"if a liquor store didn't card..."

Apples and oranges, unless you can show where, in the Constitution, the right to buy liquor is guaranteed.

"Ok since the SCOTUS recuses itself who then hears the cases??"

Do we need a Supreme Supreme Court?

Or maybe a citizens' Supreme Court?

Moom,

All due respect, there's a huge difference between the two. With regards to the machines, if you can show they're faulty, they shouldn't be used, period.

But the ID enters into a different realm entirely. The right to vote is enshrined in the Constitution. This decision says the requirement to have a photo ID trumps the Constitutional right to vote. I disagree. While I'd love for everyone to have a photo ID, look who it caught last time: a handful of nuns.

So they couldn't be more different: there's nothing in the Constitution giving one company the right to pawn off a hackable machine to an electorate.

"Gee, Barry is our new Dan Quayle."

Oh, I'd pay to see that debate massacre.

"Almost every Californian would bear some of the brunt of his proposal to charge a 25-cent tax on every plastic carryout bag from stores."

If that passes, you'll want the concession on the well-made, washable, grocery carriers.

"I'll admit I don't know much about pensions but aren't they typically insured by the federal government?"

Many are, by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (the PBGC).



Which is bankrupt, and has been for years.

"the only way I am equating homosexuality with pedophilia is in the slippery slope they slide down."

That, and you don't know the definition of consent.

"That's how you can have a 1970 bomber of the Pentagon, cop stations and judges' house get a job as a professor at Chicago University and become friends with a POTUS candidate."

...at least that's what Sean Hannity told me while appearing onstage with Ollie North.

Oh, and here I thought she'd stolen drugs from a medical charity....

"Do you think that Bush and Co. will hand over power and leave quietly?"

Absolutely.

Wanna make it interesting?

The happiest? Easy...

Independents.

1. We get to bag on both parties.

2. We never have to like the current government's mistakes.

3. We're the only party with it's own National Holiday.

Reread the 5 mistakes, eliminating the word "caucus".

That's George Bush and Iraq.

"I guess we will have to make him president so we don't have a riot after the election."

And Republicans wonder why they don't get the black vote.

"well, you can't blame the Republicans for no good being done, because as you know they don't have enough of a majority to overcome a filibuster."

Had the Dems broken or tied the record, you'd have a point. Instead, they realized the majority of the country had elected the Rs, something the Rs have refused to admit about the Dems.

Hey, I'm not giving the Dems a pass, I'm just all about comparatives. And when someone breaks the all-time record for cloture refusals, one should take notice. When they do it in less than half the time, it's an identifiable plan of obstruction.

Again, give me 41 votes, and NOTHING will ever get done. Is that your fault, or mine?

"I'm also a vet of RROR meetings"

What percentage of them never closed a debate?

And what could your group have achieved if there was a determined minority who set record after record for refusing cloture?

The real irony is if the dumbass Democrats from MI and FL had played by the rules in the first place, there primaries would have had real meaning. But no, they wanted to leapfrog so their votes would "matter".

It seems the guys who purposely shot themselves in the foot are now pissed they're walking with a limp.

"but they don't..."

That's because Pelosi & Reid are jagoffs, and obviously never read the rules as well. They've postured and preened and guaranteed results they had no way to produce. They deserve plenty of blame, but as a veteran of hundreds of RROR meetings, trust me: if you can't close a debate, nothing else gets done.

"but they haven't done that"

Refusing to close debate is the same thing. Hasn't anyone on this blog ever read Robert's Rules of Order? Two facts: a determined minority of 41 or more in the Senate can grind anything to a halt they choose. And the Rs have set the all-time record for doing that, and in less than half the time. Do the math.

"Apparently no good bills could possibly make it until only the democrats have a major majority."

You're missing the point. It's misguided, at best, to look at the all-time record for filibusters (before the half-way mark, no less) and not assess blame that way. Under our Rules of governance, if one side has 41 votes, they can be as disruptive and counter-productive as they choose. Nothing passes, because debates never close. In the past, most minorities have realized the country elected the majority for a reason. This group of Republicans couldn't give a damn, and their mantra has been obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

Your continued blaming of the Democrats for the Republicans' actions shows a profound misunderstanding of Robert's Rules of Order, where 41 votes in the Senate can put the brakes on everything.