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.
2016/02/17 01:26:15
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/02/17 02:11:46
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/17 02:26:15
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/17 02:19:56
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2016/02/17 02:22:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
If Trumps the nominee... write in Deadpool.
I know I will...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/17 02:24:30
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/02/17 02:26:01
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2016/02/17 02:32:16
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2016/02/17 02:34:50
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
2016/02/17 02:35:02
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/17 02:36:02
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/17 02:39:01
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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!
2016/02/17 02:44:25
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/02/17 02:50:03
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/17 02:51:09
Full Frontal Nerdity
2016/02/17 02:52:56
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2016/02/17 02:58:10
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
2016/02/17 03:00:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/17 03:05:04
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/02/17 03:00:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
Full Frontal Nerdity
2016/02/17 03:01:20
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Didn't he just admit that he filibustered Alito because that energizes the Democratic voters?
So why shouldn't Republicans do the same thing?
Do I really need to repeat myself again?
How about this one, then: because two wrongs don't make a right?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2016/02/17 03:39:51
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
But I dream.
2016/02/17 04:33:59
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/17 05:54:31
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
