Not in the way you’re saying. I just pointed out the difference. Please try to keep up.
Not much of a handwave there. The text was a little muddy, but it was certainly reasonable. And you’ll note that it set the precedent. So in the future it was reasonable.
The precedent has already been set that the VP’s senatorial powers end at tie breaking and the position of executive gavel-whore.
Fuck, I hope you’re not a defense attorney.
P.S. wanna show me an actual example of Palin-oid powers for the veep?
I think you’re seeing this thread through red-colored glasses.
In this thread the liberals are upset that Palin still doesn’t know what she’s talking about. And Bricker, Shodan and now, you are blindly flailing trying to show that she’s right.
Well, Shodan and you aren’t you’re just declaring it.
Well, see, that’s the problem. The Constitution defines the power, and its already been cited. Like typical liberals, you just handwave the Constitution aside, with a little disclaimer, ‘Yeah, but that’s not what it actually means!’.
The Constitution is the ultimate authority on the matter. You don’t accept it as the ultimate authority on the matter. So why should anyone bother to cite anything else? It’s pointless. If you handwave the Constitution, you’ll just handwave anything else as well, and cozy up nice in your little cocoon of ignorance and unreality.
Perhaps you could comment on the rules of the Senate:
PDF link. Am I misunderstanding your point, or has the Senate adopted in its precidents a rule that would not be endorsed by any “serious legal scholar?”
You are aware that that has absolutely nothing to do with the VP’s influence over the Senate?
The Constitution says that the VP ‘presides’ over the Senate. What it does not do is define precisely what ‘presides’ means. Yes, it has a commonly understood meaning of ‘is in charge of’, but what a word means in common parlance quite often has not much to do with its legal meaning, and certainly cannot be assumed to mean the same thing. In this case, we see from history that most VPs rarely bothered to do anything in the Senate, and the times that they tried, like Johnson in the early '60s, they were more or less ignored. If Palin is elected Vice President, the Senate isn’t going to give a shit what she thinks about the issue they’re debating whether she’s presiding over them at the moment or not. She doesn’t even have a damn vote unless they’re tied.
You’re telling me it’s incredible - I’m finding myself agreeing with Bricker and Rand Rover.
If she’d given that answer in, say, the VP debate, I’d call her out on it. An informal answer to a third grader is not required to be intellectually rigorous (not that I think she’s capable of being intellectually rigorous in any context but still, this is a non-issue). The answer is in the right ballpark, if not entirely scrupulously true.
Still not agreeing with Shodan though:
No, it’s definitely for the reason Cliffy mentions. Point me out an evolution-denying, civil-rights ignoring, corrupt, stupid, race-baiting demagogue who’s a Democrat and I promise to hate him or her too. I mean, even Robert Byrd eventually turned his back on the Klan.
Just because you operate on a strictly polarized scale doesn’t mean the rest of the world does.
She wasn’t saying it for the benefit of the kids, because she’s given the same answer four times now.
And Bricker you’re going to have to offer a better explanation of a few cases. Explain how those cases you mentioned show how the VP used the power to preside over the Senate to “Get in there with the Senators.” You’re the one trying to prove the point.
Here’s what wikipedia says:
Regardless, you’ve given me two examples that don’t even seem to be valid. Even if they are, how is this being “in charge of the Senate?” Face it, Palin doesn’t know shit about the way the government works.
And besides that, who gives a fuck if she’s talking to a 3rd grader. “The vice-president assumes the roles of president should anything happen to the president. The VP also casts the tie-breaking vote in the senate.” A 3rd grader can understand that. Really. If there are people in this thread who have 3rd graders who can’t understand that, then you’ve got bigger problems than this debate.
The debate in this thread is over the VPs role in the Senate. No one (I don’t think) seriously contends that the VP doesn’t have a broad role within the executive branch to manage the administrative bureaucracy. If so, then they better start criticizing Gore pretty severely.
Several people have come to her defense for this bizarre answer because she was talking to 3rd graders. If she wants to give a simple answer to a 3rd grader, why not just say that VP casts the tie-breaking vote and assumes the role of the president if necessary? The “she was talking to a 3rd grader” defense is a bunch of bullshit because her answer wasn’t even acceptable for a 3rd grader.
Gah. As a registered Democrat, Obama supporter, social liberal, and fiscal conservative,I’d like to say that this thread makes me weep for the Democratic party.
You guys are turning into what you hate. Seriously. Palin’s answer is not perfect, but neither is it factually wrong–if it’s slightly exaggerated, who fuckin’ cares? Bricker is not being randomly partisan, he’s citing his references and laying down a good argument. And for once, you all DESERVE Shodan’s scorn. You don’t put up with this antagonistic blather about “tradition” and whatnot from angry conservatives, so stop putting it up in the Pit just because Bricker pissed you all off with his random anti-Obama course change.
Seriously. It’s not like there’s a lack of substantial issues to discuss.
That’s pretty conclusory. Why isn’t “in charge of” a better way of describing “presides over” to a third grader? What is it about “get in there with the Senators” that is obviously incorrect?
I agree with Kimstu that’s her explanation is pretty poor. Mostly because it is so vague. But I don’t think it is accurate to call it incorrect.
