|
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 Kong9154 Posts
On November 24 2013 15:32 zlefin wrote:
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.
My approach is merely stating the functions of the executive and the legislature as expounded by the Constitution and related jurisprudence. I will limit my response to your proposal to the following: it is unconstitutional and would require a constitutional amendment to go though because it fundamentally weakens the ability of the Congress to check the executive.
If we're gonna talk about pipe dreams, it would be nice if we were actually in a parliamentary system with true proportional representation based on allotments and voting rules so that budget crises can become no-confidence measures and voters get to fix legislatures via the ballot box.
|
On November 24 2013 15:32 zlefin wrote:
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.
A vote is essentially what is being forced now since actual votes in the senate would be majority vote.
Also to Introvert since you found Harry Reids reaction I don't suppose it would be hard to find the clips of Mitch McConnell talking about how the nuclear option is necessary in order to stop democrats abuse of the system. I did find one quote attributed to him which I am sure is on youtube:
"To correct this abuse, the majority in the Senate is prepared to restore the Senate’s traditions and precedents to ensure that regardless of party, any president’s judicial nominees, after full and fair debate, receive a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. It is time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent." -Mitch McConnel May 19,2005.
|
I've previously stated that I favor it as a constitutional amendment, though that was much earlier in the thread.
And being against good ideas because they are hard to implement doesn't sound like a good system.
An amendment to fix budget crises has already been designed as well.
And no, you are not stating the functions of the exectuive and legislature, only how they are as you perceive them; the reality is quite different, and you are omitting a great deal of history.
I'd be fine with proportional representation on allotments. and ways to fix the legislature through voter initiative, since that's clearly one of the defects of the current system.
The solution is clear: invoke the clause in the constitution that allows for a constitutional convention to consider amendments; if such a convention is actually assembled, then moving alot of fixes through is possible; and there's enough disgust with washington right now that getting such a convention has a (slim) chance.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
trying to get each other on flip-flopping talking heads is meaningless. the action has been done already.
|
Edit: I don't care what Mitch McConnell says. Wrong then, wrong now. You make the mistake of tying me to a party and not to an idea.
Reply to both of you:
It not being brought up to a vote is the same as a vote. normally I would agree with you, but in this case, having an actual vote doesn't change anything. So fine. We should have an actual vote. Now what?
Edit: Not a majority wins vote.
Auto confirmation is the worst possible solution. What if Harry Reid just didn't bring it up for a vote? Then the nominee is automatically confirmed? How bout "hell no!" In terms of the Court workload, there is no problem right now. It would be nice if we could just go "hey, he's qualified, go ahead." But ideology does matter, because it will affect how these agencies are run and cases are decided.
For instance, from my own perspective, a judge that approves Obamacare is so Constitutionally ignorant (or just doesn't care) that I would vote them as "not qualified on basis of bad Constitutional understanding." That's why ideology matters, because the law will follow from these decisions.
|
On November 24 2013 15:40 itsjustatank wrote:
trying to get each other on flip-flopping talking heads is meaningless. the action has been done already.
I just wanted to point out how they are two sides of the same coin in this matter.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
A con-con across all 50 states isn't my idea of something where "moving alot of fixes through is possible." If you think federal government is divided, come look at all 50 states.
|
On November 24 2013 14:13 Danglars wrote:
How conveniently we forget all the wars from the arab world after 1948 designed to exterminate the new Israeli state. Israel is just as bad as the lot of them ... umm... hold the phone.
.
I know you live in an alternative reality but of the wars fought between Israel and the Arab states:
1948 was an invasion of Israel by the Arab states
1956 was an invasion of Egypt by Israel and UK-France
1967 was an Israeli invasion of Egypt and later Jordan and Syria
1973 was a Egyptian-Syrian invasion of Israel
1978 was an Israeli invasion of Lebanon
1982 was an Israeli invasion of Lebanon
|
On November 24 2013 15:41 Introvert wrote:
Reply to both of you:
it not being brought up to a vote is the same as a vote. normally I would agree with you, but in this case, having an actual vote doesn't change anything. So fine. we should have an actual vote. Now what?
Auto confirmation is the worst possible solution. What if Harry Reid just didn't bring it up for a vote? Then the nominee is automatically confirmed? How bout "hell no!" in terms of the Courts, there is no problem right now. it would be nice if we could just go "hey, he's qualified, go ahead." But ideology does matter, because it will effect how these agencies are run and cases are decided.
For instance, from my own perspective, a judge that approves Obamacare is so Constitutionally ignorant (or just doesn't care) that I would vote them as "not qualified on basis of bad Constitutional understanding." That's why ideology matters, because the law will follow from these decisions.
Yes and if they pick an issue like abortion, ACA, gun control or any of the other issues the court hears and say I will not vote for any nominee who believes in X then there will never be another federal judge again. This would basically mean if we used old rules that if both sides followed same ideology on this that the ONLY way a judge would ever pass is if one side has 60 vote majority in senate and the white house and then about 500 judges would pass at once since that would be a once in a generation moment.
|
Well, if you have a better solution than autoconfirmation, please provide one.
It's one principle of a foreign government I rather liked, I forget which one, maybe German?
That the parliament can't vote to remove the prime minister without having chosen a replacement.
If you think my proposal is bad, provide a better one.
Obamacare does have a number of questionable points on constitutionality; it's a pity the judges on the supreme court aren't less partisan, as they make a lot of questionable decisions, but that's another matter to deal with; and at least they do better than congress.
Also, it's not the same whether you vote on the procedural vote or the candidate; the effect may be similar, but the viewpoints of others and consequences thereof are different. i.e. it's not about the effect on the nominee, but the effect on public perception, that differs based on which vote you use.
|
On November 24 2013 15:45 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 15:41 Introvert wrote:
Reply to both of you:
it not being brought up to a vote is the same as a vote. normally I would agree with you, but in this case, having an actual vote doesn't change anything. So fine. we should have an actual vote. Now what?
Auto confirmation is the worst possible solution. What if Harry Reid just didn't bring it up for a vote? Then the nominee is automatically confirmed? How bout "hell no!" in terms of the Courts, there is no problem right now. it would be nice if we could just go "hey, he's qualified, go ahead." But ideology does matter, because it will effect how these agencies are run and cases are decided.
For instance, from my own perspective, a judge that approves Obamacare is so Constitutionally ignorant (or just doesn't care) that I would vote them as "not qualified on basis of bad Constitutional understanding." That's why ideology matters, because the law will follow from these decisions. Yes and if they pick an issue like abortion, ACA, gun control or any of the other issues the court hears and say I will not vote for any nominee who believes in X then there will never be another federal judge again. This would basically mean if we used old rules that if both sides followed same ideology on this that the ONLY way a judge would ever pass is if one side has 60 vote majority in senate and the white house and then about 500 judges would pass at once since that would be a once in a generation moment.
What? Do you see the Supreme Court now? Your hypothetical fails the reality test. If this situation you imagine were to happen, it would have already. Obama's already had 2 new judges added to the Supreme Court alone.
The system has given us plenty of judges up until now, I don't think that's going to change.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
generally though, it works out fine, which is why there are many federal judges present. the current atmosphere is just really bad in washington with people not wanting to negotiate for any reason, no matter what.
strong leadership from the executive or from legislative leaders isnt just about talking to one's own party. it is getting things done with the other party despite ideological differences. that's an art that's been lost in the last decade.
google tip o'neill and reagan's working relationship and you will see how divided government can still work as long as both sides are still willing to talk to each other.
|
On November 24 2013 15:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 15:45 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 15:41 Introvert wrote:
Reply to both of you:
it not being brought up to a vote is the same as a vote. normally I would agree with you, but in this case, having an actual vote doesn't change anything. So fine. we should have an actual vote. Now what?
Auto confirmation is the worst possible solution. What if Harry Reid just didn't bring it up for a vote? Then the nominee is automatically confirmed? How bout "hell no!" in terms of the Courts, there is no problem right now. it would be nice if we could just go "hey, he's qualified, go ahead." But ideology does matter, because it will effect how these agencies are run and cases are decided.
For instance, from my own perspective, a judge that approves Obamacare is so Constitutionally ignorant (or just doesn't care) that I would vote them as "not qualified on basis of bad Constitutional understanding." That's why ideology matters, because the law will follow from these decisions. Yes and if they pick an issue like abortion, ACA, gun control or any of the other issues the court hears and say I will not vote for any nominee who believes in X then there will never be another federal judge again. This would basically mean if we used old rules that if both sides followed same ideology on this that the ONLY way a judge would ever pass is if one side has 60 vote majority in senate and the white house and then about 500 judges would pass at once since that would be a once in a generation moment. What? Do you see the Supreme Court now? Your hypothetical fails the reality test. If this situation you imagine were to happen, it would have already. Obama's already had 2 new judges added to the Supreme Court alone. The system has given us plenty of judges up until now, I don't think that's going to change.
Yes because the senate does not do things the way you are suggesting they should but if they did you would never get any justices. The current situation with nominees is not good but you are implying that it should be taken another degree which would result in no federal judges without a super majority and the white house.
|
On November 24 2013 15:46 zlefin wrote:
Well, if you have a better solution than autoconfirmation, please provide one.
It's one principle of a foreign government I rather liked, I forget which one, maybe German?
That the parliament can't vote to remove the prime minister without having chosen a replacement.
If you think my proposal is bad, provide a better one.
Obamacare does have a number of questionable points on constitutionality; it's a pity the judges on the supreme court aren't less partisan, as they make a lot of questionable decisions, but that's another matter to deal with; and at least they do better than congress.
Also, it's not the same whether you vote on the procedural vote or the candidate; the effect may be similar, but the viewpoints of others and consequences thereof are different. i.e. it's not about the effect on the nominee, but the effect on public perception, that differs based on which vote you use.
A family member of mine said something similar once. But the thing is, just because you have a problem doesn't mean you just adopt the first fix that comes along! This fix would be worse the current issue. Which already not much of an issue. Obama has had LOTS of confirmations so far (several hundred across different areas). We aren't in some great gridlock.
by the way, the president gets recess appointments, but the Congress must go out of session. (No, Obama can't declare it out of session by fiat).
|
On November 24 2013 15:49 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 15:47 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 15:45 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 15:41 Introvert wrote:
Reply to both of you:
it not being brought up to a vote is the same as a vote. normally I would agree with you, but in this case, having an actual vote doesn't change anything. So fine. we should have an actual vote. Now what?
Auto confirmation is the worst possible solution. What if Harry Reid just didn't bring it up for a vote? Then the nominee is automatically confirmed? How bout "hell no!" in terms of the Courts, there is no problem right now. it would be nice if we could just go "hey, he's qualified, go ahead." But ideology does matter, because it will effect how these agencies are run and cases are decided.
For instance, from my own perspective, a judge that approves Obamacare is so Constitutionally ignorant (or just doesn't care) that I would vote them as "not qualified on basis of bad Constitutional understanding." That's why ideology matters, because the law will follow from these decisions. Yes and if they pick an issue like abortion, ACA, gun control or any of the other issues the court hears and say I will not vote for any nominee who believes in X then there will never be another federal judge again. This would basically mean if we used old rules that if both sides followed same ideology on this that the ONLY way a judge would ever pass is if one side has 60 vote majority in senate and the white house and then about 500 judges would pass at once since that would be a once in a generation moment. What? Do you see the Supreme Court now? Your hypothetical fails the reality test. If this situation you imagine were to happen, it would have already. Obama's already had 2 new judges added to the Supreme Court alone. The system has given us plenty of judges up until now, I don't think that's going to change. Yes because the senate does not do things the way you are suggesting they should but if they did you would never get any justices. The current situation with nominees is not good but you are implying that it should be taken another degree which would result in no federal judges without a super majority and the white house.
People are still being confirmed, They always have been... you know that Obama could propose other, less lefty people to head some of these agencies? It's not like he's impotent.
Edit: And I agree, current political atmosphere also matters. We don't remove a lung when all you have is a bad cough.
|
Yes, it is a pity that the republicans have chosen to refuse to work with the other side. I agree with you on that.
would you prefer nominees be automatically considered voted against if there is no vote in 90 days?
|
On November 24 2013 15:48 itsjustatank wrote:
generally though, it works out fine, which is why there are many federal judges present. the current atmosphere is just really bad in washington with people not wanting to negotiate for any reason, no matter what.
strong leadership from the executive or from legislative leaders isnt just about talking to one's own party. it is getting things done with the other party despite ideological differences. that's an art that's been lost in the last decade.
I think the only time in 5 years I have the seen democrats be unwilling to negotiate was the shutdown recently and that was one of the weirdest instances I have ever seen on anything. Democrats who spent 5 years trying to negotiate everything suddenly found the one they weren't willing to negotiate on (solvency of the US) and republicans who had said things like "compromise is democrats coming over to republican position" suddenly wanted to make a deal.
The shutdown was hard to make a read and I would probably need more instances of democrats refusing to negotiate before I agree with that point but it is getting close to Washington being ungovernable.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
On November 24 2013 15:53 zlefin wrote:
Yes, it is a pity that the republicans have chosen to refuse to work with the other side. I agree with you on that.
it isn't just them.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
On November 24 2013 15:54 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 15:48 itsjustatank wrote:
generally though, it works out fine, which is why there are many federal judges present. the current atmosphere is just really bad in washington with people not wanting to negotiate for any reason, no matter what.
strong leadership from the executive or from legislative leaders isnt just about talking to one's own party. it is getting things done with the other party despite ideological differences. that's an art that's been lost in the last decade. I think the only time in 5 years I have the seen democrats be unwilling to negotiate was the shutdown recently and that was one of the weirdest instances I have ever seen on anything. Democrats who spent 5 years trying to negotiate everything suddenly found the one they weren't willing to negotiate on (solvency of the US) and republicans who had said things like "compromise is democrats coming over to republican position" suddenly wanted to make a deal. The shutdown was hard to make a read and I would probably need more instances of democrats refusing to negotiate before I agree with that point but it is getting close to Washington being ungovernable.
the shutdown was an example of washington being ungovernable because it was in both party's interests to go over the cliff and go into shutdown, and to have that shutdown last for as long as possible. it solidifies both party's bases, which is all they go for nowadays in election strategy.
that, and to try to get the middle to not vote.
|
On November 24 2013 15:53 zlefin wrote:
Yes, it is a pity that the republicans have chosen to refuse to work with the other side. I agree with you on that.
It's a shame the democrats broke, for all their whining in the last administration. if you actually think the democrats are concerned with the effective governing of the nation...well their past actions don't speak to that.
But their blockages were within their rights in the senate. The difference is the Republicans didn't change the rules, they accepted the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
