|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 06 2013 23:42 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 11:32 aksfjh wrote:On June 06 2013 09:37 coverpunch wrote:On June 06 2013 09:00 oneofthem wrote:
retribution isn't the main factor, it has to do with intensifying of polarization within the parties and the disciplinary toughness that comes with it.
democrats may just have more internal divisions and that prevents them from doing more stalling, despite strong will for it. (obviously, the question then would be whose will is it, and that goes back to the problem of internal divisions) We'll see the next time there's a Republican president. But the WaPo article had Democrats stalling out Bush almost twice as long as Republicans stalled out Clinton. Both parties suffer from internal divisions. I'm not sure what in the last 20 years makes you think the GOP has been particularly disciplined or principled. Nothing I said precludes increased polarization in politics. It's not so much "discipline and principle" as much as it is an ideological shift. There is some good documentation on this subject. That much isn't very debatable at this point. As for the severity of the hold up, you have to look at the full scale of it all. Look at the report and you'll see the kind of obstruction that went on. Democrats, while a nuisance, let nominations by quite regularly. In cases where nobody in the committee or floor opposed the nomination, the wait was rarely more than a month. In fact, for Bush, the mean being so much higher than the median shows that there were very few that were held up for a (very) long time, which hints that there was a problem with the nominee in the first place, outside of the fact that Bush appointed them. With Obama, though, so many have been held up outside of committee and for so long, with the only correlation being that they were appointed by Obama. For Obama, it matters much less if the committee approves of the nominee since it will be held up in the Senate regardless. Nah, you're just trying to play the victim, as most partisans do in arguments about judicial nominations. Bush just made bad nominations so it was fine that Democrats filibustered him, but when Obama's nominations are held up, obviously the Republican Party has gone crazy with the filibuster. Certainly it's no secret that Republicans targeted Obama nominees for filibuster from the get-go, even qualified ones with which they don't have any serious political problems. But it's wildly biased to say Democrats have clean hands and have only obstructed unqualified, extremist judicial picks. But like I said, we won't know how the pattern works until we get our next Republican president. EDIT: I will make a separate point that Republicans have actually used the filibuster very few times. They threaten to use it a lot, however, and Obama has backed off when Democrats do the math and don't think they can get the votes. Senate Democrats filibustered 10 of Bush's nominees, ultimately defeating five. So far, Senate Republicans have filibustered 3 of Obama's nominees, defeating 2 (including 1 that is still pending).
The ability for some people to hold their position after being slapped in the face with data that says the opposite of their notions is nothing short of fascinating.
|
The US Government isn't stupid they know that there is more of a threat from an increasingly disgruntled citizen rather than an angry Muslim.
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — The GOP-controlled House voted Thursday to reject President Barack Obama’s policy to end deportation of hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the country illegally who were brought to the United States as children.
The 224-201 vote broke along party lines and comes as Congress is working on overhauling the much-criticized U.S. immigration system. The measure came as the House completed action on the Department of Homeland Security spending bill.
Obama announced a program in June 2012 that puts off deportation for many people brought here as children. Applicants for the reprieve must have arrived before they turned 16, be younger than 31 now, be high school graduates or in school, or have served in the military. They can’t have a serious criminal record.
One of the most widely-backed elements of immigration reform, known as the DREAM Act, would award these immigrants legal status.
Obama’s program, done by executive action, doesn’t give such immigrants legal status but it at least protects them from deportation for two years.
Source
|
As bad as Rome was, they had better immigration policies...you were free to come and go from the Republic, but that didn't mean you were afforded the privilege of the plebiscite (the vote). We need to divorce the idea that immigration = vote. Open borders with no plebiscite is fine with me. If you want the privilege of the vote (citizenship) that's up to whatever inane rules the Congress sets up for naturalization, but other than that people should be free to come and go as they please without the fear or threat of violence (deportation, arrest, etc.) for merely traveling, living, or working in an area.
|
On June 07 2013 05:49 Wegandi wrote:
As bad as Rome was, they had better immigration policies...you were free to come and go from the Republic, but that didn't mean you were afforded the privilege of the plebiscite (the vote). We need to divorce the idea that immigration = vote. Open borders with no plebiscite is fine with me. If you want the privilege of the vote (citizenship) that's up to whatever inane rules the Congress sets up for naturalization, but other than that people should be free to come and go as they please without the fear or threat of violence (deportation, arrest, etc.) for merely traveling, living, or working in an area.
Would you also give them the various government benefits like social security/entitlements? What about schooling for their kids? As it is currently, we try to let in people who contribute more to those programs than they will get out, but with open immigration would you just not give it to people who came here over the age of 50? In general, countries that have built up a lot of social welfare programs tend to be very protective of those benefits and have quite strict immigration policies.
|
On June 07 2013 08:04 DeltaX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 05:49 Wegandi wrote:
As bad as Rome was, they had better immigration policies...you were free to come and go from the Republic, but that didn't mean you were afforded the privilege of the plebiscite (the vote). We need to divorce the idea that immigration = vote. Open borders with no plebiscite is fine with me. If you want the privilege of the vote (citizenship) that's up to whatever inane rules the Congress sets up for naturalization, but other than that people should be free to come and go as they please without the fear or threat of violence (deportation, arrest, etc.) for merely traveling, living, or working in an area. Would you also give them the various government benefits like social security/entitlements? What about schooling for their kids? As it is currently, we try to let in people who contribute more to those programs than they will get out, but with open immigration would you just not give it to people who came here over the age of 50? In general, countries that have built up a lot of social welfare programs tend to be very protective of those benefits and have quite strict immigration policies.
I'd rather no Welfarism to anyone, but as long as they pay taxation I don't see why they would not receive what their taxes are paying for. The issue has always been the plebiscite. The same reason the slavery issue was so contentious back in the 1850s.
Yes, you are right, however one infringement of liberty does not necessitate or make right another. From a consequentialist POV would open-borders + Welfarism lead to balkanization? Certainly. One of two things would occur - either an anti-immigrant sentiment leading to stricter immigration controls (which would put us back where we started in the first place), or an anti-Welfarism sentiment which would lead to lessening Welfarism (which would be a victory for liberty and freedom). So, it is a win-win in my eyes. Open borders is a victory for human liberty, and at worst, we're back to square one, and on the other hand we increase human liberty tremendously via open borders and a cessation of Welfarism.
Of course, the fight would descend to bickering over the plebiscite. It's all about the power after-all.
|
On June 07 2013 05:49 Wegandi wrote:
As bad as Rome was, they had better immigration policies...you were free to come and go from the Republic, but that didn't mean you were afforded the privilege of the plebiscite (the vote). We need to divorce the idea that immigration = vote. Open borders with no plebiscite is fine with me. If you want the privilege of the vote (citizenship) that's up to whatever inane rules the Congress sets up for naturalization, but other than that people should be free to come and go as they please without the fear or threat of violence (deportation, arrest, etc.) for merely traveling, living, or working in an area.
Half of Rome was a military dictatorship and the other half only land owners had the privilege to vote. I don't know what golden example you are thinking of but It would exclude a lot of people from participating in the system.
|
On June 07 2013 08:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 05:49 Wegandi wrote:
As bad as Rome was, they had better immigration policies...you were free to come and go from the Republic, but that didn't mean you were afforded the privilege of the plebiscite (the vote). We need to divorce the idea that immigration = vote. Open borders with no plebiscite is fine with me. If you want the privilege of the vote (citizenship) that's up to whatever inane rules the Congress sets up for naturalization, but other than that people should be free to come and go as they please without the fear or threat of violence (deportation, arrest, etc.) for merely traveling, living, or working in an area. Half of Rome was a military dictatorship and the other half only land owners had the privilege to vote. I don't know what golden example you are thinking of but It would exclude a lot of people from participating in the system.
I specifically mentioned the Republic. This period lasted for over 500 years. Every roman citizen had the plebiscite in the Republic. Anyways, I'm not too concerned with the privilege of voting for immigrants. The point I was making is that open-borders is both the liberty position, as well as the economic one. The vote is an entirely separate issue, which has nothing to do with whether people should be free to move and travel without seeking permission/authority from an entity which has no right to interfere.
Perhaps this will help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_republic
|
Goodbye privacy
The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time.
The highly classified program, code-named PRISM, has not been disclosed publicly before. Its establishment in 2007 and six years of exponential growth took place beneath the surface of a roiling debate over the boundaries of surveillance and privacy. Even late last year, when critics of the foreign intelligence statute argued for changes, the only members of Congress who knew about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues.
An internal presentation on the Silicon Valley operation, intended for senior analysts in the NSA’s Signals Intelligence Directorate, described the new tool as the most prolific contributor to the President’s Daily Brief, which cited PRISM data in 1,477 articles last year. According to the briefing slides, obtained by The Washington Post, “NSA reporting increasingly relies on PRISM” as its leading source of raw material, accounting for nearly 1 in 7 intelligence reports.
That is a remarkable figure in an agency that measures annual intake in the trillions of communications. It is all the more striking because the NSA, whose lawful mission is foreign intelligence, is reaching deep inside the machinery of American companies that host hundreds of millions of American-held accounts on American soil.
|
On June 07 2013 09:01 coverpunch wrote:Goodbye privacyShow nested quote +The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time.
The highly classified program, code-named PRISM, has not been disclosed publicly before. Its establishment in 2007 and six years of exponential growth took place beneath the surface of a roiling debate over the boundaries of surveillance and privacy. Even late last year, when critics of the foreign intelligence statute argued for changes, the only members of Congress who knew about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues.
An internal presentation on the Silicon Valley operation, intended for senior analysts in the NSA’s Signals Intelligence Directorate, described the new tool as the most prolific contributor to the President’s Daily Brief, which cited PRISM data in 1,477 articles last year. According to the briefing slides, obtained by The Washington Post, “NSA reporting increasingly relies on PRISM” as its leading source of raw material, accounting for nearly 1 in 7 intelligence reports.
That is a remarkable figure in an agency that measures annual intake in the trillions of communications. It is all the more striking because the NSA, whose lawful mission is foreign intelligence, is reaching deep inside the machinery of American companies that host hundreds of millions of American-held accounts on American soil.
This has been going on for a long time, ever since the creation of the FBI. Just look up the activities of Hoover. These institutions should have never been created in the first place. I can only imagine what sort of Prison we'll live under the more surveillance technology proliferates...
|
On June 07 2013 08:54 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 08:40 Sermokala wrote:On June 07 2013 05:49 Wegandi wrote:
As bad as Rome was, they had better immigration policies...you were free to come and go from the Republic, but that didn't mean you were afforded the privilege of the plebiscite (the vote). We need to divorce the idea that immigration = vote. Open borders with no plebiscite is fine with me. If you want the privilege of the vote (citizenship) that's up to whatever inane rules the Congress sets up for naturalization, but other than that people should be free to come and go as they please without the fear or threat of violence (deportation, arrest, etc.) for merely traveling, living, or working in an area. Half of Rome was a military dictatorship and the other half only land owners had the privilege to vote. I don't know what golden example you are thinking of but It would exclude a lot of people from participating in the system. I specifically mentioned the Republic. This period lasted for over 500 years. Every roman citizen had the plebiscite in the Republic. Anyways, I'm not too concerned with the privilege of voting for immigrants. The point I was making is that open-borders is both the liberty position, as well as the economic one. The vote is an entirely separate issue, which has nothing to do with whether people should be free to move and travel without seeking permission/authority from an entity which has no right to interfere. Perhaps this will help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_republic
You may wish to read the wikipost you link before you link it. That wiki post can't go a paragraph without detailing a crippling flaw in the "republic" name that it claims. Power concentrated between the few, a "emergency" dictatorship program, the only people being able to hold office were a select few rich families.
Jacksonian democracy is in clear defiance of everything rome truly stood for. You may not be concerned with the immigrants voteing but the democrats clearly are going to be.
On June 07 2013 09:03 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 09:01 coverpunch wrote:Goodbye privacyThe National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time.
The highly classified program, code-named PRISM, has not been disclosed publicly before. Its establishment in 2007 and six years of exponential growth took place beneath the surface of a roiling debate over the boundaries of surveillance and privacy. Even late last year, when critics of the foreign intelligence statute argued for changes, the only members of Congress who knew about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues.
An internal presentation on the Silicon Valley operation, intended for senior analysts in the NSA’s Signals Intelligence Directorate, described the new tool as the most prolific contributor to the President’s Daily Brief, which cited PRISM data in 1,477 articles last year. According to the briefing slides, obtained by The Washington Post, “NSA reporting increasingly relies on PRISM” as its leading source of raw material, accounting for nearly 1 in 7 intelligence reports.
That is a remarkable figure in an agency that measures annual intake in the trillions of communications. It is all the more striking because the NSA, whose lawful mission is foreign intelligence, is reaching deep inside the machinery of American companies that host hundreds of millions of American-held accounts on American soil. This has been going on for a long time, ever since the creation of the FBI. Just look up the activities of Hoover. These institutions should have never been created in the first place. I can only imagine what sort of Prison we'll live under the more surveillance technology proliferates...
Ok. Everything else I can kinda understand. But you really can't be saying that the FBI shouldn't have even been created. The things it did to stop bank robbing and kidnapping in america can't be ignored just because they decided to stop terrorist attacks.
|
On June 07 2013 03:21 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 23:42 coverpunch wrote:On June 06 2013 11:32 aksfjh wrote:On June 06 2013 09:37 coverpunch wrote:On June 06 2013 09:00 oneofthem wrote:
retribution isn't the main factor, it has to do with intensifying of polarization within the parties and the disciplinary toughness that comes with it.
democrats may just have more internal divisions and that prevents them from doing more stalling, despite strong will for it. (obviously, the question then would be whose will is it, and that goes back to the problem of internal divisions) We'll see the next time there's a Republican president. But the WaPo article had Democrats stalling out Bush almost twice as long as Republicans stalled out Clinton. Both parties suffer from internal divisions. I'm not sure what in the last 20 years makes you think the GOP has been particularly disciplined or principled. Nothing I said precludes increased polarization in politics. It's not so much "discipline and principle" as much as it is an ideological shift. There is some good documentation on this subject. That much isn't very debatable at this point. As for the severity of the hold up, you have to look at the full scale of it all. Look at the report and you'll see the kind of obstruction that went on. Democrats, while a nuisance, let nominations by quite regularly. In cases where nobody in the committee or floor opposed the nomination, the wait was rarely more than a month. In fact, for Bush, the mean being so much higher than the median shows that there were very few that were held up for a (very) long time, which hints that there was a problem with the nominee in the first place, outside of the fact that Bush appointed them. With Obama, though, so many have been held up outside of committee and for so long, with the only correlation being that they were appointed by Obama. For Obama, it matters much less if the committee approves of the nominee since it will be held up in the Senate regardless. Nah, you're just trying to play the victim, as most partisans do in arguments about judicial nominations. Bush just made bad nominations so it was fine that Democrats filibustered him, but when Obama's nominations are held up, obviously the Republican Party has gone crazy with the filibuster. Certainly it's no secret that Republicans targeted Obama nominees for filibuster from the get-go, even qualified ones with which they don't have any serious political problems. But it's wildly biased to say Democrats have clean hands and have only obstructed unqualified, extremist judicial picks. But like I said, we won't know how the pattern works until we get our next Republican president. EDIT: I will make a separate point that Republicans have actually used the filibuster very few times. They threaten to use it a lot, however, and Obama has backed off when Democrats do the math and don't think they can get the votes. Senate Democrats filibustered 10 of Bush's nominees, ultimately defeating five. So far, Senate Republicans have filibustered 3 of Obama's nominees, defeating 2 (including 1 that is still pending). The ability for some people to hold their position after being slapped in the face with data that says the opposite of their notions is nothing short of fascinating.
If you're going to present data, then present it fairly:
![[image loading]](http://www.stampedeofone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Judicial-nominations.png)
Trending worse over time, yes or no?
Also you made a misleading argument that implied that Bush had a much lower median and that Democrats mostly let his nominees through. This graph shows that isn't remotely true. Bush's median is not much lower than Obama's, meaning half his appointments also got held up badly. You can't tell anything about the qualification of appointees from this kind of graph as well, only how hard the other party opposed the nomination.
|
On June 07 2013 09:08 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 03:21 aksfjh wrote:On June 06 2013 23:42 coverpunch wrote:On June 06 2013 11:32 aksfjh wrote:On June 06 2013 09:37 coverpunch wrote:On June 06 2013 09:00 oneofthem wrote:
retribution isn't the main factor, it has to do with intensifying of polarization within the parties and the disciplinary toughness that comes with it.
democrats may just have more internal divisions and that prevents them from doing more stalling, despite strong will for it. (obviously, the question then would be whose will is it, and that goes back to the problem of internal divisions) We'll see the next time there's a Republican president. But the WaPo article had Democrats stalling out Bush almost twice as long as Republicans stalled out Clinton. Both parties suffer from internal divisions. I'm not sure what in the last 20 years makes you think the GOP has been particularly disciplined or principled. Nothing I said precludes increased polarization in politics. It's not so much "discipline and principle" as much as it is an ideological shift. There is some good documentation on this subject. That much isn't very debatable at this point. As for the severity of the hold up, you have to look at the full scale of it all. Look at the report and you'll see the kind of obstruction that went on. Democrats, while a nuisance, let nominations by quite regularly. In cases where nobody in the committee or floor opposed the nomination, the wait was rarely more than a month. In fact, for Bush, the mean being so much higher than the median shows that there were very few that were held up for a (very) long time, which hints that there was a problem with the nominee in the first place, outside of the fact that Bush appointed them. With Obama, though, so many have been held up outside of committee and for so long, with the only correlation being that they were appointed by Obama. For Obama, it matters much less if the committee approves of the nominee since it will be held up in the Senate regardless. Nah, you're just trying to play the victim, as most partisans do in arguments about judicial nominations. Bush just made bad nominations so it was fine that Democrats filibustered him, but when Obama's nominations are held up, obviously the Republican Party has gone crazy with the filibuster. Certainly it's no secret that Republicans targeted Obama nominees for filibuster from the get-go, even qualified ones with which they don't have any serious political problems. But it's wildly biased to say Democrats have clean hands and have only obstructed unqualified, extremist judicial picks. But like I said, we won't know how the pattern works until we get our next Republican president. EDIT: I will make a separate point that Republicans have actually used the filibuster very few times. They threaten to use it a lot, however, and Obama has backed off when Democrats do the math and don't think they can get the votes. Senate Democrats filibustered 10 of Bush's nominees, ultimately defeating five. So far, Senate Republicans have filibustered 3 of Obama's nominees, defeating 2 (including 1 that is still pending). The ability for some people to hold their position after being slapped in the face with data that says the opposite of their notions is nothing short of fascinating. If you're going to present data, then present it fairly: Trending worse over time, yes or no? Also you made a misleading argument that implied that Bush had a much lower median and that Democrats mostly let his nominees through. This graph shows that isn't remotely true. Bush's median is not much lower than Obama's, meaning half his appointments also got held up badly. You can't tell anything about the qualification of appointees from this kind of graph as well, only how hard the other party opposed the nomination.
I made the argument that makes statistical sense, that a much higher mean compared to median insinuates that there are very few nominations that were held up, but for a very long time. Maybe I overstepped assuming there was a problem with the nominee, but it wasn't a concerted effort on the same scale we see now.
Admittedly, I took one snippet to highlight a point that is seen throughout the document, leaving out context of other graphs and figures. Having already linked the report, I'll simply post the rest of the tables and figures.
+ Show Spoiler +
Note, the tables and figures left out pertain to vacancies and nominations.
First off, lets look at the graph you posted and the other graphs I posted. Yours shows the total days, and mine split it up (figures 2, 3, and 4). A key difference is that Bush's nominees had to wait a long time between nomination and a hearing. These hearings are scheduled by the Senate Judiciary Committee, done in committee meetings, which can be called by the chairman or 3 members. This means that those hearings can happen while any group is in power, and the committee can give their report on the nominee. It's probably not a good idea for the minority party to hold the hearing like this, and the committee report will probably not recommend the nominee if the minority tries to go over the head of the majority, but it can be done.
There's also a special note about the hearing times for extreme cases (footnote 38 in the report).
The calculations for the G.W. Bush nominees from first nomination to first hearing included relatively long waiting periods for nominees such as Priscilla R. Owen (waiting 440 days from first nomination to first hearing), Deborah L. Cook (630 days), Jeffrey S. Sutton (630 days), Richard A. Griffin (721 days), and David W. McKeague (951 days).
This situation was documented here. It was essentially a judiciary committee spat left over from politics played in the 90s against Clinton nominees.
In the end, this confirms what I basically said the first time, that the average number of days being held was inflated by a few nominees, and the median days still end up being larger for Obama.
The real story comes in the other tables and figures, though. Every single one shows a sharp increase for Obama nominees overall, and only 1 categorical decline in rejection for circuit nominees (which again, was part of that spat I mentioned earlier). What we have here is an entire party being obstructionist, not just a few rogue members playing tit-for-tat committee politics.
|
On June 07 2013 11:12 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 09:08 coverpunch wrote:On June 07 2013 03:21 aksfjh wrote:On June 06 2013 23:42 coverpunch wrote:On June 06 2013 11:32 aksfjh wrote:On June 06 2013 09:37 coverpunch wrote:On June 06 2013 09:00 oneofthem wrote:
retribution isn't the main factor, it has to do with intensifying of polarization within the parties and the disciplinary toughness that comes with it.
democrats may just have more internal divisions and that prevents them from doing more stalling, despite strong will for it. (obviously, the question then would be whose will is it, and that goes back to the problem of internal divisions) We'll see the next time there's a Republican president. But the WaPo article had Democrats stalling out Bush almost twice as long as Republicans stalled out Clinton. Both parties suffer from internal divisions. I'm not sure what in the last 20 years makes you think the GOP has been particularly disciplined or principled. Nothing I said precludes increased polarization in politics. It's not so much "discipline and principle" as much as it is an ideological shift. There is some good documentation on this subject. That much isn't very debatable at this point. As for the severity of the hold up, you have to look at the full scale of it all. Look at the report and you'll see the kind of obstruction that went on. Democrats, while a nuisance, let nominations by quite regularly. In cases where nobody in the committee or floor opposed the nomination, the wait was rarely more than a month. In fact, for Bush, the mean being so much higher than the median shows that there were very few that were held up for a (very) long time, which hints that there was a problem with the nominee in the first place, outside of the fact that Bush appointed them. With Obama, though, so many have been held up outside of committee and for so long, with the only correlation being that they were appointed by Obama. For Obama, it matters much less if the committee approves of the nominee since it will be held up in the Senate regardless. Nah, you're just trying to play the victim, as most partisans do in arguments about judicial nominations. Bush just made bad nominations so it was fine that Democrats filibustered him, but when Obama's nominations are held up, obviously the Republican Party has gone crazy with the filibuster. Certainly it's no secret that Republicans targeted Obama nominees for filibuster from the get-go, even qualified ones with which they don't have any serious political problems. But it's wildly biased to say Democrats have clean hands and have only obstructed unqualified, extremist judicial picks. But like I said, we won't know how the pattern works until we get our next Republican president. EDIT: I will make a separate point that Republicans have actually used the filibuster very few times. They threaten to use it a lot, however, and Obama has backed off when Democrats do the math and don't think they can get the votes. Senate Democrats filibustered 10 of Bush's nominees, ultimately defeating five. So far, Senate Republicans have filibustered 3 of Obama's nominees, defeating 2 (including 1 that is still pending). The ability for some people to hold their position after being slapped in the face with data that says the opposite of their notions is nothing short of fascinating. If you're going to present data, then present it fairly: Trending worse over time, yes or no? Also you made a misleading argument that implied that Bush had a much lower median and that Democrats mostly let his nominees through. This graph shows that isn't remotely true. Bush's median is not much lower than Obama's, meaning half his appointments also got held up badly. You can't tell anything about the qualification of appointees from this kind of graph as well, only how hard the other party opposed the nomination. I made the argument that makes statistical sense, that a much higher mean compared to median insinuates that there are very few nominations that were held up, but for a very long time. Maybe I overstepped assuming there was a problem with the nominee, but it wasn't a concerted effort on the same scale we see now. Admittedly, I took one snippet to highlight a point that is seen throughout the document, leaving out context of other graphs and figures. Having already linked the report, I'll simply post the rest of the tables and figures. + Show Spoiler +Note, the tables and figures left out pertain to vacancies and nominations. First off, lets look at the graph you posted and the other graphs I posted. Yours shows the total days, and mine split it up (figures 2, 3, and 4). A key difference is that Bush's nominees had to wait a long time between nomination and a hearing. These hearings are scheduled by the Senate Judiciary Committee, done in committee meetings, which can be called by the chairman or 3 members. This means that those hearings can happen while any group is in power, and the committee can give their report on the nominee. It's probably not a good idea for the minority party to hold the hearing like this, and the committee report will probably not recommend the nominee if the minority tries to go over the head of the majority, but it can be done. There's also a special note about the hearing times for extreme cases (footnote 38 in the report). Show nested quote +The calculations for the G.W. Bush nominees from first nomination to first hearing included relatively long waiting periods for nominees such as Priscilla R. Owen (waiting 440 days from first nomination to first hearing), Deborah L. Cook (630 days), Jeffrey S. Sutton (630 days), Richard A. Griffin (721 days), and David W. McKeague (951 days). This situation was documented here. It was essentially a judiciary committee spat left over from politics played in the 90s against Clinton nominees. In the end, this confirms what I basically said the first time, that the average number of days being held was inflated by a few nominees, and the median days still end up being larger for Obama. The real story comes in the other tables and figures, though. Every single one shows a sharp increase for Obama nominees overall, and only 1 categorical decline in rejection for circuit nominees (which again, was part of that spat I mentioned earlier). What we have here is an entire party being obstructionist, not just a few rogue members playing tit-for-tat committee politics.
I fail to see how these situations are different. Democrats were miffed that Republicans held up Clinton nominees, so they tried to hold up Bush nominees in committee. You're agreeing with that. Then why is it so hard to believe that Republicans might have been similarly miffed that Democrats did that and decided to hold up Obama nominees? Why does it have to represent an ideological shift?
And sure, Republicans expanded the filibuster war to include district court appointments, something Democrats had not previously done. Nobody's denying that Republicans have tried to obstruct or slow down Obama appointments. In fact, the GOP has been very open that they're trying to hold back Obama nominees and explicitly do not want to stop using the filibuster as a political tool because that would be unilateral disarmament. There's nothing to stop Democrats from continuing to use the filibuster and probably most Democratic supporters would be delighted if that happened.
The bigger question is whether this is a partisan thing. When we have our next Republican president, will Democrats remember this and feel vindicated in obstructing conservative district judges? From all the graphs, the trend is certainly moving toward more obstructionist politics. And there's no doubt Democrats are bitter about what Republicans have done to Obama.
And yes, the mean is higher because of some outliers, but the medians between Bush and Obama are quite similar (although Obama's is higher). My point in bringing that up is that there's no high ground or clean hands here.
EDIT: Also the Senate judiciary committee is hardly "a few rogue members" of the Democratic Party. Besides Armed Services, that is probably the most prestigious committee to join.
|
In lighter news than the deluge of national security topics. A facepalm moment from Detroit.
A television publicity stunt could have ended in tragedy on Wednesday when Detroit police nearly got shot because they unknowingly staged a purse snatching at gas station used by FBI agents.
“An FBI agent almost shot a Detroit cop yesterday at this gas station while filling up,” WJBK’s Charlie LeDuff reported on Thursday. “It wasn’t the agent’s fault and it wasn’t cops fault. It was the cop’s bosses who came up the lame brain idea to simulate a purse snatching and then invite a TV crew to film your reaction, Detroit.”
“Well, the immediate supervisor to these cops had no idea that this was going on until they called him all pissed off!”
Inspector Shawn Gargalino explained to LeDuff that the off-duty FBI agent had witnessed the simulated purse snatching and began chasing the officer.
“He pulls his weapon, and as he turns the corner around the gas station, he’s stopped by another officer, who identifies herself as a police officer and don’t shoot, don’t shoot, this is a scenario,” Gargalino said.
Lieutenant Chuck Flannagan told WJBK that there were enough real purse snatchings in Detroit that “most people aren’t going to assume it’s a mock robbery.”
Source
|
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced legislation Friday that would prevent the government from obtaining the phone records of Americans without "a warrant based on probable cause," following reports that the National Security Agency has secretly been collecting the records of millions of Americans.
The Guardian reported Wednesday that the NSA is collecting call data from millions of Verizon customers under a top-secret U.S. court order. The news, which comes on the heels of reports that the Justice Department had been investigating leaks involving the Associated Press and Fox News, prompted further concerns about government overreach.
It appeared to be the moment Paul, a vocal defender of civil liberties, was waiting for. He announced his bill, "The Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013," in a statement Thursday, as his colleagues on Capitol Hill were busy defending the NSA program.
"The revelation that the NSA has secretly seized the call records of millions of Americans, without probable cause, represents an outrageous abuse of power and a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution," Paul said. "The bill restores our Constitutional rights and declares that the Fourth Amendment shall not be construed to allow any agency of the United States government to search the phone records of Americans without a warrant based on probable cause."
Paul strongly condemned the surveillance, calling it an "astounding assault on the Constitution." He accused President Barack Obama of being more "bent towards authoritarianism" than former President George W. Bush.
Source
|
Rand Paul as usual. I wonder how many people would have voted for Obama knowing he would continue Bush-era secret surveillance techniques and Guantanamo Bay?
I don't know how correct Rand Paul would be on "This bill restores our Constitutional Rights" considering its a bill and not a constitutional amendment. If no action is taken on supposed violations of constitutional rights, how would a bill be any different?
|
On June 08 2013 05:55 Danglars wrote:
I don't know how correct Rand Paul would be on "This bill restores our Constitutional Rights" considering its a bill and not a constitutional amendment. If no action is taken on supposed violations of constitutional rights, how would a bill be any different?
Pretty much this. We already have laws against this bs, apparently they didn't stop it. I do appreciate more lawmakers bringing attention to the issue, when so many are trying to sweep it under the rug. It seems civil rights abuses are the only bipartisan agreements in DC.
|
On June 08 2013 05:55 Danglars wrote:
Rand Paul as usual. I wonder how many people would have voted for Obama knowing he would continue Bush-era secret surveillance techniques and Guantanamo Bay?
You do know that he can't close Guantanamo Bay without the votes in Congress, right?
|
On June 08 2013 06:51 Trumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2013 05:55 Danglars wrote:
I don't know how correct Rand Paul would be on "This bill restores our Constitutional Rights" considering its a bill and not a constitutional amendment. If no action is taken on supposed violations of constitutional rights, how would a bill be any different? Pretty much this. We already have laws against this bs, apparently they didn't stop it. I do appreciate more lawmakers bringing attention to the issue, when so many are trying to sweep it under the rug. It seems civil rights abuses are the only bipartisan agreements in DC.
War, welfare, ABC agencies and their proliferation, etc. etc.
Well, don't you feel safe knowing that the NSA and FBI are monitoring your activities, and the TSA is molesting you so that you can have the permission to travel? Oh, and if you want to leave the country, well, better fork up because IRS is calling. Feel free enough yet? If not, there are the shipments of military grade weapons to police agencies around the country. Ready, willing, and able to serve and protect the fuck out of you! Land of the free yeah! Oh...I forgot to mention...bath salts, natural plants, and similar products, well you'll be finding your self in the pound me in the ass prisons soon enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uT0kuFU.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9oOw9Q7.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rfmT384.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tspOeJj.png)
