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]

At the risk of turning skreidle's journal into a battleground...

I agree with xiaoshira that "just because the other guy did it" is no excuse. That said, regardless of the Democrats' motivations, Republicans can hardly justify criticism of the tactics they themselves employed.

And I disagree with visgoth that this is just about a display of power. It's about the right to be heard, and attempts by the majority to ensure that the minority is not heard.

Finally, if President Bush and the Republicans really cared about filling vacant seats, they would retract their controversial nominees and put forth more moderate ones. But it's far more useful, politically, for them to stand their ground and use this as a wedge issue to make Democrats look like obstructionists. So I would look carefully before you start blaming Democrats for the state of the judiciary.

[xiaoshira.livejournal.com]

I would look carefully before you start accusing me of doing that. Because if you read everything I wrote, I never did. Once.

[banzai2326.livejournal.com]

"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 believe this is the sentiment I was responding to. It comes across that liberals (read Democrats) do not like justice. If I mistook your meaning, then I apologize for projecting my anger at Republicans onto you. If, however, I correctly interpreted your comment, then I don't see how you can expect me to not take that as blaming the Democrats for the state of the judiciary.

[xiaoshira.livejournal.com]

Just to clarify, just because I don't think this is all the Republicans' fault (from the reaction I've gotten in this thread, I'm starting to think that it's hard for some people to imagine the thought of anybody *not* blaming it all on the evil Republicans!), and because I don't condone the filibustering of judicial nominees on a conceptual basis, is a far cry from "blaming Democrats for the state of the judiciary." As I note above, the state of the judiciary is not something either party is responsible for, just something they've reacted to. And I certainly didn't give either party the upper hand in their response, I just don't like the way either has responded. Even by accusing me of doing so, you're not going to get me to put this in terms of good guys, bad guys, because that is simply not the way I believe this issue should be viewed, and I believe viewing it that way detracts from the truly important issue and masks the necessity of both sides to be willing to look past this stupid polarized culture and FIX IT.

[standby-go.livejournal.com]

from the reaction I've gotten in this thread, I'm starting to think that it's hard for some people to imagine the thought of anybody *not* blaming it all on the evil Republicans!

I think your perception of others' views is painted a bit by your own personal biases. While most of us here do seem to feel that the "evil Republicans" are not considering blocking the filibuster for judicial nominees in the interest of the common good, we have also placed a good deal of the blame for the situation on Democrats. Some examples of this, lest my assertion be attacked:

They're just pissed that they're on the losing end of the same stick they themselves once used.

from Political Animal. "Bottom line: Yes, Democrats are filibustering some of George Bush's judges, but they're doing it only because Republicans have relentlessly dismantled all the avenues of dissent they themselves took advantage of back when Democrats controlled the Senate. There's no principle involved in this, just a raw exercise of power."

As long as left wing and right wing politicians force extremist nominees upon one another, the filibuster solution will remain necessary. Either party trying to outlaw it in order to put extremists on the bench is counterproductive and is an insult to the principles upon which our democracy is based.


We all (and correct me if I'm wrong here, folks) seem to be saying that the process is flawed and that both Democrats and Republicans have abused the system. The problem that we have with this latest move on the part of Republicans is that it's extremely hypocritical as the filibuster is the same device they were using when they were the minority. Additionally, describing the filibustering of nominees as a huge problem seems ridiculous when Democrats have confirmed 24 out of every 25 of Bush's nominees to this point, a much higher margin than would ordinarily be expected.