I suppose this isn't a tough one, isn't it? Whichever you want -- I'll just mention the VRA decision to kick it off, as one that mattered...I don't even want to guess at what didn't matter, but I'll be interested to see if there are arguments pro or con on the Texas abortion filibuster.
So, what do you have? What do you think mattered this week?
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think the Texas filibuster mattered. Texas Dems in particular, but national Dems too, have needed to see some of their electeds really stand up and be strong. As much as Nancy Pelosi may be disliked in some quarters, people get that she's tough, strategic and effective. Words that are not often enough said about high-visibility Dems, especially the tough part.
ReplyDeleteI think Davis and Van de Putte put new faces on Democrats being forceful and standing up even in the face of terrible odds - infront of a pack of disdainful men who want to railroad them.
I have no doubt that the July session that Perry has called will get that bill through. Some may say "well that was a waste of time" but I'm seeing how energized women and Texans are. I lived in Austin for 6 years and I see what my friends who are stil there are saying and doing in this fight. They're fired up. It's been a while.
Three more District Court nominations, two from South Carolina. Good. But still: 81 vacancies and only 30 nominees. ¡Mr. President, you can do much better!
ReplyDeleteWith what budget is he supposed to juggle another fifty to a hundred nominees?
DeleteThere were several high profile events that mattered this week. But for me the one that will ultimately matter the most to the most people on the planet was President Obama's address and plan on the climate crisis.
ReplyDeleteHow well the administrative actions do, and how the speech and actions affect U.S. leadership towards getting global greenhouse gases agreements remain to be seen. But the speech itself set three important precedents--important because getting all of this right is crucial to really addressing the entire climate issue. They are:
An American President declared that addressing the climate crisis is an urgent national and global need.
He declared that addressing the climate crisis means addressing both the causes and the effects.
He acknowledged that even as we address the causes, we will continue to feel the effects for some time to come.
I'll take a crack at it.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I would love for the Texas filibuster to matter, I'm just not sure it means all that much in the long run. The bill is still very likely to get through, and while Texas liberals are more heartened than they've been in a long time, let's be honest: Texas is still a red state with a healthy pro-life majority and Wendy Davis's odds of getting elected governor there are tiny.
It brings the choice issue back to the forefront for the moment, and the filibuster itself was truly a memorable sight, but I'm just skeptical it will end up meaning much long term, aside perhaps from some lasting national goodwill for Davis. Will minds be changed because of this? Maybe I am too cynical.
I am not so sure. Texans love their Alamo; the notion of grit against adversity has a certain Texas charm.
DeleteWomen can make a difference there.
My spouse just got a big raise and with the DOMA and Prop 8 decision, that leaves us wondering if we'll be much better off this year.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bitter victory, especially when the court has made all these rulings - like the VRA - to bite us in the ass. Sure, my state is more well off, but my state has always been hugely better off than the rest of the country. It's one of the reasons we live here.
Koontz v. St. John River Water Manangement District, an under-the-radar decision from SCOTUS this week. Could have big consequences for local communities.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/opinion/a-legal-blow-to-sustainable-development.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130627&_r=1&
Yeah, there's room to fix that decision, but it's basically legalized extortion.
DeleteThe guy has never applied, never intended to apply, and yet he's suing. Small towns are just going to roll over for that sort of judicial interference. On the other hand, it's plausible that there might be too many hoops to applications. But in reality, that's not what's happening.