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.
2016/03/19 21:28:10
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
Quoting this so you can't go back and edit now that you've inadvertently hit on the truth: it's the PARTY making this choice, NOT the SENATE. The Senate consists of 100 members. By denying even one of those members the chance to have a say (which is what the appointed leadership is doing), then the Senate is not actually doing its job. I know you're going to trot out the elementary school playground excuse of "but the Dems did it first!", but we're not talking about elementary school kids here, but grown men and women who should be held to a higher standard.
"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
2016/03/19 21:41:08
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
I don't really care about that. What I care about is the Senate doing its flipping job.
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.
That was one of how many seats, Whembly? There are FIFTEEN SEATS in the 4th Circuit Appellate Court.
Clinton nominated Davis, no hearing was held and Clinton left office. The nominations go when the President goes. Bush opted not to nominate Davis.
HOWEVER, Clinton did establish a judge in the 15th seat which had not been used since its inception in 1990, installing Roger Gregory via a recess appointment---which meant it would have lasted only until the end of the 2001 Congressional session(from December 27th, 2000 for the recess appointment), BUT George Bush renominated him on May 9, 2001.
Anyways, reading the details of the 4th Circuit Appellate Court makes it clear that your entire statement is bunk. So what if that particular seat stayed up for 9 years? There were no less than four nominations that George Bush did for the 4th Circuit Appellate Court with three of them being approved with no real contest(G. Steven Agee, Dennis Shedd, and Allyson Kay Duncan).
Funny how the whole friggin' reason why she was immediately blocked had to do with Republicans refusing two Clinton nominations to even have hearings, huh?
Read your own articles sometime. They don't make the points you think they make.
After over two years, Miguel Estrada never even got an up/down vote.
Gee, I wonder why...
Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada's lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Additionally, though a member of The Federalist Society, Estrada had never been an academic, so there was no record of his writing by which the Senate could review his record. He had worked in the Office of the Solicitor General under the senior President George Herbert Walker Bush. He had also been a partner in the same law firm as Ted Olson, working on the legal team that represented the younger Bush in the Bush v. Gore case. Thus he and his record were well known in conservative circles, and he was even known to be a friend of Ann Coulter who acknowledged him in her book.
Additionally? Filibustering a candidate for a Court of Appeals position != refusing to consider someone for a USSC position.
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.
Do you actually read what you post links to, or are you just following names given out in a blog/article? Not a single one of the individuals you mentioned were considered for the USSC. They were all Court of Appeals.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/19 21:41:45
2016/03/19 21:56:33
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
He selectively reads them to find the points he wants them to make, sort of like repeating the "Biden rule" canard. The whole quote doesn't say what he wants it to, so he clips it to make it. As he said he "can play this game all day". Doesn't mean others have to play along.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/19 21:57:31
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/03/19 22:36:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
Quoting this so you can't go back and edit now that you've inadvertently hit on the truth: it's the PARTY making this choice, NOT the SENATE. The Senate consists of 100 members. By denying even one of those members the chance to have a say (which is what the appointed leadership is doing), then the Senate is not actually doing its job. I know you're going to trot out the elementary school playground excuse of "but the Dems did it first!", but we're not talking about elementary school kids here, but grown men and women who should be held to a higher standard.
You do know in the Senate you can have majority and minority party... no?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
8160/04/13 12:48:39
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
Quoting this so you can't go back and edit now that you've inadvertently hit on the truth: it's the PARTY making this choice, NOT the SENATE. The Senate consists of 100 members. By denying even one of those members the chance to have a say (which is what the appointed leadership is doing), then the Senate is not actually doing its job. I know you're going to trot out the elementary school playground excuse of "but the Dems did it first!", but we're not talking about elementary school kids here, but grown men and women who should be held to a higher standard.
You do know in the Senate you can have majority and minority party... no?
But it is the job of the Senate as a whole to advise, is it not? It does not say that it is the role of the senate majority, it says the whole senate. By the majority party refusing to even hold hearings, even if the outcome is apparently a foregone conclusion, they make it impossible for the minority party to do their job, even if they want to.
That means that the people who are represented by those minority senators get absolutely no say in the process. The majority strip away their democratic voice just because they're too much of a bunch of goddamn children to suck it up and do what they're paid to do and also what is the right and democratic thing to do.
For a party which is constantly espousing democracy and freedom, the Republicans certainly have no hesitation in taking away peoples democratic right to have their opinions and beliefs heard just because they aren't getting their own way.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/03/19 22:52:46
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/03/19 22:49:48
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
I don't really care about that. What I care about is the Senate doing its flipping job.
Sorry... I highly doubt you'll jump in the same way if the parties were reversed.
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.
That was one of how many seats, Whembly? There are FIFTEEN SEATS in the 4th Circuit Appellate Court.
Irrelevant.
Clinton nominated Davis, no hearing was held and Clinton left office. The nominations go when the President goes. Bush opted not to nominate Davis.
As it is his purview to nominate whomever he wants. Just like if it's Hillary Clinton in the whitehouse in 2017, she doesn't have to renominate Merrick Garland.
HOWEVER, Clinton did establish a judge in the 15th seat which had not been used since its inception in 1990, installing Roger Gregory via a recess appointment---which meant it would have lasted only until the end of the 2001 Congressional session(from December 27th, 2000 for the recess appointment), BUT George Bush renominated him on May 9, 2001.
OK... and? This does in now way invalidate my previous statements.
Anyways, reading the details of the 4th Circuit Appellate Court makes it clear that your entire statement is bunk. So what if that particular seat stayed up for 9 years? There were no less than four nominations that George Bush did for the 4th Circuit Appellate Court with three of them being approved with no real contest(G. Steven Agee, Dennis Shedd, and Allyson Kay Duncan).
Funny how the whole friggin' reason why she was immediately blocked had to do with Republicans refusing two Clinton nominations to even have hearings, huh?
Oh... so you *do* agree that it's du jour for the Senate to block Presidential appointees.
Thanks for unintentionally supporting my case!
Read your own articles sometime. They don't make the points you think they make.
Sure they do, you don't like the facts as presented.
After over two years, Miguel Estrada never even got an up/down vote.
Gee, I wonder why...
Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada's lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Additionally, though a member of The Federalist Society, Estrada had never been an academic, so there was no record of his writing by which the Senate could review his record. He had worked in the Office of the Solicitor General under the senior President George Herbert Walker Bush. He had also been a partner in the same law firm as Ted Olson, working on the legal team that represented the younger Bush in the Bush v. Gore case. Thus he and his record were well known in conservative circles, and he was even known to be a friend of Ann Coulter who acknowledged him in her book.
But, he was imminently qualified as Elena Kegan was...
Additionally? Filibustering a candidate for a Court of Appeals position != refusing to consider someone for a USSC position.
The Constitution makes no distinction. My point was that the current Senate isn't doing anything out of the norm.
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.
Do you actually read what you post links to, or are you just following names given out in a blog/article? Not a single one of the individuals you mentioned were considered for the USSC. They were all Court of Appeals.
Way to miss the point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: He selectively reads them to find the points he wants them to make, sort of like repeating the "Biden rule" canard. The whole quote doesn't say what he wants it to, so he clips it to make it. As he said he "can play this game all day". Doesn't mean others have to play along.
But it is the job of the Senate as a whole to advise, is it not? It does not say that it is the role of the senate majority, it says the whole senate. By the majority party refusing to even hold hearings, even if the outcome is apparently a foregone conclusion, they make it impossible for the minority party to do their job, even if they want to.
Indeed.
That means that the people who are represented by those minority senators get absolutely no say in the process. The majority strip away their democratic voice just because they're too much of a bunch of goddamn children to suck it up and do what they're paid to do and also what is the right and democratic thing to do.
You only need 41 votes to stop the process. The minority has a VERY strong method to stop the majority.
For a party which is constantly espousing democracy and freedom, the Republicans certainly have no hesitation in taking away peoples democratic right to have their opinions and beliefs heard just because they aren't getting their own way.
You really should recalibrate that as that is not even remotely true.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/19 22:58:10
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/19 23:10:00
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I love all the finger pointing. "They started it!" "They did it first!" "Oh yeah, well this is payback!"
Politics are not blood sport. They are a giant pile of gak right now. Millions and millions of people depend on laws that provide them with necessities or determine what they are able/unable to do at any point of time.
Maybe the people we pay to pass and write these laws should be above the "he said/she said bullgak" and the "playground politics" that they are trying to push as the norm.
Maybe, just maybe the poor Americans who need these guys to make decisions that could impact welfare/job opportunities need them to rise above the Red vs. Blue mentality and actually do some work. I always found it funny how politicians put down poor Americans as lazy and drug addicted, then turn around and refuse to do their jobs/get caught in drug scandals.
I love class based societies.
2016/03/20 01:44:53
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
In the end, whembly is right, in that the difference between now and prior nominations is one of degree, and not of kind.
What's changed isn't that the senate is refusing to consider a judicial nominee, that's not uncommon. What's changed is the high profile nature, as it's SCOTUS seat, and the fairly brazen nature of it. Prior refusals to consider have been quiet, while the GOP clearly hopes to make hay from their refusal.
2016/03/20 02:11:11
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
You mean, the time when Biden previously killed 32 Bush's nominees to the bench without giving them so much as a hearing?
No, that was in 1992. The Frist incident was in 2004.
But that article is interesting because it specifically mentions Biden's term on the Senate Judicial Committee, but links to a CRS publication about his term on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. A publication which is conveniently behind a de facto pay-wall.
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...
The Civil Rights Act broke down along geographic, not Party lines. All the primary supporters and opponents were Democrats. Indeed, the Democrats controlled both houses and the Presidency at the time.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/03/20 06:32:07
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The Civil Rights Act broke down along geographic, not Party lines. All the primary supporters and opponents were Democrats. Indeed, the Democrats controlled both houses and the Presidency at the time.
That the Civil Rights Act was passed at all owes a great deal to the divide between the Democratic Party, and a lack of opposition by the Republican party. Because sometimes, politics isn't about stabbing the other side in the back. Sometimes its about stabbing your own side in the foot
If you are not prepared to acknowledge the difference between turning down a candidate because he lacks the necessary experience and academic credentials, and refusing to consider any candidate proposed by a president of the other party, you are following the modern Republican approach to the governance of a once-great but now sadly diminished nation.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you are not prepared to acknowledge the difference between turning down a candidate because he lacks the necessary experience and academic credentials, and refusing to consider any candidate proposed by a president of the other party, you are following the modern Republican approach to the governance of a once-great but now sadly diminished nation.
Like those well known Republicans Obama and Biden
2016/03/20 14:43:16
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
I don't really care about that. What I care about is the Senate doing its flipping job.
Sorry... I highly doubt you'll jump in the same way if the parties were reversed.
You're right, I wouldn't.
Because the Democratic Party--despite your insistence to the contrary--has not shown a willingness to SHUT DOWN GOVERNMENT PROCEDURES BECAUSE THEY AREN'T GETTING THEIR WAY.
Continue though.
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.
That was one of how many seats, Whembly? There are FIFTEEN SEATS in the 4th Circuit Appellate Court.
Irrelevant.
Says you.
Clinton nominated Davis, no hearing was held and Clinton left office. The nominations go when the President goes. Bush opted not to nominate Davis.
As it is his purview to nominate whomever he wants. Just like if it's Hillary Clinton in the whitehouse in 2017, she doesn't have to renominate Merrick Garland.
HOWEVER, Clinton did establish a judge in the 15th seat which had not been used since its inception in 1990, installing Roger Gregory via a recess appointment---which meant it would have lasted only until the end of the 2001 Congressional session(from December 27th, 2000 for the recess appointment), BUT George Bush renominated him on May 9, 2001.
OK... and? This does in now way invalidate my previous statements.
If you can't see that your "previous statements" are equating nonsense with more nonsense, then I don't know what kind of a discussion you can expect to have with rational people.
Anyways, reading the details of the 4th Circuit Appellate Court makes it clear that your entire statement is bunk. So what if that particular seat stayed up for 9 years? There were no less than four nominations that George Bush did for the 4th Circuit Appellate Court with three of them being approved with no real contest(G. Steven Agee, Dennis Shedd, and Allyson Kay Duncan).
O.o There was an open seat. Took 9 years to fill.
That.Was.The.Point.
There were also three other seats that opened up and were filled.
Funny how the whole friggin' reason why she was immediately blocked had to do with Republicans refusing two Clinton nominations to even have hearings, huh?
Oh... so you *do* agree that it's du jour for the Senate to block Presidential appointees.
Thanks for unintentionally supporting my case!
Read what I post, not what you think I post.
She was blocked as retaliation for Republicans during the Clinton administration era pulling the exact same garbage that they're pulling now.
Read your own articles sometime. They don't make the points you think they make.
Sure they do, you don't like the facts as presented.
Funny you should say that.
After over two years, Miguel Estrada never even got an up/down vote.
Gee, I wonder why...
Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada's lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Additionally, though a member of The Federalist Society, Estrada had never been an academic, so there was no record of his writing by which the Senate could review his record. He had worked in the Office of the Solicitor General under the senior President George Herbert Walker Bush. He had also been a partner in the same law firm as Ted Olson, working on the legal team that represented the younger Bush in the Bush v. Gore case. Thus he and his record were well known in conservative circles, and he was even known to be a friend of Ann Coulter who acknowledged him in her book.
But, he was imminently qualified as Elena Kegan was...
...Yeah, no he wasn't.
He had no prior judicial experience and while a member of The Federalist Society, he was not an academic so there was no record of his writing which the Senate could use to review his record.
Elena Kagan on the other hand had been nominated by Clinton to the DC Court of Appeals and taught at University of Chicago Law School, and when her nomination to the DC Court of Appeals expired without action she went on to teach at Harvard Law School and become its first female Dean.
Which meant there were records of her writings that the Senate could review.
Additionally? Filibustering a candidate for a Court of Appeals position != refusing to consider someone for a USSC position.
The Constitution makes no distinction. My point was that the current Senate isn't doing anything out of the norm.
Yes, they absolutely are.
This senate has made a mockery of the Constitution when it comes to their powers, and the fact that you keep trying to apologize for it or try to finger point it as "the other party started it!" is absolutely pathetic.
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.
Do you actually read what you post links to, or are you just following names given out in a blog/article? Not a single one of the individuals you mentioned were considered for the USSC. They were all Court of Appeals.
Way to miss the point.
You, sir, missed the point. Not a single example you gave had to do with the situation of the Senate refusing to even hold a hearing regarding the nomination of an individual to the USSC.
The USSC is the body of the land when it comes to interpreting laws, and the Court of Appeals? They're generally going to have enough sitting judges that a seat can remain open until someone qualified comes along.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/20 15:13:50
2016/03/20 15:39:20
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Kilkrazy wrote: If you are not prepared to acknowledge the difference between turning down a candidate because he lacks the necessary experience and academic credentials, and refusing to consider any candidate proposed by a president of the other party, you are following the modern Republican approach to the governance of a once-great but now sadly diminished nation.
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."
2016/03/20 16:12:45
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
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.
I don't really care about that. What I care about is the Senate doing its flipping job.
Sorry... I highly doubt you'll jump in the same way if the parties were reversed.
You're right, I wouldn't.
Because it's okay when it's "your team".
Because the Democratic Party--despite your insistence to the contrary--has not shown a willingness to SHUT DOWN GOVERNMENT PROCEDURES BECAUSE THEY AREN'T GETTING THEIR WAY.
Funny interpretation on what's going on now.
The Senate has a lot of leeway on how to perform "Advise and Consent". So... let's recap:
1) President nominates Merrick Garland. So, that's satisfies the President's function in nominating 'political appointees'
2) Senate says "let's wait till after the November election as we want the people to have a say". So that fulfills the Senate "Advise" function as well.
It's all kosher.
Continue though.
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.
That was one of how many seats, Whembly? There are FIFTEEN SEATS in the 4th Circuit Appellate Court.
Irrelevant.
Says you.
Just presenting the idea that it's not unusual for seats to remain vacant for a stretch of time.
Clinton nominated Davis, no hearing was held and Clinton left office. The nominations go when the President goes. Bush opted not to nominate Davis.
As it is his purview to nominate whomever he wants. Just like if it's Hillary Clinton in the whitehouse in 2017, she doesn't have to renominate Merrick Garland.
HOWEVER, Clinton did establish a judge in the 15th seat which had not been used since its inception in 1990, installing Roger Gregory via a recess appointment---which meant it would have lasted only until the end of the 2001 Congressional session(from December 27th, 2000 for the recess appointment), BUT George Bush renominated him on May 9, 2001.
OK... and? This does in now way invalidate my previous statements.
If you can't see that your "previous statements" are equating nonsense with more nonsense, then I don't know what kind of a discussion you can expect to have with rational people.
Furthermore, if you can't see a situation where Bush nominated someone and the Democrats refused to fill it leaving the seat open for 9 years JUST BECAUSE. Then you and I won't see eye-to-eye on this.
Anyways, reading the details of the 4th Circuit Appellate Court mahkes it clear that your entire statement is bunk. So what if that particular seat stayed up for 9 years? There were no less than four nominations that George Bush did for the 4th Circuit Appellate Court with three of them being approved with no real contest(G. Steven Agee, Dennis Shedd, and Allyson Kay Duncan).
O.o There was an open seat. Took 9 years to fill.
That.Was.The.Point.
There were also three other seats that opened up and were filled.
Convenient how you forgot that, huh?
Irrelevant. Bush had a nominee, and the Democrat Senate refuses to confirm.
Funny how the whole friggin' reason why she was immediately blocked had to do with Republicans refusing two Clinton nominations to even have hearings, huh?
Oh... so you *do* agree that it's du jour for the Senate to block Presidential appointees.
Thanks for unintentionally supporting my case!
Read what I post, not what you think I post.
She was blocked as retaliation for Republicans during the Clinton administration era pulling the exact same garbage that they're pulling now.
So what the Senate doing today isn't that unusual. Glad you agree.
Read your own articles sometime. They don't make the points you think they make.
Sure they do, you don't like the facts as presented.
Funny you should say that.
Laugh away... I'm in a good place.
After over two years, Miguel Estrada never even got an up/down vote.
Gee, I wonder why...
Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada's lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Additionally, though a member of The Federalist Society, Estrada had never been an academic, so there was no record of his writing by which the Senate could review his record. He had worked in the Office of the Solicitor General under the senior President George Herbert Walker Bush. He had also been a partner in the same law firm as Ted Olson, working on the legal team that represented the younger Bush in the Bush v. Gore case. Thus he and his record were well known in conservative circles, and he was even known to be a friend of Ann Coulter who acknowledged him in her book.
But, he was imminently qualified as Elena Kegan was...
...Yeah, no he wasn't.
He had no prior judicial experience and while a member of The Federalist Society, he was not an academic so there was no record of his writing which the Senate could use to review his record.
Elena Kagan on the other hand had been nominated by Clinton to the DC Court of Appeals and taught at University of Chicago Law School, and when her nomination to the DC Court of Appeals expired without action she went on to teach at Harvard Law School and become its first female Dean.
Which meant there were records of her writings that the Senate could review.
No... he was unquestioningly qualified who had excellent schools, had excellent clerkships, has a good work record and held the highest rating from the American Bar Association.
The Democrats didn't want him on the appellate court because he was labeled as the "Latino Clerance Thomas" and fears that he'd be fasttracked to the USSC.
Additionally? Filibustering a candidate for a Court of Appeals position != refusing to consider someone for a USSC position.
The Constitution makes no distinction. My point was that the current Senate isn't doing anything out of the norm.
Yes, they absolutely are.
This senate has made a mockery of the Constitution when it comes to their powers, and the fact that you keep trying to apologize for it or try to finger point it as "the other party started it!" is absolutely pathetic.
I'm going to say this again, but with feelings.
BOTH parties do this. It's a shame you refuse to acknowledge this. Where's this anger when it took Justice Priscilla Owen 4 years to get confirmed? Oh... wait, you just admitted previously that "she was blocked as retaliation for Republicans during the Clinton administration era...".
So is it:
-When Republicans does it, they're scum of the earth...
-When Democrats does it, they're taking a principled stand...
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.
Do you actually read what you post links to, or are you just following names given out in a blog/article? Not a single one of the individuals you mentioned were considered for the USSC. They were all Court of Appeals.
Way to miss the point.
You, sir, missed the point. Not a single example you gave had to do with the situation of the Senate refusing to even hold a hearing regarding the nomination of an individual to the USSC.
Try... not a USSC cadidate. My point was for every Judicial positions (heck, even just political appointees in general).
The USSC is the body of the land when it comes to interpreting laws, and the Court of Appeals? They're generally going to have enough sitting judges that a seat can remain open until someone qualified comes along.
So the President have two options as I see it.
A) Wait till after the November election. or...
B) Nominate someone in Scalia's mold for the Senate to begin confirmation.
Obviously it's going to be option A.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/20 17:11:01
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
You have repeatedly insinuated, and some times stated, that the Republican Party is your team. Becoming defensive now doesn't do much to go against that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/20 17:16:28
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/03/20 17:19:05
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
You have repeatedly insinuated, and some times stated, that the Republican Party is your team. Becoming defensive now doesn't do much to go against that.
I've never denied that with how the current Democrat leader is constructed.
Point still stand.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/20 17:19:35
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/20 17:39:03
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I've never denied that with how the current Democrat leader is constructed.
Point still stand.
No, your point does not stand.
You are attempting to conflate "Party" and "Leader", while using that conflation to characterize them all. This is team-based behavior and one of the central problems with American politics.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/20 17:40:42
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/03/20 18:03:34
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I've never denied that with how the current Democrat leader is constructed.
Point still stand.
No, your point does not stand.
You are attempting to conflate "Party" and "Leader", while using that conflation to characterize them all. This is team-based behavior and one of the central problems with American politics.
We're just going to disagree.
The party leaders wield considerable clout.
Part of the problem is not recognizing that the Senate/House is a deliberative body. Not a group where everyone needs to agree on everything.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/20 18:48:32
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
So what you're saying is that the majority party (currently Republicans) get to marginalize the representation of the minority party and the constituents that they represent...or even if there is a majority of the population that supports a course of action but the majority party leaders do not.
Gotcha. ;-)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Really does tie in with this study then, doesn't it!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/20 18:51:28
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
2016/03/20 19:15:08
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
We already knew for a few years now that the Republican Party thinks that the wishes of the majority in the house is irrelevant, so why are people always acting surprised that party trumps majority?
2016/03/20 19:56:07
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
TheMeanDM wrote: So what you're saying is that the majority party (currently Republicans) get to marginalize the representation of the minority party and the constituents that they represent...or even if there is a majority of the population that supports a course of action but the majority party leaders do not.
There no longer are any rules in the Supreme Court nomination process
By Miguel A. Estrada and Benjamin Wittes February 19
Miguel A. Estrada is an attorney in Washington, D.C. Benjamin Wittes, a former Post editorial writer, is a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution and editor in chief of Lawfare.
Here’s a simple piece of advice for anyone confused by the partisan politics of replacing Justice Antonin Scalia: Assume that anyone who claims to be acting out of a pristine sense of civic principle is being dishonest.
We have both argued for a world in which judicial nominees receive prompt hearings and up-and-down votes based solely on their objective qualifications — education, experience and temperament. But that has not been our world for at least two decades. The savvy citizen should recognize as much and heavily discount anyone who speaks in the language of principle about the rules or norms that do or should govern the treatment of either a judicial nominee or the president who sends that nominee to the Senate. As recent history demonstrates, the only rule that governs the confirmation process is the law of the jungle: There are no rules. There is no point in pretending otherwise, as much as many of us wish it were not so.
We have come by this view with extreme reluctance. One of us was a judicial nominee who never got a vote from the Senate but who nonetheless publicly encouraged the Senate to support President Obama’s appointees, including an overwhelmingly qualified Supreme Court nominee of the opposite party. The other wrote editorials for The Post for many years decrying unreasonable Senate treatment of nominees of the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administration alike and also wrote a book arguing for a restoration of norms of expeditious and fair consideration of nominees. Both of us believe that when presidents nominate qualified nominees, the Senate should confirm them, and that courts should be fully staffed at all times to dispense justice to the litigants who come before them.
Rarely has either of us lost an argument more completely at the hands of the entire political culture than we have lost this one.
Republicans and Democrats put the blame on the other for the complete abandonment of rules and norms in the judicial confirmation process. Both are being insincere — whitewashing their conduct over a long period of time while complaining bitterly about the very same conduct on the part of the other side. Both have chosen, in increments of one-upmanship, to replace a common law of judicial nominations that was based on certain norms with one based on power politics alone.
Today, there is no principle and no norm in the judicial nominations process that either side would not violate itself and simultaneously demand the other side observe as a matter of decency and inter-branch comity.
This truth has consequences. In the judicial nominations process for which we argued, there were several good reasons for Republican senators to move a nominee advanced by Obama late in his tenure. One was that the Senate owed an institutional duty to the executive branch to consider presumptively qualified nominees in a fair process. Another was the knowledge that some day, the shoe would be on the other foot. A Senate of the opposite party would confront a late nominee of a president of the opposite party. We all seemed to agree that we would rather live in a world in which both nominees got considered than in a world in which neither got considered. In that world, comity, fairness and long-term self-interest of both parties all pushed towards a relatively predictable, relatively humane (to the nominee), relatively deferential (to the president) process.
In a world in which those norms do not have force, there is no reason in principle to demand that Republicans move a late-stage nominee from Obama.
Certainly, the Constitution doesn’t require it of them. All the Constitution gives the president is the power to nominate whomever he wishes for a judicial vacancy. The Constitution expressly provides that the power to appoint may be exercised only with the affirmative concurrence of the Senate. If the Senate does not act at all — for a good reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason at all — that is the constitutional equivalent of the Senate’s rejection of the nominee. The Constitution doesn’t require the Senate to engage in any process at all beyond sitting on its collective hands. All of those expectations were merely a matter of the norms the political parties have so cheerfully torn down.
If the president or a senator of either party tells you differently, ask him or her how is it that both parties have systematically blocked judicial nominees of the other party — using the filibuster and other parliamentary tricks — for the past two decades. The whole purpose of these maneuvers is to prevent the Senate from giving an up-or-down vote to qualified nominees in the expectation that the nominee will eventually go away and the Senate will not have to vote on the merits of his or her nomination. As a senator, Obama filibustered nominees. So did then-Senator Hillary Clinton. And, of course, the Republican caucus also filibustered Obama’s nominees early and often. Even before the filibuster had been normalized, both parties — when in the majority — refused to schedule hearings on the candidates nominated by presidents of the other party or did so only with lengthy delays. Each of those instances involved, in the current parlance, the Senate “not doing its job” and leaving judicial vacancies open for years. If all of that was unconstitutional, then both parties conspired to dispose of the document a long time ago.
Ah, you say, but the Supreme Court is different. Actually, it’s not.
The political infighting over staffing our courts is, in fact, less harmful when it affects one nominee who understands fully the political minefield he or she is walking into in accepting the nomination to the high court than when it affects dozens or hundreds of people who undertake to serve with only a limited sense of the blood sport the Senate will make of them. And more importantly, it is less harmful when it plays itself out over a single vacancy on the Supreme Court than when it manifests itself over and over in significantly understaffed federal appellate courts.
Unlike the Supreme Court, which gets to pick its cases and hears on average about 80 cases per year, only a few of which it decides on a 5-to-4 basis, the appeals courts must dispose of thousands of appeals each year. Over the past two decades, both parties have concluded that federal appellate vacancies are far preferable than fully staffed courts if full staffing requires confirming nominees of the other party. This has been the case even when appellate court after court has declared “judicial emergencies,” when vacancies result in intolerably high caseloads for the remaining judges. Since both parties have accepted (and ignored) those emergencies with equanimity, it is a bit late in the day now to cry crocodile tears over a single vacancy on a court that hears a few dozen cases and needs a tie-breaking vote only in a small handful of those. It’s symbolic, yes, but it’s symbolic in a non-acute setting of a reality that has long existed in acute situations elsewhere and about which the political culture plainly does not care.
Lest any reader think we are making a partisan point here, we hasten to emphasize that if the Senate and the presidency flip hands in November, we also think there will be no principled basis to demand that a Democratic Senate ever consider a nominee by President Trump, Cruz, or Rubio. The decision on the part of a future-Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer at that point is that a 4-to-4 court is a better long-term equilibrium for him than confirming a nominee of the other party will be exactly as defensible as current-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision today that a 4-to-4 court is a better short-term equilibrium for him than confirming a nominee from Obama.
Whatever elevated rhetoric anyone invokes to suit his or her convenience, the fact is that our real judicial nominations system is now one of raw power and nothing else.
“That is what this suit is about. Power. The allocation of power among Congress, the President, and the courts,” Scalia once wrote in an important separation of powers dissent. “Frequently an issue of this sort will come . . . clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing. . . . But this wolf comes as a wolf.”
Our new judicial nominations system also came as a wolf. There were many good reasons, knowable at the time, not to let the wolf through the door. Both parties had other priorities — most important the perceived urgent need to prevent the other party from confirming its nominees. Appeals to principle and precedent ring hollow now — particularly because the parties are still appealing only to principles that any sentient observer knows they would not follow themselves.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/20 20:45:00
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I stopped at "There no longer...WTH.....rules......in Politics...... PERIOD is my impression.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2016/03/20 20:59:58
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
There were unwritten rules for a long time in Congress, and particularly in the Senate. the White House as well, for what it's worth.
I guess what surprises me the most about this strategy isn't how it violates norms, once you look at the trend this day was coming. It's how I'm not sure that this strategy is a good one.
When the Senate began it's noise about not holding a vote on any Obama nominee, I assumed that was tough talk to get a relative moderate candidate, keeping with ancient traditions about balance on the bench. That made sense. Make it clear that we're not going to trade Scalia for another ginsberg, but an O'Connor or Kennedy might be okay. That makes sense. When I noticed a lack of leaked names, when it looked like there was no back channel discussion between the Senate leaders and the White house, it became clear they simply wouldn't move on a nomination.
To what end? The most optimistic assessment of the GOP's odds of regaining the White House has it as a coin flip, usually predicated on some sort of horrific scandal that finally sinks Clinton. Further, the GOP's control of the Senate will weaken, and possible collapse.
I'm going to imagine that left wing Super PACs are going to bombard the states of Senators up for reelection with their refusal to act on this nomination, which most American's find distasteful.
So, not only does this strategy rely on keeping the Senate to have any payoff, it also makes holding the Senate less likely.
These aren't circuit court seats or district court judges. This is SCOTUS, and right or wrong, plenty of people are going to connect this with the government shutdowns and start painting a picture of the GOP as reckless in their obstructionism.
So... what do the GOP senate leaders know that I don't? Do they think that any collateral damage will be minimal? Do they think there's a better chance of taking the White House than nearly everybody sees?
2016/03/20 21:21:13
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Polonius wrote: So... what do the GOP senate leaders know that I don't? Do they think that any collateral damage will be minimal? Do they think there's a better chance of taking the White House than nearly everybody sees?
I'm not sure why you're giving them the benefit of the doubt on having sound judgement, or their fingers on the pulse of the electorate. After all, this is the party that was absolutely sure that Mitt Romney was winning up until the moment he didn't, and in at least one notable case, even after that. I see no reason to believe that they've rejected their operating mode of rejecting unpleasant realities for palatable fictions.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/03/20 21:33:37
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Switching gears a little bit...but still political....
What is up with the contunued "hate" for US relations with Cuba?!
It's been damn near 60 years of crap relations with a tiny little island country that with the exception of the missile crisis, and a flood of immigrants (due to the political climate there) has posed zero threat to us, as far as I can tell.
I just don't get why some are so against building a good relationship with Cuba.
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
2016/03/20 21:45:36
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I think McConnel is doing this to make it look to disaffected Republican voters that they can indeed stop Obama. There is a reason those voters are mad as for the past seven years they have been sold nothing but lies by their leaders in power (we are going to stop Obamacare, we are going to repeal Obamacare, we are going to not pass certain budgets, etc.). The leaders did this to gin up their base full well knowing they they did not have the power to actually do any of it. Their voters look at them and instead of getting angry that they were being told lies, believe the leaders were just weak and caved with what Obama wanted. Now McConnel sees one last chance to gin up support, but he doesn't evidently realize that it is too late and that support is gone. All of which leads us to Trump, whose voters are once again believing in lies about what he can/will do, but he lies with so much more panache and conviction and under the pretense that the leaders were weak all along. Of course the problem is McConnell's plan is doomed to failure. The people he is appealing to are no longer listening to him and those who oppose him will become more motivated to vote.
