Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 06-06-2019, 10:14 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
I also pondered whether the 4th criteria was a better fit.

This really doesn't seem like a remotely plausible strategy and besides if a court decision like that came down then I have very little doubt that the Republicans wouldn't need much whipping to vote against the nominee even if it was King Solomon.
  #202  
Old 06-06-2019, 10:46 AM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Got the numbers on that?

ETA: If you've got to go back 45 years to Watergate, that's just saying it all but never happens.
Ok, sorry, geez, I take a day off and five pages of answers go by. But I had to come back to this. Do you already not recall what happened to the House in 2010, when the Republicans picked up 63 seats? Or in the Senate, where the Republicans picked up 6 seats?

I live in one of the swing Congressional districts from that day: South Carolina 6 (now 5), which went from being represented by John Spratt - D (who had represented the district for 18 years) to being represented by Mick Mulvaney - R. Trust me when I say that the real motivator for many people in the district was the ACA, which Rep. Spratt, as Chairman of the House Budget Committee, had moved on the floor to final vote. Mulvaney hung that around his neck like the proverbial albatross, and it cost him, despite the fact that he was arguably one of the most conservative Democrats in the House.
  #203  
Old 06-06-2019, 11:39 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If McConnell tries this again, we may see this tested in court. Along with other potential attempts at a solution. It doesn't seem likely to me that McConnell would be able to hold up a nomination for 2-4 years, but we'll see (or hopefully we won't!).
Do you think the flip side is worthwhile?

The OP and much of the thread is complaining because McConnell is flip-flopping on nominations in an election year. If Ginsberg retires tomorrow morning and Trump nominates someone to fill her seat, do you think the Dems would succeed in a lawsuit to block the vote on the nomination?

Regards,
Shodan
  #204  
Old 06-06-2019, 11:49 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
That's not really "the flip side", it's completely different. The people who wanted a lawsuit over Garland hang their hat on thinking the Constitution demands the Senate formally act on a Supreme nominee. What is this supposed "flip side" based on?

Last edited by CarnalK; 06-06-2019 at 11:51 AM.
  #205  
Old 06-06-2019, 11:52 AM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,411
As for the rest of the thread:

1. What McConnell did wasn't unprecedented.

2. If a majority of senators objected to what he decided to do about the nomination, they could have over-ridden his decision. They didn't, because the Republican senators were content to let McConnell lead them on the issue. So to say this was just McConnell's decision is to ignore the complicity of the rest of the GOP caucus. It was done by the caucus, not just McConnell.

3. The Supreme Court is not going to change anything in such disputes between a President and Congress (or one house thereof). First of all, as noted before, it's a political question, one they simply refuse to inject themselves into; precedent on that is pretty consistent from the time of the founding. But secondly, the Constitution doesn't require a vote. PERIOD. So even if the Supreme Court took up the question, what could they do?? If they were to require the Senate to hold a vote, they would be engaging in precisely the sort of extra-judicial action that BOTH sides of the political spectrum get completely upset about. That's simply not going to happen.

4. Contrary to what some are asserting here, McConnell never said that he was refusing to hold hearings simply because it was the last year of the President's term. He made it clear at the time that he was doing so because it was the last year, AND the President's party was the other party from the party holding control in the Senate. Now, I'm not sure that makes what he did any less objectionable (indeed, I certainly don't think so). But it doesn't make him a hypocrite for saying that he'd hold hearings on a nominee next year from President Trump.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The decision to ignore President Obama's nomination of Garland was a bad idea. It was inconsistent with the normal process of the last roughly 100 years, and it invites a further escalation of non-normal behaviors if/when the Democrats end up in control of the Senate (see: court-packing schemes). But it's not like it was something that was completely out of the blue; Harry Reid had been playing with the rules himself as Majority Leader during the period the Democrats had control of the Senate, and McConnell (and others) had warned at the time that doing so would result in even more bad things down the road. At some point, someone is going to have to step up and say, "enough!" to this slow but certain breakdown of the normal political process in the Senate. Quite possibly, it will come over a nomination to the Court in a year that the White House and the Senate are in the control of different parties early in that President's term. Crisis tends to breed resolution.
  #206  
Old 06-06-2019, 12:20 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Do you think the flip side is worthwhile?

The OP and much of the thread is complaining because McConnell is flip-flopping on nominations in an election year. If Ginsberg retires tomorrow morning and Trump nominates someone to fill her seat, do you think the Dems would succeed in a lawsuit to block the vote on the nomination?

Regards,
Shodan
I don't understand how this is "the flip side", but I'd have no expectation that the Democrats would succeed in any such lawsuit.
  #207  
Old 06-06-2019, 03:25 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,639
I share the same expectation of a lawsuit attempting to force a vote, and for the same reason - the Court does not set Senate rules. That's what I meant by the flip side - the Court can't tell the Senate they have to vote, the Court can't tell the Senate they cannot vote.

Regards,
Shodan
  #208  
Old 06-06-2019, 03:32 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I share the same expectation of a lawsuit attempting to force a vote, and for the same reason - the Court does not set Senate rules. That's what I meant by the flip side - the Court can't tell the Senate they have to vote, the Court can't tell the Senate they cannot vote.

Regards,
Shodan
It wouldn't have to force a vote, necessarily - it could say that the nomination goes through if the senate does nothing, or many other possibilities.

Maybe a long shot, but long shots are worth a try if the alternative is losing.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #209  
Old 06-06-2019, 04:54 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,565
The obstructionists in the senate already understand that not voting means the nominee doesn't get the job. There's 2 ways to get that. Vote the candidate down, and refuse to do your job. Give the bastards only one way to get that. You want to vote the candidate down? That's fine. Have the integrity to do it.
  #210  
Old 06-06-2019, 06:54 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
The obstructionists in the senate already understand that not voting means the nominee doesn't get the job. There's 2 ways to get that. Vote the candidate down, and refuse to do your job. Give the bastards only one way to get that. You want to vote the candidate down? That's fine. Have the integrity to do it.
LOL! Dog and pony show sham hearings are now a mark of "integrity"
  #211  
Old 06-06-2019, 08:10 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,565
Doing the job one gets paid by the taxpayer to do is a display of the smallest modicum of integrity.

Last edited by bobot; 06-06-2019 at 08:11 PM.
  #212  
Old 06-07-2019, 08:21 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
The obstructionists in the senate already understand that not voting means the nominee doesn't get the job. There's 2 ways to get that. Vote the candidate down, and refuse to do your job. Give the bastards only one way to get that. You want to vote the candidate down? That's fine. Have the integrity to do it.
Kinda makes you wonder what McConnell thought would happen if he held the vote, don'tcha?
  #213  
Old 06-07-2019, 09:10 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,463
HurricaneDitka, we're not talking about dog-and-pony shows. We're talking about voting. Which, yes, is relevant for integrity of our government.
  #214  
Old 06-07-2019, 09:31 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It wouldn't have to force a vote, necessarily - it could say that the nomination goes through if the senate does nothing, or many other possibilities.

Maybe a long shot, but long shots are worth a try if the alternative is losing.
The only alternatives are not, 1) doing nothing, or 2) losing.

There is also, 3) asking the Court to rule that the Constitution doesn't say what it says, and does say what it doesn't, again, and winding up looking stupid.

Regards,
Shodan
  #215  
Old 06-07-2019, 09:35 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The only alternatives are not, 1) doing nothing, or 2) losing.

There is also, 3) asking the Court to rule that the Constitution doesn't say what it says, and does say what it doesn't, again, and winding up looking stupid.

Regards,
Shodan
And maybe even a 4 and a 5, and who knows, even a 6! There could be lots of things they could try, and maybe even one of them could work!
  #216  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:33 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Ok, sorry, geez, I take a day off and five pages of answers go by. But I had to come back to this. Do you already not recall what happened to the House in 2010, when the Republicans picked up 63 seats? Or in the Senate, where the Republicans picked up 6 seats?

I live in one of the swing Congressional districts from that day: South Carolina 6 (now 5), which went from being represented by John Spratt - D (who had represented the district for 18 years) to being represented by Mick Mulvaney - R. Trust me when I say that the real motivator for many people in the district was the ACA, which Rep. Spratt, as Chairman of the House Budget Committee, had moved on the floor to final vote. Mulvaney hung that around his neck like the proverbial albatross, and it cost him, despite the fact that he was arguably one of the most conservative Democrats in the House.
How does that support your claim? Yes, there were people who were mad. There are always people who are mad. Was there higher-than-average Republican turnout in 2010? Or was it just lower-than-average Dem turnout?

I don't know the answer, but you're the one who's making the claim; you can do the work. But if what really screwed the Dems in 2010 was reduced Dem turnout, then your claim fails.
  #217  
Old 06-07-2019, 07:02 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
HurricaneDitka, we're not talking about dog-and-pony shows. We're talking about voting. Which, yes, is relevant for integrity of our government.
The Dems didn't feel voting was "relevant for integrity of our government" when it was Miguel Estrada being nominated (or any of the other various judges they filibustered / otherwise stonewalled). Any rational reason for their flip-flop? Or is this just another case of "it depends on whose ox is getting gored"?
  #218  
Old 06-08-2019, 12:07 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,001
I like that technique! Cite one example and then imply that you have many others right at your fingertips, but move along briskly to declaring your point established. Saves time, I suppose.

Mr Estrada, as you know or should know, had no experience as a judge, nor any academic writings to review. His primary qualification would seem to be a membership in the Federalist Society. Known for ideological diversity, running from firmly conservative to extremely so.

Does ideology matter? Well, of course it does, it is precisely why honest conservatives, that most endangered of species, can justify cooperating with Il Douche. Ramming through conservative judges is the mayonnaise on the Trump shit sandwich that allows them to choke down one more bite. Against whatever shred of conscience remains. Mmmm, mmmm, good! Yummy!

Mr. Garland had experience on the bench, and the respect of his peers. A pity that he is such an extreme radical lefty firebrand. You know, like Obama.
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #219  
Old 06-08-2019, 12:41 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
It's at least a step forward for a Republican partisan to denounce filibustering. Maybe that's something we can build on.
  #220  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:49 AM
Turek is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Inara's shuttle
Posts: 4,013
Chao created special path for McConnell’s favored projects

Quote:
The Transportation Department under Secretary Elaine Chao designated a special liaison to help with grant applications and other priorities from her husband Mitch McConnell’s state of Kentucky, paving the way for grants totaling at least $78 million for favored projects as McConnell prepared to campaign for reelection.

Last edited by Turek; 06-12-2019 at 06:50 AM.
  #221  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:53 AM
Turek is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Inara's shuttle
Posts: 4,013
Transportation Secretary Failed to Sever Financial Ties to Construction Company

Quote:
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao failed last year to cash out her stock options in one of the nation’s largest suppliers of highway construction materials, despite a promise she had made to do so in a signed ethics agreement when she joined the Trump administration.
Quote:
But a financial disclosure report released this month by her husband, Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican who is the Senate majority leader, showed that Ms. Chao had somewhere between $250,000 and $500,000 worth of Vulcan stock. She owned this stock because in April 2018 Vulcan paid her for her stock options in the company’s stock instead of cash, the company said in a statement. Details of her continued ownership of Vulcan stock were reported on Tuesday by The Wall Street Journal.
They're both corrupt a shit, but just par for the course for this administration.
  #222  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:34 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turek View Post
Transportation Secretary Failed to Sever Financial Ties to Construction Company


They're both corrupt a shit, but just par for the course for this administration.
And naturally, like clockwork, on the heels of that comes:

McConnell dismisses report that his wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, steered funds to Kentucky
Quote:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) dismissed a report that his wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, designated one of her top staffers to help steer federal funds to McConnell’s home state.

Asked whether he had received any special consideration for transportation grants because of his status as Chao’s husband, McConnell turned the tables, suggesting that he had discussed federal projects with Chao and that she hadn’t steered enough funds to his state.

“You know, I was complaining to her just last night: 169 projects, and Kentucky got only five. I hope we’ll do a lot better next year,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday at his weekly news conference.

Politico reported Monday that Chao had tapped a top aide and former McConnell campaign staffer, Todd Inman, to serve as a “special intermediary” for Kentucky, helping to steer at least $78 million in federal grants to projects favored by the Senate majority leader. Critics have argued that the arrangement provides special political benefit to McConnell, who is up for reelection in 2020.
...
McTurtle is good. He knows that the best lies contain a kernel of truth. I'm sure they did talk about it. Right. Only five? But what was the $$$ value of those projects, Mr. Turtle?
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #223  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:10 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,463
And 5 out of 169... that's about 1 in 34. When one state out of 50, that's 1/73 the population of the whole nation, is getting 1/34 of the road construction projects, that's evidence that they're not getting enough?
  #224  
Old 07-11-2019, 12:24 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,228
"Democrats make McConnell Public Enemy No. 1 in bid to take back Senate"
https://wapo.st/32haYq5
Quote:
...
“The majority leader has extraordinary power and is the primary obstacle to getting things done here in the U.S. Senate,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said in an interview Tuesday. “He is also the face of acquiescence to Trump and the Republicans’ lack of a spine. The most effective arguments are often about a personality, a personal face and a story, and this story has the great virtue of being true.”

The latest critiques reflect a growing movement within Democratic ranks to make the 2020 election cycle not just a referendum on Trump, but also a purging of McConnell and entrenched Republicans who have given conservatives immense sway over policy and judicial vacancies while enabling Trump’s priorities, from hard-line immigration policies at the U.S.-Mexico border to sweeping deregulation.
...
Yeah, baby! Bring down the puppet master!
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #225  
Old 07-11-2019, 12:27 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
"Democrats make McConnell Public Enemy No. 1 in bid to take back Senate"
https://wapo.st/32haYq5


Yeah, baby! Bring down the puppet master!
Fucking FINALLY.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017