Hat-tip Nicole Belle.
Hat-tip Nicole Belle.
We, the members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, contest the attack on Sen. Harry Reid’s leadership by David S. Broder in his April 26 column, “The Democrats’ Gonzales.”
In contrast to Mr. Broder’s insinuations, we believe Mr. Reid is an extraordinary leader who has effectively guided the new Democratic majority through these first few months with skill and aplomb.
The Democratic caucus is diverse, and Mr. Reid has worked tirelessly to make sure that the views of each member are heard and represented. No one ideology dominates the caucus, so that a consensus can be reached and unity achieved. It is hard to imagine a better model for leadership.
Because Mr. Reid has the support of members of the caucus, is a good listener and has an amazing ability to synthesize views and bring people together, the Senate has accomplished a great deal during his time as majority leader. Armed with his years of service in the Senate and with a mastery of procedure, Mr. Reid has led the chamber with a slim majority and a minority that is, at times, determined to stop legislation with which it disagrees.
In the first 100 days alone, we made great strides under his leadership on long-neglected legislation concerning stem cell research, the Sept. 11 commission’s recommendations and the minimum wage, to name three. In addition, under Mr. Reid’s leadership, we have fulfilled our obligation, left uncompleted by last year’s Republican-led Senate, to fund the federal government. He has accomplished all of this in the face of stiff opposition and with a commitment to giving ideas full opportunity for debate.
Finally, in this age of scripted politicians speaking only to their base or claiming that they “don’t recall” anything, the fact that Mr. Reid speaks his mind should be applauded, not derided. His brand of straight talk is honest, comes from the heart and speaks directly to the people.
OF THE SENATE
This letter was signed by Sen. Reid’s 50 colleagues in the caucus.
But Kennedy said the Act could stand “when medical uncertainty persists…The Court has given state and federal legislatures wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty.” Quoting from a 1974 ruling (Marshall v. U.S.), the opinion said that “When Congress undertakes to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties, legislative options must be especially broad.”
If there were a broad consensus that a procedure was medically unnecessary and dangerous, legislation would be appropriate to regulate those who went against the consensus — not to prohibit, as prohibition fails to dissuade and creates unregulable harms — but to place controls and supervision, to fully inform people of the risks and to establish liability.
But in the absence of such consensus, “in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty,” legislation is least appropriate, and most likely to be injurious of fundamental rights. This is the time when we should be studying the issue and learning enough about it to form a consensus, not to prematurely inflict a viewpoint that is widely contested.
The court has misruled.
The act of writing is the means by which our consciousness can be focused and analyzed for coherence. If our thoughts are jumbled we would write in such a fashion. If we have a point to make, our thoughts can be arranged around that point. If we are searching for something which others could help find, our thoughts might be phrased as questions. If we already know the answer, it might be that in asking it of others we answer it to everyone.
What is the Ultimate Question?
You know. Life, the Universe and Everything.
Can you compute?
Following, the back of the Regional Transit Connection ID Center Processing Fee Receipt calculation, and verified by my wife, the graduate statistician.