Repeal Replace Becomes ‘Repair’

The three R’s as Republicans finally get to what they always knew: fighting Obamacare was a bullshit argument that was nothing but campaign propaganda. Covering pre-existing conditions, children, donut holes and the uninsured was a damn good thing. Not perfect, of course. But now the R’s are talking “repair” instead of “repeal.” Which was the Democratic argument. This is what happens when the power to govern replaces rhetoric.

Share

It’s Parody Time on the Trail

By PatD, a Trail Mix Contributor

Hail to the thief Russia chose for the nation,
Hail to the thief! We’re distraught, one and all.
Hail to the thief, as we pledge opposition
In proud fulfillment of a great, noble call
It’s beyond belief such a thing has happened.
Try as we may, it won’t go away.
But don’t let your grief stay you from hoping and trying
or stand in the way

Mixers, let the creative juices flow. You’ve only the chains of despair to lose.

More Posts by PatD

Share

Strict Constructionist Hypocrisy

I always find it amusing to hear conservatives praise and worship Scalia style originalism, strict constructionism, whatever it’s called. Because the true extension of that belief is that the Supreme Court has no power to review or strike down legislation or presidential actions. Because the Constitution specifically conferred no such power. It was assumed by the Court in a seizure of power the so-called strict constructionists ought to oppose if they are intellectually consistent.

Simple question for Neil Gorsuch: Was Marbury vs. Madison decided correctly? If so, his philosophy collapses. If not, the Supreme Court is disempowered.

Share

Huh? An Empty Gesture

I just don’t get what now-former acting Attorney General Sally Yates was doing. No wonder she was fired. The Justice Department has long argued in defense of near absolute deference to presidential authority on immigration and national security, vigorously opposing lawsuits against the Obama Administration’s record-setting deportations and unprecedented invasions of privacy. Where was Yates when her department defended “enhanced interrogation” and a slew of restrictions against immigration imposed by presidents of both parties?

Share