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.
Constitution only states "Advise & Consent"... with no other explanation as to what that specifically means.
It doesn't need an explanation. It's inclusion at all is an overt statement that they play a role in the process. Abdicating that role is an overt rejection of their mandate, and not what the Founders expected, nor what we should accept.
But hey. As long as they're sticking it to the other side. To hell with what could happen later.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/20 20:43:58
Constitution only states "Advise & Consent"... with no other explanation as to what that specifically means.
It doesn't need an explanation. It's inclusion at all is an overt statement that they play a role in the process. Abdicating that role is an overt rejection of their mandate, and not what the Founders expected.
The 'Adivse' is "let's see what the voters think in November... m'kay?"
It's a dick move, but it's well within their mandate.
Furthermore, what would the Founders expect? I've seen nothing on that in the usual Federalist Papers (I've looked)...
Furthermore, what would the Founders expect? I've seen nothing on that in the usual Federalist Papers (I've looked)...
The Founders were limited to the perspective that Congress would actually do its job.
Much like the Founders never thought that a state would want to succeed from the union, they never thought that Congress would showboat rather than do its job.
oh yes... turnabout is fair play.
You can't set precedent and then complain down the line when the tactic is turned against you. That the GOP has prioritized a moment of opportunity over the long term health of our system is a travesty, and we may all suffer for it should such tactics continue. And to be clear, this isn't a little thing. A political party that has habitually held the Federal government hostage for the sole sake of scoring political points on budgetary matters, has no advanced to holding the courts hostage for the sake of a disastrous idea that "we didn't get the president we wanted and we're going to stall until we get one we do." This isn't a tiny thing. This is how countless states throughout human history have broken down and collapsed. Because some people chose to seize a moment at the expense of stability. This isn't a new idea either. Lower courts across the country have had vacant seats for years. It's damaged the ability to hear and rule on important cases, and now SCOTUS isn't even immune to this behavior. The courts are the last bastion of civil rights. For the sake of political idealogues we have put that bastion in the line of fire for the sake of arbitrary and childish notions of how democracy shouldn't ever function.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/20 21:02:48
Furthermore, what would the Founders expect? I've seen nothing on that in the usual Federalist Papers (I've looked)...
The Founders were limited to the perspective that Congress would actually do its job.
Much like the Founders never thought that a state would want to succeed from the union, they never thought that Congress would showboat rather than do its job.
That was my sense too... however, you've sparked my interest in History a bit.
I know you and I tango... but, do you have recommendations beyond the Federalist Papers? (I've been perusing early 1900's eras).
You can't set precedent and then complain down the line when the tactic is turned against you. That the GOP has prioritized a moment of opportunity over the long term health of our system is a travesty, and we may all suffer for it should such tactics continue.
Well... now you know how I felt when Reid nuked the filibuster...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/20 21:00:14
I love that this is the first time Whem' has mentioned the "He's not a centrist" thing. Good job Whembly, you finally found an argument beyond the BS "BOTH SIDES DO IT" argument. Only took you 6 months.
I'll look forward to you defending the Democrats with the same vigor if they do the same gak the Republicans have.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I love that this is the first time Whem' has mentioned the "He's not a centrist" thing. Good job Whembly, you finally found an argument beyond the BS "BOTH SIDES DO IT" argument. Only took you 6 months.
O.o
I'm a conservative... I think I made that clear.
I'll look forward to you defending the Democrats with the same vigor if they do the same gak the Republicans have.
As the minority party? Sure thing...
Hey, about that... it's a shame the Reid nuked the filibuster rule eh? Now Cheeto Jesus practically gets his pick for his cabinet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Should all Supreme Court judges be centrists?
No.
They should read that text of the law... not, legislate from the bench.
But, that's pie-in-the-sky wish casting...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/20 21:08:49
Co'tor Shas wrote: I love that this is the first time Whem' has mentioned the "He's not a centrist" thing. Good job Whembly, you finally found an argument beyond the BS "BOTH SIDES DO IT" argument. Only took you 6 months.
O.o
I'm a conservative... I think I made that clear.
That doesn't have to do with anything. This is the first time you have claimed that Gardland is not a centrist.
I'll look forward to you defending the Democrats with the same vigor if they do the same gak the Republicans have.
As the minority party? Sure thing...
Hey, about that... it's a shame the Reid nuked the filibuster rule eh? Now Cheeto Jesus practically gets his pick for his cabinet.
Took you 1 minute 5 seconds to blame the Democrats. Good job.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Furthermore, what would the Founders expect? I've seen nothing on that in the usual Federalist Papers (I've looked)...
The Founders were limited to the perspective that Congress would actually do its job.
Much like the Founders never thought that a state would want to succeed from the union, they never thought that Congress would showboat rather than do its job.
oh yes... turnabout is fair play.
You can't set precedent and then complain down the line when the tactic is turned against you. That the GOP has prioritized a moment of opportunity over the long term health of our system is a travesty, and we may all suffer for it should such tactics continue. And to be clear, this isn't a little thing. A political party that has habitually held the Federal government hostage for the sole sake of scoring political points on budgetary matters, has no advanced to holding the courts hostage for the sake of a disastrous idea that "we didn't get the president we wanted and we're going to stall until we get one we do." This isn't a tiny thing. This is how countless states throughout human history have broken down and collapsed. Because some people chose to seize a moment at the expense of stability. This isn't a new idea either. Lower courts across the country have had vacant seats for years. It's damaged the ability to hear and rule on important cases, and now SCOTUS isn't even immune to this behavior. The courts are the last bastion of civil rights. For the sake of political idealogues we have put that bastion in the line of fire for the sake of arbitrary and childish notions of how democracy shouldn't ever function.
Now you're just being hyperbolic. The Republicans don't like Garland so they're not going to confirm him. It's not a big deal. The Democrats didn't like Bork and refused to confirm him. Not confirming whomever the President nominates for a SCotUS seat isn't a big deal and it does nothing to break the system or cause any upheaval. The Senate doesn't have to confirm anybody. There've been vacant benches for federal judges regardless of which party controlled the White House and Congress because both parties have always played politics with confirmations. The lower court judgeships are where nominees for higher federal court come from and neither party wants the other party to fill too many vacancies with judges are more in line with one party's ideology more so than the other.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I love that this is the first time Whem' has mentioned the "He's not a centrist" thing. Good job Whembly, you finally found an argument beyond the BS "BOTH SIDES DO IT" argument. Only took you 6 months.
O.o
I'm a conservative... I think I made that clear.
That doesn't have to do with anything. This is the first time you have claimed that Gardland is not a centrist.
Eh? I've always held my reservation of Garland...
I did, however, support the Turtle's tactic to turn this into a campaign issue.
I'll look forward to you defending the Democrats with the same vigor if they do the same gak the Republicans have.
As the minority party? Sure thing...
Hey, about that... it's a shame the Reid nuked the filibuster rule eh? Now Cheeto Jesus practically gets his pick for his cabinet.
Took you 1 minute 5 seconds to blame the Democrats. Good job.
So, we go to blame the GOP for setting a precedent for not acting on a judicial nominee... and it's pooh-pooh'ed.
Yet, when Reid nuked the filibuster on appointees (sans SCoTUS)... he doesn't deserve the same scorn?
Really?
Co'tor Shas wrote: I love that this is the first time Whem' has mentioned the "He's not a centrist" thing. Good job Whembly, you finally found an argument beyond the BS "BOTH SIDES DO IT" argument. Only took you 6 months.
O.o
I'm a conservative... I think I made that clear.
That doesn't have to do with anything. This is the first time you have claimed that Gardland is not a centrist.
Eh? I've always held my reservation of Garland...
I did, however, support the Turtle's tactic to turn this into a campaign issue.
Reservations are not they same as saying he's not a centrist. You'd hold reservations of zombie-Reagan if Obama nominated him, you've made this clear with your blind opposition to anything with a D on the end. Before, you just talked about BS like "both sides do it".
I'll look forward to you defending the Democrats with the same vigor if they do the same gak the Republicans have.
As the minority party? Sure thing...
Hey, about that... it's a shame the Reid nuked the filibuster rule eh? Now Cheeto Jesus practically gets his pick for his cabinet.
Took you 1 minute 5 seconds to blame the Democrats. Good job.
So, we go to blame the GOP for setting a precedent for not acting on a judicial nominee... and it's pooh-pooh'ed.
Yet, when Reid nuked the filibuster on appointees (sans SCoTUS)... he doesn't deserve the same scorn?
Really?
When one party refuses to even hold hearing to put people with no in non-political positions, no I don't think it deserves the same scorn. The Republicans abused the gerrymander power to halt all governance, not stop bad governance. You keep bringing up the Bork nonsense as false equivalence, but there were very legitimate reasons to reject him (such as him supporting poll-taxes). He was an extremist. And then notice how Anthony Kennedy was voted in unanimously. This wasn't one party refusing any justice, this was a a party rejecting a bad choice, and then agreeing with a good one. Still one the disagreed with, but a good one.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I love that this is the first time Whem' has mentioned the "He's not a centrist" thing. Good job Whembly, you finally found an argument beyond the BS "BOTH SIDES DO IT" argument. Only took you 6 months.
O.o
I'm a conservative... I think I made that clear.
That doesn't have to do with anything. This is the first time you have claimed that Gardland is not a centrist.
Eh? I've always held my reservation of Garland...
I did, however, support the Turtle's tactic to turn this into a campaign issue.
Reservations are not they same as saying he's not a centrist. You'd hold reservations of zombie-Reagan if Obama nominated him, you've made this clear with your blind opposition to anything with a D on the end. Before, you just talked about BS like "both sides do it".
I'll look forward to you defending the Democrats with the same vigor if they do the same gak the Republicans have.
As the minority party? Sure thing...
Hey, about that... it's a shame the Reid nuked the filibuster rule eh? Now Cheeto Jesus practically gets his pick for his cabinet.
Took you 1 minute 5 seconds to blame the Democrats. Good job.
So, we go to blame the GOP for setting a precedent for not acting on a judicial nominee... and it's pooh-pooh'ed.
Yet, when Reid nuked the filibuster on appointees (sans SCoTUS)... he doesn't deserve the same scorn?
Really?
When one party refuses to even hold hearing to put people with no in non-political positions, no I don't think it deserves the same scorn. The Republicans abused the gerrymander power to halt all governance, not stop bad governance. You keep bringing up the Bork nonsense as false equivalence, but there were very legitimate reasons to reject him (such as him supporting poll-taxes). He was an extremist. And then notice how Anthony Kennedy was voted in unanimously. This wasn't one party refusing any justice, this was a a party rejecting a bad choice, and then agreeing with a good one. Still one the disagreed with, but a good one.
Both Sotomayor and Kagan got confirmed with Republican votes it's not like the Republicans have uniformly tried to stonewall every SCotUS nominee Obama has put forth. Garland not getting confirmed isn't a big deal. The vacancy will eventually get filled by somebody capable of getting enough votes in the senate to be confirmed.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I love that this is the first time Whem' has mentioned the "He's not a centrist" thing. Good job Whembly, you finally found an argument beyond the BS "BOTH SIDES DO IT" argument. Only took you 6 months.
O.o
I'm a conservative... I think I made that clear.
That doesn't have to do with anything. This is the first time you have claimed that Gardland is not a centrist.
Eh? I've always held my reservation of Garland...
I did, however, support the Turtle's tactic to turn this into a campaign issue.
Reservations are not they same as saying he's not a centrist.
That's just *it*... I've never argued that Garland was a centrist.
You'd hold reservations of zombie-Reagan if Obama nominated him,
That's horse gak.
you've made this clear with your blind opposition to anything with a D on the end. Before, you just talked about BS like "both sides do it".
Neither party is blameless in the political shenanigan game. Furthermore, yes, there are very few Ds that I like.
I'll look forward to you defending the Democrats with the same vigor if they do the same gak the Republicans have.
As the minority party? Sure thing...
Hey, about that... it's a shame the Reid nuked the filibuster rule eh? Now Cheeto Jesus practically gets his pick for his cabinet.
Took you 1 minute 5 seconds to blame the Democrats. Good job.
So, we go to blame the GOP for setting a precedent for not acting on a judicial nominee... and it's pooh-pooh'ed.
Yet, when Reid nuked the filibuster on appointees (sans SCoTUS)... he doesn't deserve the same scorn?
Really?
When one party refuses to even hold hearing to put people with no in non-political positions, no I don't think it deserves the same scorn.
Then you and I must disagree here. Reid nuked the filibuster because neither he, nor Obama wanted to work with the minority party. And now, the Democrats are suffering from that Reid nukage because if every Republican vote for Trump's appointee (albeit, not a given)... there's NOTHING the Democrats can do to stop it. Zero... ziltch. All because Harry F'n Reid decided to take the short-term measure to weaken the minority party's strength, without really giving careful consideration that his own party may become the minority party.
The Republicans abused the gerrymander power to halt all governance, not stop bad governance.
Gerrymandering... man you keep coming back to that eh? That's just a sore spot eh? Guess what, that only impacts the House of Representative.
You keep bringing up the Bork nonsense as false equivalence, but there were very legitimate reasons to reject him (such as him supporting poll-taxes). He was an extremist.
He was unquestioningly qualified. Like Garland. But, the political realities in both cases dictated a different direction.
And then notice how Anthony Kennedy was voted in unanimously. This wasn't one party refusing any justice, this was a a party rejecting a bad choice, and then agreeing with a good one. Still one the disagreed with, but a good one.
Obama, could've done the same thing to pressure the Turtle by nominating a more agreeable jurist.
whembly wrote:I know you and I tango... but, do you have recommendations beyond the Federalist Papers? (I've been perusing early 1900's eras).
Have you read the Anti-Federalist papers?
Kilkrazy wrote:Should all Supreme Court judges be centrists?
No, I just get a kick out of the hyperbole of labeling a guy left because he had the gal to suggest an important case should be heard by the whole court, not just three of them (especially when overturning precedent), and for sticking to the word of the law as written. The later is especially funny because its something conservatives and Republicans regularly preach the virtues of. Speaking of hyperbole;
Prestor Jon wrote:The Republicans don't like Garland so they're not going to confirm him.
That's not what happened and you know it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/20 21:54:01
whembly wrote: I did, however, support the Turtle's tactic to turn this into a campaign issue.
And this is the problem. The senate has a responsibility to do its part in keeping a full nine justices on the supreme court, not to declare "we think we can win the next election with this, no nominations are allowed until we have a republican president".
Hey, about that... it's a shame the Reid nuked the filibuster rule eh?
It's a shame the republican party transformed the filibuster rule from a last-resort option to stop legislation that is a must-kill priority into a general change in the voting rules of the senate where every bill now requires a 2/3 majority to pass.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Now you're just being hyperbolic. The Republicans don't like Garland so they're not going to confirm him. It's not a big deal. The Democrats didn't like Bork and refused to confirm him. Not confirming whomever the President nominates for a SCotUS seat isn't a big deal and it does nothing to break the system or cause any upheaval. The Senate doesn't have to confirm anybody. There've been vacant benches for federal judges regardless of which party controlled the White House and Congress because both parties have always played politics with confirmations. The lower court judgeships are where nominees for higher federal court come from and neither party wants the other party to fill too many vacancies with judges are more in line with one party's ideology more so than the other.
And, again, the issue is not that this one particular nominee was denied. If Garland is truly an extreme and or unqualified nominee then the senate has the right to vote against confirming him. The issue that the republican party openly declared "Obama is not allowed to nominate a justice" and refused to consider the merits of any specific pick. This breaks the system because now one of two things happens:
1) The democrats accept that this is the way things are done now and obstruct every one of Trump's picks, regardless of whether or not they are qualified for the job. Now instead of the president appointing justices and the senate confirming, with the court kept at a full nine justices, the rule is that no justices can be appointed unless the same party controls both the presidency and the senate. IOW, it doesn't matter if all eight justices die next year, we have an empty supreme court until 2020. And if Trump wins again, we don't replace any justices until at least 2024. It should be obvious why this is not a good situation.
or
2) The democrats give in to the hostage takers and allow Trump to appoint justices, so that the supreme court is not left with empty seats for an extended period of time. The government is functioning again, but only at the cost of rewarding the republican party for threatening suicide if they don't get what they want. This is also a broken system because now instead of constructive governance we have a system where everything is run by whichever party is willing to push the country closest to disaster as a bargaining tool.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/20 22:15:52
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.
Basically you want books on Reconstruction, the Gilded Age, and the early Progressive Era.
I'd read Eric Foner's Reconstruction (it's huge, but you don't have to read the whole thing). He covers a lot of the changes that the immediate post war period brought to local, state, and federal governance particularly as it pertains to the Radical Republicans and the sudden issue of Freedman suffrage. A good follow up book on that is David Blight's Race and Reunion. That ones about the development of Civil War memory in American culture but also involves a lot about political developments that came from those ideas.
For the Gilded Age there's Robert Cherny's American Politics in the Gilded Age, 1868-1900 which you'll probably like because it pays a lot of attention to the power dynamics of the political parties, and the political deadlock of the period immediately after Reconstruction. Along those same lines is The Third Electoral System 1853–1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures by Paul Kleppner. It's old, and I don't think it's all that great anymore but it is interesting. Also Charles Calhoun's The Gilded Age which is often used as a textbook for the period.
Michael Kazin has a really good book on William Jennings Bryan; A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan. It's not overtly about the development of governance, but it's an interesting look at a guy who really epitomized the "progressive" part of the Progressive Era. If you feel like getting dangerous, Steve Faser's The Age of Acquiescence: The Life and Death of American Resistance to Organized Wealth and Power. is interesting (maybe a bit too Howard Zinn-esque for its own good though).
Basically you want books on Reconstruction, the Gilded Age, and the early Progressive Era.
Spoiler:
I'd read Eric Foner's Reconstruction (it's huge, but you don't have to read the whole thing). He covers a lot of the changes that the immediate post war period brought to local, state, and federal governance particularly as it pertains to the Radical Republicans and the sudden issue of Freedman suffrage. A good follow up book on that is David Blight's Race and Reunion. That ones about the development of Civil War memory in American culture but also involves a lot about political developments that came from those ideas.
For the Gilded Age there's Robert Cherny's American Politics in the Gilded Age, 1868-1900 which you'll probably like because it pays a lot of attention to the power dynamics of the political parties, and the political deadlock of the period immediately after Reconstruction. Along those same lines is The Third Electoral System 1853–1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures by Paul Kleppner. It's old, and I don't think it's all that great anymore but it is interesting. Also Charles Calhoun's The Gilded Age which is often used as a textbook for the period.
Michael Kazin has a really good book on William Jennings Bryan; A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan. It's not overtly about the development of governance, but it's an interesting look at a guy who really epitomized the "progressive" part of the Progressive Era. If you feel like getting dangerous, Steve Faser's The Age of Acquiescence: The Life and Death of American Resistance to Organized Wealth and Power. is interesting (maybe a bit too Howard Zinn-esque for its own good though).
That's just *it*... I've never argued that Garland was a centrist.
You also never disagreed with anybody who has stated he is before. This is the first time you have mentioned it. Probably because you found a chart.
That's horse gak.
You're a partisan hack whem', you oppose all things democrat. You've expressed this pretty clearly over the years.
Neither party is blameless in the political shenanigan game. Furthermore, yes, there are very few Ds that I like.
"BOTH SIDES DO IT !!!!1!" never has been, and never will be, a convincing argument. It's still wrong whether the D's or R's do it. And considering the Republicans have consistency taken it to levels far beyond what the Democrats ever have I'm not a big fan of the Democrats, but it's one of the reasons I have problems with voting for republicans in federal elections.
Then you and I must disagree here. Reid nuked the filibuster because neither he, nor Obama wanted to work with the minority party. And now, the Democrats are suffering from that Reid nukage because if every Republican vote for Trump's appointee (albeit, not a given)... there's NOTHING the Democrats can do to stop it. Zero... ziltch. All because Harry F'n Reid decided to take the short-term measure to weaken the minority party's strength, without really giving careful consideration that his own party may become the minority party.
Whembly, they abused the filibuster to stop any nomination whatsoever. Even non-political, uncontroversial choices. Stop trying to go "Oh but the D's are just as bad!"
Gerrymandering... man you keep coming back to that eh? That's just a sore spot eh? Guess what, that only impacts the House of Representative
I meant to say filibuster, my bad (this is why I really should double check my posts.
And any attempt to subvert democracy for partisan or personal gains is a "sore spot" for me, as it should be. It's just legalized vote-rigging.
He was unquestioningly qualified. Like Garland. But, the political realities in both cases dictated a different direction.
Qualified, yes, acceptable, no. Again, he supported the rights of southern states to implement poll-taxes. So congress rejected him, and then accepted one that didn't. That's how it;s supposed to act. not "We won't let you give any so we can put our own in".
Obama, could've done the same thing to pressure the Turtle by nominating a more agreeable jurist.
They refused to even hold hearings. They didn't reject him. In fact, during his original conformation, the some of the same Republican's praised him, and called him highly qulaifed. Only 23 republicans voted against him in a republican controlled senate, with the ones who voted against him citing concerns over whether another seat was "needed" (i.e. "He won't blindly follow our dogma, so he's bad").
They did not reject him, the rejected any attempt of Obama's to fill the seat. They said as much.
This isn't hard...
It isn't, you just can't see past your partisan blinders.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
That's just *it*... I've never argued that Garland was a centrist.
You also never disagreed with anybody who has stated he is before. This is the first time you have mentioned it. Probably because you found a chart.
I was resigned that he was getting the bench. :shrugs;
That's horse gak.
You're a partisan hack whem', you oppose all things democrat. You've expressed this pretty clearly over the years.
Still horse gak Co'tors.... so, only thing you got is "whem's a hack".
<---- eyeballs just popped out for rolling it too much.
Neither party is blameless in the political shenanigan game. Furthermore, yes, there are very few Ds that I like.
"BOTH SIDES DO IT !!!!1!" never has been, and never will be, a convincing argument. It's still wrong whether the D's or R's do it.
Great way to ignore history then...
You know what they say about ignoring history?
And considering the Republicans have consistency taken it to levels far beyond what the Democrats ever have I'm not a big fan of the Democrats, but it's one of the reasons I have problems with voting for republicans in federal elections.
So now you're being hyperbolic. You're falling into the criticism trap when everything is bad... so, when everything that Rs does is bad (or vice versa)... then it really isn't that bad and it's de jour for today's politics.
Then you and I must disagree here. Reid nuked the filibuster because neither he, nor Obama wanted to work with the minority party. And now, the Democrats are suffering from that Reid nukage because if every Republican vote for Trump's appointee (albeit, not a given)... there's NOTHING the Democrats can do to stop it. Zero... ziltch. All because Harry F'n Reid decided to take the short-term measure to weaken the minority party's strength, without really giving careful consideration that his own party may become the minority party.
Whembly, they abused the filibuster to stop any nomination whatsoever. Even non-political, uncontroversial choices. Stop trying to go "Oh but the D's are just as bad!"
They wanted concessions in order for them to play ball. Reid and Obama said 'feth you'.
Gerrymandering... man you keep coming back to that eh? That's just a sore spot eh? Guess what, that only impacts the House of Representative
I meant to say filibuster, my bad (this is why I really should double check my posts. And any attempt to subvert democracy for partisan or personal gains is a "sore spot" for me, as it should be. It's just legalized vote-rigging.
That's just *it* Co'tors. This *is* democracy. It's fething messy, but somehow the governance still works.
He was unquestioningly qualified. Like Garland. But, the political realities in both cases dictated a different direction.
Qualified, yes, acceptable, no. Again, he supported the rights of southern states to implement poll-taxes. So congress rejected him, and then accepted one that didn't. That's how it;s supposed to act. not "We won't let you give any so we can put our own in".
Sure it is.
The Senate has as much a 'say' as the Executive.
It takes two to tango.
The acrimony here is that it's perceived as a slight to President Obama for not letting him fill it. That's the true war crime.... isn't it?
Obama, could've done the same thing to pressure the Turtle by nominating a more agreeable jurist.
They refused to even hold hearings. They didn't reject him. In fact, during his original conformation, the some of the same Republican's praised him, and called him highly qulaifed. Only 23 republicans voted against him in a republican controlled senate, with the ones who voted against him citing concerns over whether another seat was "needed" (i.e. "He won't blindly follow our dogma, so he's bad". They did not reject him, the rejected any attempt of Obama's to fill the seat. They said as much.
Jeeze... maybe... oh... I don't know... Obama could've rescinded Garland and chosen a more agreeable jurist. The ball was in his court and he refused to pick it up...and simply played politics with it. Probably because he believe it didn't matter as the consensus were that Clinton would've won and then, selected an even more liberal jurist.
This isn't hard...
It isn't, you just can't see past your partisan blinders.
I see perfectly fine.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/20 22:44:37
Co'tor Shas wrote: I love that this is the first time Whem' has mentioned the "He's not a centrist" thing. Good job Whembly, you finally found an argument beyond the BS "BOTH SIDES DO IT" argument. Only took you 6 months.
O.o
I'm a conservative... I think I made that clear.
That doesn't have to do with anything. This is the first time you have claimed that Gardland is not a centrist.
Eh? I've always held my reservation of Garland...
I did, however, support the Turtle's tactic to turn this into a campaign issue.
I'll look forward to you defending the Democrats with the same vigor if they do the same gak the Republicans have.
As the minority party? Sure thing...
Hey, about that... it's a shame the Reid nuked the filibuster rule eh? Now Cheeto Jesus practically gets his pick for his cabinet.
Took you 1 minute 5 seconds to blame the Democrats. Good job.
So, we go to blame the GOP for setting a precedent for not acting on a judicial nominee... and it's pooh-pooh'ed.
Yet, when Reid nuked the filibuster on appointees (sans SCoTUS)... he doesn't deserve the same scorn?
Really?
Didn't the Democrats block Bush's appointees for a couple of years?
whembly wrote: I was resigned that he was getting the bench. :shrugs;
Somehow I don't belive you, but whatever.
Still horse gak Co'tors.... so, only thing you got is "whem's a hack".
<---- eyeballs just popped out for rolling it too much.
Well, considering your dogged persuit of blaming everything on the democrats and when forced to admit that the Republcians did something wrong your only answer is "Both dies
Great way to ignore history then...
You know what they say about ignoring history?
Oh, so you have some time where the Democratic party refused to even hold hearings on a Republcan's Supreme Court nominee for 6 months? Or shut down the government multiple times for petty grand-standing?
So now you're being hyperbolic. You're falling into the criticism trap when everything is bad... so, when everything that Rs does is bad (or vice versa)... then it really isn't that bad and it's de jour for today's politics.
How on earth did you get that from what I said?
They wanted concessions in order for them to play ball. Reid and Obama said 'feth you'.
Talk about ignoring history, what about "let the people decide"? They stated clearly and repetedly that they would not concet to any justice. They stated their opposition before obama even nominated anyone. And Garland is a judical moderate, not some far-lefty.
That's just *it* Co'tors. This *is* democracy. It's fething messy, but somehow the governance still works.
And Jim Crow was democracy too, and it subverted it as well. Don't try and defend Gerrymandering.
Sure it is.
The Senate has as much a 'say' as the Executive.
It takes two to tango.
What you think it was Obama's duty to appoint Scalia 2.0?
The acrimony here is that it's perceived as a slight to President Obama for not letting him fill it. That's the true war crime.... isn't it?
No, it's a slight against our Constitution, and the people who elected Obama presidnet, decided that the president's term ends in 3 years for paritsan gain.
Jeeze... maybe... oh... I don't know... Obama could've rescinded Garland and chosen a more agreeable jurist. The ball was in his court and he refused to pick it up...and simply played politics with it. Probably because he believe it didn't matter as the consensus were that Clinton would've won and then, selected an even more liberal jurist.
Or maybe, just maybe, he was tired to the Republican party of turning event he smallest thing, where he put forward an old, highly qualified, judicial moderate as his nominee. Or are we supposed to belive that everything the Republican party leadership says is a lie for political gain?
I see perfectly fine.
Considering you are actually defending the republican party not even holding hearing for 6 months in hopes of getting their guy in, even with Donald Trump as their candidate, I think not.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: The acrimony here is that it's perceived as a slight to President Obama for not letting him fill it. That's the true war crime.... isn't it?
No. As we keep telling you, the issue is that the republican party decided to change the rules to "supreme court justices may not be nominated unless the same party controls the presidency and the senate" for political gain.
Jeeze... maybe... oh... I don't know... Obama could've rescinded Garland and chosen a more agreeable jurist. The ball was in his court and he refused to pick it up...and simply played politics with it. Probably because he believe it didn't matter as the consensus were that Clinton would've won and then, selected an even more liberal jurist.
Uh, no. The republican party declared that nobody was acceptable. Remember how you just praised the republican party for their strategy of turning the nomination process into an election issue by refusing to even consider Obama's picks? You can't have it both ways. You can't praise the republican party for refusing to negotiate and simultaneously blame Obama for not compromising.
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: The acrimony here is that it's perceived as a slight to President Obama for not letting him fill it. That's the true war crime.... isn't it?
No. As we keep telling you, the issue is that the republican party decided to change the rules to "supreme court justices may not be nominated unless the same party controls the presidency and the senate" for political gain.
Jeeze... maybe... oh... I don't know... Obama could've rescinded Garland and chosen a more agreeable jurist. The ball was in his court and he refused to pick it up...and simply played politics with it. Probably because he believe it didn't matter as the consensus were that Clinton would've won and then, selected an even more liberal jurist.
Uh, no. The republican party declared that nobody was acceptable. Remember how you just praised the republican party for their strategy of turning the nomination process into an election issue by refusing to even consider Obama's picks? You can't have it both ways. You can't praise the republican party for refusing to negotiate and simultaneously blame Obama for not compromising.
You're overstating the circumstances. Nobody has changed the rules of anything the Republicans are just playing partisan politics same as always. Flip the parties around and the Democrats would be doing the same thing. If months before the 2020 election Justice Ginsburg dies and Trump nominates a justice that the Republican Party favors, a nominee that the Republicans believe is comparable to Scalia or Thomas you know the Democrats would adamantly oppose the nominee. There is no way the Democrats would allow a "liberal" justice to be replaced by a "conservative" justice when there is a pending election that could give the Democrats the power to change the nominee by winning more Senate seats or the presidency or both. They wouldn't want to even risk a vote if they could avoid voting altogether and wait to see what happens on election night. Worst case nothing changes best case the Democrats get to Ginsburg with another "liberal" justice. That's all the Republicans did. All the same rules still apply they're just playing partisan politics. The Republicans are treating the Garland nomination different from the Sotomayor and Kagan nominations because Garland would be a "liberal" justice replacing a "conservative" justice and the Republican Party will try to avoid that however they can do it. You don't have to like the partisanship, most people don't myself included but that's what we have because we allowed it to gestate into the current political climate.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Again, Garland is a judicial moderate. This is like a Republican president putting up another Kennedy. IT changes the make-up, but doesn't flip it.
He's more liberal than the justice he's replacing. Whether that makes him a moderate or liberal is subjective but however you view him his nomination would go against Republican ideology and hurt the part so they will avoid confirming him. Whomever Trump nominates will be better for the Republicans than Garland so the Tepublicans will wait and confirm that nominee instead. Again if the roles were reversed the Democrats would stall and wait for an incoming Democratic President to put forth a nominee rather than vote on a Republican nominee months prior just for the sake of fillin the vacancy. The system hasn't been changed the nation hasn't been harmed.
Prestor Jon wrote: Again if the roles were reversed the Democrats would stall and wait for an incoming Democratic President to put forth a nominee rather than vote on a Republican nominee months prior just for the sake of fillin the vacancy.
Interestingly, when this did happen Saint Reagan's nomination even closer to election day was confirmed.
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.
Oh look, you're raising a thing Democrats did one time 30 years ago.
Here's the thing, the Democrats today are not Teddy Kennedy's Democrats anymore. Similarly, the modern Republican party would probably scare the gak out of Reagan.
Look up Miguel Estrada.
I'm sorry, are you claiming that filibustering one nominee you find unacceptable is the same thing as a strategy to filibuster any possible nominee no matter who was named?
Or better yet, acknowledge that the Democrats threatened to do the same thing.
And here you're spamming the same dishonest claim about Biden. To repeat myself for maybe the twentieth time, Biden was attacking the politicisation of the nomination process and Bush's failure to consul with the senate. His key line from the same speech;
"I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate. Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”
This is the exact fething opposite of the Republican strategy employed in 2106. Be honest and you will realise this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: At some point, you have to realize you're the problem by repeatedly providing the other half of these interactions. It's been years. He's not going to stop his behaviors. You're never going to provide the magical coherent argument that works, because you've already tried a thousand times. This won't be the time Lucy doesn't yank the football away, Charlie, while screaming gibberish about Vox\Slate\MSNBC.
That analogy is more perfect that you probably realise, because Charlie Brown always ends up trying to kick the ball.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/21 01:18:38
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
There is nothing wrong with the minority party in the senate blocking a bill it doesn't like. That is an ordinary process, part of how the system is supposed to work. Normally this will involve some kind of negotiation between the parties, in which the minority party, recognising their weaker position, will negotiate for some compromise on the bill.
If I repeat the history of what has happened one more time, could you please just read it this time.
This changed in the mid-90s, when Newt Gingrich made an observation - the majority gains more than just their parts of the bill, they gain almost all of the credit for a functioning government. Gingrich then hatched the plan that from minority Republicans could threaten government dysfunction unless they got everything they wanted. Either they'd get the bills they want, or government would stop working and the Democratic majority would take the blame. This led to the government shutdowns, and endless observations from beltway insiders that politics suddenly got a lot more mean.
The strategy worked, and in the 2000 and 2002 elections Republicans won control of everything. This control didn't last long, in part because control never does, but also because GW Bush screwed up a lot. In the 2006 and 2008 elections the Republicans suffered some horrible reversals, and once Al Franken's senate seat was finally decided, Republicans were left without even the power to filibuster.
From there Republicans had a strong internal debate, on whether to modify their policies to something more mainstream, or push ahead. They decided to push ahead, and did so with an even more aggressive stance of Gingrich's strategy. In part this strategy was opened up by Obama's fairly naive campaign claims to return bi-partisanship to Washington, as now all Republicans had to do to make him break that promise was refuse to take part. The first part of this was to attack Obama on his healthcare reform - while Republicans couldn't filibuster a law, they could run merry hell in the two years before the 2010 mid-terms. So that's what they did, organising people to attend town halls with the intent of shouting down congressmen, and so give the appearance of some grassroots concern over a bill that hadn't even been theorised yet. Running stupid scare campaigns about death panels and so on.
Like 2000, this worked. An energised Republican base monstered the 2010 mid-terms, and Republicans didn't just regain filibuster in the senate, they won control of the house. Now with a bit of power, gak got real. Republicans started using the debt ceiling as a threat. Government shut downs returned. The only stuff that reliably got through the house were partisan bills like repealing ACA that got shot down in the senate. When Republicans won the senate in 2014 that nonsense got filibustered in the senate. Funnily enough Obama's scarce use of veto was actually a sign of partisanship, he was regularly saved from having to use veto by Democratic senate filibuster.
Then we get to 2016, the final test of the Republican strategy. They were up against Clinton who was running on continuing Obama's work, and that wasn't a pretty marginal claim because very little had actually been gained. There hadn't been a major reform since the 2010 mid-terms. "What have you done for me lately" is a powerful thing in politics, and Republicans had made sure Obama couldn't answer that well.
Given this strategy works, why not do it? Because very few people are actually cyincal enough to plot to shut down a government they think isn't that bad. So the party and its base have to convince themselves that Obama and the Democrats are actually plotting to harm 'real Americans', take their guns, ban their religions, all that nonsense. It means spending 8 years saying Obama is the worst thing ever, then as soon as the 2016 campaign starts you have to switch to believing the current Democratic candidate should be locked up in prison. This makes it hard for a sensible candidate to win the primary. Remember how Romney won by default in 2012, and then spent the whole campaign pretending he wasn't a centrist negotiator but was actually a hardliner? Notice how in 2016 Trump won the nomination, but second place was Ted Cruz, and daylight before the next competitor?
And so while the strategy might win, what does it win? You got Trump in the Whitehouse, if Trump hadn't won then you probably would have got Ted Cruz.
Just watch and see how much of what they claimed for 8 years that you defended here turned out to be obvious bs. Remember the panic over the debt - now Republicans are lining up behind an unfunded tax cut that will add 10 trillion to the debt. Remember how Republicans blocked Obama's $500 billion infrastructure plan, back when there was recession and it cuold have provided stimulus and jobs? Now Republicans are supporting Trump's $1 trillion infrastructure plan, when there's full employment and it will have no stimulus effect.
So maybe just fething stop, you know? You aren't responsible for all of the republican party, but you are responsible every time you try and defend their antics. So stop saying that Democrats are the same because they played politics with SC nomination 30 years ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: 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.
As has been explained to you many times now, government process isn't just about what's written on the page, but about how things have been accepted as being done for a long time now. There's been more than 100 new democracies since 1960 and about half have been reversed (fortunately some later regained their democracy). If they fail it will be typically be in the first couple of election cycles because there is no accepted practice, no learned rules of the game beyond the constitution.
What you've written above basically takes that away from the US. It is an argument that outside of what is written on the page of the constitution, nothing else matters. Any idea of an accepted practice of how things have been done in the past just doesn't matter anymore. It takes you back to square one, as unstable as any first year democracy.
Consider for instance the door now open to Democrats to simply reject any Trump nominee, backing themselves to win the presidency and the senate in 2020. Based on your argument above, why not? What would stop the SC from being slowly whittled down to the last justice standing? Similarly, why shouldn't Democrats now threaten to filibuster any increase to the debt ceiling, just as Republicans did?
If there are no accepted rules to the game, and no notion that the first role of government is to provide a steady hand on the ship, what's to stop anyone doing anything to score a political win for their base?
I fully expect the Democrats to play this card as well when they're in power.
No, absolutely fething not. The answer to one extreme party that doesn't give a gak about accepted process or stable government is not for the other side to stop giving a gak about accepted practice or stable government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Well... now you know how I felt when Reid nuked the filibuster...
This is exactly the point. Republicans pushed the limits of their power to block a ridiculous number of nominees, and Democrats responded by removing the filibuster. Do you see how this gak can escalate?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Again if the roles were reversed the Democrats would stall and wait for an incoming Democratic President to put forth a nominee rather than vote on a Republican nominee months prior just for the sake of fillin the vacancy.
And here we see a defense of the Republicans by comparing them to hypothetical Democrats.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/12/21 02:56:07
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
That's just *it* Co'tors. This *is* democracy. It's fething messy, but somehow the governance still works.
.
