Did the Dems trade keeping SS for the bankruptcy bill?

[Skidmore]

Did they "choose" their fight? Were they bought? I'm so pissed right now!!

[confludemocrat]

1. There are no excuses

under any "smart politics" scenario that justifies this. None. When does the retreat end?
When will the fight begin?

[kentuck]

2. They were under no pressure to make a trade...

They could have fought both battles - they may have lost the bankruptcy battle anyway.

[Mandate My Ass]

3. Max Cleland on AAR this A.M. basically gave that excuse

In my words, not his: Dems have to pass this inexcusably one-sided pro-corporate bill that will totally and viciously screw the American people so that we can maybe stop them from screwing the American people yet again on Social Security.

Actually my belief is that because Repubs vote in lockstep for any and all pro-corporate, regressive bills, and Dems that are owned by one particular corporate entity or industry will cross the aisle to keep the graft money flowing in, we are always going to be screwed from here on in.

[Yosie]

4. I started out with AFL-CIO and ACLU young lawyers

who loved to take on Big Banks (like the banks in Pittsburgh PA over early 1980's era mortgage foreclosures). A lot of good lawyers were trained in the cauldron of fire -- where these young kids with long hair whipped the big banks and their fancy schmantzy law firms.

[Mandate My Ass]

5. kudos, that's what we need in response to this madness

Legal challenges have been mounted against mandatory minimums because Congress overstepped its bounds by placing constraints on the judiciary, and I think this new bankruptcy bill does the same.

Of course mandatory minimums are still enforced after nearly 20 years but one must hold onto some glimmer of hope, no matter how faint.

Pro bono as a hobby? :toast: