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.

 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.

 Breotan wrote:

 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.

The answer was already posted.

 d-usa wrote:
The answer was already posted.

Okay, I missed it then. Carry on without me.

 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.

I'll wait...

Seaward wrote:
I think you're about six or seven pages behind.

35 pages from now, your comment will still be silly and begging to be made fun of.

 whembly wrote:

Show me in the Constitution where it explicitly spells out what is the "Advise" & "Consent" rules?

It isn't explicitly spelled out, because the US Constitution is extremely vague. It is a terrible document that is unaccountably worshiped by people.

 whembly wrote:

Sure if you want to win over the minds and heart of the voters... but, then you still have to vote for which candidate that can make the sell.

Once you've won over the voter's hearts and minds they generally vote for candidates in agreement with a given position. That's how democracy works.

 whembly wrote:

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?

No, Obama is history's greatest monster and the most strident opponents to him making an appointment cannot be seen working with him.

 whembly wrote:

You mean, exactly like what Chuck Schumer said too?

"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,"

Stating that the Senate should not confirm a nominee is not the same as refusing to hold a hearing.

 whembly wrote:
TL;DR: Courts can keep'on trucking...

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?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Show me in the Constitution where it explicitly spells out what is the "Advise" & "Consent" rules?

It isn't explicitly spelled out, because the US Constitution is extremely vague.

The framers left it to the Senate to determine what it means.

It is a terrible document that is unaccountably worshiped by people.

Don't like it... gin up support to amend it. The mechanism is there.

 whembly wrote:

Sure if you want to win over the minds and heart of the voters... but, then you still have to vote for which candidate that can make the sell.

Once you've won over the voter's hearts and minds they generally vote for candidates in agreement with a given position. That's how democracy works.

Sure. I don't even know what we're arguing about here...

 whembly wrote:

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?

No, Obama is history's greatest monster and the most strident opponents to him making an appointment cannot be seen working with him.

Nah, however unlikely he'd do that, the Senate would jump over all that in a heartbeat.

 whembly wrote:

You mean, exactly like what Chuck Schumer said too?

"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,"

Stating that the Senate should not confirm a nominee is not the same as refusing to hold a hearing.

See what I posted to feeder above...

 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 hey, if you're in team elephant you just don't question these things.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
TL;DR: Courts can keep'on trucking...

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.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 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 hey, if you're in team red, there's no questioning anything.

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?

 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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
TL;DR: Courts can keep'on trucking...

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.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:


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."

 whembly wrote:
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.

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.

 d-usa wrote:

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?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
TL;DR: Courts can keep'on trucking...

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.

 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.

 d-usa wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:


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."

Sure d... that's what this is.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
TL;DR: Courts can keep'on trucking...

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.

 Ustrello wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
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.

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?

Didn't happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

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.

Does anyone know what Citizen United was about?

It doesn't matter what it is about, it is about the consequences and they have been massive.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

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.