Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/05/22 07:33:52
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
Wait, is James Madison not a "Framer" now?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/02/16 09:11:40
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
2016/02/16 09:59:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
Still waiting for Godot.
2016/02/16 10:18:59
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
2016/02/16 13:08:10
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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?
Full Frontal Nerdity
2016/02/16 13:43:11
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
In the event of a tie, the historical precedent is for the case to be reargued after the new justice is commissioned.
I posted an article from the SCOTUSblog about it a page or so ago.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/16 14:25:46
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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!
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2016/02/16 21:07:13
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/02/16 21:17:20
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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?!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/16 22:05:44
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/16 22:06:40
2016/02/16 22:29:24
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
2016/02/17 00:44:42
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Because Republicans = Bad, Democrats = Less Bad. I thought you followed politics.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2016/02/17 00:52:12
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/02/17 00:59:20
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/17 01:03:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/17 01:05:15
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/02/17 01:12:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/17 01:21:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
