Everyone hates the filibuster when their party is the one in power. It's such a fucking cliche.

True but this congress has used the filibuster for solely political purposes and far more often than any congress in history. When a bill to extended unemployment insurance passes with a 98-0 vote after Dems overcame the filibuster it is obvious that the Republicans are being purely obstructionist and at the country's expense.

Thank you for being the only one in this thread to realize that the Supreme Court is "The United States Court of Appeals". Everybody else on this thread needs a civics lesson. Unfortunately I also believe you are correct on the 5-4 split. Personally I think somebody should find a way to get an attractive young law clerk working in Thomas' office. I know he is old but he is prone to sexual harassment and a good scandal could force him to resign. Of course if Scalia would just throw himself out a window that could do the trick too.

You haven't installed SP2 yet?

Stylish will allow you to customize any website using custom css. There are many pre-configured themes for popular websites that you can download and install... including slashdot.

The problem with that as demonstrated by recent experience is that they aren't the only ones hurt by this activity. These repercussions have negative consequences throughout the economy. I have nothing against somebody becoming wealthy but not at the risk endangering the financial stability of the broader economy. What ever happened to earning money by providing a valuable product or service and doing so better or cheaper than the competition. As a business model that will stand the test of time AND grow the larger economy at the same time.

The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. In fact they can both be addressed by... wait for it... greater regulation and oversight. In addition to a Consumer Protection Agency to protect citizens against corporate abuses, Congress could establish a separate, independent agency with a mandate to investigate government waste, fraud, and abuse and give it real enforcement tools. Of course, an agency of this nature would not be able to escape politics completely but if established with clear standards chartered to operate in the light of day (i.e. public oversight) I can see it having a real impact.

That is simply incorrect. Those laws were put in place to prevent exactly those types of speculative markets which serve no greater purpose then to make a few people very wealthy. The idea that speculative markets drive economic activity is true only in the sense that hitting on a gas pedal will accelerate a vehicle. It is great if you want to just keep going faster but without something in place to slow you down, your going to crash.

Point taken but I believe they have it structured appropriately. It is to operate as an independent agency with protections in place to keep it free of politics. Of course implementation is extremely important but I believe we have the right White House in place to set it up properly.

While I agree that libertarianism philosophy isn't in and of itself a left or right wing philosophy (I would consider myself to be a social libertarian), the vast majority of libertarians in this country are strongly anti-tax, small government types who respond strongly to the rhetoric the right has been putting forth. The problem is that the right are in truth controlled by corporatists who have spent millions of dollars to co-opt that message to their benefit while in truth limiting peoples avenues of recourse when they are wronged by corporate misdeeds. My opinion is that the best protector of individual liberties is an effective government properly overseen by informed voters.

For the record, this list only includes acts of congress. These are all republican sponsored bills. That is only half the story though. Through executive order and policy changes, a much looser interpretation of the regulations, or a simple lack of enforcement, the Bush administration effectively stripped away a large existing environmental and consumer protections. Reagan too.

These quotes are direct from wikipedia or, in the absence of a wikipedia article, from the first source I could find

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999-2001) which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and/or an insurance company.

Sounds like that could cause problems... no, wait, it already has!

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first major overhaul of United States telecommunications law in nearly 62 years, amending the Communications Act of 1934.

OK, I'll give them this one.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) created a framework for a competitive wholesale electricity generation market and established a new category of electricity producer, the exempt wholesale generator (EWG). These EWGs were not subject to the constraints on nonutility electricity generation specified in the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which made it easier for them to enter the wholesale electricity market. The law also mandated that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) open up the national electricity transmission system to wholesale suppliers on a case-by-case basis.

stripping many environmental protections along with it

The Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act of 1989 (NGWDA) required the removal of all price ceilings dictated by the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA) by January 1, 1993, rather than by the end of the century as called for in the NGPA.

Allowing energy companies to make more money.

The Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982 addresses in Section 6 the issue of transborder trucking. It imposes a moratorium on the issuance of certificates or permits to motor carriers domiciled in, or owned or controlled by persons of, a contiguous foreign country.

Though they will rally against the same concept as instituted by NAFTA to stir anti-immigrant sentiment.

The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 (Pub.L. 97-320, H.R. 6267, enacted 1982-10-15) is an Act of Congress, that deregulated the Savings and Loan industry. This Act turned out to be one of many contributing factors that led to the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s.

I am with you on that one. I want to see the five products that didn't get accepted. They must be AWESOME!

Regulation and oversight is a tradition weakness of government anywhere. Sure, this can have beneficial results, but only if it is done.

Exactly my point. Instead of continuing down the path of smaller and more ineffective government that has put us in this position, it is time to start rebuilding the regulatory structures that the corporate right has methodically dismantled over the last thirty years with the incessant mantra of deregulation. A well reasoned regulatory structure operating as an independent agency as Obama is proposing could expose hundreds of these types of abuses. Why do you think the Republicans are opposing it so strongly? If their contributors had to actually earn their money their fundraisers might not go so well.

The problem with your theory is that the people who will likely revolt in this country are the libertarian right which would only exacerbate the problem. If you think these types of corporate abuses are bad when the government is in the pockets of industry just wait until there really is no government to speak of.

The only way this is really going to be fixed is for the well reasoned majority that elected Obama to rally and keep Democrats in control so at least no more ground is lost. Hopefully then, the left can keep up the pressure to push an amendment allowing congress to regulate corporate funding of campaigns and hopefully eliminate the ridiculous idea of corporate personhood once and for all. Then, they would have to actually do so. This is no easy task as Democrats are feeding at the same trough but due to the nature of the coalition and with Obama at the helm, they are much more likely to address these issues. If, and only if, those things happened then maybe ten or twenty years down the road you could start talking about the real types of electoral reforms that could make a difference. It isn't an easy fix and corporations will fight every step of the way but if the Democrats stopped pandering to the right and simply stood up for their principles I believe it can happen.