# Fascinating article- why politics is so insane lately. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 29, 2016, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720 "2016-06-29T16:41:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2016, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/61 "2016-07-06T16:38:52Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > If the Republicans tried to pass anti-LGBT or anti-abortion legislation, do you want your Democratic lawmakers to compromise or be uncompromising? I’d want my Democratic lawmakers to allow a vote on the issues. I’d be happy to let them hang millstones on their necks. In general, I think a reasonable number of members of either House (say 25% or so) should be able to force a vote on any issue. It’s this crazy shit like the Hastert Rule that gums up the works. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2016, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/62 "2016-07-06T20:47:51Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Sure it is. There’s a vacancy on the Supreme Court because Republicans think Obama only counts as 3/5 of a president. There are many vacancies on lower courts because Republicans don’t want Obama appointing any judges, even those judges recommended by the same guys who are blocking their nomination. Common sense laws like no-fly no-buy are blocked from getting votes because one party is a subsidiary of the NRA. I agree that holding up Garland’s nomination is wrong, but as long as they confirm the next President’s nominee it’s kosher enough for government work. It just establishes a precedent, and I’d expect that precedent to be upheld: no nominees for Presidents in their last year. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2016, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/63 "2016-07-06T21:02:56Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I agree that holding up Garland’s nomination is wrong, but as long as they confirm the next President’s nominee it’s kosher enough for government work. It just establishes a precedent, and I’d expect that precedent to be upheld: no nominees for Presidents in their last year. I don’t agree that this precedent is “kosher enough for government work.” On the contrary, this precedent is absolutely ridiculous. A presidential term is only 4 years long. So presidents can’t make a Supreme Court nomination for 25% of their term of office?! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2016, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/64 "2016-07-06T21:21:08Z")
> [@robby](#): > > I don’t agree that this precedent is “kosher enough for government work.” On the contrary, this precedent is absolutely ridiculous. A presidential term is only 4 years long. So presidents can’t make a Supreme Court nomination for 25% of their term of office?! :rolleyes: Also, I would not be at all surprised for things to progress such that Senate Republicans will simply refuse to hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee by any Democratic president so long as they control the Senate. After all, the American people obviously elected them to block any so-called liberal justices. This current situation could be a foreshadowing of a future in which the Supreme Court is unable to muster a quorum ([which is six justices](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_4)), and just like that, we’ve lost the highest court in the land, with its attendant checks on the other two branches of government. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2016, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/65 "2016-07-06T23:58:53Z")
> [@robby](#): > > I don’t agree that this precedent is “kosher enough for government work.” On the contrary, this precedent is absolutely ridiculous. A presidential term is only 4 years long. So presidents can’t make a Supreme Court nomination for 25% of their term of office?! :rolleyes: It’s kosher if its consistent. Sure, I think Presidents should be able to appoint SCOTUS justices until they are a lame duck after November, but if the new rule is no appointments after year 7, then that rule should apply to Republican Presidents as well. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/66 "2016-07-07T01:26:50Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s kosher if its consistent. Sure, I think Presidents should be able to appoint SCOTUS justices until they are a lame duck after November, but if the new rule is no appointments after year 7, then that rule should apply to Republican Presidents as well. I haven’t heard anybody say that the “new rule is no appointments after year 7.” Instead, the Senate Republicans have been saying that presidents supposedly should not be able to appoint justices “in an election year.” Presidential election years are every four years, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/67 "2016-07-07T01:43:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s kosher if its consistent. Sure, I think Presidents should be able to appoint SCOTUS justices until they are a lame duck after November, but if the new rule is no appointments after year 7, then that rule should apply to Republican Presidents as well. Oh, Republicans are consistent, since the rule appears to be “No SCOTUS nominees from black presidents”. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/68 "2016-07-07T01:55:15Z")
> [@robby](#): > > I haven’t heard anybody say that the “new rule is no appointments after year 7.” Instead, the Senate Republicans have been saying that presidents supposedly should not be able to appoint justices “in an election year.” Presidential election years are every four years, of course. Okay, fine, so that’s the new rule. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/69 "2016-07-07T04:58:09Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Oh, Republicans are consistent, since the rule appears to be “No SCOTUS nominees from black presidents”. Or simply “No SCOTUS nominees from non-Republican presidents.” Or even more broadly: “No presidential appointments from non-Republican presidents.” We’re not far from that situation [now](http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/obama-nominations-blocked-senate-judges-217589). ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/70 "2016-07-07T05:12:26Z")
But it’s fair play for Democrats to return the favor. I’d be disappointed if they didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/71 "2016-07-07T05:30:54Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > But it’s fair play for Democrats to return the favor. I’d be disappointed if they didn’t. So if this trend continues, we could very easily end up with a situation in which no presidential nominees ever get hearings if the opposing party controls the Senate. As I indicated a few posts back, this could soon result in the Supreme Court being unable to muster a quorum, not to mention all of the other unfilled presidential appointments. This doesn’t seem like a great situation to look forward to, and is one more example of how our entire political process seems to be grinding to a halt. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/72 "2016-07-07T10:23:47Z")
> [@robby](#): > > So if this trend continues, we could very easily end up with a situation in which no presidential nominees ever get hearings if the opposing party controls the Senate. > > As I indicated a few posts back, this could soon result in the Supreme Court being unable to muster a quorum, not to mention all of the other unfilled presidential appointments. Republicans are fine with that. They have been losing all the big battles there anyway. They are going to get rid of “judicial activism” the same way they are getting rid of abortion; through the back door, by nickle and diming it to death. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/73 "2016-07-07T14:17:50Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > But it’s fair play for Democrats to return the favor. I’d be disappointed if they didn’t. Maybe, once again, Democrats will take the high ground and try to uphold the Constitution and what’s best for the country instead of seeking petty political revenge for the Republicans’ petty political bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2016, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720/74 "2016-07-07T14:20:43Z")
Not very likely these days. They decried the nuclear option, then went ahead and did it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fascinating-article-why-politics-is-so-insane-lately/758720.md?page=3)