Probably right. I think she would have a hard time being one of nine. Otherwise I could see the appeal to her. Lifetime in the media as opposed to eight more years.
Dreadwinter wrote: How can you support a guy whose whole argument is "I am going to be President so I think I should get to do it!"
lol, this "precedent" is silly
Well, I can support him by not wanting another wise Latina appointed to the court more than I want someone running for president to only make constitutionally-sound arguments.
I finally watched that Rubio video from a page back, and man, did Chris Christie ever nail him - almost robotlike, the way he recites and switches to his prepared little speech almost verbatim over 3 appearances. Not a dude with a lot of verbal flexibility. When he got asked about Kennedy in Reagan's last turn, I felt you could see a second of panic before he just doubled down and re-iterated.
I wonder if he has a habit of going off message that his handlers are trying to conquer.
Seaward wrote: I think you might want to go back and read what I actually typed.
I did. Reading it again doesn't make it any less silly of a statement.
So your argument is that Rubio has a constitutionally-sound argument that Obama should wait?
I think that's pretty ridiculous, and I'm fairly sure you don't actually mean that. The Constitution gives the president the power to nominate Supreme Court justices. It doesn't have an "except in election years!" clause.
Seaward wrote: I think you might want to go back and read what I actually typed.
I did. Reading it again doesn't make it any less silly of a statement.
So your argument is that Rubio has a constitutionally-sound argument that Obama should wait?
I think that's pretty ridiculous, and I'm fairly sure you don't actually mean that. The Constitution gives the president the power to nominate Supreme Court justices. It doesn't have an "except in election years!" clause.
I'll state it again: I can support him by not wanting a wise Latina appointed to the court more than I want a guy running for president to make constitutionally-sound arguments.
To rephrase, because apparently English is difficult for some: my desire to avoid another Sotomayor outweighs my desire to have a presidential candidate make a legitimate argument on the issue, which Rubio is most definitely not doing.
I'll state it again: I can support him by not wanting a wise Latina appointed to the court more than I want a guy running for president to make constitutionally-sound arguments.
To rephrase, because apparently English is difficult for some: my desire to avoid another Sotomayor outweighs my desire to have a presidential candidate make a legitimate argument on the issue, which Rubio is most definitely not doing.
So wait, you are perfectly fine with your candidate holding up a very important constitutionally mandated process because you want a supreme court justice that you believe will uphold an interpretation of the constitution you agree with?
So wait, you are perfectly fine with your candidate holding up a very important constitutionally mandated process because you want a supreme court justice that you believe will uphold an interpretation of the constitution you agree with?
That is all sorts of special.
How's it any different from Borking, a thing with progressives still laud to this day?
IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
It's basically a term to describe the slandering of a candidate/potential candidate so badly that they won't want to run.
Except Bork was given an up and down vote, and he lost - and 7 republicans voted against him. The guy Reagan picked to replace a moderate justice was a guy who stated repeatedly that he doesn't believe there is any right to privacy in the constitution and would overturn Roe vs Wade.
Bork was an extremely flawed nominee, is the other (maybe most honest) way of thinking about it, rather than creating a false analogy - that where Democrats would refuse to consider a candidate, ANY candidate, because of partisan nonsense. I can see why that would be a useful analogy if you're sympathetic to the expected GOP efforts to prevent any SCOTUS nomination for a year, no matter who it is. It only breaks down when you remember the next nominee - also proposed by Reagan, also before a Democratic senate - passed 97-0.
whembly wrote: Excuse me, but the President can nominate anybody he damn well please...
Just like the Senate can deny any nominated candidate at any damn time...
Full stop.
Can I take this to assume you're in favor of the novel legal theory that a President shouldn't nominate any appointments for 25% of their terms? For a two term president, this means 2 years are off-limits?
whembly wrote: Excuse me, but the President can nominate anybody he damn well please...
Just like the Senate can deny any nominated candidate at any damn time...
Full stop.
Can I take this to assume you're in favor of the novel legal theory that a President shouldn't nominate any appointments for 25% of their terms? For a two term president, this means 2 years are off-limits?
I never said he *couldn't* nominate anyone at anytime... just that he's dreaming if this current Senate is going to schedule a vote or to confirm a lefty Justice.
This isn’t a dig at whembly. I’ve seen him concede points, so that makes him better at this than most of the internet. But there is a weird culture where people just walking away from bad arguments, or repeating them again later, is seen as less rude than pushing someone to be honest enough to admit their argument was bad. So it’s really no surprise that zombie arguments are very common.
Grey Templar wrote: She'd never accept. She's far too greedy for power to give up on the presidency like that.
Wait, aren't Supreme Court Justices at the height of political power? Isn't that the Conservative talking point these days?
They definitely do have a lot of power, but Clinton wants to be "running the country". Plus she wants to be the first woman president. We've already had a first female SCOTUS judge, she'll never accept being second string.
Maybe she'd be interested in the position after she's had her run in the White House.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
They definitely do have a lot of power, but Clinton wants to be "running the country".
Why did you place the phrase "running the country" in quotations? Has Clinton ever said that?
It was for emphasis and not that she said that. She wants the limelight, prestige, etc... That doesn't apply nearly as much to being a justice, though they have a much longer effect on the country.
d-usa wrote: I thought Quotation marks are for quoting stuff...
What's the actual name for the single-not-quotation-mark marks?
You mean a single quotation mark? That's for making a quote within a quote. There are other acceptable uses for them though: the AP uses them for quotations in headlines and sometimes they're used to highlight words not being used for their meaning (this is common in philosophical and theological writing).
Using quotations for emphasis is called scare or sneer quotes and are used to convey irony or disdain (which is extra funny when people use them wrong). The proper way to do it is to use italics (my preferred way) or underline what you're emphasizing. Though as much as the grammar lover in me hates scare quotes, I'm guilty of using from time to time.
WASHINGTON—Moving quickly to begin the process of filling the unexpected vacancy on the Supreme Court bench, President Obama spent much of the weekend compiling a shortlist of gay, transsexual abortion doctors to replace the late Antonin Scalia, White House sources confirmed Monday. “These are all exemplary candidates with strong homosexual values and proven records of performing partial-birth abortions, but am I missing anyone?” Obama reportedly asked himself while reviewing his list of queer, gender-nonconforming, feminist Planned Parenthood employees, all of whom were also said to be black immigrants. “I definitely have enough post-op transsexuals on the list, but it is a little light on pre-op candidates. And I should probably add a cop killer or two on here just to round out my options.” Sources later confirmed that Obama was attempting to rapidly narrow the list down to the single best nominee to submit to the Senate in hopes of wrapping up confirmation hearings before his choice had to leave to attend the Hajj pilgrimage.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
Lets flip this on it's head and ask ourselves how it would be if the Democrats controlled the Senate and a Republican President was leaving. We'd have the exact same thing as we have now. So let's not pretend anyone has the moral high ground here.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
Lets flip this on it's head and ask ourselves how it would be if the Democrats controlled the Senate and a Republican President was leaving. We'd have the exact same thing as we have now. So let's not pretend anyone has the moral high ground here.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
Lets flip this on it's head and ask ourselves how it would be if the Democrats controlled the Senate and a Republican President was leaving. We'd have the exact same thing as we have now. So let's not pretend anyone has the moral high ground here.
Why do people keep on repeating this crap?
Because apparently whatever the Democrats did in the past has no bearing and we all should play nice now... amirite?
Because they didn't fething do it no matter how fething often someone makes a fething post to pretend that they fething did.
I'm not even going to fething rewrite the post I already fething wrote explaining the fething difference because it will make no fething difference and by page 283 the next person will repeat the same fething argument.
Senator Schumer appeared Sunday on ABC's This Week and responded to suggestions that the Senate might not confirm the lame-duck President's nomination to replace the late Justice Scalia: "show me the clause [in the Constitution] that says [the] president's only president for three years."
True, Presidents serve four-year terms. But here's a question for Senator Schumer: Can you show me the clause that says the Senate must vote on, let alone confirm, a President's nominee?
I'll save him the effort: There is no such clause in the Constitution.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court."
It could not be simpler. The president nominates someone. If the Senate gives its advice and consent, then the president can appoint him. But nowhere does the Constitution say that the Senate is required to act on the president's nominations. The Framers certainly didn't understand the Senate to bear such an obligation. And the Framers who drafted that document certainly didn't say that the Senate bore such an obligation.
That is a point I offered once in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Writing amidst the war over President Bush's judicial nominations, I looked at the founding debates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and the ratification debates that followed, and found no indication of any expectation that the Senate would be required the vote on a President's nominees.
The Framers expressly based the Constitution's "advice and consent" model on the approach used in Massachusetts, under the State's Constitution of 1780. And, looking through years of archived nomination files, I found myriad examples of nominations made by the governor that received no up-or-down vote from the "Privy Council," the body that provided constitutional advice and consent.
But the best evidence of the Senate's power not to vote on nominations is found in the Framers' rejection of an alternative approach to appointments. As an alternative to the "advice and consent" model, James Madison proposed a discretionary Senate veto. Under that plan, a president's nominees would automatically be appointed unless the Senate mustered a majority vote against that nomination within a fixed number of days.
In short, Madison would have put the burden on the Senate, to affirmatively act to block a nomination. But the Framers rejected his proposal, and chose instead the "advice and consent" model, placing the burden on the president (and his supporters) to convince the Senate to confirm his nominee.
And history reflects the Framers' choice. Presidents have made 160 nominations for the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed only 124 of them. And of the 36 failed nominations, the vast majority of them (25) received no up-or-down vote.
To that end, the Senate can structure its own rules to govern the advice-and-consent process. It had constitutional power to establish the filibuster system. It has constitutional power to abolish or reform the filibuster. And it probably should. But the Constitution leaves this choice to the Senate alone—just as it leaves the Senate free to decide whether to consider a president's judicial nomination.
Of course, Senator Schumer knows as well as anyone that the Senate is not constitutionally obligated to give judicial nominations an up-or-down vote. From the very outset of George W. Bush's presidency, Schumer was ready to block a vote on any of his Supreme Court nominations. In fact, Schumer announced in mid-2007—with a year and a half left in Bush's presidency—that he would block any further nominations Bush might make to the Court. (He added that the failure of his effort to filibuster the Alito nomination, barely a year into Bush's second term, one of his "greatest failings and regrets.")
President Obama once shared Schumer's fondness for filibustering Supreme Court nominations. But now he, like Schumer, sees things quite differently. "I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time," he said yesterday, before asserting that the Senate must "fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote."
Obama's last point repeated almost verbatim the words of his predecessor. "The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to hold an up-or-down vote on every judicial nominee," President Bush said in response to Senator Obama's and Schumer's failed filibuster, a point Bush pressed repeatedly throughout his presidency.
In those days, President Obama was among the loudest critics of presidential power. Today he asserts presidential power more aggressively than his predecessor ever did. The Senate should assert its own power with no less vigor. Let ambition counteract ambition.
The White House says the president will not move to appoint a Supreme Court replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia while the Senate is in recess this week.
In an interview with ABC News, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Obama would would wait to announce his nominee until Congress returns from its break later this month. In an email to NPR, Schultz said the White House had ruled out a recess appointment "this week."
"At that point, we expect the Senate to consider that nominee, consistent with their responsibilities laid out in the United States Constitution," Schultz told ABC.
Of course, it's more complicated than that. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Saturday that the vacancy "should not be filled until we have a new president." That means an Obama nominee could languish until a new president takes over in January.
With that prospect, pundits began considering the possibility of Obama bypassing the Senate and appointing a justice temporarily when Congress was out of town.
As Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog writes, Article II of Constitution gives the president that power and William J. Brennan, Jr., one of the most consequential justices in the Court's history, began his time on the bench when President Dwight Eisenhower appointed him during a recess. Brennan's nomination was confirmed by the Senate after Eisenhower was re-elected.
According to the Constitution, a president can can fill vacancies while the Senate is in recess but their appointment expires at the end of the Senate's next session. This recess-appointment power, however, was greatly curtailed by the Supreme Court in the 2014 case National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.
Denniston explains:
"First, on the president's side, the Court ruled that the recess appointment power applies when the Senate leaves town for a break in the middle of an annual sitting, or a break at the end of each annual session.
"Second, also on the president's side, the decision declared that the president during a recess can fill a vacancy even if the opening occurred well before the recess began.
"Third, on the Senate's side, the ruling made clear that it has to last more than three days, without saying how much more time must pass without the Senate out of town and doing nothing.
"Fourth, strongly on the Senate's side, the decision left it largely up to the Senate to decide when it does take a recess, allowing it to avoid the formality of a recess by taking some legislative action, however minor or inconsequential and however few senators actually take part in some action."
Seems like the right thing to do. Do the thing he is supposed to do with no shenanigans, and see if the R's respond in kind. Because, honestly, just having a temper tantrum and not letting anybody in will only hurt the republicans in the election, and the D's have a lot more on the line here to excite their base. The only thing the R's conceivably have to excite the base about this is the 2nd, but even if it was as progressive a judge as you can get, I don't think they would have any legitimate concern. I doubt either Clinton or Bernie would put a really anti-gun judge up, Bernie's views on guns are one of the things he's been considered weak on by the D base, and Hillary is smart enough to know that she does't want to give the R's a good talking point to run on.
whembly wrote: Excuse me, but the President can nominate anybody he damn well please...
Just like the Senate can deny any nominated candidate at any damn time...
Full stop.
They can block nominees for the rest of time. Slowly the other nominees will die off, until the sole survivor, Clarence Thomas, reveals his true form as A’Pacha, queen of the insect people, and sings the song that will end the world.
Or you know, people can temper the power they wield with responsibility. And so, just as it’d be grossly irresponsible for Obama to nominate himself, his wife, a political rival* or whoever else, Republicans would be just as irresponsible by planning to reject anyone Obama proposed for the next year.
Once again, this seems to be coming down to an issue of whether people respect proper governance or not.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
Lets flip this on it's head and ask ourselves how it would be if the Democrats controlled the Senate and a Republican President was leaving. We'd have the exact same thing as we have now. So let's not pretend anyone has the moral high ground here.
Why do people keep on repeating this crap?
Because apparently whatever the Democrats did in the past has no bearing and we all should play nice now... amirite?
YES! If you want to be the better man, then you have to actually be the better man.
The GOP has a chance here to rise up above the likes of Trump and Cruz and show actual, genuine, responsible, intelligent leadership. A chance that you and many others are practically demanding that they squander. This country is already circling the toilet because of this petty political partisan bullgak from all sides AND IT NEEDS TO STOP. All it takes is one side to actually do it.
Senator Schumer appeared Sunday on ABC's This Week and responded to suggestions that the Senate might not confirm the lame-duck President's nomination to replace the late Justice Scalia: "show me the clause [in the Constitution] that says [the] president's only president for three years."
True, Presidents serve four-year terms. But here's a question for Senator Schumer: Can you show me the clause that says the Senate must vote on, let alone confirm, a President's nominee?
Yeah, that pretty much sums up the core of the current Republican con job on this issue. They're quite deliberately confusing the Senate's ability to reject a specific candidate with a decision to block any candidate, before that candidate is even known.
If Republicans were merely doing the former, then it would be irrelevant whether Obama was in his first year or last year. But of course, Republicans are doing the latter.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
Lets flip this on it's head and ask ourselves how it would be if the Democrats controlled the Senate and a Republican President was leaving. We'd have the exact same thing as we have now. So let's not pretend anyone has the moral high ground here.
Why do people keep on repeating this crap?
Because apparently whatever the Democrats did in the past has no bearing and we all should play nice now... amirite?
YES! If you want to be the better man, then you have to actually be the better man.
The GOP has a chance here to rise up above the likes of Trump and Cruz and show actual, genuine, responsible, intelligent leadership. A chance that you and many others are practically demanding that they squander. This country is already circling the toilet because of this petty political partisan bullgak from all sides AND IT NEEDS TO STOP. All it takes is one side to actually do it.
How do you define genuine, responsible, intelligent leadership?
"I would abolish the department of education as it now exists, reducing 5000 jobs to 20" Jeb!
kasich is trying to defund planned parenthood, the "faith based mentorship" program for public schools was his bill
Rubiobot has glitched on stage
Not to mention they are all anti science, homophobic bigots who base their decisions on a 1900 year old book written by cult leaders starring a magic carpenter born in a city that didn't exist until the second century A.D.
Tannhauser42 wrote: YES! If you want to be the better man, then you have to actually be the better man. The GOP has a chance here to rise up above the likes of Trump and Cruz and show actual, genuine, responsible, intelligent leadership. A chance that you and many others are practically demanding that they squander. This country is already circling the toilet because of this petty political partisan bullgak from all sides AND IT NEEDS TO STOP. All it takes is one side to actually do it.
It only one takes overtly partisan, deeply dysfunctional party to cause these problems. That’s the nature of US politics, it’s a consensus driven system, and so if one party rejects any kind of deal making things fall over. And right now one party and one party alone is in the midst of a hyper-partisan dose of crazy, making consensus impossible.
Of course, the answer is still exactly as you say, if Republicans decide to get off the crazy train, and start placing proper governance as a priority alongside their legislative issues, then things would solve themselves pretty quickly. But it’s been a long, slow ride down in to crazy, and I no longer think it will turn around without something very drastic happening.
whembly wrote: Excuse me, but the President can nominate anybody he damn well please...
Just like the Senate can deny any nominated candidate at any damn time...
Full stop.
They can block nominees for the rest of time. Slowly the other nominees will die off, until the sole survivor, Clarence Thomas, reveals his true form as A’Pacha, queen of the insect people, and sings the song that will end the world.
Hah! But I wouldn't be surprised that Ginsberg outlives them all.
Or you know, people can temper the power they wield with responsibility. And so, just as it’d be grossly irresponsible for Obama to nominate himself, his wife, a political rival* or whoever else, Republicans would be just as irresponsible by planning to reject anyone Obama proposed for the next year.
Once again, this seems to be coming down to an issue of whether people respect proper governance or not.
*Remember, Underwood is a villain.
Dontcha know... we've reached the Calvinball Era now.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
Lets flip this on it's head and ask ourselves how it would be if the Democrats controlled the Senate and a Republican President was leaving. We'd have the exact same thing as we have now. So let's not pretend anyone has the moral high ground here.
Why do people keep on repeating this crap?
Because apparently whatever the Democrats did in the past has no bearing and we all should play nice now... amirite?
YES! If you want to be the better man, then you have to actually be the better man.
The GOP has a chance here to rise up above the likes of Trump and Cruz and show actual, genuine, responsible, intelligent leadership. A chance that you and many others are practically demanding that they squander. This country is already circling the toilet because of this petty political partisan bullgak from all sides AND IT NEEDS TO STOP. All it takes is one side to actually do it.
How do you define genuine, responsible, intelligent leadership?
"I would abolish the department of education as it now exists, reducing 5000 jobs to 20" Jeb!
kasich is trying to defund planned parenthood, the "faith based mentorship" program for public schools was his bill
Rubiobot has glitched on stage
Not to mention they are all anti science, homophobic bigots who base their decisions on a 1900 year old book written by cult leaders starring a magic carpenter born in a city that didn't exist until the second century A.D.
You forget the gang of Christian fanatics roving around the neighborhood.
Breotan wrote: Lets flip this on it's head and ask ourselves how it would be if the Democrats controlled the Senate and a Republican President was leaving. We'd have the exact same thing as we have now. So let's not pretend anyone has the moral high ground here.
No. We're not going to do this - this thing, where you forge a narrative, and the only thing you need to make your "argument" is a willingness to embrace intellectual dishonesty and the endurance to outlast people calling you on it. Maybe D-USA got tired of knocking this garbage down 4 or 5 times today, but I'll be happy to copy and paste as many times as needed:
When this actually happened, in Ronald Reagan's last term with a Democratic majority senate, he put forward 2 nominees, and one withdrew. One got an up and down vote and was not confirmed, and one was confirmed 97-0.
You forget the gang of Christian fanatics roving around the neighborhood.
You mean like the guy who shot up the Colorado springs planned parenthood? Or the ones at my school who threatened to kill me in public? Are those the type of people you are talking about? I don't think you have the same perspective I have on this issue.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
"Stomping all over the Constitution" is a histrionic and inaccurate argument. It's neither stomping all over the Constitution to recommend the president leave nominating an associate justice candidate to his successor, nor is it stomping all over the Constitution to not approve someone the president does choose to pick.
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK what 'borking' is -- in the UK it's slang for spewing up... -- however if it's a bad thing to do in the USA, why would the Republicans want to be as bad as the Democrats?
Because saying, "Well, we got our teeth kicked in, but at least we didn't fight dirty!" doesn't revert Supreme Court decisions.
So, you are fine with stomping all over the Constitution to replace a Justice who fought to protect his interpretation of the Constitution so that you can protect your view of the Constitution?
"Stomping all over the Constitution" is a histrionic and inaccurate argument. It's neither stomping all over the Constitution to recommend the president leave nominating an associate justice candidate to his successor, nor is it stomping all over the Constitution to not approve someone the president does choose to pick.
Maybe the Senate actually will do its duty of considering any proposed appointments, and make a mature decision.
Republicans respect the constitution. It can't work without a properly formed supreme court, so someone has got to be appointed without too much delay as there is a danger of not being able to form a quorum and thereby losing working time.
Surely you don't believe every time the Senate has said "lol no" to a presidential Supreme Court nomination, they've been violating the Constitution?
There is a difference between saying no to somebody and saying "you shouldn't appoint somebody and we will do our best to obstruct it". One is a legitimate reason and the other is political bullgak.
Well, yeah, it could be. But this is the US Constitution, clarity is not one of its virtues.
But nowhere does the Constitution say that the Senate is required to act on the president's nominations. The Framers certainly didn't understand the Senate to bear such an obligation. And the Framers who drafted that document certainly didn't say that the Senate bore such an obligation.
First, Advice and Consent was a compromise, many of the Framers didn't want the President to be limited in that way.
Second, if we're going down the road of absolute literalism the President doesn't have to nominate anyone to any position. I hope you like a US Federal Government without a Secretary of State, a Secretary of Defense, a Secretary of the Treasury, an Attorney General, ad nauseam.
Also, Adam J. White, don't end consecutive sentences with the same word. You're ostensibly writing something other than bad lyrics, reach for that very low bar.
In short, Madison would have put the burden on the Senate, to affirmatively act to block a nomination. But the Framers rejected his proposal, and chose instead the "advice and consent" model, placing the burden on the president (and his supporters) to convince the Senate to confirm his nominee.
Kilkrazy wrote:Maybe the Senate actually will do its duty of considering any proposed appointments, and make a mature decision.
Republicans respect the constitution. It can't work without a properly formed supreme court, so someone has got to be appointed without too much delay as there is a danger of not being able to form a quorum and thereby losing working time.
The Supreme Court functions just fine with eight members.
Surely you don't believe every time the Senate has said "lol no" to a presidential Supreme Court nomination, they've been violating the Constitution?
There is a difference between saying no to somebody and saying "you shouldn't appoint somebody and we will do our best to obstruct it". One is a legitimate reason and the other is political bullgak.
Digging up someone's video rental history and having Uncle Joe Biden wander around blatantly lying about someone's judicial record both strike me as on the "political bs" side of things. I don't see it as any less deserving of scorn than promising to stall the process out for a few months.
Seaward wrote: The Supreme Court functions just fine with eight members.
It also functions just as well with seven, five, two, or one all powerful member who has the power to dictate the constitution at will. The point of there being nine members of the court is so that decisions can be made without putting too much power into any one person's hands.
Kilkrazy wrote:Maybe the Senate actually will do its duty of considering any proposed appointments, and make a mature decision.
Republicans respect the constitution. It can't work without a properly formed supreme court, so someone has got to be appointed without too much delay as there is a danger of not being able to form a quorum and thereby losing working time.
The Supreme Court functions just fine with eight members.
...
What if another one falls ill or dies, or two of them, or recuse themselves for some legitimate reason.? There's a reason why the number chosen was nine with a quorum of six, to ensure there always would be six judges to form a quorum on a case. Without this, the work of the court has a possibility of being interrupted.
dogma wrote: No, it doesn't. The Supreme Court is statutorily required to be constituted by nine people, a Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.
And it'll be filled eventually. But there's a process in place for it to make rulings with eight, so the idea that it can't function with eight is best described as a break with reality.
dogma wrote: No, it doesn't. The Supreme Court is statutorily required to be constituted by nine people, a Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.
And it'll be filled eventually. But there's a process in place for it to make rulings with eight, so the idea that it can't function with eight is best described as a break with reality.
I am curious about how that system works. I know that there are cases where Justice's will recuse themselves, leaving an even number. How do ties get broken?
Meanwhile, on Saturday Trump touched one of the third rails in Conservative politics. He called the Iraq war a disaster and claimed Bush lied to get us into Iraq. Will he pay a price at the polls?
I honestly do not think so. If anything, it is the type of WWE red meat his supporters love. It could happen here!
And it'll be filled eventually. But there's a process in place for it to make rulings with eight, so the idea that it can't function with eight is best described as a break with reality.
Again, the Supreme Court is statutorily required to be composed of 9 Justices; 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associate Justices. It cannot, legally, function with 8 Justices. Justices may recuse themselves in certain situations, but they remain Justices.
And it'll be filled eventually. But there's a process in place for it to make rulings with eight, so the idea that it can't function with eight is best described as a break with reality.
Again, the Supreme Court is statutorily required to be composed of 9 Justices; 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associate Justices. It cannot, legally, function with 8 Justices. Justices may recuse themselves in certain situations, but they remain Justices.
There is precedence for a seat being open for more then a year, but only a handful of times has it ever gone on more then 250 days.
LordofHats wrote: I always suspected that North Carolina was the superior Carolina
The downside to North Carolina is we have to share the "Carolina" part of our great state name(and a border) with South Carolina.
It's okay. South Dakota knows how you feel. They have to share a border and name with North Dakota!
Granted I think we can all agree that you're way better off than New Mexico. I mean, how awkward must it be having that name and Mexico shows up for the bloc party?!
And it'll be filled eventually. But there's a process in place for it to make rulings with eight, so the idea that it can't function with eight is best described as a break with reality.
Again, the Supreme Court is statutorily required to be composed of 9 Justices; 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associate Justices. It cannot, legally, function with 8 Justices. Justices may recuse themselves in certain situations, but they remain Justices.
There is precedence for a seat being open for more then a year, but only a handful of times has it ever gone on more then 250 days.
The one that went 391 days, there was not an absence. The chief justice requested to retire, but served until they had a replacement, so the seat wasn't vacant unlike what is suggested by the graph there.
dogma wrote: Again, the Supreme Court is statutorily required to be composed of 9 Justices; 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associate Justices. It cannot, legally, function with 8 Justices. Justices may recuse themselves in certain situations, but they remain Justices.
You're incorrect. It is perfectly legally for the Supreme Court to function with only eight justices until the ninth is approved and invested. Can, has, and will continue to happen.
feeder wrote: Because Republicans = Bad, Democrats = Less Bad. I thought you followed politics.
You got the order reversed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Don't they have to have hearings and votes for that to happen?
While I do emphasize with your desire to have hearings, and of course the GOP voters would like Republicans to say things like "we'll of course consider Obama's nominees." But that assumes that the GOP voters implicitly trust them to make the right call.
Here's the problem... GOP voters *don't* trust them and for good reasons.
Hence, it's a politically strong position to not hold hearings for the GOP Senate with their base.
If by strong position you mean possibly losing the Senate because the public will be able to see through this obstructionism and bald face hypocrisy ("we love the constitution except for when we don't") Or if you mean strong position in that the GOP is handing over the White House (and thereby a mandate for Clinton to nominate a way more liberal judge because she will have a mandate), then you would be right. It might be strong with the base, but the base (on both sides) is utterly insane and intractable.
Gordon Shumway wrote: If by strong position you mean possibly losing the Senate because the public will be able to see through this obstructionism and bald face hypocrisy ("we love the constitution except for when we don't") Or if you mean strong position in that the GOP is handing over the White House (and thereby a mandate for Clinton to nominate a way more liberal judge because she will have a mandate), then you would be right. It might be strong with the base, but the base (on both sides) is utterly insane and intractable.
Objection your honor... speculation!
So, remember that last time when GOP shut down the government? Yeah... pretty much unscathed after that.
FWIW: Senator Grassely has sent up some trial balloons to at least hold some hearings.
You're incorrect. It is perfectly legally for the Supreme Court to function with only eight justices until the ninth is approved and invested. Can, has, and will continue to happen.
It has also functioned with 6, 7, 10, and was threatened to function with 15. But the law, as written, establishes the Court at 9.
You're incorrect. It is perfectly legally for the Supreme Court to function with only eight justices until the ninth is approved and invested. Can, has, and will continue to happen.
It has also functioned with 6, 7, 10, and was threatened to function with 15. But the law, as written, establishes the Court at 9.
The wording of the law specifically states that only 6 judges are required for a quorom, implicitly meaning that the ideal state is 9 judges, but only 6 are required.
Easy E wrote: Meanwhile, on Saturday Trump touched one of the third rails in Conservative politics. He called the Iraq war a disaster and claimed Bush lied to get us into Iraq. Will he pay a price at the polls?
Yeah, I was thinking about this after I heard Trump's soundbites. If Trump wins the nomination and goes against Clinton, he's likely to go after her on her decision to vote for the war. The Republican candidate would be getting positive mileage out Iraq, and the Democrat would have to try to defend that disaster.
It’s almost worth making Trump win just to see that bit of ridiculousness.
In other news, GW Bush's speech was really good. Strange times.
Easy E wrote: Meanwhile, on Saturday Trump touched one of the third rails in Conservative politics. He called the Iraq war a disaster and claimed Bush lied to get us into Iraq. Will he pay a price at the polls?
Yeah, I was thinking about this after I heard Trump's soundbites. If Trump wins the nomination and goes against Clinton, he's likely to go after her on her decision to vote for the war. The Republican candidate would be getting positive mileage out Iraq, and the Democrat would have to try to defend that disaster.
It’s almost worth making Trump win just to see that bit of ridiculousness.
I'm very worried at how close this is coming to the first election that I will not vote in for a Presidential candidate.
Easy E wrote: Meanwhile, on Saturday Trump touched one of the third rails in Conservative politics. He called the Iraq war a disaster and claimed Bush lied to get us into Iraq. Will he pay a price at the polls?
Yeah, I was thinking about this after I heard Trump's soundbites. If Trump wins the nomination and goes against Clinton, he's likely to go after her on her decision to vote for the war. The Republican candidate would be getting positive mileage out Iraq, and the Democrat would have to try to defend that disaster.
It’s almost worth making Trump win just to see that bit of ridiculousness.
I'm very worried at how close this is coming to the first election that I will not vote in for a Presidential candidate.
The wording of the law specifically states that only 6 judges are required for a quorom, implicitly meaning that the ideal state is 9 judges, but only 6 are required.
So how should we feel about all those 5-4 decisions?
The wording of the law specifically states that only 6 judges are required for a quorom, implicitly meaning that the ideal state is 9 judges, but only 6 are required.
So how should we feel about all those 5-4 decisions?
How should I feel about the price of cheese in Brussels?
You referenced a law that said 9 were required, I just pointed out that the exact law only said 6 were.
You referenced a law that said 9 were required, I just pointed out that the exact law only said 6 were.
For a quorum.
Is your argument that dissent shouldn't exist?
What are you talking about? The argument is what number is the Supreme Court required to have to function. That number is 6. That is the only argument I am taking part in here.
The wording of the law specifically states that only 6 judges are required for a quorom, implicitly meaning that the ideal state is 9 judges, but only 6 are required.
So how should we feel about all those 5-4 decisions?
How should I feel about the price of cheese in Brussels?
You referenced a law that said 9 were required, I just pointed out that the exact law only said 6 were.
The law still requires that the court has 9 justices appointed to it. Six are required for a quorum to take into account that justices may recuse themselves, fall ill, or die. But "number of justices on the court" and "justices required for quorum" are two separate sections of the law.
Didn't he just admit that he filibustered Alito because that energizes the Democratic voters?
So why shouldn't Republicans do the same thing?
Well, if Republicans make a lot of noise in order to energise their base, but then allow a straight up and down vote after about 80 days, and in that vote we see some Republicans cross the floor to vote in favour of Obama's nomination, then we'd have a comparable situation to Alito.
There's a very big difference between playing at political theatre for three months or so, and actually plotting to block a nomination for close to a year.
The only problem I have with the filibuster is that people can just say "I filibuster" and then the vote just never happens. People should be required to actually filibuster or else it shouldn't count!
What are you talking about? The argument is what number is the Supreme Court required to have to function. That number is 6. That is the only argument I am taking part in here.
No, it is 9, by law. A quorum is not the same thing as legal functionality.
What are you talking about? The argument is what number is the Supreme Court required to have to function. That number is 6. That is the only argument I am taking part in here.
No, it is 9, by law. A quorum is not the same thing as legal functionality.
So you're saying that every case that the Supreme Court has heard while waiting for a 9 member to be selected, was done unlawfully? For example, 13 cases were heard while waiting for Justice Kennedy to be confirmed. The court was operating illegally then?
The Judiciary Act of 1869 places the number of court justices at 9 with a quorum of 6 necessary to hear cases. My understanding is that this meant the Supreme Court can legally hand down decisions so long as there are at least 6 justices available to hear the case
LordofHats wrote: The Judiciary Act of 1869 places the number of court justices at 9 with a quorum of 6 necessary to hear cases. My understanding is that this meant the Supreme Court can legally hand down decisions so long as there are at least 6 justices available to hear the case
That is what I am arguing. It would seem that Dogma is disagreeing.
What are you talking about? The argument is what number is the Supreme Court required to have to function. That number is 6. That is the only argument I am taking part in here.
No, it is 9, by law. A quorum is not the same thing as legal functionality.
So you're saying that every case that the Supreme Court has heard while waiting for a 9 member to be selected, was done unlawfully? For example, 13 cases were heard while waiting for Justice Kennedy to be confirmed. The court was operating illegally then?
I wouldn't think so. I think that congress should have to act and at least pretend that they are trying to meet the statutory requirement of getting all 9 justices on the bench, but that during that process the court can proceed as long as they gave a quorum even though that isn't always ideal for cases that result in a 4-4 decision during that time.
Congress can change the size of the court with a new law, but if they want it to go below 6 (the minimum set by the constitution), they would need an amendment.
Edit: my mistake, the minimum of six was set by an earlier act. No minimum set by the constitution.
What are you talking about? The argument is what number is the Supreme Court required to have to function. That number is 6. That is the only argument I am taking part in here.
No, it is 9, by law. A quorum is not the same thing as legal functionality.
So you're saying that every case that the Supreme Court has heard while waiting for a 9 member to be selected, was done unlawfully? For example, 13 cases were heard while waiting for Justice Kennedy to be confirmed. The court was operating illegally then?
I wouldn't think so. I think that congress should have to act and at least pretend that they are trying to meet the statutory requirement of getting all 9 justices on the bench, but that during that process the court can proceed as long as they gave a quorum even though that isn't always ideal for cases that result in a 4-4 decision during that time.
While I agree that may be the intent, RAW, it says nothing about what should be done during those periods of only 6, 7, or 8, Justices.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Do I really need to repeat myself again?
How about this one, then: because two wrongs don't make a right?
It'd be nice if the initial wrong done by 'our' side was acknowledged as a wrong when it occurred, rather than fiercely cheered on at the time and only later declaimed as a wrong when comparison of it to things 'their' side are currently doing makes 'our' side look hypocritical.
Seaward wrote: It'd be nice if the initial wrong done by 'our' side was acknowledged as a wrong when it occurred, rather than fiercely cheered on at the time and only later declaimed as a wrong when comparison of it to things 'their' side are currently doing makes 'our' side look hypocritical.
But I dream.
Uh huh. Yeah. No-one criticised the 'borking' when it happened. Yep, that's reality.
Anyhow, here’s a quick explanation of how things work. When the Democrats attempt something, the left generally supports it, the right generally opposes it. When the Republicans attempt something, the right generally supports it, and the left generally opposes it. Those two statements are true whether or not the thing attempted was sensible and moral. People on neither side will typically complain about everything attempted, whether it was attempted by Republicans or Democrats, whether it sensible and moral or not, because people are whingers.
Later on people who like to feel butthurt about how everyone is mean towards their team will complain about how much criticism their side copped for whatever it was their side tried to do. They’ll ignore any support they got, and ignore any criticism the other side got, because that would ruin their ‘everyone picks on my team’ fantasy.
Breotan wrote: What is this, Sesame Street? Politics is blood sport and the long knives are out.
And what's that, Games of Thrones fan fiction?
Politics is tough, but the results it deliver also matter for something beyond cheerleaders hoping for one team or the other. The governance of the country actually fething matters.
Republicans want to block Obama from appointing a new judge until after the election. This requires them to justify a ridiculous amount of ignoring or turning down suggested candidates.
They know this looks like a dick move, so they are trying to justify it by referring to the Borking case which they assert shows the Democrats being dicks and therefore justifies the Republicans being dicks.
Tannhauser42 wrote: How about this one, then: because two wrongs don't make a right?
What is this, Sesame Street? Politics is blood sport and the long knives are out.
Our politicians could certainly stand to learn some of the lessons taught by Sesame Street. They already act like a bunch of Muppets, anyway (just not the good ones).
Kilkrazy wrote: Republicans want to block Obama from appointing a new judge until after the election. This requires them to justify a ridiculous amount of ignoring or turning down suggested candidates.
They know this looks like a dick move, so they are trying to justify it by referring to the Borking case which they assert shows the Democrats being dicks and therefore justifies the Republicans being dicks.
So just another case of them needing to lie in order to look not so bad...
In related news, Jeb Bush's gun pic has sparked a worldwide response in people posting the characteristic items they are proud of in their nation or home town. Things get sillier as you go down the thread.
whembly wrote: He can nominate anyone he damn well please.
Just like the Senate can damn well decide when/if to hold hearings.
Both entities are exercising their constitutional duties.
"When" - sure. "IF"? That's a pretty tortured (ie nonexistent) interpretation of their duty.
The clause says he SHALL nominate... etc. Not he can, or might. President Obama has a constitutional responsibility to nominate someone to fill that spot. There isn't any language in there about any of the bs reasons you guys are giving for why he shouldn't, or why there shouldn't be any hearings.
At some point, you need to stop playing partisan BS games and actually run the country.
whembly wrote: He can nominate anyone he damn well please.
Just like the Senate can damn well decide when/if to hold hearings.
Both entities are exercising their constitutional duties.
"When" - sure. "IF"? That's a pretty tortured (ie nonexistent) interpretation of their duty.
The clause says he SHALL nominate... etc. Not he can, or might. President Obama has a constitutional responsibility to nominate someone to fill that spot. There isn't any language in there about any of the bs reasons you guys are giving for why he shouldn't, or why there shouldn't be any hearings.
At some point, you need to stop playing partisan BS games and actually run the country.
They're not stopping him from nominating anyone.
If you believe this Senate are big "bags of dicks" for not scheduling a hearing, because they'd rather the next President to choose... then by all means and vote accordingly in the next election.
Justice Felix Frankfurter: Temporarily having an eight-justice Supreme Court is not ‘sacrificing a single interest of importance’
In 1945, Justice Robert Jackson took an extraordinary one-year leave of absence from the Supreme Court to serve as chief prosecutor at the war crimes trials in Nuremberg. He did so despite objections from Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone. Stone opposed the idea of war crimes trials as ex post winner’s justice, thought it unseemly for a justice to serve as a prosecutor, and, most relevant to current news, believed that Jackson’s absence put an unfair burden on his colleagues. In Jackson’s absence, the court split 4-4 on several cases, leading Jackson to consider returning to the court to break the deadlocks.
Justice Felix Frankfurter, however, encouraged him to stay, which he did. Frankfurter noted that the court often reschedules cases and told him that his absence was not “sacrificing a single interest of importance” (Bruce Allen Murphy, The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection 305, citing Letter, FF to Jackson, January 16, 1946, FF/HLS Box 170, Folder 2).
If the court could manage with eight justices in 1945-1946, when it had a much more onerous workload than it has today, it can manage for a year or so now. There may be good arguments that the Senate should confirm an Obama nominee this year, but the notion I see circulating that it would somehow be unprecedented and dysfunctional to temporarily have only eight justices on the court isn’t one of them.
Against Robert Bork; His Bill of Rights Is Different
It's the first Monday in October and the Supreme Court convenes for its 197th term, but with only eight justices; the admired Lewis Powell retired in June. There could have been nine justices in place had President Reagan proposed someone like him, or another conservative in the tradition of Justices Felix Frankfurter or John Marshall Harlan. By now, even a Democratic Senate probably would have given consent.
But instead, the President chose Robert Bork and thus chose angry confrontation. For Judge Bork is not merely a conservative. He has long been a flamboyant provocateur, with a lifetime of writings to prove it. As a result, Mr. Reagan got the rancorous political battle he asked for. Appointment to the Court is a political act yet the Court's authority depends in large measure on public confidence in its fairness and aloofness from the political cockpit. There's something to lose when a nomination battle turns brutally partisan.
The President's supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court's direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.
The division of power thus makes moderates of both parties decisive. Against this change in political reality, for Mr. Reagan to nominate Robert Bork was to stick a thumb in moderates' eyes. The Senate need not and should not endorse views so alien to the Supreme Court's honored role as definer and defender of constitutional liberties.
Judge Bork, who now sits on the United States Court of Appeals in Washington, has patiently described his record and philosophy before the Judiciary Committee. He has reviewed and revised his views, to assure senators that he wouldn't really interpret the Constitution in the sometimes bizarre ways suggested by the written record. Yet his underlying view remains.
Robert Bork's Constitution is smaller and more closed than the living document Americans celebrate in this its bicentennial year. His is so different from the charter produced by two centuries of Supreme Court interpretation that every moderate senator should feel justified in voting against his elevation.
He is no racist, nor is he seriously so depicted. Even those who disagree with him on constitutional issues find him witty and agreeable. His integrity is not questioned, nor is his technical ability. Yet even with his five days of testimony, it has been hard for senators to know him, in part because he recanted some, though not all, of his views. Whose Liberty Would He Limit?
The test, finally, is where he stands on large constitutional issues. Four such issues stand out.
Civil Rights. In 1963 and 1964, as a 36-year-old law professor, Mr. Bork wrote impassioned attacks on legislation to desegregate lunch counters and other public accommodations. He argued that the bill, by invading the liberty of proprietors to turn away blacks, was based on ''a principle of unsurpassed ugliness.'' Not until 1973, when seeking Senate confirmation as Solicitor General, did he publicly renounce this view, stated with such unsurpassed surliness.
Even in his latest appearance he declined to revise his pinched view of civil rights. He has criticized some of the Supreme Court's landmark civil rights decisions for reasons that vary from case to case. The bottom line, however, is almost always the same - unfavorable to minorities.
Free Speech. Repeatedly over the years, Judge Bork has taken a narrow view of the rights of expression. He declared that only the ''core'' value of political speech was immune from government restraint. Not until 1984 did he allow as how art and literature might be protected, and then only because they sometimes relate to politics. His conversion, late, is also limited.
Even this limited liberty, in his view, remains utterly at the mercy of the majority when speech becomes advocacy of illegal action. The Court and the mainstream of public opinion have long tolerated strident dissent, reserving punishment for incitement to imminent lawless action. Judge Bork rejects this tradition. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania extracted from him a ''commitment'' to apply settled law rather than his own view. But even such assurances failed to persuade the Judiciary Committee's ablest questioner, who has decided to oppose the nomination.
Sex Discrimination. Not until two weeks ago did Judge Bork accept the Supreme Court's gradual, belated extension of equal protection to women. As recently as June 10, just before his nomination, he told an interviewer that he thought the 14th Amendment, which covers all persons, ''should have been kept to things like race and ethnicity'' and not extended to women. Judge Bork's conversion on a subject of such importance came so late that it's hard to know how seriously to take it.
Liberty and Privacy. The attitude of exclusion is even more evident in his views on the right of privacy that most Americans have come to regard as secure from prying government. The Constitution does not state a right of privacy beyond freedom from unreasonable searches and the like; thus Judge Bork does not recognize its existence. Yet great judges and justices have found room for personal privacy in the concept of liberty enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Judges may quarrel over how far the right to privacy extends; whether it applies to married couples using contraceptives or a woman's right to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy. Judge Bork denies that any such right exists at all. The Framers' Larger Intent
Judge Bork's stringent philosophy springs from valid motives. Some justices have shamelessly warped liberty, as when the Supreme Court in 1905 upheld the ''liberty'' of New York workers to contract for substandard working conditions that the states were trying to regulate. Urgent New Deal legislation was struck down until some justices were replaced with others more willing to let Congress make the necessary social choices. Robert Bork has written and testified that judges must interpret law, not make it.
Most judges subscribe to such judicial restraint. Judge Bork carries the idea to mechanistic extremes. He has written that there is no constitutional principle by which judges can prefer, say, the right of married couples to practice birth control over the right of a utility company to pollute the air. The Constitution lives in large measure because of judges who aspire to objectivity but recognize they must make choices. Robert Bork seeks what he calls the framers' ''original intent.'' He refuses to see, or laments, their larger intent.
Americans created a Constitution, added a Bill of Rights and have amended the Constitution repeatedly to embrace persons previously excluded. By their very breadth, noble concepts like equal protection and due process of law guard against abuse by the majority and invite generosity for the underdog. That's the Constitution most Americans honor. Does Judge Bork? His earnest but inadequate answers say no. So should the Senate.
Man... what I've highlighted in yellow sounds awfully familiar... why is that?
But, go ahead and say that it's "different" this time.
Mr. Bork got a hearing, and he got a full up-and-down vote. I understand you can't see why that's different than simply refusing to hold any hearings at all, but that doesn't mean they're the same.
Ouze wrote: Oh, one guy thought it was OK? Well then.
Just countering the idea that its the end of the Republic if Obama doesn't seat the next Justice!
Which is not an idea that anyone floated, of course.
I'm sorry... but, weren't you implying a few posts back that by refusing an up/down vote till after November, that the GOP Senate isn't actually "running" the country?
Part of it is the overt disdain for the process. Immediate refusal to hold even the slightest consideration for a year? Within 2 hours of Scalia's death?
Voting down or blocking candidates is one thing, and in part is good for the country by promoting some sort of compromise if Obama's place someone there.. Refusing to play the game outright petulant. Especially if a hypothetical new Dem shows up next year. What, are we now going to refuse to hear new judges if the President's party is different than the Senate Majority?
That sort of logjam is how government descends into chaos that's good for nobody.
Look, I wanted to try and have this discussion, I really did. I realize now that it just isn't a good use of my time, at all, to try and debate this with you. Or maybe anything, but certainly this. I realize now that if I keep having to explain basic concepts like, "if the Senate refuses to even hold hearings, which is their job, they aren't doing the job of running the country" somehow equates to "nothing in government at all works"... then really, I'm the donkey-cave for continuing to keep this going.
skyth wrote: We need to add to the a square to the Dakka bingo for when Whembly brings up something that has been proven false again...
This, here, is a lie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Look, I wanted to try and have this discussion, I really did. I realize now that it just isn't a good use of my time, at all, to try and debate this with you. Or maybe anything, but certainly this. I realize now that if I keep having to explain basic concepts like, "if the Senate refuses to even hold hearings, which is their job, they aren't doing the job of running the country" somehow equates to "nothing in government at all works"... then really, I'm the donkey-cave for continuing to keep this going.
You finally win, sort of.
I was just trying to counter the idea that when a 4-4 ruling occurs, it's not some megatronic governmental earthquake. Not even close...
This has happened in the past, and things eventually got back on track.
Now, if you think this tactic is irresponsible and could endanger the future of GOP's hold of the Senate (which is already a huge risk), then, yeah... that's a fair argument.
But saying that the Senate isn't doing their job is a stretch.
Well we pay them to pass legislature, which they aren't really doing (see passing bills they know have no hope of passing the veto) and now refuse to do another aspect of their job.
Ustrello wrote: Well we pay them to pass legislature, which they aren't really doing (see passing bills they know have no hope of passing the veto) and now refuse to do another aspect of their job.
Well... keep in mind that both branches of Congress is very much a Deliberative Body. The Senate is quite a bit different as they have a bunch of parlimentary arcane rules that I find myself saying "I didn't know that..." over the years.
So... a body can "express it's Advise" function by not even considering a Presidential nomination.
Look at it this way, we all know that it isn't likely at all that the Senate would Confirm anybody... so, why would you want them to waste everyone's time? (and waste the time of the nominee!!)
I wonder if an IT person working for a pharmacy could successfully argue to keep his job by claiming that never turning on his computer to even consider any potential tickets is the same thing as looking at tickets in order to triage which, if any, need to be addressed today.
d-usa wrote: I wonder if an IT person working for a pharmacy could successfully argue to keep his job by claiming that never turning on his computer to even consider any potential tickets is the same thing as looking at tickets in order to triage which, if any, need to be addressed today.
If you believe this Senate are big "bags of dicks" for not scheduling a hearing, because they'd rather the next President to choose... then by all means and vote accordingly in the next election.
See, the problem with that is it doesn't hold the supporters of those Senator's accountable. Those people need to be held accountable if democracy is to function. If you do not wish to be held accountable, then it is best to bow out of public life.
Well... keep in mind that both branches of Congress is very much a Deliberative Body.
And it is refusing to deliberate. Senate leaders have straight up said they will not be giving the "advice" portion of the "advice and consent" clause.
The Senate is quite a bit different as they have a bunch of parlimentary arcane rules that I find myself saying "I didn't know that..." over the years.
It is different from the House, yes, but the House also has a lot of procedural rules.
d-usa wrote: I wonder if an IT person working for a pharmacy could successfully argue to keep his job by claiming that never turning on his computer to even consider any potential tickets is the same thing as looking at tickets in order to triage which, if any, need to be addressed today.
Nice strawman that doesn't even come close.
You are right.
It's more like not liking the way your current boss does things, but he is retiring next year anyway. So you are just not going to turn on your computer to look at tickets until the new boss gets hired next year.
d-usa wrote: I wonder if an IT person working for a pharmacy could successfully argue to keep his job by claiming that never turning on his computer to even consider any potential tickets is the same thing as looking at tickets in order to triage which, if any, need to be addressed today.
Nice strawman that doesn't even come close.
You are right.
It's more like not liking the way your current boss does things, but he is retiring next year anyway. So you are just not going to turn on your computer to look at tickets until the new boss gets hired next year.
LOL... no. I'm not elected on my job. We can't fire Congress-critters at will. (except, of course, during the election)
If this bothers you so much, then vote accordingly.
If you believe this Senate are big "bags of dicks" for not scheduling a hearing, because they'd rather the next President to choose... then by all means and vote accordingly in the next election.
See, the problem with that is it doesn't hold the supporters of those Senator's accountable. Those people need to be held accountable if democracy is to function. If you do not wish to be held accountable, then it is best to bow out of public life.
You hold them accountable on election day. That's it.
Well... keep in mind that both branches of Congress is very much a Deliberative Body.
And it is refusing to deliberate. Senate leaders have straight up said they will not be giving the "advice" portion of the "advice and consent" clause.
Uh... their "advice" was to nominate a Scalia mold. But we know that'll never happen. Hence, the signal to Mr. President that they won't have hearings.
The Senate is quite a bit different as they have a bunch of parlimentary arcane rules that I find myself saying "I didn't know that..." over the years.
It is different from the House, yes, but the House also has a lot of procedural rules.
True. There's also quite a bit of unwritten rules that the public are largely unaware of...
Ustrello wrote: Well we pay them to pass legislature, which they aren't really doing (see passing bills they know have no hope of passing the veto) and now refuse to do another aspect of their job.
Not quite true.
We elect them to pass and block legislature, as their constituents desire.
As much as neither side may like it(when the other does it), blocking legislation(or passing stuff that will get vetoed) is also part of their job that they get elected to do.
Ustrello wrote: Well we pay them to pass legislature, which they aren't really doing (see passing bills they know have no hope of passing the veto) and now refuse to do another aspect of their job.
Not quite true.
We elect them to pass and block legislature, as their constituents desire.
As much as neither side may like it(when the other does it), blocking legislation(or passing stuff that will get vetoed) is also part of their job that they get elected to do.
U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio will win South Carolina’s most Republican coveted endorsement of the 2016 presidential race when Gov. Nikki Haley announces her support at a Chapin rally on Wednesday evening, a source with knowledge of the governor’s decision told The State.
Haley, the state’s most popular GOP politician in polls, has decided to back the establishment candidate considered to be in best position to challenge Republican front-runners Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who has shared advice on education issues with the governor and helped her raise money for her re-election bid in 2014, also was considered a top contender to win Haley’s endorsement.
But he has lagged in recent S.C. polls, falling to fifth in the six-candidate GOP field. Rubio sits third.
Haley’s decision was a bit of a reversal in the past day. The governor told reporters Tuesday that she had not made up her mind on who to back in the 2016 race.
She endorsed Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race. While the former Massachusetts governor won the GOP nomination, he lost the S.C. primary to former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, breaking the state’s three-decade streak of voting for the candidate who landed on the November ballot.
Haley has become a favorite to make vice presidential short lists after her handling of last year’s Charleston shooting and successful call to remove the Confederate flag from the S.C. State House grounds. She gave the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union last month.
The governor’s endorsement comes at a critical time for Rubio.
The Florida senator needs momentum in South Carolina after finishing fifth in New Hampshire after a rattled debate performance. Rubio trails Trump and Cruz in the Palmetto State with three days ahead of the S.C. GOP presidential primary on Saturday.
Haley joins U.S. Sen. Tim Scott of North Charleston, the only African-American Republican in the Senate, and U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy, a Spartanburg Republican who heads a special panel investigating the Benghazi attack, in endorsing Rubio.
Rubio has had success wooing financial support in the state.
He met major GOP donor Hank Scott, chief executive of an Allendale lumber products company, at the S.C. GOP party’s annual dinner in 2012. Scott would later choose to back Rubio for president and donate a total of $200,000 to a pro-Rubio PAC, the largest contributions tied to the presidential race from a South Carolinian.
Haley and Rubio share similar backgrounds. They are both 44-year-old children of immigrants who were elected to their current seats in the Tea Party fervor of 2010.
Rubio first met Haley when they were first running for their current offices. The senator spoke at the S.C. GOP party’s annual dinner in 2012, a way for him to start building relationships in early-primary state.
They have communicated while Rubio has been on the trail. The senator also has said during stops in South Carolina this week how Haley would make a good vice president.
Haley has been battling with Trump. She said she was referring to him as one of the “angriest voices” in her State of the Union response and criticized him over his combative campaigning.
The daughter of Indian immigrants called Trump’s proposal to ban temporarily Muslims from entering the country an embarrassment to the GOP and un-American.
Trump has said Haley is not doing enough to protect South Carolina from Syrian refugees and the possibility of Guantanamo prisoners being transferred to the Navy brig outside Charleston. Haley has protested both issues to federal officials.
Haley has not criticized Cruz, but she has not kept in regular contact with the Texas senator, who like Rubio, is the son of Cuban immigrant.
Bush pushed hard for her support. His father and brother, both former presidents who won the S.C. presidential primary, have reached out to Haley in recent weeks.
But Bush is lagging in South Carolina. Bush sits in fourth in polls with several recent surveys putting him behind Ohio Gov. John Kasich in fifth.
Bush told NBC News on Tuesday that Haley’s endorsement is “the most powerful meaningful one in the state.”
Asked what kind of message would be sent by not getting her nod, Bush said: “It sends a signal that (I’ve) got to work harder.”
Man... I really hope Rubio can knock out Trump/Cruz.
Your entire argument is predicated on the fact that Senate Republicans have provided "advice" by saying they will wait out Obama's final year in office. This is akin to a pocket veto, something of dubious Constitutionality.
Uh... their "advice" was to nominate a Scalia mold. But we know that'll never happen. Hence, the signal to Mr. President that they won't have hearings.
That was the advice given by Senate Republicans, but not by the Senate as a whole. Perhaps if a hearing were to take place a debate between Democrats and Republicans could occur.
True. There's also quite a bit of unwritten rules that the public are largely unaware of...
You mean like not refusing to hold a hearing regarding a Presidential appointee, regardless of who that appointee is, simply because the President is a member of the opposing Party?
Your entire argument is predicated on the fact that Senate Republicans have provided "advice" by saying they will wait out Obama's final year in office. This is akin to a pocket veto, something of dubious Constitutionality.
Show me in the Constitution where it explicitly spells out what is the "Advise" & "Consent" rules?
Uh... their "advice" was to nominate a Scalia mold. But we know that'll never happen. Hence, the signal to Mr. President that they won't have hearings.
That was the advice given by Senate Republicans, but not by the Senate as a whole. Perhaps if a hearing were to take place a debate between Democrats and Republicans could occur.
dogma, let's talk hypothetical here... let's say Obama does nominate a "Scalia" like Justice. You don't think the GOP Senate would reconsider?
True. There's also quite a bit of unwritten rules that the public are largely unaware of...
You mean like not refusing to hold a hearing regarding a Presidential appointee, regardless of who that appointee is, simply because the President is a member of the opposing Party?
You mean, exactly like what Chuck Schumer said too?
Do you actually believe that Schumer said that they will not hold any hearings on any nominee, or are you planning to lie often enough until everybody else to get too tired to call you out on it?
Meanwhile, interesting development regarding Scalia:
The owner of the ranch where he died had given Justice Scalia a free trip and room and board there. The owner also had a case before the Supreme Court last year that was decided in his favor when the court declined to hear the case.
d-usa wrote: Do you actually believe that Schumer said that they will not hold any hearings on any nominee, or are you planning to lie often enough until everybody else to get too tired to call you out on it?
It's amazing to me that you think "having a hearing but the majority promises not to confirm" is not the same as "the majority saying we'll not have any hearings".
It's like we're arguing over the pronunciation of "to MAY toe" vs "to MAH toe".
d-usa wrote: Do you actually believe that Schumer said that they will not hold any hearings on any nominee, or are you planning to lie often enough until everybody else to get too tired to call you out on it?
It's amazing to me that you think "having a hearing but the majority promises not to confirm" is not the same as "the majority saying we'll not have any hearings".
It's like we're arguing over the pronunciation of "to MAY toe" vs "to MAH toe".
*Turns on computer, looks at IT tickets, realizes they are all trash, closes them, turns computer off* vs *I'm not going to turn on the computer*
I know you love the whole "the other guys did it too" excuse for any sort of actions by the GOP, but actually holding hearings and voting people down is actually doing their job. Saying you won't even hold any hearing under any circumstances until next year isn't.
Of course this also ignores the difference between the GOP saying nobody gets nominated until next year no matter what, and Schumer saying "We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,"
So the end result is GOP saying "we won't have any hearings for no one, no matter what, go away" and Democrats saying "we will have hearnigs, we will most likely turn them down, but we are leaving a window open".
It's a small difference, but it's big enough to call you out on your lie.
d-usa wrote: Do you actually believe that Schumer said that they will not hold any hearings on any nominee, or are you planning to lie often enough until everybody else to get too tired to call you out on it?
It's amazing to me that you think "having a hearing but the majority promises not to confirm" is not the same as "the majority saying we'll not have any hearings".
It's like we're arguing over the pronunciation of "to MAY toe" vs "to MAH toe".
*Turns on computer, looks at IT tickets, realizes they are all trash, closes them, turns computer off* vs *I'm not going to turn on the computer*
I know you love the whole "the other guys did it too" excuse for any sort of actions by the GOP, but actually holding hearings and voting people down is actually doing their job. Saying you won't even hold any hearing under any circumstances until next year isn't.
Of course this also ignores the difference between the GOP saying nobody gets nominated until next year no matter what, and Schumer saying "We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,"
So the end result is GOP saying "we won't have any hearings for no one, no matter what, go away" and Democrats saying "we will have hearnigs, we will most likely turn them down, but we are leaving a window open".
It's a small difference, but it's big enough to call you out on your lie.
Oh c'mon d...
Do you think that Bush would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to that Democrat Majority Senate? (please be cognizant of what else is happening at that time).
Likewise...
Do you think that Obama would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to this GOP Majority Senate?
The thing I find ironic here, is that people like Whembly are A-OK with this tactic, when it wasn't long ago they were doing this:
And this picture/meme is merely one of about half a dozen or so I've seen repeated on my FB wall over the course of the past couple of days.
Why is it that 10 years ago it was "let's do our jobs and vote on this person" but today it's "lets do our "job" and block anything and everything?" This truly is hypocrisy.
Just for gaks and giggles, I kind of wish there was an auto-pass on the nomination process if the POTUS puts forward a nomination, and there's no hearing/vote done in a certain time period (similar to how, once a bill gets to his desk, he's got 10 days to sign it, or veto it... if he lets it sit, it gets passed)
Do you think that Bush would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to that Democrat Majority Senate? (please be cognizant of what else is happening at that time).
Likewise...
Do you think that Obama would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to this GOP Majority Senate?
Maybe, maybe not.
But the Democratic Majority Senate promised to do their job, and left the window open for approving a nominee. The Republican Majority Senate promised not to do their job regardless of the nominee.
Do you think that Bush would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to that Democrat Majority Senate? (please be cognizant of what else is happening at that time).
Likewise...
Do you think that Obama would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to this GOP Majority Senate?
Maybe, maybe not.
But the Democratic Majority Senate promised to do their job, and left the window open for approving a nominee. The Republican Majority Senate promised not to do their job regardless of the nominee.
Or, are you just pissing in the wind here?
No, just countering your lie.
It's not a lie if you're convinced that it's the same thing. But, whateves.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The thing I find ironic here, is that people like Whembly are A-OK with this tactic, when it wasn't long ago they were doing this:
And this picture/meme is merely one of about half a dozen or so I've seen repeated on my FB wall over the course of the past couple of days.
Why is it that 10 years ago it was "let's do our jobs and vote on this person" but today it's "lets do our "job" and block anything and everything?" This truly is hypocrisy.
Sure it's hypocritical, but so what?
It's hypocritical now that the Democrats are up in a tizzy over this.
Just for gaks and giggles, I kind of wish there was an auto-pass on the nomination process if the POTUS puts forward a nomination, and there's no hearing/vote done in a certain time period (similar to how, once a bill gets to his desk, he's got 10 days to sign it, or veto it... if he lets it sit, it gets passed)
That was actually proposed by one of the founding fathers (I forget who), but it was shot down and the compromise is that "Advise & Consent" function.
Do you think that Bush would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to that Democrat Majority Senate? (please be cognizant of what else is happening at that time).
Likewise...
Do you think that Obama would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to this GOP Majority Senate?
Maybe, maybe not.
But the Democratic Majority Senate promised to do their job, and left the window open for approving a nominee. The Republican Majority Senate promised not to do their job regardless of the nominee.
Or, are you just pissing in the wind here?
No, just countering your lie.
It's not a lie if you're convinced that it's the same thing. But, whateves.
I have no dog in this fight. But are you geniunely convinced that "No, with conditions" is the same as "No, not ever"?
Do you think that Bush would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to that Democrat Majority Senate? (please be cognizant of what else is happening at that time).
Likewise...
Do you think that Obama would've picked anyone that would be acceptable to this GOP Majority Senate?
Maybe, maybe not.
But the Democratic Majority Senate promised to do their job, and left the window open for approving a nominee. The Republican Majority Senate promised not to do their job regardless of the nominee.
Or, are you just pissing in the wind here?
No, just countering your lie.
It's not a lie if you're convinced that it's the same thing. But, whateves.
you
I have no dog in this fight. But are you geniunely convinced that "No, with conditions" is the same as "No, not ever"?
Think back during the 2nd Gulf War when the Democrats re-took that Senate.
Think about how toxic it was over anything Bush did.
There was no chance in hell that Bush would've gotten his nominee through if he had that chance. Zero. Ziltch.
Flash forward to today, the "No, not ever?" ploy is simply signaling to Obama, your nominee (of the Sotomeyer/Kegan mold) will not be acceptable, so don't bother.
However, if for some reason (can't think of any) Obama truly does nominate an acceptable Judge, then that "No, not ever" Senators should change their minds.
In politics... you're allowed to change your mind ya know... they're people too.
The folks objecting to this tactic because they're disappointed that Obama doesn't get to drastically shape the SC bench in their favor. And, let me add, it's OK to be disappointed.
d-usa wrote: But the Democratic Majority Senate promised to do their job, and left the window open for approving a nominee. The Republican Majority Senate promised not to do their job regardless of the nominee.
I'm lost. Are we still talking about Schumer here? Didn't he say, "We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” or am I misquoting? It seems the Democrats' promise never really had much value.
d-usa wrote: But the Democratic Majority Senate promised to do their job, and left the window open for approving a nominee. The Republican Majority Senate promised not to do their job regardless of the nominee.
I'm lost. Are we still talking about Schumer here? Didn't he say, "We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” or am I misquoting? It seems the Democrats' promise never really had much value.
whembly wrote: Flash forward to today, the "No, not ever?" ploy is simply signaling to Obama, your nominee (of the Sotomeyer/Kegan mold) will not be acceptable, so don't bother.
It was stupid of him to say in an election year. By stating such an absolute, he's allowing Obama to play victim and rally the Democrat base. He could have said something better that was still partisan without being a straight up, "screw you".
Breotan wrote: It was stupid of him to say in an election year.
Well it would be stupid at any time, but it is worse at this time I suppose. Something about the Republican party at the moment seems to draw in this kind of idiocy. Sure both have thier less than savory elements but, to steal from Dave Chappelle, the idiocy right now in the Republican Party is *mwa* cooked to perfection. For the non-idiotic it has to be a very infuriating time.
Has anybody else noticed that Whembly has turned in to Robio during the last few pages? He keeps repeating "vote accordingly" and bringing up the Bork situation like it has any sort of bearing on what is happening now. (it doesn't, they are not even the same)
It is like we are watching Robio crash and burn right before our very eyes right here on DakkaDakka.
Dreadwinter wrote: Has anybody else noticed that Whembly has turned in to Robio during the last few pages? He keeps repeating "vote accordingly" and bringing up the Bork situation like it has any sort of bearing on what is happening now. (it doesn't, they are not even the same)
It is like we are watching Robio crash and burn right before our very eyes right here on DakkaDakka.
*waves hands for you to continue*
Please... do go on and add something to the discussion.
Of course they can keep trucking. And then, if they've lasted one year, why not four more years after that? So why not hold out for a whole term if the president isn't to your liking?
Holy crap do you not see the problem with this?
It isn't about whether or not the court will continue for a year, it's about the Republicans beginning yet another journey in to entirely unmapped political waters. For an actual, sensible use of the Bork analogy, consider that the first time that a party had used the nomination process for overtly political ends, making the nomination a media storm to incite the Democrat base. From there, of course, the genie was out of the bottle. By the time Alito and Sotomayor came around, the media circus and political theatrics were just an accepted part of the process.
And now the Republicans are going miles beyond that. For all the theatrics, it was still understood by everyone involved that a candidate would be accepted. Maybe not the first candidate, and not after everyone's scored their political points, but they'd be accepted. But now Republicans are actually planning to just not appoint anyone for a full year. That is a hell of a change. So why wouldn't a majority senate hold out 2 years, until the next president, or 4 years?
Do you see the change this piece of Republican stupidity is heading towards?
Of course they can keep trucking. And then, if they've lasted one year, why not four more years after that? So why not hold out for a whole term if the president isn't to your liking?
Holy crap do you not see the problem with this?
It isn't about whether or not the court will continue for a year, it's about the Republicans beginning yet another journey in to entirely unmapped political waters.
Nope... don't see a problem with it.
The GOP Senators effectively said, "let the people have a say in voting for the next President".
They'll be in an untenable position (if they still held the majority) by January, when the new President nominates someone to refuse to start the process.
whembly wrote: It's amazing to me that you think "having a hearing but the majority promises not to confirm" is not the same as "the majority saying we'll not have any hearings".
It's probably quite a lot less than the amazement I feel that you seem to think either of those courses of action are remotely acceptable.
whembly wrote: It's amazing to me that you think "having a hearing but the majority promises not to confirm" is not the same as "the majority saying we'll not have any hearings".
It's probably quite a lot less than the amazement I feel that you seem to think either of those courses of action are remotely acceptable.
If you subscribe to the idea that these Supreme Court Justices are impartial jurist, then ya it would be outrageous.
However, you and I know that isn't the case, so the make up of the court is really important.
And we should, of course, believe that to be fething disgraceful, and refuse to vote for any party that considered such an action.
But hey, if you're in team elephant you just don't question these things.
And most of the country does find it utterly disgraceful... but then, I don't really expect much of anything from Team Elephant™ these days. Their base has regularly shown the rest of us that they are at best laughably misinformed. And while they are misinformed on a great number of things, not only to they buy that gak up hook, line, and sinker... they LOVE it.
Seriously, I'm not sure which is worse, the anti-intellectual sentiment, or the actual pride in being anti-intellectual.
Of course they can keep trucking. And then, if they've lasted one year, why not four more years after that? So why not hold out for a whole term if the president isn't to your liking?
Holy crap do you not see the problem with this?
It isn't about whether or not the court will continue for a year, it's about the Republicans beginning yet another journey in to entirely unmapped political waters.
Nope... don't see a problem with it.
So, "let it burn", then? We can, and should, expect better. You're better than that, Whembly.
So, "let it burn", then? We can, and should, expect better. You're better than that, Whembly.
He's really not, and hasn't been for at least a year or so and there is really no saving him. It's been a sad journey to see someone that used to have informed opinions become....this....whatever this is.
Maybe Obama should just veto everything until the next Senate is sworn in. "Let the voters decide if they want these laws passed."
The GOP Senators effectively said, "let the people have a say in voting for the next President".
They'll be in an untenable position (if they still held the majority) by January, when the new President nominates someone to refuse to start the process.
Their position is entirely untenable now. If you can get your party to believe that it's okay to hold out for a year, why not longer? Why not two years? And then why not four? That's the pandora's box you open when you start rejecting the ordinary process. When Democrats politicised the Bork nomination, it probably didn't occur to them that it would set a precedent in which every nomination would be just as political.
And so now Republicans are normalising a process in which it is okay to just straight up refuse to accept a candidate. Can you honestly claim that there's no chance this won't be normalised, it won't become a strategy both parties will use to delay nominations until they're in a stronger political position?
So, you're expecting the Senate to rubber stamp the President's pick?
Or, is it that you're upset that it isn't going to be President Obama to reshape the Supreme Court's bench?
No, not rubber stamp. Don't make things up. I've said plenty of times in this thread and in pm, that the senate has every right to reject a candidate that is unacceptable. That leads to the game - the President has to nominate someone who's moderate enough that if he's rejected then the senate will cop the fallout. The senate, in turn, needs to judge how strongly they can hold out for a more moderate candidate.
What the Republicans are doing now breaks the game. And there's a serious risk that it will normalise a new strategy of senates holding out for a potentially unlimited time.
Maybe Obama should just veto everything until the next Senate is sworn in. "Let the voters decide if they want these laws passed."
Ugh... let's just hope that he never actually goes that inane and childish route.
edit: can we bring back honor duels?? Just for sitting members of Congress... maybe the threat of a duel with swords may get them to do the whole of their jobs?
Of course they can keep trucking. And then, if they've lasted one year, why not four more years after that? So why not hold out for a whole term if the president isn't to your liking?
Holy crap do you not see the problem with this?
It isn't about whether or not the court will continue for a year, it's about the Republicans beginning yet another journey in to entirely unmapped political waters.
Nope... don't see a problem with it.
So, "let it burn", then? We can, and should, expect better. You're better than that, Whembly.
That's not "let it burn" mang.
I simply don't want Obama to shift the court to the left (5 justice total).
We'll see restriction on 1st amendment, as they'll overturn Citizen United.
whembly wrote: If you subscribe to the idea that these Supreme Court Justices are impartial jurist, then ya it would be outrageous.
However, you and I know that isn't the case, so the make up of the court is really important.
Of course court nomination is political. That's a basic reality of the US political system, where clearly political issues such as guns and abortion are decided in courts, not legislatures.
The only question is how those political appointments are made. The Republicans are, without really thinking about it, changing the accepted process massively.
So, "let it burn", then? We can, and should, expect better. You're better than that, Whembly.
He's really not, and hasn't been for at least a year or so and there is really no saving him. It's been a sad journey to see someone that used to have informed opinions become....this....whatever this is.
Maybe Obama should just veto everything until the next Senate is sworn in. "Let the voters decide if they want these laws passed."
No, not rubber stamp. Don't make things up. I've said plenty of times in this thread and in pm, that the senate has every right to reject a candidate that is unacceptable. That leads to the game - the President has to nominate someone who's moderate enough that if he's rejected then the senate will cop the fallout. The senate, in turn, needs to judge how strongly they can hold out for a more moderate candidate.
I agree with this right here... What we absolutely do NOT need is another Scalia. He may have had a number of "good" rulings and writings on cases, but I think that he was far too conservative, and his ethics I would personally call into question (as I think I mentioned a number of pages back, or in another thread, IIRC, it was his wife that was a member of a large/powerful pro-gun lobbying group.... he made a number of decisions as a Justice that affected firearms. Personally, I think there was major conflict of interest there, simply because he, by virtue of his wife, stood to gain financially)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And most of the country does find it utterly disgraceful... but then, I don't really expect much of anything from Team Elephant™ these days. Their base has regularly shown the rest of us that they are at best laughably misinformed. And while they are misinformed on a great number of things, not only to they buy that gak up hook, line, and sinker... they LOVE it.
Seriously, I'm not sure which is worse, the anti-intellectual sentiment, or the actual pride in being anti-intellectual.
Yeah, it's interesting to see how much the Republican party has changed. Compare this current SC nonsense to earlier attempts to change judicial decisions. On gun rights, for instance, there was a deliberate, multi-generational strategy to legitimise the idea of the 2nd amendment protecting gun rights. It was first normalised among intellectuals, then among the greater population, then politicians, and that finally led to SC appointments and rulings that strengthened gun rights.
Whatever anyone thinks about gun rights, you have to respect that kind of multi-generational planning. Wow that's a long way from any conservative leadership today, either in the Republican party or outside it.
Of course they can keep trucking. And then, if they've lasted one year, why not four more years after that? So why not hold out for a whole term if the president isn't to your liking?
Holy crap do you not see the problem with this?
It isn't about whether or not the court will continue for a year, it's about the Republicans beginning yet another journey in to entirely unmapped political waters.
Nope... don't see a problem with it.
So, "let it burn", then? We can, and should, expect better. You're better than that, Whembly.
That's not "let it burn" mang.
I simply don't want Obama to shift the court to the left (5 justice total).
We'll see restriction on 1st amendment, as they'll overturn Citizen United.
We'll see the Heller ruling overturned.
That is legitimately the first time I have seen anyone defend CU, maybe this isn't the real whembly and is instead of corporation super computer meant to sow discord.
That is legitimately the first time I have seen anyone defend CU, maybe this isn't the real whembly and is instead of corporation super computer meant to sow discord.
Agreed.... Personally, I think that CU and McCutcheon both need to be repealed... The kind of money we've seen in less than a decade from those 2 cases injected into politics is atrocious. It should be quite clear to most people just who is being represented in Government.
The GOP Senators effectively said, "let the people have a say in voting for the next President".
They'll be in an untenable position (if they still held the majority) by January, when the new President nominates someone to refuse to start the process.
Their position is entirely untenable now. If you can get your party to believe that it's okay to hold out for a year, why not longer? Why not two years? And then why not four? That's the pandora's box you open when you start rejecting the ordinary process. When Democrats politicised the Bork nomination, it probably didn't occur to them that it would set a precedent in which every nomination would be just as political.
And so now Republicans are normalising a process in which it is okay to just straight up refuse to accept a candidate. Can you honestly claim that there's no chance this won't be normalised, it won't become a strategy both parties will use to delay nominations until they're in a stronger political position?
So, you're expecting the Senate to rubber stamp the President's pick?
Or, is it that you're upset that it isn't going to be President Obama to reshape the Supreme Court's bench?
No, not rubber stamp. Don't make things up. I've said plenty of times in this thread and in pm, that the senate has every right to reject a candidate that is unacceptable. That leads to the game - the President has to nominate someone who's moderate enough that if he's rejected then the senate will cop the fallout. The senate, in turn, needs to judge how strongly they can hold out for a more moderate candidate.
What the Republicans are doing now breaks the game. And there's a serious risk that it will normalise a new strategy of senates holding out for a potentially unlimited time.
sebster... here's why the Republicans are denying this.
Republicans can be bullied... just imagine the outcry if they did go through the committee hearing and refusing to floor the vote. Or, even the vote is a 'No'. It's essentially fueling the fire.
They want to take the oxygen out of this and exercise they're Constitutional ability to simply not go thru this dog & pony.
Now, will this tactic hurt the GOP? We will see...
I remember shutting down the government was the clarion call for the end of the GOP... do you?
That is legitimately the first time I have seen anyone defend CU, maybe this isn't the real whembly and is instead of corporation super computer meant to sow discord.
Agreed.... Personally, I think that CU and McCutcheon both need to be repealed... The kind of money we've seen in less than a decade from those 2 cases injected into politics is atrocious. It should be quite clear to most people just who is being represented in Government.
No, not rubber stamp. Don't make things up. I've said plenty of times in this thread and in pm, that the senate has every right to reject a candidate that is unacceptable. That leads to the game - the President has to nominate someone who's moderate enough that if he's rejected then the senate will cop the fallout. The senate, in turn, needs to judge how strongly they can hold out for a more moderate candidate.
I agree with this right here... What we absolutely do NOT need is another Scalia. He may have had a number of "good" rulings and writings on cases, but I think that he was far too conservative,
The Justices have been able to maintain a fairly good balance on the ideological makeup, and Justices do time their retirement to make sure that the "right" ideology is in the White House to keep that balance. The balance is now likely going to shift left due to the poorly timed death of the most conservative member of the court.
The GOP leadership just sucks at playing poker and they got caught up in their own reactionary tendencies. Everybody knows that the GOP would try to use this to try and hold out on approving a replacement and try to force Obama to pick somebody as moderate as they can get while scoring whatever political points they could in the process, and nobody would be surprised and everybody would expect the Democrats to do anything different. The Republicans have a crappy poker hand, but everybody would expect them to bluff and try to take the pot anyway.
But then they did the stupid thing and before the first two cards of the Judicial Texas-Hold-'Em game were even dealt, they declared "ALL IN" and put their tiny stack of leverage chips in the middle of the table.
They have a crappy hand, a horrible tell, and the strategy of a 6 year old playing his first game of poker.
and his ethics I would personally call into question (as I think I mentioned a number of pages back, or in another thread, IIRC, it was his wife that was a member of a large/powerful pro-gun lobbying group.... he made a number of decisions as a Justice that affected firearms. Personally, I think there was major conflict of interest there, simply because he, by virtue of his wife, stood to gain financially)
It got lost in the shuffle, but there were reports that he was attending the hunting trip at no cost as the guest of someone that benefited from a SCOTUS decision last year.
sebster wrote: When Democrats politicised the Bork nomination, it probably didn't occur to them that it would set a precedent in which every nomination would be just as political.
I think there's an argument that the politicization of court nominations was inevitable following the Warren court. The Warren court was very active in trying to set forth a new vision of judicial review, one where rather than simply affirming the law the court would actively question the law and its ramifications in a real world context. That shift in focus was brought about by the Warren court and they followed it with some serious cases; Brown v Board, Miranda, Gideon v Wainwright, etc. Then came Roe and Doe under the Burger court, which continued that vision set by Warren. Once that was done, Republican or Democrat, either way the position of Justice of the Supreme Court became an overtly political matter.
In this sense I would argue the Supreme Court itself put itself out in the spotlight and politicized its appointments (more so than previously anyway), and that really it had nothing to do with either political party.
That said, it's still stupid to say we shouldn't even have hearings on nominees for nearly a year. That's just bonkers.
And so now Republicans are normalising a process in which it is okay to just straight up refuse to accept a candidate. Can you honestly claim that there's no chance this won't be normalised, it won't become a strategy both parties will use to delay nominations until they're in a stronger political position?
By and large, I'd say one of the biggest problems in Congress today is that both parties push issues back and back with the presumption that they'll be a better position next election to get their agenda running. Thus nothing ever gets done and you end up with a Congress with 12% approval, and a populace that is more willing to accept Executive Orders as a means of getting done things that need to get done. It's not a very nice cycle to be trapped in.
That is legitimately the first time I have seen anyone defend CU, maybe this isn't the real whembly and is instead of corporation super computer meant to sow discord.
I remember when he agreed that it was a bad ruling.
And just for a change of pace, four former Democratic chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors have come out to pretty much openly condemn the economic figures behind Sanders' policies. Now, chair of the CEA is a political appointment so I'm sure people who want to can just claim it's a political attack, but it is a technical position, all four people are highly credentialed economics, and just holy crap Sanders is predicting 5.3% growth. Right now 2% is a good year, because that's it works with an aging population. But somehow free education and single payer will more than double growth, because it's fun to make up numbers.
It's actually more ridiculous than some of the claim put up by Republicans. People had a field day when Jeb Bush said he could achieve 4% growth, and here's Sanders' promising 5.3%. If reality matters when we review and ultimately reject Republican candidates, it should matter when we review Democrats as well.
d-usa wrote: It got lost in the shuffle, but there were reports that he was attending the hunting trip at no cost as the guest of someone that benefited from a SCOTUS decision last year.
I did see that, and obviously, for someone such as myself who leans away from Scalia's tendencies, that merely adds fuel to what was initially thought.
whembly wrote: sebster... here's why the Republicans are denying this.
Republicans can be bullied... just imagine the outcry if they did go through the committee hearing and refusing to floor the vote. Or, even the vote is a 'No'. It's essentially fueling the fire.
They want to take the oxygen out of this and exercise they're Constitutional ability to simply not go thru this dog & pony.
Heh, this'd be the first time in my short life I've seen someone argue that inventing an entirely new process and opposing anything the other side did was a way of depoliticizing an issue.
Now, will this tactic hurt the GOP? We will see...
I remember shutting down the government was the clarion call for the end of the GOP... do you?
Didn't happen.
Just because an extreme course of action only slightly blew up in your face, it doesn't mean it is sensible to try a new extreme course of action down the track.
sebster wrote: And just for a change of pace, four former Democratic chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors have come out to pretty much openly condemn the economic figures behind Sanders' policies. Now, chair of the CEA is a political appointment so I'm sure people who want to can just claim it's a political attack, but it is a technical position, all four people are highly credentialed economics, and just holy crap Sanders is predicting 5.3% growth. Right now 2% is a good year, because that's it works with an aging population. But somehow free education and single payer will more than double growth, because it's fun to make up numbers.
It's actually more ridiculous than some of the claim put up by Republicans. People had a field day when Jeb Bush said he could achieve 4% growth, and here's Sanders' promising 5.3%. If reality matters when we review and ultimately reject Republican candidates, it should matter when we review Democrats as well.
I have a class right now covering social movements in the US during the 20th Century.
Just last week we read a book about two men; Huey Long and Father Charles Coughlin, two populist figures in the 1930's. Pretty much my entire class was in agreement that these guys reminded us a great deal of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders (respectively). The funnist part is that Father Coughlin's undoing was that he increasingly identified himself as a Fascist, because that's what critics called him (remind you of anyone? )
I'm honestly surprised Bernie hasn't drawn more flak. What criticism he has gotten has been focused mostly on his 'I'm a socialist' stuff, with little actually paid to how silly his policy proposals are.
I suspect someone will write a book about it someday
d-usa wrote: The GOP leadership just sucks at playing poker and they got caught up in their own reactionary tendencies. Everybody knows that the GOP would try to use this to try and hold out on approving a replacement and try to force Obama to pick somebody as moderate as they can get while scoring whatever political points they could in the process, and nobody would be surprised and everybody would expect the Democrats to do anything different. The Republicans have a crappy poker hand, but everybody would expect them to bluff and try to take the pot anyway.
But then they did the stupid thing and before the first two cards of the Judicial Texas-Hold-'Em game were even dealt, they declared "ALL IN" and put their tiny stack of leverage chips in the middle of the table.
They have a crappy hand, a horrible tell, and the strategy of a 6 year old playing his first game of poker.
You've given a great analogy of the situation, and also a really good explanation of why I'm so bad at poker.
Ustrello wrote: It doesn't matter what it is about, it is about the consequences and they have been massive.
I think you're mixing things up.
CU is about free speech as the Citizen United group made a movie highly critical movie called "Hillary: The Movie" during an election season.
It was taken to court to prevent this group from even advertising this movie.
During the case arguments, the government even argued that it had the power under the Constitution to ban publication of books and movies if they were made or sold by corporations.
Just wrap your head around that.
What you're looking for, is probably BCRA (McCain-Feingold Act or maybe the 'Buckley v. Valeo' ruling) that needs further adjustment to regulate money in politics.
LordofHats wrote: I think there's an argument that the politicization of court nominations was inevitable following the Warren court. The Warren court was very active in trying to set forth a new vision of judicial review, one where rather than simply affirming the law the court would actively question the law and its ramifications in a real world context. That shift in focus was brought about by the Warren court and they followed it with some serious cases; Brown v Board, Miranda, Gideon v Wainwright, etc. Then came Roe and Doe under the Burger court, which continued that vision set by Warren. Once that was done, Republican or Democrat, either way the position of Justice of the Supreme Court became an overtly political matter.
In this sense I would argue the Supreme Court itself put itself out in the spotlight and politicized its appointments (more so than previously anyway), and that really it had nothing to do with either political party.
That said, it's still stupid to say we shouldn't even have hearings on nominees for nearly a year. That's just bonkers.
Yeah, I' was only vaguely aware of the more general political trends, so thanks for the extra detail.
By and large, I'd say one of the biggest problems in Congress today is that both parties push issues back and back with the presumption that they'll be a better position next election to get their agenda running. Thus nothing ever gets done and you end up with a Congress with 12% approval, and a populace that is more willing to accept Executive Orders as a means of getting done things that need to get done. It's not a very nice cycle to be trapped in.
Interesting point. I'll think on that some more. Thanks.
Now, will this tactic hurt the GOP? We will see...
I remember shutting down the government was the clarion call for the end of the GOP... do you?
Didn't happen.
I would argue that it has, indeed, happened. The GOP that gave us Reagan and McCain is dead. Your new leaders are Trump and Cruz.
touche... it took awhile... but touche man.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: And just for a change of pace, four former Democratic chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors have come out to pretty much openly condemn the economic figures behind Sanders' policies. Now, chair of the CEA is a political appointment so I'm sure people who want to can just claim it's a political attack, but it is a technical position, all four people are highly credentialed economics, and just holy crap Sanders is predicting 5.3% growth. Right now 2% is a good year, because that's it works with an aging population. But somehow free education and single payer will more than double growth, because it's fun to make up numbers.
It's actually more ridiculous than some of the claim put up by Republicans. People had a field day when Jeb Bush said he could achieve 4% growth, and here's Sanders' promising 5.3%. If reality matters when we review and ultimately reject Republican candidates, it should matter when we review Democrats as well.
sebster wrote: And just for a change of pace, four former Democratic chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors have come out to pretty much openly condemn the economic figures behind Sanders' policies. Now, chair of the CEA is a political appointment so I'm sure people who want to can just claim it's a political attack, but it is a technical position, all four people are highly credentialed economics, and just holy crap Sanders is predicting 5.3% growth. Right now 2% is a good year, because that's it works with an aging population. But somehow free education and single payer will more than double growth, because it's fun to make up numbers.
It's actually more ridiculous than some of the claim put up by Republicans. People had a field day when Jeb Bush said he could achieve 4% growth, and here's Sanders' promising 5.3%. If reality matters when we review and ultimately reject Republican candidates, it should matter when we review Democrats as well.
I do recall an article citing Trump as saying 6% annual growth, that the economy would be, "like a rocket ship." So by THAT measure, 5.3% isn't astronomically high.... Sure, it's much higher than these economic minds are saying it should be. I don't discount that. What I think we all need to keep in mind is that, for MOST Americans, 4%, 5.3%, 6%, etc. all sound like ridiculously low numbers. As you point out, reality is that 2% growth is a good year. With all three of these numbers (from Bush, Trump, and Sanders) I personally would chalk it up to campaigning and a bit of grandstanding. It's what pretty much every presidential candidate has done since Thomas Jefferson, right? Obviously, I am less than pleased at this new information... but I think that as long as we view it as the campaign trail grandstanding that nearly everyone does, there isn't much of a problem with it. The big reason why I personally "call out" the Bush and Trump plans, is because trickle down has been shown to be Snake Oil for the economy. Certainly, there's a good chance that if Sanders' is elected, IF he were able to get the majority of those things he's been campaigning on, we may see "good" growth... but we may also see a dip. IF Trump or one of the trickle down supporters gets elected, there's a chance for an increase (that organizations like the IMF don't deny happen under T-D, but do show them to be extremely volatile) in the economy, but more than likely there'll be a lull or worse.
Now, personally, I would argue that some of the things that Sanders wants to do, the Universal Healthcare, "Universal" Public colleges, etc. are still good things because they are the right thing to do. Most of the rest of the industrialized world has shown us that the world will not collapse with socialized medicine and colleges. Union membership doesn't necessarily mean the utter collapse of all industry. Of course, we can look at examples of where unions have gone wrong *cough*Detroit*cough* but on the whole they have done a number of good things for the people who have embraced them.
LordofHats wrote: I'm honestly surprised Bernie hasn't drawn more flak. What criticism he has gotten has been focused mostly on his 'I'm a socialist' stuff, with little actually paid to how silly his policy proposals are.
I suspect someone will write a book about it someday
I think it's a bit like Trump. The Republican field held back on attacking Trump, because each of the candidates expected him to implode sooner or later, and wanted to be in a position to pick up his voters when he did. Similarly, Clinton won't go hard on the attack, because she doesn't want to piss off Sanders voters she'll need in the general.
And you don't see any meaningful attacks from people who aren't aligned to one candidate or another, because non-partisan voices are almost entirely cut out of the system.
I think Ensis has a fair point. While many of Bernie's ideas are wholly preposterous, he has taken several positions that I think many people, especially young Americans really want to see happen.
Among advocates of healthcare reform, my understanding is that there's universal agreement that single payer would have been better than the half (quarter?) measure we got. The Citizen's United case, while legally understandable and even necessary I think, highlights the twistedness of our electoral process and the overwhelming influence of campaign funding and lobbying in policy making. Bernie is seen as a boon to these things, and those positions are a fair bit less... insane, than Trump's.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The big reason why I personally "call out" the Bush and Trump plans, is because trickle down has been shown to be Snake Oil for the economy. Certainly, there's a good chance that if Sanders' is elected, IF he were able to get the majority of those things he's been campaigning on, we may see "good" growth... but we may also see a dip. IF Trump or one of the trickle down supporters gets elected, there's a chance for an increase (that organizations like the IMF don't deny happen under T-D, but do show them to be extremely volatile) in the economy, but more than likely there'll be a lull or worse.
Any plan that is only considered in the light of fantastical growth numbers is snake oil.
Now, personally, I would argue that some of the things that Sanders wants to do, the Universal Healthcare, "Universal" Public colleges, etc. are still good things because they are the right thing to do. Most of the rest of the industrialized world has shown us that the world will not collapse with socialized medicine and colleges. Union membership doesn't necessarily mean the utter collapse of all industry.
Sure, there's a lot to like in Sanders policies. But the thing is that every plan has winners and losers. College that is free for the student will mean a bigger tab for government, and that tab will be picked up by tax payers. Public healthcare will mean reduced services and longer waiting times for people who currently have really good healthcare plans.
This doesn't mean those things aren't still good ideas, it's still more than likely that the overall gain will be vastly greater than the losses. But in order to properly assess the gains against the losses, you need to model it in a realistic economic environment. 5% growth swamps any negative impact - who cares if your taxes are higher when your income is growing 5% year on year?
So in the same way that Republicans hide the massive impacts on the poor and middle class of their tax plans by predicting stupid levels of growth, Sanders is doing the same thing. It doesn't mean the policies are bad, but it does mean there's a lot of snake oil being poured over the top.
And I think there is still a big distinction between the Republican candidates and Sanders. The Republicans are attempting an economic con job, one repeating over and over again, cycle after cycle. Whereas Sanders, I think, is kind of making things up as he goes, he never expected to get this far, and so his policies and their impacts are showing loose thinking, driven more by optimism than anything else.
Damn Seb... that was a good post/response, have an exalt.
Maybe Sanders does get caught out making things up due to his lack of expectations of being here... but I think you did hit something about right: there is a seemingly pervasive sense of optimism around the guy (hell, I am a supporter of his as well, I guess I "feel the Bern" lol), but I think that could say something about where people in America are, especially his supporters: I think a lot of people are getting tired of the doom and gloom style politics we've been hearing about for the past I-don't-know-how-long.
I wonder if part of his appeal is that even though he has some grand policy ideas (free education, universal healthcare, etc), his basic message is more of a "we are going to be okay" message.
Trump and many others are running with the "everything is going to be great, everybody will be rich, greatness for everyone" message, which we have all heard before time after time. Compared to that, the "everybody will be able to make it" just seems refreshing and realistic (even if his big policy plans aren't) and believable.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Damn Seb... that was a good post/response, have an exalt.
Maybe Sanders does get caught out making things up due to his lack of expectations of being here... but I think you did hit something about right: there is a seemingly pervasive sense of optimism around the guy (hell, I am a supporter of his as well, I guess I "feel the Bern" lol), but I think that could say something about where people in America are, especially his supporters: I think a lot of people are getting tired of the doom and gloom style politics we've been hearing about for the past I-don't-know-how-long.
It's really easy to be optimistic when you ignore reality.
d-usa wrote: I wonder if part of his appeal is that even though he has some grand policy ideas (free education, universal healthcare, etc), his basic message is more of a "we are going to be okay" message.
Trump and many others are running with the "everything is going to be great, everybody will be rich, greatness for everyone" message, which we have all heard before time after time. Compared to that, the "everybody will be able to make it" just seems refreshing and realistic (even if his big policy plans aren't) and believable.
I think there's something also to be said for who is targeted as the "bad guy" in each candidate's narrative...
Sander's goes after the top 1% wealthiest class... the corporations who pay virtually no taxes, and in many cases receive so many tax breaks that they are effectively paid for their practices.
Trump's message is sure "greatness for everyone," but I think we need to add in the things he comes under fire for, "once we get rid of the Mexicans and Muslims"
I suppose you could argue that from certain points of view, both of these guys are going after "low hanging fruit." I personally think it comes down to personal views, and how acceptable a person finds xenophobia and racism.
I think there's something also to be said for who is targeted as the "bad guy" in each candidate's narrative...
Sander's goes after the top 1% wealthiest class... the corporations who pay virtually no taxes, and in many cases receive so many tax breaks that they are effectively paid for their practices.
Trump's message is sure "greatness for everyone," but I think we need to add in the things he comes under fire for, "once we get rid of the Mexicans and Muslims"
I suppose you could argue that from certain points of view, both of these guys are going after "low hanging fruit." I personally think it comes down to personal views, and how acceptable a person finds xenophobia and racism.
A lot of Bernie's rhetoric focuses on the 1%, but keep in mind his plan calls for raising everybody's taxes, not just theirs.
A lot of Bernie's rhetoric focuses on the 1%, but keep in mind his plan calls for raising everybody's taxes, not just theirs.
I know his one example is that a $500/year increase in taxes, but substantially lower healthcare costs, equals a net increase in "pocket cash." And he's not wrong there.... Think about it. when I left the army at 28, I did a health insurance quote for myself. for just myself, not my wife or kids, I was looking at a minimum 450/month. $5400/year is, quite obviously, more expensive than $500/year. Even if we assume a nationalized system where an individual pays 20% of "current" rates, I'd have been looking at $90/month, or $1080/yr.... still... $5400 is more expensive than $1580/year.
Even with all that hazy "beer math," 500 bucks doesn't really make much of a difference on my tax returns each year.
Don't like it... gin up support to amend it. The mechanism is there.
By stating that the US Constitution is poorly written I am calling attention to that fact, this is the first step in building support for an Amendment.
Nah, however unlikely he'd do that, the Senate would jump over all that in a heartbeat.
The Senate Majority Leader openly stated that he would not allow a hearing on an Obama Justice nomination, he did this without knowing who Obama would nominate. I can't really imagine he would recant given that a larger number of Republicans are lining up behind him.
A lot of Bernie's rhetoric focuses on the 1%, but keep in mind his plan calls for raising everybody's taxes, not just theirs.
I know his one example is that a $500/year increase in taxes, but substantially lower healthcare costs, equals a net increase in "pocket cash." And he's not wrong there.... Think about it. when I left the army at 28, I did a health insurance quote for myself. for just myself, not my wife or kids, I was looking at a minimum 450/month. $5400/year is, quite obviously, more expensive than $500/year. Even if we assume a nationalized system where an individual pays 20% of "current" rates, I'd have been looking at $90/month, or $1080/yr.... still... $5400 is more expensive than $1580/year.
Even with all that hazy "beer math," 500 bucks doesn't really make much of a difference on my tax returns each year.
That's if the absurd 5.3% growth pipe dream sebster pointed out earlier pans out. Spoiler: it won't.
So, what do we do then? Raise taxes more to actually be able to pay for all the 'free' stuff he'll be providing, or start building industrial furnaces to burn money, since we'd wind up losing it slower that way than funding everything Sanders wants?
whembly wrote: Look at it this way, we all know that it isn't likely at all that the Senate would Confirm anybody...
And we should, of course, believe that to be fething disgraceful, and refuse to vote for any party that considered such an action.
But we only have two political parties of note and they both would consider such action in a heartbeat. Refusing to vote really isn't an option if you care about the direction the country is headed.
I think polls as news is little better than what you see on the gossip page. Jeb Bush's twitter stunt backfiring and Ben Carson's campaign melting down are more relevant right now than some hypothetical post-nomination match-up.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Damn Seb... that was a good post/response, have an exalt.
Cheers
Maybe Sanders does get caught out making things up due to his lack of expectations of being here... but I think you did hit something about right: there is a seemingly pervasive sense of optimism around the guy (hell, I am a supporter of his as well, I guess I "feel the Bern" lol), but I think that could say something about where people in America are, especially his supporters: I think a lot of people are getting tired of the doom and gloom style politics we've been hearing about for the past I-don't-know-how-long.
Yeah, it's been welcome and long overdue. Similarly, about the only thing keeping Kasich going is his positivity relative to the rest of the field.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: It's really easy to be optimistic when you ignore reality.
Funnily enough, most of the Republican field finds it easy to be pessimistic by ignoring reality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: But we only have two political parties of note and they both would consider such action in a heartbeat. Refusing to vote really isn't an option if you care about the direction the country is headed.
Your argument is that it's okay for Republicans to do any kind of horrible thing, because you believe, without evidence, that Democrats would be equally awful in the same situation. It's a blank cheque for Republican bad behaviour. Just hypothetically, is their a point that Republicans could stoop to, something so far beyond accepted norms, that you'd consider switching votes to just see if Democrats are as gakky?
I think polls as news is little better than what you see on the gossip page. Jeb Bush's twitter stunt backfiring and Ben Carson's campaign melting down are more relevant right now than some hypothetical post-nomination match-up.
Polls get to be extremely powerful predictors of the election, eventually. Once we've actually got two candidates, both have been attacked and defended, and (perhaps most importantly) we have hundreds of polls to combine to produce a reasonable aggregated number.
(not a dig against Seaward, I just like seeing the actual polls with the questions and such)
Clinton leads Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders 50 percent to 40 percent among Democrats and Democratic leaning-voters, with 10 percent still undecided. This is a significant change from a Suffolk University/USA TODAY poll taken two months ago, when Clinton led Sanders by 27 points (56 percent to 29 percent).
On the Republican side, Trump (35 percent) holds a solid lead over Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (20 percent) and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (17 percent). Trailing behind are Ohio Gov. John Kasich (7 percent), former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (6 percent), and neurosurgeon Ben Carson (4 percent), with 12 percent undecided. ... The national matchups show prospects for a nail-biter in November. Hypothetical contests showed Rubio (48 percent) over Clinton (42 percent) and Kasich (49 percent) leading Clinton (38 percent). Like her matchup with Rubio, Clinton’s theoretical races against Cruz and Trump are within the margin of error, with Cruz leading 45 percent to Clinton’s 44 percent and Trump ahead 45 percent to 43 percent.
Sanders fares slightly better against the four Republican frontrunners in hypothetical matchups—all well within the margin of error. Sanders (44 percent) leads Cruz (42 percent) but lags behind Rubio, 46 percent to Sanders’ 42 percent; Kasich 44 percent to 41 percent; and Trump 44 percent to 43 percent. ... The margin of error is +/-3 percentage points at a 95 percent level of confidence
I guess "it's a statistical tie" isn't as exciting of a headline
Breotan wrote: But we only have two political parties of note and they both would consider such action in a heartbeat. Refusing to vote really isn't an option if you care about the direction the country is headed.
Your argument is that it's okay for Republicans to do any kind of horrible thing, because you believe, without evidence, that Democrats would be equally awful in the same situation.
You so frequently and deliberately misconstrue people's comments and insert your own pejoratives. Do you really love your straw man arguments that much?
Breotan wrote: I think polls as news is little better than what you see on the gossip page. Jeb Bush's twitter stunt backfiring and Ben Carson's campaign melting down are more relevant right now than some hypothetical post-nomination match-up.
Polls get to be extremely powerful predictors of the election, eventually. Once we've actually got two candidates, both have been attacked and defended, and (perhaps most importantly) we have hundreds of polls to combine to produce a reasonable aggregated number.
In September or October, maybe. In February, not so much.
Breotan wrote: You so frequently and deliberately misconstrue people's comments and insert your own pejoratives. Do you really love your straw man arguments that much?
Well I'm sorry if that's what I've done. I've read it again and can't figure out what I've assumed or inserted. My reading is that I said the Republican strategy for this SC nomination is disgraceful and people should refuse to vote for them as long as they continue it, to which you replied that there's only two major parties and they'd both do that (you said 'consider it', but I can't see a meaningful difference given your overall position).
In September or October, maybe. In February, not so much.
Yeah, polls will get more meaningful as we move along. Right now, well they can be useful for primaries, if you take any result with a heaping dose of salt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: As long as we agree they're all ignoring reality.
Well, there's one lady who's policy positions are built on sensible numbers.
This doesn't mean people have to vote for Clinton obviously. There's plenty of perfectly good reasons not to, but when it comes to working within economic realities, she's actually very good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I guess "it's a statistical tie" isn't as exciting of a headline
Below is a chart of surveymonkey's polls. NBC News reported that as "Clinton Maintains National Lead Over Sanders". Politico used the exact same set of numbers to declare "National poll: Sanders closing the gap with Clinton".
The more I think about it, the more Sanders reminds me of Carter. Nice guy with lots of good ideas that genuinely wants to help people. With the way that Republicans obstruct everything, I don't see him getting much done and he likely would be a one term president when people get disillusioned about stuff not getting done. Add in the lack of raw hatred for him like Obama has to deal with so the Democratic base isn't as energized as it would be. It's more that he is seen as well intentioned but out of his league.
Clinton has tempered expectations so won't have the disillusion. Plus she isn't hated as much as Obama but certain Republicans hate her (though not the base and not as much as Obama). Plus it's transparent how little substance most of the attacks have. They have the effect of energizing the Democratic base but not really mobilizing the Republican base as much.
So, what do we do then? Raise taxes more to actually be able to pay for all the 'free' stuff he'll be providing, or start building industrial furnaces to burn money, since we'd wind up losing it slower that way than funding everything Sanders wants?
Why build furnaces? Pennsylvania has a fire that may as well be permanent: quadruple points because it is underground, can be described as being in a pit, is spreading, and is in Biden's State.
During the case arguments, the government even argued that it had the power under the Constitution to ban publication of books and movies if they were made or sold by corporations.
No, that is false. The State argued it had that power due to statue.
During the case arguments, the government even argued that it had the power under the Constitution to ban publication of books and movies if they were made or sold by corporations.
No, that is false. The State argued it had that power due to statue.
Yeah, you're right, the government's positions was that there were 'campaign finance' legal statutes that could give the State the authority to ban books and movies.
Glenn Beck thinks God killed of Scalia as a message that we should vote for Cruz. And Justice O'Connor states that Obama should nominate a replacement.
d-usa wrote: Glenn Beck thinks God killed of Scalia as a message that we should vote for Cruz. And Justice O'Connor states that Obama should nominate a replacement.
Glenn Beck is in Van Jones territory here...
EDIT: did anyone catch the Townhall on CNN last night?
I really liked this format better that last few Thunderdome brawls.
I'm watching the Town Hall now. I think they made a mistake putting Carson on first, as I bet alot of people tuned out before watching Cruz and Rubio.
I do think this is a much better format for candidates to describe their positions and platforms, and when a citizen asks a tough question, the candidate can't just cry about media bias.
I may just skip ahead to the Rubio and Cruz portion, I am getting so sleepy.
jasper76 wrote: I'm watching the Town Hall now. I think they made a mistake putting Carson on first, as I bet alot of people tuned out before watching Cruz and Rubio.
I do think this is a much better format for candidates to describe their positions and platforms, and when a citizen asks a tough question, the candidate can't just cry about media bias.
I may just skip ahead to the Rubio and Cruz portion, I am getting so sleepy.
Carson wasn't bad at all... it's just that his persona/mannerism is like gulping down some Zzzquil.
Rubio/Cruz actually did really well... especially Rubio, but then again, I'm biased.
I'd be eager for a Townhall between Bernie and Clinton.
whembly wrote: sebster... here's why the Republicans are denying this.
Republicans can be bullied... just imagine the outcry if they did go through the committee hearing and refusing to floor the vote. Or, even the vote is a 'No'. It's essentially fueling the fire.
They want to take the oxygen out of this and exercise they're Constitutional ability to simply not go thru this dog & pony.
Heh, this'd be the first time in my short life I've seen someone argue that inventing an entirely new process and opposing anything the other side did was a way of depoliticizing an issue.
Now, will this tactic hurt the GOP? We will see...
I remember shutting down the government was the clarion call for the end of the GOP... do you?
Didn't happen.
Just because an extreme course of action only slightly blew up in your face, it doesn't mean it is sensible to try a new extreme course of action down the track.
... He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. ...
Here, it does NOT lay out any *specific* process by which the Senate can refuse its consent.
It does NOT indicate whether it must do so by taking a vote, or whether it can simply refuse to consider Obama's nominee at all.
So, where do we find the user manual on this 'how-to-do' Advise & Consent?
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Let me reiterate that “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.”
Advise & Consent = rules of its proceedings.
That means the Senate determines how it conducts it's business, which includes the rules for considering judicial nominations. Therefore, the Senate *does* have established rules that allows it to refuse to vote on any nominee, just as it can refuse to vote on bills, treaties, or any other proceedings that comes before it.
So its no more "extreme" to refuse to vote on any nominee, than it is to go through the dog and pony show of having a hearing & a guarantee'ed "no" vote.
Presumably to "dog & pony show" contains debate? The Senators present their opinions and reasoning behind why they are voting yay or nay? Thus making it a legitimate part of the process and less of the playground BS Calvinball the system is becoming.
feeder wrote: Presumably to "dog & pony show" contains debate? The Senators present their opinions and reasoning behind why they are voting yay or nay? Thus making it a legitimate part of the process and less of the playground BS Calvinball the system is becoming.
The Republican Senators already presented their reasoning and it *is* a legitimate part of the process.
Easy E wrote: I for one encourage the GOP to be as obstructionist as they possibly can on a Supreme Court nominee.
Please, obstruct away!
The key is going to be in how it is handled. If Mister Mitch keeps shooting off his mouth then they're going to have an uphill battle. If he can keep his screaming howler shut, then the Republican base might be more energized than the Democrat base come election time.
Pope Frances seems to be playing the "No True Scotsman" game with Trump.
Farbeit for me to defend Trump, but isn't a Christian a Christian because he says he is; and whether he's a "good Christian" or a "bad Christian" is another matter? That's what I always hear Christians saying, anyway. I think the Pope is out of line here. He should have just said that the policy he opposed was "Unchristian", or something like that.
(CNN)Thrusting himself into the combative 2016 presidential campaign, Pope Francis said Thursday that GOP front-runner Donald Trump "is not Christian" if he calls for the deportation of undocumented immigrants and pledges to build a wall between the United States and Mexico.
The Pope, who was traveling back to Rome from Mexico, where he urged the United States to address the "humanitarian crisis" on its southern border, did not tell American Catholics not to vote for Trump.
But Francis left little doubt where he stood on the polarizing issue of immigration reform.
"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel," the Pope told journalists who asked his opinion on Trump's proposals to halt illegal immigration.
"No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith," he said in statement. Trump added that the government in Mexico, where Francis spent the past five days, has "made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope."
"If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president," Trump said.
The tussle between Trump and Francis -- two outsized personalities who seldom shy from speaking their minds -- seems to have been building for some time. Before the Pope traveled to Mexico, Trump cast the pontiff as a political naif who "doesn't understand the dangers" at the U.S.-Mexican border.
The Pope, 'The Donald' and the wall between them
Trump social media director Dan Scavino suggested the pontiff's comments were hypocritical. "Amazing comments from the Pope- considering Vatican City is 100% surrounded by massive walls," he tweeted.
During the wide-ranging press conference aboard the papal plane, Francis also seemed to suggest that contraception may be used to prevent the transmission of the Zika virus and praised Saint John Paul II's "holy friendship" with a Polish woman.
But it was his comments on Trump that seem sure to dominate the political conversation, perhaps handing a gift to Trump's GOP opponents and opening Francis to criticism that his papacy is too partisan and his policies too liberal. Polls indicate that while Democrats adore the Pope, Republicans view him a little less favorably.
Asked whether American Catholics should vote for Trump, Francis demurred.
"As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that."
The Pope appeared somewhat unaware of Trump's exact stance on illegal immigration, though, saying that he would give him "the benefit of the doubt" until he had heard exactly what the billionaire businessman had said.
The Rev. Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, said Tuesday that the Pope knows "Trump expresses himself in an expressive way," but "is not always up to date on the latest statements."
Trump has pledged to build an $8 billion wall along the United States' southern border and says he will force Mexico to pay the tab. Trump has also said that, if elected president, he would eject some 11 million undocumented immigrants from the country.
"You have people coming in, and I'm not just saying Mexicans -- I'm talking about people that are from all over that are killers and rapists, and they're coming into this country," Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper last June.
What it would take to build Trump's border wall
What it would take to build Trump's border wall 02:34
Before the Pope left for Mexico, Trump called Francis "a very political person" and suggested that the pontiff, who celebrated Mass Wednesday near the U.S.-Mexican border, was a pawn of the Mexican government.
The Pope made light of Trump's accusations.
"Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person," he said. "As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don't know. I'll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people."
The White House weighs in
White House spokesman Josh Earnest, asked about Pope Francis' comments on Donald Trump, referred back to President Barack Obama's remarks last month at the National Prayer Breakfast.
He said Obama "talked about how his own personal Christian faith informed his view of the values and priorities that he has chosen to champion in the White House."
"A number of those values and priorities are not shared by Mr. Trump," Earnest said, before taking a jab at Trump's questioning of Obama's Christian faith.
"I will however extend to Mr. Trump the courtesy he has not extended to the President and not use this opportunity to call into question the kind of private personal conversations he is having with his God," Earnest said.
The Pope in Mexico
The Pope's comments on Trump came on his way home from an emotional trip to Mexico, where the first Latin American pontiff was greeted by boisterous crowds that often burst into songs or tears as he approached.
Celebrating Mass on Wednesday in Ciudad Juarez, a city just across the border from the United States, Francis delivered a stinging critique of leaders on both sides of the fence, calling the "forced migration" of thousands of Central Americans a "human tragedy" and "humanitarian crisis."
"Being faced with so many legal vacuums," the Pope said during his homily before a congregation of more than 200,000 people, "they get caught up in a web that ensnares and always destroys the poorest."
As he prepared to leave, Francis thanked Mexicans for opening their doors and their lives to him. "At times, I felt like weeping to see so much hope in a people who are suffering so much."
jasper76 wrote: Pope Frances seems to be playing the "No True Scotsman" game with Trump.
Trump isn't Catholic, so to the Pontiff he would not be Christian.
I was never taught growing up Catholic that non-Catholics are not Christians, and I don't believe its the current position of the Catholic Church. I could be wrong.
jasper76 wrote: Pope Frances seems to be playing the "No True Scotsman" game with Trump.
Farbeit for me to defend Trump, but isn't a Christian a Christian because he says he is; and whether he's a "good Christian" or a "bad Christian" is another matter? That's what I always hear Christians saying, anyway. I think the Pope is out of line here. He should have just said that the policy he opposed was "Unchristian", or something like that.
(CNN)Thrusting himself into the combative 2016 presidential campaign, Pope Francis said Thursday that GOP front-runner Donald Trump "is not Christian" if he calls for the deportation of undocumented immigrants and pledges to build a wall between the United States and Mexico.
The Pope, who was traveling back to Rome from Mexico, where he urged the United States to address the "humanitarian crisis" on its southern border, did not tell American Catholics not to vote for Trump.
But Francis left little doubt where he stood on the polarizing issue of immigration reform.
"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel," the Pope told journalists who asked his opinion on Trump's proposals to halt illegal immigration.
"No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith," he said in statement. Trump added that the government in Mexico, where Francis spent the past five days, has "made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope."
"If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president," Trump said.
The tussle between Trump and Francis -- two outsized personalities who seldom shy from speaking their minds -- seems to have been building for some time. Before the Pope traveled to Mexico, Trump cast the pontiff as a political naif who "doesn't understand the dangers" at the U.S.-Mexican border.
The Pope, 'The Donald' and the wall between them
Trump social media director Dan Scavino suggested the pontiff's comments were hypocritical. "Amazing comments from the Pope- considering Vatican City is 100% surrounded by massive walls," he tweeted.
During the wide-ranging press conference aboard the papal plane, Francis also seemed to suggest that contraception may be used to prevent the transmission of the Zika virus and praised Saint John Paul II's "holy friendship" with a Polish woman.
But it was his comments on Trump that seem sure to dominate the political conversation, perhaps handing a gift to Trump's GOP opponents and opening Francis to criticism that his papacy is too partisan and his policies too liberal. Polls indicate that while Democrats adore the Pope, Republicans view him a little less favorably.
Asked whether American Catholics should vote for Trump, Francis demurred.
"As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that."
The Pope appeared somewhat unaware of Trump's exact stance on illegal immigration, though, saying that he would give him "the benefit of the doubt" until he had heard exactly what the billionaire businessman had said.
The Rev. Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, said Tuesday that the Pope knows "Trump expresses himself in an expressive way," but "is not always up to date on the latest statements."
Trump has pledged to build an $8 billion wall along the United States' southern border and says he will force Mexico to pay the tab. Trump has also said that, if elected president, he would eject some 11 million undocumented immigrants from the country.
"You have people coming in, and I'm not just saying Mexicans -- I'm talking about people that are from all over that are killers and rapists, and they're coming into this country," Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper last June. What it would take to build Trump's border wall
What it would take to build Trump's border wall 02:34
Before the Pope left for Mexico, Trump called Francis "a very political person" and suggested that the pontiff, who celebrated Mass Wednesday near the U.S.-Mexican border, was a pawn of the Mexican government.
The Pope made light of Trump's accusations.
"Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person," he said. "As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don't know. I'll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people."
The White House weighs in
White House spokesman Josh Earnest, asked about Pope Francis' comments on Donald Trump, referred back to President Barack Obama's remarks last month at the National Prayer Breakfast.
He said Obama "talked about how his own personal Christian faith informed his view of the values and priorities that he has chosen to champion in the White House."
"A number of those values and priorities are not shared by Mr. Trump," Earnest said, before taking a jab at Trump's questioning of Obama's Christian faith.
"I will however extend to Mr. Trump the courtesy he has not extended to the President and not use this opportunity to call into question the kind of private personal conversations he is having with his God," Earnest said.
The Pope in Mexico
The Pope's comments on Trump came on his way home from an emotional trip to Mexico, where the first Latin American pontiff was greeted by boisterous crowds that often burst into songs or tears as he approached.
Celebrating Mass on Wednesday in Ciudad Juarez, a city just across the border from the United States, Francis delivered a stinging critique of leaders on both sides of the fence, calling the "forced migration" of thousands of Central Americans a "human tragedy" and "humanitarian crisis."
"Being faced with so many legal vacuums," the Pope said during his homily before a congregation of more than 200,000 people, "they get caught up in a web that ensnares and always destroys the poorest."
As he prepared to leave, Francis thanked Mexicans for opening their doors and their lives to him. "At times, I felt like weeping to see so much hope in a people who are suffering so much."
This will strengthen Trump's allure...
Pope should shut his chaw unless he's willing to tear down the Vatican's walls and redistribute's it's wealth:
I think I mostly want Sanders to win just to see the Saudi king shake hands and curry favor with a Jew. Islamist heads everywhere will explode with rage and I will smile.
@Whembley: The Pope's pretty popular generally. There are loads of Republican Catholic voters. I think the Pope was wrong here, but I don't know if it helps or hurts Trump politically to so forcefully rebut the Pope.
I guess someone like Trump may not even know how to keep quiet after being offended, but I think he might have been better off if he just let it slide.
jasper76 wrote: Pope Frances seems to be playing the "No True Scotsman" game with Trump.
Farbeit for me to defend Trump, but isn't a Christian a Christian because he says he is; and whether he's a "good Christian" or a "bad Christian" is another matter? That's what I always hear Christians saying, anyway. I think the Pope is out of line here. He should have just said that the policy he opposed was "Unchristian", or something like that.
(CNN)Thrusting himself into the combative 2016 presidential campaign, Pope Francis said Thursday that GOP front-runner Donald Trump "is not Christian" if he calls for the deportation of undocumented immigrants and pledges to build a wall between the United States and Mexico.
The Pope, who was traveling back to Rome from Mexico, where he urged the United States to address the "humanitarian crisis" on its southern border, did not tell American Catholics not to vote for Trump.
But Francis left little doubt where he stood on the polarizing issue of immigration reform.
"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel," the Pope told journalists who asked his opinion on Trump's proposals to halt illegal immigration.
"No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith," he said in statement. Trump added that the government in Mexico, where Francis spent the past five days, has "made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope."
"If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president," Trump said.
The tussle between Trump and Francis -- two outsized personalities who seldom shy from speaking their minds -- seems to have been building for some time. Before the Pope traveled to Mexico, Trump cast the pontiff as a political naif who "doesn't understand the dangers" at the U.S.-Mexican border.
The Pope, 'The Donald' and the wall between them
Trump social media director Dan Scavino suggested the pontiff's comments were hypocritical. "Amazing comments from the Pope- considering Vatican City is 100% surrounded by massive walls," he tweeted.
During the wide-ranging press conference aboard the papal plane, Francis also seemed to suggest that contraception may be used to prevent the transmission of the Zika virus and praised Saint John Paul II's "holy friendship" with a Polish woman.
But it was his comments on Trump that seem sure to dominate the political conversation, perhaps handing a gift to Trump's GOP opponents and opening Francis to criticism that his papacy is too partisan and his policies too liberal. Polls indicate that while Democrats adore the Pope, Republicans view him a little less favorably.
Asked whether American Catholics should vote for Trump, Francis demurred.
"As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that."
The Pope appeared somewhat unaware of Trump's exact stance on illegal immigration, though, saying that he would give him "the benefit of the doubt" until he had heard exactly what the billionaire businessman had said.
The Rev. Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, said Tuesday that the Pope knows "Trump expresses himself in an expressive way," but "is not always up to date on the latest statements."
Trump has pledged to build an $8 billion wall along the United States' southern border and says he will force Mexico to pay the tab. Trump has also said that, if elected president, he would eject some 11 million undocumented immigrants from the country.
"You have people coming in, and I'm not just saying Mexicans -- I'm talking about people that are from all over that are killers and rapists, and they're coming into this country," Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper last June.
What it would take to build Trump's border wall
What it would take to build Trump's border wall 02:34
Before the Pope left for Mexico, Trump called Francis "a very political person" and suggested that the pontiff, who celebrated Mass Wednesday near the U.S.-Mexican border, was a pawn of the Mexican government.
The Pope made light of Trump's accusations.
"Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person," he said. "As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don't know. I'll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people."
The White House weighs in
White House spokesman Josh Earnest, asked about Pope Francis' comments on Donald Trump, referred back to President Barack Obama's remarks last month at the National Prayer Breakfast.
He said Obama "talked about how his own personal Christian faith informed his view of the values and priorities that he has chosen to champion in the White House."
"A number of those values and priorities are not shared by Mr. Trump," Earnest said, before taking a jab at Trump's questioning of Obama's Christian faith.
"I will however extend to Mr. Trump the courtesy he has not extended to the President and not use this opportunity to call into question the kind of private personal conversations he is having with his God," Earnest said.
The Pope in Mexico
The Pope's comments on Trump came on his way home from an emotional trip to Mexico, where the first Latin American pontiff was greeted by boisterous crowds that often burst into songs or tears as he approached.
Celebrating Mass on Wednesday in Ciudad Juarez, a city just across the border from the United States, Francis delivered a stinging critique of leaders on both sides of the fence, calling the "forced migration" of thousands of Central Americans a "human tragedy" and "humanitarian crisis."
"Being faced with so many legal vacuums," the Pope said during his homily before a congregation of more than 200,000 people, "they get caught up in a web that ensnares and always destroys the poorest."
As he prepared to leave, Francis thanked Mexicans for opening their doors and their lives to him. "At times, I felt like weeping to see so much hope in a people who are suffering so much."
This will strengthen Trump's allure...
Pope should shut his chaw unless he's willing to tear down the Vatican's walls and redistribute's it's wealth:
Spoiler:
The walls around the Vatican were there for a very important reason, specifically to have the pope (at the time), remain alive and still the pope.
d-usa wrote: So unless we tear down thousand year old historical structures, we can't criticize people who have unrealistic ideas about new structures?
This is getting extra stupid.
This thread has become an utter cesspool of feigned obtuseness and actual, real stupidity.
d-usa wrote: So unless we tear down thousand year old historical structures, we can't criticize people who have unrealistic ideas about new structures?
This is getting extra stupid.
This thread has become an utter cesspool of feigned obtuseness and actual, real stupidity.
jasper76 wrote: Pope Frances seems to be playing the "No True Scotsman" game with Trump.
Farbeit for me to defend Trump, but isn't a Christian a Christian because he says he is; and whether he's a "good Christian" or a "bad Christian" is another matter? That's what I always hear Christians saying, anyway. I think the Pope is out of line here. He should have just said that the policy he opposed was "Unchristian", or something like that.
I'm not sure how any of the Republicans can get away with claiming to be Christian, personally. The closest thing to an actual Christian in the race is a Jew...
Something I was thinking about today. Isaac Asimov said: "If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul." What if people applied the same logic to politics?
All other things being equal, if the opposition party's candidate was a good and honorable person who actually means what they say, and your party's candidate was a dishonest, cheating scumbag who only says what people want to hear, who would you vote for? Would you still stay loyal to your party'c candidate, or would you vote for the literally better human being?
For me, if this year was, say, Clinton vs. McCain, that would be no contest: McCain for me. But for our R friends here, what if it was, say, Cruz/Trump vs.FDR/JFK/Truman? I'm just picking names as an example, it's more the general idea I'm asking about.
For me, if this year was, say, Clinton vs. McCain, that would be no contest: McCain for me. But for our R friends here, what if it was, say, Cruz/Trump vs.FDR/JFK/Truman? I'm just picking names as an example, it's more the general idea I'm asking about.
I lean left... but McCain's voting record, as it's become more and more open to public scrutiny, IMO puts him around the same level as Clinton. I most definitely remember him running on being the "veterans' choice" in congress, and yet, time and time again, he has voted down initiatives that would help Vets. Not a very honorable thing to do.
Now, speaking as someone who leans left, if we put some of the best "modern" republican names up, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike, Reagan, and put them against Clinton, Sanders or Obama (just to give a broader spectrum), I would have to say that I would probably vote for Teddy or Ike over most of them, though Roosevelt's Trust Busting/Monopoly busting ways kind of run right in line with Sanders' current platform, which makes things difficult.
So for me, in the spirit of the actual question... It greatly depends on the actual platforms being run on. If we assume that Cruz is 100% honest about the things he says, I am voting against him 99 times out of 100. And that 1 time would have to be, I don't know... Robot Stalin or something?
d-usa wrote: So unless we tear down thousand year old historical structures, we can't criticize people who have unrealistic ideas about new structures?
This is getting extra stupid.
Riiiiight...
All I'm saying is that he needed a little self awareness.
d-usa wrote: So unless we tear down thousand year old historical structures, we can't criticize people who have unrealistic ideas about new structures?
This is getting extra stupid.
Riiiiight...
All I'm saying is that he needed a little self awareness.
I'm sure the Pontiff appreciates you reminding him that he lives in a city with walls older than our country.
Also, you aren't really saying it, just merely repeating it from Twitter or whatever cesspool else you dredge this stupid gak from.
I was never taught growing up Catholic that non-Catholics are not Christians, and I don't believe its the current position of the Catholic Church. I could be wrong.
It would be a significant shift in doctrine for the Pope to refer to non-Catholics as Christian, as the Church has historically affirmed the stance that the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church.
Pope should shut his chaw unless he's willing to tear down the Vatican's walls and redistribute's it's wealth:
The Vatican City's walls are a tourist attraction that can be described as wealth for not only the Vatican, but the city of Rome and Italy in general. The Vatican's wealth is redistributed by its mere existence.
whembly wrote: I just find it interesting that Presidents really have that much of an effect on the economy.
Presidents can’t affect the economy that much. They just like to pretend they can, in order to make their economic platforms look a lot nicer than they really are.
Here's the thing, he can only propose most of the things and maybe Congress will deliberate and pass it.
Of course. Even policies that are based entirely on realistic numbers are still unlikely to get past congress in their original form. At best you get a watered down version, and more likely you’ll only get some parts of your total program across the line.
It’s like asking for a pony for Christmas, or asking for a unicorn. You almost certainly won’t get the pony, but at least your parents can be comfortable knowing you understand what reality is. Well Sanders, and most of the Republican field, they're asking for magical flying unicorns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Here, it does NOT lay out any *specific* process by which the Senate can refuse its consent.
I have not at any point said that what the Republicans are doing is unconstitutional, and you know that. So stop pretending otherwise to avoid recognising my actual point.
It does NOT indicate whether it must do so by taking a vote, or whether it can simply refuse to consider Obama's nominee at all.
There has not, at any point in the history of your country, been a moment where one party planned to simply reject any SC nomination until an election. Never.
This is, like the blackmail to hit the debt ceiling, the Republicans moving out in to deep, uncharted water. And that’s the issue. If you hold out for a year, then Clinton wins in a tight race while Republicans hold the senate, why not hold out another 4 years? If Cruz wins but Democrats sneak the senate (or just decide to use a minority filibuster), then what’s to stop them arguing that they ‘deserved’ the appointment and so they’re going to hold out for the progressive they should have gotten?
At some point you have to recognise that accepted process has value, because the alternative, Calvinball as you’ve called it, will open the door to all kinds of unexpected new changes down the road.
So its no more "extreme" to refuse to vote on any nominee, than it is to go through the dog and pony show of having a hearing & a guarantee'ed "no" vote.
Uh, pre-determining a ‘no’ vote for purely political reasons is also dangerously extreme. Your argument here is something like a defence that firing a gun blindly out of a moving guy is no more dangerous that firing blindly while walking, therefore both are okay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: All other things being equal, if the opposition party's candidate was a good and honorable person who actually means what they say, and your party's candidate was a dishonest, cheating scumbag who only says what people want to hear, who would you vote for? Would you still stay loyal to your party'c candidate, or would you vote for the literally better human being?
I think there are times when policy matters a lot more than how honorable a person is. For instance, if I was given a choice between Nixon and GW Bush, I'd pick Nixon every single day of the week. He was a pretty terrible human being, but his policies were a lot better.
Then there's measures of character that get complex. GHW Bush famously raised taxes, despite saying he wouldn't. On the one hand he broke a promise. On the other hand he saw what was best for the country and acted on it, despite the political cost.
Don't get me wrong, I think you make a good point. Character certainly matters. I'm just not sure it's the only criteria.
I was never taught growing up Catholic that non-Catholics are not Christians, and I don't believe its the current position of the Catholic Church. I could be wrong.
It would be a significant shift in doctrine for the Pope to refer to non-Catholics as Christian, as the Church has historically affirmed the stance that the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church.
Pope should shut his chaw unless he's willing to tear down the Vatican's walls and redistribute's it's wealth:
The Vatican City's walls are a tourist attraction that can be described as wealth for not only the Vatican, but the city of Rome and Italy in general. The Vatican's wealth is redistributed by its mere existence.
When I was growing up catholic my sunday school teacher actually taught us that non Catholic Christians were not real Christians and were all going to hell.
Of course that violated the second Vatican councils stance.
whembly wrote: Here, it does NOT lay out any *specific* process by which the Senate can refuse its consent.
I have not at any point said that what the Republicans are doing is unconstitutional, and you know that. So stop pretending otherwise to avoid recognising my actual point.
Fair enough... I'll acknowledge your point down below...
It does NOT indicate whether it must do so by taking a vote, or whether it can simply refuse to consider Obama's nominee at all.
There has not, at any point in the history of your country, been a moment where one party planned to simply reject any SC nomination until an election. Never.
This is, like the blackmail to hit the debt ceiling, the Republicans moving out in to deep, uncharted water. And that’s the issue. If you hold out for a year, then Clinton wins in a tight race while Republicans hold the senate, why not hold out another 4 years? If Cruz wins but Democrats sneak the senate (or just decide to use a minority filibuster), then what’s to stop them arguing that they ‘deserved’ the appointment and so they’re going to hold out for the progressive they should have gotten?
At some point you have to recognise that accepted process has value, because the alternative, Calvinball as you’ve called it, will open the door to all kinds of unexpected new changes down the road.
So its no more "extreme" to refuse to vote on any nominee, than it is to go through the dog and pony show of having a hearing & a guarantee'ed "no" vote.
Uh, pre-determining a ‘no’ vote for purely political reasons is also dangerously extreme. Your argument here is something like a defence that firing a gun blindly out of a moving guy is no more dangerous that firing blindly while walking, therefore both are okay.
I'll tell you why, it's about power and shaping the court to a desired ideology.
The Democrats had it. If you want to talk about extremely dangerous precedent, look no further than Reid invoking the nuke option to do away with the filibuster rules. He did this to facilitate packing the DC Appellate Courts with liberal justices.
So... forgive me that my "give a feth o meter" is non existent here.
But, your fearmongering over the idea that if Clinton or Sanders win the Presidency, that the Senate would hold out for another 4 years is unfounded. It'd be totally untenable that they do that.
So ask yourself this... why are the calls for the parties to 'rise above ideology and partisanship' only seem to be in effect when the Republicans are the majority? As regular Republican voters have seen, whenever the Republican party tries to take that "higher ground", they lose.
Hence this is why you're seeing these "insurgent" candidates having popularity now.
Whembly, I've corrected you before on this.
"Packing" of a court is a very specific thing. It is adding justices (that you then appoint) to shift the balance on the court. Filling vacancies created by justices leaving the court by any means is not, and never has been packing.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Whembly, I've corrected you before on this.
"Packing" of a court is a very specific thing. It is adding justices (that you then appoint) to shift the balance on the court. Filling vacancies created by justices leaving the court by any means is not, and never has been packing.
I'll submit I was hyperbolic in this respect. So yes, you're technically correct.
Tannhauser42 wrote: But for our R friends here, what if it was, say, Cruz/Trump vs.FDR/JFK/Truman? I'm just picking names as an example, it's more the general idea I'm asking about.
Okay, since you asked, I'll provide you an honest answer from my own personal perspective. I would tend to default to the Republican candidate simply because that candidate is more likely to push an agenda that I support. However, that is not an "all in" position. If we wind up with a Bob Dole candidate, I will certainly vote for a JFK (D) or Truman instead because I feel that Senator Dole betrayed the Republican base. Like Hillary, he seemed to be running because he was "anointed" and was dismissive of those of us in the base. When asked about the Contract with America (those items that didn't get passed and sent to the President), he said, "I thought we did that. As far as I'm concerned, we're done with that." which showed me that he didn't care about the issues the base thought important and was just running because "it was his turn."
When McCain nominated Palin, I first thought that this was an interesting choice. Then we found out she was possessed by the cast of Looney Tunes, et al, with Woody Woodpecker acting as Grand Marshal of the parade. I would not have voted for a FDR even in this case, but JFK or even Truman? Yes. Either would be far better than what we actually wound up with.
Romney wasn't a bad candidate and would have made a decent if unremarkable President but he just couldn't come off as empathetic toward the common person. He was also very passive in the last debate when he needed to be assertive. That performance likely cost him the election although his lackluster campaign in the previous month may have made it a moot point. I would have voted for Romney over any of the three Democrats you listed.
Now, in this election, (at this current moment in time) I would vote, in order, for: Rubio, Cruz, JFK, Truman, and lastly Trump (but I would be holding my nose in Trump's case). Hillary is there because "it's her turn" and "she's owed it". I loath her, her corruption personified, and her lies and cover-ups, and her grating shrill voice. Sanders is an avowed Socialist so he's too far to the left for me to consider, even with a Republican congress in place.
Tannhauser42 wrote: But for our R friends here, what if it was, say, Cruz/Trump vs.FDR/JFK/Truman? I'm just picking names as an example, it's more the general idea I'm asking about.
Okay, since you asked, I'll provide you an honest answer from my own personal perspective. I would tend to default to the Republican candidate simply because that candidate is more likely to push an agenda that I support. However, that is not an "all in" position. If we wind up with a Bob Dole candidate, I will certainly vote for a JFK (D) or Truman instead because I feel that Senator Dole betrayed the Republican base. Like Hillary, he seemed to be running because he was "anointed" and was dismissive of those of us in the base. When asked about the Contract with America (those items that didn't get passed and sent to the President), he said, "I thought we did that. As far as I'm concerned, we're done with that." which showed me that he didn't care about the issues the base thought important and was just running because "it was his turn."
When McCain nominated Palin, I first thought that this was an interesting choice. Then we found out she was possessed by the cast of Looney Tunes, et al, with Woody Woodpecker acting as Grand Marshal of the parade. I would not have voted for a FDR even in this case, but JFK or even Truman? Yes. Either would be far better than what we actually wound up with.
Romney wasn't a bad candidate and would have made a decent if unremarkable President but he just couldn't come off as empathetic toward the common person. He was also very passive in the last debate when he needed to be assertive. That performance likely cost him the election although his lackluster campaign in the previous month may have made it a moot point. I would have voted for Romney over any of the three Democrats you listed.
Now, in this election, (at this current moment in time) I would vote, in order, for: Rubio, Cruz, JFK, Truman, and lastly Trump (but I would be holding my nose in Trump's case). Hillary is there because "it's her turn" and "she's owed it". I loath her, her corruption personified, and her lies and cover-ups, and her grating shrill voice. Sanders is an avowed Socialist so he's too far to the left for me to consider, even with a Republican congress in place.
+1000
My order would be: Rubio, Cruz, hypothetical-JFK, Bush, Kasich, hypothetical-Truman, Carson and lastly Trump.
I see it was a mistake for me to use any names in my question, because that's not what I'm asking about. Simply put, would you vote for the devil from your party over the saint from the other party? Or does the basic quality of the person's humanity matter?
Tannhauser42 wrote: I see it was a mistake for me to use any names in my question, because that's not what I'm asking about. Simply put, would you vote for the devil from your party over the saint from the other party?
If I truly believe that, then no, I would likely cross party and vote for the saint.
Or does the basic quality of the person's humanity matter?
Not exactly sure what you're asking for...
Are you saying that Martians and Lizardmen exists?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Simply put, would you vote for the devil from your party over the saint from the other party? Or does the basic quality of the person's humanity matter?
The TL-DR of my previous post is, it depends. It depends on the devil, the saint, the types of policies either would put forth, and which would be the least damaging to my own ideology/social values.
Here's a question. If the election happens and Clinton (or Sanders) is elected, but the R's maintain control of the H&S, would those of you who are OK with them blocking any nomination be OK with the continuing to block any nomination?
Co'tor Shas wrote: Here's a question. If the election happens and Clinton (or Sanders) is elected, but the R's maintain control of the H&S, would those of you who are OK with them blocking any nomination be OK with the continuing to block any nomination?
No. Because their position now is that we want the voters to have a say.
If Sanders or Clinton were to be elected, then the voters has spoken.
FWIW, I'm very dubious that the Republicans hangs onto the Senate.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Here's a question. If the election happens and Clinton (or Sanders) is elected, but the R's maintain control of the H&S, would those of you who are OK with them blocking any nomination be OK with the continuing to block any nomination?
No. Because their position now is that we want the voters to have a say.
If Sanders or Clinton were to be elected, then the voters has spoken.
FWIW, I'm very dubious that the Republicans hangs onto the Senate.
The voters have spoken now. They voted for Obama knowing that if during those four years something happened to a member of the supreme court he would have to nominate a replacement.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Here's a question. If the election happens and Clinton (or Sanders) is elected, but the R's maintain control of the H&S, would those of you who are OK with them blocking any nomination be OK with the continuing to block any nomination?
No. Because their position now is that we want the voters to have a say.
If Sanders or Clinton were to be elected, then the voters has spoken.
FWIW, I'm very dubious that the Republicans hangs onto the Senate.
You know that talking point you just regurgitated just makes you look like a fool, right? I mean, do you honestly believe that presidents are only in office for three years? You really shouldn't because it's an extremely fething stupid thing to say.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Here's a question. If the election happens and Clinton (or Sanders) is elected, but the R's maintain control of the H&S, would those of you who are OK with them blocking any nomination be OK with the continuing to block any nomination?
No. Because their position now is that we want the voters to have a say.
If Sanders or Clinton were to be elected, then the voters has spoken.
FWIW, I'm very dubious that the Republicans hangs onto the Senate.
You know that talking point you just regurgitated just makes you look like a fool, right? I mean, do you honestly believe that presidents are only in office for three years? You really shouldn't because it's an extremely fething stupid thing to say.
The voters have spoken now. They voted for Obama knowing that if during those four years something happened to a member of the supreme court he would have to nominate a replacement.
this right here... Obama isn't in office until November 2016, he's in office until January 2017. There MIGHT be some teeth to the position of "we need to wait to appoint a new justice until the people's votes have spoken for who will be president" IF another justice dies say, Thanksgiving night, or on December 17th or something.
But that isn't what has happened, and thus, the arguments they made in 2005 of "doing your job and appointing someone" most definitely should reflect back onto the bull gak they are doing now.
Voters have "spoken" in 2014 when the GOP took the majority.
We can play this game all day guys.
Actually, maybe ya'll should listen to Harry Reid when he said this on the Senate floor on May 19th, 2005:
Spoiler:
The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say that the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying very nominee receives a vote.
But, your fearmongering over the idea that if Clinton or Sanders win the Presidency, that the Senate would hold out for another 4 years is unfounded. It'd be totally untenable that they do that.
If the GOP maintains control of the Senate in 2016, and a Democrat is elected President, it has no incentive to hold a hearing for a Democrat appointee as there is a good chance it would gain seats in 2018 due to conservative preference for GOP obstructionism.
So ask yourself this... why are the calls for the parties to 'rise above ideology and partisanship' only seem to be in effect when the Republicans are the majority? As regular Republican voters have seen, whenever the Republican party tries to take that "higher ground", they lose.
Reagan called for Party members to rise above ideology when the Democrats were in power. It was really the Republican Revolution that turned the GOP into an ideologically tight group which reveled in dirty tactics, but didn't manage to accomplish anything. It loses when it plays clean because a lot of its ideas are simply bad.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Here's a question. If the election happens and Clinton (or Sanders) is elected, but the R's maintain control of the H&S, would those of you who are OK with them blocking any nomination be OK with the continuing to block any nomination?
No. Because their position now is that we want the voters to have a say.
If Sanders or Clinton were to be elected, then the voters has spoken.
FWIW, I'm very dubious that the Republicans hangs onto the Senate.
What about the people who voted for Obama in 2012? They do not count anymore? Their say means nothing? That is incredibly insulting honestly. You are basically saying that the people who voted for Obama should not have a voice.
If you agree to this, I am going to give you a heads up, you are saying that certain peoples votes do not matter. Do you believe that the people who voted for Obama in 2012 do not matter?
ah, 2014, when the Dems let things slip up. No enthusiasm is what allowed the angry old white guys to vote their Republican polits into office as the Dem candidates ran from Obama, and played like Rep light, most folks hate the "light" version of anything, Beer, soda, food, so why go weak when you can go full tilt?
Bernie has folks fired up this time for a change Obama did nto deliver, (Although he soon saw the obstructionism, so maybe he gave up on change and went for clean up duty instead)
I can see if Bernie is the Dems candidate and becomes President, we will see progressive candidates amongst the Dems elected sweeping in a new era of change, and start the changes we need. It will not be over night though and will take more progressive officials elected and assigned over the next few years.
40yrs of Reaganism/trickle down theory and voodoo econimcs by the GOP has done much damage, assisted by (blame laid where due) the Dems who did not fight back hard enough and let the bullying and bluster do the harm it has done.
Less taxes for the rich and loopholes for the corporates to avoid paying taxes, cuts to social programs and other programs that helped make America run smoother, all the de-regulations and they cry "we need to end our spending"
Yet, so much for that BS as they sure spent trillions for the war that has raged since 2001.
Always plenty of money for wars but not our people and infrastructure, how is that? Is that some miracle money? No, it is misdirection along with the corporate welfare spent to fatten corporations up.
Oil company making 90billion in one quarter after expenses, does not to my mind deserve another 20billion in "subsidies" when there are folks losing jobs, going homeless, and hungry in our "richest and best nation on Earth"
Important announcement for American dakka members to keep them in the loop.
A major political event has been announced in Britain: on June 23rd, Britain will have a referendum on staying in or leaving the European Union.
What has this to do with the USA?
Well, America has always stated that it's in the USA's interests to have Britain in the EU. If Britain votes to leave, it could diminish Britain's importance to the USA, but to be fair, that's been happening since Thomas Gage ordered British troops to seize gunpowder and muskets from the Boston militias!
Anyway, our Prime Minister will probably be on the phone begging for an endorsement from Obama, or Hilary Clinton, or any other top politician/business leader in the USA, so don't be surprised if this crops up in the presidential campaign.
This referendum is a big deal in Britain. The ruling party, the conservatives (republicans) are pretty split on this, and there could be a political 'civil war' that goes on for years.
The British public is evenly divided as well. Many believe that the UK should free itself from the EU and forge a new role for itself in the wider world, whilst others want closer ties to Europe.
This question cuts at the heart of British identity since we lost the Empire. Should be push closer to the USA or should we push closer to Europe?
We've tried to be both over the years, and it never really worked. Now it'll be decided one way or another.
If there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Here's a question. If the election happens and Clinton (or Sanders) is elected, but the R's maintain control of the H&S, would those of you who are OK with them blocking any nomination be OK with the continuing to block any nomination?
No. Because their position now is that we want the voters to have a say.
If Sanders or Clinton were to be elected, then the voters has spoken.
FWIW, I'm very dubious that the Republicans hangs onto the Senate.
What about the people who voted for Obama in 2012? They do not count anymore? Their say means nothing? That is incredibly insulting honestly. You are basically saying that the people who voted for Obama should not have a voice.
If you agree to this, I am going to give you a heads up, you are saying that certain peoples votes do not matter. Do you believe that the people who voted for Obama in 2012 do not matter?
O.o
Obama still can nominate anyone he wants.
It's up to the Senate to determine how they conduct their bidness as to how they conduct their "Advise" and "Consent" function.
So, the Obama voters in 2012 does matter.
Just as the Senate voters in 2014 matters.
In other words, just like Obama winning in '12, the GOP winning in '14 also means that "Elections have consequences."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Important announcement for American dakka members to keep them in the loop.
A major political event has been announced in Britain: on June 23rd, Britain will have a referendum on staying in or leaving the European Union.
What has this to do with the USA?
Well, America has always stated that it's in the USA's interests to have Britain in the EU. If Britain votes to leave, it could diminish Britain's importance to the USA, but to be fair, that's been happening since Thomas Gage ordered British troops to seize gunpowder and muskets from the Boston militias!
Anyway, our Prime Minister will probably be on the phone begging for an endorsement from Obama, or Hilary Clinton, or any other top politician/business leader in the USA, so don't be surprised if this crops up in the presidential campaign.
This referendum is a big deal in Britain. The ruling party, the conservatives (republicans) are pretty split on this, and there could be a political 'civil war' that goes on for years.
The British public is evenly divided as well. Many believe that the UK should free itself from the EU and forge a new role for itself in the wider world, whilst others want closer ties to Europe.
This question cuts at the heart of British identity since we lost the Empire. Should be push closer to the USA or should we push closer to Europe?
We've tried to be both over the years, and it never really worked. Now it'll be decided one way or another.
If there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
If UK Brexit, how is it that US and UK be any "closer"?
We're like the tightest, best buds allies for quite some time now... that I don't foresee changing with or not UK stays in the EU.
