The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

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.

**Tannhauser42**

whembly wrote:

This is your friend:
http://www.opensecrets.org/

Sure, websites like that can be a good resource. But, let's be honest, only the smallest minority of voters actually use such resources in helping them to make their choice. The vast majority just vote the way their parents, church leader, or news network tells them to, because ain't nobody got time for researching the real facts and making informed decisions. Like I said before, I think if the ballots got changed to use something more like isidewith.com to determine votes, things would be a lot different, and we would probably have a better government and country for it.

sebster wrote:
There's a pretty strong story going around that Republicans have told Obama they'll confirm Garland in the lame duck congress, if a Democrat wins the presidency. Which is a bit like telling the enemy you'll surrender if they defeat your army and take your capital. But more importantly it shows how completely dishonest the Republicans are in refusing confirmation hearings, it was never about 'letting the people decide', it was just about hoping that a Republican would win the presidency and pick someone different.

The Republicans are basically making a big gamble that two coin tosses are both going to go their way this year: a Republican wins the White House, and the Republicans retain control of the Senate. Right now, the Republicans have the power to get someone into SCOTUS that they can at least tolerate (a moderate), but not someone they actually want (a conservative). They've sworn up and down that the next president should decide, and they'll just have to suck it up if the next president is a Democrat (which is highly likely, Trump is just a disaster, and Cruz is such an avatar of disunity that he wouldn't even be able to get his fellow Senators to convict his own murderer).

**jasper76**

I'm slightly wondering if we'll see anymore Supreme Court nominations again while the Senate and White House are controlled by opposing parties. If they don't need to hold nomination hearings in Year 4, why would they have to in Year 1-3?

**Polonius**

jasper76 wrote:
I'm slightly wondering if we'll see anymore Supreme Court nominations again while the Senate and White House are controlled by opposing parties. If they don't need to hold nomination hearings in Year 4, why would they have to in Year 1-3?

A few of my colleagues and I were discussing that. There also doesn't appear to be anything from stopping the president from making recess appointments.

It's a ramping up of politics as bloodsport that probably won't end well. The GOP has spent eight years pouting, waiting until they control the White House. I think that has hurt their brand, and is leading in some ways to anger with the GOP establishment among their own party.

In some ways, it's a continuation of a trend that began with Robert Bork, who was the first judge really rejected on ideological grounds, as opposed to qualifications or extraneous factors. That was, in many ways, when partisan politics became involved in SCOTUS nominations. But... and this is a pretty major but... it wasn't strictly partisan! Two democrats voted to approve Bork, while five Republicans voted against him. Still, the fight against Bork was ugly, it was in the media, and it bordered on defamation.

**whembly**

jasper76 wrote:
I'm slightly wondering if we'll see anymore Supreme Court nominations again while the Senate and White House are controlled by opposing parties. If they don't need to hold nomination hearings in Year 4, why would they have to in Year 1-3?

Nothing is stopping them, unless the President nominate someone more agreeable.

I know you don't like the outcome of this, but both sides *are* doing their duties.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
I'm slightly wondering if we'll see anymore Supreme Court nominations again while the Senate and White House are controlled by opposing parties. If they don't need to hold nomination hearings in Year 4, why would they have to in Year 1-3?

A few of my colleagues and I were discussing that. There also doesn't appear to be anything from stopping the president from making recess appointments.

Incorrect.

The Senate must be in recess, and if I'm not mistaken, there was even a Supreme Court case that Obama lost when he tried to "determine" that the Senate was in recess.

It's a ramping up of politics as bloodsport that probably won't end well. The GOP has spent eight years pouting, waiting until they control the White House. I think that has hurt their brand, and is leading in some ways to anger with the GOP establishment among their own party.

Their brand is already damaged as they've made promises they wouldn't keep.

EDIT: yup. Here's the court case:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rebukes-obama-on-recess-appointments/2014/06/26/e5e4fefa-e831-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html

...
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that President Obama exceeded his constitutional authority in making high-level government appointments in 2012 when he declared the Senate to be in recess and unable to act on the nominations.
...

**jasper76**

whembly wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
I'm slightly wondering if we'll see anymore Supreme Court nominations again while the Senate and White House are controlled by opposing parties. If they don't need to hold nomination hearings in Year 4, why would they have to in Year 1-3?

Nothing is stopping them, unless the President nominate someone more agreeable.

I know you don't like the outcome of this, but both sides *are* doing their duties.

Well just agree to disagree here. I see one branch of government performing their constitutional duty, and one branch of government abdicating theirs. I believe the duty the Senate owes to the Constitution is greater than what individual elected officials owe to party politics.

And it's not like they have to nominate the guy, that's what makes all of this a joke.

**CptJake**

Polonius wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
I'm slightly wondering if we'll see anymore Supreme Court nominations again while the Senate and White House are controlled by opposing parties. If they don't need to hold nomination hearings in Year 4, why would they have to in Year 1-3?

A few of my colleagues and I were discussing that. There also doesn't appear to be anything from stopping the president from making recess appointments.

Except the Senate not going into recess... If I recall correctly, Obama already tried to declare a recess so he could appoint, and that did not work out well for him.

EDIT: Ninja-ed

**skyth**

One side going 'we aren't going to even look at anyone you nominate regardless' is not doing their jobs...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I remember Obama saying that he wasn't going to do a recess appointment.

**Polonius**

whembly wrote:
Incorrect.

The Senate must be in recess, and if I'm not mistaken, there was even a Supreme Court case that Obama lost when he tried to "determine" that the Senate was in recess.

It's a ramping up of politics as bloodsport that probably won't end well. The GOP has spent eight years pouting, waiting until they control the White House. I think that has hurt their brand, and is leading in some ways to anger with the GOP establishment among their own party.

Their brand is already damaged as they've made promises they wouldn't keep.

EDIT: yup. Here's the court case:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rebukes-obama-on-recess-appointments/2014/06/26/e5e4fefa-e831-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html

...
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that President Obama exceeded his constitutional authority in making high-level government appointments in 2012 when he declared the Senate to be in recess and unable to act on the nominations.
...

Obviously a recess appointment requires a recess. I suppose the senate can pretend to be in session indefinitely from now on, which would prevent it.

I don't see anything unconstitutional about the Senate refusing to consider any Obama nominee. SCOTUS is beyond cautious against interfering with what they call "political questions," and frankly if the Sentate refuses to consent to any nominee, than I suppose we just don't get a justice.

But there will be political retribution for this. If this is how things works now, good luck to the next GOP president getting any nominees approved. If an opposition party has even 40 votes to prevent cloture, why not deny every single nominee, for any position, a vote?

**whembly**

jasper76 wrote:
whembly wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
I'm slightly wondering if we'll see anymore Supreme Court nominations again while the Senate and White House are controlled by opposing parties. If they don't need to hold nomination hearings in Year 4, why would they have to in Year 1-3?

Nothing is stopping them, unless the President nominate someone more agreeable.

I know you don't like the outcome of this, but both sides *are* doing their duties.

Well just agree to disagree here. I see one branch of government performing their constitutional duty, and one branch of government abdicating theirs. I believe the duty the Senate owes to the Constitution is greater than what individual elected officials owe to party politics.

And it's not like they have to nominate the guy, that's what makes all of this a joke.

I'm talking about the powers afforded to the Senate and President via the Constitution.

As written, they're both doing their job.

In 40k lingo, both sides are RAW in their views.

Why does any nominee deserve a hearing? If the party says... naw, that candidate doesn't work for us... why would you be okay with the selection committee to "go through the motions" and waste everyone's time, if we know that person won't even get to a floor vote?

So, because the Senate is choosing to use it's Advise portion in this manner, maybe Obama need to go back to the drawing board and pick someone else.

**jasper76**

There's even a [I]possible[I] scenario where the Supreme Court could be widdled down to 0, right?

Just curious, has this particular trick ever been executed before, in a lame duck session or otherwise?

.

**whembly**

Polonius wrote:
whembly wrote:
Incorrect.

The Senate must be in recess, and if I'm not mistaken, there was even a Supreme Court case that Obama lost when he tried to "determine" that the Senate was in recess.

It's a ramping up of politics as bloodsport that probably won't end well. The GOP has spent eight years pouting, waiting until they control the White House. I think that has hurt their brand, and is leading in some ways to anger with the GOP establishment among their own party.

Their brand is already damaged as they've made promises they wouldn't keep.

EDIT: yup. Here's the court case:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rebukes-obama-on-recess-appointments/2014/06/26/e5e4fefa-e831-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html

...
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that President Obama exceeded his constitutional authority in making high-level government appointments in 2012 when he declared the Senate to be in recess and unable to act on the nominations.

...

Obviously a recess appointment requires a recess. I suppose the senate can pretend to be in session indefinitely from now on, which would prevent it.

I don't see anything unconstitutional about the Senate refusing to consider any Obama nominee. SCOTUS is beyond cautious against interfering with what they call "political questions," and frankly if the Sentate refuses to consent to any nominee, than I suppose we just don't get a justice.

But there will be political retribution for this. If this is how things works now, good luck to the next GOP president getting any nominees approved. If an opposition party has even 40 votes to prevent cloture, why not deny every single nominee, for any position, a vote?

Of course there will be political retribution.

Hell, it was further exacerbated by Reid nuking the filibuster on all appointee instead of the Supreme Court. Now THAT cat is out of the bag, just watch a slim majority Democrat Senate nuke that too.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jasper76 wrote:
There's even a [I]possible[I] scenario where the Supreme Court could be widdled down to 0, right?

No, there's actually a law that there must be "x" number of justice on the bench. I can't remember the number and google-fu is failing me at the moment.

Just curious, has this particular trick ever been executed before, in a lame duck session or otherwise?

What trick? Not even having hearings?

**jasper76**

Like I said, we can just agree to disagree. I can read. The Constitution says the Senate will perform a function. When the Senate does not perform that function, you'll be hard pressed to convince me they are doing their duty. If my job is to dig a ditch, and I tell my boss I'm not going to dig a ditch under any circumstances, but I'll perform my duty.. you get he point and it's not even something worth arguing over

Ref 'trick',.I was referring to Mitch McConnell Supreme Court nomination policy.

**CptJake**

The senate is performing a function. Their 'advise' function. The Constitution does NOT lay out the procedure, the Senate does. And they seem to have decided in this case their advise function consists of saying 'Sorry POTUS, ain't gonna happen.' And they are within their job description to do so.

You don't have to like, but to declare them unconstitutional and not doing their job is silly, there is no legal precedent to make that call on, and there is precedent for their actions (or lack there of).

**jasper76**

Sure fine, I agree to disagree with you. I just don't think the abdication of a functio is synonymous with its fulfillment. I haven't really been saying that this tactic is unconstitutional. I fully admit it's within the Senate's power to abdicate their responsibility to provide advice and consent to the president.

Like we were talking earlier, I can even see that it's possible that this tactic could take hold indefinitely, and in principle at least we could see it used for the duration of entire presidential terms from day 1. And certainly the Democrats are not above this behavior, as others have noted.

**TheMeanDM**

But the issue is that the POTUS is obligated to nominate.

"Shall nominate"

Not "may" or "can" or "could".

SHALL

The Senate is saying "don't even nominate"....which, to some, could be seen as advice.

To others, like myself, that is obstructing the POTUS from doing his constitutional duty.

**skyth**

Advise means telling him what they will accept. Saying 'nothing' is not doing their job.

**CptJake**

TheMeanDM wrote:
But the issue is that the POTUS is obligated to nominate.

"Shall nominate"

Not "may" or "can" or "could".

SHALL

The Senate is saying "don't even nominate"....which, to some, could be seen as advice.

To others, like myself, that is obstructing the POTUS from doing his constitutional duty.

He did nominate. Problem solved.

In fact, the Senate has no mechanism to prevent him from doing so, so they cannot obstruct him from doing his duty.

**whembly**

TheMeanDM wrote:
But the issue is that the POTUS is obligated to nominate.

"Shall nominate"

Not "may" or "can" or "could".

SHALL

The Senate is saying "don't even nominate"....which, to some, could be seen as advice.

To others, like myself, that is obstructing the POTUS from doing his constitutional duty.

Um... Obama *did* nominate someone.

That someone is named Merrick Garland.

Seems to me Obama fullfilled his requirement.

Here's a really REALLY good discussion (try reading this first):
An Exchange on the Senate's 'Advice'

Jacob Adler (University of Arkansas -- Philosophy) writes:

I just have been reading your response to the Law Professors' Letter on Supreme Court Appointments. One comment. You say that there is plausibly an implied duty to provide advice. The advice provided so far has been, "Do not nominate anyone." That surely is advice, but it seems to me that the Senate in that case is advising the President to act unconstitutionally. The Constitution says that the President shall nominate Justices of the Supreme Court. How can they reasonably suggest that he should not?

Of course, that by itself doesn't mean that they have to approve his nominee, or vote, or even hold hearings. But it seems to show little respect for the Constitution.

I responded:

I agree that the Senate could not advise the President to not make a nomination ever, for the reasons you say. But here, the advice is just to wait until after the election. I don't think the President is required to make a nomination in any particular time frame. He could decide that it would be better to wait, or he might have other more important things to do. In the past, Presidents have sometimes waited a long time before making a nomination, without being accused of acting unconstitutionally. So although there is a duty to make a nomination (eventually), there is a lot of discretion in when the nomination is made. If that's right, then it seems fine for the Senate to advise delaying the nomination a bit. '

Professor Adler then offered this further comment:

[T]he issue is not just a slight delay. Rather, Senator McConnell is advising the President to make no nomination at all.

Obviously, in some cases that's reasonable. If a Justice were to die or resign on the last day of a President's term, I can't imagine anyone objecting to the President's deferring the appointment to his or her successor.

But suppose the next President is a Democrat. Could the Senate advise the new President-elect, "Don't nominate anyone to the Supreme Court for all four years of your term. And if you're re-elected, don't nominate anyone then, either." That doesn't seem right, though I can't say I know enough Constitutional law to say if it's really wrong.

My further response: I think I must concede that in Professor Adler's last hypothetical, the Senate is giving unconstitutional advice. In effect, Senate is saying, we really need just eight Justices. But it is Congress' power, not the Senate's, to decide the size of the Court. If there is a vacancy, the President is under a constitutional duty to (eventually) make a nomination ("he shall nominate..."), and the Senate should not advise him (or her) otherwise. But I think the current situation is different because the Senate is not saying to refrain from nominations indefinitely, for no apparently reason, but rather is saying refrain from nominations for a fairly short defined period (until after the election) for a specific articulated reason (to provide popular input on the type of Justice to be selected).

Thanks to Professor Adler for raising the question, which I think is an important one.

(To be clear, none of this goes to the question whether the Senate may refuse its consent indefinitely due to political disagreement with the President).

RELATED: At the Bishop Madison blog, Alan Meese (William & Mary) has the post On the Senate's Absolute Discretion to Refuse to Consider Nominees. He writes:

The text plainly empowers the President to nominate, at his discretion, possible Supreme Court justices, ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, and other "officers of the United States." The text also requires, in a straightforward and unambiguous way, Senate "advice and consent" (sometimes called "confirmation"), before the President may appoint such a nominee to the office in question. The clause does not, however, mention or impose any duty to consent to such nominations or, for that matter, to consider the nomination in any particular way. The Vice President's assertion to the contrary is just that, an assertion, which attempts to transform a requirement of Senate consent before appointment into a constitutional mandate of an (unspecified) amount and type of "consideration" before granting or withholding such consent. Far from "plainly" requiring such process, the language of Article II, Section 2 simply does not bear this construction, which would assign the phrase "with the advice and consent" two entirely different functions. As Ed Whelan explains over at Bench Memos. "the Constitution says nothing about how the Senate should go about exercising its power to advise and consent-or-withhold consent, and it thus leaves the Senate entirely free to exercise that power as it sees fit." In the same way, it should be added, the Constitution leaves the President entirely free to determine how to go about deciding whom to nominate in the first place.

**TheMeanDM**

Yes of course he did...against the wishes and advice of the Republican Senators who were telling him to not nominate.

Could they ultimately prevent him from making a nomination? Of course not.

But even trying to obstruct him through intimidating language is utterly ridiculous, foolish, and so on and so forth.

They were trying to get him to back down...which is teying to obstruct him from his duties....

Again...my opinion.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Of course there will be political retribution.

Hell, it was further exacerbated by Reid nuking the filibuster on all appointee instead of the Supreme Court. Now THAT cat is out of the bag, just watch a slim majority Democrat Senate nuke that too.

Bill Frist let that cat out of the bag back in 2004 when he threatened to nuke the Democratic filibuster of Bush judicial appointees.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Of course there will be political retribution.

Hell, it was further exacerbated by Reid nuking the filibuster on all appointee instead of the Supreme Court. Now THAT cat is out of the bag, just watch a slim majority Democrat Senate nuke that too.

Bill Frist let that cat out of the bag back in 2004 when he threatened to nuke the Democratic filibuster of Bush judicial appointees.

You mean, the time when Biden previously killed 32 Bush's nominees to the bench without giving them so much as a hearing?

This isn't done in a vacuum to shiv the other side.

It's all about the control dynamics between the majority and minority party. Both parties has always 'threatened' to change the rules. But don't whitewash what Reid did when he actually nuked filibuster on all non-SC appointees. Which effectively loaded the courts of more liberal jurists that favored the Democrat's polices.

Besides, I'm pretty sure the majority has always complained of the minority's gratuitous use of the Filibuster. The Civil Rights Act comes to mind...

**skyth**

You can try to rules-lawyer your way around it but what the Republicans are doing is unprecedented obstruction and very much beyond the pale...

**TheMeanDM**

If the Dems did the same in the 90's, it certainly doesn't make it right then....nor does it make it right now.

That'd the kind of gak that NEEDS to stop.

**skyth**

Plus it's a proven lie that keeps on being brought up that the Democrats did the same thing in the 90's.

**whembly**

TheMeanDM wrote:
If the Dems did the same in the 90's, it certainly doesn't make it right then....nor does it make it right now.

That'd the kind of gak that NEEDS to stop.

Sure... just vote for the other guy.

Not that it'll change much as the Democrats would be doing the exact same thing if the role were reversed.

:shrugs:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

skyth wrote:
Plus it's a proven lie that keeps on being brought up that the Democrats did the same thing in the 90's.

You keep saying that... but you would be wrong. In the link I posted earlier:

...
The bottom line is that what Republicans are doing today is far from unprecedented. To the contrary, it is the norm. There is a graveyard filled with judicial appointments killed without a hearing by both Republicans and Democrats in an election year.

**Gordon Shumway**

whembly wrote:
TheMeanDM wrote:
If the Dems did the same in the 90's, it certainly doesn't make it right then....nor does it make it right now.

That'd the kind of gak that NEEDS to stop.

Sure... just vote for the other guy.

Not that it'll change much as the Democrats would be doing the exact same thing if the role were reversed.

:shrugs:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

skyth wrote:
Plus it's a proven lie that keeps on being brought up that the Democrats did the same thing in the 90's.

You keep saying that... but you would be wrong. In the link I posted earlier:

...
The bottom line is that what Republicans are doing today is far from unprecedented. To the contrary, it is the norm. There is a graveyard filled with judicial appointments killed without a hearing by both Republicans and Democrats in an election year.

Your link was opinion piece by Theissen? Really? Well here is another opinion piece with a counter view-except this one looks at what Biden said in total: http://www.mediaite.com/online/heres-why-the-biden-rule-is-complete-crap/

**skyth**

Like I said...same old discredited lie that the Republicans keep on repeating.

**whembly**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
whembly wrote:
TheMeanDM wrote:
If the Dems did the same in the 90's, it certainly doesn't make it right then....nor does it make it right now.

That'd the kind of gak that NEEDS to stop.

Sure... just vote for the other guy.

Not that it'll change much as the Democrats would be doing the exact same thing if the role were reversed.

:shrugs:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

skyth wrote:
Plus it's a proven lie that keeps on being brought up that the Democrats did the same thing in the 90's.

You keep saying that... but you would be wrong. In the link I posted earlier:

...
The bottom line is that what Republicans are doing today is far from unprecedented. To the contrary, it is the norm. There is a graveyard filled with judicial appointments killed without a hearing by both Republicans and Democrats in an election year.

Your link was opinion piece by Theissen? Really? Well here is another opinion piece with a counter view-except this one looks at what Biden said in total: http://www.mediaite.com/online/heres-why-the-biden-rule-is-complete-crap/

We can play this all day long. The fact remains is that Senate playing hardball with the President isn't abnormal.

The Senate has carte blanche what "Advise and Consent" means within the Senate.

If voters don't like that, then primarying the incumbent/vote for the other guy is the only solution.

The President, nor the Judiciary have any means to force the Senate to confirm a nominee.

So, if the Senate refuses to bring Merrick to an up/down vote, the President is more the capable to nominating someone else.

**Kanluwen**

"Advise and Consent" does not mean "We won't even look at your candidate".

So please, stop pretending that such is the case. The President nominated someone and the Senate isn't "playing hardball", they're "playing noball".

It's like declaring yourself the winner of a baseball game by never throwing out a pitch the whole game--nobody but you and your ardent fans will say that such was the case.

**whembly**

skyth wrote:
Like I said...same old discredited lie that the Republicans keep on repeating.

You and I won't see eye-to-eye on this.

And no, it isn't discredited. Why the hell would Biden bring it up at all?

The reason why is that it's an implicit threat.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
"Advise and Consent" does not mean "We won't even look at your candidate".

So please, stop pretending that such is the case. The President nominated someone and the Senate isn't "playing hardball", they're "playing noball".

It's like declaring yourself the winner of a baseball game by never throwing out a pitch the whole game--nobody but you and your ardent fans will say that such was the case.

Please stop perpetuating the idea that this is abnormality.

Ya'll are pissed because Obama won't like get *his* nominee through.

Justice Murnaghan of 4th Circuit Appellate Court, had died in August 2000. The election was a few months away. Bill Clinton nominated Judge Andre Davis anyways and didn't get it. So, for Bush's entire two terms in office, Democrat Senate blocked all Republican nominees on one pretext on another until Obama took office. So, by my math, that seat stayed open not for a year or two or even six, but for nine years.

It took Judge Priscilla Owen four years.

After over two years, Miguel Estrada never even got an up/down vote.

So spare me your indignation and your arguments to the contrary.

God forbid a co-equal branch refuses to be a rubber stamp for the President.