Let’s keep the personal cracks to a minimum, please.
Which brings us back to the subject of this thread!
Some citizens have been denied their representation by illegal inaction, by Governor Walker refusing to do that which the law requires and which a court has verified the law clearly requires. In a republic this, even for “just a year”, or even just for a week, is a big fukkin’ deal on many levels.
Those checks and balances are in place to spread the power around and that includes to the courts as a check on the other branches. The rules of those checks and balances being respected is something that must transcend any partisan advantage.
Ignoring the law by feigning not properly understanding it was bad, barring having asked for and immediately receiving a stay on the court order, continuing to delay getting citizens their rightful elected voice as their representation in the republican process, after the court has made clear what the law is, is a crime against the very basis of our country’s system. It is an un-American action.
The other go-to conservative argument. “If you don’t like it, elect somebody else.” (With elections stacked in their favor.) “Change the Constitution.” (When 37 states are blue.)
Rigging the game to stack the deck despite public consensus is an old game in politics and it isn’t just limited to conservative Republicans. The Constitution and election law derived from it is supposed to prevent gross imbalance and provide a judicial check against corruption, but at the end of the day, the exection of law and adherence to democratic norms and principles relies upon the integrity of those elected and sworn to upload it.
This is not what integrity looks like; this is the other thing. Deliberately denying people elected representation is corrupt, noxious, and oppressive regardless of whether it is technically legal or not. And the people trying to rationalize a defense of this behavior know it very well, hence the strained language and tortured logic to avoid acknowledging that a representative republic governed along democratic principles has to provide representation to its contituants in a manner that reflects their collective beliefs, ideas, and values. That this is not happening here, and because of deliberate inaction and stalling by one party, is an actual fact not subject to debate or interpretation.
Stranger
If you don’t like it, elect somebody else. That’s the way the system was designed to work. If you can’t elect your someone else, you have the option of demanding that the elected official govern like the candidate that you didn’t manage to get elected. Of course, the majority of voters probably wouldn’t approve of the actual winner of the election governing like the loser of the election would have.
Elections have consequences. -
Barack Obama
It’s almost as if the entire thread is about those in power not holding elections, as required by the Constitution. I know politics is moving fast, but please keep up.
I believe what he is saying is that the people should vote out those who are blocking the elections and jerrymandering voting districts to prevent further misconduct. Because if you vote out the people who are already violating democratic norms and trying to rig the system in their favor, they will respectfully let your position be considered and honor public consensus. Also, wolves and sheep will breed and produce hybrid offspring known as “wheeps” and “sweeps”.
Stranger
Both political parties are guilty of ger·ry·man·der·ing and blocking elections.
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Note that Judge Niess is not the same as Judge Reynolds who issued the initial ruling.
In this particular case it is the Republican governor refusing the call for special elections under a false pretext and Republican leaders in the Wisconsin state legislature attempting to change election law to allow for this scenario of non-representation to be perpetuated. The “everybody does it so it must be okay,” isn’t any more valid for politicians than it is for teenagers.
Stranger
I look forward to your support of government employees taking guns away from people based on laws in favor of seizing guns because while the law in question was struck down by a lower court judge, it “is expected to be appealed, so it isn’t the final word.” and thus the guns may continue to be seized.
Actually, no. Hearings into nominees didn’t actually start happening until the early 1900s. In ye olden days, nominations were simply sent to Congress, and often the response was returned the very same day, yea or nay. IIRC, the whole bit about holding hearings into nominations came about as a result of hijinks between Woodrow Wilson and the Congress he had to deal with after the 1914 elections.
But the point is, hearings or no, the Senate used to do its Constitutionally-required job and vote on nominees. This isn’t a matter of “if you don’t like the Constitution, change it”. This is a case where we do like the Constitution, except that Republicans are ignoring it.
Where in the Constitution does it state that votes on nominees are required?
Advice and consent clause.
They gave their advice, and they said “No”.
Untrue.
It’s not a ‘no’ to refuse to approve or disapprove. It’s an abrogation of constitutional responsibilities. McConnell et al refused to have hearings or schedule a vote precisely because Garland would have been approved.
The “advice” was to fuck off, and “they” were not the Senate but just McConnell and Grassley. So, no.
Your turn: By what reasoning do you conclude either of them performed their duties as they had sworn? You know, that little thing that ends “I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” ?
Their advice was to nominate Garland, and they refused to say no.
Untrue. Please cite the relevant clause of the Constitution where that alleged responsibility is laid out.