Liveblogging the Sonia Sotomayor Confirmation Vote
Update: Sotomayor Confirmed, 68-31
The U.S. Senate is now voting on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor (2d Cir.) to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Senator Al Franken presiding. It’s interesting and weird to see him in this role. Are we watching an SNL skit?
The normally empty Senate chamber is full. The senators are sitting at attention, looking like dutiful students.
The clerk is calling the roll. She refers to Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) as “Mrs. Boxer,” and she does the same for several other married female senators (e.g., “Mrs. Gillibrand,” “Mrs. Hutchison,” etc.). It’s kinda cool, in an old-school sort of way.
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) doesn’t vote — he’s absent from the Senate, due to illness — but he has expressed his support for Judge Sotomayor.
Senator Franken asks if any senator who has not already voted wishes to vote, or if any senator who has voted wishes to change her vote. Going once, going twice….
FINAL VOTE TALLY: 68-31, in favor of the nomination. Nine Republicans joined 59 Democrats to vote in favor of confirmation.
CONGRATULATIONS, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR!!!
P.S. Okay, she’s not technically a justice yet — but she will be soon, once Chief Justice Roberts administers the oath of office. Hopefully JGR will do it better this time.
Update: Clerquette has more discussion over at Underneath Their Robes.
(185) Comments
Comments
first -- finally, finally first!!!
Congratulations, 1! It's a great feeling, isn't it?
Congratulations 1, and on such a lengthy, substantive article. We're all very proud of you.
What a sad day for America.
You know, do me a favor. Could you say "Senator" instead of "Mrs."?
It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it. Yes, thank you.
Embarrassing day for America and for liberty. Sotomayor will find a way to get open borders into the Due Process Clause, just you wait!
68-31 . . . not exactly glowing support. . .
Hopefully no more openings occur on the High Court before Obama is removed from office in the 2012 elections.
My the Great E. Chemerinsky be O's next appointment. That is all.
Sodini to 2nd Circuit. Boom.
5, you stole the words from my finger tips.
Dear Newb Lat- the clerk of the senate calls the female senators by whatever prefix they want. If you listened closely, you would have heard "Mizz" and "Mrs" being used.
@#7 - once you hit 60, who gives a crap. Not like her voice on the court is any less (or more) than a Justice who got 100-0.
6:
Why would she find a way to hold that the Due Process Clause allows open borders? Oh, that's right... she's Latina. She must support open borders.
Latino Liberal Who Does Not Support Open Borders
This sucks for America.
Chalk up another win for Obama!
Those 31 sure look like idiots. The insipid partisan fearmongers expose their sheep-like tendencies by voting against the most middle of the road nominee to come along in decades. Smooth move.
7- what to do, there are 31 pretty close minded conservatives in the senate. Fair reflection on where the GOP stands today.
She's got more votes than Alito and Thomas for sure- around the same as Roberts, I think. Maybe a handful less.
Obama FTW!
LA RAZA!!!! (This should be the new ''first''.)
Sotomayor shitted on you all. Eat it!
That is all.
Well, fortunately for the Republicans, it's not like Latinos are the fastest growing segment of the population or anything. Oh, wait...
Well, it's not as though they opposed her based solely on flimsy talking points, and out of context speeches; I'm sure their opposition was based on her 17 years of jurisprudence. Oh, wait...
Huh, if I didn't know better, I'd say that the sticky mess of GOoP didn't know what the hell they were doing.
Three cheers for the Grand OLD obstructionist Party! We won't stop until America is covered in GOoP!
Does she even speak English?
Isn't John Boehner's orange fake tan enough to count him towards the GOP's diversity efforts?
See, it's not just ignorant angry hicks!
Not one single Justice confirmed today was black.
This entire confirmation process, though not prejudical on its face, was discriminatory in its application or effect and, therefore, the confirmation of Sotomayor should be thrown out and a new process should be implemented that would not result in such disparate treatment.
Do you even own a television ?
Obama and the Democrats making more savvy moves - an excellent addition to the Supreme Court and simultaneously reinforces a winning voter coalition.
Republicans are almost as bad at strategy as they are at governance and statesmanship. They're still the best at smear and fear, though.
7 - Thomas as 52 -48, Alito was just as contentious.
8 - Are you serious? I am willing to be Justice Stevens jets out, knowing a Democrat is in office and knowing he's, roughly, one million years old.
As a latina, I can't think of any adjectives to describe how wonderful this is?
She's no Harriet Miers.
Why can't we all just get along?
That is one of the ugliest men I have ever seen.
Nerd Killer
25 = the winner.
Somewhere, Lou Dobbs is sobbing...
Anyone else feel like celebrating with some pig's feet and warm pig's intenstine on toast?
Latinos and Democrats, FTW
Fair and Balanced.
AMerica's Newsroom.
Great American Panel.
Lets keep painting ourselves red, white, and blue because Gretta van ugly face represents...umm you know...us...the "normal" people.
So that is why all the day laborers down the street are dancing and drinking tequila at 3:30 in the afternoon.
13: all you need is a majority. Thomas got 52 votes.
The GOP keeps shrinking down to its base. The ranks of moderate independents are swelling. Democrats keep adding voters.
Democrats win by double digits amongst the youngest voters (preview of the future), and the fastest growing group, latinos (preview of the future).
GOP wins amongst those over 60. Tick. Tock.
The Day America's Music Died.
Mass Democrat here. If Teddy can't vote on matters as important as a SCOTUS seat, he should give up his seat (I know, I know...cold day in hell).
41 - didn't realize we had any Native Americans on the site today. Which tribe you from?
Agree with 42.
Love Teddy, but if you can't vote you can't be a Senator.
42
SCOTUS appointments are not as important as blocking wind turbine farms offshore the family compound in Cape Cod. If it was the latter, you bet Teddy would have risen from his deathbed to deliver the "no" vote.
@43 - I'm half Choctaw, half Lost Tribe, all prestige.
Skadden Secure
17 -
Calling the Republicans fearmongers is hysterical. You know, when the White House is telling us to report our neighbors who oppose Obamacare. Or when they tell us that there are all these crises which leaves no time for debate. Get a clue.
And by the way, I thought Justice Cardozo was the first Hispanic justice. I rewrite history for political purposes. (i.e. you can't vote against the first Hispanic justice...even though she's not!)
Our country is going to be so much better now.
Greasy and Ugly is no way to go through life.
40, you must have been born yesterday since you weren't around in 2002-2006 when people were talking about the Democrats' permanent decline and demographic collapse.
Remember the last time the Democrats controlled the White House, House, and Senate (with filibuster-proof majority)? Oh yeah, that was 1977. That sure went well.
I too believe the GOP is finished for good. Yes never in the history of American politics has a party managed a comeback when their opponent controls BOTH houses of congress AND the presidency! Keep watching the polls GOP losers, Obama's popularity is climbing everyday!
47 is upset that those advocating a policy want to know the lies being told about it so they can respond with corrections. Boo frikkin' hoo.
Nobody cares WHO is telling the lies. The point is to respond to the lies themselves.
I swear, Republicans are such cowards. Seriously, that scares you? Geez, good thing Al Qaeda didn't attack a Republican area... everyone would have pissed their pants and surrendered. Thankfully, we've got a bit more backbone.
If you like, we'll chip in and buy you a night light and check under your bed for you.
I love how certain Democrat Senators, such as NJ's Menendez played the race card and claimed anyone who didn't vote for Sotomayor was racist against Hispanics.
haven't posted a comment in a while, just thought i'd say hi to everyone.
- 1
I watched that video, and I have to say that Obama screwed it up. So, again, way to be an asshole, Elie.
50 - 51
Obama ain't Carter. And Palin/Limbaugh/Romney sure as hell ain't Reagan.
Yes, people were talking about the end of Democrats. Here's a key difference - there is objective statistical data backing up the demise of Republicans (lowest party ID in decades, piddly support amongst the young, actively decreasing their support amongst growing minority groups).
I know, I know, it's hard for Republicans to grasp, but data and evidence are what make an argument good.
There was a time lots of you guys were talking about how there's no evolution and global warming is fake, etc. etc. etc. - talking doesn't equal truth. That's why you assclowns can't win over any independents. Logical moderates need sound plans for governance, not fairy tales and talking points.
Good luck with Romney/Palin or Romney/Jindal or whatever lobbyist sponsored clowns you put up. I'm sure your 8% favorable rating amongst latinos won't come back to bite you.
Btw, looking forward to the next immigration debate. *grins*
47, Cardozo was a Sephardic Jew. Not hispanic.
55 = racist.
Reality has a well-known anti-Obama bias.
27 - How is she an excellent addition to the SCOTUS? Because she is a wise latina female? Thank goodness she didn't failt to calibrate her words and say wise latino female.
REQUIEM FOR THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
March 4, 1789 - August 6, 2009
I bet she has some really violent angry bowel movements.
Yeah, reality is definitely anti-Obama.
Like how the Dow has gone up nearly 40% from 6700 to 9300 since he's been in office. He's a wreck for the economy. If only we had the deregulating Republicans back in control.
59 - because her legal opinions are well drafted, she asks tough questions and isn't afraid to throw some sharp elbows at cocky lawyers, and she holds generally moderate slightly left of center views.
Plus, she's relatively young and will be with us for decades to come. Many decades of Associate Justice Sotomayor, put on the SCOTUS by President Obama and the Democrats.
Delicious.
Hey 28, don't talk smack about my boyfriend JP.
May we build him a robotic exo-skeleton that he might rule FOREVER!
her confirmation proves what everyone knew already:
white people are pussies
62, the Dow wasn't as low as 6700 when Obama was elected or entered office, was it now?
If the Dow had dipped to 1000 in March before rising to 4000, you would be applauding Obama's 300% boost to the stock market. Math we can believe in.
Republicans wrecked this country. Obama is fixing it, and Republicans make stuff up and attack him because they don't want to admit that they wrecked this country. It's a good thing Americans have - for the most part - grown up and made Republicans irrelevant. There are still a few misguided fools among us, but that doesn't really matter.
65 - true. Now there have been 3 SCOTUS justices that weren't white... what a pathetic track record for white people fighting to exclude others. Looks like the Republicans need to whip up some more race baiting outrage to keep those numbers from getting any worse!
3 non whites... just terrible.
66,
True, it took Obama slightly more than 30 days to get the word out on his economic policies and stop the Republican market free-fall.
Yes, your technicality really makes people pissed off about how the Democratic approach turned things around quickly and has us up 40% off the lows.
Please, keep arguing with tangible results. It amuses me.
62-
what's unemployment at again? focusing on the Dow-you are starting to sound like a greedy Republican concerned only about his 401K. It is the working class that is getting destroyed by this economy, you know the people Obama is supposed to care about.
Sotomayor sailed through confirmation, just as any reasonable person looking at her jurisprudence knew she would.
What did all the Republican noise and race-baiting accomplish? Making them look condescending, petty, and alienating hispanic voters.
Do the Republicans even have someone in charge of strategy, or what? Makes no sense...
I like the part where the NRA and a bunch of Republicans voted against her to support a cocaine dealer and the all-powerful nunchuck lobby...
Pure comedy.
We are a centrist country 56 and the pendulum is always swinging.
- Looking forward to the day when possessing two pieces of wood tied together with a rope is a felony across America
Economic disaster averted.
Economic recovery getting started.
Voter coalition expanding and solidifying.
Next up - health care, immigration and beyond!
69, by your logic Bush really turned the economy around, since by the time he left office, the Nasdaq was up 30% from its lows.
Math we can believe in.
47 - Cardozo's ethnicity is debatable. It is obviously important now (given Sotomayor's opinion in the firefighter case) to definitively determine one's race in both analyzing desparate treatment in hiring practices (as well as in backing/congratulating someone on being a 'first' for their race/ethnicity). Do we have still have those charts around that Hitler used (shows cheekbone shapes, eye color, etc. in determining racial purity)? Those may come in handy now. I have wondered if Obama would be considered the first black president if he were Republican.
68
I was referring to the fact that you can openly say racist things about whites and get promoted, but if a white does it, his career is toast.
I actually find it kind of funny.
Pendulum only swings your way if you're offering something people want.
Republicans don't even have anything to offer - a 17 page budget pamphlet with no numbers; a 3 page health care plan with no numbers; no immigration plan; no energy plan; foreign policy based on nothing but bluster and pre-emptive war without any skill/ability at waging war.
Republicans won't rise from the ashes until they start speaking to what Americans want. Complex problems require complex solutions, and Republicans simply aren't willing (able?) to do the hard working of crafting those solutions.
All they are offering is "No!"
75 - if you think that is analogous and applies the same logic that I was using, then that makes me very happy.
Your depth of understanding and insight are a real boon.... to the Democrats.
69
At least I respond to the merits of your post. Again, whats unemployment at again? I'm glad I can amuse you, but how about answering the question.
Fact is, your boy is a globalist, just like the db before him. But keep thinking he's "different."
Crap, there goes my promotion...
79, the Nasdaq stock market crash started in April 2000 and was something Bush inherited from Clinton. Remember that?
Analogies are probably not your strong suit on the LSAT.
13 - I think you missed the point.
And for those of you decrying the conservatives as fearmongers and racists, might I remind you of Miguel Estrada. He's probably only 10 or 12 times more qualified that sodamayor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Estrada
GOP = Party of Racist Old White Men = Whigs of Today
Is this change we can believe?
Yes we can.
80,
It is of no benefit to me whatsoever to attempt to correct your ignorance. Your ignorance is to my benefit. I don't want to correct the fact that you can't see the difference between market movements throughout Bush's 8 years vs. how the market behaved in the 6 months that Obama has been in office.
Go around and argue to everyone you meet that Obama is worse for the economy than Bush, and that the stock market decline was due to Obama.
Please do that.
Hope they stock up on fly spray; they're gonna need it.
82 = epic fail
@78 -- Not true. Republicans are offering lots of important stuff. Like tax cuts. And -- well, there's tax cuts. Oh, and did I mention tax cuts?
Market up on the anticipation of the stimulus spending.
Now that the spending is hitting the economy, last quarter GDP down less than expected. Modest increase expected for next quarter.
Republicans fuck it up, Democrats clean it up.
Once we're done spending to clean up their mess, we'll work on creating another budget surplus (y'know, that nice fat juicy surplus that the last Democratic President created)...
Yeah, Republicans sure have a lot to offer. Lots of good examples of their fine governance and stewardship of the economy.
82, you are a loser for bringing up the LSAT, and you are even more of a loser for screwing it up by talking about "analogies" on the LSAT.
I thought (part of) Cardozo's folks were Portuguese Jews. I didn't think that the Portuguese were routinely included in the "Hispanic" category. But I'm no expert.
88
Tax cuts are the equivalent of corporate socialism. Do we really want corporations sucking off the government and public?
88 - are these taxcuts disproportionately weighted towards Teh Wealthy? 'Cause, without the magical Gault's of Lehman and AIG that will regulate the market for us, we're all doomed.
We need those tax cuts to trickle down, not go to the middle class (like how Obama's payroll tax cut benefited the middle class the most - blasphemy!)
88 - it's not true! Republicans are in favor of building schools, hospitals, roads and infrastructure!!!
(provided, of course, that we're doing it in Iraq and not America)
77 - Yep, Glenn Beck and Rush are really suffering with their on air open racism.
78 = 88 = 93 = 94
Does anyone want to guess what her LSAT would be today? My guess....162.
40, 51, 52, et al - why don't you take a couple of minutes and go look at the polls. The libs are on the ropes and are scared shitless.
and you say they want to "correct the disinformation" about Obamacare? There's a 1000+ page bill being floated around out there, and OB doesn't even know what's in it. The greatest orator of our time, and rather than actually explain the intricies of the bill, he speaks in general and ambiguous terms. Not to mention misleading ones. Take a look at the video the lady just put up on the website trying to discredit OB's opponents. She reads the single-payer quote, then says it's out of context and a bunch of lies, but she doesn't even try to dispute it. and she even tries to say ti was spliced together, when it was actually just 1 quote. If she wanted to "clear the record," all she had to do was provide us with the "context" in which he meant the quote, and story is over. But she couldn't.
And a good day to you, sir.
Nope. 78 = 94 = me.
No clue on 88 or 93 or the other rational progressives on the board today.
Now are you going to cry about getting ganged up on instead? If you actually had a leg to stand on, maybe there'd be more than you on your side.
Crybaby.
62 = same person who 6 months ago was similarly drinking the koolaid when Obama said something along the lines of "you know, the stock market goes up, and it goes down, and it's not really a very good indicator"
haha
98 - the bill being discussed isn't a single payer bill, so taking a snippet of a single payer comment would be disingenous and out of context.
I know, Republicans are frustrated when complex problems require complex solutions. Your side's 3 page "plan" without any numbers was totally awesome! No need to have the CBO score the GOP proposal, because we know it would fix everything.
When will Republicans realize their anti-intellectual bias is a liability... "complex stuff bad! Lots of reading to understand!" Boo hoo.
Btw, polls show 71% of Americans support a robust public insurance option (public insurance is not single payer, duh). So, we're definitely on the ropes and scared shitless. Especially given your guys's totally teh bomb 3 page plan!
98, what polls? Fox News'?
Bush approval rating, August 2001 = 50-52%
Obama approval rating, August 2009 = 49-51%
Yes the Democrats are definitely secure for a permanent majority. Change we can believe in.
100 - quality argument. Really, you're racking up points like gangbusters.
Btw, back to the point of this thread, how is the crushing SCOTUS defeat tasting? Got it washed out of your mouth yet?
'Cause we're still finding it delicious on our side.
6 Catholic & 2 Jewish now, out of 9, really?, Sotomayor gonna remedy this?
The democrats are on the ropes after 6 months and nearly flawless legislation?
Obama is actually at 54-57%
Incidentally, he won the election with 54% of the vote. So, what exactly is the problem for Obama and his coalition?
If you want some relevant electoral analysis check out Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com because it is already looking bleak for Republicans in 2010.
#13 here - I officially turn in my posting rights due to the fact I am too stupid to remember its a simple majority to confirm a Justice. I apologize to everyone who took the time to read my post as I made you dumber for reading it. Thank you to the kind poster to corrected me without resorting to name calling.
Excuse me while I go wipe egg off my face . . .
If the Republicans get thumped in 2010 we're going to have at least 16 years of Democrat rule. Within that period a lot should get done.
I feel sorry for the corporations who don't know how to make an honest buck.
101-2
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/08/06/after-6-months-more-view-obamas-presidency-as-a-failure-than-bushs/
or
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
need I remind you that Rasmussen was the most accurate predictor of the election.
Tell me how my ass tastes - 98
Yeah 103, what's the Republican approval rating? The Republicans are a joke, Obama has no competition.
97 - doesn't matter, LSAT scores will all be invalidated shortly because the test, though not prejudical on its face, is discriminatory in its application and/or effect. Just look at the scoring breakdown per race/ethnicity and decide for yourself.
Rassmusen being "the most accurate" during the elections is a Republican talking point. Do you have any data?
His numbers THROUGHOUT the election period were always off in favor of McCain. He had Fox reports during the waning days of the election still saying that McCain had a chance. Laughable.
112, don't forget the bar exams. Disproportionately more blacks fail them, so those tests must be racist as well.
Falling barriers to entry in the legal profession, here we come.
114 any data on that assertion?
So 112/114, you think that white people are inherently smarter than non-white people?
115, http://www.nybarexam.org/press/summary.pdf
chart on page 12.
112 - ok how about Pew? Would you rather use a DailyKos Poll or something?
http://people-press.org/
sorry i meant 113 -
118 - is my ass tasting any better now?
114 - I think you're looking at this wrong. Until they come up with a test with allowable passing rates per race, the exams will continue to be invalidated. IT could take many years to come up with a test that will accomplish this, thus keeping years and years of new attys out. YES!!
117 - any data on the other 49 states? Or do you consider this enough information to make a sweeping statement regarding the race?
121 - http://www.tourolaw.edu/JournalRGE/Issues/Issue1/Programs%20for%20Minority%20Law%20Students.pdf
121, I consider it enough information to make a statement about the NY bar exam. But go ahead and argue with the data.
Or maybe the blacks who take the NY bar are self-selectively less competent than the blacks on average in other states? That could be it.
116 - no, just like I don't think blacks are inherently better basketball players just because of the percentage in the NBA. I just don't think the fact that there is such a disproportionate amount in the NBA show that the NBA discriminates against white people. - 112
110 - I guess you haven't heard about the book "How to Lie with Statistics." Yeah, it's real.
What about the video featuring Frank Luntz? I don't think you've seen the one where he .... Here you watch it for yourself:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViYI1BkhyRk
121- you're kidding, right? You think this really needs investigating? Save yourself the research, assume the numbers are disproportinately low, and argue about the unfairness of the test, will ya?
125 -
Has anyone ever cited Frank Freaking Luntz or any other Fox News Poll?
This is the level of reasoning and debate that we have unfortunately grown accustomed to, you peon.
127 - if you think Frank is relegated to Fox you're mistaken. He is the entire Rights tool.
Here is a link to his latest work regarding health care:http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977751183
Oh, and did you forget the book I mentioned? Couldn't rail against that could you? What about the data which shows that Rasmussen "the most accurate" among the alchemist.
127 - if you think Frank is relegated to Fox you're mistaken. He is the entire Rights tool.
Here is a link to his latest work regarding health care:http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977751183
Oh, and did you forget the book I mentioned? Couldn't rail against that could you? What about the data which shows that Rasmussen "the most accurate" among the alchemist.
121 - not smarter, better educated on average. Is this really debatable? Did years of slavery and, more recently, blatant discrimination, really have no effect on the African American race today?
>> Yeah, reality is definitely anti-Obama.
>>
>> Like how the Dow has gone up nearly 40% from 6700
>> to 9300 since he's been in office. He's a wreck for the
>> economy. If only we had the deregulating Republicans
>> back in control.
Thank you 62, for confirming that what has happened with the economy since Obama took office is attributable to him.
So, e.g., the fact that unemployment is at the highest point since the Great Depression? Thanks Obama. The fact that due to soaring unemployment, California has now reached 1 in 10 mortgages in default? Thanks Obama. The fact that no one on either the consumer or business side is spending money because everyone who has any knows the Democrats are scheming to take as much as they can to pay for the government takeover of the economy, starting with the 1/6 that is health care, after already massively expanding the government share of economic output with the so-called stimulus, which gives huge sums to his political supporters and has been linked to only trivial job creation or preservation other than in government itself and "private sector" government service? Thanks Obama. Sure sounds like everything is going great!
The Dow is not the world, but I know, if it doesn't reflect well on Obama The One, then it can't possibly be true, right?
Blacks are barely out of the trees (look at Michelle Obama.) They should be proud of whatever they've accomplished, regardles of their bar passage rate. Stop being so racist!
Based on that last report from Touro Law it seems that the school has a lot to do with Bar Exam preparation. Is this true?
130, no obviously the LSAT is racist.
131 - Please stop crying. It's been 6 months of non-stop crying from the Right. If you guys didn't screw everything up for the last 8 years (yeah I know it's the Congress fault) then you wouldn't have to deal with The One Black Guy In The White House. I like the way you shorten his full government (Kenyan) name.
Here is an interesting fact: the two countries that own most of our debt both have .... national health care systems and Japan has a better life expectancy than we do too.
"Trivial job creation"? Shouldn't we be glad that there is any job creation? Or only when the job is "important"?
131 - employment is a lagging indicator. Basic fact. Market goes up based on expected results of planned stimulus. Employment goes up due to stimulus dollars actually hitting the economy.
Thus, GDP down less than expected last quarter, modest increase expected for next quarter.
Job losses when Bush left office? 700,000+ per month.
Obama policies already have that down to 500,000 per month, a significant decline.
I love it when people argue with results. Laughable.
From the Touro report.
"Despite the fact that, through these programs, minority students are able to
achieve academic success and thus raise the reputation of a law school, there has
been widespread criticism of academic assistance programs among members of
the legal profession. The predominant argument is that those who take part in
such programs are concerned with the label of “assistance,” arguing that such a
term actually stigmatizes minority students.72"
"But more importantly,
the implementation of assistance programs has raised a backlash among other
students who envy the existence of these programs for minority students.75"
Damn, white people. Damned if you do and ....
131 - sorry that Obama couldn't fix every single Republican fuck up of the past 8 years in six months... just the stock market so far - efficient market theory, all the rational investors with actual skin in the game have reached a consensus that things will get better, thus market goes up.
GDP is turning around. Employment decline is slowing.
Yes, truly amazing progress for only 6 months.
And, just think, there are 3 and a half more YEARS to go!
Enjoy!
btw - still loving today's crushing defeat? Ready for the next one on health care? How do you think it'll play at the polls for the next 20 years when Democrats can run on a platform of "Republicans will take your health care away". Ha!
Then we'll kick your asses on immigration, while your fringe southern rump (aka, the entire remaining Republican party) makes you look like nothing but racist douches, further alienating the moderates.
Seriously, you guys are making it too easy. At least keep your gloves up.
Chumps.
135 - I haven't seen any crying from the Right lately. I've seen it all coming from the Dems because their own House members won't vote for their socialist programs.
All the Dems' problems right now belong to the Dems - the GOP cannot stop anything at this point.
The Dems' problem is that they don't want to own the impending disaster known as Socialized Medicine.
135, actually no, China doesn't have universal health care. They're still working on it. Nice try though.
I guess reality has a well known anti-liberal bias.
139 - Republican votes in Congress still count. All they have to offer is "No!", and the public sees that and holds them accountable.
It's amusing that you don't understand the difference between a government insurance plan (what is actually being proposed), and single payer (so-called soooocialized medicine). Your ignorance amuses me.
140 - my bad. I guess until it's done being "worked on" the national heathcare will exist. Until then it doesn't exist.
142, yes kinda like how the US doesn't have universal health care right now, but they're working on it. Got any more snide remarks?
Ellie's a racist.
And so is Sonia Sotoerror.
So both China and the U.S. are in the same position even though there isn't any debate about which direction China is going and there have been billions of dollars committed to the goal?
145, if I budget and set aside some money to buy a house eventually, does that mean I already have a house? Do I have somehow more house than someone who is just thinking about buying a house?
Stop digging a hole for yourself.
Sorry, but China already has a house with a roof which about 77% of the population lives under. They committed billions of dollars to renovate (your "working on") the house so they can get the rest of the population out of the rain. Also, they are "working on" refinancing their house so they can get a cheaper mortgage.
Right now America doesn't even have a Realtor.
The 46 million uninsured Americans means that the remaining 85% of Americans are covered by government and private insurance. 85% > 77%. By your analogy, Americans have a house with a better roof. You lose.
146 - wow, really good substantive arguments that are totally on point.
Whoever 146 is arguing with, he's just troll-baiting you b/c he's getting his ass handed to him on:
Obama success on the stock market
Success of the Obama stimulus
Obama success on Sotomayor
Democratic success expanding our coalition
etc. etc. etc.
So, instead he wants to argue about whether or not China has national health care, which is irrelevant.
In any event, the French have the most expensive single payer (aka sooooocialized medicine) program, and we still pay 2.5 times as much per capita on healthcare.
Republicans are just defending the profits of their corporate masters trying to derail reform (30 cents of every health care dollar goes to corporate profits under our current system).
149 is confused by the concept that more than one person can post on the Internet.
#8, it may be well before 2012 when the Kenyan socialist is removed from office. He is spending thousands on lawyers to keep his birth certificate under lock and key. Why would that be? Perhaps David Lat could do some investigating.
40: "democrats keep adding voters"
No, it's just the same people voting a dozen times apiece with the help of Obama's ACORN.
And if you think things in this country will be great when Dems become permanently in control, just look at California, a state that has been driven into the ground over the past 40 years by the Democrat Party.
If that's the direction you want to go, you're insane and this country will collapse. But I guess that's what liberals want anyhow.
Yeah, America has a better roof based purely on the number of people insured. Says nothing about COST of healthcare relative to income and doesn't say say anything about the future. See the Chinese have already invested in lowering costs... not so much for the Americans. The Chinese have already set in motion a plan where the rest of the population will be under that roof in the next three years... not so much here in America. And at the end of the day if America ever does cover that gap who do you think is going to have a better time beating down prices the Chinese government or the American government?
So yes, today based on your percentage numbers and that being the only qualifier for determining good and bad in your arguement yes, America good, Chian bad.
135: "Japan has a better life expectancy than we do."
They also don't have ghetto thugs running around shooting dur baby mama's in da head. They also don't have drunk-driving mexican't illegal aliens killing people left and right.
Iceland also has a very high life expectancy.
Perhaps, 135, what you're trying to say is that diversity is our weakness? Maybe we could have a better health system if the U.S. wasn't diverse -- just like the country you cite.
So you really think immigration and crime has an impact on life expectancy for the entire nation? Wow.
I know it's a Republican talking point, but don't you think you should think about it before you repeat it?
Republicans have literally added "the sky is falling, the sky is falling," to their daily talking points. You guys are f-ing sad.
154 - you've basically attributed America's relatively low life expectancy to poor blacks and illegal aliens. Racist much?
This site is infested with people from the far right. Does anybody have some repellent to get rid of this infestation. How can we remove them from this site? It's no fun reading stuff on theis site anymore because of all of these right-wingers.
OK--Now we've got freaking birthers on this site. You people are mentally ill. When I hear someone express things like 151 (above), I 5150 them. I would suggest to everyone else that when you hear some retard bust out the birth certificate/Kenya stuff, check if your state has an involuntary psychiatric hold law like California, and get that person admitted. At thins point, the only explanation for someone believing that crap is that they are mentally ill, and it is time to remove them from society. The other tact I've taken is busted out a baseball bat and literally beaten the truth into these nuts.
22,
By covered in "goop" you probably mean useless, illiterate, midget hispanics.
156,
If it's true, playing the race card can't really help much.
160 - "if it's true"? Are you serious? You can't be that stupid? Please tell me your joking in the spirt of racism.
That's right 136, since Obama did it, the stimulus is the reason the market is higher. And since employment numbers have worsened in the 8 months Obama has been president, it must just lag really far behind other indicators.
Pass that thing, you've had it too long and Obamacare will not pay for or allow lung cancer treatment for smokers.
OK 158 -- easy solution: release the "freaking" birth certificate. What's the problem? Does it say "female?"
160 here,
161, Why is it impossible that discrete demographics without the same levels of access to health care could not lower the national average? What percentage of Harlem has health care coverage? How about the Mississippi Delta? How many illegals have coverage?
Are you retarded?
All for a government takeover of all health care in this country, say aye!
Let's all go to the DMV for health care and be told we can wait 6 months for treatment, that we don't qualify for the drug because our forms can't be found, and that we can make another appointment to talk about it with a bureaucrat with immunity from prosecution for telling you to drop dead and giving you nothing in six months.
Our life spans are not the measure of health care nearly as much as the measure of lifestyle differences (like spending lives in our cars commuting, eating tons of fast food and not exercising, etc.). Outcomes for cancer and other serious illness treatment in the U.S. are the highest in the world, by far - our spending is high because we pay for the highest end treatments, but the Democrats don't want that. They want equality above all, and if that means dramatically shittier care for the 90% to give coverage to the 10%, they say to the middle class, F--- YOU. All you morons clamoring to give up your private insurance to get on a government run system are going to be looking for someone else to blame when it lets you down, so, so far down, just like most government programs, but you will have no one to blame but yourselves.
Government is the opposite of freedom, jackasses, and anyone who thinks we will be better off when the government has taken the majority of all generated wealth, and controls the majority of all economic activity, is too naive to live and deserves the prison they have coming. Do you really think the government wants to take care of you, or does it want to harness you like a work animal and work you 'til you drop to serve its own power? Think about it.
164 - now that you frame your argument in racial and socioeconomic stereotypes, suppositions and assumptions I now see the light.
Jedidiah, instead of following your base instinct of pointing the finger at minorities why don't you do a little research. Google is your friend even though Jerome and Pedro are not.
166,
You beg the question. Having done the research, I know it to be factually true. See, .e.g., http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_28.pdf
You're just a twit.
Sotomayor has sided with the government in criminal cases over 90% of the time - she isn't that liberal
167 - I'm sorry I didn't have time to read your entire article but I was able to do a keyword search. Within that pdf you are citing there is no mention of the words: black, poor, minority, alien, illegal alien, harlem, or Obama (i had to check).
So, I don't know if this is a good cite for you to establish your case of there being a correlation between America's relatively low life expectancy (50th in the world - behind Puerto Rico which feature mostly poor black and spanish people - not to mention they are very violent) and their immigration and poor black people problem.
Alright, I give up - it's diet. It's your freaking diet. Yes, I know it seemed like a great opportunity to stick it to the blacks and hispanics as usual but not this time.
Are you joking? Amongst other things, it discusses the different life expectancies of blacks and whites on page three. It also talks about the different rates of violent death.
How do you graduate law school/get accepted to a law school? You imbecile.
fine i was wrong acrobat screwed me - explain puerto rico.
No, you were screwed by your own liberal BS. You espoused dogma in the face of reality. I didn't need the CDC piece to show your reasoning was pathetic.
Furthermore, a rule doesn't fall by the wayside because of one exception.
Dogma? Which is more practical: to believe that poor blacks and illegal aliens are the reason for the realatively low life expectancy or maybe its poor diet?
Sorry but I might have made a mistake doing a keyword search but you're stupid. There are several countries which are predominantly spanish or black which have higher life expectancies. Goggle is your friend.
Read the article. Then read the list of world life expectancies. It is a crime against humanity that you are allowed to vote.
173/171/169 - Pwned, he's right, you're just another dogma chanting moron who doesn't even read the facts, clamoring for hope and change without even a tiny clue about either today's reality or what that change would really be.
Dogma of not blaming blacks and hispanics (a.k.a. illegal aliens) for every problem in America?
Then sir, I stand by that accusation!
What is the correlation between blacks, hispanics and heart disease, cancer and stroke the top three killers in the U.S.? Homicide is number 15.
Fine, let's just take the average of the white woman life expectancy (80.8) and the white man life expectancy (75.7) and see where they rate amoung the other whites of the world.
Guess what, still behind Puerto Rico....BUT better than Boznia.
SotomayOR's best work was as Nien Nunb in Star Wars
http://www.irtguild.net/cobb/nien_nunb.jpg
176 - Blaming them? For what? Health care is hardly determinative regarding our life spans, treatment in the U.S. is the best in the world (at least until the Obama team can even everything out by making care dramatically worse for most people), and yes, getting better health care causes us to spend more money than single payer rationed systems. Duh. Our lifestyles are unhealthy here compared to most other countries, unhealthy in differing amounts because of cultural differences between various groups here, and we suffer from different genetic issues to boot though the amount of contribution there is debatable (with the exception that it is demonstrably not zero). Race is totally irrelevant in a health care discussion (unless you just want to make everything about race) other than perhaps to observe that different eating habits, exercise habits, genetic factors, etc. can result in differing health conditions and life spans.
Or wait, were you arguing that under our new single payer system, it would be racist to allow white people here to live longer, whatever the cause (remember, it's the results that count, reasons are irrelevant!), so their health care should be cut back to equal out with the life spans of the shortest lived minorities? Ah, now I've got it.
178 - hyperbole much?
I agree in a bizzaro world Obama IS going to ruin everything. Because right now, everything is perfect.
Ah, I get it 179, the world is not perfect, therefore any change is good? And previous government takeovers of private industries have had great results for the customer? And government is well known for making private industries more efficient so that we can all get more output from them rather than adding additional administrative cost and reducing output dramatically. You know, like the schools, where in private schools, administrators run at less than 1:10, and in public schools, it's 2:3. So efficient! Ah yes, now I see it.
There you go again - anything less than glowing said about The One's policies most be untrue and hyperbole! Hope and change, hope and change, more government control is more freedom! Private industry is bad because not everyone gets the same results, it's all just racism, we must change it so that only The Party's chosen few are permitted to have anything different or better!
When Congress and Obama have proposed a change which will not result in both massive spending increases on bureaucracy and simultaneous reductions in service for most people, let me know. Until then, you and they can go F--- yourselves.
180 - The government sucks and private industry is the be all to end all. I know, I am not going to argue with that. Your public school example was a spot on representative of EVERY other government run sytem. And of course comparing private schools with public schools is an apples to apples comparison so there is no flaw in your analysis. I get it, the government is incompetent - I agree.
But do you think saying that Obama is going to "ruin everything" is not an example of hyperbole?
I have to read the bill before I can address your last statement. I just downloaded it. But, since you have obviously read the bill can you tell me which page features the provisions which you have mentioned will "result in both massive spending increases on bureaucracy and simultaneous reductions in service for most people"? And what kind of percentage increase do you consider "massive"? Also, what data do you have to support that the provisions you are referencing will result in that "massive" percentage increase in spending you so lament?
Funny that you would say "ruin everything" in quotes. Because the only place those words were used was in YOUR OWN POST.
Once again, completely disingenuous argument by totalitarian centrally planned economy advocates - you are attributing own words to me to argue with me. How can I argue when you literally fabricate assertions for me out of thin air in order to claim I'm the one spouting hyperbole?
Go ahead and read the bill. And while you're reading about all the new regulatory departments and agencies and controls it creates, consider your experiences with the DMV, public schools, tax agencies, public benefits agencies, and just about every other government agency - do you, seriously, SERIOUSLY, THINK ABOUT IT, think that the government makes things more efficient, basically ever? (Not that there are zero cases, but don't start from the assumption that this is the 1% or 5% case - start from the 95%.) Have you ever worked in government? Because I have, in an administrative legal capacity serving a lot of different functional areas, and what I saw shocks the conscience. But don't let the facts or the way government really operates get in the way of your idealism - by all means, let them run everything. Just remember you asked for it.
183 - Sorry I mixed up my quotes you said: "at least until the Obama team can even everything out by making care dramatically worse for most people." Still hyperbole. Also, I forgot to mention that you said: the U.S. health care system is the best in the world. More hyperbole and it's wrong. We're 37th. Sure, you can argue our exact postion but "best in the world" - not really.
You can complain about the government as is your Right but where would you be without it? U.S. attorneys beat the spit out of Microsoft which has allowed me to enjoy my Apple. Kicked the spit out of Big Tobacco, thanks for the relatively cleaner air. Kicked the spit out of ATT even though they're back now... put Ken Lay in jail/the grave/an exotic island. The CDC kicked the spit out of all kinds of diseases... and the list goes on and on...
I haven't dealth with the DMV for many years except through their website. It's wonderful you should try it. Even though I suspect you have. My mail comes like clock work every freaking day and it's cheap. My roads...nice. My home...patroled. My country protected.
On many levels we do have a gangster and corrupt government which outwardly makes it look bad. But what makes you think that gangsterism and corruption isn't a natural function amoung ALL governments?
"[B]y all means, let them run everything" - can't remember anyone suggesting that. Probably just more hyperbole.
Wrong again. HOW exactly are we 37th? Did you even think to ask or read this? That's as ranked by the WHO back in 2000, and using what methodology?
Let's see what the WHO itself has to say (see http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html):
In designing the framework for health system performance, WHO broke new methodological ground, employing a technique not previously used for health systems. It compares each country's system to what the experts estimate to be the upper limit of what can be done with the level of resources available in that country. It also measures what each country's system has accomplished in comparison with those of other countries.
WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).
Ah, I see, so we're ranking in large part based on "equality" of care as opposed to the level of care available to the average person, on "overall health" which is directly dependent on lifestyle factors at least as much as health care for most people, on what more might be done based on our resources according to the WHO, on patient satisfaction without adjustment for different satisfaction levels at the same outcome, and on cost distribution, all rather than based on actual average outcomes in treatment of the same diseases.
Do you have any comprehension that the so-called statistic you cited measures less about the nature of substantive treatment available to most people than about a distribution based political agenda? I can't figure out whether you're just a dogma spouting idiot with no knowledge of the facts, arguing disingenuously, or both.
Try doing the research rather than just citing statistics you haven't taken even a few minutes to read and understand. The U.S. health system has better outcomes for treatment of serious illness than anywhere. If you want to argue that we're inferior because our overall health suffers for factors largely influenced by lifestyle (and I guess that Big Macs should be outlawed...), or because we're not as close as others to the "upper limit of what can be done with the level of resources available in that country," and that we should tax and spend more to cover the uninsured, or that the "health inequalities (or disparities) within the population" are higher and we should be actively taking away health care from the middle class and redistributing it, at least be honest about it, don't use statistics misleadingly to suggest that health care for the average person when they get sick isn't better here.
Ask someone who's gotten seriously ill or had a family member get seriously ill in a rationed single payer system and they'll tell you,. Frankly though, we both know you just don't want to hear it, and just as with your behavior here, would rather mislead to argue for your preconceived notions than to even ask the hard questions.
Wrong again 183. HOW exactly are we 37th? Did you even think to ask or read this? That's as ranked by the WHO back in 2000, and using what methodology?
Let's see what the WHO itself has to say (see http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html):
In designing the framework for health system performance, WHO broke new methodological ground, employing a technique not previously used for health systems. It compares each country's system to what the experts estimate to be the upper limit of what can be done with the level of resources available in that country. It also measures what each country's system has accomplished in comparison with those of other countries.
WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).
Ah, I see, so we're ranking in large part based on "equality" of care as opposed to the level of care available to the average person, on "overall health" which is directly dependent on lifestyle factors at least as much as health care for most people, on what more might be done based on our resources according to the WHO, on patient satisfaction without adjustment for different satisfaction levels at the same outcome, and on cost distribution, all rather than based on actual average outcomes in treatment of the same diseases.
Do you have any comprehension that the so-called statistic you cited measures less about the nature of substantive treatment available to most people than about a distribution based political agenda? I can't figure out whether you're just a dogma spouting idiot with no knowledge of the facts, arguing disingenuously, or both.
Try doing the research rather than just citing statistics you haven't taken even a few minutes to read and understand. The U.S. health system has better outcomes for treatment of serious illness than anywhere. If you want to argue that we're inferior because our overall health suffers for factors largely influenced by lifestyle (and I guess that Big Macs should be outlawed...), or because we're not as close as others to the "upper limit of what can be done with the level of resources available in that country," and that we should tax and spend more to cover the uninsured, or that the "health inequalities (or disparities) within the population" are higher and we should be actively taking away health care from the middle class and redistributing it, at least be honest about it, don't use statistics misleadingly to suggest that health care for the average person when they get sick isn't better here.
Ask someone who's gotten seriously ill or had a family member get seriously ill in a rationed single payer system and they'll tell you,. Frankly though, we both know you just don't want to hear it, and just as with your behavior here, would rather mislead to argue for your preconceived notions than to even ask the hard questions.