DOWNLOADS: (252)

PLAYS: (1902)

Embed

Rep. Louis Slaughter (D-NY) told Current TV's Keith Olbermann Tuesday that a "retroactive recusal" of Justice Clarence Thomas could result in overturning the Citizens United case.

Earlier this year, the liberal group Common Cause argued that both Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia should have recused themselves from the Citizens United case because they attended events organized billionaire Charles Koch.

In addition, Thomas' wife, Virginia Thomas, may have received financial benefit from the Citizens United ruling, something that was never disclosed by the justice.

Twenty House Democrats Thursday called on the U.S. Judicial Conference to formally request that the U.S. Department of Justice investigate Justice Clarence Thomas's non-compliance with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

Justice Thomas indicated on his annual financial disclosure forms that his wife had received no income since he joined the bench in 1991, despite the fact that his wife had in fact earned nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003 to 2007.

"What I'm very interested here is the votes that he has cast that may be in conflict," Slaughter explained to Olbermann. "Of course, his wife can work. But the fact is there are only nine justice on that Supreme Court and it certainly should be a given that a family member of any of those people lucky enough to be a Supreme Court justice should not in any way involve themselves in matters that will go before that court. Now, we all know that she worked very hard for the Citizens United case, which I think is one of the most egregious things that have ever happened in the United States Supreme Court."

She added: "There is such a thing as a retroactive recusal. We're looking into that. That case, if you remember, was decided 5-4. If we could take away his vote, we could wipe that out. It would lose. How 'bout that?"

"That's only the future of the democracy there, isn't it?" Olbermann asked.

"Yes, indeed. And we are -- you know, the judiciary is the last place for all of us to go. We're only as good -- all of us -- as the courts are, only as safe as the courts are good. Their interpretations are really what give us the freedoms when you come down to it. They have enormous power."

DOWNLOADS: (602)

PLAYS: (3448)

Embed

This was one of the more lively moments on the House floor during the health care bill debate. Rep. David Dreier tries to throw cold water on the notion that Harry Reid can be trusted to have fifty votes to get the fixes that the House wants reconciled. Rep. Louise Slaughter was having none of it.

Dreier: Is it not true that the only thing that we know with absolute certainty, if in fact that it passes is that the Senate bill will become public law? We have heard all about this reconciliation package and the gentlewoman seems to be certain of its passage. But is it not true that this rule guarantees that the only thing that will be law for sure is the Senate bill which has the cornhusker-kickback, the Louisiana purchase and those other items?

Slaughter: Mr. Dreier it’s absolutely true that the Senate bill does contain those things. It has already been passed and requires no further action in the Senate. What we will do today is pass the bill which will then be sent to the President and become law. We will this afternoon pass the…

(crosstalk)

Slaughter: Please let me answer. […]

Dreier: Madam Speaker we now know with certainty that the only thing… (crosstalk)

Slaughter: No you don’t. No you don’t! No! You don’t know that!

Dreier repeats his point that the only thing they know is the Senate bill will become law. Slaughter goes on to explain the reconciliation process they’ve agreed to with the Senate. This was followed by Darrell Issa asking if Rep. Slaughter broke a House rule “lobbying the Senate” from the House floor. Slaughter came back and explained that she wasn’t addressing the Senate.

This was pretty much par for the course with that we saw from both Issa and Dreier for the better part of the day.

DOWNLOADS: (282)

PLAYS: (494)

Embed

The House Rules Committee debated the reconciliation bill this weekend. Rep. Paul Ryan touted his budget proposals to Rep. Louise Slaughter and after filibustering the meeting for some time she finally got Rep. Xavier Becerra to put a fine line on just what Ryan would like to do with Medicare, and that is privatize it and have vouchers replace the system we have now.

Ezra Klein has more on what Ryan would like to do with Medicare. Ryan had a whole lot of double speak to offer when questioned about whether he wants to privatize it or not during this meeting.

I'm looking forward to Ryan and the rest of the GOP defending him wanting to privatize Medicare and Social Security if they think that's a winning issue. I don't think seniors will be so thrilled if they actually get a good look at what they're proposing.

Rep. Paul Ryan's daring budget proposal:

The White House's 2011 budget is only the second-most interesting budget proposal released recently. First prize goes to Congressman Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, who's released a budget proposal that actually erases the massive long-term deficit. [...]

But Ryan's budget -- and the details of its CBO score -- is also an object lesson in why so few politicians are willing to answer the question "but how will you save all that money?" [...]

That's a bit of a slog, so here's the translation: The proposal would shift risk from the federal government to seniors themselves. The money seniors would get to buy their own policies would grow more slowly than their health-care costs, and more slowly than their expected Medicare benefits, which means that they'd need to either cut back on how comprehensive their insurance is or how much health-care they purchase. Exacerbating the situation -- and this is important -- Medicare currently pays providers less and works more efficiently than private insurers, so seniors trying to purchase a plan equivalent to Medicare would pay more for it on the private market.

Go read the whole thing for Ezra's analysis.

DOWNLOADS: (652)

PLAYS: (1365)

Embed

Isn't this lovely? Rep. Louise Slaughter relayed this story at the Health Care Summit:

I even have one constituent -- you will not believe this, and I know you won't, it's true. Her sister died, this poor woman had no dentures. She wore her dead sister's teeth, which of course were uncomfortable and did not fit. Do you believe that in America that that's where we would be?

And here's the reaction from the right as documented by our friends at Media Matters. They don't feel -- or care about -- your pain:

• On Twitter, Michelle Malkin wrote: "We need trillion-$ Demcare cuz someone had to wear their sister's dentures! O: "Terrific conversation""

• On his radio program, Glenn Beck stated, "I've read the Constitution ... I didn't see that you had a right to teeth."

• Author and radio host Laura Ingraham told Bill O'Reilly that Slaughter's tale was "ridiculous" and a "sob story."

• Fox Nation, the website maintained by the Fox News Channel, labeled Slaughter's comments "Summit Insanity."

h/t Bob Cesca and John Cole is right. These really are just hideous people, any way you look at it. And yes thank goodness she didn't use her name or Malkin and Bill-O's hit squad would be showing up at her door.

h/t David for the video

DOWNLOADS: (176)

PLAYS: (618)

Embed

Dick Morris once again lives up to his name on Fox News. Somehow in Morris' pea brain, Louise Slaughter not wanting to put up with Birchers and birthers and tea baggers at these town halls where the astroturfers have gotten the wingnuts whipped up in to a frenzy is just like the "old Southern politician" who doesn't want to deal with the African Americans in his district. Yeah... that's just the same Dick. How come I didn't make that connection after hearing what she said? Project much?

He makes sure he gets in some more death panel, the government is going to kill grandma fear mongering before it's over as well. Republicans... now the great defenders of Medicare. That's rich.

MACCALLUM: Well, not every member of Congress thinks that facing down voters at town halls as part of their job creation -- job description, I should say. Democratic congresswoman Louise Slaughter is one of those. Listen to what Louise had to say.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

REP. LOUISE SLAUGHTER (D), NEW YORK: I'm not doing town meetings. I'm -- I'm not going to give those people a forum. I went through it with the Clinton health care bill, with the John Birch Society, where we had to have police around and people were hysterically crying. I'm not -- and frankly, to tell you the truth, Ron, my own dignity and the dignity of the office I hold is important to me. And I know what that is. It's not a spontaneous uprising of my constituents. I've got the best relationship with my constituents anybody could ever even imagine.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: All right, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, I should say. Dick Morris joins me now. He's the author of the book "Catastrophe." Dick, what do you make of that? She's saying, you know, Look, I have a great relationship with my constituents. It's beneath the dignity of the congresswoman, she says, and the dignity of her office to subject herself to the folks like we just saw in Waco, Texas, who have something to say.

DICK MORRIS, DICKMORRIS.COM: She reminds me very much of the old Southern politicians, who were racists, who used to say, Oh, I have a great relationship with people in my district, the black people in my district. And they didn't call them black. And if only the outside agitators would leave them alone, I'd have such great relationship with them.

The point is that -- that the -- Ms. Slaughter's constituents want to speak to her. And how else are they going to do it? This bill is going to go through the House without debate, probably be everybody'll be given two minutes to debate the bill. It'll probably pass in a week's time. The committees didn't hold hearings on it. There have been no public hearings on the issue. And then they're probably going to try to jam it through the Senate not only without debate but without even permitting debate by getting it through on a reconciliation with 50 votes.

So how are people supposed to speak out?

Continue reading »