SnakeRiverLib

Want to know why I don't identify with the GOP? In 2010 , we were told that with the House, we could eliminate Obamacare. nope In 2012, the GOP nominated a governor that President Obama credited for creating Obamacare (Romneycare).  They got trounced. In 2014 , the GOP said that if they won the Senate, they could not only repeal Obamacare, but all the other Executive Orders.  They won the Senate.  They folded on everything. In 2015, the GOP House passed a clean repeal of Obamacare.  Under reconciliation, the Senate also passed it.  President Obama vetoed it, and it died. In 2016, the GOP said that if they won the Presidency that they would finally repeal it.  They won.  Did they propose the same bill that passed the House and Senate?  IF they had meant it in 2015, it would have been easy.  But nope, Ocare was to be replaced by Ocare-lite, or Ryancare. THEY DIDN'T MEAN IT!  It was a token in 2015,  a fundraiser, probably, and nothing else. I will predict right n

I have always supported the filibuster in the Senate.  It is a rule that has been useful for centuries, so a minority of Senators can have their voices heard.  It forces a supermajority vote to overcome it.  The filibuster used to be a talkfest, where a Senator would hold the floor, speaking until he was overridden by cloture.  Of course most remember those filibusters as associated with the Civil Rights battle.  Funny, how in the Senate of the 1960s, the greatest Civil Libertarian of the age did not vote for cloture on the Civil Rights act, due to its bullying of individuals and businesses.  It was this battle that has resulted in florists, photographers, and bakers being forced to violate their personal beliefs, or lose their businesses.  And of course, who doesn't remember Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith goes to Washington ? It was a noble rule, used only to fight legislation that shouldn't be going through anyway.  But that is not what it is now.  If it still was, I would no

The Gorsuch hearings continue.  Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) didn't like that Gorsuch, like Scalia would follow the Constitution as written, opting for a "living document" interpretation of the US. Constitution.  Question for her.  If the Constitution was flexible, why did the Founders specify how it was to be amended?  Hmmm?  Speaking of the Gorsuch hearings... Senator Stuart Smalley, (D-MN) said that Justice Scalia did not weigh justice on the same Constitution that the Senator had sworn an oath to defend.   My question would be.  Between Scalia/Gorsuch and Franken, which could probably quote the entire constitution from memory?   Another funny Franken thing, he said that Gorsuch was blind to minorities.  I would say, fair assessment, and that should be a plus.   Has Franken seen the statue of Lady Justice?  Is she wearing a blindfold ?  Hmmm? Do you think that Congress considers the cost on your budget before deciding whether or not to raise taxes? We have seen

I have settled on a research question of: What impact did the 17th amendment have on the federal government? Here is my preconceived opinion, yet will be completely left out of the scholarly paper that I have to do.  I will let all know how well it meshes. The 17th Amendment allowed for the Direct election of Senators.  The Constitution had a bicameral legislature set up for the purpose of establishing federalism and to protect the sovereignty of states. The House of Representatives was truly the people's house, with elections every two years to hold them to account.  It is apportioned based on population.  The larger the state, the more representatives. The Senate was also known as the States' House.  Its members were selected by state legislatures to represent the states' interests in Washington.  Each state has equal representation in DC. Why are cabinet selections and judges subject to a Senate confirmation?   Why do Treaties, when actually submitted to the

For the second time, some podunk district court judge decided to rule for the whole country.  For the second time, some judge decided that regardless of whether President Trump's Executive Order regarding immigration was constitutional or not, (as written), the decision was based on campaign rhetoric, the Order violated the constitution. (um, it, didn't) It is time for Congress to stop complaining about judges, and to use their constitutional authority and impeach them.  It would be simple.  The Judiciary committee would bring up the charge of denying the President his Constitutional authority, precedent would be reviewed, the judge's ruling would be reviewed, and then a vote.  The GOP controls the House, it would be easy.  Even though the likelihood of getting the votes in the Senate is slim, the mere threat of impeachment, combined with President Trump nominating a replacement would probably send a very loud message.  It would cause a judge to determine if their rulings

Not a long detailed drawn out statement that most probably snooze through.  I don't ask for comments, (though I would love them)  but this time, I am.  I am trying to hammer out a research question for a paper.  My original thought was: a) Why is there no ideological diversity on college campuses.   That would be research worthy of a professor WITH tenure, not someone trying to get an A from a probably left leaning political science professor. I also thought about: b) In spite of partisan differences, is there really a difference between the main parties? That one was overly broad, and the research would be worthy of a doctorate. There always is: c) Who is John Galt? Okay, that was kind of a joke, but now that Atlas is being enacted in front of our eyes, maybe not so much. What I think I am settling on is: d) Can the partisan divide be explained by a lack of federalism in this country? I really would like some comments.  Either a PM on facebook, or below if

We are nearly at the point of Civil War.  And so it is time to think, and to choose.  I could quote Joshua, but that would be over OntheRim , and so will confine myself to pointing out a few things. Washington DC, and all of the lobbyists, bureaucrats, politicians, and the parties ALL think that Americans are no longer capable of doing  ANYTHING on their own.  Both parties think that, make no mistake.   This group is currently throwing a hissy fit over Trump winning.  Funny, because in 30 of the 50 states, he won the popular vote outright.  He won IN SPITE of his mouth, he won IN SPITE of his tweets.  He won because he reached the common man.  He told them that unlike all of the DC class, he understood them.  He was apolitical, with numerous videos of several Democrats congratulating him for his assistance in the minority community being readily available to watch.  His opponent was all  FOR him when he was a businessman, applauding his outreach to the gay community.  Now he i

I do not refer to those thousands of Civil Servants who simply act based on direction from above in comments on Civil Service. Deep State is a term being thrown around regarding permanent civil service employees embedded in high positions in the Administration.  These are people who are so far left of center they would have to look right to see Stalin.  They hate Trump.  They hate Republicans.  They despise America.  Here is the deal.  They have a right to their political opinions.  I don't dispute that.  But they should formulate and implement policy based not only on the positions of the current Administration, but the current Congress as well, rather than bide their time for the next Democrat, going through the motions of following direction.   So regardless of how much they hate Trump, they have to understand that he is President.  The sabotage created by the Security apparatus needs to be fixed.  The problem?  They have so much on everyone that any one that wanted to, say,