Obama was a norms obsessed president. That’s because he was the first black president, no coincidence there. He had to obey all norms as a historical representative of something beyond just doing the job. He bent over backwards to keep “our” norms because he was being watched closely.
So to have the R party take power by trashing the norms that he so recently defended … and then sayiing “oh yeah everyone was scheming and plotting and it’s all a wash” is disingenuous. It’s a con and a cheat, basically taking advantage of facets of obamas limitations, in how he had to behave.
Obama respected the constitution and the laws and he shouldn’t be placed in that group who plotted to take away the will of the majority. It may be that I am in that group now, being angry and considereing the prospect of packing the court or imeachments is close to where I am.
He was also a Constitutional scholar, and as such was well aware that just because the Constitution says the government shall protect certain specified rights doesn’t make it so in practice. The Constitution and Bill of Rights define and expand on rights, but it is people in the government–in the legislature, in the judiciary, and in the executive branch–who decide whether and how to enforce those protections, which is often as not arbitrary and fungible with shifts in political leanings.
Not even close. His non-recees appointments to the NLRB are just one example. DACA, ObamaCare, and this are other examples of Obama doing something other than bending ‘over backwards to keep “our” norms’.
THIS is why politics is partisan. Even if a democrat makes a move explicitly to work with republicans, people will believe he’s playing politics. If you’re going to get blamed for playing politics no matter what, you might as well do it.
How about this scenario. Imagine it is June, 2016 and the Senate is debating over whether to name something for Ronald Reagan. Biden takes the chair. During the debate he recognizes Dick Durbin on the Reagan resolution. Durbin speaks and towards the end of his remarks…
Durbin: and further, Mr. President, I have a privileged resolution which takes precedent over the current question. I present this privileged resolution for immediate debate and consideration of the nomination of Merrick Garland as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
McConnell: Objection! Point of Order, Mr. President! The Senator from Illinois’ resolution is not in order and I move it out of order!
Biden: Senator from Illinois?
Durbin: Mr. President, the advice and consent of the Senate for a Supreme Court Justice is a constitutional duty of this body and as such takes precedent over the current lesser matter. I believe that it is in order to proceed with Constitutional matters prior to other business.
Biden: The Senator’s point is well taken, and the chair rules his motion in order and the yeas and nays are ordered on the Senator’s motion.
McConnell: I appeal from the decision of the chair.
At this point, the consideration of Garland would be voted upon and taken out of McConnell’s hands. Thoughts?
Durbin’s motion is out of order. It abuses the Privilege of the Assembly motion.
My thought is you don’t know how Point of Order or Appeal works.
Durbin would not be allowed to speak to the Point of Order. The presiding officer rules on it without debate.
If the Point is well-taken then the presiding officer agrees with McConnell.
The Appeal does not bring up the consideration of Garland as the main motion. It merely is a vote on whether or not the assembly will uphold the Chair’s decision. If the Appeal passes on an majority vote then Durbin’s Privilege of the Assembly motion is denied.
How about even HAVING a hearing? Rather than play your usual semantics game, how about actually contributing to the discussion? Even if the hearing wasn’t going to confirm Garland, wasn’t there enough historical precedent for the hearing to actually, y’know, occur?
HurricaneDitka, how could Obamacare possibly have been an overreach, given that he withdrew it in order to get the votes of the senators in the insurance lobby’s pockets? Are you perhaps thinking of Gingrichcare, which he eventually got passed instead (in spite of Republican extralegal obstructionism to it)?
Has anyone mentioned violence? Because short of that I got nothing. There’s nothing other than democratic norms that says the senate has to even consider a nominee, and those norms were shattered. So now there’s nothing. The result: the only option once the election is over is violence. I’m not saying it’s a good option, but I will say that depending on the target it could be quite effective.
What? I’m not endorsing violence here. The situation is pretty much completely futile. Your side won complete victory and can do whatever it wants. In terms of democratic options, we got none, short of hoping the next election goes better, or options I made clear are kinda shite - effective is not the same as good or reasonable. I’m not worried that that’ll happen in any large way, mind you. Nobody is about to take a shot at Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.
Yet.
How far McConnell can push it before people realize how brutally undemocratic things have gotten… Look, let’s make this clear. For the democrats, right now, our options are “win at the polls” and “violent resistance”. There is no procedural option available to us. We basically might as well not exist at the federal level. How many more horribly undemocratic (yet notably power-consolidating) moves do you think you get before democrats start thinking “wow, we literally can’t win at the polls”? What happens if the democrats get 7% margins at the polls and still fail to retake the house or senate due to republican Gerrymandering and the inherent advantages of rural states? What then?
Politics is, in effect, about the centralized distribution of violence. If you remove the ability of the majority to take part in decision-making about how that violence is distributed, well… Let’s just hope things don’t get worse.
This view into leftbook sponsored by the destruction of democratic norms.
The point is that the senate decides its own rules and as such decides what advise and consent means. At one point they decided that it meant having hearings and when Garland was nominated they decided it did not. The constitution gives only the senate that right.
No, let’s not fall for the illusion. There wasn’t even a plurality that supported Trump in 2016, much less a huge majority. And I can’t believe his supporter base has grown since he took office and people began seeing him in action. Trump’s supporters only think of themselves as a huge majority because they believe everyone who isn’t like them doesn’t count.