Indeed, it is important to remember that both sides do it. Godzilla is a lizard, and so is a horny toad, they are pretty much the same.
Of all Dopers, you are the last I would have expected to characterize the Senate acting in a wholly legal and Constitutional manner as an abuse.
Regards,
Shodan
As I said at the time, I thought it was an abuse – not of the law, but of the norms that should animate Congressional deference to the President’s Art II appointment power.
In other words, we’re talking here about what I contend SHOULD be done, not about remedies for any illegal action. I fully acknowledge the Senate had every legal right to ignore Obama’s nomination. I just did not think then, and still don’t think now, that they SHOULD have. I’ll go further: not only should they have voted, they should have voted to confirm him. Garland was manifestly qualified.
I don’t know how I could adopt the position that only Republican presidents are entitled to deference by the Senate. (I grant you that many posters here seem to adopt the position that only the presidents they support are thus entitled, which is why I asked you when you switched parties.)
It’s tough love, baby.
Classic misunderstanding of lawful evil.
Who is “lawful evil,” within the meaning of this remark?
Thanks for that. I always incorrectly assumed “fracture” meant a partial break. Given that she’s still hospitalized, it may be more serious than I had thought. When I had a fractured rib it was mostly a matter of waiting it out and dealing with pain that interfered with sleep via some potent painkillers, but otherwise it healed itself.
According to CNN’s Sanjay Gupta, “The biggest issue in anyone with a rib fracture is the pain and the impact on lung function. All of these risks are dramatically increased in the elderly.”
Still, she was lucky, as there can be far worse consequences for the elderly when they suffer a fall.
Oh let’s say Mitch McConnell.
On the good side it sounds like she wasn’t rushed off the the hospital right away instead going there the next morning under her own power after an uncomfortable night.
Is there any way we can encase her in carbonite for the next two to six years only letting her out now and then to render verdicts?
This will be my argument in court. Every SCOTUS ruling is invalid since by not having a vote the Senate did not say no therefore they did not NOT consent.
And FYI I don’t drive I’m an Article IV traveller (at least in states that signed the Articles of Confederation).
I say start impeachment hearings on Ginsburg immediately. The American people didn’t authorize unelected law clerks to make decisions.
I am not sure I understand you. If the idea that only Republican Presidents are entitled to deference from the Senate, then I don’t hold that position and to the best of my knowledge have never suggested it.
If the Democrats take over the Senate, and Trump nominates a person to replace Ginsberg, and the leader of the Senate says that the Senate will not hold hearings or a vote on that nominee, that will be entirely within their rights. I will certainly point out the hypocrisy of the position, and take delight in reposting all the places where Democrats argued that it shouldn’t happen, but “This is a horrible abuse (when the President is a Democrat and the Senate is GOP)” does not become true when the parties change.
Regards,
Shodan
I think you’re right as long as you don’t think that the American system of government relies on public trust and legitimacy in institutions like the Senate and SC. But if you think that it does, then it’s reasonable to believe that McConnell’s (and he’s not alone, and it’s not just Republicans) actions regarding Garland did damage to this public trust and legitimacy in these institutions, even if they did not strictly violate the letter of the law.
Funny that you should say that…
You say you would take delight in pointing out that the democrats took a page from the republican playbook?
If the democrats had said, “It is wrong to do this, and we will never do this.” then you’d have a point.
But, as the democrats said, “Hey, we don’t like the way that you are changing the rules here.” then pointing out that the democrats are now playing by the new rules that the republicans created would make you look pretty damn foolish, now wouldn’t it?
You would delight in looking foolish?
Wait, is silence now consent?
Sorry: now not NOT consent?
I heard RBG fell on her left side cuz she’d never go right.
and
That Kavanaugh works fast but can’t complete any illegal act, can he?
Do you understand how something can be within the letter but contrary to the spirit? Or how scorning the spirit of democracy and its institutions while looking for ways to circumvent them is corrosive to them, and can eventually be fatal?
Some of us still believe in that stuff.
What is required for her to vote?
I assume that she need not be there in person but that could be wrong.
I’m imagining guards at the door of her hospital room to control the news of her actual condition… or a representative of each side trying to determine if she did wink her right eye or not.
The clerks are not making any final decisions that I am aware of. I feel certain the other justices would never accept that.
Possibly, if you take his quote out of context as you just did. But even then, there is no reason you have to extrapolate his statement beyond the issue actually being discussed. As it is, though, he was explicitly responding to this particular instance if you look at the preceding sentence in his post:
“I think it would be a ridiculous move. We’ve got the majority in the Senate - use it.”
Where “it” = “Suppose Ginsburg dies and Trump nominates Garland as her replacement.”