More Republican BS on SCHIP

So the House Democrats made changes that 38 Republican Representatives said they wanted in the SCHIP bill and, surprise, none of the 38 voted for the bill. The reason this time? They argued that the vote shouldn't take place because of the fires in California. What exactly the fires have to do with SCHIP since most Representatives don't represent areas of wildfire damage wasn't really spelled out, but that's their reason.

It is, of course, BS. The real reason why they don't vote for the bill is that so-called "moderate" Republicans are torn between the Republicans who vote in primaries and the voters who vote in general elections. Therefore, they want to keep saying how they support SCHIP without actually voting to support SCHIP. While such a tactic might have worked in the past, it won't work when Democrats control Congress and can set the agenda.

Another reason why they supposedly voted against the bill is that House Speaker Pelosi wouldn't delay the new vote until next week. This is from a Washington Post article on the vote:

But Republican leaders rallied their wavering troops around a new issue, whether the vote should have taken place when much of Southern California was on fire and nine House members were touring the disaster zone. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) insisted she had no choice but to move forward and give the Senate a chance to send the measure to Bush next week.

"If Republicans believe in SCHIP as they say they do . . . then they won't be looking for an excuse to vote against the bill," Pelosi said.

But when Republicans suggested debating the measure yesterday and voting Monday night, she refused, infuriating even her closest Republican allies on the issue.

"I used to think they cared about the policy. Now I think they care more about the politics," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), who had been working for the bill and personally appealed to Pelosi for a delay. "Everything from baptisms to bar mitzvahs, we've put off votes for here. But they won't do it for the people of California."

If the Republicans who supposedly support this bill had been able to assure Pelosi that the delay in voting would actually get more Republican votes, that would be one thing, but there was apparently no such assurance. The only benefit to Pelosi would have been that she would have had even more evidence of the Republican hypocrisy on this issue. She apparently decided that she has quite enough.

Pelosi Goes After Bush's 10 Year War

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi issued a statement today, September 14, 2007, claiming that Bush's plan means a 10 year American presence in Iraq. Although the Republicans are going to deny it, her statement is based on comments that General Petraeus made to Congressional delegation.

This is a theme that has some legs. Bush spoke in his statement on Thursday evening, September 13, 2007, about creating an "enduring relationship" with Iraq's government. Of course, that assumes that Iraq will have a functioning government, but that is another matter altogether. We have already been in Iraq for over four years, and have actually increased the number of troops in Iraq over the last 12 months. So the American public might be very willing to believe that Bush and his neo-con friends would actually be in favor of a 10 year war.

Why We Like Nancy Pelosi as Speaker

This is from an article in the Washington Post:

Allies of Republican Christopher Shays of Connecticut say the congressman is being unfairly frozen out by Democrats who are blocking his bills -- just because he narrowly survived his election.

They point to an amendment he offered last week that would have required the Department of Homeland Security to share information with Interpol. The amendment was blocked.

It was no secret that before the election, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), then the House minority leader, had strongly warned Democrats against working with Republicans and giving the GOP opportunities to showcase faux bipartisanship for constituents. It was also no secret that Shays was on top of her list as a member to avoid since the Democrats were after his seat.

Readers of this blog might have recognized that we can't stand Christopher Shays. He is one of those "moderate" Republicans who likes to brag about how "bi-partisan" he is but always manage to vote to enable Bush to carry out his misdeeds. When the money goes down, he is always betting on the administration's side. Our dislike of Shays, however, is not why we like what Pelosi is doing.

We like it because all too often Democrats want to demonstrate to the media how "bi-partisan" they are and play nice with Republicans. This may earn some praise from pundits like David Broder, but it doesn't earn anything but contempt from Republicans. Why? Because a lot of Republicans, especially in Washington, are bullies and the only thing they understand is power and the willingness to use it.

Pelosi understands power and she is willing to use it. Now, unlike people like Dick "The Shooter" Cheney, she doesn't do it with a sneer on her face and she doesn't tell her opponents to "Go **** Yourself", but she gets the job done.

This, of course, confounds the Washington media. The role they have for Democrats is that we are the "Mommy Party" and we are supposed to be all touchy-feely and nurturing. Well, Pelosi is a Mom and she knows how to kick butt. This makes her doubly effective. She presents a nice image and has a backbone of steel. A great combination for the first woman elected as Speaker of the House.

Pelosi Threatens Legal Action Over Signing Statements

Nancy Pelosi is threatening to sue Bush if he uses a signing statement to get around complying with a future Iraq War spending bill. This is from a report in The Hill newspaper:

Pelosi recently told a group of liberal bloggers, “We can take the president to court” if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi’s remarks for the liberal website dailykos.com.

“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching,” a spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said. “Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.”

It is a scenario for which few lawmakers have planned. Indicating that he may consider attaching a signing statement to a future supplemental spending measure, Bush last week wrote in his veto message, “This legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the presidency.”

A lawsuit could be seen as part of the Democrats’ larger political strategy to pressure — through a series of votes on funding the war — congressional Republicans to break with Bush over Iraq.

This is not going to be easy. Americans are fond of repeating the cliche that the United States has three separate and co-equal branches of government. This is not exactly correct. The judicial branch of government exists to resolve disputes, but before any dispute can be resolved it has to be a dispute that is susceptible to judicial resolution.

Courts have been very reluctant to get involved in struggles between the other two branches of government. This is because courts have very blunt instruments to assert their will.

When a court issues a judgment it is issuing a piece of paper. If the paper isn't followed, then the issuing court can, in appropriate cases, use its contempt to enforce its ruling. In the final analysis the contempt power depends on the willingness of the issuing court to jail someone who doesn't follow its order because putting someone in jail to enforce an order is the ultimate power to get compliance.

Now, put yourself in the position of a Federal Court Judge who is being asked to compel Bush to either follow a congressionally enacted bill or face what??? Is a Federal Judge really going to jail Bush over not following congressional legislation when the Congress can force its will on Bush by either impeachment or cutting off funding totally? Our guess is no, a Federal Judge is not going to put himself or herself in that position. Our guess is that the Federal courts will find a way to avoid the whole situation by either saying that Congress doesn't have standing, or that this controversy is not one capable of judicial resolution.

United States Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter once warned his fellow Supreme Court Justices not to enter a "political thicket" by taking on the issue of gerrymandering, see Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Well, if legislative redistricting is a "thicket", then trying to compel a President to obey a Congressional enactment would be a veritable freaking forest.