Saturday, February 27, 2010

Pout Power: Lords of the Legislature. Delay by Legislative Sulk

 The Legislative Process:
If you don't like it, delay by pout.

Body Counts in healthcare.
Count:   45,000 uninsured have died of that uninsurance
Over the last 8 years approx  *
Eight times 45,000 = 360,000 lives snuffed by pout.

Block that concept. 
Power of the Pout.
Pout instead of act. 
Legislators' lower lips
Quiver. Don't want! No!

No! Baby dawdled
But now says has own list!
Finally, now, after forty-five thousand
Dead -- Times eight years.*

These hues? Watch the tantrums
If somebody says Share.

The pale get theirs.

Founding Fathers ask,
How come they and not the rest?

Secular dogma.

If I inherit, my win.
And I can pass it on
To my heirs.
Along with all perks of unearned money.
Maybe I did earn it.
With what tilts to my advantage?

The estate-less?
Those without the access?
Must deserve it
Because I got mine and they didn't.

* Death by Uninsurance - fair use quotation, small part of total article-- Body count:  some 45000 Dead X 8:

"Based on their findings, the researchers conclude that lack of insurance can be associated with as many as 44,789 deaths per year – more deaths than are caused each year by kidney disease. This is a surprising statistic, considering that the Institute of Medicine, in 2001, estimated that less than 19,000 Americans aged 25 through 64 died each year because they were uninsured."

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Trompe news. Spreading Obstructionism. Supreme Court Adopts Own Filibuster Procedural Rule. What If? Trompe News Services.

Trompe News *  The Great What If --

The Filibuster Rule is Adopted by the High Court
Spreading obstructionism; or restoring balance of powers?.

Supreme Court Mimics Senate in Adopting Filibuster

Will it be abused?
WARSHINGTON --Trompe News Services. January 7, 2010. Judicial intelligence implants report that the Supreme Court adopted its own filibuster rule by unanimous vote yesterday.  Its alternative was to wait to see if the Senate would modify or even terminate its own Rule permitting a filibuster, but despite strong arguments in favor of such modification, see KNGDV: Filibuster as Legislative Piracy - Rename (to "Freeboot") and Contain, the Senate appears paralyzed.  If the Senate does accept such renaming and containment, the Supreme Court may well follow suit.

This filibuster rule provides for terminating discussion on any matter before it only by a 3/5 vote of its members.  See partial text at FN 1, and discussion at ://

 The Supreme Court equivalent  will govern its proceedings in the same manner as the Senate's filibuster Rule 22, with one major modification. With nine members seated on the Supreme Court, and 3/5 of such resulting in an uneven number, the Court elected a modification by which this inconvenient figure is rounded up such that six votes of the total 9 to terminate debate.  It is even questioned whether "debate" is the proper term, since the filibuster process consists of speech after speech, without discussion, see FN 1.

Lady Justice on the panel, in her way.

This modification such that 6 justices are required to vote for cloture assumes that Lady Justice, blindfolded and with scales, is also seated in all their minds already.  Thus, the 3/5 vote is based upon 10 justices in effect, such that it shall require 6 of such judges for cloture, as terminating discussion before voting is known.


Matters addressed by the justices during the subsequent filibuster microphone time shall be televised on CNN until a critical mass quits, dies or retires, or the measure otherwise moves to vote, whichever first occurs.

The Supremes' failure to bring cloture to any debate on a case before it shall cause the case to languish and, perhaps, ultimately, slowly, die.

Recourse. None.

There shall be no recourse for blockage of all court business by any member or coalition of Supreme Court members, unless, of course, the Senate adopts the Rename and Contain option.  Shout-outs are permitted during filibusters' speech time, however, and observers anticipate that  "You pirate!" or "You freebooter!" will deck the halls.  Corrective legislation is being considered, see No Senate Filibuster Unless Supreme Court Adopts Parallel Rule; or Renames and Contains. The containment is vital, whether the filibuster gets a new label, lawjacking  or freebooting or whatever


The names of the justices and how each voted shall be made public, but as most justices already reside in stolid, old-think houses with few windows, and do not need re-election money, they fear no brickbats. Each justice is welcome to wait everybody out, until one of them gives up, dies or retires, enabling another appointment by an exasperated Chief Executive whose new appointment shall also likely be filibustered.

Public response. 

Upon release of this news bite, a collective Aargh was heard from the crowd.  As one wag noted, however, the filibuster might be better than bad decisions poorly thought out with too many unintended consequences likely, and not provided for. This equal opportunity obstructionism, however, worries plaintiffs and defendants who express concern that their cases will languish, while judges gamble that time passing will buttress their own views.

Chief Executive response. 

The President is understood to be considering his own unique rights of filibuster, in order to keep the powers equal and in balance.  He may do so by intervening in anyone else's filibuster and providing a vote of his own to tilt the scales. This shall be in addition to any rights of the Vice President to break ties, although with a 60% rule, a tie is not feasible in the filibuster.

Further discussion at Senate and Judiciary: 

Miasma analysis suggests that a rules change provision for stay-alive-at-55, not at 60%,  is being considered by both the Senate and the Judiciary. The President is planning for a variety of contingencies.

* Trompe News Services.  See Trompe News Services. Click there for your next clue: Fake News Rating.

FN 1  Rule 22, Precedence of Motions, see ://  Debate may be closed by response to this question:

 ' "Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.'