GOP declares "War on the Disabled", Santorum to lead the charge

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks, do you seriously claim Republicans are working and debating in good faith? Because virtually everything that has happened since Obama took office has proved the opposite.

The Republicans that defend every absurdity the GOP comes up with ARE ridiculous. And even if you criticize individual actions, it doesn't have any consequence as you'll still vote for the nutters.

The American "parties" are not comparable in their idiocy and trying to relativize everything "call out both sides...both sides do it", etc. is just a cheap...not to mention moderate hero...way of trying to justify support for people you know are ridiculous.

Is some of it done to be obstructionists to Obama's policies? Absolutely.  But for the most part, I still think people on both sides do their jobs in an attempt to help the country.

I'd love for you to prove to me that those opposing this bill are acting in bad faith...

How am I supposed to "prove" it?

You made the claim.  How the hell should I know how you'd prove it?  I don't think you can, because I think your claim is false.

[Franzl]

I can't prove the claim because it's not actually verifiable. (Except for statements from Republicans that have indicated that their main priority was to "make Obama a one term President", which strongly support my suspicion.)

This isn't something you can "prove", unless you know of mind reading technology I am unaware of. (Although Georgia Republicans seem to believe something similar exists, and that the President is using it. But that's right, "no party has a monopoly on absurdity...both sides make outrageous claims", I know.)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

An optional protocol in a UN treaty of this kind does nothing whatsoever to threaten national sovereignty, ours or anyone else's.  What they do is set up a UN committee that is in charge of receiving scheduled reports from member states as well as receiving complaints.  The committee investigates the complaints, and if they have standing and are judged valid, inform the member states about them, allows the member states to respond to the complaints, and then gives the committee the option of making appropriate recommendations to the member states if reports are not file or if complaints have standing and are judged valid.  Any member state even has the option of rejecting the recommendations.  I read through the entire text of the "Enable" Optional protocol this morning, and there is nothing in it that would trump or contravene the laws of the United States.  Nothing.  If you don't believe me, read it yourselves.

http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf

These guys in the Senate and who used to be there are funny.  They would probably all claim that they believe in certain standards for the equitable treatment of disabled people.  If pressed, they'd probably concede that such standards constitute basic human rights.  The laws now existing in their country already meet the standards of an international body that is asking them to support those values and statutes on an international stage.  But, when the international body asks for their support in advocating and achieving these standards around the world, they want to decline because they don't want anyone to "force" them to believe and do the things they already do--even though we're in fact not being forced to do anything.

Whatever.  If these guys in the Senate and who used to belong to it want this ratification blocked, then they can block it.  But don't tell me it's out of genuine concern for national sovereignty, because that claim is baseless.    

And I wouldn't trust a number of posters above to operate a lemonade stand...so there. 

I think the concern is more about a US court using the treaty to enforce a particular policy, rather than it being directly enforced by an international body.

[King]

Inks, I know you have good intentions here, but if you really want a Republican Party you can be proud of, you need to stop defending them for awhile.  There was a time when calling either party reprehensible was pure hackery, but that time is not now.  The Democratic Party, whether you agree in it's ideological conclusions or not, is morally superior to the Republican Party in 2012.  You of all people should know, your state GOP nominated Pete Hoekstra.

Over the past ten years, groups like Club for Growth have made sure any noble man better not seek election under the R brand.  Only those interested in making $$$ need apply, even if you're uneducated and have no idea how to run a national government.  That's not a hack opinion.  That's a description of most of the candidates we've seen run as Republicans in the past four years.

Yes, the Republican leadership is obstructionist and the Republican caucus is mostly full of know-nothings.  We don't have the Watergate tapes to prove it, but it's pretty obvious.  

It was certainly obvious with Romney long before "47%" and "gifts."  Yet Republicans spent a whole year trying to tell me what was obvious with my own eyes and ears wasn't true.  That Romney was some sort of noble person and it was the liberal media or hackery warping my perception.  No dice.  I would like to hold an objective position that Romney and Obama, or current Republicans and Democrats,  are the same in how much they care about people, how personally greedy they are, how much they listen to their big donors over the common folk, etc., etc. but that wouldn't be an objective position.  Barack Obama is a much better person than Mitt Romney is.   The Democratic Party of 2012 is much a better party than the Republican Party of 2012 is.  1990 GOP vs. 1990 Democrats? Probably equal.  The Bushes and Clintons? Probably equal.  Republicans today? No way.

Defending the GOP right now is the equivalent of going to a dinner party, being served a platter of feces, and eating it because the host has served real meals to you in the past.  We need to accept that the Republican Party has being sh**tting on plates for the past few years and demand better food.

[Badger]

An optional protocol in a UN treaty of this kind does nothing whatsoever to threaten national sovereignty, ours or anyone else's.  What they do is set up a UN committee that is in charge of receiving scheduled reports from member states as well as receiving complaints.  The committee investigates the complaints, and if they have standing and are judged valid, inform the member states about them, allows the member states to respond to the complaints, and then gives the committee the option of making appropriate recommendations to the member states if reports are not file or if complaints have standing and are judged valid.  Any member state even has the option of rejecting the recommendations.  I read through the entire text of the "Enable" Optional protocol this morning, and there is nothing in it that would trump or contravene the laws of the United States.  Nothing.  If you don't believe me, read it yourselves.

http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf

These guys in the Senate and who used to be there are funny.  They would probably all claim that they believe in certain standards for the equitable treatment of disabled people.  If pressed, they'd probably concede that such standards constitute basic human rights.  The laws now existing in their country already meet the standards of an international body that is asking them to support those values and statutes on an international stage.  But, when the international body asks for their support in advocating and achieving these standards around the world, they want to decline because they don't want anyone to "force" them to believe and do the things they already do--even though we're in fact not being forced to do anything.

Whatever.  If these guys in the Senate and who used to belong to it want this ratification blocked, then they can block it.  But don't tell me it's out of genuine concern for national sovereignty, because that claim is baseless.    

And I wouldn't trust a number of posters above to operate a lemonade stand...so there. 

I think the concern is more about a US court using the treaty to enforce a particular policy, rather than it being directly enforced by an international body.

From the article:


"The treaty requires virtually nothing of the United States. It essentially directs the other signatories to update their laws so that they more closely match the Americans with Disabilities Act. Even Lee thought it necessary to preface his opposition with the qualifier that “our concerns with this convention have nothing to do with any lack of concern for the rights of persons with disabilities.”

Their concerns, rather, came from the dark world of U.N. conspiracy theories. The opponents argue that the treaty, like most everything the United Nations does, undermines American sovereignty — in this case via a plot to keep Americans from home-schooling their children and making other decisions about their well-being.

The treaty does no such thing; if it had such sinister aims, it surely wouldn’t have the support of disabilities and veterans groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican senators such as John McCain (Ariz.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.), and conservative legal minds such as Boyden Gray and Dick Thornburgh.

But the opposition is significant, because it shows the ravages of the Senate’s own disability: If members can’t even agree to move forward on an innocuous treaty to protect the disabled, how are they to agree on something as charged as the “fiscal cliff”?"


The treaty requires the rest of the world to catch up with US and the GHWB signed ADA. Opposition is largely limited to the "balck helicopters are coming" brigade, and their somewhat more sane, but no less nativist and know-nothing, "I wouldn't trust the UN to run a lemonade stand (so I oppose anything they sponser becasue it MUST be bad)" wing of the party.

Disgraceful.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yeah, I'm thinking that opinion article is just maybe not the most objective source.

[Badger]

Yeah, I'm thinking that opinion article is just maybe not the most objective source.

Yeah, and I'm thinking it's more reliable than knee-jerk anti-UN types, but if you have anything specific (which seems to be utterly lacking in the con side here), then please share.

Or, if you really want to play the 'determine the merits of a proposal based on its supporters and opponents' game, consider that mainstream conservatives like McCain, Barasso, Thornburgh, et al support it, and opposition is spearheaded by Santorum and DeMint.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yeah, I'm thinking that opinion article is just maybe not the most objective source.

Yeah, and I'm thinking it's more reliable than knee-jerk anti-UN types, but if you have anything specific (which seems to be utterly lacking in the con side here), then please share.

Or, if you really want to play the 'determine the merits of a proposal based on its supporters and opponents' game, consider that mainstream conservatives like McCain, Barasso, Thornburgh, et al support it, and opposition is spearheaded by Santorum and DeMint.

I'm playing no such game. Dana Milbank is an opinion columnist.  The only quotes he has of Santorum and other opponents mention the use of this by American courts to change or restrict US policy but do not mention any conspiracy theories. 

[anvi]

Sorry if I sound in any way militant in the above.  But, from what I can tell from my direct reading of the proposed Convention, I can't discern how it would force the hand of the American legislative process in any way.  And even if such concerns persisted, I would think attaching some reservations while still ratifying the Convention would suffice.  I do think there is value to bringing shortcomings in treatment of people with disabilities to light, even if the Convention can't directly resolve them.  Bringing attention to social and political problems and thereby exerting at least some moral pressure on perpetrators of discrimination is an important tool of change.  JMO.

[Badger]

Yeah, I'm thinking that opinion article is just maybe not the most objective source.

Yeah, and I'm thinking it's more reliable than knee-jerk anti-UN types, but if you have anything specific (which seems to be utterly lacking in the con side here), then please share.

Or, if you really want to play the 'determine the merits of a proposal based on its supporters and opponents' game, consider that mainstream conservatives like McCain, Barasso, Thornburgh, et al support it, and opposition is spearheaded by Santorum and DeMint.

I'm playing no such game. Dana Milbank is an opinion columnist.  The only quotes he has of Santorum and other opponents mention the use of this by American courts to change or restrict US policy but do not mention any conspiracy theories. 

Oh please. If the treaty actually had a lick of ability to affect the American Judiciary or negatively direct US foriegn policy, do you really think such wooly-headed One Worlders like Barrasso and McCain would back it?

Playing devil's advocate is all fine and good, but come on already.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yeah, and I'm thinking it's more reliable than knee-jerk anti-UN types, but if you have anything specific (which seems to be utterly lacking in the con side here), then please share.

So then if it's a knee-jerk reaction from anti-UN people, it's not a war on the disabled... it's a war on the UN.  Which was my point before.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yeah, I'm thinking that opinion article is just maybe not the most objective source.

Yeah, and I'm thinking it's more reliable than knee-jerk anti-UN types, but if you have anything specific (which seems to be utterly lacking in the con side here), then please share.

Or, if you really want to play the 'determine the merits of a proposal based on its supporters and opponents' game, consider that mainstream conservatives like McCain, Barasso, Thornburgh, et al support it, and opposition is spearheaded by Santorum and DeMint.

I'm playing no such game. Dana Milbank is an opinion columnist.  The only quotes he has of Santorum and other opponents mention the use of this by American courts to change or restrict US policy but do not mention any conspiracy theories. 

Oh please. If the treaty actually had a lick of ability to affect the American Judiciary or negatively direct US foriegn policy, do you really think such wooly-headed One Worlders like Barrasso and McCain would back it?

What are Barrasso's or McCain's expertise in the relationship between international and domestic law?  What are their comments on the issue?  Their support by itself isn't something I find dispositive.

It seems to me that if this is an actual treaty rather than just a resolution of general principles, then it has policy implications.

[Badger]

Yeah, and I'm thinking it's more reliable than knee-jerk anti-UN types, but if you have anything specific (which seems to be utterly lacking in the con side here), then please share.

So then if it's a knee-jerk reaction from anti-UN people, it's not a war on the disabled... it's a war on the UN.  Which was my point before.

It's a knee jerk anti-UN reaction--which in and of itself appears downright know-nothing here--that threatens to derail something that might improve the lives of the disabled, albeit even marginally.

I realize this treaty, like most UN initiatives, aren't likely to accompish much concrete. But if it accomplishes ANYTHING it doesn't warrant such nativist opposition.

I always marvel at how anti-UN types claim (with some justification--albeit inevitably exagerated) that the UN is a paper tiger that can't tie it's shoelaces without instructions, but at the same time is somehow this ominus threat to undermining American soverignty!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the main bugaboo in this treaty for the anti-UN crowd is probably the language in Article 4: "The provisions of the present Convention shall extend to all parts of federal states without any limitations or exceptions."  While innocuous enough for the present treaty, the idea that a treaty can bind each of the 50 States despite their not signing up to it runs counter to current practice.  Indeed, given the historical interpretation of the Federal government's treaty power, the language is null and void, but who knows what a future Supreme Court might decide?  The thing is, the language here, regardless of its lack of effect, raises the hackles of those who fear a unitary world government.

[Keystone Phil]

The treaty failed to obtain the two-thirds majority. The vote was 61-38 in favor.

Bob Dole was wheeled into the chamber by Elizabeth Dole today to try to push for the treaty.

[Lief 🗽]

Here's a list of who voted for and against it: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00219

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Disgusting, disappointing.

[Franzl]

GOP remains absurd and hateful. What else is new?

[Person Man]

Jesus, is Santorum the only one who doesn't know he's going to hell?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

GOP remains absurd and hateful. What else is new?

Absurd, perhaps, but so is the treaty.  Its proponents can't point to a single positive thing it would actually achieve in the US.  They've gone out of their way to claim it's a paper tiger with no claws or teeth in it.  Which is actually the case, so this was all about style and not at all about substance.  So the vote wasn't about the disabled, but about whether the US could be made to feel subservient to the UN.

Not that the adoption of this silly piece of paper would have done that, but it'll hopefully keep us from funding another useless piece of UN bureaucracy.

[Keystone Phil]

GOP remains absurd and hateful. What else is new?

So glad you've finally outed yourself/ended the Moderate Hero routine.

Once again, if you dare to oppose this, you obviously hate the disabled. Even if you have a disabled child, you hate them. There are no other reasons for someone to oppose this.

[Landslide Lyndon]

GOP remains absurd and hateful. What else is new?

So glad you've finally outed yourself/ended the Moderate Hero routine.

Once again, if you dare to oppose this, you obviously hate the disabled. Even if you have a disabled child, you hate them. There are no other reasons for someone to oppose this.

There are other reasons. But since you aren't exactly a fan of Dr. Ron Paul and his conspiracy theories, you ain't going to like them.

[Keystone Phil]

There are the Paultard/Alex Jones conspiracy theorist reasons and then there are fair objections to UN action. I've never called for a U.S. exit from the UN but I also recognize that there are times when the organization does things are pointless, well intentioned but wrong, etc.

Those that say Rick Santorum is waging a War on the Disabled should be really ashamed of themselves.

[TNF]

I don't know what's more depressing here - the fact that the Republicans shot this down to score political points with antisocial nuts like the Homeschooling Legal Defense Fund, or the fact that an organization like that even exists.

Sigh.

[anvi]

I think the concern is more about a US court using the treaty to enforce a particular policy, rather than it being directly enforced by an international body.

Well, after Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the general presumption in the courts, as I understand it, has been that provisions of international treaties have also to be explicitly implemented by U.S. law in order to be enforceable.  That decision invoked a "background presumption" that international treaties do not, by themselves, create "private rights" that can justify a cause of action in domestic courts.  And district courts have since used that presumption to deny causes of action based on international treaty provisions.  So, the worries you are citing are unwarranted both in the terms of the proposed treaty and in terms of recent American jurisprudence. 

But, with regard to Enable, that's all moot now.  So, you know, hooray.