Civil Rights Era hero Rep. John Lewis of Georgia instigated a new sit-in, this time in the well of the House of Representatives in an attempt to force a vote on gun violence control legislation.
After Lewis gave that stirring speech, “dozens of Democrats” sat down and refused to budge. Speaker Ryan soon told CSPAN to turn off their cameras and ordered the House gaveled into recess.
A spokeswoman for Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said that the chamber would be in recess as long as Democrats held up normal legislative business.
“The House cannot operate without members following the rules of the institution, so the House has recessed subject to the call of the chair,” Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong tweeted.
Democrats indicated that they will continue the sit-in until GOP leaders allow a vote on gun legislation.
You can follow the saga at the Twitter hashtag #nobillnobreak. It’s a tag Nancy Pelosi used yesterday in what now looks like a warning.
.@SpeakerRyan, we must not to recess until we vote on commonsense gun legislation. #NoBillNoBreak https://t.co/TtbBKX5aKG
— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) June 21, 2016
And here’s how it looks, since you can’t see it on CSPAN.
You won't see us on CSPAN but we are still here. #NoBillNoBreak pic.twitter.com/44HOBT25WQ
— Janice Hahn (@Rep_JaniceHahn) June 22, 2016
I guess it’s the Republicans’ move now. I’m not sure what they’ll do.
This is the point in a modern sit-in when people ask how they can phone in subsidized pizzas, legal defense funds are being set up to provide jail support when the protesters are finally arrested by the Capitol Police, and Twitterers outside are echoing the news from inside.
Will they need tents? Is this a one-off or an extended duration until the House gets serious about gun violence?
And will the Capitol Police (or the sergeant-at-arms) arrive in riot gear? Will Paul Ryan start muttering stuff about health and safety issues in the House chamber?
How does this turn from stunt to serious politics?
It is serious…especially the one allowing Feds to fish without a warrant. They had that one in a back pocket just waiting for the right moment.
11 Dem Senators voted to kill that one. Can you guess whom?
Pardon, I got the vote reversed. 8 Republicans & 30 Democrats against. 11 Dems voted for it.
It is not serious until they risk actual arrest that could disrupt their lives. Even John Lewis should know that this is nothing at all comparable to what he did 50 years ago.
And why go to the wall over a P. o. S. bill? There are some pretty significant bills worth going to the wall over.
My “When does this stunt get serious?” question stands.
I really am befuddled. Dem Senators who voted to kill the measure are now grandstanding in the House to allow them to PASS it? WTH?
It gets serious the moment one American voter realizes one party cares about ending gun violence and one doesn’t. It’s a way to bring attention to fact that the only thing standing between us and a safer world is Republicans. I say they need to do it more.
Some of the American people are looking for the member of the party cares about ending gun violence. It would be refreshing to see a strict party line vote on real “common-sense” gun control instead of another goosing of the warrantless security state.
At best, I see this as an attempt to get a recorded vote of the NRA fan club.
If he were serious, why is he conflating the warrantless security state with gun control measures? They have little to no intersection.
You’re missing the point entirely, methinks.
This is to point out hypocrisy. It’s not a statement that the bill under consideration is the “Best thing EVA!!!”
If it attaches a political or public cost to being ‘pro-gun,’ that’s a good thing.
If it dispels some of the fear of being pro-gun-control, that’s a good thing.
If it pokes a stick in the eye of the NRA–thus weakening them–that’s a good thing.
If it actually gets this shitty bill brought to a vote, that’s a superb thing: the question then becomes, “Why don’t Dems use this successful strategy for a bill that actually matters?”
Well, why aren’t they asking for the one that already exists? I linked it above. I cannot have this right–that they are talking about those two Senate bills. That would be insane. They MUST be talking of some future bill…
Because “no fly, no buy” rhymes, I presume.
>>one party cares about ending gun violence and one doesn’t.
then grandstand for a good bill not a shitty one. I’m happy this bill didn’t pass.
Because this is what we have. Ya dig?
No, I didn’t think so.
Because this is the time. You want to wait for Utopia? Stand over there with the rest of the purists.
The rest of us are trying to accomplish something here.
Jesus, what is wrong with you?
What exactly are you trying to accomplish?
Granted that the kabuki aspects of this fight makes it difficult to appreciate what’s going on, but the original Feinstein amendment does lay it out. Give more power to the FBI to trample on due process rights to deny some small number of people the right to purchase a gun.
Most Congressional Republicans are cool with that even as they spout their fealty to the 2nd Amendment because sacrificing gun rights for a few to cut off due process rights for the many is like manna for heaven for them.
Most Congressional Democrats support due process rights, but some couldn’t resist the opportunity to champion their opposition to unrestricted gun rights even if it trampled on due process rights. Those congressional Democrats may even know that it does little to nothing wrt restricting gun rights and it’s very dangerous in granting more powers to the FBI, but some still support the legislation and count of folks like you to support them.
This is toxic brew type legislation and when such legislation passes, it takes a long time before the people wake up and see exactly what they supported and many (if they’re honest) are horrified.
That it’s okay for Democrats to trample on due process rights
What bill(s) is this being done in support for? The same shit sandwiches that the Senate took up late last week?
Precisely. Sit-in to support the NO FLY LIST? LOL
Yes, indeedy, it does appear to be those two pos Senate bills…enhancements to the Security State in lieu of renewing the assault weapons ban.
NOT this: Dems introduce bill to ban assault weapons
http://thehill.com/regulation/263489-assault-weapons-ban-targets-semi-automatic-guns
DCCC fundraising hot and heavy. I am not cynical enough.
It’s a shitty bill, but if this works it’s a tremendous precedent.
The amendment — lumped on last-minute to a criminal justice funding bill — would have expanded the scope of information the FBI can collect by sending technology and Internet companies what’s known as a national security letter–without getting any kind of court approval first.
In fact, the FBI has been trying to expand the power of its national security letters since 2008, when the George W. Bush Department of Justice interpreted those powers more narrowly than the FBI liked.
https:/theintercept.com/2016/06/22/senate-narrowly-rejects-controversial-fbi-surveillance-expansion
-for-now
THIS has you all excited?
Bad link.
https://twitter.com/theintercept/status/745678665577553920
Any step forward would get me excited.
Anything that will hold Republican responsible for what they do to us gets me excited.
A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way. However, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit. Another term for this would be “hollow victory”.
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. It’s a shitty bill, but an exciting precedent.
Grow the fuck up. Seriously.
I just love you people who sit on the sidelines, only to stand up to piss on your only allies because they ain’t progressive for your feels.
Seriously, lead, follow, or get out of the way.
And maybe get out from behind your computer sometime and live life how others live it. In real time.
What a bunch of tossers. No wonder Bernie lost.
Heh. An unintended, no doubt, side effect: it’s kicked coverage of Trump’s tirade against Clinton off the lead spot on CNN’s home page, relegated it to third down in the left-hand collection of story links.
You would think if they’re speaking for the “American People” like they always claim they wouldn’t be afraid to vote down a couple gun safety bills.
The Dems have taken over the news cycle today. HRC just answered this mornings slander delivered by The Donald. It was a thing if beauty. The GOP….what will they do. Will they drag out the Dems and put them in jail or vote? Ryan tells the GOP to vote their conscience when it comes to The Donald but it appears they have no conscience when is comes to terrorist getting guns.
this is terrific.
Keith Ellison was in a meeting with a reporter when an aide came in and told him that his mother called and told him to get his behind on the floor!
LOL
I guess tribalism DOES trump actual policy… we are sooooo easy.
Wasn’t there a situation a few years back where the Repubs just left the floor and turned off the lights on their way out?
I think they maybe continue to have that power over the facilities. Whether Ryan wants to be that much of a jerk is interesting speculation. We are in the time period in which legislation still has advocates and the public emotions have not dissipated. The media will soon deal with that and on to the next story.
it’s on Cspan1 now
Posted through facebook
This is exactly what everyone wants from Dems is grandstanding that really won’t advance the cause much but is symbolic and now that they are doing it the same people are saying it’s stupid because it won’t advance the cause much and is purely symbolic.
That clarifies a lot.
Maybe when they sober up. They are not traditionally supporters of the NO FLY LIST, are they? Dianne Feinstein’s last gift. That Terror Warrior!
The proposed bill would bar anyone on the no-fly list from certain gun purchases. The GOP objects because of their touching concern about due process for people mistakenly on that list. Since when did the GOP give a rat’s ass about due process? It’s an absurd excuse for caving to the NRA yet again.
Ayup. Just imagine if it were, say, Alan Grayson leading the sit-in, what hosannas would be sung.
Oops — put this in the wrong place.
Jeebus. Projection much?
Nope — observation of behavior over the years here.
BS. Stop projecting your thoughtlessness and hypocrisy onto to those that aren’t slavish idolaters of any politician, celebrity, etc.
Didn’t know that you supported the Patriot Act and are cool with a police state. Guess I learned something new today.
Hey, well, whaddaya know!
http://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2016/06/alan-grayson-speaks-house-sit-gun
Barbara Lee’s on the floor as well. She lacks courage and wisdom, right?
ALL the villains of the national security state are chiming in. Cackling with joy over the hope they will get a chance to effectively repeal the 4th Amendment, they are.
Yeah. That is exactly what a stampede looks like.
You know, if Dems were half-smart they would be doing to gun ownership what Republicans have been doing to abortion access…chipping away til it’s effectively gone. At least in the few remaining states in which they still have any power.
Barbara Lee’s got ten tons more credibility than anyone here at the Frog Pond. Given that Representative Lee and others you might respect are lending themselves to the effort, maybe it would be worth reconsidering our views on what’s going on right now.
Agree or disagree with an individual bill, but keep in mind that the House can’t get Ryan to put up a vote on ANY gun bill right now. This cynicism about the overall effort here by the majority of the Democratic House caucus is actively destructive to your interests.
Unless you think current Federal gun laws are great and people under suspicion as “potential terrorists” by law enforcement should continue to have their rights denied with no judicial review at all.
Bernie Sanders
@BernieSanders
It’s not very hard to understand that potential terrorists, criminals and the dangerously mentally ill should not have access to guns.
RETWEETS
1,783
LIKES
3,761
5:20 PM – 20 Jun 2016
Er, Dems no longer care about due process? Nice to learn.
Senator Feinstein says her Bill preserves due process:
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=6751403B-DDB5-4897-B256-4AA5A4C2D
564
“The legislation that was defeated today included Second Amendment protections and the ability to appeal a denied gun (purchase) administratively and in a court of law.”
It’s possible that these due process provisions are insufficient, but we shouldn’t claim they are nonexistent.
Check with the ACLU. They do not think so.
The Use of Error-Prone and Unfair Watchlists Is Not the Way to Regulate Guns in America
“Sen. Feinstein’s gun control proposal, on the other hand, has moved away from a previous version that expressly relied on watchlisting standards. Her new proposal does not rely on the mere presence of an individual on a watchlist as a basis for denial of a firearm permit. Still, her new proposal uses vague and overbroad criteria and does not contain necessary due process protections. It also includes a new notification requirement that could result in a “watchlist” that is even broader than any that currently exists — so broad that it would include even people long ago cleared of any wrongdoing by law enforcement.”
https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-markup/use-error-prone-and-unfair-watchlists-not-way-regulate-g
uns-america
Ironically a court with Garland would likely find the Bill Unconstitutional.
To this ex-Prosecutor the safeguards are laughable.
People have rights. In order to lose them there should be an independent adjudication, and not just a finding of fact by a bureaucrat.
The matter of its constitutionality is due in appeals court shortly….Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms
“The No Fly List is in the news this week, just in time for the ACLU’s argument in federal court on Wednesday in its five-year-long challenge to the list’s redress process.
We filed the suit in June 2010 on behalf of 10 U.S. citizens and permanent residents who the government banned from flying to or from the U.S. or over American airspace. (Three more people later joined the suit.) Our clients, among them four U.S. military veterans, were never told why they were on the list or given a reasonable opportunity to get off it. Some were stranded abroad, unable to come home. As one response to our lawsuit, the government began to allow Americans to fly home on a “one-time waiver,” with stringent security precautions.
There’s another important aspect to the government’s case at this stage. The government has emphasized that it is making predictive judgments that people like our clients — who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime — might nevertheless pose a threat. That’s a perilous thing for it to do. As we’ve told the court based on evidence from experts, these kinds of predictions guarantee a high risk of error. If the government is going to predict that Americans pose a threat and blacklist them, that’s even more reason for the fundamental safeguards we seek.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-
freedoms
Discriminatory profiling. Rings a bell…
Feinstein says that in her Bill the denial of someone’s Second Amendment rights could be challenged in a court of law. A bureaucratic finding of fact would not remain dispositive. Senator Murphy was among the Congressmembers also asserting this in their public statements.
Again, it could be argued that this protection could or should be better in Feinstein’s Bill, but it should not be argued that it is nonexistent.
God your knowledge of due process is weaker than economics
Look, grapple with the issue. Feinstein says the status of a person denied 2nd Amendment rights could be placed under judicial review in her Bill. Critique that judicial process if you want, but I’ve asked multiple times for people to bring up their quarrels with that judicial process. People’s unwillingness to do that is causing me to believe you don’t know what is in the Bill, and you don’t care to learn.
So here, I’ll bring it to us. Here’s the ACLU notice:
https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-letter-urging-senators-vote-no-cornyn-amendment-4749-and-feinstein-
amendment-4720-hr
The portion responsive to my question: “Of particular concern is the provision authorizing the attorney general to develop “remedial procedures and judicial review” to protect information that “would likely compromise national security or ongoing law enforcement operations, consistent with due process.” It is inappropriate for the attorney general to develop procedures for the judiciary, an independent and co-equal branch of government. The amendment also provides no assurance of basic due process safeguards: full notice of the reasons why a permit was denied and the basis for those reasons, which necessarily requires that secret evidence not be used as the basis for the denial.”
I agree that this judicial review should be stronger and much more definitive, and it should not be left in the hands of Attorneys General. So let’s get Congress to strengthen it. There’s an opportunity to create a precedent for people under no-fly and terrorist watch lists to gain judicial review. We should take advantage of that and pass gun laws which might save lives.
Or we could do what critics seem to want: bitch from the sidelines and engage in ultra-cynical rhetoric which helps make sure the no-fly and terrorist watch lists never gets fixed or placed under judicial review and we never gain the majorities we need to create saner gun control laws.
This shit is infuriating.
This may have to do with the fact that the chief “grandstander”, Rep. Lewis, is a Hillary Clinton supporter.
Grayson comment belongs here.
And African American.
.
ACLU yesterday wrote to the Senate and denounced Feinstein’s bill. Those traitors!!!
Are Dems just trolling Republicans? Or seriously in favor of making terrorists of anyone on the NO FLY LIST by fiat. Being stampeded into passing something anathema to what our values ought to be. I am sad to see Sanders and his people falling for this, frankly. I hope they sober up, too.
What’s the objection? That the FBI can use this to take away guns from anyone they want, as arbitrarily as they currently curtail travel?
This isn’t going to pass. It’s a political maneuver, and a good one: it draws a sharp contrast. If I’m wrong, and it -does- pass, then we’re entering an era where Democrats no longer have any excuses. I wasn’t being snarky about ‘because it rhymes’; the reason they chose this is because it’s good media. Or, as the Very Serious People would call it, ‘the Green Lantern theory.’ But I’ve always been a fan of GL, and have long criticized Obama for not using the ring. This isn’t just about the bill, it’s also about power. That’s a bigger deal, to me at least.
And I’d probably be willing to put the entire country on the no-fly list, if it meant making gun ownership illegal. No guns, and good for Amtrak! Win win.
Sanders didn’t vote of it.
This is theater — gets the Congressional Democrats on the news and standing up for a vote to deny guns to “terrorists” so that Trump can own the issue and leave HRC in a bind.
Derek Davison:
Seen a lot of DCCC fundraising pages, too. I think my irony meter is pegging out.
I find the GOP opposition faction interesting. More libertarian than fundie baggers. As they’re younger than average, they’re also probably a bit more tach savvy or less tech-phobic than their colleagues. It does blow any pretensions of being libertarian for Cruz, Cotton, Ernst.
Wonder if they considered pointing out to their colleagues that more FBI power under a President Clinton might not be in their best interests.
Heh.
Alex Pareene – The Democrats are Boldly Fighting for a Bad, Stupid Bill
“Boldly fighting” is rare for Congressional Democrats; supporting bad, stupid bills fairly common.
But of course. The GOP fundraises on abortion and Democrats fundraise on gun control. The rubes sending in money for either fail to appreciate that they won’t get what they think they’re being promised.
Justin Amash:
Billmon:
Congressional Super-delegates are looking more and more like pod people.
Yeah, he voted for Feinstein’s Amendment.
Oops – spoke to soon.
Jane Fleming Kleeb
Billmon:
Kleeb (and Jill Stein) have both demonstrated on this issue that lack of experience put them on the wrong side.
Billmon explains:
Hmm.
A second prominent lawmaker said Friday that he’s been subjected to extra security at airports because his name appears on a list designed to prevent terrorists from boarding planes.
Rep. John Lewis, D – Georgia, a nine-term congressman famous for his civil rights work with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., has been stopped 35 to 40 times over the past year, his office said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/20/lewis.watchlist/
This news about Rep. Lewis’ security problems at airports might cause critics with open minds to consider whether they truly understand what John and the other Congressmembers are trying to accomplish, and whether they possess full comprehension of the Bills in question.
I’ve read a number of critiques of the Feinstein Bill, and none of them mention that in her Bill a Second Amendment denial can be challenged in a court of law. That seems to me to be a meaningful omission. I want to hear critics grapple with that.
Hmm. Even McClatchy is saying Watchlist for Feinstein Amendment.
Generally, McClatchy does better on accurately reporting details than most of the MSM.
Your values ain’t my values. I don’t think national security is just another beach for you to make your last stand. I actually think it has something to do with protecting the public.
Good thing you weren’t in control in World War II. We’d still be debating whether we were offending the German people’s sense of self-esteem, while the victors were goose-stepping down Wall Street. Which would be a Godwin but for the fact that it’s true.
I, too, would like to see Sanders and his people sober up. But not for the reasons you state. You’re drunk as well. But on self-righteousness and ideology.
If you wanted to understand why Japanese-Americans were sent to interment camps read this comment
Good reference — not that those that need to appreciate it will get it.
Holy fuck, people — have you never heard the phrase “Strike while the iron is hot”? We’ve just had a horrific massacre; we’ve just seen the four bills that WERE in front of Congress — not some past effort; not some maybe-someday bill — get killed by the Republicans; we’ve still got said massacre and killing high in the news and ginning up public outrage; NOW is the time to take this kind of action. Now, not when some wonderful other bill (that will never make it out of committee, never mind to the floor for a vote) comes along.
Doesn’t anybody bitching here know how to play the game?
What is the point in winning the game if I have to get my hands dirty rolling the dice and touching the game pieces? I mean, gross.
Given the astounding short term memory in the Dem party membership, don’t worry a bit about it.
See, the problem is that John Lewis didn’t bring a herd of ponies with him to the House floor to hand out to everyone. So, it’s a fucking worthless effort.
There seem now to be supporting demonstrations outside the Capitol building. How long will those demonstrators be allowed to remain?
Will they be allowed to stay if the the sit-in goes into the Congressional Fourth of July break?
That’s what it gets into if the members of Congress sitting in on the House floor are serious. Can they force the GOP not to take the Fourth of July break?
I’m not seeing that as a possibility just based on past performance, but with people outside the hall, there is established some significant inside-outside pressure.
No doubt the NRA will respond, but someone better understand them well enough to anticipate and deflect that response.
If played right up to the GOP Convention, this could signal a significant unity movement in the Democratic Party that could play out through an exciting convention that forges and new political coalition.
Or it could be a flash-in-the-pan media stunt. It is too early to tell. I’m hoping for some seriousness. We’ve has over a decade of too much rotten kabuki.
Oh look, another thread to show how little I have in common with partisan Democrats.
I thought you all hated symbolic victories? Why are these Democrats pushing for legislation that we all know won’t pass? Oh they don’t mind symbolic gestures if it’s to advance the security state. But single payer? Did you even read the WaPo editorial boards piece about how unrealistic it is?
And if it’s about the gun control, let’s push it further. I want to take all of your guns and melt them down. Screw background checks. Anything that passes and passes constitutional muster is spitting in the wind as far as effectiveness. So the only thing that will happen with, say, the assault weapons ban is some minor trimming around the edges. However, I’m fine with that because fuck those gun fondlers. It also has the value of being constitutional. Unlike the nonsense being paraded around.
As I said in response to another comment, you’re missing the point entirely.
One can be both against the no-fly list (for constitutional reasons) and in favor of the sit-in as a political tactic.
Why would I be in favor of the sit-in as a political tactic for this bill? There are a multitude of things they could take a stand on, but this is what they’ve chosen? No thanks.
Curious what’s the proposal with 90% public support you’d want this to be done for.
If you’re insisting that we only galvanize around a meaningless slogan that enhances the security state, does nothing to reduce gun violence, gives meaningful and for once truthful fodder to gun fondlers, I’d prefer they recess and go home.
This is an embarrassment.
Pretty much anything that stops these guns from being sold is good. One of the bills would actually have stopped the Charleston shooter.
It’s moot, anyway; these bills aren’t going to pass this Congress. The sit-in is not about passing these bills. It’s about extracting a political price for the ongoing Republican support of mass murder. They’re paying already. Twitter is full of “I’ve never been prouder to be a Democrat.” This “stunt” will bring tens of thousands more voters in already. If it continue and becomes a true mass movement it could really be transformatory.
You would be in favor of the sit-in as a political tactic for this bill because they haven’t used it for any of those better bills.
The bill is shitty. They’re taking a bold stand for symbolic bullshit. However, how often have you seen them take a stand for anything? And at least this symbol winks in the right direction, toward gun control. I didn’t spend days praising my kid for almost getting to the potty because I was in favor of him wetting his pants.
That’s the problem here. You see it as the right direction. I do not. It’s a step backward in the fight against guns, and the fight against the security state. Already this rhetoric is creeping into The Dialogue. “I don’t care about the rights of terrorists” seems to be the ticket…of course, the people on The List(s) aren’t terrorists.
The US government puts more weapons into the hands of terrorists than any gun dealer. Where’s the sit-in to prevent selling weapons of mass destruction to Saudi Arabia? Our weapons package to Apartheid Israel just got bigger as they shut off water to Palestinians.
If the argument is in favor of more theater, that’s fine. Put it to use towards bills that aren’t shit or take steps in the WRONG direction.
First, I’m not sure it’s a step in the wrong direction. I thought it was, but HR1217 expands the background check system and HR224 allows (finally!) research on gun violence. Did you know about those?
Second, of course it’s theatre. But you’re not the audience. Neither am I. I’d wager than the vast majority of Americans who hear about this will know only that the Democrats tried prevent suspected terrorists of buying guns, while the NRA and Republicans want to arm terrorists. Even though, yeah, the ‘terrorists’ thing is crap, the chance to back foot the NRA and Republicans on guns is huge–and the argument that the gun fetishist are out of their minds is compelling, and true.
And it’s silly to think that we can only fight against the most horrific offenses. (If that were the case, you’d have to rattle off a lot of offensive countries before reaching the Jews.) Instead, it’s perfectly legitimate to complain about those issues that bug us, even if they’re (relatively) less horrific.
It is a step in the wrong direction. When you pick your hill to die on, you pick it wisely. The overwhelming message is, “we want to prevent guns getting into the hands of terrorists”. And that’s the problem here.
You’re willing to forego constitutional safeguards (and I don’t care about the second amendment, for the record, but I do care about the others) for cheap theatrics and a “win” against the NRA. I’m not.
Of course we can do other things, that’s not what I’m saying. What I am saying is that this proposed legislation will not have any meaningful impact on curbing violence, that there are plenty of tools in the shed that can meaningfully curb gun violence here and abroad, and that this isn’t about terrorists getting guns — if it was, we wouldn’t be sending aid packages to Israel or selling weapons to Saudi Arabia.
It’s not the greatest analogy because it would be the result of GOP demands, although imo it would be unconstitutional, but this is like asking me to cheer a Dems staging a sit-in for a bill that gives guaranteed paid and sick leave but also attached is a ban on abortion at 20 weeks. How is this a step forward? Well, I guess at least there’s tangible benefit for the erosion of women’s rights, unlike here where there is no tangible benefit.
If the media trumpeted that as ‘Democrats support sick leave: Republicans support anthrax!’ and you knew it had zero chance of passing, and struck a blow against anti-choice extremists, wouldn’t you cheer?
This is an emotional appeal. I agree it’s worrisome that the Democrats can’t seem to craft one that isn’t rooted in bullshit. But it’s still a strong appeal, that targets the right people, and moves public opinion in the right direction.
I’m not cool with this emotional appeal. If they can’t craft a better message, then they should recess and go home.
Emotional appeals work. They’re the only things that ever do.
can we cut John Lewis a little slack?
The symbolism of a Civil Rights veteran asking for a simple vote strikes me as reasonably compelling.
It’s not going to change the world, but it does the GOP House is out of touch.
In my mind there is a rebuttable presumption that John Lewis is worth listening to
Yes. People getting to the specifics of the bill(s) are missing the point entirely.
And agree 100% on John Lewis. Deference is in order.
When the NO FLY LIST itself is a travesty that profiles and violates the civil rights of one sector of our population–Moslems–with the apparent approval of both our parties??? Odd, don’t you think?
Senate:
For: 46 Republicans plus: Democrats (Casey, Heitkamp, Klobuchar, Manchin, McCaskill, MIkulski, Nelson, Reed, Reid, Warner, Whitehouse); 1 Independent (King).
Against: 30 Democrats, Republicans (Daines, Gardner, Heller, Lee, McConnell*, Murkowski, Paul), 1 Independent (Sanders). *McConnell flip-flopped from Nay to Yea.
House: Bottom line from Billmon:
Interesting split among the GOP Senators.
Thanks. I was looking for this earlier.
Neglected to include:
Important as cloture only was only one vote short.
I’m extremely disappointed in the RI Senators Reed and Whitehouse. Lincoln Chafee wouldn’t have fallen this POS.
Billmon can jam that fucking tweet up his ass. Given time to comb through Billmon’s advocacy record, I could make all sorts of associations about him which match this sort of demagoguery. And to make use of Lewis’ relationship with King…
Appalling.
That elixir you’re chugging is rotting your brain.
Marie3 and centerfielddj willfully pay taxes which fund the same U.S. military which firebombed Dresden.
Yeah, Billmon has really identified a super legitimate method of argumentation here.
APPALLING.
The proof of the pudding is the GOP being blocked from a break until there is an up-or-down vote on this crappy bill. The vote is essentially a no-win vote because it can be spun against civil liberties or being soft on terrorism. It is the Republicans who have to be put on record with a recorded vote.
Best case would be the Republicans having to stay in DC during the Fourth of July break.
AP Emails: State Dept. scrambled on trouble on Clinton’s server
Will Bunch Philly DNC organizers: What are you hiding?
Oh, and who pays for the DNC convention is gonna be a secret this time around.
If they are in recess, can Obama appoint someone to fill Scalia’s Supreme Court position?
The House isn’t involved with SCOTUS appointments; that’s the Senate’s role.
Even if Obama were inclined to make a SCOTUS recess appointment, which I seriously doubt he would do, McConnell will work it out so that there’s no official recess in which Obama could make such a bold move.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Bevin Dis-Kynects Medicaid In Kentucky
And so seven months after taking office, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin makes good on his threat to wreck the country’s most successful Medicaid expansion under the ACA and replace it with Indiana’s broken plan where everyone pays a monthly premium for Medicaid “out of dignity”.
One catch though, for people who have been on Medicaid for “years” it seems that $15 a month may not “fully cover” benefits. Also, it seems that Gov. Bevin will “use health care dollars” to address the state’s opoid addiction epidemic, but he doesn’t say how. On top of that, there are several things that will no longer be covered by HEALTH that Medicaid in Kentucky covers now, like “non-emergency transportation”. Also, Bevin says that the program will go statewide but start as a “trial” in “select counties” first, by which I’m betting he means Fayette and Jefferson counties. You know, Lexington and Louisville. Where those people live.
That’s how he’ll get away with it with the voters until after he’s up for re-election in 2019.
Oh, and finally, he’s taking 400,000 hostages.
So.. browsing this thread for the first time. It seems like people are missing the point; it’s not the bill in question that they’re protesting for, its the complete inability to advance sensible gun control measures at all for an entire generation (going on 33 years since the Brady Bill).
Direct action like a sit-in uses some dominant group’s inconvenience as a tool of power to achieve either some positive action or general public awareness of where the problem actually is.
For the sit-in to be other than a PR stunt, the members of Congress should be determined to continue it for at least 14 days and also carry out the parliamentary maneuvers that will prevent the adjournment for the Fourth of July break. That is, the threat of “No break” must be worked through the rules of the House as well as the news from the people sitting in on the floor. The members on the floor must be willing to stay at least as long as the people outside the Capitol building are willing to stay to support them.
And if Ryan allows a debate, the Democrats must insist on it being a full debate with open amendments and roll call votes. And, in that debate, amendments and debate must ensure that the public knows that Democrats will not be co-opted by P.O.S. legislation that undermines the Constitution without actually reducing the risk of mass killings. And that members of Congress are tired of the political theater that stopped Teddy Kennedy for being on a watch list and continues to stop John Lewis.
The question that doubters have about the members of Congress is that they are not willing to go to the mat to ensure that actually commonsense gun legislation gets passed that does not expand the extra-Constitutional power of law enforcement and the intelligence community to search and surveil ordinary American citizens without probable cause. We remember over the past ten years how similar strong moments slipped through because of compromise. Boehner and Ryan have run the House extra-constitutionally in spirit if not in rules for the past five years. If that practice doesn’t end now, the public will never know who to blame for the gridlock and taking back the House is at risk for Democrats.
Glad to see House Democrats doing something different. Hope it’s real to the core and not designed just to corral millennial voters cheaply.
The second most annoying thing to me (the first being that they’re going to the mat over shit policy) is that this is what a Congress with a Sanders presidency would look like. And yet, all these cheerleaders seem to like it now when they spent the last few months degenerating Sanders’ supporters of being unrealistic and not getting things done. Partisanship is a hell of a drug.
ACLU vs Dianne Feinstein? Who has more credibility on due process issues?
Those “purists” you bitch about have had the govt in court for 5 yrs trying to fix it.
Dems of Feinstein’s stamp are NOT on their side.
SO ALLOW A VOTE ON THE BILL AND OTHER GUN BILLS AND IF THEY GO DOWN FIX THE BILLS UNTIL THEY PASS. Denigrating the effort here supports a toxic status quo.
We’ve got the House and Senate majorities talking, however insincerely, about due process for people on the no fly list. And you don’t see the good in this.
This cynicism is corrosive.
“We’ve got the House and Senate majorities talking, however insincerely, about due process for people on the no fly list.”
Your imaginary conversations are amusing.
You really are determined to not pay attention to what is really happening.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459099457/republicans-reject-proposals-to-bar-people-on-no-fly-list-fr
om-buying-guns
“…THOM TILLIS: A paperwork error can get you on the fly list. A name similar to someone else can get you on the fly list, so there’s any number of opportunities where mistakes or abuses could probably put somebody in that horrible position of a government agency really clawing back your rights.
WELNA: And Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander says people cannot simply be stripped of their Second Amendment right to bear arms because their name is on a list.
LAMAR ALEXANDER: People who are terrorists shouldn’t have guns, but that should be decided by a due process determination.
WELNA: Democrats find it strange to hear such high-minded talk coming from Republicans. New York’s Chuck Schumer is the Senate’s No. 3 Democrat.
CHARLES SCHUMER: Our Republican colleagues have a newfound love for civil liberties when it comes to guns, but nowhere else…”
This debate was being held last year as well:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/no-fly-list-inverted-politics/419172/
“…During his Oval Office speech Sunday night, President Obama said: “Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.”
Republicans reject that argument. “These are everyday Americans that have nothing to do with terrorism, they wind up on the no-fly list, there’s no due process or any way to get your name removed from it in a timely fashion, and now they’re having their Second Amendment rights being impeded upon,” Senator Marco Rubio, a top Republican presidential candidate, said on Sunday.”
Christ, just do an online search; you’ll find many GOP Congressmembers and conservative leaders blathering on with their newfound desire to consider the rights of people on Federal watch lists.
I agree that the Parties’ inconsistencies in responding to the interactions between the no-fly/terrorist watch lists and civil liberties are disappointingly hypocritical. Here’s some of the things I’m enthusiastic about in this instance:
The discussions on gun control and due process are ones we must take advantage of. Your solution is to walk away in disgust and waste the opportunities here. You don’t appear willing to reconsider your views at all.
Has Alan Grayson joined your lengthy enemies list now? Does his support for the sit-in cause you any pause at all?
Actually your willingness to care on Due Process is corrosive.
I believe Rendell was used to vouch for the DNC Senatorial candidate by Booman–the pro-fracking “greenie”.
And they would no doubt STILL be there.
Barbara Jordan: “My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, destruction of the Constitution.”
Sanders actually voted FOR the Feinstein Amendment to McCain’s bill. I don’t think a thoughtful Barbara Jordan would have done so.
Playing identity politics is soooo predictable. Moslems under the bus today. All to kill a gnat!
Yeah, FUCK Bernie Sanders. That’s the spirit!
Barbara’s thought process had its limits:
And maybe you needed to delve a little deeper. As I said, Barbara Jordan was a thoughtful legislator…
Jordan assumed leadership of the commission at a time of growing agitation about illegal immigration. The mood was especially tense in California, where voters the following year would approve Proposition 187, which sought to deny benefits to persons not authorized to be in the United States.
Jordan was alarmed at the tone of much of the debate. So was the commission’s executive director Susan Martin, now the director of the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University. “The situation had become so heated that I thought it would take someone with her gravitas and credibility to get past the emotion and bring people together with a reasonable solution.” Ms. Martin said.
Jordan often talked of the need to strike a balance between two immigration-policy values. “The commission decries hostility and discrimination against immigrants as antithetical to the traditions and interests of the country,” she said. “At the same time, we disagree with those who would label efforts to control immigration as being inherently anti-immigrant. Rather, it is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest.” She also raised this concern: “Unless this country does a better job in curbing illegal immigration, we risk irreparably undermining our commitment to legal immigration.” (http://cis.org/OpedsandArticles/Kammer-Barbara-Jordans-immigration-legacy)
And this…http://www.fairus.org/issue/recalling-the-americanization-ideal-the-legacy-of-barbara-jordan
I’m aware that Barbara was not the demagogue presented in that misleading commercial.
But I’m glad you appreciate the fact that policymakers must constantly deal with political realities while pursuing policy considered imperfect by nearly everyone due to the unavoidable need for compromise, as the Congresswoman Jordan was here.
I lay the claim that the Congressional sit-in was in this tradition. Let’s make use of the best opportunities created by the sit-in, work to avoid the worst possible outcomes, and look at the policy and strategical discussions with clear eyes.
So please, do tell us what you actually do beside pissing on others.
Do you actually get behind and work for campaigns.
I have:
-gone door to door every year since 1992
So what the fuck have you done?
You really don’t know what you are talking about on this.
Honestly you aren’t worth the time.
You’re not engaging the discussion at all. I’ve made a number of concessions along with my assertions here, and I’ve explained them. You have explained almost nothing, other than DEMS BAD. And now Alan fucking Grayson appears to have made your enemies list.
Perhaps some reconsiderations of your views are in order.
The status quo is being shaken. This can result in a good or bad legislative result. Hang in there and help us achieve a good result. Reflexively running to your DEMS BAD frame is destructive to your policy interests, unless you think the status quo in these policy areas is hunky dory.
I don’t.
Ayup. And the sit-in is the dominant story for a second day — check out CNN’s home page, e.g. — getting the message across that (a) they’re for doing something about guns, and (b) that it’s the Republicans who are blocking all efforts. Oh, and guess who’s front and center with Rep. Lewis in today’s photo? Why, none other than that traitor to progressive causes, Liz Warren, who’s come with other Senate colleagues to lend support. #JudasWarren strikes again!
Oh, and guess whose tirade against the Democratic presumptive nominee has sunk like a stone from the front page into below the fold irrelevance? Way, way down into the “Opinion” section, where the main story on it pretty much trashes it? Hell, even a story speculating that Obama might go form President to NBA team owner is getting bigger play on the front page.
“targets the right people, and moves public opinion in the right direction”…by raising hysteria against Moslems as being responsible for our epidemic gun violence?????
Public opinion is already THERE in regulating guns. It does not need juicing. http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/19/majority-of-americans-want-stricter-gun-control-for-first-time-in-
years/
And if the shooter had simply been gay?
I haven’t seen anyone outside of leftblog comments claiming that this is primarily anti-Muslim. Maybe I’ve missed it, but the overwhelmingly dominant narrative seems to be that this is anti-gun. And certainly the increased background checks and permission to research gun violence actually are ‘anti-gun’. So if public opinion already supports that stuff, what’s missing? Focusing that opinion into a politically-effective force. Which is, perhaps, what this sit-in in attempting?
You’re missing the entire point of this effort.
This is NOT a statement by the Dems that they like or approve of the no-fly list or its implementation.
This is statement that the Reps won’t make even the most trivial of concessions on gun control.
It is possible to support the effort while not supporting the bill itself.
And calling this “kabuki” is exactly what Paul Ryan is saying. I’m not sure how repeating Republican talking points helps anyone but the Republicans.
You might want to be careful using that sort of charge against a speaker. Wouldn’t take me more than a few minutes to find numerous instances of HRC repeating GOP memes. Only difference is that she was aware of it being used by Republicans and denoted approval of a public policy issue; whereas, I merely used a word to describe the type of theater in the House and unbeknownst to me, Ryan used the same word because it’s apt in this case.
I’m not missing the point at all. It’s not as if the public isn’t informed about gun violence and difficulties presented by the 2nd Amendment. However, unlike most Democrats, I’d support repealing it which could actually have an impact on reducing gun violence. Then we could consider our culture of violence that’s both personal and institutional, both of which are more lethal. What I don’t support are stunts that confuse and confound an issue for the public, don’t respond to a higher moral, legal, or ethical authority, and that can easily backfire.
Completely, completely missing the point. I don’t know how else to explain this beyond what’s already been posted.
If nothing else, support what this effort represents, even if you have misgivings about the contents of the bill.
Good God. Thanks for sharing this, rikyrah.
Based on what I’m reading here, I can’t see how HHS will find it possible to grant them the waiver. The belligerent threat at the end from Governor Richie Rich Wingnut is hilarious. Executing that threat would blow a multi-billion dollar hole in Kentucky’s budget. HHS won’t be intimidated by such a transparent bluff.
Governor Wingnut may be counting on the feds refusing; if they do he can bloviate about their horrible tyranny while benefiting politically from the program’s continuance.
If Kentucky doesn’t get the waiver, they’ll lose the Federal funds needed to run even this poor imitation of Medicaid. No, they won’t be taking away health care for hundreds of thousands and blowing a huge hole in their budget. As ideological and sociopathic as these people are, these things in combination would not be politically sustainable.
What Kansas is doing pales in comparison. They haven’t pulled Medicaid away from citizens who have it.
So, even more sociopathically delusional than I thought, then. Yeesh. Living in Massachusetts does insulate me from having to grapple with just how insane those fucking people are.