Interesting happenings from DC: crime rate, buried tech center, implosion rumor, & roughshod riding

[skreidle]

You know a fast food restaurant is in a bad part of town when the entire service area--walk-up and drive-through--is encased in bulletproof glass, with alternate-door pass-throughs for handing off food.. (This is the case with the KFC/Taco Bell on South Capitol near Nation, where I stopped for lunch today after missing the poorly-signed 395 exit after the tunnel.) I was also one of two white people in the entire building for about the first ten minutes, until a small group of white businessmen arrived. (And then I headed over to the office, where I did some paperwork, packed some parts for FedEx to take away, arranged or rescheduled some upcoming service calls, and headed home through heavy traffic. :P)

The DC Office of the Chief Technology Officer (DC OCTO) has an interesting building. Tucked into its own fenced-in block on Massachusetts, it gives the appearance of a smallish industrial shed, which happens to be sitting over several basement levels of computers and offices. However, it's not really bunker-like, since at least one of the "underground" levels has a lot of windows.

Speaking of interesting DC happenings, rumor has it that they'll be imploding the old Convention Center next Monday morning! I wanna see! :)

Hey, check this out: Republicans may be planning to use the tyranny of the majority to quash the "tyranny of the minority"--by making filibusters of judicial nominees unconstitutional--by getting the Senate's presiding officer (Cheney, presumably) to rule as such, which would only need a simple majority to pass, rather than the 60% needed to break a filibuster or 67% to change the rules in normal procedure. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Comments

[banzai2326.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree that perhaps the filibuster has been used too frequently, but a grand total of 10 out of 243 judicial nominees has been blocked. Since when does 5% count as obstructionism? Oh, by the way, Republicans blocked Clinton's nominees left and right. They're just pissed that they're on the losing end of the same stick they themselves once used.

And besides, the filibuster has been used for centuries. It was designed as the last resort of the minority, to keep the majority from silencing dissent, which is exactly what Senate Republicans are trying to do. If they succeed in removing this last bastion of the minority, then heaven help them when Democrats re-take the Senate. You reap what you sow.

[xiaoshira.livejournal.com]

I'm really just pointing out that there are two sides of this issue, and that neither is a side I like. As I believe I stated, the filibuster remaining as is is the lesser of two evils, and I would keep it as is if it were up to me. But to address your points:

5% is obstructionism when the judiciary is so under"staffed" that significant numbers of meritorious claims are being dismissed or refused cert in my circuit, and it's very difficult to achieve justice in a large number of the claims that do get heard! Liberal minded people tend especially not to like these things...

I think a couple, maybe a handful of Clinton's nominees were blocked? Either way, the point is, that's kind of irrelevant for the purposes of fixing the problem - we can't just let this go on without stopping to think because the other guy did it first.

And that's all I'm advocating - stopping to think. Something does need to be done, either within the nomination process or maybe on an even larger scale if things were done my way (as in, keep the judiciary's power in check such that judges aren't making political decisions from the bench, and they won't be as controversial). This is a proposal I'm not particularly fond of, though I unabashedly state that I do not believe the filibuster was intended for this purpose and that it is not a *good* thing. For now, it is a necessary evil that has come to bear because of how jurisprudence has evolved. It's definitely worth thinking about ways to improve the situation.