That’s going to leave a mark!

True enough Jim–but I hear these guys have GREAT healthcare, so not to worry…

Boy You got to love that Guy.

One does not a Congress or Governemt make. Nor give any hope what He has will rub off on the others.

He is something to watch, ain’t he. At this point, being a freshman, all he has is his voice. He’s certainly not making many friends, even among Democrats I suspect. But he’s picked a very interesting strategy for survival in a neutral or slightly GOP district.

Grayson has nerves of steel and an attitude to match. Good for him.

You can’t beat them unless you fight them.

You know the one thing most Republicans like in a person is that they speak out. So he may do better in His district than one would think. All Republicans aren’t stupid.

A guy that stands up, always better than a mouse.

As near as I can tell, he’s no hero; he’s just annoyed at how non-deliberative the deliberative body is that he’s a party to. We’ve all sat in meetings that last forever, and accomplishing nothing, and we’ve all hit our breaking point where we just take control of the frame, the narrative, and the bullet-points just to make things move. Alan Grayson must have hit is breaking point almost as soon as he hit the Hill.

Nonetheless, I’m glad to see someone doing something different.

I agree that voters–not just GOP but basically everyone–want clear unambiguous leadership. And in a divided district I think his approach may well be a good, winning strategy.

My God! How Dare that Freshman be so SHRILL!
(snark)

“Will the gentleman yield?”
“No.”
Lather, rinse, repeat.

What was the motion that got cut off at the end? Sounds a bit like “move to strike.”

Dayam. Gilbert and Sullivan were right…elect People with Brains to the upper house and bad things will happen!

Thanks for the smiles, Casual O!

FunnyWheelieDiva

wow! legi-licious!

What was the motion that got cut off at the end? Sounds a bit like “move to strike.”

I heard that too–I think that was Sensenbrenner, who had been trying to break in throughout, finally getting into the mix.

No doubt to ask for an apology. Or to call for a mop–”Clean up on Aisle Seven!”

Did anyone here Obama with His mop clean up bit.

His problem is He is trying to clean up a spill as big as an olimpic sized swimming pool with a mop. Might take years.

When the time is right to call for the big pumps and wet vacs.

It sounded like someone moving to strike that exchange from the record.
Typical GOP move: If the facts don’t agree with you, destroy the evidence.

I will donate to this guy and he isn’t even in my own state!!!!

Tonight on Hardball Chris Matthews called Grayson “Captain Cojones”

Best Hardball show I have seen in a long time. Matthews and Ron Reagan beat up Frank Gaffney for having a black tie dinner honoring a convicted “felon” and an “unindicted war criminal’

worth the watch

Gaffney, Ron Reagan, Grayson, Bachman.

This was an amazing Hardball
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Hi-yo Grayson, Away!

“But he’s picked a very interesting strategy for survival in a neutral or slightly GOP district.” ; I think you underestimate how appealing to the Constitution is a winning strategy.

I love this guy – bad suits and all. I also think Grayson is willing to lose his race if it means sticking to his principles. He’s worth a crapload of money. Being a Congressional Rep is the the be all and end all of it for him.

You didn’t mention in your text, and the clip doesn’t include context. (I’m not being critical of the post; this is perfect! — except for that small lack of context. Love it, and thank you.)

I’m wondering: Is this over the legislation defunding ACORN? I recognized that piece of crap as a Bill of Attainder after about 30 seconds of reflection (and am deeply, sorely ashamed of all Democrats who jumped on that attempt to put out the fire of a nontroversy with legislative gasoline!).

I think you underestimate how appealing to the Constitution is a winning strategy.

Agreed — though I also see two other things that may help him in a traditionally conservative area like FL.

1. Neos are a violent, fightin’ bunch of folk. They loves them a good scrapper, even if they may disagree with some policy stances. But, as you suggest, how on earth can a Neo go against direct quotes from the Constitution without her/his head exploding? It would be tantamount to questioning writings in the Bible (even when suggesting things like God casting Cain out and putting a mark on his forehead so all the other people would know him as a murderer… you know… Adam, Eve, Cain, Able — the first humans in existence, right? Who were those other “people” if these four were the first frakkin’ humans??? I digress…).

2. Many libs and mods, as evidenced by Grayson’s immediate popularity, are sick to death of all the lies and thuggery and are happy as larks in the sunshine to finally have a fire-breathing fighter on the side of truth and justice. Hyperbolic, yes, but true nonetheless — and I am certain very energizing for his base.

Well done, Mr. Grayson.

Here’s a little more detail about what the Founders were trying to prevent by banning Bills of Attainder, from the recent Congressional Research Service report that Grayson’s colleagues John Conyers and, I believe, Barney Frank, asked for, following the overwhelming House vote to punish ACORN:

The basis for the prohibition arises from the separation of powers concern that the enforcement of a bill of attainder would allow Congress to usurp the power of the judicial branch.8

[...]

By passing a bill of attainder, “the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not. In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.”9

[...]

The specifics of the instant [Defund ACORN] legislation appear[] to differ substantially from the regulatory goals of the existing legal regime regarding federal contracting and federal grants. Unlike the existing regime, this legislation focuses on relatively minor legal violations such as campaign financing, election laws, or disclosure requirements. Further, while current regulations may limit organizations to relatively short debarments, generally no more than three years, the instant proposal has no mechanism for these organizations to be relieved of their disability. In addition, this permanent exclusion would be imposed jointly and severally on ACORN and its affiliates, essentially establishing a per se rule that all affiliates and ACORN would be held responsible for the behavior of any other affiliates or ACORN, or an employee thereof.

In general, absent an agency proceeding to determine that ACORN and everyone of its affiliates have engaged in unlawful behavior, the permanent exclusion of all of these organizations would be difficult to justify as regulatory in nature. While the Supreme Court has noted that courts will generally defer to Congress as to the regulatory purpose of a statute absent clear proof of punitive intent, there appear to be several potential problems raised by attempts to find a rational nonpunitive regulatory purpose for this legislation. Thus, it appears that a court may have a sufficient basis to overcome the presumption of constitutionality, and find that the proposed Defund ACORN Act violates the prohibition against bills of attainder.

Of course, the venal people proposing these amendments – those with utter contempt for their oaths of office – are most happy to subject ACORN to the further punishment of protracted and expensive court battles to reinstate their right to bid for federal contracts. So reports such as these are no impediment to such Party hacks, except to the extent that people like Rep. Grayson can publicly humiliate them for their willful disregard and disdain for Constitutional limits.

Speaking of Constitutional limits, I want to add a related Bill of Attainder point on another matter, that I think Rep. Grayson ought to likewise examine. This is from a recent CCR response in a lawsuit on behalf of two Guantanamo inmates who died in American military custody, and focuses on the 2006 Military Commissions Act ["MCA"] that both the House and Senate just re-enacted as part of the FY 2010 Defense Authorization Act, with the subject provision banning court consideration of conditions of detainment apparently still included:

The prohibition against bills of attainder was prompted by “the fear that the legislature, in seeking to pander to an inflamed popular constituency, will find it expedient openly to assume the mantle of judge—or, worse still, lynch mob.” Nixon v. Adm’r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 480 (1977). The MCA violates the constitutional prohibition on attainders because it (1) singles out non-citizens whom the Government may unilaterally and extrajudicially label “enemy combatants,” and then (2) punishes them by stripping them of any right of access to the Courts.

[...]

The [Executive Branch's] CSRT [Combatant Status Review Tribunal] process in no way resembles a judicial trial, lacking as it does the most elementary aspects of due process. See Part I.B, infra. The CSRT process also applied a definition of “enemy combatant” having no basis in the laws of war, and so open-ended as to effectively render any determination made under it arbitrary.

[...]

More specifically, for at least the past 140 years the Supreme Court has recognized that the deprivation of full and complete access to the courts qualifies as “punishment.”

[...]

There simply is no “nonpunitive legislative purpose,” Selective Serv. Sys., 468 U.S. at 852, to the civil jurisdiction-stripping provisions of Section 7. The legislative history of the MCA makes clear that Congress created it based on a desire to punish individuals that Congress viewed—without a basis in law or fact—as terrorists.29 No other rational motivation is evident other than the desire to further attaint a small, unpopular group of individuals already arbitrarily tarred with the “enemy combatant” label.

Rep. Grayson very unfortunately contributed to the Congressional “guilty-without-charge” mentality about the DOD’s unilaterally-detained non-POW Arab prisoners, like the two decedents for whom justice is being sought in the cited case, with his recent vote to support a Republican motion to instruct conferees on the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill.

That motion to instruct asked that everyone ever held in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base by the DOD (close to 800 persons) be placed on our “No Fly” list and barred from receiving immigration benefits – regardless of their innocence. It also supported inclusion of the Lieberman/Graham amendment to censor, and exempt from the “Freedom of Information Act” – on the military’s sole say-so – photos depicting the abuse of prisoners in our military prisons. And, perhaps worst of all, it requested that all prisoners still held in Guantanamo be barred from transfer to the United States for prosecution in our military courts-martial or civilian courts.

At least one of those provisions in the motion to instruct conferees that Grayson supported (only the latter of which has so far failed to pass Congress) would probably be at least as likely to be ruled an UnConstitutional Bill of Attainder as the specious Defund ACORN amendments that Congress is now preoccupied with.

You’re right about lack of context. I should have provided it, but I’m ashamed to tell you I just loved the thing for its entertainment value. Shame on me.

About your neo-con comment about them loving a good scrap. Grayson himself doesn’t think so. He thinks, and has stated, that they are simply bullies. They don’t want a scrap at all–and as soon as you push back hard, they’re gone. Bullies don’t actually like to fight, because they’re cowards at heart. Or so he has said.

And the GOP is proving him right. In spite of their hisses, they have done absolutely nothing to him except help him raise tons of money.

I think you underestimate how appealing to the Constitution is a winning strategy.

I don’t think so. While I personally am a civil libertarian, I fear that the country in general is not very concerned with the consitution, nor are they particularly fond of the rule of law or of civil liberties. If they were, the last 9 years would have turned out differently.

Powwow, if ACORN takes this to court, and it ends up in the SCOTUS, do you think they’ll declare the law unconstitutional? You think John Roberts et al. will actually follow the constitution on this?

But he still wants sick people to die quickly. I guess you people are all healthy.

Anyone trying to defend ACORN is off their rocker. The best description of ACORN I’ve seen is: The gang that couldn’t cheat straight. Good description.
ACORN started out good and then went over to the dark side. They should be disbanded.

The gang that couldn’t cheat straight. Good description.

No, that’s the RNC. Please try to keep up.

FWIW, I’d say they’d have a pretty sporting chance, given the language in the current amendments (which in the House, seems to be going backwards – more specifically targeting ACORN – from where it started out, thanks to the unintended consequences pointed out about the earlier, broader language), provided ACORN lost on the issue in lower courts, and the Supreme Court took the case. If ACORN were to win in lower court(s), I’d say the chances of a Supreme Court review would be slimmer, for the same reasons they’d have a sporting chance at a Supreme Court reversal of any lower court losses: clear, on-point Supreme Court precedent, and a powerful Constitutional prohibition are both on ACORN’s side.

Don’t sell the American people short, CO. They’ve been misinformed, disinformed, and uninformed for years now about the doings of their national government (and the American Constitution) by the corrupted national media, and yet still strong majorities express more patriotic support for our Constitution than is evidenced by the average Member of Congress or federal-beat journalist, according to a poll released just last month.

From a Volokh post that described the new National Constitution Center poll:

In particular, 61% of Americans believe the rule of law should be followed, even if it comes at the expense of public safety. This result is up from 54% in 2008.

[...]

In addition, 75 percent of poll respondents agreed with the statement that “The United States Constitution is an enduring document that remains relevant today” (up from 70 percent in 2008); while only 23 percent indicated agreement with the alternative view that “The United States Constitution is an outdated document that needs to be modernized.” I also found it interesting that only 37 percent of respondents agreed with the statement “If a majority of people want something to happen, the rights of a few shouldn’t stand in the way,” while 57 percent preferred “The rights of everyone should be protected, even when that means saying no to something the majority of people want to happen.” Further, 75 percent opposed the idea of “giving the President more power at the expense of the power of Congress and the courts” even if “it would help improve the economy.”

Bingo! Why is Reid at 37% because he doesn’t talk like Grayson fairly simple if you ask me. If Reid lit a fire under the Senate GOP, his numbers would go WAY up and re-election would be a snap. Grayson will have NO trouble keeping his seat, in fact maybe he should run for Martinez’s vacant seat in the Senate!

We need truth tellers. We have far too long depend on the “liberal media”, the blogs and internet reporting to tell the FUCKING truth.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant

Alan “Mr Sunshine” Grayson