Slashdot Mirror
Obama Nominates Merrick Garland For Supreme Court (usatoday.com)
According to the New York Times, President Barack Obama has nominated Merrick B. Garland as the nation's 113th Supreme Court justice, choosing a centrist appeals court judge for the lifetime appointment and daring Republican senators to refuse consideration of a jurist who is highly regarded throughout Washington. Like Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Garland comes from the powerful D.C. Circuit court. The president said Judge Garland is "widely recognized not only as one of America's sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence. The qualities and his long commitment to public service have earned him the respect and admiration from leaders from both sides of the aisle." Mr. Obama said it is tempting to make the confirmation process "an extension of our divided politics." But he warned that "to go down that path would be wrong." Mr. Obama demanded a fair hearing for Judge Garland and said that refusing to even consider his nomination would provoke "an endless cycle of more tit for tat" that would undermine the democratic process for years to come. Merrick B. Garland will serve in the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in his sleep while on a hunting trip near Marfa, Texas.
Who's writing these summaries? Perhaps you need to learn what an honorific is and why you should be using it.
A very non-offensive, centrist choice. He has no chance.
No. Because then we end up with Trump and Clinton as our choices.
We do have a say in the matter. We elect both the person who nominates the judge as well as the people who approve it. I don't know how much better you're expecting.
We have plenty of other websites (or 'old media') that we can use to get news like this (which, in any case, is already several hours old).
Yes, that's exactly what they did three years ago. The American people elected Obama for four years, not three years + one year of Congress ignoring their constitutional duties.
This is a deliberate attempt to pick a fight with folks who support the second amendment. There is nothing "middle of the road",
or "centrist" about this terribly flawed politically motivated nominee.
He'll be a difficult nominee to dismiss out of hand, and I suppose that's the point.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The summary says: "Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in his sleep while on a hunting trip near Marfa, Texas." I'm not one for conspiracy theories but, a more accurate description (as reported by the owner of the ranch) would be: "Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in his sleep with a pillow over his head while on a hunting trip near Marfa, Texas."
I'm sure that he regularly slept with a pillow over his head and it was all simply a misunderstanding. This can happen -- just like the guy who slept with a horse head on his bed in The Godfather.
The most popular /. stories aren't always about technology https://slashdot.org/hof.shtml ... You can go to CNN or Reddit but you won't get the same level of discussion
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
Here's hoping the Republicans keep this psycho out of the Supreme Court, the last thing we need is another liberal zealot like Kagan
I mean President Obama's administration studied the keystone pipeline for 7 years before deciding that it is more environmentally friendly to haul crude oil in trucks and rail. I say the senate should do him the same favor and consider this appointment for at least a couple years before deciding he was not qualified.
I mean let's not be mean spirited about it. The Senate should consider him, and consider him some more. Then after that is all done why not consider him again. Let's consider the fuck out of him. Make him the most considered appointment never to get appointed.
It is after all the Senate's constitutional duty.
We'll probably see more snowballs in Congress.
Table-ized A.I.
+ one year of Congress ignoring their constitutional duties
That is more along the lines of 10 years now. They have not passed a budget on time yet. As required by law.
There is no constitutional duty to for the Senate to act either way regarding the President's nominee. In fact, speaking constitutionally, Congress could, tomorrow, set the number of justices at 8.
Jonathan Adler, in The Volokh Conspiracy discusses this very issue.
The President nominates, with the advice AND consent of the Senate someone to be a justice. The Senate can then consent, not consent or decline to bring the matter to a vote. The Senate sets their rules and determines how Senate business is conducted. Those calling for hearings in order to fulfill constitutional duties are even more off-base; there were no hearings for Supreme Court justices before 1916.
The President and Congress are co-equal branches of the government. It's not too far fetched an argument that the voters knew exactly what they were doing when they gave the presidency to the Democrats and Congress to the Republicans. There might be perfectly rational reasons for the voters to impose forced cooperation or gridlock rather than a single party running away with their own interests.
There may be policy and political reasons that the Senate should act but there are no constitutional duties imposed on the Senate to act.
You can go to CNN or Reddit but you won't get the same level of discussion
Exactly! I don't come here to read the news, but to read what Geeks and Nerds think of the news. I wouldn't mind if a story was posted about Kim Kardashian's butt. Someone would post that he is completing his Ph.D. in the theoretical geometry of feminine butts. Another would post that he is with a CSI unit as a Crackology expert.
Slashdot has an incredible wealth of expert knowledge . . . and I will read just about anything the folks here want to say about anything.
"Nudes for Nerds", indeed.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
The Supreme Court could have a pretty large impact on technology, privacy, encryption, etc. It's one story on the front page about a huge political event that could affect technology significantly. You're welcome to scroll past it onto the other 30 specifically tech focused stories.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...Obama at least gave Garland a tour of the bus he just threw him under.
Political Cannon Fodder
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I think they want to have the seats voted for like all the other positions. I'd be a colder day in hell before any sitting justice would allow that. I also think it is stupid as hell. Them not having to run for office and get to their positions by more merit than the elected officials, removes a lot of the pissing match in their branch that others have. Keep it that way.
The people elect representatives that would hopefully know better than them, so that the people can handle their own lives, and the elected people can focus on doing their end. Those elected people in turn elect justices, so we do get a say, just a derivative vote. If the person really wants to have a say in the matter, then they better as hell start sending letters and phone calls to their representative. If that person doesn't listen, then don't vote for them next time. If that person still stays in office, well your voice and those with your opinion aren't as important as the voices of others.
If we wanted to read about political shenanigans like those that this submission is about, we'd go to CNN, or Reddit, or some other non-Slashdot site.
When you say we, you're exaggerating your representation of the lot of us.
If I hear about something political or tragic, I look to this site for the most insightful discussion. Sure, sometimes that is not as instantaneous as the 24 hr media coverage, but I'm looking for balanced careful reflection and response.
You can't get that anywhere else as consistently as you do here.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Not exactly Kim Kardashians ass but her sisters sex tape was involved... https://search.slashdot.org/st...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They're not ignoring their constitutional duties. It is in their set of powers to get to decide when to hold hearings or even *if* to hold hearings. The Constitution makes no reference to a time limit or timetable for getting these things done.
Now, I am *not* saying that it is the right thing to do, but it is a valid political decision. And by handing the advice and consent to the Senate, the authors quite consciously handed them discretion over that political choice. They certainly knew how to be specific if they wanted to be. They actually defined the crime of treason in the document, down to the number of eyewitnesses that were required. If they wanted the Senate to act in a certain time, they certainly could have written it in there.
Having said all of that, given that the next president is probably Clinton, and the second choices are Trump or Sanders, there is no freaking way the GOP is getting a better candidate out of the next president unless God smites all of them with individual bolts of lightning. I suppose they are pinning their hopes on Cruz now, who I admit is most likely to carry out a ritual sacrifice so he can resurrect Scalia and put him back on the bench. But, Cruz just isn't someone who is getting elected in a general campaign. He'd be lucky to get as close as Romney or McCain did.
So... they need to stop pretending that somehow the next president will magically be better than Obama. They should seriously take the practical victory that Obama gave them by not nominating an arch-liberal to the court and go with the moderate.
the Mau Mau hippocrit Obama filibustered Samual Alito's nomination. The self-serving jerk didn't care much about the tenor of the politics then. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Demand Trump! Fill Scalia's seat with a young, rock-ribbed conservative.
an ill wind that blows no good
Shut the fuck up.
I am sick and tired of these kinds of posts on every single fucking story.
If you don't like the story, don't click on it.
Don't read it. Don't read the summary.
And most importantly, don't fucking comment on it just to complain that it's not nerd enough for your tastes.
That fact that I'm on slashdot means I want to read fucking comments discussing the article, not bitching and moaning about the story selection.
Are you some kind of activist citizen? Back to your 'rasslin and your high-sugar diet!
not three years + one year of Congress ignoring their constitutional duties
You mean like in 2008? When Pelosi didn't bother doing anything until Obama was sworn in? What goes around comes around.
And UNIBOMBER so he might have some technical knowledge. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Agreed, this is political news. Don't want to see it. As far as I am concerned, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton should not exist on slashdot.
We had a decision in 2012. Done and done.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I believe you have to let everyone vote for one simple reason: where would you draw the line?
I look back on my own admittedly small sample of a life's experience, and I'd probably keep 21 yr old me from voting until he was a little smarter.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Scalia died in Texas, while on a hunting trip - yet the government STILL hasn't told us where Dick Cheney was during that time period.
I strongly suspect he's finally optimized his killing technique.
#DeleteChrome
Obviously his first time here.
You are welcome on my lawn.
They should seriously take the practical victory that Obama gave them by not nominating an arch-liberal to the court and go with the moderate.
Absolutely. They can take a moderate now, or gamble on a big win in November. If they win the best they get is another Scalia. If they lose they get a liberal who will change the court profoundly.
I'm not even American, but your country is like watching a reality TV show.
Just sayin.
What does that even mean?
Personally, I think that a list of all qualified candidates should be made, and a name selected from that list at random. The pickiness should be in what the qualifications are, but it should be around 100-200 persons long minimum. But then I think legislators should be chosen by and analogous process. Perhaps not the president.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Obama should have gone full-frontal and nominated Cruz
As a resident of North Carolina, we didn't give congress to the republican's, our say-so was ripped from our hands forcefully and given to the republicans against the will of the people of North Carolina due to gerrymandering.
With a 50/50 split in the popular vote, the seats are split 3/10 in favor of the republicans. The previous election, the democrats won the popular vote and the seats were split 4/9 in favor of the republicans.
At this point, the democrats stay home here many times rather than vote as their vote quite literally does not count. It would take about 80% of the popular vote for the democrats to get close to 50% of the seats.
We are a state that is red in name only as we are purple by voting method due to disenfranchised voters staying home and firmly blue by will of the people.
If Clinton is voted in the Senate holds hearings right then, making Merrick the least possible Judge. If a Republican gets nominated, they pick their own. I sincerely hope that they pick someone with better grasp of the Constitution. Merrick is anti-2nd amendment, questionable on the 1st and 5th, and does not care about the 4th. You can look at the record.
Unedited video of Biden
The GOP is following the Biden rule, that a president should not be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court justice the last year of their term until elections are over. Watch the video, he is fairly straightforward and clear. They are saying nothing else but that. Of course they can bring up Obama's filibuster of Alito, or how they stopped Bork based on political ideology not based on competence.
Decades of bad behaviour by the DNC can no longer be swept under the rug in the age of YouTube.
IF YOU DON"T LIKE THE POST GTFO! Nobody makes you read things on a web site, or focus on THIS one post. Opinions are like assholes, in that everyone has them and they all stink worse than my own.
the republicans will have a hard time justifying not confirming this nomination in a timely fashion.
hatch (the president pro tempore) himself wholeheartedly supported this man's nomination for supreme court when previous vacancies on the court during obama's administration occurred.
Gridlock is not a bug, it is a feature, perhaps the most important feature, or our Constitution.
You mean Robert Bork of the Saturday Night Massacre? Firing Nixon's prosecutor in exchange for a seat on the Supreme Court? Wow, you and I have different ideas about what "eminantly qualified" means.
If they can put it off now then they can put it off forever. Unfortunately my 'representative' is part of this childishness bickering, but it at least makes it easy to know who to vote for next.
You really have to stop making excuses for the bad behavior of a party. I usually vote Democrat, but if they put forth an incompetent candidate I won't vote for him/her. You on the other hand would say "well the other party also has incompetent candidates at times".
This is exactly how we ended up in this mess. People started voting on the basis of political lines, instead of the actual facts, wherever they might lead you to.
This is a perfect example of a purely-political submission that should not have been promoted to the front page.
It doesn't even have a damn thing to do about technology, science, math, computing, software, or anything relating at all to what Slashdot submissions should be about.
The Supreme Court will making decisions that will shape our society for generations to come. The geek will not escape unscathed.
Just because congress doesn't march in lockstep with the president doesn't mean they aren't doing their jobs.
It's their duty to do their Job just like it's my duty to go to work tomorrow. Do I have to go to work tomorrow? Technically, no. I could even call in sick tomorrow and no one would ever know I was faking it and I would get to keep my job. Will I do that? No, it's my duty to go to work unless I really can't.
Likewise, sure, technically congress is acting within the rules by just not bringing the issue up for consideration but the fact is that it is their duty to particpate in this processes and by chosing not to do so they are neglecting their duty. In doing so they stunt one of our three main branches of government creating potentially destabilizing problems for it. What if this presidential election needs to go to the supreme court like the Bush/Gore race? What if the court ties? I realize there are contingencies for that happening but do you think it would go well going with a lower courts call on such a massive issue?
The fact is they're threatening the stability of our government by stunting one of its three main branches just so they can possibly score a "win" if a Republican gets the presidency. Many senior Republicans in congress even have quotes from years past talking about how important it is not to let the court nomination process come to this.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
OK, then get out 100% of the democratic vote.
If I were a democrat in South Carolina, I'd be pretty damned mad about the gerrymandering and doing everything I could to dismantle it.
--PM
Yes, because they always look to Biden for guidance in every decision they make. He's a sort of god to them. The plain fact is that Rs believe that no D POTUS should appoint a SCOTUS judge during the last 8 years of their presidency especially if they happen to hate him/her,
Nullius in verba
Yes. You had one in 2012 and it's in effect until next January.
it is hard to tell if you know that you are lying or if you just buy the goper stories hook, line and sinker
Absolutely. They can take a moderate now, or gamble on a big win in November.
Plan C, wait for the RNC and see who the candidate is. If Trump, they may as well go with Obama's nominee and learn to play ball. Trump will most likely lose to Hillary, and almost certainly lose to Sanders, then they will get a liberal or nothing at all. On the other hand, if Trump were to win, he's not really very conservative (based on the 30 years I've had to listen to his nonsense in NYC) so he'll likely pick either sameguy, or someone more liberal than these notional conservatives would want anyway. The only reason to stonewall further is on the outside chance that Cruz or Kasich can bring Trump down enough to have him believably be deselected at the convention.
So stalling makes a tiny bit of sense. Very tiny, I don't think Cruz stands a snowballs chance in hell nationally, I'm not sure why he's still in the race. Kasich might, being a somewhat more moderate conservative, but nobody knows who he is and he'll have an uphill battle against Hillary. He might, however, be the answer to Sanders who he can more believably paint as an extremist wingnut. Kasich might actually put someone more conservative in, should he win. It seems like a long shot, but I don't think there's a downside to them stalling.
Honestly I think the level of discussion on /. about politics is superior to most other sites. There's a lot of trolling, namecalling, browbeating and other junk to these posts, but it's not all bad. Doesn't this fit in the "mark it as politics and let users opt out" category? I never used it, but I thought there was a way to filter out stories for topics you disliked.
You are right, the founders didn't require Congress to act. They didn't think they needed to for rather obvious reasons. There is also no constitutional obligation that the President defend the country or that congress people actually go to Washington or any other myriad things because they didn't think they needed to spell out explicitly that when someone was elected to congress or any other elected position that they were supposed to follow through on that job.
You might as well argue that because there is no obligation for the President to actually defend the US that it would be OK for him to let China invade and forbid the military to take action. Because quite frankly it's just as stupid. If the founders had wrote the Constitution to spell out every damn thing elected officials "were obligated" to do it would be a 500 page novel. Your argument is a straw man.
"widely recognized not only as one of America's sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence."
I don't want a Supreme Court Justice who is one of the "sharpest legal minds". I want one who's level of reading comprehension equals or exceeds that of a five-year-old. And make sure he's read the Constitution.
[...] respect and admiration from leaders from both sides of the aisle.
I want someone who both parties hate.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Let's just ignore the fact that this story is about the Senate opting not to hold a vote... A body whose members are elected on a statewide basis and not on congressional districts which you may disagree with.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
And maybe you didnt read my post at all. I said they technically have the right to do this. Does this make it morally okay to destabilize or government for the sake of a political win? No.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
So, OK - if the Republicans want to play it that way, they should just go ahead and reject the nominee - you know, have an actual vote. Of course, then they would be on record as voting against a qualified nominee just to be pissy toward the President, but then Obama could nominate someone else. This bullshit about the "Biden Rule" (which of course isn't really a rule at all) is just that. Oh, and what about the 82 judicial nominees (out if 168 in the entire freaking history of the country) that the Senate is still sitting on?
If they lose they get a liberal who will change the court profoundly.
I think a Democrat POTUS would avoid kicking Garland to the kerb in favour of a revenge uber-liberal. The poor guy gets his hopes built up, then dashed. It doesn't matter that politics was probably a factor in his choosing over others. Once chosen, and given no relevant skeletons in the closet, he should no longer be treated as a political football.
The problem is, when the "other party" gets enough power to re-draw the district lines, they will gerrymander them in their favor.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So it's not literally unconstitutional for the Senate to block the appointment.
In that case, all Obama has to do is wait for the Senate to go into recess, at which point it'll become "not literally unconstitutional" for him to override them completely.
The nation wasn't designed to have senators directly elected by the people. The senators were supposed to represent the states. Thanks the the idiotic 17th amendment we now have basically two houses of Representatives with different constitutional duties. And the states have no representation. That's why the SC nomination process is so fucked up.
I wonder how Miguel Estrada feels about your crocodile tears.
In a parliamentary system, one party simply does "rule", and then they get kicked out of office if they screw it up. It cuts a remarkable amount of bullpucky out of politics. Here, in the USA, politicians take advantage of the information-symmetry to play silly-buggers, and then perpetually point the finger at each other. You cannot play that game in a parliamentary system.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
People have been saying Trump will lose for almost a year now. Every one of them has been wrong.
Utter bollocks and unrelated.
The reason you show up to work each day and do the work that is expected of you is because your boss and company set the terms, if you meet them, you'll probably get to keep coming to work, if you don't, you'll be let go.
Senators are on a six year contract that only ends with death, resignation, expulsion or a non-renewed contract. What they do during that time is 100% up to them, if you don't like it, don't renew their contract.
They are, by withholding their consent.
Remember, we live in a country where growing wheat on your own property in violation of federal law is deemed as affecting interstate commerce because you AREN'T selling your wheat and not buying as much from interstate commerce.
To quote Obama and plenty of Democrats back in 2009: "elections have consequences"
How exactly are we they doing that? There are 8 other justices on the court, fully capable of handling the remaining load. This is not the first time we've had a vacancy on the court or an even number of justices and will probably not be the last time.
Lets just ignore the quotes from senior Democrats in the Senate who advocated for just what we are seeing now... but apparently that is only acceptable when they are the ones doing it.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
No, they'll let him hang in limbo. They don't have to do anything. Obama can withdraw the nomination and pick somebody else who has a chance of being appointed if he is really that desperate.
Watching yours is what reminds us why we revolted.
Just sayin.
You keep forgetting about Article I, Section V which says in part: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings"
That's not just a "the founders didn't require Congress to act" statement, but a full on "the founders decided to give Congress the ability to act on what it chose to... deliberately" statement.
Given that the President is required to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed, a Chinese invasion likely would violate quite a few laws so yes... POTUS would be required to act... but then who would force his hand if he refused?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I'm sure he was warned/aware of as to the political climate and the possibility of his nomination getting withdrawn should say... Hillary win the election so as to deny the GOP the chance to confirm him prior to her getting a chance to nominate someone worse.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Or the GOP for that matter. People need to quit making excuses for their parties. It's not a fucking football match.
Why is a vote required to reject the nominee? That's like saying a girl must explicitly say "not interested" to your attempts to woo her, rather than you recognizing her not calling/emailing/texting back and having moved towns as a sign of their lack of interest.
It's a shame that the Democrats don't like a taste of their own medicine from 2007. While they were gung ho back then about not considering any nominee, only now are they upset because they aren't the one's making good on their threats.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Yes it does, and it means they are racist as well!
Remember though, these principals only valid between January 20th, 2009 & January 20th, 2017.
If however Hillary Clinton is elected, the cries of 'racism' will be automatically replaced with 'sexism' until at least January 20th, 2021.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I can make the case that it is their duty to represent their constituents interests in Congress. Most Republican congressmen have constituents that don't like the Presidents choices and haven't now for the last 8 years. They get to send people up to Washington D.C. to stymie his agenda which they feels threatens their way of life and their freedom. Most of the mayhem with Trump this election cycle is that the Republican voters are fed up with the way their representatives have knuckled under to the President's agenda and failed to avert the damage he's doing. Given that feeling it is the best interest of those representatives to not allow another non-conservative justice appointment. I can pretty much guarantee that if they do allow it there will be a lot of freshmen Republican Senators soon to follow. You might disagree with this and I'm okay with that. All I really care about is that my Senators not allow another liberal justice and I think they got my e-mails.
Good one. People act like this shit has never happened before. Both parties have freely engaged in it on multiple occasions.
And again in 2014... just Obama doesn't seem to recognize the legitimacy of that election... but that’s pretty typical for (wanna be) despots.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Presidential, but like the President, you seem to be forgetting the one in 2014 which expanded GOP control of the House & Senate.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
this isn't a tech news site anymore it's a propaganda anus. http://lobste.rs for life!
They don't have to be the majority party to do that. It is possible, and rather common, for the majority and minority parties to gerrymander at the same time to cement what they already have. Gerrymandering isn't one party vs the other, but established politicians vs and new potentials.
I thought that Slashdot had moved beyond the divisive, pandering submissions that were so common in earlier days.
Without division there isn't much to talk about.
If this submission had even some minor connection to technology, or science, or math, or computing, or software, or engineering it would be excusable. But there's absolutely nothing relevant at all about this particular submission. It's nothing but politics, and not even important politics.
It isn't all about you.
Controversial topics, of which politics is one of the main ones, tend to generate some of the shittiest and worst discussion around. The sheer volume of this shitty discussion makes it even worse.
Shoving controversy under the rug and hoping it'll go away is the problem. There are a lot of people like you who can't handle any conflict. That should not be everyone else's problem.
It's disappointing to see a submission like this wasting space on the front page. There could be a relevant story being shown instead in the space that this story is unnecessarily occupying.
Perhaps one of the politically curated discussion sites are better suited to your sensitive sensibilities. Hugboxes abound these days.
My toddler agrees!
So you want the line somewhere... but where?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
They elected the fraudster on the grounds of him fulfilling his duties and promises. He's kept only the most unpopular of those promises and has neglected the duties while expanding surveillance, military engagements, and the debt.
Given the lackluster record of Mr. Osama^WObama, and his outright lies pre-election, you'd be right in assuming the American public want more of a say in this appointment.
"Has been" wrong? It's not decided yet, unless you mean individual states, which Trump has failed to win quite a few of.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Not liking a guy who is blatantly unqualified for one of the highest positions in our government is not the same as refusing to vote because you dislike the president. Miguel Estrada should have never been considered for nomination. He was a political hack. This judge for all it seems is a judge with long tenure and a record of being impartial. Harriet Miers was actually more qualified..but it was politically not okay to nominate someone so close to the president and then you have to go back to Robert Bork before you see Democrats doing this crap. So please, let's stop pretending that our current bush league government is doing anything with precedent.
As soon as Donald Trump is nominated at the Republican Convention, he will suspiciously commit suicide. He'll wind up on national park land with nothing but carpet fibers on the bottom of his shoes. The gun in his hand will both be in his off-hand AND in the hand on the side of his body opposite to his gaping head wound. The park police will be called in to investigate the "suicide" to prevent a more-qualified police body from carrying out an investigation.
It worked on Vince Foster, so why not Trump?
The Republican convention? It's probably Trump. Nationally? Trump stands a snowball's chance in hell. I mean it's still a chance, but I know lifelong Republicans from Texas who have said that they will vote Hillary over Trump, bless her rotten heart. They would rather the devil they know than the crazy they don't.
Those are facts. We don't actually let those get in the way of a good argument around here. In fact, they're not only optional - they're (seemingly) not preferred.
AC 'cause I am a ghost... OOOOOOOO (Those are scary ghost noises.)
Agreed, and not to litigate the past again, but one could also argue that if the country is being attacked, and your in the middle of a trivial task, such as reading, I don't know, The Pet Goat to children, that your first action after being notified would be to stop reading the story and simply tell people you have to go and then do so.
Basically, an elected office is a job with a set of tasks that must be performed on a regular basis to be able to reasonably say that you are in fact doing said job. Biden apparently at one point closer to an election said it would be crazy to work on confirming a justice now. That was lame too. So, assuming they basically avoid confirming a justice for close to a year, what is next, shall they avoid it for 2 years? Perhaps they expect Hillary to get in and just don't care. If they delayed for one year, they can delay for another 4, and if they fail again, they could do so for another 4, until they no longer hold a majority, or until they have both the house and senate, so they can replace them all with their people.
In short, the fact that someone you don't like is the president, is not a sufficient reason for the Senate to stop doing one of its key tasks. I'm not fond of the new matrix management at work. I still can't expect to keep my job if I completely quit doing what I'm being paid to do.
Fuck off back to Reddit you moron
and NOT in some whacko SJW way.
I have a very bare minimum expectation that anybody slipping into the seat of Justice Scalia, as staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people, would NOT be a turkey with a track record of denying the existence of that Amendment. The GOP confirmed this Clinton appointee to his current job on a lower court as an act of traditional bi-partisanship. But replacing Scalia with him on the high court would be like replacing Thurgood Marshall with with a Klansman or a slave owner. A judge who denies the plain text of the Constitution cannot be trusted with ANY of our rights - this sort of thing has been going on, eroding our rights, for far too long.
The GOP are correct to follow the precedents of President Obama, who tried to fillibuster the nomination of Justice Alito, Vice President Biden, who tried to block ALL bush appointees when he ran the senate committee, and Senator Charlie Shumer who fought to block all Bush41 and Bush43 nominees and actually orchestrated the political lynching of Justice Thomas and the trashing of Judge Bork that led to the term "borked" and created all the modern toxicity surrounding the nomination of justices. What comes around goes around...
Doesn't address any flaws in the system, unless insurance companies not making enough money by being middle men was a problem. Tort reform saves somewhere between 5 and 10 percent. Opening up interstate competition would also shave some percentage off the costs. Reducing the required coverage to actual health care and not lifestyle issues would save the average American a lot of money. Increasing the number of medical schools or founding a medical service academy would pay dividends almost immediately.
The ACA is going to bend costs sometime approaching never. It's just laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
It's grounds for impeachment because it is in fact treason.
What planet do you come from?
They don't have to be the majority party to do that. It is possible, and rather common, for the majority and minority parties to gerrymander at the same time to cement what they already have.
That's true, that's what's happened in California.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No... if "that way" is Joe Biden's way (and Chuck Schumer's), they'll let Obama's term run out without doing anything.
So, if Scalia had died in Feb 2015, it would have been proper to refuse to deliberate on a successor for two years?
Oh, you're right.
The decision was to give control of the Senate to the Republicans.
I guarantee he's well aware of the politics of this - he was made acutely aware of it, before he was even nominated.
Here's the sad thing - he looks like he might be alright. I don't know much about him, not yet but I will, and if they're a good nomination then nobody is going to believe that they turned him down because of his merits or lack of them. If they don't approve him then, right or wrong, they're now stuck in a position where they have no choice but to accept that they're going to be assumed to be not confirming them by reason of politic.
The judge could be a monster, and absolute monster, and if they have the hearing and decline to confirm - it *will* be seen as them doing so because of the politics involved and any legitimate reason they might have had *will* be completely ignored. There is no alternative to this - if they have the hearing.
> You're welcome to scroll past it onto the other 30 specifically tech focused stories.
Now that the protection order has expired, have I told you (today) that I want to bear your children? ;-)
KGIII - posting as AC 'cause, you know, that whole 50 posts per day limit even when you get the highest possible level of karma...
*whistles innocently*
That video IS edited, it's cut off before Biden finishes his remarks. Later he states that since the American people have split the government between the parties, "Compromise is the responsible course, both between the White House and the Senate..." The clip of his continued remarks is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This was pretty well known as soon as the first set of remarks were brought up in the news in the last couple of days. That second clip took me all of ten seconds to find, the AC political shills here can do better...
Congress said Obama didn't have any real Presidential powers during his first term because his election was a fluke, nor during the second term because he was a lame duck.
The civility of the discourse, in this thread, is remarkable.* It's a pleasant surprise - it is not always the case. I suspect the hour of the day has something to do with it.
[*] It is, it certainly is now - I remarked on it.
KGIII - AC.
Here's the thing. The nominee has to be approved by a majority of the Senate (and contrary to the rhetoric I've been hearing, every Supreme Court Nominee rejected by the Senate in the last 100 years has been a Republican nominee; so it's the Democrats who haven't been shy about shooting down nominations).
The Republicans hold a 4 seat majority in the Senate. The Senators up for re-election this year came in during the Tea Party wave in 2010 - Obama's first mid-term election. Consequently, a disproportionate number of them are Republicans. There are 24 Republicans up for re-election and only 10 Democrats. They Republicans need to win 21 of 34 seats to keep the Senate.
Right now, 13 of those Republican seats are considered safe, 4 are likely to be re-elected. That's 17. 3 are leaning Republican which would only get them up to 20. And there are 3 toss-ups. So there's a very real possibility the Democrats could take the Senate, or we have a 50/50 split with the tie-breaking vote cast by the Vice President (which right now is more likely to be a Democrat).
As we get later in the year, if the polls begin to clarify the Senate and Presidential races going in the Democrats' favor, expect a change of heart from the Republican leadership. They will take a centrist justice over a hard-left liberal nominated by a Democrat President and approved by a Democrat senate.
Yes I know, many Americans are quite revolting.
LoL. Yes, wholesome discussion on slashdot. There's been plenty of sharp edges here pretty much since inception.
As for politics, it too has been a long standing section, and if you don't think it affects technology, science, and a lot of other core nerd stuff you're sadly mistaken.
Just because you think "watergate: bad" and therefore conclude "Bork: bad" because he did something related to it, that just does not make it so. Bork had very good well-thought-out constitutional reasons for the precise actions he took and if you had any intellectual curiosity you would study what he wrote about it. Bork's actions relative to Watergate were far more legally sound that Obama's Atty Gen Holder's actions related to Fast&Furious, The Black Panthers, Obama's amnesty programs, and a dozen other scandals.
I hate defending Nixon, but do you even KNOW what Nixon's offense in Watergate WAS???
Hint: He did not order the break-in, nor did he know about it in advance. What he DID do was enough to get even the Republicans to help the Democrats remove him from office (a decision that was proper to my way of thinking). Nixon gained NOTHING from the break-in and did not stand to gain anything from it. In case you have not thought about it, there IS no intel on your opponents in the other party's campaign offices in PRIMARY season (particularly true in the pre-microcomputer era). It's quite possible all the Watergate actors will go to their graves without ever disclosing what they THOUGHT they'd gain for their boss with the break-in. In using one part of the government to coverup the actions of another part, his crime was on-par with actions both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have done, Bush43 too.,/p.
The big-wigs in BOTH parties in the past two decades have made Nixon look like an amateur at corruption. The BIG difference is that modern Democrats will do ANYTHING to cover for their team because, as progressives, they believe the ends justify the means. Having displayed this tendency, you can now bet that no Republicans in congress will ever again help the Democrats remove a bad Republican. Nixon was a pig, but people like Bork who honorably served him and carefully tried to obey the laws very precisely are no different from any honorable person who served Clinton while he was molesting the help, lying under oath in court, using campaign cash from the Chinese army, using the secretaries of nearly all his departments and the secret service to help distract from his abuses, etc.
Thank you for parroting the garbage you hear. Is it AM talk radio or Fox News? At any rate, you're full of shit.
This is substantively different from any Democratic Party action in the past. See:
"It seems clear that President Obama made this nomination not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize for purposes of the election," McConnell said.
Try that one on.
There is no such thing as designing a nation. One could make some sort of ARGUMENT that a government could be designed or that a state could be designed, but a nation? Go back to elementary school and learn a few definitions before you post here.
Congressional inaction is a valid prerogative of the body.
Congress has the power to declare war. While the President is the commander in chief he is also sworn to faithfully execute the law.
If Congress declares war, then passes a law ordering the President to act and the President fails to act then Congress can impeach him. There is a very clear definition of the actions that Congress can take if a President refuses to perform his duties.
Congressional inaction is a fulfillment of their duty. They can use any of their duties to refuse a presidential nomination. Perhaps the President should actually seek Congressional advice before nominating someone if he wants his nominee to be approved.
I've shown the balance of power that would allow Congress to override the President's refusal to defend the country. Can you show Presidential power to override Congressional inaction? It will be difficult because that's how the system was designed to function whether you like the outcome or not.
Your mistaken belief that Congressional inaction is failing to follow through on their job would only make sense if the Executive branch was higher than the Legislative. They are co-equal branches of government. The President can no more set the agenda of the legislative branch than he can convince you or I to jump off a bridge. The system is purposefully designed for leadership and compromise. If neither side will compromise then we are at stalemate or gridlock; an outcome that is purposefully designed into the system.
You must be new here. Go suck on it!!!
They can put it off as long as they've got 54 Republicans in the Senate. Senate Class 3 will have 34 seats up for election in November (24 Republicans, 10 Democrats). Those 24 Republicans are probably puckered up real hard with the fear that Trump will lose their state hard enough to wipe them out.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Screw with BOTH parties by putting Trump into the big chair.
He terrifies the Democrats who see him as a dangerous uncontrollable monster that will not do THEIR bidding.
He terrifies the Republican establishment who see him as a dangerous uncontrollable monster that will not do THEIR bidding.
Fire up the popcorn! There will be nothing more entertaining in 2017 than the senate hearings in which the stooges of the lobbyists for BOTH parties go insane trying to figure out how to deal with a Trump who owes none of them anything, has come to hate them all, and wants to build his legacy... it'll be the GREATEST (smile)
I think it's hilarious that your side has convinced itself it really was like this before.
"It seems clear that President Obama made this nomination not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize for purposes of the election," McConnell said.
That's not just a 'taste of own medicine' but it's like giving Obama smallpox blankets and then blaming him when he takes his vaccination 'medicine'. It's _his bad_ he nominated someone? Really?
If Trump wins the majority of the state delegates and the RNC does not make him their candidate they will finish the destruction the Republican party. Trumps candidacy has shown the spotlight on how far the politicians, media, and lobbyist are willing to go to stay in power. The Democrats are in no better state. Their nominees include a man who has had 30 years representing a small Nordic like state that has very little in common with the more populated states. His ideas are quaint and have 0% chance of being applicable to the entire country. Their other candidate has served 8 years as co-president and ran one of most important agencies in the government and has nothing to show for it. She wants to be the first woman President, running the country takes the back seat. Not to mention she is bought and paid for some of the richest people in the country. People don't shell out millions of dollars without expecting something back. Trump has all the ammunition he needs to squash Clinton in a general election. She epitomizes all that is wrong with the government today.
The President has the authority to convene Congress. He can and should convene it everyday at 4am until they give his candidate an up or down vote. If the Republicans refuse to show, the minority which does show can instruct the sergeant at arms drag the members out of bed and sit there in their seats until they either vote up or down.
The President can, if he wants, keep doing this for every candidate he sends to them. So yes, while they have control of how they process things, they don't have control as to IF they process things.
It just requires a President with the balls to do it.
Someone like a Trump, how does not give a fuck. The people seem to want it and the People get the government they deserve. I hope they get it, they deserve it.
"[The President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper...."
ARTICLE II, SECTION 3
Just following the Joe Biden Rules. You know, those that Joe Biden justified as what the majority of all preceding Presidents had done - holding off on nominating a SC judge in an election year. Why shouldn't we listen to good ol' Joe?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
A post victory Trump president would almost certainly be very different to the version we get to see pre-election. The same is true of Obama.
I don't want a Trump president, but I fear him less than the religious nutters he's competing with.
A Trump/Hillary race would present less risk to the country than a Sanders/Cruz race.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I'm sure you held the same position when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refused to write and pass a budget. Right? Toss the bums out for not doing their job?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
To pull in two old slashdot-isms, this is an American-centric site following news for nerds and stuff that matters. If you're in the US, SCOTUS fucking matters, more than perhaps anything but the presidency.
I think the Republicans are more willing than Democrats to sacrifice the interests of the Nation as a whole for their own partisan and selfish interests.
You can parse McConnell's quotes yourself. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
They certainly knew how to be specific if they wanted to be. They actually defined the crime of treason in the document, down to the number of eyewitnesses that were required.
They just used the current law on treason (minus the parts about fucking the queen etc). Can't find the exact quote right now, which was very close to Article 3 but from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The next president will probably get a shot at one or two nominations. So it's probably no great issue if Garland gets the job.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
He's won 20 of 33, 60% of the elections. Hillary has won 17 of 27, 63%. He's neck-and-neck, in terms of States won against other candidates, with Hillary.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
not three years + one year of Congress ignoring their constitutional duties
You mean like in 2008? When Pelosi didn't bother doing anything until Obama was sworn in? What goes around comes around.
It seems perfectly logical to wait for the better president.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Yes, because they always look to Biden for guidance in every decision they make. He's a sort of god to them. The plain fact is that Rs believe that no D POTUS should appoint a SCOTUS judge during the last 8 years of their presidency especially if they happen to hate him/her,
Absolutely! It's why President Obama didn't nominate Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor and Kagan to the bench, right? I mean, no SC justices ever for Obama!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You mean Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refused to recognize President Obama as President? Especially the first two years when Harry had a filibuster-proof majority?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We absolutely did! And in 2014 the American people handed the Senate to the Republicans. Since they're to advise and consent to any nominee - they are actually in control, based on the decision we had in 2014.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The nation wasn't designed to have senators directly elected by the people. The senators were supposed to represent the states. Thanks the the idiotic 17th amendment we now have basically two houses of Representatives with different constitutional duties. And the states have no representation. That's why the SC nomination process is so fucked up.
Instead of representing the states legislative majority which chose the senators prior to the 17th amendment they now represent the people of the state directly. I say that is how it should be in a representative democracy
They know all that. But they also know that anyone who indicates any degree of cooperation with Obama will be treated as "RINO traitor" by the party base, to which they owe the votes that got them there - and which they want to have come re-election time. Compared to that, who seats on SCOTUS is a minor issue in their eyes.
Yeah, but that's what the House is for - to represent the interests of the people vs. the interests of the state. That's why the Representatives are divided up by district and population.
There's no way 2 people can effectively represent all of the voters in a state. They're supposed to represent the state *government* at the federal level.
I understand why they passed the 17th amendment to make Senators popularly elected, to combat cronyism and corruption. I would still prefer the Senators be chosen by the state legislatures.
Read the quote, turkey. Are you telling me Joe Biden actually blamed the sitting president for nominating someone as if that were wrong?
Turn me up some video or transcript. Oh, but be careful not to watch the unedited "Joe Biden rule" stuff or you'll figure out you're pretty much wrong about what he said.
If Obama was playing just for the election he'd nominate a liberal minority for the Republicans to reject (or ignore) and build up extra Democratic support among that minority.
And if he was going for legacy he'd nominate a younger liberal.
Instead Garland is white, male, old, and relatively moderate. His impact will be far shorter and far less liberal than anyone else a Democratic president is likely to nominate. If you're a Republican it's easy to weasel out of the election year thing by saying that you forced Obama to nominate a compromise candidate. But if you keep it up and ignore the nomination you probably end up with President Hillary Clinton who nominates someone 15 years younger and more liberal.
I stole this Sig
I'm sure you held the same position when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refused to write and pass a budget. Right? Toss the bums out for not doing their job?
If anyone refuses to do their job for political reasons, then I say throw them out. Of course if the other side insists on something insane then you may have no choice but to refuse to cooperate. Politicians have been fond of holding the government hostage to their issue of the day, including threatening our credit rating to do it. You can't really let that become an effective negotiating tactic. At the end of the day, they got elected to a very difficult job, but it is one where each senator and representative needs to act not as a collective part of a group, but individually both for the interest of the country and their constituents. That does not mean stopping some legislation is always bad, but when you are blocking almost all of it, yah your kinda into bad, and I excuse no particular side here.
Hell, I think we'd be a lot better off if we replaced all the democrats with copies of bernie sanders and al franken while alll the republicans with copies of rand paul and Kasich. At least that way you'd have a set of people who are consistent in their beliefs. Trump frankly scares me, not because he might win, but because a pathological liar got this far without anyone stopping him. That means that it will likely work again. Think about it. On the republican side, a lot of the people that dropped out were better picks that the ones left, with the possible exception of Kasich.
Somehow the primary process has resulted in, at least on the republican primary, optimizing on nearly the worst candidates available. The two leads left are basically used car salesmen with different styles. That could be fixed if the voting system met something like the condorcet criterion. Heck you could have done a better job if you just had say primaries in multiple (most?) states simultaneously, but only a few counties at a time. Each primary would have had a single question on it with the number of counties voting at once setup to allow a final determination of the winner in a reasonable number of steps. Who do you most want to vote off the island? i.e. perhaps a set of primaries voted the republicans off in this order:
huckabee, cruz, perry, santorum, fiorina, trump, rubio, bush, christie, kasich, paul, graham
Now I doubt that is optimal, and may not even be what republicans would pick, but the 5 on the right seem less bad than say the 7 on the left.
You know that "gaping head wounds" are exit wounds, right? The entry wound from a pistol shot is typically a small, neat hole.
All that means is that more Democrats stay home in midterm elections.
If Trump makes it onto the November ballot, then Hillary will end up with a very cooperative Congress.
(And then the Democrats will forget to vote in 2018, and the Senate will go back to the GOP one final time before the party implodes in 2020 when Texas turns Blue -- hint: look at the voting results of Texas's Rio Grande "valley" counties for the last 5 presidential elections. It'll be a close win for Red this year, but it will not be close in 4 years.)
that whole 50 posts per day limit even when you get the highest possible level of karma...
Yeah, it should probably be less. I'm thinking 15 or 20.
Required reading for internet skeptics
You did. You voted for Obama for the executive, then the GOP for the legislative. "Advise and consent" != "rubber stamp."
Astute but you missed something. Trump has had to battle against several people, whereas Hillary only had to battle one. That makes Trump a bit more successful.
I think they want to have the seats voted for like all the other positions. I'd be a colder day in hell before any sitting justice would allow that.
The justices wouldn't get a say in such a change. It would have to come about from a Constitutional amendment. That being said, good luck getting 3/4 of the states to agree on anything nowadays.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Stability? Are you kidding? You do realize that "advise and consent" != "rubber stamp," right? As well have read the history of GWB's nominations? The only thing different here is that people aren't used to Republicans actually exercising power.
2014 had rather record low turnout so it's hardly a resounding 'mandate'
This is why we should implement the Shortest Splitline Algorithm!
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Republican voters are fed up with the way their representatives have knuckled under to the President's agenda
Wow, I'd love to find a wormhole to whatever Universe you're in where this actually happened, because it sure as hell didn't happen in mine.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Or they can gamble that Obama won't pull the nomination and they can confirm him after Hillary is elected.
I don't think Obama will pull the nomination in that case, because there is a lot of bad blood between him and Hillary and he'll take a SCOTUs appointment, even if it is a moderate one.
But the scenario that I hear going around that I like the best. McConnell makes a deal with Obama. They confirm the guy and the DoJ indicts Hillary before the election.
No, it's the opposite. Because there are more candidates in the republican primary, Trump needs fewer votes to win. In a head to head match, more voters have voted for Clinton than for Trump.
If the Republicans refuse to show, I'm pretty sure the vote can happen anyway, wouldn't they just count as abstentions? Also...
Someone like a Trump, how does not give a fuck. The people seem to want it...
If by "the people" you mean ~35% of the people who have voted in the Republican primaries, then yeah...
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
You can also try the optimally compact method. There are actually several reasonable algorithmic ideas for choosing districts.
You can be sure that whichever of those algorithms is chosen, it will be the one that most benefits the party in office at the time it is chosen.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I remember Robert Bork. I was young but I remember a news reporter going to his neighborhood and reporting ominously that he had high hedges in front of his porch and his neighbors didn't see him much. (Do you supposed a guy qualified for the Supreme Court might be exceedingly hard working and not have a lot of time for socializing?) It was my first recognition of bias in the news media. It would certainly not be my last.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Neither Obama, nor any recent president was elected by "the American people".
Only about 30% of the country voted for Obama. Given that voter turnout was less than 60% in both 2008 and 2012, the actual winning option was, "I don't trust either the red candidate or the blue candidate to represent me!"
Why should Congress feel obligated to represent the wishes of the 30% who asked for Obama, over the 70% who didn't?
"There might be perfectly rational reasons for the voters to impose forced cooperation or gridlock" only a partisan politician and probably a reps at that would think that. In a healthy democracy with a healthy government , people elect those they want at the power, but once the election is done, expect the government to WORK in their interest and the interest of the country. Note the emphasis. As soon as it comes to partisan politic and obstructionism AND the voters supporting (which is NOT a given seeing how congress has the lowest approval rate ever) then you have a very sick democracy and a sick country not being properly governed. This is arguably by the way on reason of being bipartisan. If you scratch the surface as soon as a 3rd or more party comes in, they usually tend to cooperate more between each other than fight each other. They go into compromises and alliances (temporary). With 2 party going toward extreme , this is the death of compromise and the death of governance. Case in point : refusal to do their duty by pretending they are not forced to if they wish and wait for the next election in the HOPE their party get it. And if you think THIS is better than a functioning government entering compromise or DUTYFULLY looking at a nomination in the interest of the American and NOT in the interest of Party, then you are as big a fool.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Shouldn't the American people get to decide and have a voice on important matters?
The American people have made fascist racist sexist dishonest crooks the front-runner in both parties. Are you sure you want them having a voice on this?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Excuse me, but who the fuck are you, and who the fuck gave you the right to speak for anyone else except yourself?
Get off your high horse, please.
You mean that guy the Democrats kept from getting an appointment because they didn't Republicans to put the first hispanic on the Supreme Court? I do wonder how he feels.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
That's why so many people who normally vote Republican are turning to Cruz and Trump. They're sick of the Republican establishment. It's a shame Trump got into this. He's no more conservative than the Republican establishment, and he's making it a challenge for a decent guy like Cruz to get the nomination.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
You will anyway.
And you are cursed regardless of choice.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court
Do you really think that ignoring a nomination and refusing to have an hearing, and a vote, respect the "Advice of the Senate" part? I perfectly agree that voting against is valid, but not doing anything does not seems valid.
The point of the primaries is not to win states, but to win delegates. He has around 47% of pledged delegates so far, while Hillary has around 59%. Since Democratic primaries are mostly proportional, this means she's won about the same percentage of voters. Trump on the other hand is being helped by winner-take-all states, or states where proportions are dependent on passing a threshold.
It's still not clear whether he'll make it on the first ballot or not (i.e. go into the convention with >50% of delegates). As the field narrows, it may hurt Trump as he has only managed to pick up a plurality of votes so far, not a majority. For example, in the next Republican primary, Arizona, he's only polling in the high 30s (albeit still ahead of Cruz and Kasich). Again, because Arizona is a winner-take-all state, Trump will still get all 58 delegates with only ~35% of the vote.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Both of those nominations happened while the Democrats controlled the Senate, and the votes were largely (but not entirely) along party lines.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
The Founding Sages foresaw the filibuster and were well pleased.
If you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to vote and drink.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Back on the schoolyard, if you can't play along, you don't get picked.
Somehow democracy works differently.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Do you REALLY want Trump's children in supreme court?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
How does this destabilize the government? The Supreme Court is still fully functional and can continue to function with as few as six Justices. Leaving a seat empty for a few more months does not destabilize anything, at least not anymore than the death of Scalia did. Before he passed we had a very balanced court, solid 4-4 split on most topics with Kennedy acting as the swing based on the topic.
Now it's a 4-3 court with the liberal side having the stronger side with Kennedy swinging based on the topic. That makes it a left leaning court as it will vote left, or tie and thus uphold the lower court rulings in a non-precedent affirmation ruling.
Holding off the confirmation does not give the GOP the Seat next year. Who will win this election is still very up in the air. Trump is looking to get the R Nomination, but it's not a sure thing. If he gets it he polls poorly against Hillary, who in turn while looking to have a lock on her nomination is also facing potential criminal felony charges for the Classified Emails scandal that could disqualify her. But whoever ends up winning will get to redesign the court. Not only the current vacancy but at least two if not more seats are expected to be filled in the next term replacing at a minimum Ginsberg (Liberal side) and Kennedy (the swing vote).
But back to the main point. The government is not going to be destabilized because a Supreme Court seat sits empty for a few more months.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
This is the other reason I left the republican party.
That video is explicitly edited and the full video with the full context is widely available and has been posted in response to that video multiple times.
Republicans (Despite many being christians) have become massive liars. I don't know how they can do it in good concience. You know.. the whole devil is the lord of lies things and a couple hundred quotes in the bible against lying and being denied heaven for being a liar.
Seriously-- if you are sincerely religious- how do you tolerate all the fucking lying in the republican party these days?
The full context of Biden's quote was that IF the president sent a hard right wing nominee, Biden would vote no and recommend other senators vote no... and if the president a well qualified nominee who was not hard right- Biden would consider the candidates qualifications.
What republicans said was, "We don't care who you pick. We will not even consider your nominee. We will not give them a vote." which was about the same as saying, "Fuck the constitution. We don't give a shit about it. We are playing to win now and have been since the policy of NO was declared by the republican party back in 2009. "
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Biden was trying to pre-empt the entire process, making the declaration before a seat was empty. As did Schumer in 2007 (19 months before the election in 08). The Senate advised the President before he nominated anyone that they would not be holding hearings or voting on anyone. They Advised him there would be no consent. (as did Biden and as Schumer tried to do in 07 well before the election year began). They didn't wait until he had nominated someone and then said they wouldn't cooperate, they advised him from the beginning as soon as it became an issue, that they would not hold confirmation hearings during the election year.
And learn to debate without insults.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
The "American people" have agreed on a set of rules on how supreme court justices are nominated and appointed. Party-political opportunists would now abandon those rules, simply because they feel like it.
It's a nice illustration of their egocentric and aggressive mindset and willingness to bend (or simply flout) any inconvenient rules.
In all fairness, for who would ever believe they themselves would pause to "give the American people a voice on important matters" if they were in a position to nominate? Never! They just wouldn't. But they're fine with trying to impose this idea on others.
The nation wasn't designed to have senators directly elected by the people. The senators were supposed to represent the states. Thanks the the idiotic 17th amendment we now have basically two houses of Representatives with different constitutional duties. And the states have no representation. That's why the SC nomination process is so fucked up.
Instead of representing the states legislative majority which chose the senators prior to the 17th amendment they now represent the people of the state directly. I say that is how it should be in a representative democracy
The US isn't a representative democracy - it's a constitutional republic, with the added feature of having two levels of sovereignty.
The Senate was where the state sovereigns were represented. And that's important, because prior to the 16th Amendment, it was the sovereign states that paid for just about everything, because the main way the federal government got its money was to directly levy the states for contributions.
It was all designed to prevent the growth of an overweening central government. The Senate was the brake that prevented two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Any Senator voting for a massive and expensive federal government would soon lose his job because the STATE government that had to tax their citizens to raise the money just to send it to the feds would be pissed off.
The 16th and 17th Amendments broke that design and combined to give us ubiquitous NSA surveillance of US citizens.
And fuck you very much is the result.
Well, if you are talking about the House, the reason it is so heavily tilted Republican is because they've been very successful in gerrymandering their districts. That explains how they can win the House but lose the Presidential election. The Presidency is very hard to gerrymander. The Senate also shows this because the voting is statewide for any state. One would have expected after 7 years of Obama that were the Republicans so popular, they'd have a super majority. They don't, and they stand to lose what majority they have now in the upcoming elections. The gerrymandering extends to the state and local seats which are heavily Republican.
What is needed is a fair and balanced software program to define Congressional boundaries. It won't happen because both parties won't agree on what is fair and balanced and both are aiming to gerrymander in their own favor after the next census.
Cheating is rarely a prescription for success.
The Classified Email scandal is a molehill masquerading as a mountain. Most of those emails were incoming, and the part that are National Security are more likely of the form "Putin starches his shorts" (the grimace doesn't come from nothing). No part of the security apparatus at CIA and DoD is going to entrust the State Dept. with anything serious, they aren't that stupid.
The US Constitution specifically says "advice and CONSENT".
They have considered him - hell, before 1916 there weren't even hearings - they just voted on Supreme Court nominees.
And the Senate has considered the entirety of the situation decided it doesn't CONSENT with his nomination. The first time the Senate did that with a Supreme Court nominee was back in the 1820s.
The Washington Post has already branded Obama a liar for suggesting the Senate has a "duty" to hold a vote:
Does the Senate have a constitutional responsibility to consider a Supreme Court nomination?
...
In August 1828, Justice Robert Trimble died just as President John Quincy Adams was battling a tough reelection campaign against Democrat Andrew Jackson. Adams ended up losing to Jackson, but in December nominated Kentucky lawyer John Crittenden to replace Trimble. (Recall that before passage of the 20th Amendment in 1933, the presidential inauguration did not take place until March.)
...
But this amendment was rejected in a voice vote and then the Senate voted 23-17 to adopt an amendment saying “that it is not expedient to act upon the nomination of John I. Crittenden.” A few days after becoming president, Jackson nominated John McLean, the Postmaster General under Adams, to replace Trimble. (Jackson did this mainly to get McLean out of the Cabinet and to remove the possibility of him running for president, according to a study of the confirmation process.)
According to the Congressional Research Service, “By this action, the early Senate declined to endorse the principle that proper practice required it to consider and proceed to a final vote on every nomination.”
...
But it is also clear that politics has always played a role — and the Senate has set the rules to act as it wants. Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination. In periods of divided government, especially with elections looming, the Senate has chosen not to act — or to create circumstances under which the president’s nominee either withdrew or was not considered. Indeed, the patterns don’t suggest the Senate used procedures out of constitutional duty, out of deference for what the Constitution says or what previous Senates have done. Instead they used procedures based on the political circumstances of each confirmation.
It’s matter of opinion whether a refusal to consider a nominee is a dereliction of constitutional duty or walking away from a constitutional responsibility. But the Senate majority can in effect do what it wants – unless it becomes politically uncomfortable. Democrats who suggest otherwise are simply telling supporters a politically convenient fairy tale.
Three Pinocchios [He's a liar!]
Why is it here? Because the makeup of the court will have direct effect on us Nerds. Apple's case is likely to go to the Supreme Court. As some of the many cases dealing with IP, software and hardware patents and many more areas of interest to the Tech world.
This is important to us Nerds, or should be. Because it will have direct influence on our interests and industries. Many direct influences and impacts on our interests. Even those outside the US are likely to see technology influenced by the rulings of the SCOTUS.
This is news that Really Matters.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
As someone who spent a career in the Army handling and actively working to protect classified information (MOS 97B then 35L Counterintelligence Agent) I assure you it is most certainly NOT a molehill. She not only mishandled the emails, but on at least one occasion directed a subordinate to strip the markings from a document before emailing it to her. In other words she knew it was wrong and still wanted to get around it.
You also don't realize how intertwined the intel communications systems are these days. Bradley Manning included thousands of State Dept reports in the stockpile he gave to WikiLeaks, Snowden has revealed several State Dept reports as well. And as Secretary of State She had access to the highest levels of intelligence. Yes she did have access, she did not protect it. She willfully ordered subordinates to illegally strip markings to try to slip around the rules. Any lesser person would have been indicted long ago. The fact that she still has not despite what has been revealed (and much cannot be revealed due to the classification of the emails) indicates the Justice Dept. is sitting on the case, hoping it can make it go away.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Shouldn't the American people get to decide and have a voice on important matters?
Don't be ridiculous; this is demcracy: you get to vote on who has the best soundbites, so your rulers (=Big Money) can get on with the important things.
Because, as usual, Obama pre-compromised from what he "wanted" to what he "thought he could get the Republicans to agree to", then offered that compromise position to start with. Even if they agree, they got what they would have had to horse-trade for and put effort and political capital into WITHOUT ANY EFFORT on their part.
MORE, they have now proved that they merely have to be more rigid and strident to get the original position moved to where they wanted it to be in the first place.
State legislatures electing senators could still minimize the cronyism and corruption by constitutional regulation of how local officials can conduct their elections (take out the gerrymandering and force accountability from the governor/state legislature).
The unavoidable drawback is now the voter has to intimately understand their state assemblymen/senators/governors as well national political structures. How is that supposed to be accomplished in an age where newspapers are at the verge of extinction? As for state governments requiring national representation, removed of direct accountability from its state's citizens, I'd argue that's bullshit. It would only make federal legislation even more arcane than it already is. Worse, that would increase the power of rich corporations, who have the resources to manipulate state elections.
The role of the Senate, from Roman and American history, is to provide a check to the mob (House of Reps) using members that have longer terms, and thus can consider longer term issues. It was also a means for the rich and powerful to have greater influence over national gov't. I'd argue that rationale is obsolete and dangerous to stable governance. Having senators selected by state legislators is superfluous to those goals.
An intriguing idea would be to constitutionally mandate a state governor to nominate a senator candidate, and the legislature to nominate a different candidate, and let the state population vote on those candidates. That would allow experienced politicians select a representative that would have an interest in "state level" issues, while still forcing senators to have direct accountability towards its voters.
Nor for there to be any pay for employees of the representatives. And similarly for the senators.
And if they don[t have to do their job, what was the point of their job? Why should their job even exist if they don't have to do it???? And why the hell are you fine with paying someone a huge salary who then refuses their job, and will indeed defend their "right" to refuse to do the job you pay them for????
There is also no constitutional need for any armed forces in the USA. Why aren't you demanding they remove this huge costly white elephant?
An oath can be superceded by another oath. Unless the constitution requires the oath include a "defend the country" clause, it's not constitutionally required, even if it is an oath, and since you're not at war and refusing to go to war would not be aiding anyone, since defence doesn't require a war declaration, it cannot be treason.
PS Where is the constitutional requirement for permanent armed forces? If the prez is leader and takes an oath, and the millitia is supposed to be anyone who can have a gun, and the leader's oath is that he will lead you, and you insist that oath be made, you're agreeing that he can lead you as a military commander and send you into battle.
Which I guarantee you refuse blankly to be true.
But there's also no need in the constitution to pay soldiers. So rather than abandon it, just stop paying anyone for the arms,armaments and the soldiers themselves.
After all, a militia is needed for the protection of the states, and they are not paid for their status as militia.
With the advantage that the gun nuts who insist on their right to arms will become the militia and those saner people who think guns are dumb and dangerous get to live safer at no risk to themselves. And you gun nuts will be happy because you get to be a militia like you insist!
* White
* Male
* Western European descent
* Sixty-something
* Former Fed prosecutor
* Doubtless a practicing Christian
Way to reach for the ground, POTUS.
That is also why taxes need to be initiated from the house. They wanted the representatives of the people to be responsible for taxing the people.
Can you point to me where in the Constitution a budget is defined or required?
(Noting that no Congress can pass a law binding on a succeeding Congress; that can only be done with a constitutional amendment or treaty.)
sPh
The state legislative majority that was elected by the people?
There's no requirement for a "budget" in the Constitution. The House and Senate are free to write a series of spending bills, and the House to originate a series of revenue bills, if that is their preference. Which apparently it is because that is how both houses have proceeded for about 30 years now. There's a certain faction in the US that fetishizes a single integrated bill it calls a budget, but that's just their preference and that preference is clearly not shared by most members of Congress (of all parties).
sPh
They won't have a hard time at all. They are already calling it the Biden rule to not consider a supreme court nomination in the last year of an administration.
They have essentially said they are treating this as a democrat controlled Senate using the vice presiden's own words.
Only conservatives consider Bork anything but an idiological pariah.
Only a conservative would compare a milqtoast moderate to Bork.
In short, you're gonna be pretty lonely buddy.
Here's to a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS for (Justice) Ivanka Trump she is just, yeah, I know, she is just going to be a terrific Justice, a great, great, listen: if she were not my daughter and already married and pumping out my grand kids, I tell ya, I tell ya! [applause] So anyways listen, LISTEN! Ivanka is going to be the nominee and she is going to be approved and she is going to be great and listen: if those bozos [clapping] Those Buttfaces [cheering] in congress can't see their way to respecting my choice - hey, OUR choice - then there will be riots in the street - burning and looting because it's our country now! We took it, and we did it, and we won and that means it's our way or the highway, right? Am I RIGHT? Yeah, yeah, sieg 'me'.
imagine a soft, buttery paw gently pressing down onto a sleeping soldier's face. forever.
Mr. Obama said it is tempting to make the confirmation process "an extension of our divided politics." But he warned that "to go down that path would be wrong."
By choosing someone who doesn't support the right to life, 0bama has himself made this nomination an extension of divided politics. Garland supports abortion (murder), is not strong on property rights (the fruits of your life), and doesn't support the right of self defense (Garland is a gun grabber).
Maybe you didn't bother to read the linked article; ignoring a nomination, while it may not be politically wise, is a perfectly valid exercise of their duties and responsibility.
You not showing up for work is between you and your employer.
Well, I'm their employer. And I'm not happy.
And so are a lot of other people, which is why Trump is leading the Republican Presidental race.
Trump is a lot of nasty things, but at least he understands the art of the deal that - until recently - was considered a key component of politics.
We're sick and tired of this perpetual "My Way or No Way" nonsense.
We did.
In 2008 and 2012 we elected twice.
You may have forgotten, but the President is elected for 4 years, not 3.
And he is expected to fulfill his duties for the entire duration, not just until his opponents declare him a lame duck.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
What will they call it when they expand it to disallow nomination for the last 4 years of a presidents term?
elected judges are one of the biggest threats to freedom we face.
It results in fools like the idiot Chief Justice of Alabama, who somehow forgot al his law schooling and how the hierarchy of the court system works.
Or it results in the handful of trial judges spread across Texas, Florida, and a few other southern states who a responsible for over half of all death penalty sentences, and brag about (in their campaign ads) how many times they've sentenced someone to death, even over the jury's objections because its legal in some jurisdictions for the judge to do so.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
They did. They got to vote on the guy whom the constitution empowers to appoint the judge (yes, that's what it says, the senate is also -by that same constitution REQUIRED to give him a fair hearing and give a yes/no response based on the facts).
The American people made their choice and spoke their voice - twice.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
If programmers wrote programs the way builders build buildings COBOL would be released next year, at 5 times the original budget and decades over the original schedule.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
no, there is a duty to do their job.
not everything is spelled out, because some things are so basic they shouldn't need to be.
a government where people shirk that basic responsibly of performing their basic duties, results in a government that does nothing. a government that perpetually shirks its job quickly runs a nation into the ground, in direct violation of their oaths of service.
and the purpose of the constitution is quite clearly the preservation of the nation, not its decline through complete inaction.
and no, the "American people" did not intentionally install a divided government.
you forget that the American people don't all vote for every congressman; they are apportioned out.
the only position they all vote for is the Presidency.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Pretty sure congress has been ignoring their duties for longer than that... Lets not forget that they have never passed a budget on time. They've shut down the government because they couldn't figure it out. This Congress has passed the fewest laws in decades. All we see in the news is D vs R, no compromise. Any idea by one party is hated by the other. Any implementation by one is hated by the other, regardless of who thought it up (Republicans dreamed up universal health care, yet hate Obamacare).
less than 30% of the population in districted races that already favored the GOP hardly represents a national mandate.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
no one is asking for a rubber stamp.
by all means, withhold consent.
but you still need to vote to do that.
gridlock was never the intention.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
It would be an atrociously stupid idea anyway. That's why the founding fathers rejected it for the federal courts. Several states do have judges chosen with elections - and it's a disaster across the board.
Good judges are rarely good campaigners - these are skillsets that require almost exactly opposite ways of thinking, and are very few people are good at both.
Many a very good judge has lost his job to a horrifyingly bad one who was good at campaigning (and well-funded by some wealthy third-party who had a problem with the sitting judge, like an upcoming trial where they wanted a less tort-friendly judge perhaps).
Many a terrible judge has had the job for years because they are running uncontested.
Sane legal systems throughout the world have the very senior judges appointed by the head of state, and all other positions appointed by other judges. Many systems have something like a judiciary council and judges who serve there vet and appoint judges to various courts to fill openings.
There is a great deal of sense in having candidates for an extremely specialist job like that of a judge vetted by people who are highly familiar with the field. It's the same reason programmers tend to prefer job interviews by people who are themselves (or at least used to be) programmers. What coder expects a fair assessment from somebody who can't understand half the words in your resume ? In the case of a judge, it's more like 75% of the words in there that make absolutely no sense to somebody who hasn't had the same training.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
How did you get from "refusing to address a supreme court nomination" to "not marching in lock step with the president?" It is typical to fill supreme court positions immediately, especially if there is an even number of justices.
You do realize that "advise and consent" != "rubber stamp," right?
Just what kind of advice do you think McConnell is offering by refusing even to acknowledge a nominee? Why does he, or Chuck Grassley, get to speak for the entire senate?
If the nominee is not good, then advise and refuse consent: they're not exercising power by holding their hands over their ears and shouting, "La, la, la, I can't hear you!"
The Senate was supposed to be appointed to insulate the federal government from wild swings in popular opinion. Instead, both houses pander to their voters and we get complete crap from Washington and intrusions that preclude the original intent of each state being it's own sovereign. If you didn't like a law, you were supposed to be able to move to a different state to escape it (be it gun control, concealed weapons, health care, taxes, etc), but now the feds intrude into everything so there's no escaping the stupidity. So much for our "laboratories of democracy."
How is this insightful?
The American people had a voice: They re-elected President Obama in 2012. Either he's President or he isn't, and either it's the President's job to submit nominees, or it isn't. The only temporal limits are the date's the President is in office, period, full stop.
The American people had a voice: They elected every member of the Senate. Either they're the Senate or their not, and either it's their job to consider and confirm/deny nominees, or it isn't. I don't care if they vote down any nominee outright, but refusing to do their jobs is bullshit.
If the American people want more direct say in such matters, then they should vote for officials who will vote for constitutional amendments that will make this a direct democracy. It's the dumbest fucking idea I can imagine (in this context), but that's how they have a voice.
Don't like it? Then either work to change it or fuck right off.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
The nation wasn't designed to have senators directly elected by the people. The senators were supposed to represent the states. Thanks the the idiotic 17th amendment we now have basically two houses of Representatives with different constitutional duties. And the states have no representation. That's why the SC nomination process is so fucked up.
Instead of representing the states legislative majority which chose the senators prior to the 17th amendment they now represent the people of the state directly. I say that is how it should be in a representative democracy
But you've already got a house that represents the people of the state directly - the house of representatives. So why do you need another? (Except to consume more pork...)
I don't get any sense of the Senate providing a check and balance on the House in the same way the House of Lords is supposed to here in the UK, because it's elected on the same timescale. If you elected senators every 8 years (maybe split them into 2 cohorts so that half the seats got elected every 4 years) then it would make some sense. As it is, would there really be any downside to eliminating either the Senate or the House of Representatives and making the surviving body fulfil the duties of both? (Yes I know this would involve amending the constitution but it's just a document, it's not like it was handed down on tablets of stone.)
That's crap. The whole point of it was to represent the state legislature, not the people. The state legislature would reign in legislation that makes laws that would be onerous for the state to implement. The state legislature is much closer to dealing with budgets and laws of the state than the average voter.... that's why we elect them (state legislature) to work for us.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Should have said " The senate would reign in legislation"
love is just extroverted narcissism
I look back on my own admittedly small sample of a life's experience, and I'd probably keep 21 yr old me from voting until he was a little smarter.
You can't really argue for a minimum voting age based on experience and intelligence unless you are also going to test older people for signs of dementia, and maybe add general knowledge and logic questions to the ballot just to weed out the ignorant and low IQ voters.
The minimum age is usually set according to when the law requires a person to take full legal responsibility for themselves and pay income tax.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Congressional inaction is a valid prerogative of the body.
You say this as though it's the collective decision of 536 rational people. Not to consider the nominee is the decision of one, at most two, people: the chairs who set the agenda for the senate and the judiciary committee. This is different from a legislative process: the President can recruit any senator or representative to forward legislation.
Up to 1960, presidents could (and did) make recess appointments to the Supreme Court. That well has been especially poisoned lately by Obama's claim of recess appointments during very short recesses. Recess appointments still have to go through the confirmation process, they just get to be the judge during that process. This makes the recess appointment more a way to force the congress to act on a nominee than a way to bypass their advice and consent.
People like Schumer said to not consider any Bush nominee, but here's the actual timeline.
Sep 3 Rehnquist dies
Sep 5 Bush renominates Roberts as Chief Justice
Sep 29 Chief Justice Roberts confirmed
Oct 3 Bush nominates Harriet Miers
Oct 27 Miers withdraws
Oct 31 Samuel Alito nominated
Jan 1 Samuel Alito confirmed
If that is what you consider to be "gung ho" on not confirming then I guess we have different opinions on what "gung ho" or "not considering" means. It seems some might have talked tought, but in the end they considered and confirmed rather quickly.
My big question is: Let's assume that, despite fights to get a hearing for Garland, the Senate is successful in holding off until the next President. What will a Republican controlled Senate do if the Democratic nominee wins the election? Will they open fair hearings immediately for the first person that Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders nominates? Or will they find another reason to stall for 4 years? Perhaps calling the election "too close" or saying that somehow the "people's will wasn't REALLY heard" and thus justifying waiting until yet another election takes place?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Forgot to mention in my first reply: This isn't leaving the seat empty for "a few more months." The person who wins the election in November won't be able to make a nomination right away as they don't have that ability as the President-Elect. They will need to be sworn in first. Even if our next President makes his/her nomination on Day 1, we'll be waiting until Friday, January 20th 2017 for the nomination. So this means the vacancy will be open for ten more months, or over 11 months in total. (Longer, depending on the length of the confirmation process.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Amusing how right wingers can proclaim the second amendment as sacred as the bible yet show absolute contempt for another amendment :)
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
and pay income tax.
Then in my case it would have been at age 14, granted I got it back when I filled out my tax form but I still did pay into SSI and FICA which far too many people like to included in the income tax bucket. I still don't think it would have been a good idea to have me vote at that age
Time to offend someone
They don't need to rubber stamp the nominee or even confirm him. However, by not even considering ANY nominees, they aren't giving "advice and consent." They are actively withholding their advice and consent to run out the clock on Obama's Presidency with the hope that a Republican is elected President next. If Hillary or Bernie is elected President next, would the Senate be justified in not considering any nominees for any slots for 4 more years?
Turning it around, if a Republican were elected President, but the Senate went to the Democrats, would the Democrats be justified in saying that they'd hold no hearings until someone from their party was elected President?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
This stuff where parties (especially Republicans) are trying to interpretet the constitution and any other government regulations into their own fantasy land are completely detremental to the democratic foundation of your country.
They do this stuff in African dictatorships but you would not expect something like this from a nation that thinks of itself as the democratic example to the rest of the world.
Where is your common sense?
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
If this submission had even some minor connection to technology, or science, or math, or computing, or software, or engineering it would be excusable. But there's absolutely nothing relevant at all about this particular submission. It's nothing but politics, and not even important politics.
I disagree. Whoever is picked as the next justice will be ruling on all of those issues and more.
whipslash, just because political stories have gotten a lot of comments here in the past doesn't mean that it's good, wholesome discussion.
Okay, so I'm not browsing this thread at 0 or -1 (no mod points at the moment), but I do have to argue that if you stick to the higher rated comments, Slashdot remains probably THE only place where one can still find somewhat intelligent discussion in a political thread.
Riiight, but organizations like George Soros has are purer than the driven snow.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
No, he says this as someone who has read the writings of the men who framed the Constitution. Those men were in favor of gridlock.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Except that if he does that, his appointment will only hold the post until the end of the NEXT session of the Senate, not for life...AND good luck to getting that appointee confirmed to a lifetime appointment (unless the Democrats get more than 60 seats in the next Senate).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
So the Senate should hold a hearing for Garland and the GOP members can try to justify not confirming him. What they are afraid of, though, is that a) by even considering someone from "The Enemy Party", they will be kicked out of their seats during their next re-election campaigns and b) by holding a hearing on Garland, popular opinion will be in favor of approving his nomination which will make it harder for GOP members to maintain their opposition.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I am sorry, but you are mistaken. Gridlock was indeed the intention.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The constitution does have such a provision, but only for the president. If the president refuses to sign a bill into law, it becomes law automatically after 10 days.
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
The US Supreme Court ruled in Hurst v Florida (Jan 2016) that juries, not judges must determine a sentence of death. It is no longer legal in any jurisdiction of the US for a judge to sentence someone to death.
You mean just like the Left wingers do? Pro Choice, right? Except when it comes to medical care, vaccinations, what types of food a person can purchase, and what size of soda a person can purchase.
Just because something makes it into an amendment doesn't mean that, in retrospect, it can't be judged to be a bad idea.
For example, do you still think the 18th Amendment should stand?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
And where's the information (in the summary/articles) of his past opinions on privacy, IP, and other areas mentioned.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Only because you don't understand whose interests they were meant to represent. They were supposed to stand for the _state governments'_ interests, not "the people of the state"'s interests. The latter is what the House is for. The former was meant as an additional check on the growth of Federal power, under the theory that the state governments wouldn't be willing to give up power they already held.
You can see how well getting rid of it did for that purpose, yes? (That was sarcasm)
As someone who did time in the military and has held security clearances for 2 different governments, I can 100% confirm this. If I had done what Hillary did, the very least that would happen would be my getting stripped of the security clearance and perp walked to the doors by security personnel with a very clear directive that I never come back and I will never work in a secure environment again. The unvarnished truth is that if I had been actively circumventing security procedures and knowingly exposing classified information, as Hillary very obviously did, my perp walk would have gone from the building's front door to the back of a police cruiser and the indictment would be the following day at the latest. It is a gross miscarriage of justice that she has not been indicted.
It's not a good idea to give lots of people a vote, but we can't have taxation without representation.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
We already did. We voted obama in as president. However, if the gop is unwilling to do their jobs, not a problem. The Senate will likely switch to dem control and the next president is also likely Clinton. She will simply put a young liberal in place. In addition, I would not be surprised if 3 more scotus positions open up in the next 4 years, with 1 being Kennedy. As such, scotus will become liberal for 40+ years. And today's GOP can be blamed for that.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Ironically, even the much heralded founding fathers were reluctant to include everyone in the selection process of our nation's leaders.
Of course they did -- their models were the Roman Republic and Athenian Democracy. Both theoretically had a "body of all citizens" which had a voice in government, but the definition of "citizen" was strict enough that it tended to exclude the majority of people.
I believe you have to let everyone vote for one simple reason: where would you draw the line?
I'm not going to put forth an opinion about "drawing the line" somewhere else, but we clearly do "draw the line" for example at 18-year-olds.
But back to the "roots," it's important to recall the word "democracy" comes from the Greek "demos," which was a small subdivision around ancient Athens. There was never an idea that ALL people should vote, but rather "citizens" were sent from each demos.
Many were disqualified from "citizenship" -- women, slaves, former slaves, children and adolescents, those who hadn't completed military training, foreigners who were residents in Athens, and those whose voting rights had been suspended (in some cases, these suspensions of voting rights extended for generations within a family). Also, the granting of citizenship was not automatic -- in the case of new people, even those who had lived in the area for a couple generations, they generally had to be granted it by vote of the assembly (and citizenship would then generally be passed down to descendants).
Basically, the original definition of democracy perhaps allowed 10% of the population a voice in voting. And it was deliberately restricted to those who would have a strong investment and a personal stake in the community of Athens -- adults who were generally born there, were generally landowners (or part of landowning families) and had trained for military service to protect the community.
The "Founding Fathers" of the US didn't include the military training and didn't like the idea of inherited rights (or inherited exclusions from rights), but otherwise they followed many of the same principles. And thus voting was generally restricted to free male landowners in most states in the early US.
I'm NOT arguing we should go back to such a definition, just noting that the Founders were following traditional "democratic" principles by restricting voting rights.
Actually, Senators have 6 year terms. And it is split into 3 cohorts, so there is a senate election every 2 years where 1/3 of the senate is up for election.
There's a fundamental difference between the bill of rights, and a shitty amendment that changes the structure of government.
They did when they elected the President who nominates judges to the SCOTUS. It's written in the Constitution. I believe that was Barack Obama the last two times. They also have an indirect say when they elect members of the Senate who must approve the nomination. I say indirect only because a voter can only elect Senators from their own state and have no control of other states.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Also some of the states that elect judges do not require that they have law degrees so that's a factor in some terrible legal decisions from elected judges.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Should have said " The senate would reign in legislation"
Either way, I'd avoid the ironic reference to hereditary monarchy. People don't "reign" things in -- kings and queens have "reigns." People "rein" things in, like horses.
So... they need to stop pretending that somehow the next president will magically be better than Obama.
The next president will be white.
Hate to say it, but its the only differentiator that logically explains the behavior we are seeing out of the Republican party. It explains a distressing amount of the last 8 years, actually. The Republican party in Congress has essentially been on an 8 year universal filibuster.
Funny, I didn't read that a SCOTUS position came up in 2008. I read that two came up in 2005 and both were confirmed. One was confirmed in 2005 after 4 months with bipartisan support (Roberts) and one with Democratic opposition (Alito) in 2006 after 3 months. The only reason it took longer for Roberts was that Bush withdrew his original nomination for Roberts to replace O'Connor because Rehnquist died and Roberts replaced Rehnquist as Chief Justice.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Just because congress doesn't march in lockstep with the president doesn't mean they aren't doing their jobs.
And what do you say about their very vocal and documented refusal to even consider any nominee before Obama nominated Garland?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
We're a federal republic, and as such, to maintain balance of state and federal power, states should be represented at the federal legislature.
"Mr. Obama said it is tempting to make the confirmation process "an extension of our divided politics." But he warned that "to go down that path would be wrong." Mr. Obama demanded a fair hearing for Judge Garland and said that refusing to even consider his nomination would provoke "an endless cycle of more tit for tat" that would undermine the democratic process for years to come."
Well, well, well, Mr. Obama. Hurts when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?
Here are 10 other times Democrats vowed to block Republican court nominees.
1. Sen Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in 2007 that President George W. Bush shouldn’t get to pick any more Supreme Court justices because Schumer was afraid the bench leaned too far Right. Schumer made this remark a whole 19 months before the next president was inaugurated.
“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer said in a speech to the liberal American Constitution Society. “They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”
2. His remarks in 2007 weren’t the only time Schumer vowed to stop a Republican nominee. In 2004, he said he would do everything in his power to stop Bush from elevating Charles Pickering to a federal appeals court in 2004.
“I’m prepared to do everything I can to stop the nomination of Justice Pickering,” Schumer said. “We can do a lot better.”
3. Schumer again promised to make the nomination process difficult for President Bush amid a confirmation battle over Carolyn Kuhl, who was nominated as a judge to the Ninth Circuit Court.
In 2004, his office released a statement saying Senate Democrats planned to “hold nominations until the White House commits to stop abusing the advise and consent process.”
The statement was part of Democratic coalition to stop Bush from using his recess appointing powers. The president eventually conceded and promised he would stop appointing judges while Congress was on vacation in exchange for them stopping filibustering.
4. Then-Senator Barack Obama said in 2006 that he supported the Democratic-led filibuster to stop Justice Samuel Alito from making it to the Supreme Court.
There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nomineethat once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.
Obama wasn’t the only Democratic senator to oppose Alito’s nomination. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) led an opposition coalition, which attempted to filibuster to block the confirmation process. Kennedy was joined by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who publicly stated they opposed Alito’s confirmation.
“The record demonstrates that we cannot count on Judge Alito to blow the whistle when the president is out of bounds,” Kennedy said.
5. In 1960, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a resolution to block President Eisenhower from being able to make any more recess appointments to the Supreme Court. The resolution stated:
Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.
6. Kennedy led a gang of eight senators in 2003 to block Bush nominee Miguel Estrada from rising to the Court of Appeals.
“Instead of looking for candidates who are extreme ideologues, the president should work with the Senate in nominating individuals who have the highest qualifications,” Kennedy said, while taking a victory lap after the Bush administrati
"Shouldn't the American people get to decide and have a voice on important matters?"
Yes they should.
And they did.
In 2012 they re-elected Barack Obama to a second four year term as President.
It would be an atrociously stupid idea anyway. That's why the founding fathers rejected it for the federal courts. Several states do have judges chosen with elections - and it's a disaster across the board.
Well, like it or not, the nomination process for SCOTUS is now highly politicized. It may not be an actual popular vote yet, but it gets closer and closer.
First we have the 17th amendment, which puts senators in more direct contact with a state's constituents. Thus, they no longer represent a state legislature's interest, but rather the "people" more directly.
Then we have the televising of nomination hearings, which have now become about senators pandering to the television audience, rather than vetting nominees with legitimate legal questions. It's more important to "score points" with a "soundbite" for the evening news than actually to determine whether the nominee is qualified.
And finally we have the gradual shift away from fixed Constitutional law and long-term stare decisis, which has expanded the powers of the federal government (since FDR), thus giving judges who decide federal law more power. But it also has politicized the positions more, as more novel Constitutional interpretations are found by justices. Rather than a fixed body of law, you get a "moving target," and thus politicized issues depend less on legal scholarship than the political leanings of who is appointed. (To some extent this was always true. And I'm NOT arguing this is a bad trend overall -- obviously it was necessary to further the Civil Rights cause, etc. But it is a shift from jurisprudence for the first 150 years or so of the US.) So, now nominations tend to be focused on the 20% or so of SCOTUS cases that tend to be decided with close 5-4 "political" rulings, rather than the other 80% of the business that the court deals with in technical legal minutiae.
All of these things together mean that nominations become a politicized media circus, rather than a debate about qualifications. It used to be that even strongly opinionated justices were easily confirmed -- as long as they were seen to be brilliant legal scholars. Scalia was probably the last of these, since he was confirmed with a 98-0 vote in the Senate.
There's no way that a justice like Scalia (or an equivalently "liberal" justice) could get a vote like that today, no matter how brilliant they are.
That's true, that's what's happened in California.
Fortunately, California has a referendum and initiative system, which lead to...Proposition 11 and gave Californians the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.
They also changed to a Non-Partisan Blanket Primary..
You seem to be a bit out of touch, since by your words, you appear to be using a present tense, but I hope this helped inform you a bit better.
(And FWIW, California's partisan breakdown is 39-14 for the US House, making it in-line with their overall statewide vote(60-40). North Carolina, however, is 10-3, and well, that doesn't reflect their statewide vote well at all(55-44).
Are you trolling? Ted Cruz IS the guy who shut down the government, and forced hardship on millions of people, to make a name for himself. His antics cost the taxpayers a lot of additional money, despite his self proclaimed purpose of saving money. He's the textbook definition of the person who put his personal and party's political interests ahead of the nations interests.
The U.S. Senate requires a quorum of 51 in order to conduct business. There are probably enough Republicans with the decency to give the President's nominee due consideration. However, the rest of the Republicans won't refuse to show--since they are the majority, there are numerous ways they can block the nomination.
Do you REALLY want Trump's children in supreme court?
Those things aren't children.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Even further, this was an exchange mailserver, with open access to the internet on default VNC & RDP ports. Plus it had a webserver running for no reason, with one of those 'congrats you turned on IIS' default pages. Can you imagine leaving your company mailserver with remote access open to the entire internet?? It's almost a foregone conclusion that it was hacked by foreign intelligence agencies.
There's no correlation between being mature enough to make a logical decision, and fighting for your country, or drinking.
I say this as a formerly drunk veteran.
Just another day in Paradise
Congress should only feel obligated to represent the wishes of the people who took the opportunity to voice their wishes. Didn't vote? who's to say why they didn't. Maybe they were thinking 'none of the above.' Maybe they were thinking 'Blue's going to win, and I vote blue, so I don't need to bother.' Maybe they were thinking 'Red's going to win, and I vote red, so I don't need to bother.'
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
You can be old enough to die for you country, but not old enough to drink.
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
If Hillary wins but the Republicans retain control of the Senate, she might stick with Garland. If the Democrats take control of both the Senate and White House, we may have a very liberal Supreme Court for decades. This nomination leaves the Republicans to decide whether to accept the replacement of strongly conservative Scalia with moderate Garland, or gamble that they can win the White House, retain the Senate, and seat a more conservative justice. In addition to risking a long liberal-leaning run on the Supreme Court, the Republicans are risking being seen as the party that wants to politicize the judiciary.
Judges build Justice, which isn't what most people think it is. Justice is about fair process, without people cheating. The unprepared get the Justice they prepared for. A Judge is basically a referee keeping the lawyers within the constrains of truth, which often comes with fuzzier edges than we'd like to admit (especially in light of incomplete evidence, which all evidence outside of a TV show is incomplete).
Running for elections is all about promises. When I want to get more people excited, I promise what they want. The USA population is notoriously bad at having a long term insight and making sound long term policy. We want what we want, but now. Tomorrow we will deal with the issues we encounter tomorrow.
It is conceivable that a Judge with little skill in properly handling court cases could easily be elected on statements that he would be "tough on crime" which effectively means that being charged would then be an assurance of being guilty. That's a very dangerous situation, because then we would have no checks-and-balances in the criminalization process. Currently politicians pass laws to be "more tough on crime", police are rewarded for enforcing them to profit, and (in or current system) Judges ensure that the cases and evidence require imprisonment. If a Judge was of the temper, "He's here so he must be mostly guilty", then the police would easily be able to threaten people with imprisonment instead of the currently (but less painful) jail.
Judges are elected in some states, but look at the track records of those states. They're the ones with more questionable rulings, as the average citizen doesn't have the tools to know if a Judge does a good job judicially or not.
That's why GP included the "take full legal responsibility" part as a condition. Excepting specific court-ordered emancipation, you're not allowed to legally be bound by contract until the age of 18, and cannot take full legal responsibility for yourself in civil matters.
Personally, I'd like to see the following conditions for voting:
* be at least 21 years old, unless you are an active-duty member of the US Military in which case you can vote as long as you are still on active-duty status (because if you took an oath to defend the US Constitution with your life and live that oath daily, you're proven that you're old enough to vote).
* pay federal income tax for at least 6 of the last 18 months before Jan 1 of the year you are voting, unless you are physically (not mentally) disabled to the point where you provably cannot work for a living.
* not be a felon and not be inpatient for mental illness and/or deficiency.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
As bad as the current Congress is, do we want to swap out the current process of Senate Judiciary hearings followed by a floor vote from 100 sitting senators in favor of a nationwide popularity contest that we can witness going off the rails RIGHT NOW while attempting to select a President?
I have far more faith in the Judiciary Committee to ask questions of substance about legal opinions that matter than for some dudebro in Florida to take time out of his busy schedule of smoking bath salts to make an informed decision about something so important.
The current system for filling a vacant seat on the bench may have it's flaws, but we don't need to throw it out in favor of a system that shows even bigger, more obvious flaws.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
They pulled that shit in Wisconsin as well.
So, if Scalia had died in Feb 2015, it would have been proper to refuse to deliberate on a successor for two years?
By the language that is being thrown around, Obama was a lame duck President by February 2015, so yes. Ethically, Obama should have ceased all official duties after being sworn in and left all decisions for his successor. On this specific matter, it is clearly unrealistic to expect the voters to have been aware that the person elected President would be responsible for nominating Supreme Court justices as needed for a full four years, so that responsibility should instead be shifted to the next President elected following a Supreme Court vacancy. It is very important to let the people decide. Similarly, once a replacement justice is nominated by the succeeding President, Senate hearings should not begin until three mid-term elections have taken place. This ensures that the people will have a voice in selecting the Senators who will vote on the nominated replacement Supreme Court justice. If the nominee is rejected by the Senate, the next nominee will have to wait another three mid-term elections to give the people a chance to change their minds about who they want to be deciding on the next nominee. Once this is fully implemented, the people will have their say and the Supreme Court will consist of just one person, former President Donald Trump.
I don't see why people are saying that Congress is ignoring their constitutional duty here. The constitution says that the President nominates a person, with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The Senate has offered the advice of "don't bother, because you won't get our consent." Constitutional duty fulfilled.
I don't agree with it, but that is what it says, and that is what they are doing.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
If this happened, the act would instigate a court case, which would go to the Supreme Court.
You see, Congress, despite having the ability to do such things cannot override the word of the Constitution to deny the President the power to select Supreme Court justices. Setting the Court to 8 (instead of say 10) would be seen as an obvious attempt to deny the President his duty as detailed in the Constitution of the United States.
It is amazing that some people hold the Constitution so dear that they don't want it followed where it is quite clear; but, want to reference it whenever it provides a means to their end.
And to reference (and expand upon) the GP's point, We elected Obama for 8 years; but the Republicans have stonewalled in the congress for at least 2, and now they intend to stonewall a Supreme Court nomination for one. Someone needs to teach them the meaning of the word compromise, or we will have a facist country, where no person who differs from their platform will be safe.
That does not sound like the "Land of the Free", it sounds more like the "Master Race".
It makes no sense to have a legislative body (The Senate) that is not proportionally sized according to population. The way it works now, a citizen in Vermont's vote means more to the election of a Senator than a voter in California simply because Vermont has less people than California.
We already have a legislative body that is proportional, the House of Representatives.
The Senate was ALWAYS from the beginning supposed to represent STATE interests. Since the 17th explain to me HOW a state government is supposed to get a Senator to represent STATE government interests when there is NO leverage on the side of state governments to push Senators to represent them?
That's what the 17th amendment did, it tilted Federalism in the direction of the Federal Government so that States basically have no say over what the Federal Government does. Prior to the 17th state legislatures made sure that Senators voted for Supreme court justices that listened to them (states).
The only leverage states have is Article V which they've never successfully used.
If have any interest in the 17th Amendment, and want to cut through all the stupid rumors (like the lie that dozens of senators were never seated prior to the 17th)
http://mason.gmu.edu/~tzywick2...
It's a VERY good paper on the subject.
Mitch McConnell is an obstructionist shit sprinkler. He's been that way in the past and he will continue to be that way in the future. Who keeps voting this idiot in?
Biden simply said it shouldn't be done - like the majority of Presidents prior to GHW Bush had done. Don't nominate open Supreme Court seats in an election year. Did he not?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Correct. And there's no requirement in the Constitution that the Senate debate or vote to approve/not approve a Presidential appointee. So I'm not sure I see the problem. If we bitch about one, then we need to bitch about the other - for logic's sake.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Nice. So - you condemn Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid for not creating budgets, even when they had majorities and a President of the same party? Simple yes or no answer needed, it will speak volumes about your partisanship (or lack thereof).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The district lines are drawn at the STATE level, so if there was any gerrymandering in North Carolina, it was done by the duly elected representatives of North Carolina. So your very first sentence and the entire premise of your post is FALSE. The will of North Carolina was expressed through the legislature that North Carolina sent to the capitol. Don't like it? Vote the bums out.
You can try to blame other people and weep about it, but it doesn't wash. Everyone loves to trot out 'the popular vote' for larger geographical borders that have nothing to do with anything whenever their tribe lost. Why quote statewide totals for district elections? Why are you trying to force your 'say-so' onto those districts that have different views? It's the same fallacy as the people who quote nationwide totals for state-by-state elections for President - it's complete nonsense that in no way means anything, unless you are advocating for a system where the population centers get to dictate what happens for everyone else; in that case you would still lose because New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, and Houston would dictate what happens for the rest of the country, and North Carolina would get even less of a 'say-so.'
The rules are clearly defined, and they've been defined for decades. Other states have just as much Democrat gerrymandering as you may have Republican gerrymandering. So instead of bitching about it, get a public referendum passed that causes an independent bipartisan commission to draw district lines and get it out of the state legislature's hands. Several states have already done this.
Stop bitching, and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT other than blame the other tribe.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
As someone who spent a career in the Army handling and actively working to protect classified information (MOS 97B then 35L Counterintelligence Agent) I assure you it is most certainly NOT a molehill. She not only mishandled the emails, but on at least one occasion directed a subordinate to strip the markings from a document before emailing it to her. In other words she knew it was wrong and still wanted to get around it. You also don't realize how intertwined the intel communications systems are these days. Bradley Manning included thousands of State Dept reports in the stockpile he gave to WikiLeaks, Snowden has revealed several State Dept reports as well. And as Secretary of State She had access to the highest levels of intelligence. Yes she did have access, she did not protect it. She willfully ordered subordinates to illegally strip markings to try to slip around the rules. Any lesser person would have been indicted long ago. The fact that she still has not despite what has been revealed (and much cannot be revealed due to the classification of the emails) indicates the Justice Dept. is sitting on the case, hoping it can make it go away.
Actually, both parties have an interest in delaying the investigation now. Clinton supporters (and the Democratic party, since they have supported Clinton over Sanders from the beginning) obviously don't want the investigation to be completed, ever.
The Republican Party would probably prefer that Clinton get the Democratic nomination, and a bombshell be dropped at a critical point in the election. Election day is November 8, so November 6 around noon would be the perfect time. It would make the Sunday evening news and voters would have all day Monday to talk about it at the water cooler before voting on Tuesday
Remember that the IT specialist who set up the server was given immunity by the Justice Department less than 2 weeks ago. It takes time to get all the information out of that individual, follow up on leads, question additional persons of interest, gather additional evidence, bring it all together, and make a decision of what to do next. This story isn't over yet.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Hillary also only has one person to run against; the fact there were four candidates in the GOP primaries up through the latest round doesn't sway things? Oh, and Trump was winning prior to March 15th - and those were ALL proportional primaries.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
There is no constitutional duty to for the Senate to act either way regarding the President's nominee
Yes. There is. Perhaps you should read the Constitution? It's quite clear that the Senate has a duty to advise and provide or withhold consent.
In fact, speaking constitutionally, Congress could, tomorrow, set the number of justices at 8.
No. It really can't.
The President nominates, with the advice AND consent of the Senate someone to be a justice
Wrong again. The President requires neither advice nor consent in order to nominate anyone. The advice and consent of the Senate are only required for the appointment to take effect, and only if the Senate is not in recess.
The Senate can then consent, not consent or decline to bring the matter to a vote.
Cite for me please the Constitutional provision that permits the Senate majority leader to decide whether the entire Senate has or has not given consent.
Cool. So now the American public have handed the Senate to the GOP, does that mean the President should still get to put anyone on the bench that he likes? Without the advise and consent of the Senate? Perhaps he should nominate someone who would have a great chance of appealing to the GOP, rather than someone squishy on the 2nd Amendment and who trends pretty left.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It's so fun when leftists ignore the actual order of events.
Did you happen to note the year the events you listed occurred in?
2005 & 2006.
Did you note what year I referenced Senate Democrats vowing not to confirm anyone else?
2007.
I wonder if you forgot about the whole election in between which saw Democrat control in the Senate... not unlike the 2014 election (they have consequences I hear) gave control to the Republicans.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
The Senate is a statewide election, so North Carolina sent exactly the Senators they wanted to. Gerrymandering doesn't apply, unless North Carolina is redrawing their State borders somehow, and I think South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Georgia might have something to say about that.
How in the fuck is this moderated as insightful?
Question - what about those who are wards of the state? If you get your entire source(s) of income from government funds, why should you be allowed to have a voice in how that taxation is apportioned and levied?
I ask this because the temptation is all too real (and in the case of certain candidates, all too proven) for such folks to vote solely for the candidate who shouts 'panem et circensus!' the loudest.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
You seem to think that a sitting Senator will notice and actually avoid being a massive hypocrit, despite the Everest-sized mountain of evidence to the contrary. Have no doubt that these hacks will do what they want at all times, regardless of past position.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
And you base that on what exactly?
The average time between nomination and confirmation/rejection has been ~23 days, however over the last 50 years it's upwards of 60 days.
You apparently see an interesting and seldom used meaning of the word 'immediately'
More so, thanks to the Democrat obstruction regarding the Bork nomination, the current record for a SCOTUS vacancy is 237 days... so again, not exactly 'immediately'.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
You've been told she willfully ordered removal of secret markings. This is media circus. Odds are that some of the information out there is true, and some is not.
When things go to court, the price paid for presenting false evidence as true is prison. When things go to the television camera, the price paid for presenting false evidence as true is more TV camera time.
These people all have a lot to gain by getting more TV camera time. I'd adjust my skepticism accordingly.
Originally, the charge was the Hillary knew the Benghazi attack was a Terrorist Attack by Al Qaeda but "tried to cover it up" by stating the attack was a Muslim attack promoted by the release of the film "Innocence of Muslims". Then, as that theory fell apart, they decided it was about Hillary having an email server; but that was made illegal by findings of the same committee long after the email server was set up. Then they demanded the email server (they're not Executive branch, they don't police, nor are they Judicial branch, they can't compel), which Hillary sent to a third party (the current Secretary of State) who then decided most of the stuff to be Confidential. Nobody knows why it is Confidential, but I'd imagine that most of what the sitting Secretary of State does outside of a Benghazi Attack to be Confidential, and stuff during an attack (which likely would expose sources of one-the-ground intelligence gathering) to be highly Confidential.
So now this Benghazi investigation committed is saying "It's confidential because it shows Hillary is a criminal!" But, eventually people get tired of that story, so they think they have a lead on "Hillary needed to act immediately on information that was likely Secret, but it couldn't be transmitted to her because there was no secure route."
The problem with this is that it's unclear if that's true, and if it was true, then this group would be yelling "Hillary didn't act decisively, she failed her duties as Secretary of State by exposing the Benghazi embassy while she took a pleasure vacation at a remote location."
Keep in mind that the Benghazi report was dismissed by the White House as being biased; however, the report was also reviewed by House Democrats as being biased. It's not like this report is super-secret or anything, but the Republican led effort eventually gathered enough steam to result in a Senate hearing, where Hillary answered all the questions asked of her without a single act of wrongdoing being found.
Now they have a low level aide that's willing to say to a television that "secret markings were removed" from documentation; but, apparently is either not willing to say that to a Judge or a District Attorney in a manner that has the District Attorney thinking the case wouldn't get thrown out. (The last part is my inference, because it doesn't take a year to put together a indictment).
Hillary probably should be suing for slander, but she stands to lose in the elections if she does; because, the average American is so conditioned to believing that if you're in a court room, you must have done something wrong, or you wouldn't be there.
The omission of speech is still free speech, no?
Then the omission of 'advice and consent' is still advice and a lack of consent. Why is this hard to understand?
For the record, I think it's chickenshit political grandstanding, but I don't see why people are bringing a constitutional argument here. The Senate has fulfilled their duty the moment that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee said that he won't hold hearings, and that the Majority Leader said there won't be a floor vote, as the Senate gets to set their own rules for how they operate.
The separation of powers is there for a reason, and a sitting President doesn't have the constitutional authority to direct the Senate to the restroom, much less demand that they hold hearings or a vote on anything.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Irrelevant.
As Democrats in 2009 loved to remind the Republicans: "Elections have consequences"
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I'm not sure that they are actually required to give a hearing at all. The law just says they may or may not consent. I believe the hearing is just a tradition that came up in the last 60 years.
If what you say is true... then it should be obvious why they will simply not hold any hearings or a vote.
Damn them for doing just what the Democrats threatened back in 2007!
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Yeah, because Harry Reid has never blocked anything out of partisan hackery.
They're both scumbags, and partisan hackery is shared among the parties equally. Stop acting like the other tribe is worse than your tribe, because they're equally to blame. And the President even says so.
At this point, the democrats stay home here many times rather than vote as their vote quite literally does not count. It would take about 80% of the popular vote for the democrats to get close to 50% of the seats.
We are a state that is red in name only as we are purple by voting method due to disenfranchised voters staying home and firmly blue by will of the people.
Incorrect - the voters who "stay home" are not "disenfranchised", as they were not denied the opportunity or the right to vote - they simply chose (for whatever reason) not to exercise the right.
Big difference there, dude.
If you're so mad about how your state is politically made up (trust me, I live in Oregon so feel your pain), then get off your ass and help get out the vote for your party/ideology/candidate. But, you cannot say that voters who feel the same as you are somehow "disenfranchised", because that's simply not true.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
So if you are hitting on a girl on the bar, do you require her to affirmatively say "No, I am not interested" before you stop your pursuit? Or do you take her not looking at you and the drink thrown in your face as a sign of the same?
Be it approving consent or denying consent come in many forms.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Yes, but with the current bunch of candidates, after voting I very much need to drink.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Considering how much legislation is a puddle of waste, maybe the term "rain in legislation" would be more appropriate.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
He will lose, but the problem is that he won't lose to Cruz.
The clusterfuck of candidates the RNC has managed to dredge up has guaranteed than either of the two candidates in the Democratic Party will be voted in as President.
Seriously, the RNC has had to endure dick jokes in debate. At this point, they are close to channeling the spirits of Beevus and Butthead. The lead candidate has promised that he'll force another country to pay us to build a wall between us. Exactly how will that work, are we going to war with Mexico?
The rest of his plans are equally well thought out. He'll deny entrance to the country for Muslims. That just means they'll declare themselves Christian (much like the Christians have to declare themselves Muslim in religiously controlled countries). So much for separation of church and state, I wonder if the Catholics are next up against the wall.
And it goes on. All it proves is that people like seeing an angry white man shout at a camera. That's Trump's true worth, yelling "You're fired!" at people and berating those who weren't lucky enough to be born with backgrounds similar to his.
These days, it's a fucking reality show.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
When it reigns it poors...
-DwS
There's a difference between not marching in lockstep, and deciding that whatever the President's stance is, it will be opposed.
With the former, you act in accordance to your conscience. With the latter,the President's stance actually dictates your policy. The Republicans have voted against items that upheld their party values. They're not doing their jobs, they are obstructing in hope of making the President look bad.
Remember their stonewalling on the budget over the fit they had that the Affordable Healthcare Act was passed? That cost the USA 2% of the GDP, making a 1% GDP growth over the year instead of 3%. That was in a recession year. I would count that as acting against even the people who elected them.
The golden rule is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I think karma in the Republican Party is inevitable.
The founders just threw off a King, and were not interested in having a powerful executive. To further accomplish that goal, they put the power of the purse with the People's branch of government (Congress) as well as the power to reject or approve treaties, and the 'advise and consent' clause. If the Senate's 'advice' is "don't bother because we won't consent" then they have fulfilled their congressional obligations under Article II, Section II.
Also, because they weren't interested in a powerful executive, they allowed the houses of Congress to establish their own rules of order and proceeding under Article I, Section V. If the current rules of the Senate dictate that a floor vote is only held on measures that the Majority Leader brings to the floor (they do) then that's the rules. It's the same rules that blocked judicial nominations when Harry Reid was in charge. No, that doesn't make it okay, but it does tag a lot of people as hypocrits on both sides of the conversation.
Either way, legal circles have long held that Congressional inaction on a subject is equal to Congressional action. If they choose not to take up an issue, it's the same as choosing to take up the issue and vote it down. The same goes for 'advice and consent' from the Senate - they choose not to take it up, therefore their consent has not been given.
Short version: this was the intended mode of operation when the States ratified the Constitution. If you have a problem with it, take it up with James Madison.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Anyone who can potentially pay tax must get the vote. That includes the unemployed. Democracy isn't perfect, the best you can hope for is that your elected representatives don't screw up so badly that the unemployed become a large enough group to control policy.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Just why then do you think people vote for all these Republican congressmen? Because they want more gun control and illegal immigrants? Look at Rubio, that immigration bill he came up with that President Obama praised as a good "starting point" caused him to get shelled in his home state of Florida. I live in a universe where not everyone thinks that it's okay to sit at home and spit out one kid after another at the expense of your working neighbors. Where it's not okay to swim the Rio Grande and set up shop here without going through a legal process and registering. Sure, you may like the things I don't like and it's a free country. You are entitled to your opinion but you don't seem to think I'm entitled to mine. I have news for you, in my universe I get to vote too.
"I hearby swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, from enemies foreign and domestic..." are the first words uttered by every President, right in front of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, upon taking office.
The President has a constitutional duty to repel foreign invaders. The Congress has the constitutional duty to sit on their thumb for the entire session if they so choose.
Sure, he can put the Senate into session, but that's where his authority ends. The Senate chooses how they do business when in session, per article I section V. So yeah, he can make them gavel into session, at which point they can read the phone book into the congressional record and not do a god damn thing the President wants, because he's not King. And then they can adjourn themselves.
Besides, the document and clause you quote also indicates that he may only do this under 'extaordinary Occasions' which doesn't include "they aren't doing what I want, so I'm going to throw a fit until they do" and I'll guess that the sitting Supreme Court Justices would agree.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Watching yours is what reminds us why we revolted.
Just sayin.
We? You are not your predecessors.
not three years + one year of Congress ignoring their constitutional duties
You mean like in 2008? When Pelosi didn't bother doing anything until Obama was sworn in? What goes around comes around.
It seems perfectly logical to wait for the better president.
And it seems more logical to just do it now.
They have one card left to play after the election in November though - if Hillary wins, they can always take up this nomination in a lame duck session and confirm him on the way out the door for the holiday recess. They can equivocate with some mealy-mouthed bullshit about how they just didn't want to take this business up during an election cycle or some nonsense in order to try to wash off the hypocrisy.
This option remains open unless Obama withdraws the nomination, which would really cause a political stink of "why nominate this guy if you don't think he's the guy for the job" etc.
Honestly though, I feel sorry for the nominee that he's become a pawn on this particular chess board.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
How did you get from "refusing to address a supreme court nomination" to "not marching in lock step with the president?" It is typical to fill supreme court positions immediately, especially if there is an even number of justices.
By bending over like a Mongolian contortionist, then shoving the hand up the ass till it tickled the tonsils, then opening and closing the fist till there was a faux argument to grab, then pulling said argument into the light of day. That is pretty much how he got from "refusing to address a supreme court nomination" to "not marching in lock step with the president."
Plan D is to wait for the election to conclude, and then either confirm this guy in a lame duck session should Democrats win, or wait until January if they hold onto the Senate or gain the White House.
It's chickenshit, but completely in their power to do so.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
No, but they don't even march on the same roads as the American people, so that does mean exactly that.
If Hillary wins, the Senate still has two months to hold confirmation hearings and vote during a lame duck session before the next Congress is gaveled into session several weeks before Hillary would take the oath of office and be able to nominate anyone.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Neither Obama, nor any recent president was elected by "the American people".
Only about 30% of the country voted for Obama. Given that voter turnout was less than 60% in both 2008 and 2012, the actual winning option was, "I don't trust either the red candidate or the blue candidate to represent me!"
Why should Congress feel obligated to represent the wishes of the 30% who asked for Obama, over the 70% who didn't?
Because the people who didn't opted not to have their voices count. One could make the same argument about Bush and pretty much almost every single fucking presidency since God knows when.
Hell, the same argument can be said about Congress since they were voted with the same low turn out. If the same low turn out can be used against Obama, then the same can be said for Senators. It's not like 30% voted for the president, but 100% voted for congress. You argument is bullshit. When you have to reach so far up the ass for that argument, you should know you don't have a valid point.
You did. You voted for Obama for the executive, then the GOP for the legislative. "Advise and consent" != "rubber stamp."
No one is asking for a rubber stamp. Senators can bring up the nomination for deliberation and simply vote with a no. They just don't want deliberate why Garland is unqualified on record (because they really have nothing against the candidate other than it was nominated by the scary black man in the White House.)
I am sorry, but you are mistaken. Gridlock was indeed the intention.
The gridlock is supposed to happen on the senate floor by continuously rejecting candidates.
Fortunately, California has a referendum and initiative system, which lead to...Proposition 11 [ballotpedia.org] and gave Californians the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.
Which is a cool idea, but in practice the parties in charge merely stacked the commission with people on their side.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I'd be woefully incompetent at choosing a judge. The only judge I know about other than those already on the Supreme Court is Judge Judy. Why should I have a voice?
Having democracy where we really need an expert opinion gives us idiocracy. We'll have pro wrestlers and movie stars running our courts.
No, they agree he has "Presidental powers" - but they (and the Constitution, by the way) disagree that one of the Presidential powers is to direct the Senate to do anything beyond gavel into session under "extraordinary Occasions."
The Senate is already in session, and the Senate gets to choose what business they do, or don't do, per Article I, Section V. And if the President doesn't like it, too fucking bad. And the President knows this, because he used to be a member of the United States Senate, and is a "Constitutional Scholar."
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
The counterpoint to your statistics is "I am fine with either candidate, so I simply will not voice an opinion by voting."
You don't get to lend voice to those that don't speak, the same as I don't.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
yeah, before we give the franchise to minors, how about giving the franchise to DC residents?
They would rather the devil they know than the crazy they don't.
It is surprising to hear such cowardly talk from Texas Republicans. Downright yellow. Of course I'm hearing it second-hand from an AC on the internet. I expect these folks, in addition to being Republicans, Texans, and cowards, are also made-up.
I am pretty sure the men who framed the Constitution did not care how gridlock came about...but they did intend for Senators to be accountable to state legislatures, who are significantly more likely to be paying attention to those responsible for this sort of thing than the average voter.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It's called the general election. We had one. Obama won.
Right. They didn't expect that they would act like two year olds.
not three years + one year of Congress ignoring their constitutional duties
You mean like in 2008? When Pelosi didn't bother doing anything until Obama was sworn in? What goes around comes around.
It seems perfectly logical to wait for the better president.
And it seems more logical to just do it now.
In 2016, yes, when the better president is still in power and has made an appointment that doesn't appear to be crazy.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Well, there's a poll somewhere saying that more than half of the american people think Obama should have nominated someone. So, Republicans, do what they think.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
I said that as the field narrows it may hurt Trump (it also may not). It depends how the votes break from the candidates that drop out. Trump has won ~35% of the vote, if Cruz is his only opponent and consolidates the remaining votes, all of a sudden Trump goes from winning to losing badly. It also depends on how the "unbound" delegates (i.e. those won by candidates no longer in the race) vote in the convention, assuming Trump does not pass 50% of delegates before that.
The reason Hillary has only one opponent is because she is a strong candidate, not the other way around. The Republican field has remained so wide because no one is running away with a clear majority. If someone was winning 58% of the vote like she is, there would likely not be more than 2 candidates in the Republican race.
Trump was winning prior to March 15th - and those were ALL proportional primaries.
South Carolina was winner-take-all. Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Maine, Puerto Rico, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, and Washington DC were winner-take-most. This means that in order to win any delegates, you must pass a threshold, and a candidate with a majority wins them all.
In Vermont, for example, Trump had 33% and Kasich had 30%, they each got 8 delegates. Cruz had 10% and Rubio had 19%, but they didn't get any. The effect this has is more noticeable in a wider field. Take Cruz and Carson out of the race, and distribute their ~15% evenly among the other candidates: Trump gets 38%, Kasich 35%, and Rubio 24% (putting him above the 20% threshold). Now Trump gets 6 delegates, Kasich gets 6, and Rubio gets 4. So Trump got more of the vote with less opponents, but actually did worse.
All of these reasons and more are why your direct comparison in the GP between Hillary and Trump was flawed. Delegates matter, not states.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
strictly speaking.
their advice could be interpreted as, "this isn't the fucking time, it's the next guys problem, so we suggest you put this in a drawer."
you don't get to choose how or what their "advice" is. as people have linked to, they are perfectly constitutionally justified in refusing to hold a hearing.
nah, their advice is "this isn't the time"
no, because they'd probably piss off their own constituents if it were a new presidency and they refused to hear a reasonably centrist candidate.
i'd say, now isn't the time... simply because i don't particularly like the look of a wildly activist court.
i like my courts slow, and conservative.
I may have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that the Republicans knuckled under to Obama's agenda.
I didn't say you weren't entitled to your opinion, I just disagreed with what I thought you were saying. Sorry for the misunderstanding! :D
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
But what if that's the plan?
... but then who would force his hand if he refused?
Most likely the military ... that would be a damn good reason for a coup.
...
The founders most likely wanted a weak-ish federal government and thus decided that when in doubt a stalled congress is better than an overactive one. Should congress do nothing and then the states would be able to do whatever they please
... how is not acting quantitatively different than an outright no-vote? the only thing that bitching about them not acting rather than voting no could be about, is because they're not hanging themselves.
I totally agree, I think the way we appoint Supreme Court justices now is perfectly fine. I was just pointing out to the GP that they wouldn't have a say in whether or not it was changed. I can see how my "good luck" statement at the end could be misinterpreted as support, but I was really just pointing out the unlikelihood of any amendment being ratified in the current political climate.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Actually to be sure to be the candidate, he still needs to absolute majority in the convention, because the other could join forces and vote for someone together to prevent him.
They are not refusing to vote because they dislike the president. They are refusing to vote because the President is black, obviously. You're stepping out of line.
Not what I said. To reiterate the order of events:
1. bugs2squash insinuated that the Republican's don't believe any Democratic President should be allowed to appoint Supreme Court justices
2. You responded by saying that Obama has already had 2 appointments confirmed
3. I mentioned that these were approved by a Democratic Senate, with the votes being mostly along party lines (i.e. most Republicans voted against it)
My point in #3 was that #1 and #2 do not have to be mutually exclusive, i.e. Republicans can be opposed to Democrat appointees, and Obama still could have his appointees approved. It had nothing to do with whether I think the power of the Senate should change based on who's in control of it. Are we cool now?
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
The Senate is proportionally allocated to the size of the state. Just as intended. Two Senators per State. Simple. But because because the 17th fucked with that, it no longer makes sense.
You forgot to mention the children.
Some (or most) of the founders, no doubt. Hamilton and others, I'm not so sure.
Growing up, you learn the rule "Two wrongs don't make a right." In politics, though, the rule is "If the opposing side does something you find repugnant, call them out on it... and then do that when you're in power... and then call them out on it again when they're back in power."
I guarantee that there are Republicans who were opposed to the Democrats doing this in 2007, who are in favor of doing the same thing now, and who will be against it again if the Democrats do the same thing down the line. (And vice versa.)
Is there any doubt why so many people hate our political system when a "horrible action by Party X" becomes "Constitutionally valid action by Party Y?"
(For clarity, I'm calling out the Democrats for doing this in 2007 as well as the Republicans doing it now.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
If the Democratic nominee wins the Presidency the Senate will likely confirm Garland during the lame duck session after the election just to prevent the new President from nominating someone even more liberal.
You cannot change the rules during the game.
The rules say the president can nominate someone.
They don't say he can do that only until X days before the end of his term.
There is no legal basis to suddenly come up with that argument.
If there were: where would the the line be drawn? 1 year before end of term, 2 years, 3, even 4?!?
What has happened in the past? Would it be a precedent to appoint someone now, in the last year of his term?
I doubt it. It sounds more than a power grab game, bringing up ad-hoc arguments to win a fight.
That is unworthy of a state with rule of law.
Of course they're asking for a rubber stamp. They'll never say that outright, of course, but the GOP will continue to be criticized as obstructionist until they hold a hearing. Then, when they Bork the nominee, they'll get criticized again for being obstructionist. The only way for the howls to go away (despite a grand tradition of the Democrats doing exactly this) is to rubber stamp the nominee. In short, since Repubs will get criticized either way, why make more work for themselves?
I am sure all of the ones that got cooked before this ruling are appreciative.
Really, what's wrong with children voting? What bad things would happen?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
posted about Kim Kardashian's butt
I was on Reddit yesterday evening, where I clicked a link to see Kim Kardashian's large ass, and I was presented with a big photo of Kanye West. There wasn't nearly as much discussion as on /..
Beware of the Redittor who loans you a Sharpie.
Why should state governments have their own representation? What real purpose did that serve?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It is implied under full faith and credit. If we have a debt, we have an obligation to pay it. A representative cannot walk away from that obligation and allow the Republic to go bankrupt just because they don't want to pass a budget.
The fact is, each Congress issues Securities. It is implicit that all subsequent Congress must pay these notes as part of their oath of office.
Regardless of what ever other BS promises for entitlements, we can always away from at any time, but for notes already issued that pay out the coupon, Congress has to pass a budget to fund those or they are violating their oath of office.
You're the employer of some of them, sure. But some of them are mine, and I approve of their actions in this instance (doesn't happen often, so believe me I'm enjoying this one while it lasts). So where do we go from here?
One man's "compromise" is another man's bend over and take it up the arse.
No thanks.
Because we are a republic and States have rights.
1. Patently untrue. Witness the fact that Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagen - nominated by Clinton or Obama - all received significant to overwhelming support from the GOP.
2. Obama had two confirmed - Sotomayor and Kagen. Neither was filibustered, both received support from GOP votes.
3. Yes, and? Both Sotomayor and Kagan had more GOP support than Thomas or Alito had Democrat support.
Essentially, both parties are equally suspicious about nominees by an opposing party and tend to vote against the nominee. To say that it's just the GOP is patently false. And if anything, delaying the vote is exactly what Joe Biden cautioned should happen - there should not be votes for SC nominations in election years.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It absolutely does represent a mandate. It's a mandate from the people who bothered to get off there asses and vote.
I don't think not getting his way would meet the extraordinary occasions requirements.
Being liable to pay tax is not related to your right to vote. Anyone that earns income may have to pay taxes but only citizens aged 18 and over that are a resident of a state are able to vote in national elections. I have been paying income tax since I was 16, many people started paying taxes earlier, but nobody under 18 can vote. Anyone working in this country may end up paying taxes, but only citizens can vote, all of the legal residents that are not citizens cannot vote but still pay taxes. People living in territories like DC pay taxes but get no say in national politics. Convixcted felons pay taxes but often lose their right to vote. For many years women and minorities paid taxes but didn't vote.
So by your logic... Retired people should not get to vote? Stay at home spouses and parents should not get to vote? People who are full time students should not get to vote? People who live off of investment income(capital gains tax not income tax) should not get to vote? People who are unemployed for reasons beyond their control that are not medical should not get to vote? People who stay at home to take care of sick relatives should not get to vote? People who are elidgable to be drafted and sent to die for their counrtry should not get to vote?
When you start putting reatrictions on voting rights it 9w very easy to unintentionally(or intentionally) dienfranchise large portions of the po0ulation that do not deserve it.
I'm not going to put forth an opinion about "drawing the line" somewhere else, but we clearly do "draw the line" for example at 18-year-olds.
I'm going to err on the side of tradition here. We have always prevented younglings beneath a certain age from engaging in the activities we would enjoy the most as adults.
As adults, at least part of the activities plus side was the absence of the least experienced humans.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I didn't say it was just the GOP. We're talking about them because they control the Senate.
Also, I wouldn't say that Sotomayor and Kagan received significant support from the GOP, but they did get some (9 and 5 votes respectively, IIRC). You're also cherry-picking your results a bit. You mentioned Alito and Thomas, but skipped Roberts. He was appointed only a few months before Alito, and got 22 votes from Democrats. That's what I would call significant support, just barely.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Yeah, its an interesting point, but I think if trump were in a 1on1 with cruz he'd be getting his ass kicked. Everybody in the country who likes trump is already voting for him. He'll top out at about 35% of the vote in the general against Hillary.
You were doing well, until you started talking about Hillary. The reason she only has one opponent, is because nobody wants to run against the Clinton machine. She has the DNC firmly packed away in her purse. That's fine though. She's the only candidate I can think of that ever ran a campaign while under investigation by the FBI. I'm sure it will work out great.
The reason she only has one opponent, is because nobody wants to run against the Clinton machine.
I fail to see the difference between this and what I said.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
I clearly wrote that I thought it was CORRECT to get rid of Nixon. Unlike you who are clearly a partisan leftist who opposes anybody on the other side, and supports everybody on his own side, no matter the facts.
Then you lied: Nixon planted no bugs. You even admitted he did not even know about the break-in before it happened. Nixon's offense was that he was a paranoid guy who found his underlings had done something very wrong and he knew his opponents would use it to try to destroy him, so he illegally used part of the government to try to cover it up. Clinton and Obama have both done this numerous times. Obama's AttyGen and SecState and Irs official Lerner all took this sort of coverup paranoia to such an extreme they were hiding all their correspondence from the judicial branch and the legislative branch by using fake names on their e-mail accounts, running a private e-mail server, and hiding things like Fast&Furious under a presidential claim of executive priviledge (the same claim Nixon tried to use)
Clinton did not get it trouble for oral sex - THAT was the defense the hyper-partisan left used to deflect from what he actually did. The man placed himself above a law he himself signed and enforced against the average citizens (among other things). He was not impeached over sex, he was impeached over the crimes he committed trying to cover up the sexual acts as he was attempting to short-circuit a law he signed in order to get away with other sexual misconduct in other cases against him.
Next time you choose to try to look smart, pick somebody who is at least as ignorant of history as you appear to be
In 2008 and 2012 we elected twice.
And in 2010 and 2014 Congress was elected. And in 2009 Obama clearly espoused that "elections have consequences" so it should not be surprising that this situation exists. It seems that many in the cherry picking crowd fail to comprehend that others might like a different cherry flavor.
And some consider 2008 an especially good flavor with the big D controlling the Presidency, House, and Senate.
The residents of Washington D.C. Would like a moment to explain their plight to you...
So the House introduces a series of revenue bills, as it deems appropriate. There is no requirement for a single "budget" and absolutely no requirement for a "balanced budget" - that was argued out around 1795.
sPh
Harry Reid shut down the government by blocking the budget the House had passed to fund the government. Harry Reid was to blame for the government shutdown. Look it up. Read what actually happened and figure it out.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Don't forget Miguel Estrada who was blocked because liberals were afraid if he were elevated his next step could be the Supreme Court and then Republicans would have put the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court.
Liberals blocked a highly qualified judicial candidate because he was Hispanic.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
If they do anything but immediately begin hearings I will then be upset at the Hypocrisy of the Senate leadership. To hold off until the next President is seated, meets with the historical trend. To not proceed once that has happened is wrong. As would any effort to hurry and cram Garland through in a lame duck session if Hillary wins in November.
I agree with holding off. I don't agree with any political machinations after that. If the Democrats win the Whitehouse, then the next President gets to make the nomination and the Senate has no excuse to not proceed.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Not relevant to this discussion. This is primarily about should he be nominated now and should the Senate confirm him. It is highly relevant to us nerds. As the question at this point is will they even consider him that is the key point. His positions on such topics come in to play only once the Senate begins to consider him.
Also many of us nerds are political nerds/junkies or legal nerds (even if we aren't lawyers) and thus this also fits our interests.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
It does however require them to duly consider the candidate.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Actually I was agreeing with and expanding upon your point.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
True but in most states a 14 year old is still held legally responsible for their crimes.
If I had my wishlist for voting requirements it would be a basic understanding of government and a simple test to demonstrate that knowledge. These would be things that are taught in a basic 8th grade civics class and things that they should know if they have been conscious for the last few years like what are the 3 branches of government, what is the job of each branch, who is the current president, who are your congress critters, etc. Ideally I would love to see that plus a mandatory requirement that you graduated from high school or got a GED as k-12 education is provided free for all and the founders did want an educated populous. As far as age goes I would prefer that it be
Time to offend someone
then you're both delusional and uninformed.
which is fairly typical for you.
the intent of the Constitution was to create a federal government that was stronger than that under the Articles, because the one under the Articles was essentially a waste of time ignored by all, having almost no power, and accomplishing almost nothing.
everyone involved agreed on that point. the debate was over how much stronger.
and no, sorry, gridlock can never be the intention, for then you have the same problem they had before: a government that does nothing.
for all their disagreements the Founders all quite clearly wanted a government that functioned.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
the people elected that year represented less than 35% of the total US population.
still not a national mandate.
you need to work on your definitions.
Irrelevant to what?
you were clearly attempting to imply some sort of mandate, so its completely relevant.
which by the way, there was in 2009, and 2012, with over half the country choosing Obama with one of the highest voter turnouts in decades.
you don't want a president to actually do his duties for all 4 years?
then change the term to less than that.
only that wont stop your petty games, for then you'll just call him a lame duck earlier.
its BS. and you're a fool.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
yes I am aware.
a very recent decision, made specifically because of the persons I mentioned.
actually it goes back further than that, to Ring vs Arizona (2002). that's the actual case that said "juries not judges" in regard to executions.
However that hasn't affected Alabama (yet), and it took over a decade for Florida to get from Ring to Hurst.
just as the prohibition against executing the mentally ill hasn't stopped Texas from continuing the practice to this day.
and the Hurst ruling is narrower than you believe being mainly directed at Florida to abide by the Ring decision. the Hurst decision actually sends the case BACK to Florida's courts to examine whether Hurst would have been sentenced anyway should they have followed procedures that DID align with the Ring decision. which also has the effect of making Florida examine how and whether their process can be made to align with Ring. which leaves the question of whether Hurst will also impact Alabama, since Ring so far hasn't, which is an open question that depends very much on how the procedures there actually carried out. and Alito's dissent here lays some clear groundwork not only for getting around the decision, but even going back and re-examining and possibly overturning (should the conditions be right) Ring (be nice if it was a 9-0 ruling, as that would set a clear mandate, but dissents often leave timebombs for the future).
but that's neither here nor there.
my point was about one of the consequences of electing judges: you end up with political creatures who serve themselves rather than the law.
that means, among other things, appearing tough on crime or appealing to bigotry in order to retain their seat.
something that will not change even light of the Hurst decision.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
This is both a very good point (which should be far more widely known), and entirely irrelevant here. In this case it is the Senate that matters, and senators are voted on by your entire state's electorate. No gerrymandering possible.
BOTH of NC's senators are Republican because a majority of the entire state of NC voted for the Republican candidate in 2010 and 2014.
The same Bork who got a hearing and was voted down in the process used for years in confirming nominees? Please explain how his nomination compares in any meaningful way to this situation.
Non-answers. There are plenty of republics where all elected officials are directly elected by the people involved, and the US is an anomaly in that because we still have the Electoral College rather than direct elections. Also, what does it mean that states have rights? I have rights, but not the right to appoint two people to sit in Congress.
To repeat, what purpose does it serve to have state governments themselves select Senators?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
They wanted a government that functioned by achieving consensus. When consensus was not possible, they wanted gridlock. The primary issues which Congress has been asked to act upon over the last 30 years have increasing been issues on which no common ground is possible.
Let us take one issue, abortion. If you believe that killing an unborn child is murder, how do you find common ground with someone who believes people should have the right to do so for whatever reason they have.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
There is no constitutional duty to for the Senate to act either way regarding the President's nominee. The President nominates, with the advice AND consent of the Senate someone to be a justice.
Just a small nuance to clarify the two-step process:
1) the President has the executive power to nominate;
2) the Senate has the congressional power to advise and either consent or deny.
We do have a say in the matter. We elect both the person who nominates the judge as well as the people who approve it. I don't know how much better you're expecting.
There is no election taking place for senators who would review Garland. These same reviewers would represent the same citizens today as they will later.
What I see is SPITE. There is spite for having an intelligent well thought out selection. There is spite because the Republicans want a republican judge, one partial to Republican biases.
Garland is a neutral judge, fair to both democrats and republicans.
Is Obama able to appoint a provisional judge while the Senate decides on their SPITE attack?
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
I think they want to have the seats voted for like all the other positions. I'd be a colder day in hell before any sitting justice would allow that. I also think it is stupid as hell. Them not having to run for office and get to their positions by more merit than the elected officials, removes a lot of the pissing match in their branch that others have. Keep it that way.
The people elect representatives that would hopefully know better than them, so that the people can handle their own lives, and the elected people can focus on doing their end. Those elected people in turn elect justices, so we do get a say, just a derivative vote. If the person really wants to have a say in the matter, then they better as hell start sending letters and phone calls to their representative. If that person doesn't listen, then don't vote for them next time. If that person still stays in office, well your voice and those with your opinion aren't as important as the voices of others.
When you have to run for office as a judge, your priority is to insure re-election. That requirement to be re-elected takes away impartiality. Proof of this is with judges who were measured on their number of convictions or were handing out maximum penalties. Why max penalties? The "for profit" prison corporations (owners) wanted as many inmates as possible. In turn they helped finance the judge's relection if this judge was leaning to assigning max penalties.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
They would turn down Judge Roy Bean, even after Judge Roy promised to hang all the Democrats.
Well, not being an american, your country isn't worth watching at all.
We did. When we re-elected President Obama in 2012. That's how the Constitution works. Article 2, Section 2 is quite clear. How it does NOT work is allowing partisans to re-write the Constitution with soundbites like "the people should get a voice!".
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
You're correct in your characterization of the Founder's original intentions for the Senate. However, you fail to include the reasons why the 17th Amendment were passed, which were important. Dismissing the 17th Amendment as "idiotic" without discussing why it was conceived, passed and ratified is a disservice.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Mr. 0bama hasn't responded very well to the Mexican invasion. Why do you think he would respond any better to a Chinese or North Korean invasion?
Your cited opinion piece makes the unsupported assertion that "the claim that the Senate has a constitutional “obligation” is quite weak." in the face of 350 law professors by using hand-waving ("legal scholars to have seriously considered this question have reached the opposite conclusion.") as if those 350 law professors were not legal scholars. This bit was cute: "serious liberal scholars who have studied the history of judicial confirmation fights are conspicuously absent from the list of signatories". What the fuck is a "serious liberal scholar"? We don't know; Mr. Adler never explains his subjective slight of hand.
Fortunately, Article 2, Section 2 is quite clear. The Senate SHALL advise and consent. Not "may", or "possibly", but "shall". Not "The Majority Party of the Senate", but "the Senate". When taken as a whole, this section unmistakably compels an up-or-down vote of the body. Not partisan games to prevent such a vote, dressed up as "political reality". Not semantic games like "the people should have a voice".
When Justice Kennedy was appointed in the last year of Reagan's Presidency, he was confirmed. By the Democratically controlled Senate. Even though they knew what it meant for the ideological structure of the court. They did their job. Now when Republicans are faced with the exact same situation, we get backstabbing and rhetoric.
I should hope that these games are the final nail in the coffin of the GOP; that the electorate will finally say "enough!" of these naked partisan tactics. That Conservatives would finally put their conscience over party politics. More and more I am discovering that "conscience" is a thing of antiquity to the average modern Conservative.
I did not leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left me.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Lolwut? That is NOT what has happened in California. Our districts are drawn by a balanced panel of both Democrats, Republicans and independents. It has resulted in many more competitive districts which are "purple", not "red", or "blue". From the Wiki article:
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Ahh, the old "false equivalency" followed by the "two wrongs make a right" trick!
No, both parties have not freely engaged in it on multiple occasions. The last time this situation happened, it was in the last year of Reagan's Presidency, and the Democrats in control of the Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy.
And even if Democrats DID pull this shit (they didn't) two wrongs do not make a right.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
I did. The people who keep pushing that quote know that people like YOU will not. Go ahead. Read ALL of what Joe said. And then please have the integrity to change your position.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Permit me to reword my statement then. "It is typical to address supreme court nominations quickly."
The average time between nomination and confirmation/rejection has been ~23 days, however over the last 50 years it's upwards of 60 days... the Bork nomination, the current record for a SCOTUS vacancy is 237 days
The senate held confirmation hearings on Bork within a few months, and rejected Bork's nomination about 100 some days after his nomination. I agree with you that it was pretty slow.
The unique thing here is that the Republicans are saying that they will not permit the confirmation hearing to start until a new president is sworn in, which is about 300 days. Taking your 60 day average, that would be almost a year before confirmation. And if he is rejected, then the clock keeps ticking. By comparison, the others confirmations were almost immediate.
Bork, Thomas, alito. Republicans have a long history or nominating moderates to the SC. And confirming liberal nominations. No more. Fuck you very much.
Donald Trump says a lot of things, but he has a record of lying. I honestly have no idea whether to believe him or not. That is what money does to a man. He feels like he can say whatever he wants to say and do whatever he wants to do without ever being held accountable. I think if he becomes president Trump will be the #1 most hated president in American history. It is funny that his voting base is exactly the same people that his presidency would hurt the most, but they are mostly idiots (same as the Tea party).
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHA HAHA HA HA. Oh that was a good one!
Take it up with the Founding Fathers then, or the electorate. Elections have consequences. In our country, sometimes you gotta sit down and let the other guy drive. Deal with it.
Why, with such a reasoned argument and an impressive high-minded knowledge of civics, my panties are practically falling off all by themselves...
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
... But, you cannot say that voters who feel the same as you are somehow "disenfranchised", because that's simply not true.
Actually, talk about "disenfranchised" and "vote doesn't matter" is often spread by the -other side-, in order to discourage people from voting!
That's good to know, thanks.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Why are you laughing? Look at all the moderates on the court for the last 30 years. Almost all of them were nominated by Republican presidents. You sound like an idiot.
Yes the reason it was passed was to supposedly combat corruption. How did that work out? It was a canard for consolidating power in Washington, which was the major goal and accomplishment of Wilson's presidency. He set us on the course to where we are today.
You keep using that word, "moderate". It does not mean what you think it means.
You know that anger you're feeling that causes you to throw insults around? ("Fuck you very much.", "You sound like an idiot.") That's your cognitive dissonance talking.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Where's your argument? I haven't seen one yet.
You know that lie you just told, claiming to not see assertions in the GP that you just responded to? That's also your cognitive dissonance talking.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Bwahahhaaaahahahag!!!!! That's a good one!
We've petitioned US/UK to expel Brahmin; wh.gov/iyhMK
Casteism
I might be the opposite. Hillary is corrupt, dishonest, a warmonger, a criminal, and firmly in the pocket of Wall Street. A vote for Hillary is 4 more years of the same old shit, likely with a new scandal erupting every other week. Trump? Who knows. It's pretty clear he just says whatever he thinks people want to hear, so it's difficult to say where he actually stands. But if you look at his past actions he's actually a lot more of a centrist than he lets on. Maybe he'd be a disaster, but it's possible he might actually do alright. I'll probably end up voting third party, but I'd take my chances with Trump over Hillary.
Here is the section from the Constitution:
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."
It is the president that gets the "shall", not the Senate. The president shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint...judges of the Supreme Court.
The President "with the advice and consent of the Senate" shall appoint. The President needs the Senate's consent. The Senate has no obligation anywhere in that language to vote on anything. They have not given their consent. How the Senate withholds their consent is up to them and not holding a vote is withholding their consent.
The Congress is a co-equal arm of the government and is not subservient to the Presidency. From Article 1, Section 5, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."
It is up to the Senate to determine how it conducts its business.
Perhaps if the President had actually sought the advice of the Senate then we would have had a nominee that could have satisfied both.
It may not be polite, it may not be wise and it may not be to your liking but the Senate has withheld their consent. You misquote the document and then argue that your misquote is proof that the Senate must take a vote. No vote is required and I invite you to, correctly, quote any part of the Constitution that requires the Senate take a vote.
Are we seriously down to parsing the meaning of the conjunction "and" here? Are we seriously parsing whether "and" applies to the "shall" which precedes or or the "advise and consent" which follows it? Is that truly the level of absurdity we've sunk to?
I realize that Congress is not subservient to the Executive or Judiciary; nobody but the people can force them to do their job, but no reasonable person can make the argument that the majority party engineering no vote at all equates to the Senate as a body whole withholding consent.
Here's my example from a post just a bit up
"What if this presidential election needs to go to the supreme court like the Bush/Gore race? What if the court ties? I realize there are contingencies for that happening but do you think it would go well going with a lower courts call on such a massive issue?"
Having an even number of justices for a significant period of time is just not a good idea as it creates the possibility of ties. Ties of course result in going with a lower court's call but if the issue is important enough to be addressed by the Supreme Court then it should be resolved by them. That's literally why they're there. It calls into question the validity of our governance if the top tier of one of our three main branches can't properly resolve the issues it's supposed to resolve. Will this massively destabilize our government? I'm pretty sure it won't but it certainly isn't a healthy state for us to be in.
I also never said anywhere that putting off the confirmation guaranteed a GOP appointment. No idea where you got that from.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
and democrats, Obama included, tend to nominate more centrist persons, persons not known for bombast and partisanship at the time of their nomination. they nominate people agreeable to both sides.
the GOP does not.
there was nothing centrist about Scalia, or Thomas, or Alito, or Roberts.
and that's largely because the only persons GOP president nominate over the past few decades are judges active with or supported by the federalist Society, and very right wing group.
the last GOP nominated centrist was Kennedy, and that was because it was an election year and Reagan didn't want the sort of political fighting going on now!
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
P
resident Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court may have come as a surprise to the political world. But it shouldn’t have. Garland is the kind of nominee whom we would have expected from Obama under ordinary circumstances. Indeed, in important respects he is similar to Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the nominees whom Obama chose early in his presidency. More importantly, his nomination reflects the practice of recent Democratic presidents to balance ideology with other goals by appointing moderate liberals. In sharp contrast, our research shows that Republican presidents over the past 25 years have put ideology first by appointing strong conservatives to the court.
Perhaps he should nominate someone who would have a great chance of appealing to the GOP, rather than someone squishy on the 2nd Amendment and who trends pretty left.
Aren't you lucky then because that's exactly what he did.
or are you reading that one idiotic National Review article that has proclaimed him a liberal based on case that he didn't even issue an opinion on .
To be clear:
-no he does NOT trend left.
-and no he is not squishy on guns
-and he DOES appeal the GOP having been previously confirmed by a 97-0 vote in the Senate before.
at this point you fools are so dedicated to opposing anything and everything O touches, that he could nominate St Ronnie himself, and you'd denounce it.
Congress should only feel obligated to represent the wishes of the people who took the opportunity to voice their wishes. Didn't vote? who's to say why they didn't.
You do realize that there are other forms of political expression available besides voting, right? Many people who do not vote are rather vocal about their reasons, especially if you ask them...
Because the people who didn't opted not to have their voices count.
There are other forms of political expression, besides voting. If no one on the ballot represents me, then my voice will not count whether I vote or not.
One could make the same argument about Bush...
Definitely. Do you think I'm a Republican or something? (Hint: Republicans vote.)
Hell, the same argument can be said about Congress since they were voted with the same low turn out. If the same low turn out can be used against Obama, then the same can be said for Senators. It's not like 30% voted for the president, but 100% voted for congress.
Yes, the same argument can be made for Congress too. Therefore, I propose that people in Congress vote their conscience, rather than trying to slavishly adhere to a non-existent electoral mandate, based on who won the other offices.
The counterpoint to your statistics is "I am fine with either candidate, so I simply will not voice an opinion by voting."
Great! Then those people should be fine with whatever Congress decides to do - even if Congress decides not to approve Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
You don't get to lend voice to those that don't speak, the same as I don't.
I'm not "lending a voice" - I am a voice. I don't vote (for the office of President, at least), and yet here I am speaking.
It's almost as though voting were not the only possible form of political expression... But of course that's just crazy talk.
Yeah, except for when you said
the actual winning option was, "I don't trust either the red candidate or the blue candidate to represent me!"
... you were attempting to speak for 192 million people, by your own numbers.
There are many reasons not to vote, you pointed to one of them and said that the 60% of the population that didn't vote decided not to for that reason. Either you are the most amazing psychic ever, or your arrogance is showing.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
There are many reasons not to vote, you pointed to one of them and said that the 60% of the population that didn't vote decided not to for that reason.
A fair point. I guess my bias is showing.
I do think that the fact that both the President and Congress have generally maintained minority job approval ratings in recent years suggests that "I am fine with either candidate" is probably not the main reason people don't vote, though. Moreover, several of the more successful recent Presidential candidates - Obama, Trump, Carson, and maybe Sanders and Cruz - have recognized that emphasizing their (alleged) status as "outsiders" to the corrupt/dysfunctional Washington political system is necessary to attract voters.
Regardless, the fact remains that getting ~30% of the population to vote for a person as president, doesn't equate to an electoral mandate from "the American people" for Congress to cooperate with that President's efforts to appoint someone to the Supreme Court.
Sure, but then you're also making the assumption that people who have chosen not to vote have chosen to speak in other ways. And you have no way of knowing that.
No, when the entire system is defined as 'vote for the candidate you want,' the only possible way to determine the candidate somebody wants is to tally the votes. If you *ever* have to have a discussion about 'voter intent,' you've already given up completely. If your voting system is so horrible, and so open to gaming, you don't have a voting system, you have a smokescreen.
I'll also point out that whenever America 'democratizes' another country, they implement bog-standard voting systems that are widely used across the world, rather than the uniquely American system that does it's best to obfuscate and redirect.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Sure, but then you're also making the assumption that people who have chosen not to vote have chosen to speak in other ways. And you have no way of knowing that.
No, when the entire system is defined as 'vote for the candidate you want,' the only possible way to determine the candidate somebody wants is to tally the votes. If you *ever* have to have a discussion about 'voter intent,' you've already given up completely.
So why shouldn't Congress apply that same reasoning?
Why should Congress interpret 30% of the country voting in Obama as President, as indicative of a "voter intent" on the part of "the American people" as a whole, that Congress cooperate with Obama's efforts to fill the Supreme Court vacancy?
If we're not allowed to guess at "voter intent", then how can we dismiss the possibility that "the American people" got exactly what they wanted at the polls: a deadlocked system?
Did 30% of eligible voters vote for Obama, or did 30% of people who voted vote for Obama?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I think we can both agree that there is something rotten in the system, and that the majority of the citizenry is disengaged, and there's really no arguing that. The real question is how to get their participation in the process. So far this year, we've seen increased turnout in the primaries - the question is why? Is it because of 'I can't let candidate X get the nomination, so I need to vote for Y' or 'I'm super energized by candidate X, so I'm going to make sure I vote!'? Perhaps both?
And while a 30% turnout doesn't equate to an electoral mandate for 100% of the citizenry, an electoral victory does equate to a mandate for the percentage of the citizenry that actually gives a shit enough to spend 10 minutes* filling in bubbles.
*speaking from my own experience - every time I've voted, which is basically every election since I turned 18, it has taken less than 30 minutes start to finish. This includes living in two large cities. I'm sure there are experiences outside of my own, but I cannot speak to them.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
What relevance does that question have?
I'm simply asking: why should the ballots cast for President be interpreted as instructions to Congress, if we're forbidden to even "have a discussion about voter intent"?
And while a 30% turnout doesn't equate to an electoral mandate for 100% of the citizenry, an electoral victory does equate to a mandate for the percentage of the citizenry that actually gives a shit enough to spend 10 minutes* filling in bubbles.
Now your bias is showing. While it is not 100%, there is definitely a sizeable percentage of people who abstain from voting because they don't want to endorse any of the available candidates, not because they don't care. Particularly in the general election for President, it is absurd and manipulative to suggest that anyone who refuses to accept one of the two choices (in some states, the law prevents others from even getting on the ballot) just "doesn't give a shit".
As to how we can increase electoral turnout, etc. - that is quite far off topic. My original point was simply this: Congress is not obligated to do give Obama what he wants, just because 30% of the country voted for him to be President (not one-man Senate).
There may be many other reasons that Congress should cooperate, but the bare fact that Obama won the last Presidential election is not good enough by itself. The Constitution itself recognizes this; that's why Obama is required to seek Congressional approval in the first place...
It's the only relevant thing.
Otherwise, there are two ways of looking at it:
1) Of the people who voted, the majority voted for Obama. I assume. After all, electoral college and all that. Therefore, Congress has been given a clear signal that the majority of Americans who care enough to bother, want Obama's suggestions to happen. So, they best help make Obama's suggestions happen.
2) Of the overall eligible voting pool, only 30% voted for Obama. Therefore, Congress must somehow mystically divine what the large block of people, who didn't vote, want them to do.
The problem with 2) is that this means they can do whatever they want, with any justification they can come up with. And it shouldn't work that way. The only 'voter intent' that matters is *how the votes tallied up.*
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Whoever said that Congress is obligated to do anything other than meet up in the Capitol building every once in while? If you look for other posts on this particular subject I've made, I've said that the Senate has already fulfilled their Constitutional duty in this case - they already gave their 'advice' and told him that whoever he picks, they will not get the Senate's consent until at least after the election, if ever.
From a Constitutional perspective, the President doesn't have the authority to direct Congress to do anything, except that he can order them to convene if they aren't in session under "Extraordinary Occasions." The Congress, once gaveled into session under that decree, can then proceed to play a giant poker tournament in the Senate Cloakroom if they so choose.
Of course, if their opposition to a particular nomination is purely partisan, those Congress critters may well answer for it when they're up for re-election, but that's all part of the game. Their re-election chances might be helped by it, too. I guess that's the best part of being a Senator - you get to choose what is right for the people that sent you there to represent them.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Oh I agree with what you're saying there.
Whoever said that Congress is obligated to do anything other than meet up in the Capitol building every once in while?
I think Sowelu did above, which is why I first entered this thread.
I have two problems with the way you're portraying things:
1) You very wrongly dismiss everyone who didn't vote for either Obama, Romney, or McCain in those two elections as "not caring". This is ridiculous; I didn't vote because none of those three candidates came anywhere close to representing me, not because I didn't care. Refusing to choose the "lesser of two evils" does not equate to "not caring".
2) You simply assume that Congress' job is to obey the will of the majority of Americans who voted, whereas the United States is actually constituted as a Republic.
America's system of elections and offices at the Federal level was intentionally designed not to equate to direct democracy, but rather to balance the interests of various groups: the People (via the House of Representatives), each State individually (via the Senate and the Electoral College), minorities (via various constitutional rights, enforceable by the courts which are not directly subject to the majority), etc.
You are essentially demanding that the Senators ignore the groups who elected them, which they are intended to represent, in favour of following the Presidential vote - despite the Presidential vote having been deliberately designed to favour a different constituency.
The only 'voter intent' that matters is *how the votes tallied up.*
Why do only the votes for President count, and not the votes for Congress?
I could just as easily argue that Obama should submit to the manifest will of the voters, revealed by who they voted into Congress - especially since the congressional vote is more up-to-date.
Garland makes the court 50% Jewish, oy vey.
Senate rules passed by the Dems in the 60's mandate that no appointments be made in a presidential election year. So, Obama can pound sand.
Well, how the American system was designed included things like 'no political parties,' 'senators are appointed by the state governments,' 'the vice-president is the first presidential loser' and 'approximately six percent of the population is eligible to vote.'
It's changed over the years, and not always for the better.
And that's not even getting into the idea that the States are supposed to be more like a mini-UN than a collection of provinces or districts.
The point I'm trying to make, though, is 'if somebody doesn't vote, how do you determine their intention?' Answer me that. You say you didn't vote. So how is Congress, or the President, supposed to divine how you feel on, say, health care?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
The point I'm trying to make, though, is 'if somebody doesn't vote, how do you determine their intention?' Answer me that. You say you didn't vote. So how is Congress, or the President, supposed to divine how you feel on, say, health care?
As I said to someone else in this thread, I think Congress should simply vote according to their own consciences, instead of trying to indirectly infer what a referendum on each issue would show. That's how a republic is supposed to work: you vote for someone you trust to make good decisions, and then let them do their job (or vote them out).
As to my own intention - the desires of my demographic are not unknown to Congress or the President; there just aren't enough people in the United States who truly share my views to form a politically relevant voting block (and we're not into bribery, either). The Government knows what we think; they just don't care, and never will unless the demographics change.
I would be a lot more likely to directly participate in the electoral process if America's voting system wasn't designed in such a way as to effectively disenfranchise anyone who can't at least come close to assembling a majority.
I do vote on referendum or ballot measure type stuff, because in such Yes/No contests my opinion actually appears on the ballot, unlike in the presidential Red vs. Blue vs. [Redacted] contest.
And that would be a wonderful thing, if you didn't have issues like institutionalized gerrymandering, voter deprivation, and all the other shenanigans endemic to the American system.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I never said our republic is healthy (we all know it's not)... just that demanding Congress make their decisions based on what might be the indirectly implied "will of the People" via the presidential election is not reasonable. Many of the ways in which America's political system is dysfunctional affect the office of President just as much as they affect Congress.
No argument on that.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.