|
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. |
Hong Kong9179 Posts
it isn't a presidential right. the legislature can and should check the president. it's part of the constitution.
[The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. man, if some of the people who presidents have wanted to be on the supreme court in the past got in just because it was their 'right,' we'd all be worse off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers_Supreme_Court_nomination
|
On November 24 2013 14:57 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 14:51 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 14:38 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 14:34 itsjustatank wrote:On November 24 2013 14:21 zlefin wrote:
I'm surprised noone in here really talked about the senate rules change; or did I just dream that? It will be fun to see the hypocritical reactions when the Democrats find themselves out of power and complaining about it. Even if Democrats complain about it in 3 years they still blocked an amazing abuse of the system that based on 200 years of prior tradition was unheard and needed to be stopped. It was Democrats who started the practice of blocking lower court nominees on a regular basis. The Repubs at that time contemplated changing the Filibuster. The dems whined about. Now the hypocrites do the exact same thing. And also fill other, non judicial positions. The greatest part is that the Court itself has fewer cases to work on now then it did when Bush was filling it. Obama just wants to tip the scales- he's angry that the DC circuit keeps calling him out on his BS. There is no constitutional requirement for the number of judges, or even the existence of certain courts (except the Supreme Court) it's just that the democrats are throwing a hissy fit since this is the ONE thing the Republicans have stood firm on. Edit: also, the Republican's have allowed more appointments in the same time frame than when the situation was reversed. Edit: I already explained earlier, the House rules are different. They are standing firm on the principle of blocking a presidential right on an unprecedented scale. Kennedy is in fact the person who started it all but that does not mean that ending it is not a good idea and that it is the power of the president to appoint federal judges which it was under Bush when democrats were blocking it (though again nowhere close to this degree) but democrat or republican is irrelevant when an abuse is happening it should be stopped and it was clearly happening in this regard.
First of all: there is a reason the Senate has to approve these appointments. You act as if the whole procedure is supposed to be a fancy rubber stamp for the president.
Second: it's not "unprecedented." They have confirmed more in the same time frame than the democrats did.
It's not "abuse" it's Obama angry at courts (like the DC ones) that rule against him. Remember, the court doesn't HAVE to have X number of judges.
|
On November 24 2013 14:58 itsjustatank wrote:it isn't a presidential right. the legislature can and should check the president. it's part of the constitution. Show nested quote +[The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. man, if some of the people who presidents have wanted to be on the supreme court in the past got in just because it was their 'right,' we'd all be worse off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers_Supreme_Court_nomination
In a perfect world it wouldn't be necessary to limit the rules on filibustering nominees because it would only be used in the most extreme of circumstance and even then if it were necessary enough people in the senate would release this is a bad nominee (such as Harriet Miers) that a filibuster would not be necessary. A lot of the nominees in question pass there nomination easily once they get past cloture which clearly shows no problem with the merits of the nomination and if you have no issue with the merits of a nominee then the nominee should pass.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
and yet there were nominees who would not pass previous cloture rules. by your logic something was wrong with them, but the rules were changed to let them in anyways because it's a presidential 'right.'
|
itstank, please read the issues more carefully before commenting.
I don't think the cloture rules went far enough; I favor an even stronger rule:
all nominees should be put to a vote within 90 days or they are automatically confirmed.
If you don't want a simple majority to be sufficient to approve nominees? fine, make it a 2/3 supermajority; but
IT SHOULD COME TO A VOTE. blocking votes from happening, by any side, is bad for democracy.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
that's the point though, the senate is inherently not a majoritarian body simply because of how it is made up, elected, and conducted. it is a space for the minority (and individual senators from whatever party) to exercise their ability to prevent votes in order to get concessions from those who want things to get it done.
the house is the exact opposite.
|
On November 24 2013 15:09 zlefin wrote:
itstank, please read the issues more carefully before commenting.
I don't think the cloture rules went far enough; I favor an even stronger rule:
all nominees should be put to a vote within 90 days or they are automatically confirmed.
If you don't want a simple majority to be sufficient to approve nominees? fine, make it a 2/3 supermajority; but
IT SHOULD COME TO A VOTE. blocking votes from happening, by any side, is bad for democracy.
What? Auto apporval? That's insane. That removes the enitire point of objecting.
It does "come to a vote." The cloture vote. it's like a 2/3 vote, except it requires even less! And without the Filibuster, the Senate is even more useless and redundant than it already is.
|
On November 24 2013 15:03 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 14:57 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 14:51 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 14:38 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 14:34 itsjustatank wrote:On November 24 2013 14:21 zlefin wrote:
I'm surprised noone in here really talked about the senate rules change; or did I just dream that? It will be fun to see the hypocritical reactions when the Democrats find themselves out of power and complaining about it. Even if Democrats complain about it in 3 years they still blocked an amazing abuse of the system that based on 200 years of prior tradition was unheard and needed to be stopped. It was Democrats who started the practice of blocking lower court nominees on a regular basis. The Repubs at that time contemplated changing the Filibuster. The dems whined about. Now the hypocrites do the exact same thing. And also fill other, non judicial positions. The greatest part is that the Court itself has fewer cases to work on now then it did when Bush was filling it. Obama just wants to tip the scales- he's angry that the DC circuit keeps calling him out on his BS. There is no constitutional requirement for the number of judges, or even the existence of certain courts (except the Supreme Court) it's just that the democrats are throwing a hissy fit since this is the ONE thing the Republicans have stood firm on. Edit: also, the Republican's have allowed more appointments in the same time frame than when the situation was reversed. Edit: I already explained earlier, the House rules are different. They are standing firm on the principle of blocking a presidential right on an unprecedented scale. Kennedy is in fact the person who started it all but that does not mean that ending it is not a good idea and that it is the power of the president to appoint federal judges which it was under Bush when democrats were blocking it (though again nowhere close to this degree) but democrat or republican is irrelevant when an abuse is happening it should be stopped and it was clearly happening in this regard. First of all: there is a reason the Senate has to approve these appointments. You act as if the whole procedure is supposed to be a fancy rubber stamp for the president. Second: it's not "unprecedented." They have confirmed more in the same time frame than the democrats did. It's not "abuse" it's Obama angry at courts (like the DC ones) that rule against him. Remember, the court doesn't HAVE to have X number of judges.
The senate has to approve them because they have to vet them and make sure the nominee is qualified for the position in question which if they are the nominee should succeed. Its been silly watching it go back and forth to the point where the last time they considered it McConnell was pushing for it and the democrats and now the democrats are pushing for it and McConnell is opposed. I do not really care which party did it as long as it got done in the end.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
they don't have to approve them. they can act in any way they so choose. they are an independent body (that is sometimes divided) and separate from the will of the president by design and intent.
|
On November 24 2013 15:14 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 15:03 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 14:57 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 14:51 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 14:38 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 14:34 itsjustatank wrote:On November 24 2013 14:21 zlefin wrote:
I'm surprised noone in here really talked about the senate rules change; or did I just dream that? It will be fun to see the hypocritical reactions when the Democrats find themselves out of power and complaining about it. Even if Democrats complain about it in 3 years they still blocked an amazing abuse of the system that based on 200 years of prior tradition was unheard and needed to be stopped. It was Democrats who started the practice of blocking lower court nominees on a regular basis. The Repubs at that time contemplated changing the Filibuster. The dems whined about. Now the hypocrites do the exact same thing. And also fill other, non judicial positions. The greatest part is that the Court itself has fewer cases to work on now then it did when Bush was filling it. Obama just wants to tip the scales- he's angry that the DC circuit keeps calling him out on his BS. There is no constitutional requirement for the number of judges, or even the existence of certain courts (except the Supreme Court) it's just that the democrats are throwing a hissy fit since this is the ONE thing the Republicans have stood firm on. Edit: also, the Republican's have allowed more appointments in the same time frame than when the situation was reversed. Edit: I already explained earlier, the House rules are different. They are standing firm on the principle of blocking a presidential right on an unprecedented scale. Kennedy is in fact the person who started it all but that does not mean that ending it is not a good idea and that it is the power of the president to appoint federal judges which it was under Bush when democrats were blocking it (though again nowhere close to this degree) but democrat or republican is irrelevant when an abuse is happening it should be stopped and it was clearly happening in this regard. First of all: there is a reason the Senate has to approve these appointments. You act as if the whole procedure is supposed to be a fancy rubber stamp for the president. Second: it's not "unprecedented." They have confirmed more in the same time frame than the democrats did. It's not "abuse" it's Obama angry at courts (like the DC ones) that rule against him. Remember, the court doesn't HAVE to have X number of judges. The senate has to approve them because they have to vet them and make sure the nominee is qualified for the position in question which if they are the nominee should succeed. Its been silly watching it go back and forth to the point where the last time they considered it McConnell was pushing for it and the democrats and now the democrats are pushing for it and McConnell is opposed. I do not really care which party did it as long as it got done in the end.
They are being vetted. They aren't passing the test. The ones the Repubs are blocking are radicals. They've allowed PLENTY of other appointments.
This just displays that you aren't thinking about this clearly. Everything you want to happen does- it does "come to a vote," they are "vetted," etc.
You just like this rule change because it's a rubber stamp.
edit: I mean take the (now ancient) blockade of Robert Bork. Pretty darn qualified at the time.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
beyond the partisanship, i really take issue with the idea that the legislature exists only to rubber-stamp the president's will. we have separation of powers for a reason in this form of government. it may not always make sense or be something you agree with, but the fundamental design is sacrosanct.
this isnt a parliamentary system where the executive is also in control of the legislature.
|
itsatank, you're not paying any attention, since noone mentioned anything about rubberstamping. That is why I say you need to read up on the issue more; because you're strawmanning the other side and not really thinking about the issues.
|
On November 24 2013 15:17 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 15:14 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 15:03 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 14:57 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 14:51 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 14:38 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 14:34 itsjustatank wrote:On November 24 2013 14:21 zlefin wrote:
I'm surprised noone in here really talked about the senate rules change; or did I just dream that? It will be fun to see the hypocritical reactions when the Democrats find themselves out of power and complaining about it. Even if Democrats complain about it in 3 years they still blocked an amazing abuse of the system that based on 200 years of prior tradition was unheard and needed to be stopped. It was Democrats who started the practice of blocking lower court nominees on a regular basis. The Repubs at that time contemplated changing the Filibuster. The dems whined about. Now the hypocrites do the exact same thing. And also fill other, non judicial positions. The greatest part is that the Court itself has fewer cases to work on now then it did when Bush was filling it. Obama just wants to tip the scales- he's angry that the DC circuit keeps calling him out on his BS. There is no constitutional requirement for the number of judges, or even the existence of certain courts (except the Supreme Court) it's just that the democrats are throwing a hissy fit since this is the ONE thing the Republicans have stood firm on. Edit: also, the Republican's have allowed more appointments in the same time frame than when the situation was reversed. Edit: I already explained earlier, the House rules are different. They are standing firm on the principle of blocking a presidential right on an unprecedented scale. Kennedy is in fact the person who started it all but that does not mean that ending it is not a good idea and that it is the power of the president to appoint federal judges which it was under Bush when democrats were blocking it (though again nowhere close to this degree) but democrat or republican is irrelevant when an abuse is happening it should be stopped and it was clearly happening in this regard. First of all: there is a reason the Senate has to approve these appointments. You act as if the whole procedure is supposed to be a fancy rubber stamp for the president. Second: it's not "unprecedented." They have confirmed more in the same time frame than the democrats did. It's not "abuse" it's Obama angry at courts (like the DC ones) that rule against him. Remember, the court doesn't HAVE to have X number of judges. The senate has to approve them because they have to vet them and make sure the nominee is qualified for the position in question which if they are the nominee should succeed. Its been silly watching it go back and forth to the point where the last time they considered it McConnell was pushing for it and the democrats and now the democrats are pushing for it and McConnell is opposed. I do not really care which party did it as long as it got done in the end. They are being vetted. They aren't passing the test. The ones the Repubs are blocking are radicals. They've allowed PLENTY of other appointments. This just displays that you aren't thinking about this clearly. Everything you want to happen does- it does "come to a vote," they are "vetted," etc. You just like this rule change because it's a rubber stamp.
I like the rule change because it should not be hard to find a majority of senators opposed to a nomination if the nominee is not qualified. Not qualified does not mean you disagree with there interpretation of the law.
For example the most popular thing people bring up for the supreme court is the abortion issue. No republican will ever nominate a nominee if favor it regardless of what they may say and no democrat will ever nominate someone opposed to it regardless of whatever they may say. Just because they believe one way or another on that issue does not mean they are not qualified to hold the bench. (At this point I probably also could have picked gay marriage or that Citizens United ruling to make same point)
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On November 24 2013 15:22 zlefin wrote:
itsatank, you're not paying any attention, since noone mentioned anything about rubberstamping. That is why I say you need to read up on the issue more; because you're strawmanning the other side and not really thinking about the issues.
I can and will say the same about you. The person who is actually adding stuff to this conversation has stated that nominations are are presidential right, and not, as it is in the constitution, something the president has to get the advice and consent of the Senate for before getting his will done.
Although your lack of ability to even type out my handle properly might indicate a larger problem.
|
On November 24 2013 15:22 zlefin wrote:
itsatank, you're not paying any attention, since noone mentioned anything about rubberstamping. That is why I say you need to read up on the issue more; because you're strawmanning the other side and not really thinking about the issues.
Yes it is. The other guy is saying "as long as the guy is qualified, he should be approved!"
Pretty close to a rubber stamp.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On November 24 2013 15:23 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 15:17 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 15:14 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 15:03 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 14:57 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 14:51 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 14:38 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 14:34 itsjustatank wrote:On November 24 2013 14:21 zlefin wrote:
I'm surprised noone in here really talked about the senate rules change; or did I just dream that? It will be fun to see the hypocritical reactions when the Democrats find themselves out of power and complaining about it. Even if Democrats complain about it in 3 years they still blocked an amazing abuse of the system that based on 200 years of prior tradition was unheard and needed to be stopped. It was Democrats who started the practice of blocking lower court nominees on a regular basis. The Repubs at that time contemplated changing the Filibuster. The dems whined about. Now the hypocrites do the exact same thing. And also fill other, non judicial positions. The greatest part is that the Court itself has fewer cases to work on now then it did when Bush was filling it. Obama just wants to tip the scales- he's angry that the DC circuit keeps calling him out on his BS. There is no constitutional requirement for the number of judges, or even the existence of certain courts (except the Supreme Court) it's just that the democrats are throwing a hissy fit since this is the ONE thing the Republicans have stood firm on. Edit: also, the Republican's have allowed more appointments in the same time frame than when the situation was reversed. Edit: I already explained earlier, the House rules are different. They are standing firm on the principle of blocking a presidential right on an unprecedented scale. Kennedy is in fact the person who started it all but that does not mean that ending it is not a good idea and that it is the power of the president to appoint federal judges which it was under Bush when democrats were blocking it (though again nowhere close to this degree) but democrat or republican is irrelevant when an abuse is happening it should be stopped and it was clearly happening in this regard. First of all: there is a reason the Senate has to approve these appointments. You act as if the whole procedure is supposed to be a fancy rubber stamp for the president. Second: it's not "unprecedented." They have confirmed more in the same time frame than the democrats did. It's not "abuse" it's Obama angry at courts (like the DC ones) that rule against him. Remember, the court doesn't HAVE to have X number of judges. The senate has to approve them because they have to vet them and make sure the nominee is qualified for the position in question which if they are the nominee should succeed. Its been silly watching it go back and forth to the point where the last time they considered it McConnell was pushing for it and the democrats and now the democrats are pushing for it and McConnell is opposed. I do not really care which party did it as long as it got done in the end. They are being vetted. They aren't passing the test. The ones the Repubs are blocking are radicals. They've allowed PLENTY of other appointments. This just displays that you aren't thinking about this clearly. Everything you want to happen does- it does "come to a vote," they are "vetted," etc. You just like this rule change because it's a rubber stamp. I like the rule change because it should not be hard to find a majority of senators opposed to a nomination if the nominee is not qualified. Not qualified does not mean you disagree with there interpretation of the law. For example the most popular thing people bring up for the supreme court is the abortion issue. No republican will ever nominate a nominee if favor it regardless of what they may say and no democrat will ever nominate someone opposed to it regardless of whatever they may say. Just because they believe one way or another on that issue does not mean they are not qualified to hold the bench. (At this point I probably also could have picked gay marriage or that Citizens United ruling to make same point)
The thing is though that it isnt just about qualifications. Most people are qualified. It is about party politics. So in this case, whoever side is in the majority will always be annoyed at the minority. The majority until now, however, has not touched the rules because they fear the day when they aren't in the majority. Short-term political gains don't outweigh potential years of being left out in the cold via a rules change they instituted.
'Advice and consent' isn't limited to yes-or-no based on qualifications. It can be any reason at all, even partisan, for blocking a nomination.
|
|
|
|
|
Just because there may be issues with adreme's approach, does not justify your own.
My point was the original one, and the one you should have to contend with: that it should come up to an actual vote. Not a pretend we were voting on some procedural detail, but a vote on the nominee themselves.
And the reason for a 90 day or autoconfirm is simple: to force the issue.
If the rule merely said all nominees must be put to a vote, what do you do if they still fail to vote? Including a remedy is vital; autoconfirmation is that remedy.
|
On November 24 2013 15:24 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 15:22 zlefin wrote:
itsatank, you're not paying any attention, since noone mentioned anything about rubberstamping. That is why I say you need to read up on the issue more; because you're strawmanning the other side and not really thinking about the issues. Yes it is. The other guy is saying "as long as the guy is qualified, he should be approved!" Pretty close to a rubber stamp.
Harriet Miers failed for the two basic reasons of, it felt way to much like cronism which could have been forgiven if she had at least been a judge at some point in her life or even given answers during her interview with senators which inspired confidence.
I take a very simple approach to federal nominees and thats that you need a reason to oppose them beyond "I disagree with there opinions on issues" because if that is benchmark anytime there is split power in washington then you will never a nominee for anything if both sides stick to there games and having the country run by a high stakes game of chicken seems like a recipe for disaster
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
