To my mind, the judges are only known when they do something controvercial and it gets publicised, most of the time when the sentence handed down is seen as insufficient. The press then report it and exaggerate for the sake of a good story. As most of us are unaware of them, they are probably doing a solid job. They also tend to be very independent of the politicians often ruling against the government when their policies are ill conceived.

Done. 1 wrong guess.

HK - We currently have our most senior figure in the Catholic Church Archbishop Pell refusing to come back to Aus to face questions from the Royal Commission set up to investigate kiddy fiddling. Very sad story that seems to be worldwide. As an indication of public opinion, Tim Minchin wrote a little song and recorded it the same day, posted it online to raise money so the victims could be flown to the Vatican to hear him answer questions if the Royal Commission goes there instead. It's a work of genius. Within 1 day enough funds had been promised. Good example of what the public can do collectively

Off too work, catch you later

Got down to the last two numbers and have to start over.

g,ng

Done, one guess

Congratulations to Tall Mike, now a Regular and moving up.

g/ng - rather easy towards small endgame

Done

done

Phil - I've read about Cardinal Pell, and about the crowd-funded efforts, and about the Minchin's song. How clever! While (as a "recovering" catholic) I admire many of the things Pope Francis has done, I'm disappointed in his talking the talk, but not walking the walk vis-a-vis abuse.

drwho: I'm not saying the Senate can't block or reject a candidate. They've done so many times in the past. But to announce before any nomination that no matter what, the nominee would be rejected, is quite obstructionist (and these days, quite republican). I think even the republicans are seeing the folly of their initial position (duh) and having second thoughts.

Morning. Go.

Was that really an expert? Done. NG. EZPZ.

Thank you eyeman

It's awfully naive to think Democrats are never obstructionist. The party with the disadvantage ALWAYS plays the obstructionist role. Always. You'll see plenty of it from the Democrats when Cruz/Rubio is president and the Republicans still hold both the House and the Senate. Of course the liberal hive mind won't tell you that they're doing it, so you won't think anything of it.

The Dems went along with trickle down, Iraq war, etc. The Repubs try to block everything. NO COMPROMISE is their mantra ever since Newt Gingrich. 1Hammer you are putting forth a false equivalency. I have given up on both parties. I no longer donate to the Dems. I pay my monthly dues to the IWW.

please stop with the 'liberal hive mind' insult stuff. It makes you sound like a parrot of the right who insist that Liberalism is a mental disease. If you truly believe that then you are projecting your faults on others.

Diane: Obstructionist, or just plain stupid. No need to announce to the world that you are an obstructionist. Just do it let everyone figure it out after the fact!

Tuco: your perspective on how effective the Republicans are at obstructing the Democrats is interesting. I only wish they were as good at obstruction as you think they are.

Difficulty score 48. No green.

Here's the thing about obstructionism in politics. When your side is doing the obstructing, Hip Hip Hooray!

When it's the other side, that's no fair they're being obstructionists!

Here is another option re. replacing Scalia. Congress could just eliminate the vacancy by passing a law making a full bench consist of 8 justices. Or they could change the number back to 6 as it was at the beginning.

if you can't see that you're part of the hive mind, you probably are. There's a "hive mind" on both sides, as well, it certainly isn't limited to just liberals. But to only see one side as obstructionists points to you either being young or simply having selective memory. Both sides do it when they're at a disadvantage. But suddenly it's the evil, Republican thing to do. Ignore Schumer's comments about Bush potentially nominating a Supreme Court Justice. Ignore Schumer's comments on SCJ nominations during the end of Bush's term. Ignore all the filibusters during Bush's 1st term. This is how politics work and only mindless sheep echo the same talking points without actually researching information. Sorry if the shoe fits.

Just a thought, but isn't it poor losing to just obstruct what policies were voted as desirable by the public who voted in the new party? Better to come up with better policies next time. All obstructionism does is to reduce the integrity of the political system. Make your opposition known but let legislation pass that was the will of the people at election time. Well one can dream!

You about HK

middle of the night here so you should be! Start

ding, second guess

goo

done, ng

why don't we compare the number of filibusters by each party the last 16 years.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11\n/charts-explain-why-democrats-went-nuclear-fi\nlibuster

Missed you again Phil, had doc appts today, ton of errands. Great story about the song, reminds of the old, old song "Power to the People" :)

go

John Lennon song :)

done

remove the \n s from the link

I like People Have the Power by Patti Smith

The power to dream, to rule, to wrestle the Earth from fools.