Also, I was responding to the facile “suggestion” to win elections. It doesn’t do quite as much good when one party is willing to ignore long-time political norms and obstruct the [del]opposing party[/del] enemy to the limits not of the Constitutional text but what they feel the Supremes won’t review under the political-question doctrine.
All kinds of Republican liars went on the Sunday shows spewing their “just not in the last year” bullshit. Not a one of them had the guts to say “fuck you, we’re just not going to do it, and it’s not against the law”. Why were they so afraid that they had to make up bull-fucking-shit for the Sunday shows? I know, because they knew they had thrown honor and dignity to the curb.
You should get to know us better, then you would not suffer such dread. We of the left are, for the most part, sane and reasonable people. Except for Berkeley, perhaps.
And I can’t help but notice that despite the bountiful acrid insights you offer in criticism of those who really, really don’t like Mitch…you don’t really so much defend him as assault us.
The press of time, perhaps? You were too busy to outline all the splendid examples he has shown us, in terms of compromise and mutual accord. So very refreshing after the iron fist of Obama! Now that the stifling standards are set aside, the outdated “rules” as flexible as over-cooked spaghetti.
I am left to believe that you dislike his enemies so much, you are inclined to be generous about his failings? Or is it that his splendid triumphs are too numerous? Certainly he has given great support and comfort to Donald, of House Harkonnen, Worst of his Name… So, there’s that.
Obama won the power to nominate judges. Senator McConnell (and the Senate Republicans collectively) won the power to confirm them or not. Nobody prevented Obama from using his power to nominate. He did. He was just unhappy when the Senate decided to decline to provide their advice and consent and confirm his nominee. That is the Senate’s prerogative, upsetting as some of you found it.
It’s awesome that you speak of it like it’s just one of those things that happens. When in American history has it happened before?
A few times but mostly over a hundred years ago, iirc.
How does whether or it happened before or not affect the validity of the argument?
No really, I mean when? If you don’t have an answer, give Ditka a few minutes to google something. I was asking him.
Because that would show that is not just one of those things that happens. It was right there in my question to Ditka, Plain as day, nothing hidden.
Iggy has had a series of very good posts on the subject. You really ought to read them all, but I’m not going to take the time to link them all for you when just one will suffice:
I don’t feel like researching it, atm. But you sure seemed to think it was a winning rhetorical question and I was merely hinting that you research and refine it yourself before you use it in your next internet argument.
But now I see HD has linked to a previous discussion where it was mentioned.
No, I wanted an answer and Ditka linked to one. You still have not. Thanks?
What was the vote when the Senate declined to provide their advice and consent?
I had the impression that had Garland been put forward, he would likely be confirmed. But this is not so? The overwhelming disgust in the Senate for this blackguard, scoundrel and despoiler of maidens…no way?
You seem anxious to give the impression that the Senate acted as a body, a discrete entity. But Shirley close to half of that august assembly wanted to vote for Mr Garland, maybe some others. There is no math, new or old, wherein “about half” equals “unanimous”.
And I will not sit idly by and watch Millard Fillmore dragged through the mud! There are decent limits! Limits!
Whatever buddy.
And prior to the 1960s, men didn’t walk on the moon. So what?
Sure, if 50 senators had gone in public and announced that they would toe the party line as defined by McConnell, then Obama would know that any nominees would be voted down.
That’s fine, but that is not what happened. One senator made the decision that no other senators would have to make that declaration.
Yeah, it sounds a bit like Mitch McConnell. Are you saying that playing the game his way is wrong, or that it is only wrong if democrats do it?
This is brainstorming level. At brainstorming level, considering everything is valid and useful.
At the actual “try” level, some of these ideas may not seem practical or beneficial.
But still, words on a message board bind no one to an action. Throw out ideas, serious or un-serious, and maybe we’ll find something that can work.
I prose considering a herd of ponies to be a quorum, and then wishing them into the senate chambers.
Should a sane group ever get enough power to do so, it seems the best way would be that a minority, say either 34% or 40%, can force a vote to the floor.
Unfortunately, those very un(trust)worthy trustees are in charge of that very amendment system.
Yes, the opportunity cost of doing nothing is authoritarianism. This isn’t hyperbole, or limited to this situation or here and now, this is always the case with any democracy. The price of self governance is vigilance over those to whom we entrust power.
As to how you meant it, in that there is a cost to doing things that excludes other, I may point out that there are quite a number of people and organizations with quite a bit of resources to try different tactics. We can walk and chew gum, while juggling.
Don’t you worry yourself about us exhausting our resources in the fight against wannabee fascists, until they are able to actually shut down or subvert the elections, we stand a chance, and we will never stop fighting.
By “clever ways”, do you mean having the plurality of the people on our side?
We can argue whether or not Schumer should have lobbied other democrats to vote against a potential Bush nominee (personally, I am/was against it), but at no time did he say that there should not be a vote.
And how do we know that there would not have been the consent of enough senators without holding a vote of those senators?
If they had all gone on public record as being against any Obama nominee, then you may have a point. As they very specifically chose not to go on public record, then I do not agree to your assumptions as to what would have happened had the vote gone to the floor.
But it was not the Senate Republicans who chose to confirm or not, it was just one Senator.
Did you just admit that the Senate did not provide advice and consent, as required by the Constitution?
I’m saying it’s wrong to condemn his tactics and then turn around and adopt them. It’s hypocritical: “it’s so awful that Senator McConnell plays hardball but we should play hardball”.
No, it was a majority. If the majority had wished otherwise, they could have forced a vote over Senator McConnell’s objections.
No, they aren’t “required by the Constitution” to provide their advice and consent (it says the President “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court”). “advice and consent” is a term of art that amounts to “confirm”. The Senate declined to confirm Obama’s nominee. That’s what I “admitted”, and no, the Constitution does not require them to confirm him, nor does it require them to vote on him, and nor does it require them to hold a hearing. They can choose to take no official action on a nominee, which amounts to withholding their “advice and consent” / not confirming the nominee.
No, what is hypocritical is expecting a different standard from your oposition thanyou hold yourself to.
You kick in the balls once, and I tell you that’s against the rules and not do do it again. You tell me it’s not against the rules, and kick me in the balls again, then I’m gonna take a “look” at this rule book, and if eye gouging isn’t “against the rules”, then it’s fair game.
You either play the game in good faith, or you give up the high ground for complaining about fairness. McConnell’s move was not in good faith, and you know it.
Right signing on to cross the aisles and work with the minority in order to craft procedure to go over their Leader’s head has the same political cost as casting a vote for a nominee.
Oh yeah, if they want to play games with our country, they can choose to interpret their obligations in such a manner. There’s quite a bit of creative interpretation that goes on in order to undermine democracy for their personal gain going on these days, I see.
I never claimed it “has the same political cost”, merely that if they had for some reason wanted to vote on Garland, Senator McConnell, by himself, could not have prevented that from happening. He had the consent / support of the majority to do what he did.
This seems breathtakingly wrong.
Clearly the Senate isn’t “required by the Constitution” to provide consent; even you seem fine with the idea of the Senate voting down a nominee. But if you grant that the Senate isn’t required to provide consent, then why would you think the Senate would be required to provide advice and consent?
Near as I can tell, it’s the President who was “required by the Constitution” to get that consent, if he wanted to do X; that doesn’t mean the Senate is required to provide him with it, the whole point is that they might not provide that consent.