I mean his non-recess “recess appointments” were doomed to be defeated. You may not agree but I don’t see how my meaning was unclear.
I thought you were saying that he was being disingenuous in fulfilling his duty and nominating Garland now.
He makes appointments. They can be struck down. What does that have to do with not being gentlemanly?
Will it be gentlemanly for the senate to avoid a technical recess for the rest of Obamas term by having someone go in and tap a gavel once every couple of days?
I said I didn’t think it showed canniness by trying to push those recess appointments and getting unanimously defeated in the Supreme Court over it. Then I said I don’t know what gentlemanliness has to do with anything. Sure, Obama is a perfect gentleman.
I don’t see what his recess appointments have to do with being not canny.
If you think he isn’t canny just compare him to Rupublicans behavior right now, running from their own inventions. I would say watch the behavior of the next R president, but it doesn’t look like we’re going to have one, ever.
I think it was worth a try. The question was: does a Senator showing up and banging a gavel every three days show that the Senate is actually in session? We didn’t know the answer for certain; now we do.
“I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg should get two votes until we get this all sorted out.” - Paula Poundstone
Why the judiciary committee, which the Constitution doesn’t even mention?
Because the judiciary committee is a Senate body that is duly constituted for the “advice and consent” role - under the Senate rules, which the Constitution does mention. What it certainly doesn’t mention is a Senate Majority Leader, so McConnell’s no doubt weighty internal deliberations don’t count.
The Constitution doesn’t even mention parties, FTR.
I suppose I should clarify, since McConnell’s position also exists because of the duly adopted rules of the Senate: I don’t think one person sticking in his fingers in his ears qualifies as “advice and consent” under even the broadest reading.
There *is *a broad reading that McConnell is doing his caucus’ will, since they do constitute a majority of the membership and did elect him their leader and have not replaced him for this. The letter and the spirit of the law rarely coincide exactly.
If McConnell really believes that, why not just put it to a vote?
He only has to believe that his caucus knows they’d be doing more harm than good by revolting. At least for now.
I really can’t interpret this any other way than “please take the Senate, Democrats - we’ve become so beholden to special interests that we can’t even pretend any longer.”
It explicitly removes even the pretense of any principle at all. The voters should decide, not last election’s voters who already did decide, but the coming election’s voters who might decide more my way … but whatever they decide we will still do the same thing because NRA and NFIB … so really screw the voters.
Wow.
He’s a Democrat’s dream!
“Mr Speaker, the caucus is revolting!”
“Yeah, they stink on ice.”
Sorry, just couldn’t help myself.
I bet Justice Garland will eventually take his seat on SCOTUS: I bet Merrick Garland will join SCOTUS - Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share - Straight Dope Message Board
More proof that there is no reason to take seriously anything said by a comedian.
(I’m surprised to hear that Poundstone is still alive. I thought she had died of some alcoholism-related organ failure?)
Or reality show hosts.