Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-01-2019, 11:06 PM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You chose to post this in a thread whining about how Senator McConnell has wronged Dems? Interesting, that.
I knew you'd comment on one of my posts sooner or later even though I haven't directly commented on one of yours in the past (and with good reason as I generally feel that you're beneath any comments by me). Shame you couldn't just keep whatever misguided thoughts (if "thoughts" is what you really to call them) you had on this to yourself. Also, too bad you're W-R-O-N-G, as usual (being a conservative it must SUCK for you to have that be your normal circumstance). So tell me - tell us ALL, Mr. Conservative - how do you rationalize The Turtle refusing to grant Merrick Garland ANY audience at all in 2016 but now stating (in that idiotic Kentucky accent of his) that he's perfectly fine with S.C. nominations and confirmations next election year, hm? Oh, and by the way, Mr. Republican (it must have to suck SO BADLY for you to have go through life labeled as such) - please explain to us ALL (IF you're able to do so - which I have my doubts about) how it is you can come on here and whine about my concerns when what The Turtle did in 2016 is ABSOLUTELY wrong (you don't think so? Then let's see what you have to say if and when Democrats ever try to pull that little stunt in an election year, hm?) while what the likes of Dick Cheney and The Turtle had to "endure" was perfectly fine AND deserved, hm? Oh, I know you'll try to rationalize all of this in the usual (non-sensical) Republican way, but, as always, you'll be DEAD WRONG.
  #52  
Old 06-01-2019, 11:09 PM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You think the Dems have a a lock on objective reality? LOL!
Maybe not, but they're a LOT closer to it than Republicans/conservatives are, ever have been, or ever will be. Nothing YOU state (ESPECIALLY anything YOU state) will EVER change that.
  #53  
Old 06-01-2019, 11:10 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by racepug View Post
Maybe not, but they're a LOT closer to it than Republicans/conservatives are, ever have been, or ever will be. Nothing YOU state (ESPECIALLY anything YOU state) will EVER change that.
Ease off the caps lock there, buddy.

Looks like another vote for "Chronos is wrong". I think I'll start keeping a tally.
  #54  
Old 06-01-2019, 11:13 PM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Ease off the caps lock there, buddy.

Looks like another vote for "Chronos is wrong". I think I'll start keeping a tally.
Or what, tough guy? As usual, you have nothing REAL to argue with ('course, that's pretty much the "standard situation" for conservatives, isn't it? Don't bother answering - I already know the correct response). No wonder someone started a "BBQ Pit" thread all about YOU.
  #55  
Old 06-01-2019, 11:19 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by racepug View Post
I knew you'd comment on one of my posts sooner or later even though I haven't directly commented on one of yours in the past (and with good reason as I generally feel that you're beneath any comments by me). Shame you couldn't just keep whatever misguided thoughts (if "thoughts" is what you really to call them) you had on this to yourself. Also, too bad you're W-R-O-N-G, as usual (being a conservative it must SUCK for you to have that be your normal circumstance). So tell me - tell us ALL, Mr. Conservative - how do you rationalize The Turtle refusing to grant Merrick Garland ANY audience at all in 2016 but now stating (in that idiotic Kentucky accent of his) that he's perfectly fine with S.C. nominations and confirmations next election year, hm? Oh, and by the way, Mr. Republican (it must have to suck SO BADLY for you to have go through life labeled as such) - please explain to us ALL (IF you're able to do so - which I have my doubts about) how it is you can come on here and whine about my concerns when what The Turtle did in 2016 is ABSOLUTELY wrong (you don't think so? Then let's see what you have to say if and when Democrats ever try to pull that little stunt in an election year, hm?) while what the likes of Dick Cheney and The Turtle had to "endure" was perfectly fine AND deserved, hm? Oh, I know you'll try to rationalize all of this in the usual (non-sensical) Republican way, but, as always, you'll be DEAD WRONG.
And WTF is this nonsense? Senator McConnell already explained the key difference between 2016 and a hypothetical SCOTUS vacancy in 2020: in the former, a different party controlled the Senate and the White House. In the latter, that isn't likely to be the case. I fully expect that Dems will refuse to confirm nominees by Republican presidents if they win back control of the Senate. They were already well on their way to this back during President George W. Bush's administration.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 06-01-2019 at 11:21 PM.
  #56  
Old 06-01-2019, 11:25 PM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
And WTF is this nonsense? Senator McConnell already explained the key difference between 2016 and a hypothetical SCOTUS vacancy in 2020: in the former, a different party controlled the Senate and the White House. In the latter, that isn't likely to be the case. I fully expect that Dems will refuse to fill nominations by Republican presidents if they win back control of the Senate. They were already well on their way to this back during President George W. Bush's administration.
I'd say that's a pretty good bet. But I'd also bet that they'll at least give those nominees a hearing. Democrats aren't flawless, but they're not NEARLY as underhanded and conniving as Republicans, on the whole, are.

On the other hand, when all Republicans care about is stuffing courts with right-leaning jurists and couldn't care less about putting somebody competent or honest in the W.H. that pretty much tells any even-handed and thinking person all he or she needs to know about "The Party of Lincoln" (I'm pretty sure that if Abraham Lincoln were alive today he would go right onto the FOX Right Wing Propaganda Machine and tell conservatives to STOP using that nickname for that particular political party)
  #57  
Old 06-01-2019, 11:31 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by racepug View Post
I'd say that's a pretty good bet. But I'd also bet that they'll at least give those nominees a hearing. ...
I don't share your confidence, but anyways, let's pretend you're right for a moment, and they do intend to hold hearings on nominees before virtually all of them vote against the nominee. Why do you see that sham hearing as an improvement over Senator McConnell's decision to forego the dog and pony show? It's not like there are many senators who go into the hearings undecided about how they're going to vote. It was clear even before Trump's nominees were named that they'd be getting "no" votes from almost every Dem. I can't even guess who the next Republican President is going to be, but I'm confident that the vast majority of Dems will vote against his SCOTUS nominees. What value add is there with them putting on a charade of a hearing?
  #58  
Old 06-01-2019, 11:41 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It sounds like you agree with me and disagree with Chronos. Am I understanding your position correctly?
It seems that nuanced positions are hard to understand.

If confronted with two mine fields and we know that one has a 30% chance to be deadly vs the second one that has more mines so as to have the chance of being 70% deadly, will you say that the ones deciding to go through the first field are just as correct as the ones going through the second field?

So, I'm closer to Chronos, and farther away from your choice of following the ones that are increasing the number of mines in their field.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...stream-1344955
Quote:
The anti-vaccine movement, which swelled with discredited theories that blamed vaccines for autism and other ills, has morphed and grown into a libertarian political rebellion that is drawing in state Republican officials who distrust government medical mandates.

Anti-vaccine sentiments are as old as vaccines themselves — and it’s been nearly 300 years since smallpox immunization began in what is now the United States. Liberal enclaves from Boulder, Colo., to Marin County, Calif., have long been pockets of vaccine skepticism. But the current measles epidemic, with more than 880 cases reported across 25 states of a disease declared eradicated in the U.S. 19 years ago, shows it gaining power within the GOP mainstream.

What’s new about the current anti-vaccine movement is the argument that government has no right to force parents to vaccinate their kids before they enter school. While Trump administration health officials and most Republicans in Congress still back mandatory vaccination, opposition is gaining steam among Republicans in state legislatures.
Quote:
But in states where legislators have advanced serious efforts to tighten restrictions, such as Maine, Washington, Colorado and Oregon, nearly all of the opponents are Republicans who’ve taken a medical freedom stance.

“The more they dig into it being about freedom, the more susceptible they become to the theories,” said Dave Gorski, a Michigan physician who has tracked the anti-vaccine movement for two decades. “Appeals to freedom are like the gateway drug to pseudoscience.”

At the extremes are legislators like Jonathan Stickland, a pro-National Rifle Association, Christian conservative in the Texas Legislature, who has described vaccines as “sorcery” while personally attacking Baylor College of Medicine scientist Peter Hotez, who has a daughter with autism and works on vaccines for neglected tropical diseases. “Parental rights mean more to us than your self-enriching 'science,'" Stickland tweeted at Hotez earlier this month.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-01-2019 at 11:41 PM.
  #59  
Old 06-01-2019, 11:48 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
It seems that nuanced positions are hard to understand.

If confronted with two mine fields and we know that one has a 30% chance to be deadly vs the second one that has more mines so as to have the chance of being 70% deadly, will you say that the ones deciding to go through the first field are just as correct as the ones going through the second field?

So, I'm closer to Chronos, and farther away from your choice of following the ones that are increasing the number of mines in their field.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...stream-1344955
I'm well aware that you see Chronos as a political ally and me as a political foe. In this case, I don't think that's terribly relevant though. My rebuttal to Chronos is that there are mines in both fields. It sounds like you agree with that, but Chronos does not. Before moving on to the debate about how many mines are in each field, and what should count as a mine and what shouldn't, I want to make sure we've established the objective reality that neither field is free of mines. That was the (analogous) claim that Chronos was making: "there's such a thing as objective reality, and it's possible for one party to agree with it, and the other to disagree with it."
  #60  
Old 06-02-2019, 12:36 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm well aware that you see Chronos as a political ally and me as a political foe. In this case, I don't think that's terribly relevant though. My rebuttal to Chronos is that there are mines in both fields. It sounds like you agree with that, but Chronos does not.
Again, it seems that you think that noticing that allows one to claim that the mine fields should be considered as the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Before moving on to the debate about how many mines are in each field, and what should count as a mine and what shouldn't, I want to make sure we've established the objective reality that neither field is free of mines. That was the (analogous) claim that Chronos was making: "there's such a thing as objective reality, and it's possible for one party to agree with it, and the other to disagree with it."
And the mine field analogue to that is that if 2 army groups have to reach their goal in a determined amount of time, then trying to convince a commander that both groups will reach their goal at the same time with the same resources will not be amusing to him. In practical terms the field with the less mines is the preferred option. And in many occasions, when all is done, the sappers could say that the first minefield was the peach assignment. Objectively the best option.
  #61  
Old 06-02-2019, 10:56 AM
betonbill is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 42
Isn't he up for reelection next year? Either put tons of resources in play to vote him out or put tons of resources in play in other senate races to take back the Senate. At any rate, I'd love to see him in either the unemployment line or sitting in the back of the bus.
  #62  
Old 06-02-2019, 11:09 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by betonbill View Post
Isn't he up for reelection next year? Either put tons of resources in play to vote him out or put tons of resources in play in other senate races to take back the Senate. At any rate, I'd love to see him in either the unemployment line or sitting in the back of the bus.
There is pretty much a less than 0% chance of McConnell losing in 2020. He is from Kentucky after all and I don't even know the last time that state elected a D to the U.S. Senate. Only retirement (not gonna happen) or the icy cold hand of Death will result in him not serving another term. And turtles can live well over 100 years.
  #63  
Old 06-02-2019, 12:01 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,743
Quote:
Quoth HurricaneDitka:

You think the Dems have a a lock on objective reality? LOL!
Yup. And the Republican Party agrees with me.
  #64  
Old 06-03-2019, 12:16 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,422

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by racepug View Post
I knew you'd comment on one of my posts sooner or later even though I haven't directly commented on one of yours in the past (and with good reason as I generally feel that you're beneath any comments by me). Shame you couldn't just keep whatever misguided thoughts (if "thoughts" is what you really to call them) you had on this to yourself. Also, too bad you're W-R-O-N-G, as usual (being a conservative it must SUCK for you to have that be your normal circumstance). So tell me - tell us ALL, Mr. Conservative - how do you rationalize The Turtle refusing to grant Merrick Garland ANY audience at all in 2016 but now stating (in that idiotic Kentucky accent of his) that he's perfectly fine with S.C. nominations and confirmations next election year, hm? Oh, and by the way, Mr. Republican (it must have to suck SO BADLY for you to have go through life labeled as such) - please explain to us ALL (IF you're able to do so - which I have my doubts about) how it is you can come on here and whine about my concerns when what The Turtle did in 2016 is ABSOLUTELY wrong (you don't think so? Then let's see what you have to say if and when Democrats ever try to pull that little stunt in an election year, hm?) while what the likes of Dick Cheney and The Turtle had to "endure" was perfectly fine AND deserved, hm? Oh, I know you'll try to rationalize all of this in the usual (non-sensical) Republican way, but, as always, you'll be DEAD WRONG.
This is a warning for personal insults. I see that you took a hiatus from 2015 to 2019 so I recommend you reaquaint yourself with the rules of this forum. Most of your posts in this thread would be better suited for the Pit, but this one stands out as warning-worthy.

[/moderating]
  #65  
Old 06-03-2019, 12:44 AM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 14,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
There is pretty much a less than 0% chance of McConnell losing in 2020. He is from Kentucky after all and I don't even know the last time that state elected a D to the U.S. Senate.
Answer: 1992, when Wendell Ford won a third term (Ford retired in 1998, at the end of that term). Heck, from 1973 to 1985, both senators from Kentucky were Democrats.
  #66  
Old 06-03-2019, 12:16 PM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,402
Hearings these days are nothing but political theater. They change very, very few minds in the Senate.

But, then, they were conceived of as political theater in the first place. Remember: before 1916 (IIRC), there were NO HEARINGS on SCotUS nominees. The President just sent a slip of paper with a name on it up the Hill, and often the Senate returned its response on that name right away (sometimes, even the same day). Indeed, on at least one occasion, if I recall my research correctly, a nominee was rejected without even holding a vote.

This changed during the Wilson Administration when he nominated Louis Brandeis to the Court. Brandeis was so "liberal" that his nomination was very "controversial" (read: the GOP got its shorts in a big bunch over it). As a result, the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed to hold hearings to allow those opposed and those in favor their opportunity to express their positions. There ended up being a four-month delay in confirmation. The final vote was pretty much split on party lines: three Republicans voted yes and one Democrat voted no. So the hearings did nothing to change anyone's mind, really. They just allowed everyone the opportunity to "vent", as we would say these days.

And that's all hearings are about anyway: venting.

So I don't mind that no hearings were held; that's irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, I would be perfectly happy if Senate confirmation hearings went the way of the dodo. Maybe then some actual business would get done.

What was annoying about what happened with the Garland nomination was that Sen. McConnell didn't allow the hearings solely to avoid having a vote. This had the double advantage of not running the risk that Garland got approved over GOP leadership disapproval, and shielding certain GOP senators from a politically risky vote. Of course, as it turns out, Sen. McConnell was right in his assertion about the possibility that the election would produce a different result. But, of course, sauce for the goose is quite often not only sauce for the gander, but actually acts as a sort of base sauce for something far more elaborate in response. Thus, we have a strong movement afoot to "pack" the court if the 2020 elections produce a Democratic sweep of House, Senate and WH. Which, in my opinion, would be a Very Bad Idea.
  #67  
Old 06-03-2019, 12:53 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
. . . This changed during the Wilson Administration when he nominated Louis Brandeis to the Court. Brandeis was so "liberal" that his nomination was very "controversial" . . .
Even worse, he was a Jew!
  #68  
Old 06-03-2019, 01:38 PM
John Bredin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: BuffaloGrove IL (Chicago)
Posts: 2,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Even worse, he was a Jew!
Little did they know that there'd be a Supreme Court entirely composed of Jews and Catholics ... not to mention three women and a black man!
  #69  
Old 06-03-2019, 02:44 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
What was annoying about what happened with the Garland nomination was that Sen. McConnell didn't allow the hearings solely to avoid having a vote. This had the double advantage of not running the risk that Garland got approved over GOP leadership disapproval, and shielding certain GOP senators from a politically risky vote.
Annoying? Glad you found this heinous break with a century-old norm that had been respected by both parties about as troublesome as waiting five extra minutes in the checkout lane.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #70  
Old 06-03-2019, 06:40 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
My question is HOW does he control them-- what practical rewards and punishments does he have at his disposal to make sure no one in the Senate steps one millimeter away from the party line?
The major reward, IMHO, is that he protects the more vulnerable GOP Senators from having to take difficult votes, by refusing to take up legislation that the Dems would like to force them to take sides on.

He also knows that Senators like Susan Collins need to at least pretend to be moderates in order to stay in office, so he lets them vote against the party line when he has more votes than he needs. (Although Collins is suddenly looking vulnerable, at least partially thanks to her over-the-top support of Kavanaugh last year.)
  #71  
Old 06-03-2019, 06:51 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You think the Dems have a a lock on objective reality? LOL!
Nice headline on that link. I read it. Where's the beef? It only had two examples: one's some obscure blogger, and the other is probably at least partly true - Reich may have been exaggerating the connections between far right and even further right, but they're definitely a thing.

Meanwhile, your side refuses to believe in global warming, and much of it doesn't believe in evolution.
  #72  
Old 06-03-2019, 06:52 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 15,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
...My question is HOW does he control them-- what practical rewards and punishments does he have at his disposal to make sure no one in the Senate steps one millimeter away from the party line?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
The major reward, IMHO, is that he protects the more vulnerable GOP Senators from having to take difficult votes, by refusing to take up legislation that the Dems would like to force them to take sides on.

He also knows that Senators like Susan Collins need to at least pretend to be moderates in order to stay in office, so he lets them vote against the party line when he has more votes than he needs. (Although Collins is suddenly looking vulnerable, at least partially thanks to her over-the-top support of Kavanaugh last year.)
Are you sure he isn't keeping the family pets caged and attached to electrodes in the basement of the Senate chamber?
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr
  #73  
Old 06-03-2019, 08:05 PM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Annoying? Glad you found this heinous break with a century-old norm that had been respected by both parties about as troublesome as waiting five extra minutes in the checkout lane.
I have lived 58 years, and in that time, I've seen plenty of things happen that deserved collective outrage.

Failing to vote on a Supreme Court nominee wasn't one of them. I'm sorry if that doesn't make you happy. I think you'll find that the vast majority of Americans aren't particularly horked off by that "heinous break".
  #74  
Old 06-03-2019, 08:36 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 15,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
I have lived 58 years, and in that time, I've seen plenty of things happen that deserved collective outrage.

Failing to vote on a Supreme Court nominee wasn't one of them. I'm sorry if that doesn't make you happy. I think you'll find that the vast majority of Americans aren't particularly horked off by that "heinous break".
But it wasn't just "failing to vote on a Supreme Court nominee." It was an intentional move in a strategy to pack the Supreme Court with conservative Republican justices. The second move happened the other day when Mitch said he WOULD fill a Supreme Court vacancy if one comes up, as much as admitting that his reason for not holding hearings on Garland "because it was an election year" was utter crap. Which of course, everyone knew at the time. Glad I could clear that up for you. Fighting ignorance and all that, ya know.
__________________
"If we're not supposed to dance, why all this music?" Gregory Orr

Last edited by ThelmaLou; 06-03-2019 at 08:37 PM.
  #75  
Old 06-03-2019, 09:45 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
I have lived 58 years, and in that time, I've seen plenty of things happen that deserved collective outrage.

Failing to vote on a Supreme Court nominee wasn't one of them. I'm sorry if that doesn't make you happy. I think you'll find that the vast majority of Americans aren't particularly horked off by that "heinous break".
The vast majority of Americans don't pay attention to anything.

However, the vast majority of Americans who do pay attention to this particular stuff thought it was heinous and worse. And now want revenge and retribution. We'll be happy to remind you of why when that happens, so that you can't have any complaints about it.
  #76  
Old 06-04-2019, 08:40 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,743
The Senate was constitutionally obligated to vote on Garland. They could have voted against him, even on purely partisan grounds: That is their right, odious though it may be. But they were obligated to hold the vote. Yes, I do think that our elected officials shirking their Constitutional obligations is pretty heinous.
  #77  
Old 06-04-2019, 08:53 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
I have lived 58 years, and in that time, I've seen plenty of things happen that deserved collective outrage.

Failing to vote on a Supreme Court nominee wasn't one of them. I'm sorry if that doesn't make you happy. I think you'll find that the vast majority of Americans aren't particularly horked off by that "heinous break".
I'm not sure that's a very good metric. What things in American politics in the past 20 years HAVE 'horked off' a majority of Americans?
  #78  
Old 06-04-2019, 08:53 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The Senate was constitutionally obligated to vote on Garland. They could have voted against him, even on purely partisan grounds: That is their right, odious though it may be. But they were obligated to hold the vote. Yes, I do think that our elected officials shirking their Constitutional obligations is pretty heinous.
No, they were not "obligated" to vote on Garland. Not holding a vote is one perfectly-Constitutional way for the Senate to withhold its advice and consent to the President's nominees (as evidenced by the fact that there's no Justice Garland today). You may not like it, but there's nothing in the Constitution that obligates the Senate to hold a vote, or even a hearing on a nominee.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 06-04-2019 at 08:55 AM.
  #79  
Old 06-04-2019, 08:57 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, they were not "obligated" to vote on Garland. Not holding a vote is one perfectly-Constitutional way for the Senate to withhold its advice and consent to the President's nominees. You may not like it, but there's nothing in the Constitution that obligates the Senate to hold a vote, or even a hearing on a nominee.
Yep, dig up and defend every loophole you can find while you pave our way toward a fascist state.
  #80  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:01 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The Senate was constitutionally obligated to vote on Garland.
To be fair, that's debatable.

Seems that that could be fixed just by laws: the laws regarding national emergencies ultimately forced the Senate to cast a vote over Trump's border national emergency. Presumably the next time the Dems have a trifecta, they can pass some laws requiring up-or-down votes on Presidential nominees, judicial or otherwise, with the nominees taking office if a vote isn't held within X calendar days.
  #81  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:02 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,485
The Constitution also just says the Senate needs to advise and consent, so a bunch of Senators (say, all the Democrats in the Senate) getting together and "advising and consenting" to a nominee in writing would be just as Constitutional as the Majority leader deciding to do nothing, as far as I can tell. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents Democratic Senators from providing "advice and consent" to the President for a nominee that the Majority leader refuses to hold hearings on.

Just something the Democrats should consider next time anything like Garland happens. McConnell has proven that he can get away with things that aren't explicitly allowed in the Constitution as long as they also aren't specifically disallowed either.
  #82  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:06 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Not holding a vote is one perfectly-Constitutional way for the Senate to withhold its advice and consent to the President's nominees
One could say the Senate gave its advice. Unfortunately, its advice was 'fuck off.'
  #83  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:08 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
McConnell has proven that he can get away with things that aren't explicitly allowed in the Constitution as long as they also aren't specifically disallowed either.
This is hardly new with McConnell. Presidents and Congresses have been working that gray area pretty much forever.
  #84  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:09 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The Constitution also just says the Senate needs to advise and consent, so a bunch of Senators (say, all the Democrats in the Senate) getting together and "advising and consenting" to a nominee in writing would be just as Constitutional as the Majority leader deciding to do nothing, as far as I can tell. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents Democratic Senators from providing "advice and consent" to the President for a nominee that the Majority leader refuses to hold hearings on.

Just something the Democrats should consider next time anything like Garland happens. McConnell has proven that he can get away with things that aren't explicitly allowed in the Constitution as long as they also aren't specifically disallowed either.
Imagine that next November President Trump wins re-election but the Republicans barely lose their majority (49-51) and then Ginsburg retires. You're saying you'd be fine with Minority Leader McConnell granting "advice and consent" to President Trump's nominees if Schumer decided not to hold hearings and a vote?

Just how far could a minority of Senators take this, in your opinion? Could any lone senator scribble "I advice and consent to Justice Barrett" on a cocktail napkin and that suffice?
  #85  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:11 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
One could say the Senate gave its advice. Unfortunately, its advice was 'fuck off.'
Yes, that's certainly one way to look at it. What are your thoughts on iiandyiiii's "the minority could just get together and grant their advice and consent" idea? Does it strike you as hare-brained as it does me?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 06-04-2019 at 09:11 AM.
  #86  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:17 AM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,716
Yes, be fair - "Go fuck yourself" is indeed advice. Even if it comes from just one individual, not "The Senate".
  #87  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:19 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
This is hardly new with McConnell. Presidents and Congresses have been working that gray area pretty much forever.
Democrats should play the same game with the same stakes. They have nothing to lose, should the circumstances come up again, by trying this idea. It's kind of nuts, but so is abrogating the responsibility to "advise and consent" as McConnell did. Might as well try it if the alternative is that the Republicans control SCOTUS forever.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 06-04-2019 at 09:20 AM.
  #88  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:28 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Democrats should play the same game with the same stakes. They have nothing to lose, should the circumstances come up again, by trying this idea. It's kind of nuts, but so is abrogating the responsibility to "advise and consent" as McConnell did. Might as well try it if the alternative is that the Republicans control SCOTUS forever.
So any means are justified so long as it keeps the other side from winning? Do you realize who this sounds like?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 06-04-2019 at 09:28 AM.
  #89  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:31 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,485
If my idea succeeded, Majority leaders would never abrogate their responsibility to hold hearings and votes again. They'd have to actually vote down nominees, which is indeed possible, lest the minority take over the process. If my idea failed, then the Democrats lose nothing that's not already lost. Refusing to hold hearings and a vote violates the spirit of the Constitution, if not the letter. The Democrats should try and play that game too, if the alternative is just ceding everything to the Republicans.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 06-04-2019 at 09:32 AM.
  #90  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:51 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
...pass some laws requiring up-or-down votes on Presidential nominees, judicial or otherwise, with the nominees taking office if a vote isn't held within X calendar days.
Like!
(They can call it the "Obstruct This!" law.)

Last edited by bobot; 06-04-2019 at 09:52 AM.
  #91  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:55 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So any means are justified so long as it keeps the other side from winning? Do you realize who this sounds like?
The Republican Party?
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #92  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:58 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If my idea succeeded, Majority leaders would never abrogate their responsibility to hold hearings and votes again. They'd have to actually vote down nominees, which is indeed possible, lest the minority take over the process. If my idea failed, then the Democrats lose nothing that's not already lost. Refusing to hold hearings and a vote violates the spirit of the Constitution, if not the letter. The Democrats should try and play that game too, if the alternative is just ceding everything to the Republicans.
I'm not clear what difference this would make. If all the Democratic senators in 2016 had drafted some sort of official "advice and consent" document agreeing to Garland's nomination, what would have happened -- other than McConnell chuckling to himself and still not holding hearings or a vote?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #93  
Old 06-04-2019, 10:05 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
I'm not clear what difference this would make. If all the Democratic senators in 2016 had drafted some sort of official "advice and consent" document agreeing to Garland's nomination, what would have happened -- other than McConnell chuckling to himself and still not holding hearings or a vote?
The rest of us could have chuckled too?
  #94  
Old 06-04-2019, 10:10 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
I'm not clear what difference this would make. If all the Democratic senators in 2016 had drafted some sort of official "advice and consent" document agreeing to Garland's nomination, what would have happened -- other than McConnell chuckling to himself and still not holding hearings or a vote?
Maybe nothing, maybe the DoJ drafts an opinion and escorts Garland to the SCOTUS building. Maybe the SCOTUS disagrees but issues an opinion that forces (or just pressures) McConnell to actually hold hearings and a vote. None of that is worse than what actually happened, and some of it is a lot better.

In that scenario, the Democrats have nothing to lose by trying relatively crazy stuff like this.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #95  
Old 06-04-2019, 10:13 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,743
Another option would have been for the President of the Senate to override McConnell and hold the vote anyway. And yet another option would have been for Obama to declare that he was interpreting the lack of any vote against Garland as consent.
  #96  
Old 06-04-2019, 10:15 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Another option would have been for the President of the Senate to override McConnell and hold the vote anyway. And yet another option would have been for Obama to declare that he was interpreting the lack of any vote against Garland as consent.
Right. Next time hopefully the Democrats will try one of these options, or something like it. The worst thing that could happen is McConnell wins, which would have happened anyway.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #97  
Old 06-04-2019, 10:32 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The Senate was constitutionally obligated to vote on Garland. They could have voted against him, even on purely partisan grounds: That is their right, odious though it may be. But they were obligated to hold the vote. Yes, I do think that our elected officials shirking their Constitutional obligations is pretty heinous.
All this time later, I still don’t get why that’s the dividing line.

Imagine if — one by one — enough Senators had looked into the camera and said to Obama on national television, “we’ll vote against anyone you pick. Have we now made that clear? We’re telling you not to bother, since we won’t consent.” And then Obama nominates a guy, and the Senators say, “just to make sure: you get that we’re going to chuckle while going through the motions, and that the answer is going to be ‘no’, right? You’re not some dimwit hereby getting encouraged to try this a second and a third time? Because, on the off chance that you are that foolish, we’re each going to walk up to a podium to slowly and patiently explain that you were told what’d happen, and that it’s now happening, and that the answer will always be ‘no’. Maybe it’ll get through to you? No? Do you need it even slower, and in smaller words?”

The objection, years later, is that that would be so much less bad?
  #98  
Old 06-04-2019, 10:36 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
All this time later, I still don’t get why that’s the dividing line.

Imagine if — one by one — enough Senators had looked into the camera and said to Obama on national television, “we’ll vote against anyone you pick. Have we now made that clear? We’re telling you not to bother, since we won’t consent.” And then Obama nominates a guy, and the Senators say, “just to make sure: you get that we’re going to chuckle while going through the motions, and that the answer is going to be ‘no’, right? You’re not some dimwit hereby getting encouraged to try this a second and a third time? Because, on the off chance that you are that foolish, we’re each going to walk up to a podium to slowly and patiently explain that you were told what’d happen, and that it’s now happening, and that the answer will always be ‘no’. Maybe it’ll get through to you? No? Do you need it even slower, and in smaller words?”

The objection, years later, is that that would be so much less bad?
Yes, that would be "so much less bad", assuming there was an actual vote. That would have been a formal "advice" from the Senate, as opposed to doing nothing, which cannot be interpreted as "advising" in any way at all. Your hypothetical didn't happen. Who knows if it would have happened? McConnell chose to do nothing instead, very clearly violating the spirit of the Constitution, if not the strict letter. The Democrats should fight back with the same willingness to violate the spirit of the Constitution, but not the letter, when it might gain them some advantage.
  #99  
Old 06-04-2019, 10:46 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
But it wasn't just "failing to vote on a Supreme Court nominee." It was an intentional move in a strategy to pack the Supreme Court with conservative Republican justices.
Elections have consequences. Denying Garland was a bold political move, though also an incredibly high stakes gamble that paid off. Just because historically Democrats have played the game worse doesn't mean they weren't playing. Garland was another step in a long line of political moves with the court. It's gotten quite a bit of mileage though, and time will tell if Garland is a wake up call and rallying cry like Bork was for Republicans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The Senate was constitutionally obligated to vote on Garland.
No. This is wrong. You've made this declaration in various threads on the subject but it's wrong and there is no evidence to support this assertion. If you want to say they were ethically bound, or morally obligated, or some other measure that doesn't have objective criteria associated with it then that'd be fine as opinion, but as a factual matter there is no basis to assert that the Senate was constitutionally obligated to vote on Garland.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
To be fair, that's debatable.
Not even close. It is a faith based position that has no basis in reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The Constitution also just says the Senate needs to advise and consent, so a bunch of Senators (say, all the Democrats in the Senate) getting together and "advising and consenting" to a nominee in writing would be just as Constitutional as the Majority leader deciding to do nothing, as far as I can tell. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents Democratic Senators from providing "advice and consent" to the President for a nominee that the Majority leader refuses to hold hearings on.
This is so absurd it's, well, absurd. Assuming 100 senators, two senators could not satisfy Article II advice and consent any more than 49 could. A quorum of the senate is defined as a majority, and without a quorum the senate could not conduct business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Democrats should play the same game with the same stakes. They have nothing to lose, should the circumstances come up again, by trying this idea. It's kind of nuts, but so is abrogating the responsibility to "advise and consent" as McConnell did. Might as well try it if the alternative is that the Republicans control SCOTUS forever.
What you're suggesting is not playing the same game, unless that game is Calvinball. Utilizing rules for political advantage - that's what Republicans have done. What you're suggesting is to not adhere to rules at all. I see only a small difference between that and political assassinations, which I think is bad. I'm not sure if you would leave that possibility open under the guise of 'try anything'.
  #100  
Old 06-04-2019, 10:49 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Another option would have been for the President of the Senate to override McConnell and hold the vote anyway. And yet another option would have been for Obama to declare that he was interpreting the lack of any vote against Garland as consent.
Silence equaling consent is not a good standard in any realm.
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 02:07 PM.

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