly over the years and even wanted him to be nominated for prior Obama-era vacancies.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/131676/orrin-hatch-said-no-question-merrick-garland-confirmed-supreme-court

The Senate doesn't have to approve the nomination. They can hold hearings, decide to vote no, and make the case for their no votes. But refusing to even do their job is ridiculous.

I completely agree. However, so is the President in not nominating a palatable nominee for the Republicans to confirm. Garland's 2nd Amendment history makes him a non-starter. It's a give-and-take, and it's an issue if neither side is willing to meet in the middle.

Exactly WHERE from Garland's record are you getting this BS 2nd Amendment crap about Garland. My understanding is that Garland's record on the 2nd amendment is sketchy at best. It's like some folks have declared that Garland MUST be unacceptable and thus invented this supposed 2nd Amendment hostility that as far as I know is more imagined than real.

I have no familiarity with his 2nd amendment related decisions. But even if he had some ruling on something as a judge, it's hard to say what his SCOTUS ruling would be on an issue anyway. Judges are bound by SCOTUS precedent so he may have been ruling with what he believed to be the precedent. And there's also the sentiment that stare decisis moves towards staying with the precedent even for SCOTUS decisions. We have little idea what his personal opinions are or how he would rule.

[MoonShadow]

Yeah, that's politics.  So what?  The Senate can use any criteria it wishes to confirm or deny a SCOTUS nominee.  If they do so simply because Obama nominated him, then they won't even be the first senate to do so for similar reasons.

Its when the Senate simply refuses to act, in fact PREEMPTIVELY UNILATERALLY DECLARES IT WILL NOT ACT WHATSOEVER, that I declare they have officially crossed over to the dark side. It's the same bull shit mentality that shut down the government because they think that because they hold a portion of legitimate power they should be able to call ALL the shots.

Yeah, it doesn't matter one whit what you declare.  The Senate has the power to approve or disprove court appointments.  There is no defined time period for senate action, however, so refusing to hold hearings is exactly the same as "we will get to it in infinity minus one year", which is politics.  This is the balance of powers in action; each branch trying to exercise as much power over the others as they can get away with, and for as long as they can get away with it.  Learn to deal with the tension, dramaman, or it will kill you.

[forummm]

Yeah, that's politics.  So what?  The Senate can use any criteria it wishes to confirm or deny a SCOTUS nominee.  If they do so simply because Obama nominated him, then they won't even be the first senate to do so for similar reasons.

Its when the Senate simply refuses to act, in fact PREEMPTIVELY UNILATERALLY DECLARES IT WILL NOT ACT WHATSOEVER, that I declare they have officially crossed over to the dark side. It's the same bull shit mentality that shut down the government because they think that because they hold a portion of legitimate power they should be able to call ALL the shots.

Yeah, it doesn't matter one whit what you declare.  The Senate has the power to approve or disprove court appointments.  There is no defined time period for senate action, however, so refusing to hold hearings is exactly the same as "we will get to it in infinity minus one year", which is politics.  This is the balance of powers in action; each branch trying to exercise as much power over the others as they can get away with, and for as long as they can get away with it.  Learn to deal with the tension, dramaman, or it will kill you.

Except they said they will "never" hold hearings. So they are explicit that they won't do their job. Not "we're kind of tired right now and might get around to it later k thanks bye".

[Yaeger]

Except they said they will "never" hold hearings. So they are explicit that they won't do their job. Not "we're kind of tired right now and might get around to it later k thanks bye".

I'm not a Republican Senator, but I'm assuming that there's an implied acceptance towards the President nominating someone that is at least centrist. If you're not picking the nominee based on the Advice of the Senate, it's similar to the Senate not Confirming the nominee. This President has been so unwilling to work with Republicans, so unwilling to compromise, that it's almost a foregone conclusion.

I don't doubt for a second that should POTUS nominate a conservative justice, he/she would get a hearing.

[Glenstache]

Except they said they will "never" hold hearings. So they are explicit that they won't do their job. Not "we're kind of tired right now and might get around to it later k thanks bye".

I'm not a Republican Senator, but I'm assuming that there's an implied acceptance towards the President nominating someone that is at least centrist. If you're not picking the nominee based on the Advice of the Senate, it's similar to the Senate not Confirming the nominee. This President has been so unwilling to work with Republicans, so unwilling to compromise, that it's almost a foregone conclusion.

I don't doubt for a second that should POTUS nominate a conservative justice, he/she would get a hearing.

Really? The GOP hasn't had an overtly stated mission to obstruct the president on all fronts from Jan 20, 2009 on?

edit (2009, not 2008)

[Yaeger]

Except they said they will "never" hold hearings. So they are explicit that they won't do their job. Not "we're kind of tired right now and might get around to it later k thanks bye".

I'm not a Republican Senator, but I'm assuming that there's an implied acceptance towards the President nominating someone that is at least centrist. If you're not picking the nominee based on the Advice of the Senate, it's similar to the Senate not Confirming the nominee. This President has been so unwilling to work with Republicans, so unwilling to compromise, that it's almost a foregone conclusion.

I don't doubt for a second that should POTUS nominate a conservative justice, he/she would get a hearing.

Really? The GOP hasn't had an overtly stated mission to obstruct the president on all fronts from Jan 20, 2009 on?

edit (2009, not 2008)

What's his stance been with Republicans on the budget, the disaster than is the ACA, gay rights, etc etc? Name one Republican major success that the President has supported over his own party, that he has compromised with Republicans to achieve.

[GuitarStv]

Which gay rights disaster are you referring to?

[Yaeger]

Expanding the definition of marriage without redefining the purpose of the government program. Essentially letting more people onto it without a clear objective as to the purpose marriage is designed to achieve and the reason for social benefits and special protections.

I'd have preferred to eliminate marriage completely instead of expanding it.

[GuitarStv]

There's supposed to be a purpose to marriage?

[Glenstache]

Expanding the definition of marriage without redefining the purpose of the government program. Essentially letting more people onto it without a clear objective as to the purpose marriage is designed to achieve and the reason for social benefits and special protections.

I'd have preferred to eliminate marriage completely instead of expanding it.

The problem is that marriage has a dual meaning/purpose using but one word: one meaning which is explicitly religious, and one which is a mutually entered civil contract. The government only really has say over the latter. The revisions to law do not force churches to perform marriages inconsistent with their beliefs. They do, however, allow people in relationships to enjoy the full benefits of that relationship if they choose to, instead of being relegated to second class citizens.

"Purpose" is generally code for procreation (correct me if there is another meaning intended), and that argument is pretty thin in practice and in concept.

As to compromises, shall we start with making most of the Bush-era tax cuts permanent, even though starting a war and then removing our ability to pay for it worked so well for us? Or shall we point out that the Republican effort to not raise the debt ceiling was so potentially disastrous that it should not have been compromised with?  The ACA is a mixed bag, for sure, but the idea originated in a Republican think-tank. The ACA was a compromise relative to single payer, which is what has been demonstrated to work the industrial world over, and is what we should have done (and still should) IMHO.

[forummm]

I'd have preferred to eliminate marriage completely instead of expanding it.

<insert joke about your spouse agreeing here>

[GuitarStv]

Hang on a second . . . I thought that the gay marriage decision was made by the supreme court, not Obama?

[Yaeger]

Expanding the definition of marriage without redefining the purpose of the government program. Essentially letting more people onto it without a clear objective as to the purpose marriage is designed to achieve and the reason for social benefits and special protections.

I'd have preferred to eliminate marriage completely instead of expanding it.

The problem is that marriage has a dual meaning/purpose using but one word: one meaning which is explicitly religious, and one which is a mutually entered civil contract. The government only really has say over the latter. The revisions to law do not force churches to perform marriages inconsistent with their beliefs. They do, however, allow people in relationships to enjoy the full benefits of that relationship if they choose to, instead of being relegated to second class citizens.

"Purpose" is generally code for procreation (correct me if there is another meaning intended), and that argument is pretty thin in practice and in concept.

As to compromises, shall we start with making most of the Bush-era tax cuts permanent, even though starting a war and then removing our ability to pay for it worked so well for us? Or shall we point out that the Republican effort to not raise the debt ceiling was so potentially disastrous that it should not have been compromised with?  The ACA is a mixed bag, for sure, but the idea originated in a Republican think-tank. The ACA was a compromise relative to single payer, which is what has been demonstrated to work the industrial world over, and is what we should have done (and still should) IMHO.

Purpose is code for reason. We just take it for granted that marriage is a universal benefit, a government policy that is long past it's due. The government should have no authority in determining, endorsing, or supporting our intimate relationships. Take away the benefits, or give them to everyone, married or not.

Awesome, I love tax cuts. I love spending cuts even more. More Democrats voted for the start of the Iraq War than against it, it's not Bush's war as it was popular on both sides from intel at the time. The entire 13 years of war cost like what, $1.6 trillion? That's less than half of what we spend EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

The effort not to raise the debt ceiling was the fault of both parties. No one was willing to compromise, Democrat or Republican. Republicans get the blame even though Democrats held the majority. Go figure. The idea originated in a Republican think-tank, but it was deemed a failure by Republicans. It's also a violation of the government's authority as it has no authority to force the people to buy health insurance. I must have missed that clause in the Constitution and it took some pretty creative phrasing to make a half-assed attempt at legitimization. Single payer is a no-go. We need private healthcare, it's the best, cheapest, and most efficient option.

But yeah, I'd like to see compromise instead of this entitlement creep. More spending equals lower economic growth, which leads to poorer long-term economic outcomes.

[Yaeger]

Hang on a second . . . I thought that the gay marriage decision was made by the supreme court, not Obama?

I could be wrong but I doubt it would have gained as much traction as it did without the support of one branch of government, in this case the Executive.

[GuitarStv]

Hang on a second . . . I thought that the gay marriage decision was made by the supreme court, not Obama?

I could be wrong but I doubt it would have gained as much traction as it did without the support of one branch of government, in this case the Executive.

So your contention is that the supreme court decides law based on the whim of branches of government?

[Yaeger]

Hang on a second . . . I thought that the gay marriage decision was made by the supreme court, not Obama?

I could be wrong but I doubt it would have gained as much traction as it did without the support of one branch of government, in this case the Executive.

So your contention is that the supreme court decides law based on the whim of branches of government?

Yes, it's not exactly a secret that our Supreme Court is divided into liberal and conservative sides. It's also selective interpretation of the Constitution and the federal government has no authority per the Constitution to regulate, or provide benefits for marriage at a federal level.

It's a state issue and defined at a state level. For instance my home state, Michigan defines it as:
"Sec. 25.
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

[bacchi]

The Repubs will cave once Trump wins the nomination. Trump is handing the Presidency, and probably the Senate, to the Dems.

[dramaman]

Except they said they will "never" hold hearings. So they are explicit that they won't do their job. Not "we're kind of tired right now and might get around to it later k thanks bye".

I'm not a Republican Senator, but I'm assuming that there's an implied acceptance towards the President nominating someone that is at least centrist. If you're not picking the nominee based on the Advice of the Senate, it's similar to the Senate not Confirming the nominee. This President has been so unwilling to work with Republicans, so unwilling to compromise, that it's almost a foregone conclusion.

I don't doubt for a second that should POTUS nominate a conservative justice, he/she would get a hearing.

Really? The GOP hasn't had an overtly stated mission to obstruct the president on all fronts from Jan 20, 2009 on?

edit (2009, not 2008)

What's his stance been with Republicans on the budget, the disaster than is the ACA, gay rights, etc etc? Name one Republican major success that the President has supported over his own party, that he has compromised with Republicans to achieve.

How about tax cuts? Aren't those major GOP goals? Obama signed off on a pair of significant tax cuts for the middle-class. There was the Making Work Pay tax credit in 2009 and a temporary reduction in SS payroll taxes in 2011.

Also there was the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010. According to wikipedia:

On December 6, 2010, President Barack Obama announced a compromise tax package proposal had been reached, centered around a temporary, two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts.[44] In particular, the framework included key points such as:

*Extending the 2001/2003 income tax rates for two years. Also, reforming the AMT to ensure an additional 21 million households will not face a tax increase. These measures are intended to provide relief to more than 100 million middle-class families and prevent an annual tax increase of over $2,000 for the typical family.
*Additional provisions designed to promote economic growth. $56 billion in unemployment insurance, an approximate $120 billion payroll tax cut for working families, about $40 billion in tax cuts for the hardest hit families and students, and 100 percent expensing for businesses during 2011.
*Estate tax adjustment. Rates would be 35 percent after a $5 million exemption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

And before you answer that none of those were permanent, might I remind you that the original Bush Tax Cuts themselves were not permanent either.

The fact is, Obama has given MAJOR tax relief to the middle class, something the GOP hacks would be trumpeting if Obama were a Republican, but because he is the Great Satan, all you ever hear is whining about how Obama NEVER gives the GOP anything they want.

Set and match.

[winkeyman]

Except they said they will "never" hold hearings. So they are explicit that they won't do their job. Not "we're kind of tired right now and might get around to it later k thanks bye".

I'm not a Republican Senator, but I'm assuming that there's an implied acceptance towards the President nominating someone that is at least centrist. If you're not picking the nominee based on the Advice of the Senate, it's similar to the Senate not Confirming the nominee. This President has been so unwilling to work with Republicans, so unwilling to compromise, that it's almost a foregone conclusion.

I don't doubt for a second that should POTUS nominate a conservative justice, he/she would get a hearing.

Really? The GOP hasn't had an overtly stated mission to obstruct the president on all fronts from Jan 20, 2009 on?

edit (2009, not 2008)

What's his stance been with Republicans on the budget, the disaster than is the ACA, gay rights, etc etc? Name one Republican major success that the President has supported over his own party, that he has compromised with Republicans to achieve.

How about tax cuts? Aren't those major GOP goals? Obama signed off on a pair of significant tax cuts for the middle-class. There was the Making Work Pay tax credit in 2009 and a temporary reduction in SS payroll taxes in 2011.

Also there was the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010. According to wikipedia:

On December 6, 2010, President Barack Obama announced a compromise tax package proposal had been reached, centered around a temporary, two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts.[44] In particular, the framework included key points such as:

*Extending the 2001/2003 income tax rates for two years. Also, reforming the AMT to ensure an additional 21 million households will not face a tax increase. These measures are intended to provide relief to more than 100 million middle-class families and prevent an annual tax increase of over $2,000 for the typical family.
*Additional provisions designed to promote economic growth. $56 billion in unemployment insurance, an approximate $120 billion payroll tax cut for working families, about $40 billion in tax cuts for the hardest hit families and students, and 100 percent expensing for businesses during 2011.
*Estate tax adjustment. Rates would be 35 percent after a $5 million exemption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

And before you answer that none of those were permanent, might I remind you that the original Bush Tax Cuts themselves were not permanent either.

The fact is, Obama has given MAJOR tax relief to the middle class, something the GOP hacks would be trumpeting if Obama were a Republican, but because he is the Great Satan, all you ever hear is whining about how Obama NEVER gives the GOP anything they want.

Set and match.

First let me point out that I'm not into party politics. I am not rooting for either team. But these kinds of statements confuse me.

When there is a Republican President,  Democrat voters hate him. Democrats in office decry him, jockeying for position and advantage in the next election cycle. Republicans feign outrage and indignation over how the Democrats insult and oppose the Republican president.

When there is a Democrat President, Republican voters hate him. Republicans in office decry him, jockeying for position and advantage in the next election cycle. Democrats feign outrage and indignation over how the Republicans insult and oppose the Democrat President.

Rinse and repeat every 4-8 years. Why do the voters play along? It's part of the silly game our government has become. It's like professional wrestling. The actors in the ring know its all a game and a show and pretend to hate each other and give speeches about how the other guy disrespects him. They know its a game. Regular people know its a game. But wrestling fans get swept up in it and treat it like its real.

Bizarre.

[dramaman]

Except they said they will "never" hold hearings. So they are explicit that they won't do their job. Not "we're kind of tired right now and might get around to it later k thanks bye".

I'm not a Republican Senator, but I'm assuming that there's an implied acceptance towards the President nominating someone that is at least centrist. If you're not picking the nominee based on the Advice of the Senate, it's similar to the Senate not Confirming the nominee. This President has been so unwilling to work with Republicans, so unwilling to compromise, that it's almost a foregone conclusion.

I don't doubt for a second that should POTUS nominate a conservative justice, he/she would get a hearing.

Really? The GOP hasn't had an overtly stated mission to obstruct the president on all fronts from Jan 20, 2009 on?

edit (2009, not 2008)

What's his stance been with Republicans on the budget, the disaster than is the ACA, gay rights, etc etc? Name one Republican major success that the President has supported over his own party, that he has compromised with Republicans to achieve.

How about tax cuts? Aren't those major GOP goals? Obama signed off on a pair of significant tax cuts for the middle-class. There was the Making Work Pay tax credit in 2009 and a temporary reduction in SS payroll taxes in 2011.

Also there was the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010. According to wikipedia:

On December 6, 2010, President Barack Obama announced a compromise tax package proposal had been reached, centered around a temporary, two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts.[44] In particular, the framework included key points such as:

*Extending the 2001/2003 income tax rates for two years. Also, reforming the AMT to ensure an additional 21 million households will not face a tax increase. These measures are intended to provide relief to more than 100 million middle-class families and prevent an annual tax increase of over $2,000 for the typical family.
*Additional provisions designed to promote economic growth. $56 billion in unemployment insurance, an approximate $120 billion payroll tax cut for working families, about $40 billion in tax cuts for the hardest hit families and students, and 100 percent expensing for businesses during 2011.
*Estate tax adjustment. Rates would be 35 percent after a $5 million exemption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

And before you answer that none of those were permanent, might I remind you that the original Bush Tax Cuts themselves were not permanent either.

The fact is, Obama has given MAJOR tax relief to the middle class, something the GOP hacks would be trumpeting if Obama were a Republican, but because he is the Great Satan, all you ever hear is whining about how Obama NEVER gives the GOP anything they want.

Set and match.

First let me point out that I'm not into party politics. I am not rooting for either team. But these kinds of statements confuse me.

When there is a Republican President,  Democrat voters hate him. Democrats in office decry him, jockeying for position and advantage in the next election cycle. Republicans feign outrage and indignation over how the Democrats insult and oppose the Republican president.

When there is a Democrat President, Republican voters hate him. Republicans in office decry him, jockeying for position and advantage in the next election cycle. Democrats feign outrage and indignation over how the Republicans insult and oppose the Democrat President.

Rinse and repeat every 4-8 years. Why do the voters play along? It's part of the silly game our government has become. It's like professional wrestling. The actors in the ring know its all a game and a show and pretend to hate each other and give speeches about how the other guy disrespects him. They know its a game. Regular people know its a game. But wrestling fans get swept up in it and treat it like its real.

Bizarre.

I would tend to agree with you except that it seemed to get amped up to 11 once Obama was in office. The kinds of stuff the Republicans have pulled go beyond the pale. Shutting down government, refusing to even accept ANY Obama nomination. And then GOP defenders claim it is Obama's fault that they refuse to work with him?  Screw this. I never liked Bush II, but I would have been disgusted if the Dems had pulled this kind of crap on him.

[winkeyman]

Except they said they will "never" hold hearings. So they are explicit that they won't do their job. Not "we're kind of tired right now and might get around to it later k thanks bye".

I'm not a Republican Senator, but I'm assuming that there's an implied acceptance towards the President nominating someone that is at least centrist. If you're not picking the nominee based on the Advice of the Senate, it's similar to the Senate not Confirming the nominee. This President has been so unwilling to work with Republicans, so unwilling to compromise, that it's almost a foregone conclusion.

I don't doubt for a second that should POTUS nominate a conservative justice, he/she would get a hearing.

Really? The GOP hasn't had an overtly stated mission to obstruct the president on all fronts from Jan 20, 2009 on?

edit (2009, not 2008)

What's his stance been with Republicans on the budget, the disaster than is the ACA, gay rights, etc etc? Name one Republican major success that the President has supported over his own party, that he has compromised with Republicans to achieve.

How about tax cuts? Aren't those major GOP goals? Obama signed off on a pair of significant tax cuts for the middle-class. There was the Making Work Pay tax credit in 2009 and a temporary reduction in SS payroll taxes in 2011.

Also there was the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010. According to wikipedia:

On December 6, 2010, President Barack Obama announced a compromise tax package proposal had been reached, centered around a temporary, two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts.[44] In particular, the framework included key points such as:

*Extending the 2001/2003 income tax rates for two years. Also, reforming the AMT to ensure an additional 21 million households will not face a tax increase. These measures are intended to provide relief to more than 100 million middle-class families and prevent an annual tax increase of over $2,000 for the typical family.
*Additional provisions designed to promote economic growth. $56 billion in unemployment insurance, an approximate $120 billion payroll tax cut for working families, about $40 billion in tax cuts for the hardest hit families and students, and 100 percent expensing for businesses during 2011.
*Estate tax adjustment. Rates would be 35 percent after a $5 million exemption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

And before you answer that none of those were permanent, might I remind you that the original Bush Tax Cuts themselves were not permanent either.

The fact is, Obama has given MAJOR tax relief to the middle class, something the GOP hacks would be trumpeting if Obama were a Republican, but because he is the Great Satan, all you ever hear is whining about how Obama NEVER gives the GOP anything they want.

Set and match.

First let me point out that I'm not into party politics. I am not rooting for either team. But these kinds of statements confuse me.

When there is a Republican President,  Democrat voters hate him. Democrats in office decry him, jockeying for position and advantage in the next election cycle. Republicans feign outrage and indignation over how the Democrats insult and oppose the Republican president.

When there is a Democrat President, Republican voters hate him. Republicans in office decry him, jockeying for position and advantage in the next election cycle. Democrats feign outrage and indignation over how the Republicans insult and oppose the Democrat President.

Rinse and repeat every 4-8 years. Why do the voters play along? It's part of the silly game our government has become. It's like professional wrestling. The actors in the ring know its all a game and a show and pretend to hate each other and give speeches about how the other guy disrespects him. They know its a game. Regular people know its a game. But wrestling fans get swept up in it and treat it like its real.

Bizarre.

I would tend to agree with you except that it seemed to get amped up to 11 once Obama was in office. The kinds of stuff the Republicans have pulled go beyond the pale. Shutting down government, refusing to even accept ANY Obama nomination. And then GOP defenders claim it is Obama's fault that they refuse to work with him?  Screw this. I never liked Bush II, but I would have been disgusted if the Dems had pulled this kind of crap on him.

Maybe, but it was also amped up to 11 in the second half of the Bush administration. The term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" was coined for a reason. Maybe now we are seeing "Obama Derangement Syndrome" as well. Either way, why get worked up about it. Our elected officials are like professional wrestlers, CNN is like a 24 hour WrestleMania, and the politicians are putting on a show for ratings, poll numbers, and votes.

It's sad, but it is the way it has been and will be for the foreseeable future.

[dramaman]

Except they said they will "never" hold hearings. So they are explicit that they won't do their job. Not "we're kind of tired right now and might get around to it later k thanks bye".

I'm not a Republican Senator, but I'm assuming that there's an implied acceptance towards the President nominating someone that is at least centrist. If you're not picking the nominee based on the Advice of the Senate, it's similar to the Senate not Confirming the nominee. This President has been so unwilling to work with Republicans, so unwilling to compromise, that it's almost a foregone conclusion.

I don't doubt for a second that should POTUS nominate a conservative justice, he/she would get a hearing.

Really? The GOP hasn't had an overtly stated mission to obstruct the president on all fronts from Jan 20, 2009 on?

edit (2009, not 2008)

What's his stance been with Republicans on the budget, the disaster than is the ACA, gay rights, etc etc? Name one Republican major success that the President has supported over his own party, that he has compromised with Republicans to achieve.

How about tax cuts? Aren't those major GOP goals? Obama signed off on a pair of significant tax cuts for the middle-class. There was the Making Work Pay tax credit in 2009 and a temporary reduction in SS payroll taxes in 2011.

Also there was the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010. According to wikipedia:

On December 6, 2010, President Barack Obama announced a compromise tax package proposal had been reached, centered around a temporary, two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts.[44] In particular, the framework included key points such as:

*Extending the 2001/2003 income tax rates for two years. Also, reforming the AMT to ensure an additional 21 million households will not face a tax increase. These measures are intended to provide relief to more than 100 million middle-class families and prevent an annual tax increase of over $2,000 for the typical family.
*Additional provisions designed to promote economic growth. $56 billion in unemployment insurance, an approximate $120 billion payroll tax cut for working families, about $40 billion in tax cuts for the hardest hit families and students, and 100 percent expensing for businesses during 2011.
*Estate tax adjustment. Rates would be 35 percent after a $5 million exemption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

And before you answer that none of those were permanent, might I remind you that the original Bush Tax Cuts themselves were not permanent either.

The fact is, Obama has given MAJOR tax relief to the middle class, something the GOP hacks would be trumpeting if Obama were a Republican, but because he is the Great Satan, all you ever hear is whining about how Obama NEVER gives the GOP anything they want.

Set and match.

First let me point out that I'm not into party politics. I am not rooting for either team. But these kinds of statements confuse me.

When there is a Republican President,  Democrat voters hate him. Democrats in office decry him, jockeying for position and advantage in the next election cycle. Republicans feign outrage and indignation over how the Democrats insult and oppose the Republican president.

When there is a Democrat President, Republican voters hate him. Republicans in office decry him, jockeying for position and advantage in the next election cycle. Democrats feign outrage and indignation over how the Republicans insult and oppose the Democrat President.

Rinse and repeat every 4-8 years. Why do the voters play along? It's part of the silly game our government has become. It's like professional wrestling. The actors in the ring know its all a game and a show and pretend to hate each other and give speeches about how the other guy disrespects him. They know its a game. Regular people know its a game. But wrestling fans get swept up in it and treat it like its real.

Bizarre.

I would tend to agree with you except that it seemed to get amped up to 11 once Obama was in office. The kinds of stuff the Republicans have pulled go beyond the pale. Shutting down government, refusing to even accept ANY Obama nomination. And then GOP defenders claim it is Obama's fault that they refuse to work with him?  Screw this. I never liked Bush II, but I would have been disgusted if the Dems had pulled this kind of crap on him.

Maybe, but it was also amped up to 11 in the second half of the Bush administration. The term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" was coined for a reason. Maybe now we are seeing "Obama Derangement Syndrome" as well. Either way, why get worked up about it. Our elected officials are like professional wrestlers, CNN is like a 24 hour WrestleMania, and the politicians are putting on a show for ratings, poll numbers, and votes.

It's sad, but it is the way it has been and will be for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, Bush certainly drove Dems nuts, not the least because he lost the popular vote in 2000. I just don't recall seeing this same level of willful obstruction without any considerations of how it might impact the country. The Dems pretty much got behind Bush's military escapades. They never threatened to extort Bush by refusing to fund the government or extend the debt.

[winkeyman]

Except they said they will "never" hold hearings. So they are explicit that they won't do their job. Not "we're kind of tired right now and might get around to it later k thanks bye".

I'm not a Republican Senator, but I'm assuming that there's an implied acceptance towards the President nominating someone that is at least centrist. If you're not picking the nominee based on the Advice of the Senate, it's similar to the Senate not Confirming the nominee. This President has been so unwilling to work with Republicans, so unwilling to compromise, that it's almost a foregone conclusion.

I don't doubt for a second that should POTUS nominate a conservative justice, he/she would get a hearing.

Really? The GOP hasn't had an overtly stated mission to obstruct the president on all fronts from Jan 20, 2009 on?

edit (2009, not 2008)

What's his stance been with Republicans on the budget, the disaster than is the ACA, gay rights, etc etc? Name one Republican major success that the President has supported over his own party, that he has compromised with Republicans to achieve.

How about tax cuts? Aren't those major GOP goals? Obama signed off on a pair of significant tax cuts for the middle-class. There was the Making Work Pay tax credit in 2009 and a temporary reduction in SS payroll taxes in 2011.

Also there was the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010. According to wikipedia:

On December 6, 2010, President Barack Obama announced a compromise tax package proposal had been reached, centered around a temporary, two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts.[44] In particular, the framework included key points such as:

*Extending the 2001/2003 income tax rates for two years. Also, reforming the AMT to ensure an additional 21 million households will not face a tax increase. These measures are intended to provide relief to more than 100 million middle-class families and prevent an annual tax increase of over $2,000 for the typical family.
*Additional provisions designed to promote economic growth. $56 billion in unemployment insurance, an approximate $120 billion payroll tax cut for working families, about $40 billion in tax cuts for the hardest hit families and students, and 100 percent expensing for businesses during 2011.
*Estate tax adjustment. Rates would be 35 percent after a $5 million exemption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

And before you answer that none of those were permanent, might I remind you that the original Bush Tax Cuts themselves were not permanent either.

The fact is, Obama has given MAJOR tax relief to the middle class, something the GOP hacks would be trumpeting if Obama were a Republican, but because he is the Great Satan, all you ever hear is whining about how Obama NEVER gives the GOP anything they want.

Set and match.

First let me point out that I'm not into party politics. I am not rooting for either team. But these kinds of statements confuse me.

When there is a Republican President,  Democrat voters hate him. Democrats in office decry him, jockeying for position and advantage in the next election cycle. Republicans feign outrage and indignation over how the Democrats insult and oppose the Republican president.

When there is a Democrat President, Republican voters hate him. Republicans in office decry him, jockeying for position and advantage in the next election cycle. Democrats feign outrage and indignation over how the Republicans insult and oppose the Democrat President.

Rinse and repeat every 4-8 years. Why do the voters play along? It's part of the silly game our government has become. It's like professional wrestling. The actors in the ring know its all a game and a show and pretend to hate each other and give speeches about how the other guy disrespects him. They know its a game. Regular people know its a game. But wrestling fans get swept up in it and treat it like its real.

Bizarre.

I would tend to agree with you except that it seemed to get amped up to 11 once Obama was in office. The kinds of stuff the Republicans have pulled go beyond the pale. Shutting down government, refusing to even accept ANY Obama nomination. And then GOP defenders claim it is Obama's fault that they refuse to work with him?  Screw this. I never liked Bush II, but I would have been disgusted if the Dems had pulled this kind of crap on him.

Maybe, but it was also amped up to 11 in the second half of the Bush administration. The term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" was coined for a reason. Maybe now we are seeing "Obama Derangement Syndrome" as well. Either way, why get worked up about it. Our elected officials are like professional wrestlers, CNN is like a 24 hour WrestleMania, and the politicians are putting on a show for ratings, poll numbers, and votes.

It's sad, but it is the way it has been and will be for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, Bush certainly drove Dems nuts, not the least because he lost the popular vote in 2000. I just don't recall seeing this same level of willful obstruction without any considerations of how it might impact the country. The Dems pretty much got behind Bush's military escapades. They never threatened to extort Bush by refusing to fund the government or extend the debt.

Do you think it is possible you do not recall because your own political leanings color your perception of events?

I was out on the side of the road protesting the invasion of Iraq the day the intent was announced. Democrats would stop their cars, roll down their windows and tell me to Get the Hell Out! of America if I didn't support the war. I couldn't help but be shocked a few years later to see those same Democrats acting like they were against the war the whole time and making Bush-Hitler references at ever opportunity.

[dramaman]

Except they said they will "never" hold hearings. So they are explicit that they won't do their job. Not "we're kind of tired right now and might get around to it later k thanks bye".

I'm not a Republican Senator, but I'm assuming that there's an implied acceptance towards the President nominating someone that is at least centrist. If you're not picking the nominee based on the Advice of the Senate, it's similar to the Senate not Confirming the nominee. This President has been so unwilling to work with Republicans, so unwilling to compromise, that it's almost a foregone conclusion.

I don't doubt for a second that should POTUS nominate a conservative justice, he/she would get a hearing.

Really? The GOP hasn't had an overtly stated mission to obstruct the president on all fronts from Jan 20, 2009 on?

edit (2009, not 2008)

What's his stance been with Republicans on the budget, the disaster than is the ACA, gay rights, etc etc? Name one Republican major success that the President has supported over his own party, that he has compromised with Republicans to achieve.

How about tax cuts? Aren't those major GOP goals? Obama signed off on a pair of significant tax cuts for the middle-class. There was the Making Work Pay tax credit in 2009 and a temporary reduction in SS payroll taxes in 2011.

Also there was the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010. According to wikipedia:

On December 6, 2010, President Barack Obama announced a compromise tax package proposal had been reached, centered around a temporary, two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts.[44] In particular, the framework included key points such as:

*Extending the 2001/2003 income tax rates for two years. Also, reforming the AMT to ensure an additional 21 million households will not face a tax increase. These measures are intended to provide relief to more than 100 million middle-class families and prevent an annual tax increase of over $2,000 for the typical family.
*Additional provisions designed to promote economic growth. $56 billion in unemployment insurance, an approximate $120 billion payroll tax cut for working families, about $40 billion in tax cuts for the hardest hit families and students, and 100 percent expensing for businesses during 2011.
*Estate tax adjustment. Rates would be 35 percent after a $5 million exemption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

And before you answer that none of those were permanent, might I remind you that the original Bush Tax Cuts themselves were not permanent either.

The fact is, Obama has given MAJOR tax relief to the middle class, something the GOP hacks would be trumpeting if Obama were a Republican, but because he is the Great Satan, all you ever hear is whining about how Obama NEVER gives the GOP anything they want.

Set and match.

First let me point out that I'm not into party politics. I am not rooting for either team. But these kinds of statements confuse me.

When there is a Republican President,  Democrat voters hate him. Democrats in office decry him, jockeying for position and advantage in the next election cycle. Republicans feign outrage and indignation over how the Democrats insult and oppose the Republican president.

When there is a Democrat President, Republican voters hate him. Republicans in office decry him, jockeying for position and advantage in the next election cycle. Democrats feign outrage and indignation over how the Republicans insult and oppose the Democrat President.

Rinse and repeat every 4-8 years. Why do the voters play along? It's part of the silly game our government has become. It's like professional wrestling. The actors in the ring know its all a game and a show and pretend to hate each other and give speeches about how the other guy disrespects him. They know its a game. Regular people know its a game. But wrestling fans get swept up in it and treat it like its real.

Bizarre.

I would tend to agree with you except that it seemed to get amped up to 11 once Obama was in office. The kinds of stuff the Republicans have pulled go beyond the pale. Shutting down government, refusing to even accept ANY Obama nomination. And then GOP defenders claim it is Obama's fault that they refuse to work with him?  Screw this. I never liked Bush II, but I would have been disgusted if the Dems had pulled this kind of crap on him.

Maybe, but it was also amped up to 11 in the second half of the Bush administration. The term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" was coined for a reason. Maybe now we are seeing "Obama Derangement Syndrome" as well. Either way, why get worked up about it. Our elected officials are like professional wrestlers, CNN is like a 24 hour WrestleMania, and the politicians are putting on a show for ratings, poll numbers, and votes.

It's sad, but it is the way it has been and will be for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, Bush certainly drove Dems nuts, not the least because he lost the popular vote in 2000. I just don't recall seeing this same level of willful obstruction without any considerations of how it might impact the country. The Dems pretty much got behind Bush's military escapades. They never threatened to extort Bush by refusing to fund the government or extend the debt.

Do you think it is possible you do not recall because your own political leanings color your perception of events?

I was out on the side of the road protesting the invasion of Iraq the day the intent was announced. Democrats would stop their cars, roll down their windows and tell me to Get the Hell Out! of America if I didn't support the war. I couldn't help but be shocked a few years later to see those same Democrats acting like they were against the war the whole time and making Bush-Hitler references at ever opportunity.

I'm not sure what that demonstrates other than that the Dems who cowardly supported the wars became hypocrites once the wars became unpopular. That doesn't really counter my point that the Dems did not treat Bush nearly as bad as the GOP has Obama.

[winkeyman]

Except they said they will "never" hold hearings. So they are explicit that they won't do their job. Not "we're kind of tired right now and might get around to it later k thanks bye".

I'm not a Republican Senator, but I'm assuming that there's an implied acceptance towards the President nominating someone that is at least centrist. If you're not picking the nominee based on the Advice of the Senate, it's similar to the Senate not Confirming the nominee. This President has been so unwilling to work with Republicans, so unwilling to compromise, that it's almost a foregone conclusion.

I don't doubt for a second that should POTUS nominate a conservative justice, he/she would get a hearing.

Really? The GOP hasn't had an overtly stated mission to obstruct the president on all fronts from Jan 20, 2009 on?

edit (2009, not 2008)

What's his stance been with Republicans on the budget, the disaster than is the ACA, gay rights, etc etc? Name one Republican major success that the President has supported over his own party, that he has compromised with Republicans to achieve.

How about tax cuts? Aren't those major GOP goals? Obama signed off on a pair of significant tax cuts for the middle-class. There was the Making Work Pay tax credit in 2009 and a temporary reduction in SS payroll taxes in 2011.

Also there was the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010. According to wikipedia:

On December 6, 2010, President Barack Obama announced a compromise tax package proposal had been reached, centered around a temporary, two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts.[44] In particular, the framework included key points such as:

*Extending the 2001/2003 income tax rates for two years. Also, reforming the AMT to ensure an additional 21 million households will not face a tax increase. These measures are intended to provide relief to more than 100 million middle-class families and prevent an annual tax increase of over $2,000 for the typical family.
*Additional provisions designed to promote economic growth. $56 billion in unemployment insurance, an approximate $120 billion payroll tax cut for working families, about $40 billion in tax cuts for the hardest hit families and students, and 100 percent expensing for businesses during 2011.
*Estate tax adjustment. Rates would be 35 percent after a $5 million exemption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

And before you answer that none of those were permanent, might I remind you that the original Bush Tax Cuts themselves were not permanent either.

The fact is, Obama has given MAJOR tax relief to the middle class, something the GOP hacks would be trumpeting if Obama were a Republican, but because he is the Great Satan, all you ever hear is whining about how Obama NEVER gives the GOP anything they want.

Set and match.

First let me point out that I'm not into party politics. I am not rooting for either team. But these kinds of statements confuse me.

When there is a Republican President,  Democrat voters hate him. Democrats in office decry him, jockeying for position and advantage in the next election cycle. Republicans feign outrage and indignation over how the Democrats insult and oppose the Republican president.

When there is a Democrat President, Republican voters hate him. Republicans in office decry him, jockeying for position and advantage in the next election cycle. Democrats feign outrage and indignation over how the Republicans insult and oppose the Democrat President.

Rinse and repeat every 4-8 years. Why do the voters play along? It's part of the silly game our government has become. It's like professional wrestling. The actors in the ring know its all a game and a show and pretend to hate each other and give speeches about how the other guy disrespects him. They know its a game. Regular people know its a game. But wrestling fans get swept up in it and treat it like its real.

Bizarre.

I would tend to agree with you except that it seemed to get amped up to 11 once Obama was in office. The kinds of stuff the Republicans have pulled go beyond the pale. Shutting down government, refusing to even accept ANY Obama nomination. And then GOP defenders claim it is Obama's fault that they refuse to work with him?  Screw this. I never liked Bush II, but I would have been disgusted if the Dems had pulled this kind of crap on him.

Maybe, but it was also amped up to 11 in the second half of the Bush administration. The term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" was coined for a reason. Maybe now we are seeing "Obama Derangement Syndrome" as well. Either way, why get worked up about it. Our elected officials are like professional wrestlers, CNN is like a 24 hour WrestleMania, and the politicians are putting on a show for ratings, poll numbers, and votes.

It's sad, but it is the way it has been and will be for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, Bush certainly drove Dems nuts, not the least because he lost the popular vote in 2000. I just don't recall seeing this same level of willful obstruction without any considerations of how it might impact the country. The Dems pretty much got behind Bush's military escapades. They never threatened to extort Bush by refusing to fund the government or extend the debt.

Do you think it is possible you do not recall because your own political leanings color your perception of events?

I was out on the side of the road protesting the invasion of Iraq the day the intent was announced. Democrats would stop their cars, roll down their windows and tell me to Get the Hell Out! of America if I didn't support the war. I couldn't help but be shocked a few years later to see those same Democrats acting like they were against the war the whole time and making Bush-Hitler references at ever opportunity.

I'm not sure what that demonstrates other than that the Dems who cowardly supported the wars became hypocrites once the wars became unpopular. That doesn't really counter my point that the Dems did not treat Bush nearly as bad as the GOP has Obama.

I'm relatively certain that the next Republican president will be treated even worse than Obama. Especially if it's Trump. That's just the unfortunate mess our society has turned into.

[forummm]

Except they said they will "never" hold hearings. So they are explicit that they won't do their job. Not "we're kind of tired right now and might get around to it later k thanks bye".

I'm not a Republican Senator, but I'm assuming that there's an implied acceptance towards the President nominating someone that is at least centrist. If you're not picking the nominee based on the Advice of the Senate, it's similar to the Senate not Confirming the nominee. This President has been so unwilling to work with Republicans, so unwilling to compromise, that it's almost a foregone conclusion.

I don't doubt for a second that should POTUS nominate a conservative justice, he/she would get a hearing.

Really? The GOP hasn't had an overtly stated mission to obstruct the president on all fronts from Jan 20, 2009 on?

edit (2009, not 2008)

What's his stance been with Republicans on the budget, the disaster than is the ACA, gay rights, etc etc? Name one Republican major success that the President has supported over his own party, that he has compromised with Republicans to achieve.

How about tax cuts? Aren't those major GOP goals? Obama signed off on a pair of significant tax cuts for the middle-class. There was the Making Work Pay tax credit in 2009 and a temporary reduction in SS payroll taxes in 2011.

Also there was the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010. According to wikipedia:

On December 6, 2010, President Barack Obama announced a compromise tax package proposal had been reached, centered around a temporary, two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts.[44] In particular, the framework included key points such as:

*Extending the 2001/2003 income tax rates for two years. Also, reforming the AMT to ensure an additional 21 million households will not face a tax increase. These measures are intended to provide relief to more than 100 million middle-class families and prevent an annual tax increase of over $2,000 for the typical family.
*Additional provisions designed to promote economic growth. $56 billion in unemployment insurance, an approximate $120 billion payroll tax cut for working families, about $40 billion in tax cuts for the hardest hit families and students, and 100 percent expensing for businesses during 2011.
*Estate tax adjustment. Rates would be 35 percent after a $5 million exemption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

And before you answer that none of those were permanent, might I remind you that the original Bush Tax Cuts themselves were not permanent either.

The fact is, Obama has given MAJOR tax relief to the middle class, something the GOP hacks would be trumpeting if Obama were a Republican, but because he is the Great Satan, all you ever hear is whining about how Obama NEVER gives the GOP anything they want.

Set and match.

Actually, Obama did make most of those tax cuts permanent before the expiration of the extension.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_2012

[dramaman]

Except they said they will "never" hold hearings. So they are explicit that they won't do their job. Not "we're kind of tired right now and might get around to it later k thanks bye".

I'm not a Republican Senator, but I'm assuming that there's an implied acceptance towards the President nominating someone that is at least centrist. If you're not picking the nominee based on the Advice of the Senate, it's similar to the Senate not Confirming the nominee. This President has been so unwilling to work with Republicans, so unwilling to compromise, that it's almost a foregone conclusion.

I don't doubt for a second that should POTUS nominate a conservative justice, he/she would get a hearing.

Really? The GOP hasn't had an overtly stated mission to obstruct the president on all fronts from Jan 20, 2009 on?

edit (2009, not 2008)

What's his stance been with Republicans on the budget, the disaster than is the ACA, gay rights, etc etc? Name one Republican major success that the President has supported over his own party, that he has compromised with Republicans to achieve.

How about tax cuts? Aren't those major GOP goals? Obama signed off on a pair of significant tax cuts for the middle-class. There was the Making Work Pay tax credit in 2009 and a temporary reduction in SS payroll taxes in 2011.

Also there was the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010. According to wikipedia:

On December 6, 2010, President Barack Obama announced a compromise tax package proposal had been reached, centered around a temporary, two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts.[44] In particular, the framework included key points such as:

*Extending the 2001/2003 income tax rates for two years. Also, reforming the AMT to ensure an additional 21 million households will not face a tax increase. These measures are intended to provide relief to more than 100 million middle-class families and prevent an annual tax increase of over $2,000 for the typical family.
*Additional provisions designed to promote economic growth. $56 billion in unemployment insurance, an approximate $120 billion payroll tax cut for working families, about $40 billion in tax cuts for the hardest hit families and students, and 100 percent expensing for businesses during 2011.
*Estate tax adjustment. Rates would be 35 percent after a $5 million exemption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

And before you answer that none of those were permanent, might I remind you that the original Bush Tax Cuts themselves were not permanent either.

The fact is, Obama has given MAJOR tax relief to the middle class, something the GOP hacks would be trumpeting if Obama were a Republican, but because he is the Great Satan, all you ever hear is whining about how Obama NEVER gives the GOP anything they want.

Set and match.

Actually, Obama did make most of those tax cuts permanent before the expiration of the extension.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_2012

It's absolutely amazing the amount of tax relief that Obama has provided during his presidency in combination with the hatred he's gotten from the Tea Party which purports to be all about taxes being too high. Just more evidence that the Tea Party is populated by a bunch of knee jerk idiots.

[Yaeger]

It's absolutely amazing the amount of tax relief that Obama has provided during his presidency in combination with the hatred he's gotten from the Tea Party which purports to be all about taxes being too high. Just more evidence that the Tea Party is populated by a bunch of knee jerk idiots.

No, that would be true if taxes remained low for all Americans, not selective groups of Americans. He only extended the tax cuts for most Americans. There's also differences in taxes if you talk about the additional taxes added by various programs, like the ACA's tax on capital gains, medical equipment and estate tax increases. Our overall level of taxation increased, continuing Bush's tax cuts isn't 'tax relief'.

Let's list the taxes included by one bill, the ACA:
• 2.3% Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers began in 2014
• 10% Tax on Indoor Tanning Services began in 2014
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike
• Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals that fail to comply with the requirements of ObamaCare
• Tax on Brand Name Drugs
• Tax on Health Insurers
• $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives
• Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D
• Medicare Tax on Investment Income. 3.8% over $200k/$250k
• Medicare Part A Tax increase of .9% over $200k/$250k
• 40% Excise Tax “Cadillac” on high-end Premium Health Insurance Plans 2018
• An annual $63 fee levied by ObamaCare on all plans (decreased each year until 2017 when pre-existing conditions are eliminated) to help pay for insurance companies covering the costs of high-risk pools.
• Medicine Cabinet Tax. Over the counter medicines no longer qualified as medical expenses for flexible spending accounts (FSAs), health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), health savings accounts (HSAs), and Archer Medical Saving accounts (MSAs).
• Additional Tax on HSA/MSA Distributions. Health savings account or an Archer medical savings account, penalties for spending money on non-qualified medical expenses. 10% to 20% in the case of a HSA and from 15% to 20% in the case of a MSA.
• Medical Deduction Threshold tax increase began in 2013. Threshold to deduct medical expenses as an itemized deduction increases to 10% from 7.5%.
• Individual Mandate penalty tax

[forummm]

It's absolutely amazing the amount of tax relief that Obama has provided during his presidency in combination with the hatred he's gotten from the Tea Party which purports to be all about taxes being too high. Just more evidence that the Tea Party is populated by a bunch of knee jerk idiots.

No, that would be true if taxes remained low for all Americans, not selective groups of Americans. He only extended the tax cuts for most Americans. There's also differences in taxes if you talk about the additional taxes added by various programs, like the ACA's tax on capital gains, medical equipment and estate tax increases. Our overall level of taxation increased, continuing Bush's tax cuts isn't 'tax relief'.

Let's list the taxes included by one bill, the ACA:
• 2.3% Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers began in 2014
• 10% Tax on Indoor Tanning Services began in 2014
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike
• Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals that fail to comply with the requirements of ObamaCare
• Tax on Brand Name Drugs
• Tax on Health Insurers
• $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives
• Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D
• Medicare Tax on Investment Income. 3.8% over $200k/$250k
• Medicare Part A Tax increase of .9% over $200k/$250k
• 40% Excise Tax “Cadillac” on high-end Premium Health Insurance Plans 2018
• An annual $63 fee levied by ObamaCare on all plans (decreased each year until 2017 when pre-existing conditions are eliminated) to help pay for insurance companies covering the costs of high-risk pools.
• Medicine Cabinet Tax. Over the counter medicines no longer qualified as medical expenses for flexible spending accounts (FSAs), health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), health savings accounts (HSAs), and Archer Medical Saving accounts (MSAs).
• Additional Tax on HSA/MSA Distributions. Health savings account or an Archer medical savings account, penalties for spending money on non-qualified medical expenses. 10% to 20% in the case of a HSA and from 15% to 20% in the case of a MSA.
• Medical Deduction Threshold tax increase began in 2013. Threshold to deduct medical expenses as an itemized deduction increases to 10% from 7.5%.
• Individual Mandate penalty tax

All used to pay for a huge amount of tax credits.

[dramaman]

It's absolutely amazing the amount of tax relief that Obama has provided during his presidency in combination with the hatred he's gotten from the Tea Party which purports to be all about taxes being too high. Just more evidence that the Tea Party is populated by a bunch of knee jerk idiots.

No, that would be true if taxes remained low for all Americans, not selective groups of Americans. He only extended the tax cuts for most Americans. There's also differences in taxes if you talk about the additional taxes added by various programs, like the ACA's tax on capital gains, medical equipment and estate tax increases. Our overall level of taxation increased, continuing Bush's tax cuts isn't 'tax relief'.

Let's list the taxes included by one bill, the ACA:
• 2.3% Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers began in 2014
• 10% Tax on Indoor Tanning Services began in 2014
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike
• Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals that fail to comply with the requirements of ObamaCare
• Tax on Brand Name Drugs
• Tax on Health Insurers
• $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives
• Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D
• Medicare Tax on Investment Income. 3.8% over $200k/$250k
• Medicare Part A Tax increase of .9% over $200k/$250k
• 40% Excise Tax “Cadillac” on high-end Premium Health Insurance Plans 2018
• An annual $63 fee levied by ObamaCare on all plans (decreased each year until 2017 when pre-existing conditions are eliminated) to help pay for insurance companies covering the costs of high-risk pools.
• Medicine Cabinet Tax. Over the counter medicines no longer qualified as medical expenses for flexible spending accounts (FSAs), health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), health savings accounts (HSAs), and Archer Medical Saving accounts (MSAs).
• Additional Tax on HSA/MSA Distributions. Health savings account or an Archer medical savings account, penalties for spending money on non-qualified medical expenses. 10% to 20% in the case of a HSA and from 15% to 20% in the case of a MSA.
• Medical Deduction Threshold tax increase began in 2013. Threshold to deduct medical expenses as an itemized deduction increases to 10% from 7.5%.
• Individual Mandate penalty tax

Nice list of target taxes, but it proves nothing in regards to the overall extent of taxation for any single group of Americans. The point remains is that most of the bozos sporting tri-corner hats and waving teabags likely had their overall taxes reduced thanks to Obama, even though the morons assume otherwise.

[Yaeger]

It's absolutely amazing the amount of tax relief that Obama has provided during his presidency in combination with the hatred he's gotten from the Tea Party which purports to be all about taxes being too high. Just more evidence that the Tea Party is populated by a bunch of knee jerk idiots.

No, that would be true if taxes remained low for all Americans, not selective groups of Americans. He only extended the tax cuts for most Americans. There's also differences in taxes if you talk about the additional taxes added by various programs, like the ACA's tax on capital gains, medical equipment and estate tax increases. Our overall level of taxation increased, continuing Bush's tax cuts isn't 'tax relief'.

Let's list the taxes included by one bill, the ACA:
• 2.3% Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers began in 2014
• 10% Tax on Indoor Tanning Services began in 2014
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike
• Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals that fail to comply with the requirements of ObamaCare
• Tax on Brand Name Drugs
• Tax on Health Insurers
• $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives
• Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D
• Medicare Tax on Investment Income. 3.8% over $200k/$250k
• Medicare Part A Tax increase of .9% over $200k/$250k
• 40% Excise Tax “Cadillac” on high-end Premium Health Insurance Plans 2018
• An annual $63 fee levied by ObamaCare on all plans (decreased each year until 2017 when pre-existing conditions are eliminated) to help pay for insurance companies covering the costs of high-risk pools.
• Medicine Cabinet Tax. Over the counter medicines no longer qualified as medical expenses for flexible spending accounts (FSAs), health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), health savings accounts (HSAs), and Archer Medical Saving accounts (MSAs).
• Additional Tax on HSA/MSA Distributions. Health savings account or an Archer medical savings account, penalties for spending money on non-qualified medical expenses. 10% to 20% in the case of a HSA and from 15% to 20% in the case of a MSA.
• Medical Deduction Threshold tax increase began in 2013. Threshold to deduct medical expenses as an itemized deduction increases to 10% from 7.5%.
• Individual Mandate penalty tax

All used to pay for a huge amount of tax credits.

Since when has the government been 100% efficient? Will the government EVER be able to provide more services than it receives via taxes or borrowing? Increase services and availability for medical funding. So yes, it's a net tax INCREASE.

[Yaeger]

Nice list of target taxes, but it proves nothing in regards to the overall extent of taxation for any single group of Americans. The point remains is that most of the bozos sporting tri-corner hats and waving teabags likely had their overall taxes reduced thanks to Obama, even though the morons assume otherwise.

Did you read the link posted by forummm earlier? The tax cuts weren't permanent for all Americans, it specifically omitted targeted groups in certain income brackets and subject to estate taxes. Or are you just having a hard time correlating a raise in tax rates with a rise in taxes?

The point remains that the bozos like Occupy Wall Street spouting leftist hatred for the rich and Wall Street are not about equality of law. At least the tea party supports equality for all Americans, not just their buddies.

[Glenstache]

Nice list of target taxes, but it proves nothing in regards to the overall extent of taxation for any single group of Americans. The point remains is that most of the bozos sporting tri-corner hats and waving teabags likely had their overall taxes reduced thanks to Obama, even though the morons assume otherwise.

Did you read the link posted by forummm earlier? The tax cuts weren't permanent for all Americans, it specifically omitted targeted groups in certain income brackets and subject to estate taxes. Or are you just having a hard time correlating a raise in tax rates with a rise in taxes?

The point remains that the bozos like Occupy Wall Street spouting leftist hatred for the rich and Wall Street are not about equality of law. At least the tea party supports equality for all Americans, not just their buddies.

Yes, clearly.
http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/09/02/homosexual-promiscuity-breeding-a-national-health-problem/

But clearly, the TP is no longer what it ever so briefly was at its outset anymore anyways:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/25/tea-party-koch-brothers

[Yaeger]

Nice list of target taxes, but it proves nothing in regards to the overall extent of taxation for any single group of Americans. The point remains is that most of the bozos sporting tri-corner hats and waving teabags likely had their overall taxes reduced thanks to Obama, even though the morons assume otherwise.

Did you read the link posted by forummm earlier? The tax cuts weren't permanent for all Americans, it specifically omitted targeted groups in certain income brackets and subject to estate taxes. Or are you just having a hard time correlating a raise in tax rates with a rise in taxes?

The point remains that the bozos like Occupy Wall Street spouting leftist hatred for the rich and Wall Street are not about equality of law. At least the tea party supports equality for all Americans, not just their buddies.

Yes, clearly.
http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/09/02/homosexual-promiscuity-breeding-a-national-health-problem/

But clearly, the TP is no longer what it ever so briefly was at its outset anymore anyways:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/25/tea-party-koch-brothers

.. and an ad hominem into something other than tax policy. I don't want to get in a pointless discussion about fringe groups. Let's stick with the topic at hand.

Rampant rape and sexual assault among Occupy Wall Street members.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/sexual-assaults-occupy-wall-street-camps/story?id=14873014

Or bomb a bridge to get publicity.
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/05/bridge_bomb_plot_suspects_were.html