That's my point: yes, stand on principle - if there's an issue. If she nominates a guy who thinks abortions should be pay-two-get-one-free, by all mean,s oppose him. If she nominates a woman who thinks capitalism is evil and all Americans should be fed by the state, by all mean,s oppose her. Saying "we won't consider anyone - ANYONE - she nominates" doesn't allow for conversation. It doesn't hold any intellectual merit. It holds no actual value. It's obstructionism, period. The Senate gets to judge a nominee and say yes or no. They're not supposed to say "we won't even look".
a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
I would like to believe that people with moral fiber would not drone strike weddings.
I mean Merrick Garland was considered an example of a moderate judge that Obama would never choose until he did. It's clearly just out of spite.
Do you think he did it with a modified XBox controller setup through his laptop or did they have to set up the whole drone apparatus in the White House?
Do you think Nazi leadership was executed because they personally committed all the war crimes they were judged responsible for?
Nope! Nor were they accused of doing so!
Oh, so all that call to let the next president decide on the new SCJ was just lies and bullshit now that it's all but guaranteed they're not gonna win. Colour me shocked.
The court was pretty evenly divided until Scalia died. Replacing him with a so-called moderate moves the court. Whether it's a good or bad move may be opinion, but I don't think anyone is claiming that the court will remain fairly even handed in its judgements.
So how could the republican's accept that?
This isn't a litmus test. This is simply one group - who are elected to their offices by the people - responding to the people and saying, "Give us a justice to replace Scalia - not one that will move the court in a direction our constituents don't want."
So if people want the courts to move in that direction, they better elect different house and senate representatives.
Otherwise it isn't moral bankruptcy - it's called enacting the mandate of their electorate.
Something I think a lot of people claim for Obama, if I remember correctly.
Convince the people to elect a less "obstructionist" congress, in other words.
Sure, and they should vote in a way that honors that. Don't you feel that obstructing seems different, though, than simply honoring their mandate? It is as if the obstructionist is speaking for more than their electorate, for people that did not vote for them. And that would be true for either side obstructing.
Looks like the senate is not faring as well as democrats had hoped. Still, there's 54% chance it'll flip as of the latest analysis:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-but-down-ballot-democrats-are-losing-ground/
Just because previous congresses haven't chosen to simply not hear a nomination doesn't mean it isn't within their charter or right to use it.
Every congress and every president (and every supreme court) have tested the limits of their powers. If they did not have the right to deny a hearing or a vote, then I suppose that will be tested against the constitution by the next president who takes congress to the supreme court and forces them to act. I suppose the supreme court would act in its self interest, though, and force congress to act.
I don't know, but that's why we have three branches who are always testing the limits of the powers granted them via the constitution.
Actually, we have google. Let's find out. "Can Obama invoke the Writ of Mandamus against US Congress"
The answer is no. From one of the many sites:
So there's the rub. The senate can continue to refuse. There's two ways to accomplish this:
1) present a supreme court candidate that will pass the senate. Perhaps if they chose someone in the vein of Scalia, the senate wouldn't be so hesitant.
2) the electorate needs to change the senate enough that the president's choices will be chosen.
That's it. The senate can block indefinitely, and the people will have to live with an 8 seat court for as long as the senate chooses to do so.
You may disagree that the senate should use this power in this manner, but it's in the constitution. Go ahead and change it if it's causing problems, or change the senate, or change the nomination.
You shifted from talking about one man to talking about the whole body. I was referencing the actions of a single representative. I don't disagree with a balance of powers.
No shock on Wisconsin. I was looking at the comments at the Journal Sentinel and almost without contention Johnson was being called an empty suit. It will be good to get Feingold back where he belongs.
I've re-read the various posts and I'm confused. I thought I was always talking about whether this obstructionism was legitimized by the representatives being elected by the people, or if it was "morally bankrupt" on the part of those who are obstructing.
I'm sorry if I'm moving goalposts or hitting strawmen, it's not my intention. Perhaps you can provide a quote trail that will show me where I've gone off the rails...
Perhaps you should stop playing football with scarecrows!
Right, you were, but it all started with the discussion of the vow of a single person. I don't deny that the Republicans can legally obstruct. I can legally say mean things about your wife to your face, but we prefer, as a society, to keep things civil.
Oh, I see. Let me look at the quote.
From the article:
And:
Well, perhaps I'm misreading, but so far as I can tell McCain is saying this as a party representative. I haven't seen anyone in the party suggesting his quote doesn't represent them or the party, so I"m not sure that we should be reading this as one person's personal vendetta or vow.
If anything, I suspect that the republicans see the writing on the wall, they're going to lose the presidential election, and they're rallying the troops around the idea that if they can keep the senate they'll still have control over the supreme court nomination process.
As of the latest polls it sounds like they may lose the senate, but if the party has any money left they should drop Trump and spend it on senate seats.
It sounds, though, like we'll have a partial repeat of Obama's first term - a democrat controlled senate and a democrat president. If they don't control the house, though, they'll still have to fight over other things, but if Clinton can't wrangle the senate then she may be as ineffective as Obama was his first term, and the republicans will probably gain control of the senate again if she doesn't play ball before the midterm elections.
This is where I see things going. It'd be easier for her to get some republicans on her side than for a democrat-controlled senate to agree on anything.
GasBandit
Staff member
What are you talking about? Maybe not the supreme court, but democrats filibustered scads and scads of his lower court nominees.
And frankly, this is a shooting war started by democrats when they resorted to scorched earth character assassination on Bork in 87.
I can't wait for Hillary to appoint three new, 40 year old radical leftist justices that will finally get us mandatory abortions for all by 2024
I am reminded of that lady who wanted to sterilize all men. She found out we were talking about her and got a bit snippy on Twitter, I think. Anyone remember her?
I don't know about you, Charlie, but they're never going to make me have an abortion.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Had what to do with judicial appointments, exactly?
GasBandit
Staff member
It's quite amusing how paltry and slight Nixons "abuses of power" were compared to the sort of thing people, including democrats, are willing to countenance today as de rigueur.
The lady who wanted to sterilize all men got a bit snippy eh?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/is-...g-supporters-to-break-voter-intimidation-laws
Trump is basically encouraging his armed supporters to go to polling places and intimidate people.
Trump has for months complained about the possibility of an election somehow “rigged” against him, but recently, the rhetoric has taken on a more ominous, and even racially-tinged tone, that specifically mentions voter fraud at the ballot box. Last week, he told a mostly white crowd in Ambridge, Pennsylvania, to “watch other communities, because we don't want this election stolen from us." He said at rally in Michigan late last month that his supporters, after they vote, should "pick some other place ... and go sit there with your friends and make sure it's on the up and up."
It appears that some of his supporters are prepared to heed his call. Steve Webb, a 61-year-old Trump supporter from Ohio, told the Boston Globe he planned to go “watch” from his precinct “for sure."
“I’ll look for . . . well, it’s called racial profiling. Mexicans. Syrians. People who can’t speak American,” he said. “I’m going to go right up behind them. I’ll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I’m not going to do anything illegal. I’m going to make them a little bit nervous.”
I imagine next week they'll be issued their brown shirts.
Trump is basically encouraging his armed supporters to go to polling places and intimidate people.
Trump has for months complained about the possibility of an election somehow “rigged” against him, but recently, the rhetoric has taken on a more ominous, and even racially-tinged tone, that specifically mentions voter fraud at the ballot box. Last week, he told a mostly white crowd in Ambridge, Pennsylvania, to “watch other communities, because we don't want this election stolen from us." He said at rally in Michigan late last month that his supporters, after they vote, should "pick some other place ... and go sit there with your friends and make sure it's on the up and up."
It appears that some of his supporters are prepared to heed his call. Steve Webb, a 61-year-old Trump supporter from Ohio, told the Boston Globe he planned to go “watch” from his precinct “for sure."
“I’ll look for . . . well, it’s called racial profiling. Mexicans. Syrians. People who can’t speak American,” he said. “I’m going to go right up behind them. I’ll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I’m not going to do anything illegal. I’m going to make them a little bit nervous.”
I imagine next week they'll be issued their brown shirts.
One of my greatest fucking pet-peeves. The U.S. has no official language, it just uses English like D&D does Common, and that's a good thing.
Dave
Staff member
Remember those cute (but misinformed) dancing girls at Trump rallies? Turns out Trump had them travel from Florida to Iowa, cancelled their performance, and is now refusing to pay them.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/usa-freedom-kids-lawsuit-trump/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/usa-freedom-kids-lawsuit-trump/
That's his deal. He stiffs people all the time. He's been taken to court for non-payment literally hundreds of times.