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: Every reply to your same old arguments is in this thread.
As your every snark as well.
The GOP leadership gambled immensely here to make it a campaign issue, knowing that a Hillary Clinton presidency would likely nominate someone even further left.
You're just mad that the GOP squeaked ahead here...
d-usa wrote: Every reply to your same old arguments is in this thread.
As your every snark as well.
The GOP leadership gambled immensely here to make it a campaign issue, knowing that a Hillary Clinton presidency would likely nominate someone even further left.
You're just mad that the GOP squeaked ahead here...
The basic functioning of your government shouldn't be something that is gambled.
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.
whembly wrote: there was a desire to prevent Obama from shifting the Court's ideological balance.
And this is what it comes down to: the republican party declared that Obama was not allowed to nominate a justice because letting him do it would conflict with conservative ideology. IOW, if any part of the government doesn't fall in line with republican party demands, shut it down until republicans control it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Actually, the Senate made it a campaign issue, by exercising their 'Advise' authority and let the voters have a say as who's going to pick the next SC jurist.
Voters did have a say, when they re-elected Obama in 2012. The issue here is not that the voters needed to have a say, it's that the republican party didn't like what the voters said and decided to shut down a basic function of government and demand new votes until the voters finally changed their minds. "Advise" does not mean "declare that no decision is permitted and refuse to listen to any proposal".
Had Obama nominated a Scalia-clone, you think the GOP leadership would block that?
No, but this just demonstrates the problem: the only way for Obama to get a nomination through was to hand over control of the process to the republican party, and change the system from "the president nominates, the senate confirms" to "the senate decides everything, the president rubber-stamps their choice". And somehow it becomes Obama's fault for not nominating a right-wing extremist, rather than the republican party's fault for setting up such a ridiculous hostage crisis in the first place.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/20 18:16:09
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/20 18:18:45
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."
Crazyterran wrote: The Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms guarantees:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
So, since the Freedom of speech would be under B (specifically expression)...
The problem is your freedom of speech guarantee comes with caveats, notably the limitations clause and the notwithstanding clause. Say or print something that doesn't comply with Canada's view of politeness and you could find yourself in court. Even our very liberal Huffington Post commented about Canada that:
Huffington Post wrote:Section 1 of the Constitution Act 1982 gives Canadians the right to free speech, but with "reasonable limits." This ensures that almost anything one says can be considered unconstitutional and subject to legal prosecution. You have a right to speak your mind, but be careful of what you say.
Our founding fathers would see your exceptions clause as abhorrent to liberty.
The ultimate difference between our countries is that Canada places the ideal of a polite society above personal freedom whereas the USA places personal freedom above social ideology.
It's also worth noting, though, that our Prime Minister is not a branch of the government in and of him/herself. We don't really have an "Executive Branch" of the government like the US does.
The first branch of Canada’s political system is the executive branch. This is the decision-making branch made up of the monarch as the head of state and the Prime Minister, as head of government, and his or her Cabinet.[3] In Canada’s early history, the British monarch ruled the area from its Parliament in London until Canada became a country in 1867 and implemented its own constitution. The monarch then became a symbol of unity, authority and allegiance in Canada,[4] a figure who holds significant symbolic power but little political decision making power.
The monarch is represented in Canada by the Governor General at the federal level and by a lieutenant governor in each of the ten provinces. (While the commissioners in each of the three territories perform duties similar to those of the lieutenant governors, they are not considered the monarch’s representatives and are therefore the representatives of the Canadian government). The Governor General is appointed by the monarch upon the recommendation of Canada’s Prime Minister, and the lieutenant governors in each province are appointed by the Governor General upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister.[5]
The monarch’s role is outlined in Part III of the Constitution Act, 1867.[6] Section 9 vests authority in the monarch.[7] Sections 38 to 49, also known as the amending formula, instruct that any change to the position of the monarch or his or her representatives in Canada requires the consent of the Senate, the House of Commons, and the legislative assemblies of all the provinces.[8] The monarch is also symbolically responsible for executive functions such as giving royal assent to bills passed in the House of Commons and Senate or reading the federal government’s agenda at the start of each new session of Parliament (called the Speech from the Throne).
The Governor General is also responsible for dissolving Parliament before an election and may even “prorogue” or end a parliamentary session if necessary. A recent example of proroguing occurred in 2008 when Prime Minister Stephen Harper asked then-Governor General Michaëlle Jean to prorogue parliament after the party in opposition, the Liberals, attempted to form a coalition government with the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois. After careful consideration and consultation with constitutional experts, Jean decided to honour the Prime Minister’s request.[9] This is an example of how executive power ultimately resides with the monarch.
The Prime Minister and Cabinet
After a federal election, the leader of the political party with the most seats in the House of Commons becomes the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister advises the Governor General on matters concerning the country’s governance and how he or she may proceed symbolically with executive matters. The cabinet is appointed by the Prime Minister from the large body of party Members of Parliament to advise him or her on these matters and help run the government. Section III of the Constitution Act, 1867 refers to the cabinet as the Queen's Privy Council, although the term cabinet is not used.[10]
The role of the Prime Minister is not discussed in any Canadian constitutional document, and is mentioned only in passing in the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Letters Patent issued in 1947 by King George VI.[11] The role of the Prime Minister is an example of an “unwritten” element of Canada’s Constitution. The role is a tradition or convention that, over time and history, has come to be accepted as part of an unquestioned element of Canada’s governance. As such, the role of the Prime Minister has come to be constitutionally protected as well.[12]
Please don't misinform our kind American neighbours about how our country is run.
/end off topic
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Breotan wrote: The problem is your freedom of speech guarantee comes with caveats
Just like it does in the US.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
d-usa wrote: Every reply to your same old arguments is in this thread.
As your every snark as well.
The GOP leadership gambled immensely here to make it a campaign issue, knowing that a Hillary Clinton presidency would likely nominate someone even further left.
You're just mad that the GOP squeaked ahead here...
The basic functioning of your government shouldn't be something that is gambled.
The basic functioning of our government is essentially on autopilot. Nothing short of the handful of actual govt shutdowns we've experienced in the last decade actually stops the govt from functioning normally. Confirming federal nominees, passing legislation, etc. is supposed to be contentious and slow moving by design.
d-usa wrote: Every reply to your same old arguments is in this thread.
As your every snark as well.
The GOP leadership gambled immensely here to make it a campaign issue, knowing that a Hillary Clinton presidency would likely nominate someone even further left.
You're just mad that the GOP squeaked ahead here...
The basic functioning of your government shouldn't be something that is gambled.
The basic functioning of our government is essentially on autopilot. Nothing short of the handful of actual govt shutdowns we've experienced in the last decade actually stops the govt from functioning normally. Confirming federal nominees, passing legislation, etc. is supposed to be contentious and slow moving by design.
The budget running on yet another CR is actually stopping our government from functioning normally.
d-usa wrote: Every reply to your same old arguments is in this thread.
As your every snark as well.
The GOP leadership gambled immensely here to make it a campaign issue, knowing that a Hillary Clinton presidency would likely nominate someone even further left.
You're just mad that the GOP squeaked ahead here...
The basic functioning of your government shouldn't be something that is gambled.
The basic functioning of our government is essentially on autopilot. Nothing short of the handful of actual govt shutdowns we've experienced in the last decade actually stops the govt from functioning normally. Confirming federal nominees, passing legislation, etc. is supposed to be contentious and slow moving by design.
The budget running on yet another CR is actually stopping our government from functioning normally.
Did the senate ever pass a budget during Reid's time as majority leader? IIRC it didn't. We've been running on CRs instead of actual budgets for years. Whether on a budget or CR the funding still flows and federal depts. keep running and employees keep getting paid.
d-usa wrote: Every reply to your same old arguments is in this thread.
As your every snark as well.
The GOP leadership gambled immensely here to make it a campaign issue, knowing that a Hillary Clinton presidency would likely nominate someone even further left.
You're just mad that the GOP squeaked ahead here...
The basic functioning of your government shouldn't be something that is gambled.
The basic functioning of our government is essentially on autopilot. Nothing short of the handful of actual govt shutdowns we've experienced in the last decade actually stops the govt from functioning normally. Confirming federal nominees, passing legislation, etc. is supposed to be contentious and slow moving by design.
The budget running on yet another CR is actually stopping our government from functioning normally.
Did the senate ever pass a budget during Reid's time as majority leader? IIRC it didn't. We've been running on CRs instead of actual budgets for years. Whether on a budget or CR the funding still flows and federal depts. keep running and employees keep getting paid.
Seriously. Just because it fits with an ideologically driven narrative doesn't make it true.
As DC Appellate Judge, he sided with the District government by voting for a do-over in dissent that invalidated the D.C. handgun ban.
He didn't vote a do-over (there's no such thing as a "do-over" unless there was improper conduct). He argued such an important case should go before the full Court rather than be decided by a sampling of its judges.
Garland voted AGAINST a re-hearing.
And? Judges argue for and against re-hearings almost exclusively on procedural grounds. It says nothing about his thoughts on gun control (other than that he apparently thought one case was important enough for the full court and the other wasn't).
Garland voted to allow prosecutors to NOT prove that the person knew they were breaking the law.
I made it to about page 2 before I realized you clearly haven't read this.
Garland also voted to allow FBI to retain background check informations, which would build a registry db, that Congress has expressed forbidden.
I'm very proud to see you're now in favor of proactive judges taking action and legislating from the bench. It's a shame your interpretation makes as little sense as the article you linked. "Congress failed to define the terms of the law" and "Congress made it clear what the law allowed" are oxymoronic statements to express at the same time. This looks like nothing more than what I said. The Garland has shown a reserved attitude towards knocking things down. That's a pretty conservative mindset really, it's just not the radical kind of conservatism that is now in vogue. If Congress failed to make their intent clear, it seems kind of silly to blame Garland for accepting the law as is which is pretty much the go to for judges across the country.
and there was a desire to prevent Obama from shifting the Court's ideological balance.
That's basically just carte blanche to shut the court down should there ever be a risk that it will rule against your ideological interests. So much for checks and balances.
He's not a centrist.
And people are going to keep ignoring it because it makes no sense. We can look at his case history, and declaring him leftists solely on some ambiguous gun related cases is pretty absurd, especially when none of his actions in any of them indicate anything more than a judge very willing to stick with precedent. The best argument against him on SCOTUS would actually seem to me to be that he's too willing to stick with precedent for the highest court. By definition SCOTUS has to made very hard decisions, and Garland to me reads as not having the chops to make those decisions. He'd rather just stick with basic interpretation of the literal words (which is again hilarious because that's the idea of an ideal judge by most conservatives, but when it suits the story...)
You're fooling yourself if you really think Obama would nominate someone who hasn't personally/privately assured him how he'd vote on certain topics.
I think that rather than take the lesser of all "evils" the Republicans chose to gamble on an election that was nearly a year out, delaying their Constitutional mandate and damaging the ability of the court to render decisions, all for the sake of ideological hog wash the circle repeats to itself to assure its own delusion. They're fooling themselves if they think this is never going to come around and bite them in the ass. We're at the point now where decisions are being made on purely ideological grounds with no consideration for practical policy, and just because that's how the Republicans run their show now doesn't mean that's how everyone else runs it (but then you might have to consider that both sides aren't equally bad).
d-usa wrote: Every reply to your same old arguments is in this thread.
As your every snark as well.
The GOP leadership gambled immensely here to make it a campaign issue, knowing that a Hillary Clinton presidency would likely nominate someone even further left.
You're just mad that the GOP squeaked ahead here...
The basic functioning of your government shouldn't be something that is gambled.
The basic functioning of our government is essentially on autopilot. Nothing short of the handful of actual govt shutdowns we've experienced in the last decade actually stops the govt from functioning normally. Confirming federal nominees, passing legislation, etc. is supposed to be contentious and slow moving by design.
The budget running on yet another CR is actually stopping our government from functioning normally.
Did the senate ever pass a budget during Reid's time as majority leader? IIRC it didn't. We've been running on CRs instead of actual budgets for years. Whether on a budget or CR the funding still flows and federal depts. keep running and employees keep getting paid.
d-usa wrote: Every reply to your same old arguments is in this thread.
As your every snark as well.
The GOP leadership gambled immensely here to make it a campaign issue, knowing that a Hillary Clinton presidency would likely nominate someone even further left.
You're just mad that the GOP squeaked ahead here...
The basic functioning of your government shouldn't be something that is gambled.
The basic functioning of our government is essentially on autopilot. Nothing short of the handful of actual govt shutdowns we've experienced in the last decade actually stops the govt from functioning normally. Confirming federal nominees, passing legislation, etc. is supposed to be contentious and slow moving by design.
The budget running on yet another CR is actually stopping our government from functioning normally.
Did the senate ever pass a budget during Reid's time as majority leader? IIRC it didn't. We've been running on CRs instead of actual budgets for years. Whether on a budget or CR the funding still flows and federal depts. keep running and employees keep getting paid.
Seriously. Just because it fits with an ideologically driven narrative doesn't make it true.
The DC Circuit upheld that ruling that struck down the ban on the case that eventually named DC vs. Heller, but Garland then voted, as part of a request to the court as a whole, for the DC Circuit to reconsider their own ruling known as a request for en banc review (in front of every DC apellate judge). Garland lost, and the previous decision was upheld. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, eventually went to the Supreme Court, which ruled the ban unconstitutional. While Garland’s actual decision based on court filing claimed it was only to review the law and not to enforce it outright, it's the fact that he didn’t just agree original ruling after being previously been ruled by the 3-panel'ed apellate court.
As DC Appellate Judge, he sided with the District government by voting for a do-over in dissent that invalidated the D.C. handgun ban.
He didn't vote a do-over (there's no such thing as a "do-over" unless there was improper conduct). He argued such an important case should go before the full Court rather than be decided by a sampling of its judges.
It's called an En Banc review. Yes, it's essentially a "do-over".
Garland voted AGAINST a re-hearing.
And? Judges argue for and against re-hearings almost exclusively on procedural grounds. It says nothing about his thoughts on gun control (other than that he apparently thought one case was important enough for the full court and the other wasn't).
Oh c'mon hats. You can infer on these things. It's exactly what legal-eagle do in reviewing potential nominations in every stepping-stone in the Judicial system.
Oo
Garland voted to allow prosecutors to NOT prove that the person knew they were breaking the law.
I made it to about page 2 before I realized you clearly haven't read this.
Then you clearly haven't read the whole thing... Or better yet, just read the last few pages.
Garland also voted to allow FBI to retain background check informations, which would build a registry db, that Congress has expressed forbidden.
I'm very proud to see you're now in favor of proactive judges taking action and legislating from the bench.
I can't imagine how you got that from what you replied to above.
It's a shame your interpretation makes as little sense as the article you linked. "Congress failed to define the terms of the law" and "Congress made it clear what the law allowed" are oxymoronic statements to express at the same time. This looks like nothing more than what I said. The Garland has shown a reserved attitude towards knocking things down. That's a pretty conservative mindset really, it's just not the radical kind of conservatism that is now in vogue. If Congress failed to make their intent clear, it seems kind of silly to blame Garland for accepting the law as is which is pretty much the go to for judges across the country.
and there was a desire to prevent Obama from shifting the Court's ideological balance.
That's basically just carte blanche to shut the court down should there ever be a risk that it will rule against your ideological interests. So much for checks and balances.
feth yeah.
It forces BOTH the President and the Senate to try to work together.
Otherwise, you're just advocating that the Senate ought to just rubber-stop whomever the President nominates.
He's not a centrist.
And people are going to keep ignoring it because it makes no sense. We can look at his case history, and declaring him leftists solely on some ambiguous gun related cases is pretty absurd, especially when none of his actions in any of them indicate anything more than a judge very willing to stick with precedent. The best argument against him on SCOTUS would actually seem to me to be that he's too willing to stick with precedent for the highest court. By definition SCOTUS has to made very hard decisions, and Garland to me reads as not having the chops to make those decisions. He'd rather just stick with basic interpretation of the literal words (which is again hilarious because that's the idea of an ideal judge by most conservatives, but when it suits the story...)
Are you sure this isn't you just upset that your guy didn't get his pick?
You're fooling yourself if you really think Obama would nominate someone who hasn't personally/privately assured him how he'd vote on certain topics.
I think that rather than take the lesser of all "evils" the Republicans chose to gamble on an election that was nearly a year out, delaying their Constitutional mandate and damaging the ability of the court to render decisions, all for the sake of ideological hog wash the circle repeats to itself to assure its own delusion. They're fooling themselves if they think this is never going to come around and bite them in the ass. We're at the point now where decisions are being made on purely ideological grounds with no consideration for practical policy, and just because that's how the Republicans run their show now doesn't mean that's how everyone else runs it (but then you might have to consider that both sides aren't equally bad).
It was ALWAYS done on ideological grounds. You, as the resident Dakka-Historian, should appreciate this.
I'll concede that the Senate should've just hold hearings, then give up/down votes. However, it is the Senate purview on how they'll conduct their "Advise & Consent"....which is essentially whatever the feth they want.
whembly wrote: It forces BOTH the President and the Senate to try to work together.
Which only works if both sides are willing to work together. In this case one side openly said "give us everything we want or we'll refuse to let the government function". That isn't working together, it's creating a hostage crisis and exploiting the fact that the other side isn't as eager to commit suicide.
Otherwise, you're just advocating that the Senate ought to just rubber-stop whomever the President nominates.
There is a substantial difference between "consider the nomination on its own merits without a blanket declaration that supreme court nominations are not permitted until republicans control the entire process again" and "rubber-stamp whoever the president nominates". If there is a legitimate reason to oppose a particular nomination then the senate should do exactly that. But when the only grounds for opposition are "if we refuse to cooperate long enough we might win an election and get to nominate our justice instead" then the senate should do its job and confirm the nomination.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: there was a desire to prevent Obama from shifting the Court's ideological balance.
And this is what it comes down to: the republican party declared that Obama was not allowed to nominate a justice because letting him do it would conflict with conservative ideology. IOW, if any part of the government doesn't fall in line with republican party demands, shut it down until republicans control it.
And Obama let that through without much of a fight thinking Hillary would be in office and it wouldn't matter.
Who was the one saying the US federal government shouldn't gamble with decisions?
whembly wrote: there was a desire to prevent Obama from shifting the Court's ideological balance.
And this is what it comes down to: the republican party declared that Obama was not allowed to nominate a justice because letting him do it would conflict with conservative ideology. IOW, if any part of the government doesn't fall in line with republican party demands, shut it down until republicans control it.
And Obama let that through without much of a fight thinking Hillary would be in office and it wouldn't matter.
Who was the one saying the US federal government shouldn't gamble with decisions?
Just to be clear, you guys didn't literally name your public health insurance plan "Obamacare" did you? That's just a nickname people use when talking about it, right? Its actual name is something like the "Federal Health Care Plan" right?
Just to be clear, you guys didn't literally name your public health insurance plan "Obamacare" did you? That's just a nickname people use when talking about it, right? Its actual name is something like the "Federal Health Care Plan" right?
Obamacare is a nickname.
It's actually called 'The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act' (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
whembly wrote: it's the fact that he didn’t just agree original ruling after being previously been ruled by the 3-panel'ed apellate court.
Where do I even begin explaining what is wrong with this?
It's called an En Banc review. Yes, it's essentially a "do-over".
An En Banc review's expressed purpose is to rehear cases before the full court. That's not a "do over" unless we call every rehearing of case law "do overs" at which point holding it against a judge is a moot point because all judges past the trial stage would qualify. Given than Heller became one of the most important Second Amendment decisions SCOTUS has made in decades, I'm not seeing how Garland was wrong to suggest the full Appeals Court should hear the case rather than just a panel. En Banc proceedings are about making sure the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed because some cases are really important.
Oh c'mon hats. You can infer on these things.
There's a difference between inference and jumping to convenient conclusions.
Then you clearly haven't read the whole thing...
So you did read it, you just chose to draw a conclusion opposite of what it stated?
I can't imagine how you got that from what you replied to above.
It involves a complete and utter lack of logical gymnastics.
Huh? The law in question is quite clear:
Your own link specifically states the matter at hand was only at hand because Congress failed to properly define the terms used in the law. That is the opposite of clear.
It forces BOTH the President and the Senate to try to work together.
"Give us everything we want or you don't get anything" is a completely ass backwards definition of working together.
Otherwise, you're just advocating that the Senate ought to just rubber-stop whomever the President nominates.
I'm pretty sure there's a world of difference between "there will be no hearings and we will not consider your nominee" and "we will stamp your nominee without question."
I'm starting to see how you can read that court decision and completely miss the nuanced difference between sentencing and criminal culpability that defined it.
Are you sure this isn't you just upset that your guy didn't get his pick?
There you go not reading people's posts again.
It was ALWAYS done on ideological grounds.
Political pragmatism is a thing. Bill Clinton's years were notably defined by it (as were both Bush presidencies). The entire ACA actually coming about came down to the Democrats being pragmatic about what they could actually get out, which was a measure a lot weaker than what Obama had optimistically thought he could get done. We just don't live in a political environment where it does any good anymore because the word "ideology" (specifically political ideology) has now been conflated by the right as synonymous with anything of even remote political consequence.
However, it is the Senate purview on how they'll conduct their "Advise & Consent"....which is essentially whatever the feth they want.
I would argue giving no advice and denying consent unilaterally is in fact not in their purview, completely violates the spirit of the Constitution if not it's stated purpose, and even if both those things were false it's still a completely ass backwards way to run things. Unfortunately there's no check on Congress abdicating its responsibilities other than election time, and that isn't really working out given that the same people continually get reelected time and time again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/20 20:04:59
Just to be clear, you guys didn't literally name your public health insurance plan "Obamacare" did you? That's just a nickname people use when talking about it, right? Its actual name is something like the "Federal Health Care Plan" right?
Obamacare is a nickname.
It's actually called 'The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act' (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Okay, good. : D
How are the anti-socialism types down there handling it? I assume they're denying that it's a socialist system while simultaneously describing why it's a good idea that works without realizing they're literally describing why socialism is a good idea in the process?
whembly wrote: It forces BOTH the President and the Senate to try to work together.
Which only works if both sides are willing to work together. In this case one side openly said "give us everything we want or we'll refuse to let the government function". That isn't working together, it's creating a hostage crisis and exploiting the fact that the other side isn't as eager to commit suicide.
Otherwise, you're just advocating that the Senate ought to just rubber-stop whomever the President nominates.
There is a substantial difference between "consider the nomination on its own merits without a blanket declaration that supreme court nominations are not permitted until republicans control the entire process again" and "rubber-stamp whoever the president nominates". If there is a legitimate reason to oppose a particular nomination then the senate should do exactly that. But when the only grounds for opposition are "if we refuse to cooperate long enough we might win an election and get to nominate our justice instead" then the senate should do its job and confirm the nomination.
Nobody starts negotiations from the middle you always start with an extreme position so you have room to move while still getting an outcome in your favor. Start far from the middle and give ground grudgingly trying to get the best deal you can.
The senate should have held a vote and rejected Garland's nomination if they didn't approve of him instead of just procrastinating until after the election. The grounds for opposing Garland are that Republican senators don't agree with some of his decisions which is perfectly acceptable grounds to vote against him. There never any pressure for the senate to confirm anybody unless a majority of senators agree with the nomination. No nominee is ever entitled to a conformation by the senate it's always a case by case basis of earning it.
Just to be clear, you guys didn't literally name your public health insurance plan "Obamacare" did you? That's just a nickname people use when talking about it, right? Its actual name is something like the "Federal Health Care Plan" right?
Obamacare is a nickname.
It's actually called 'The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act' (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Okay, good. : D
How are the anti-socialism types down there handling it? I assume they're denying that it's a socialist system while simultaneously describing why it's a good idea that works without realizing they're literally describing why socialism is a good idea in the process?
The ACA has been the subject of contentious debate and less than ideal implementation for the last 8 years you're better off just googling it and reading up on it than trying to get a summation here given the amount of information and discourse to sift through.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/20 20:09:20
Prestor Jon wrote: The ACA has been the subject of contentious debate and less than ideal implementation for the last 8 years you're better off just googling it and reading up on it than trying to get a summation here given the amount of information and discourse to sift through.
Just to be clear, you guys didn't literally name your public health insurance plan "Obamacare" did you? That's just a nickname people use when talking about it, right? Its actual name is something like the "Federal Health Care Plan" right?
Obamacare is a nickname.
It's actually called 'The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act' (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Okay, good. : D
How are the anti-socialism types down there handling it? I assume they're denying that it's a socialist system while simultaneously describing why it's a good idea that works without realizing they're literally describing why socialism is a good idea in the process?
Probably the only two "good thing" about the PPACA, is that it essentially codifies the idea that those with pre-exiting conditions can't now be denied insurance.... and that, there's no 'lifetime' maximum anymore (meaning, insurance used to drop you if they paid out 'x' amount over a time period).
A possible 3rd is the fact that parents could keep their kids on their plans up till they're 26. That turned out being a double-edged sword as that reduced the number of young, healthy people from the risk pool.
Overall? It's an unmitigated disaster because it took a complex system and turned it up to eleventy-seven overboard.
It's a mess...
Even one of the participating architect of this Act said this:
"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. "And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."
Gruber made the comment while discussing how the law was "written in a tortured way" to avoid a bad score from the Congressional Budget Office. He suggested that voters would have rejected ObamaCare if the penalties for going without health insurance were interpreted as taxes, either by budget analysts or the public.
When you're trying to bury the unappealing aspect of this law... people *will* find out and it won't end well.
It's part of the reason why the Tea Party rose out en massed between 2008-10 and why the GOP kicked major ass in local and congressional elections since then...
We need a mulligan. STAT.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/20 20:17:49
So you're okay with do overs when they're for things you're for then
Have you learned nothing in the 400+ pages of this thread?
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."
However, it is the Senate purview on how they'll conduct their "Advise & Consent"....which is essentially whatever the feth they want.
I would argue giving no advice and denying consent unilaterally is in fact not in their purview, completely violates the spirit of the Constitution if not it's stated purpose, and even if both those things were false it's still a completely ass backwards way to run things. Unfortunately there's no check on Congress abdicating its responsibilities other than election time, and that isn't really working out given that the same people continually get reelected time and time again.
Constitution only states "Advise & Consent"... with no other explanation as to what that specifically means.
Therefore, it's up to the Senate body to make the parliamentary rules to govern that. So... it violates diddly-squat.
The Turtle and leadership made a decision to make this 'an election' agenda... in attempt to encourage the anti-Clinton votes.
And you're wrong that there's no check... Voters can vote them out, and obviously that didn't happen.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
