I'm posting this here and now so that my bragging rights are preserved

Today the Senate eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominees. I am therefore compelled to make this prediction: The senate is NOT going to change hands in 2014 OR 2016. There is no question that the problems with the Federal exchange will be worked out WELL before springtime and the Party of NO will be relegated to hoping to cancel policies that are written and in place.

You heard it here first (08-20-13 to be precise)

@ggreenwald If you need to avoid a law against spying on your own citizens, you can just ask a foreign government to do it for you.

— Paul Dirks (@phd9) August 20, 2013

Regarding Eric Holder's new sentencing strategies.

 It's apparently difficult for people to fully comprehend how important this is. It matters not whether it's a DOJ idea or a State idea and sniping over timing is just plain stupid. For decades, the most reliable way politicians could pander for votes is to promise to lock up more of "those" people. The strategy was always unsustainable, but the fact that people can reliably talk about reversing the trend without inviting virulent attacks is HUGE. I never would have believed I'd see it in my lifetime.

Swampland

A Republican Senate?

I want to emphasize that the possibility of Republicans taking over the chamber does NOT change my mind about the filibuster. The only way that Congresscritters are actually held accountable to their constituents is if they pass laws that they don't like. The number one argument against Republican rule is what happens when they have it.

The games people play with votes and procedure targeting nothing than opportunities for soundbites is disgusting. The best way around that is to allow whichever party is in control to actually implement their agenda. Temporary pain is the only way to actually fix what's wrong with current thinking.

Re: Guantanomo

It's worth remembering while the Right Wing rends it's garments over informing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev that he has rights under the Constitution, the reason these people can't be dealt with is precisely because Bush ignored the Constitution in dealing with them in the first place. Once you've tortured someone you no longer can use the evidence they provide to try them. And since the policy going in was always err on the side of locking up anyone suspicious, what's left is a massive mess that no one wants responsibility for. 

"Blame Bush" may be regarded as a copout in some circles but anything less is gross negligence.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/01/president-obama-sides-with-his-guantanamo-bay-protesters/#ixzz2S2YtlojE

Re Michael Grunwald

Tread On Me 

There are two threads of though that seem to be missing from the current debate. One is the fact that private actors if they act in concert can be just as threatening to freedom as government. Though I can pee in a cup, free from fear, the fact that I need to even think of such things if I want to fully participate in society is a serious erosion of Freedom. If Government forbids employers from asking me for my Facebook password, then it's pretty clear that the government is DEFENDING my Freedom against Private sector infringement.

The second thing that seems to be severely misunderstood is Miranda. The point of Miranda is to prevent Police from beating confessions out of suspects who may or may not be guilty. It doesn't even prevent police from beating confessions out of people. It just stipulates, that if they do so, they can't use those confessions in court. 

It's a very important right to preserve for obvious reasons, but it the idea that we can't question someone without reading his rights, when we already have more than enough evidence to convict WITHOUT his statements, is to blow the problem up out of proportion. Miranda is an  important right to defend. This is not a good case on which to hang your defense.