|
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 November 25 2013 01:10 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 21:09 HunterX11 wrote:On November 24 2013 16:23 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 16:20 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 16:13 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 16:08 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 16:02 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 15:59 zlefin wrote:
the democrats have shown substantially more concern with the governance of the nation than republicans (at the federal level); sadly they've also shown a lot more incompetence and ineffectiveness. Not on the issue we are talking about! They blocked more of Bush's stuff than the Repubs have for Obama so far! Point is, the rules work the majority of the time, it's just that the dems, who really are "ends justify the means" type of people, have grown impatient. And if I may speculate a little more: they are scared for 2014. Better get the judges in now, before we lose even more seats! Edit: but this is off topic. I find that number a little odd considering I looked up the total nominations for Bush and Obama to the court and considering Obama has only been in office 5 years the numbers are fairly close. Also when you add in that over half of nominees who have ever been filibustered were nominated by Obama then you wind up with a difficult to believe scenario. I do of course believe that a big chunk of the remaining 40 odd % of filibustered nominees were under Bush but I could not find the exact number anywhere. Your comment is unclear. nominations are not appointments, or even filibusters. Then you talk about filibusters... so what numbers are fairly close? btw, when I said confirmations, I was referring to all positions, not just those on the bench. I believe the numbers overall are like 192 approved for Bush and 220 for Obama, or something like that. Also, it should be added that Bush generally made candidates more moderate when they failed. Obama's done that a few times, but some of these judges are just sitting around waiting. Just like Harriet was. I cant really judge non judicial appointments since doing so would be sort of silly since I assume Bush had more people approved then Clinton because he added an entire department in his first year. As for judicial appointments though I am saying that in the history of the US 147 judicial appointments have been filibustered. Of those 147 79 were appointed by Obama and 68 by every other president. That may very well be true (cite?). Like I said, I was talking about other appointments. I don't particularly care who did what when. I was angry when they blocked Bush, but I wasn't advocating for a rule change. I'm not in this for "Dems bad, Republicans good!" I'm supporting the rule itself. The democrats changed the rules, thus I attack them for it. With the constant use of the filibuster to block appointments, the Senate has not been fulfilling its Constitutional mandate to Advise and Consent. Now if you don't like the Senate or the Constitution, that's fine: personally, I'd get rid of both. But you claim to be about the rules, so I don't see how you can be against a measure that undercuts the ability of the Senate to continue to flagrantly and deliberately go against their Constitutional Duty. They don't have a duty to give assent. They can refuse to consent. Their refusal to give consent is advice.
Filibustering indefinitely regardless of the candidate is refusing even to refuse. To quote pretty much every majority party Democrat, then majority party Republican, then majority party Democrat again, you can always vote "down" in an "up or down" vote.
|
Hong Kong9154 Posts
refusing to refuse is perfectly legitimate in opposition as it stops policy you of which you are against. it has been for centuries at least in this country. it isn't new.
to put everything in perspective, im fine with the rules change; i just think the effects of the rules change need to be examined because it will change how the senate works for all parties, not just the ones currently in power. there will be a lot of democrats crying foul when it goes against them when they are in opposition
|
On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 21:09 HunterX11 wrote:On November 24 2013 16:23 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 16:20 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 16:13 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 16:08 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 16:02 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 15:59 zlefin wrote:
the democrats have shown substantially more concern with the governance of the nation than republicans (at the federal level); sadly they've also shown a lot more incompetence and ineffectiveness. Not on the issue we are talking about! They blocked more of Bush's stuff than the Repubs have for Obama so far! Point is, the rules work the majority of the time, it's just that the dems, who really are "ends justify the means" type of people, have grown impatient. And if I may speculate a little more: they are scared for 2014. Better get the judges in now, before we lose even more seats! Edit: but this is off topic. I find that number a little odd considering I looked up the total nominations for Bush and Obama to the court and considering Obama has only been in office 5 years the numbers are fairly close. Also when you add in that over half of nominees who have ever been filibustered were nominated by Obama then you wind up with a difficult to believe scenario. I do of course believe that a big chunk of the remaining 40 odd % of filibustered nominees were under Bush but I could not find the exact number anywhere. Your comment is unclear. nominations are not appointments, or even filibusters. Then you talk about filibusters... so what numbers are fairly close? btw, when I said confirmations, I was referring to all positions, not just those on the bench. I believe the numbers overall are like 192 approved for Bush and 220 for Obama, or something like that. Also, it should be added that Bush generally made candidates more moderate when they failed. Obama's done that a few times, but some of these judges are just sitting around waiting. Just like Harriet was. I cant really judge non judicial appointments since doing so would be sort of silly since I assume Bush had more people approved then Clinton because he added an entire department in his first year. As for judicial appointments though I am saying that in the history of the US 147 judicial appointments have been filibustered. Of those 147 79 were appointed by Obama and 68 by every other president. That may very well be true (cite?). Like I said, I was talking about other appointments. I don't particularly care who did what when. I was angry when they blocked Bush, but I wasn't advocating for a rule change. I'm not in this for "Dems bad, Republicans good!" I'm supporting the rule itself. The democrats changed the rules, thus I attack them for it. The rule itself is not working, and the system is totally broken. Both parties have been hypocrites of course, and it makes plenty of sense for politicians to lie and claim they're all about the rules instead of which party is removing them, but I'm pretty sure none of the posters here are United States Senators. The only consistent ideological reason to want to maintain the system of allowing both sides to simply prevent judicial and executive roles from being filled indefinitely is if you want to subvert the power of the government in general, whether by legislative or procedural means, and the partisan dimension to this is that it is primarily Republican who feel this way (though of course not all Republicans agree). With the constant use of the filibuster to block appointments, the Senate has not been fulfilling its Constitutional mandate to Advise and Consent. Now if you don't like the Senate or the Constitution, that's fine: personally, I'd get rid of both. But you claim to be about the rules, so I don't see how you can be against a measure that undercuts the ability of the Senate to continue to flagrantly and deliberately go against their Constitutional Duty. If you really think there's some third way to go back to the understanding that the filibuster is only an emergency option to delay appointments, I'd love to hear it, but I'm pretty skeptical. Right now I think the nuclear option really IS the best way to adhere to the rules, both in terms of the letter of the Constitutional, and the unwritten tradition of the Senate. It's a democrat talking point that there is some crisis in terms of vacancies. The system is working, the Senate has approved LOTS of Obama appointees, the Republicans are holding up some of them, not all of them. The president won't withdraw those candidates, as he could do, instead he just sits there (and in this case waited for Reid to change the rules.) It has nothing to do with "subverting the power of government." Thats' like saying that the Democrats with Bush were trying to weaken the government.. the Democrats love government. But before you assume to much about me: I'm actually pro Constitution. Like, really pro Constitution. More so than many here. I would do away with most of the extra crap we have now. Obamacase is unconstitutional, and thus should be repealed. I despise the EPA, it's a massive bureaucracy that tries to regulate not only car standards, but individual citizens and their land. I would repeal the 17th amendment, so that the Senate is no longer a useless and redundant body. States should actually have some say in what is going on in Washington. The senate is NOT supposed to be just another House of Representatives, and its rules reflect that. It has a duty to advise and consent. Guess what? They aren't consenting! But Obama won't try someone else, just like Bush waited and waited without trying someone else. The senate doesn't have a duty to just approve whoever the president wants because there is a vacancy. For the courts in particular, while the laws set how many judges and courts there are, there is no Constitutional mandate that each court must have X number of judges. So you could say "they are breaking written law" (which would still be false), but they are NOT failing a Constitutional duty. But I don't know what good going down this trail is to you when you say you would get rid of the Constitution. I just don't even know where to start. Show nested quote +This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role. I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) And there is no vacancy "crisis."
It's a Democrat talking point when they are in the majority, and a Republican talking point when they are in the majority. Finally, a bipartisan talking point! But the crisis I am talking about is not the vacancy issue, but the issue that U.S. Senate no longer fulfills its role to vote on appointments. And there are appointments where Obama could appoint a Republican and they wouldn't have got a vote, because the issue was that Obama was appointing living human beings, and the GOP didn't want that, such as in the case of the NLRB, where they wanted to block all appointments in order to neuter its power. The Senate has a duty to vote on appointments, and while I don't disagree with using extraordinary measures to block egregious appointments (say if Harriet Miers hadn't been withdrawn), using the filibuster as an ordinary, all-the-time measure is in essence "going nuclear" just as much as invoking a parliamentary majority rules change when it comes to destroying the lower-c conservative tradition of the upper house.
|
On November 25 2013 09:44 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 21:09 HunterX11 wrote:On November 24 2013 16:23 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 16:20 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 16:13 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 16:08 Adreme wrote:On November 24 2013 16:02 Introvert wrote:On November 24 2013 15:59 zlefin wrote:
the democrats have shown substantially more concern with the governance of the nation than republicans (at the federal level); sadly they've also shown a lot more incompetence and ineffectiveness. Not on the issue we are talking about! They blocked more of Bush's stuff than the Repubs have for Obama so far! Point is, the rules work the majority of the time, it's just that the dems, who really are "ends justify the means" type of people, have grown impatient. And if I may speculate a little more: they are scared for 2014. Better get the judges in now, before we lose even more seats! Edit: but this is off topic. I find that number a little odd considering I looked up the total nominations for Bush and Obama to the court and considering Obama has only been in office 5 years the numbers are fairly close. Also when you add in that over half of nominees who have ever been filibustered were nominated by Obama then you wind up with a difficult to believe scenario. I do of course believe that a big chunk of the remaining 40 odd % of filibustered nominees were under Bush but I could not find the exact number anywhere. Your comment is unclear. nominations are not appointments, or even filibusters. Then you talk about filibusters... so what numbers are fairly close? btw, when I said confirmations, I was referring to all positions, not just those on the bench. I believe the numbers overall are like 192 approved for Bush and 220 for Obama, or something like that. Also, it should be added that Bush generally made candidates more moderate when they failed. Obama's done that a few times, but some of these judges are just sitting around waiting. Just like Harriet was. I cant really judge non judicial appointments since doing so would be sort of silly since I assume Bush had more people approved then Clinton because he added an entire department in his first year. As for judicial appointments though I am saying that in the history of the US 147 judicial appointments have been filibustered. Of those 147 79 were appointed by Obama and 68 by every other president. That may very well be true (cite?). Like I said, I was talking about other appointments. I don't particularly care who did what when. I was angry when they blocked Bush, but I wasn't advocating for a rule change. I'm not in this for "Dems bad, Republicans good!" I'm supporting the rule itself. The democrats changed the rules, thus I attack them for it. The rule itself is not working, and the system is totally broken. Both parties have been hypocrites of course, and it makes plenty of sense for politicians to lie and claim they're all about the rules instead of which party is removing them, but I'm pretty sure none of the posters here are United States Senators. The only consistent ideological reason to want to maintain the system of allowing both sides to simply prevent judicial and executive roles from being filled indefinitely is if you want to subvert the power of the government in general, whether by legislative or procedural means, and the partisan dimension to this is that it is primarily Republican who feel this way (though of course not all Republicans agree). With the constant use of the filibuster to block appointments, the Senate has not been fulfilling its Constitutional mandate to Advise and Consent. Now if you don't like the Senate or the Constitution, that's fine: personally, I'd get rid of both. But you claim to be about the rules, so I don't see how you can be against a measure that undercuts the ability of the Senate to continue to flagrantly and deliberately go against their Constitutional Duty. If you really think there's some third way to go back to the understanding that the filibuster is only an emergency option to delay appointments, I'd love to hear it, but I'm pretty skeptical. Right now I think the nuclear option really IS the best way to adhere to the rules, both in terms of the letter of the Constitutional, and the unwritten tradition of the Senate. It's a democrat talking point that there is some crisis in terms of vacancies. The system is working, the Senate has approved LOTS of Obama appointees, the Republicans are holding up some of them, not all of them. The president won't withdraw those candidates, as he could do, instead he just sits there (and in this case waited for Reid to change the rules.) It has nothing to do with "subverting the power of government." Thats' like saying that the Democrats with Bush were trying to weaken the government.. the Democrats love government. But before you assume to much about me: I'm actually pro Constitution. Like, really pro Constitution. More so than many here. I would do away with most of the extra crap we have now. Obamacase is unconstitutional, and thus should be repealed. I despise the EPA, it's a massive bureaucracy that tries to regulate not only car standards, but individual citizens and their land. I would repeal the 17th amendment, so that the Senate is no longer a useless and redundant body. States should actually have some say in what is going on in Washington. The senate is NOT supposed to be just another House of Representatives, and its rules reflect that. It has a duty to advise and consent. Guess what? They aren't consenting! But Obama won't try someone else, just like Bush waited and waited without trying someone else. The senate doesn't have a duty to just approve whoever the president wants because there is a vacancy. For the courts in particular, while the laws set how many judges and courts there are, there is no Constitutional mandate that each court must have X number of judges. So you could say "they are breaking written law" (which would still be false), but they are NOT failing a Constitutional duty. But I don't know what good going down this trail is to you when you say you would get rid of the Constitution. I just don't even know where to start. This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role. I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) And there is no vacancy "crisis." It's a Democrat talking point when they are in the majority, and a Republican talking point when they are in the majority. Finally, a bipartisan talking point! But the crisis I am talking about is not the vacancy issue, but the issue that U.S. Senate no longer fulfills its role to vote on appointments. And there are appointments where Obama could appoint a Republican and they wouldn't have got a vote, because the issue was that Obama was appointing living human beings, and the GOP didn't want that, such as in the case of the NLRB, where they wanted to block all appointments in order to neuter its power. The Senate has a duty to vote on appointments, and while I don't disagree with using extraordinary measures to block egregious appointments (say if Harriet Miers hadn't been withdrawn), using the filibuster as an ordinary, all-the-time measure is in essence "going nuclear" just as much as invoking a parliamentary majority rules change when it comes to destroying the lower-c conservative tradition of the upper house.
The thing is thought hat Harriet Miers was such a bad appointment that extraordinary measures were not necessary since she would have failed a simple vote anyway and that's why she had to be withdrawn.
|
On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 06:45 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. Fascinating - apparently the majority of judges on the Supreme Court are not "fit to be [judges]". Do you have any other brilliant criteria you want to pull out of your a** and share with us? Surely you realize what you just wrote has zero credibility, right? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role. What "ideology" are you talking about exactly? What positions too controversial to make them judges are you attributing to the nominees? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) It is exactly that. They're blocking his nominees because they don't like him and his positions, not because the nominees are unqualified or have taken "extreme" stances on issues. On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
And there is no vacancy "crisis." There are vacant seats. That's the one and only relevant criterion to fill them. Exactly. Those 5 justices had to twist the Constitution and the ACA into pretzels in order to make it legitimate. But you are right, the only criteria for a good judge should be "were they confirmed by the Senate?" That sounds great. I hope you've never disagreed with a court decision before in your entire life, because if so then that is obviously you putting yourself above them! I'm sure you missed it, which is fine, but a while back I had a nice long discussion with DoubleReed about the Constitutionality of Obamacare. I'm not going to lay it out again. Suffice it to say that I know my Constitution well enough to know that the ACA fails it and that John Roberts doesn't get to rewrite and selectively choose what he wants to use and what he wants to ignore when evaluating something. Seriously, you act as if merely being educated at some law school is enough for you to pass the test. It was a 5-4 decision. 4 very highly educated people agree with me (including the court "moderate," Kennedy)! And so did half or so of the Courts that ruled on it until the case came to the Supreme Court. So don't give me this BS. Yes, 5 of those justices have no place up there for a such a bad decision.
It's too bad that the vast majority of constitutional lawyers, judges, and the judges of the Supreme Court were unaware that "Introvert" knew his Constitution well enough through his own "research and reading" (who needs an actual education in law?) to know that they were all wrong and that the ACA was unconstitutional. You're right, let's prevent anyone who happens to disagree with your detached-from-reality, purely ideological view on the ACA from becoming a judge - that sounds like a brilliant way to run the judiciary.
On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:
I'm talking about their political ideology, which whether or not one would care to admit it, matters for these sorts of things. Now I think that the most fair and even handed evaluations of the Constitution would be made by the judges who make decisions based on what the founders said and meant, not on what society has now deemed to be the norm. But I know that's not popular right now, instead most favor some strange judicial oligarchy that gets to decide when society/governance has "moved on" from the the oh-so-quaint ideals laid out in the document they swear to uphold. If you would like to get into the specifics about certain nominees.. well you first. Generally, however, I think Obamacare is really a great criteria to use, and I would bet money that all of those judges the Republicans were filibustering think the ACA is constitutional. I'll bet all the ones they approved also thought that as well, by the way. Just being "qualified" on basis of education or experience is a ridiculous sole criteria. Justices also rule from their ideology/constitutional interpretation, and thus should be confirmed (or not) on that basis as well.
You are the one who declared that the nominees "failed the test". Explain how. Explain what is so shocking about their ideology. Your "they should have been against the ACA" criterion is so ludicrously detached from actual constitutional knowledge that it would qualify as a joke on the daily show. If anything, given how the vast majority of experts consider the ACA to be constitutional, looking at who thinks it isn't would be a great way to see who lets ideology get in front of sound appraisal of legality. Anyway, even if opinions on the issue were evenly divided among experts, it would be ridiculous to follow your idea of using it as a litmus test because it would mean ideology would take precedence over competence as the norm to become a judge.
On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:
Yes, there are vacancies. But the Republicans are not in violation of the Constitution by refusing to confirm a particular judge. it's not like the DC circuit is so busy. it's certainly less busy then when the Dems blocked Bush's appointments.
Where have I ever declared that Republicans were in violation of the Constitution? They still wouldn't be in violation of the Constitution if there were no active judges left and they still refused to nominate anyone. They can do plenty of stupidly partisan things that are harmful to the country without being in violation of the Constitution, but that doesn't mean those things aren't stupidly partisan and/or harmful to the country.
|
QUEENSBURY, N.Y. (AP) — Coming soon to your local sheriff: 18-ton, armor-protected military fighting vehicles with gun turrets and bulletproof glass that were once the U.S. answer to roadside bombs during the Iraq war.
The hulking vehicles, built for about $500,000 each at the height of the war, are among the biggest pieces of equipment that the Defense Department is giving to law enforcement agencies under a national military surplus program.
For police and sheriff's departments, which have scooped up 165 of the mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPS, since they became available this summer, the price and the ability to deliver shock and awe while serving warrants or dealing with hostage standoffs was just too good to pass up.
"It's armored. It's heavy. It's intimidating. And it's free," said Albany County Sheriff Craig Apple, among five county sheriff's departments and three other police agencies in New York that have taken delivery of an MRAP.
Source
|
On November 25 2013 09:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 09:13 Adreme wrote:On November 25 2013 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2013 08:33 Adreme wrote:On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2013 06:45 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. Fascinating - apparently the majority of judges on the Supreme Court are not "fit to be [judges]". Do you have any other brilliant criteria you want to pull out of your a** and share with us? Surely you realize what you just wrote has zero credibility, right? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role. What "ideology" are you talking about exactly? What positions too controversial to make them judges are you attributing to the nominees? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) It is exactly that. They're blocking his nominees because they don't like him and his positions, not because the nominees are unqualified or have taken "extreme" stances on issues. On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
And there is no vacancy "crisis." There are vacant seats. That's the one and only relevant criterion to fill them. Exactly. Those 5 justices had to twist the Constitution and the ACA into pretzels in order to make it legitimate. But you are right, the only criteria for a good judge should be "were they confirmed by the Senate?" That sounds great. I hope you've never disagreed with a court decision before in your entire life, because if so then that is obviously you putting yourself above them! I'm sure you missed it, which is fine, but a while back I had a nice long discussion with DoubleReed about the Constitutionality of Obamacare. I'm not going to lay it out again. Suffice it to say that I know my Constitution well enough to know that the ACA fails it and that John Roberts doesn't get to rewrite and selectively choose what he wants to use and what he wants to ignore when evaluating something. Seriously, you act as if merely being educated at some law school is enough for you to pass the test. It was a 5-4 decision. 4 very highly educated people agree with me (including the court "moderate," Kennedy)! And so did half or so of the Courts that ruled on it until the case came to the Supreme Court. So don't give me this BS. Yes, 5 of those justices have no place up there for a such a bad decision. My statement has as much credibility as can be given an anonymous forum back and forth between people who don't even know each other. I'm talking about their political ideology, which whether or not one would care to admit it, matters for these sorts of things. Now I think that the most fair and even handed evaluations of the Constitution would be made by the judges who make decisions based on what the founders said and meant, not on what society has now deemed to be the norm. But I know that's not popular right now, instead most favor some strange judicial oligarchy that gets to decide when society/governance has "moved on" from the the oh-so-quaint ideals laid out in the document they swear to uphold. If you would like to get into the specifics about certain nominees.. well you first. Generally, however, I think Obamacare is really a great criteria to use, and I would bet money that all of those judges the Republicans were filibustering think the ACA is constitutional. I'll bet all the ones they approved also thought that as well, by the way. Just being "qualified" on basis of education or experience is a ridiculous sole criteria. Justices also rule from their ideology/constitutional interpretation, and thus should be confirmed (or not) on that basis as well. Yes, there are vacancies. But the Republicans are not in violation of the Constitution by refusing to confirm a particular judge. it's not like the DC circuit is so busy. it's certainly less busy then when the Dems blocked Bush's appointments. The reason everyone was sure it was going to be upheld was because they actually very solid precedent to have it upheld on commerce clause grounds which the court disregarded with no real justification (something odd for courts usually) and then they had to find a different justification which is still solid legal ground. Also, if we kept the old rules and republicans used your litmus there would never be another federal judge which was my point last night since odds of getting 60 senators and the presidency are fairly low. What in the world are you talking about? Anyone who has paid any attention to commerce clause jurisprudence and the voting tendencies of the current justices knew that Obamacare wouldn't be upheld under the commerce clause. Everyone expected it to pass under that because prior precedent matters to the court (or at least enough of the court) and prior rulings on commerce clause made it a safe bet to pass. The tax ruling was an interesting ruling that did also make sense but I surprised they choose to use that justification when commerce clause argument should easily have been enough. Also, while it is not my job to study courts prior rulings the peoples who job it was seemed fairly confident that the law would be upheld. As I said, anyone who was paying attention knew it wouldn't survive under the commerce clause. All of the "new federalism" cases made that very clear. It just so happens that way too many of the talking heads on TV are clueless when it comes to legal matters (among other things). This includes TV lawyers. I don't blame the average observer for being a little confused about why I am saying this. Everyone was misguided by the "experts" on TV. Edit: Remember how laughably retarded the TV experts were commenting on the Zimmerman trial? Why would you expect them to be any better commenting on appellate decisions? Edit2: In fairness, the legal commentators at all media outlets are bad -- not just TV.
In a poll conducted by the American Bar Association, 85% of experts predicted that the Affordable Care Act would be fully upheld., 39 PREVIEW U.S. SUP. CT. CAS. 29, 32 (2012)
Most law professors believed that the individual insurance mandate in the Affordable Care Act was so obviously justified by the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses that there could be no serious challenge to its constitutionality.
No Small Feat: Who Won the Health Care Case (and Why Did so Many Law Professors Miss the Boat)?
Florida Law Review, Vol. 65, pp. 1334, 2013
Even conservative scholars thought that after Reich, with Renhquist pulling back from his earlier Lopez 'Commerce clause has limits', the waters were at best muddy.
|
On November 24 2013 14:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2013 13:36 ZeaL. wrote:On November 24 2013 12:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 24 2013 12:36 sam!zdat wrote:
Iran is a lot less evil than you've been led to believe It's not about good and evil. They're a geopolitical adversary. I'm honestly curious, what is your solution to the Iranian nuclear problem? I'm going to assume that you think whatever Obama did is terrible, I'm wondering what your alternative solution is. I'm not yet prepared to say that what he did is terrible. If we get a disarmed Iran as a result of a deal that gets worked out in the next 6 months, then that's a win. Let's just say that I'm not holding my breath. I think it's more likely that we just gave Iran a bunch of money for nothing. We'll see though. As for what I would do, it depends upon what the situation actually is. Part of the problem with analyzing what to do about a nuclear Iran from the outside is that we don't know really know what's going on. We don't know how close Iran is to a nuclear weapon. We don't even really know whether the US has the military capability to stop Iran.
Sorry I didn't get to this. I think that's a fair assessment, though I am slightly more optimistic. I think the green revolution + election of rouhani has shown that the general iranian public didn't care much for ahmedenejad. On the other hand, we've been giving Iran the stick for so long who knows how they will respond to a carrot. Hopefully the pain of sanctions is enough to make them think twice about going back on their word.
|
I agree, ZeaL., I think there are a variety of signs that Iran is ripe for change, and the rhetoric of Rouhani is good starting place when looking for them. Let us not forget that, with the lifting of sanctions, Western influence will only increase in cities like Tehran, where cultural resistance against attitudes like those of Ahmedenejad has already begun to flourish.
|
there's a progressive islamic element in Iran, people like Abdolkarim Soroush. My friend from Iraq who is an atheist but has come to the conclusion that atheism is an impossible project for muslim cultures likes him a lot. the islamic republic is a much more complicated place than the american media suggests, it is not a completely dysfunctional tyranny or anything. they are 100 percent better than the saudis and I'd far rather see them establishing regional hegemony than the fucking wahhabis
http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Dissent-Postrevolutionary-Iran-International/dp/1845118804
|
On November 25 2013 10:15 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2013 06:45 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. Fascinating - apparently the majority of judges on the Supreme Court are not "fit to be [judges]". Do you have any other brilliant criteria you want to pull out of your a** and share with us? Surely you realize what you just wrote has zero credibility, right? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role. What "ideology" are you talking about exactly? What positions too controversial to make them judges are you attributing to the nominees? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) It is exactly that. They're blocking his nominees because they don't like him and his positions, not because the nominees are unqualified or have taken "extreme" stances on issues. On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
And there is no vacancy "crisis." There are vacant seats. That's the one and only relevant criterion to fill them. Exactly. Those 5 justices had to twist the Constitution and the ACA into pretzels in order to make it legitimate. But you are right, the only criteria for a good judge should be "were they confirmed by the Senate?" That sounds great. I hope you've never disagreed with a court decision before in your entire life, because if so then that is obviously you putting yourself above them! I'm sure you missed it, which is fine, but a while back I had a nice long discussion with DoubleReed about the Constitutionality of Obamacare. I'm not going to lay it out again. Suffice it to say that I know my Constitution well enough to know that the ACA fails it and that John Roberts doesn't get to rewrite and selectively choose what he wants to use and what he wants to ignore when evaluating something. Seriously, you act as if merely being educated at some law school is enough for you to pass the test. It was a 5-4 decision. 4 very highly educated people agree with me (including the court "moderate," Kennedy)! And so did half or so of the Courts that ruled on it until the case came to the Supreme Court. So don't give me this BS. Yes, 5 of those justices have no place up there for a such a bad decision. It's too bad that the vast majority of constitutional lawyers, judges, and the judges of the Supreme Court were unaware that "Introvert" knew his Constitution well enough through his own "research and reading" (who needs an actual education in law?) to know that they were all wrong and that the ACA was unconstitutional. You're right, let's prevent anyone who happens to disagree with your detached-from-reality, purely ideological view on the ACA from becoming a judge - that sounds like a brilliant way to run the judiciary. Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:
I'm talking about their political ideology, which whether or not one would care to admit it, matters for these sorts of things. Now I think that the most fair and even handed evaluations of the Constitution would be made by the judges who make decisions based on what the founders said and meant, not on what society has now deemed to be the norm. But I know that's not popular right now, instead most favor some strange judicial oligarchy that gets to decide when society/governance has "moved on" from the the oh-so-quaint ideals laid out in the document they swear to uphold. If you would like to get into the specifics about certain nominees.. well you first. Generally, however, I think Obamacare is really a great criteria to use, and I would bet money that all of those judges the Republicans were filibustering think the ACA is constitutional. I'll bet all the ones they approved also thought that as well, by the way. Just being "qualified" on basis of education or experience is a ridiculous sole criteria. Justices also rule from their ideology/constitutional interpretation, and thus should be confirmed (or not) on that basis as well. You are the one who declared that the nominees "failed the test". Explain how. Explain what is so shocking about their ideology. Your "they should have been against the ACA" criterion is so ludicrously detached from actual constitutional knowledge that it would qualify as a joke on the daily show. If anything, given how the vast majority of experts consider the ACA to be constitutional, looking at who thinks it isn't would be a great way to see who lets ideology get in front of sound appraisal of legality. Anyway, even if opinions on the issue were evenly divided among experts, it would be ridiculous to follow your idea of using it as a litmus test because it would mean ideology would take precedence over competence as the norm to become a judge. Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:
Yes, there are vacancies. But the Republicans are not in violation of the Constitution by refusing to confirm a particular judge. it's not like the DC circuit is so busy. it's certainly less busy then when the Dems blocked Bush's appointments. Where have I ever declared that Republicans were in violation of the Constitution? They still wouldn't be in violation of the Constitution if there were no active judges left and they still refused to nominate anyone. They can do plenty of stupidly partisan things that are harmful to the country without being in violation of the Constitution, but that doesn't mean those things aren't stupidly partisan and/or harmful to the country.
Slow down a second. You are calling into question my authority to make the contentions I do. But, thankfully, I'm still allowed to make them. So are you... like I've said, I'm sure there are decisions courts have made that I'm sure you object to. I haven't called into question your authority or knowledge to say what you do.
If you would like to debate the constitutionality of the ACA, I suppose we could do that.. but it's going to take a while. You act like I'm not supposed to question a ruling once it has gone through. The vote was 5-4! You act as if I stand against the whole of judicial precedent and constitutional scholarship. Roughly half the judges involved (from the lowest levels down) sided with me! The margin could hardly have been slimmer! So please, don't act like I'm some outlier. the problem with the judges and the polls of lawyers is that they rely on precedent. So yes, perhaps the outcome could be called by them, but that doesn't make it the right decision. I would also like to point out the same people who called for it to be upheld A) thought it would be upheld by the Commerce clause and B) that it would be entirely upheld (the medicare/medicaid extortion, as it were, was ruled against).
I can go back to Constitutional Convention debates for my side, but you would dismiss it as "outdated" so I don't know what to say. There have been LOTS of bad decisions, many, IMO, involving the CC. see: Wickard v. Filburn. I'm sure if it were 1942 you'd be shouting about how legal it was, right? That decision has actually been acknowledged as so bad it would make a great mockery segment on the Daily Show. These judges are not God's gift to mankind, they make mistakes and are driven by the same things everyone else is.
I didn't say "prevent the educated from holding seats!" I just said that law school credentials are not the only criteria that should be considered. IMO, the ACA was such a clear issue, constitutionally, it's a very good, basic test for judges. I mean, I just provided ONE quote from Madison himself that completely undoes the contortions that the CC has undergone. But see, judges like to make up new things, or as the analysts like to say- "re-interpret."
Ideology already IS the issue. How often do presidents bring up backroom janitors for nominations? Ideology is first, competence is second in today's world. The pool is so large finding someone qualified is relatively easy.
|
^he has a point
edit: look. the constitution is functionally a sacred text. therefore, it has a problem common to all sacred texts: reality is bigger than the text. much bigger. so there is a very large exegetical layer intervening it between it and the coercive apparatus which it supposedly governs. this exegetical layer (the judiciary, and case history functioning as a sort of 'talmud') is a discourse structured by power - i.e. there is a sort of 'regulatory capture' between the coercive apparatus and the Law. it is not 'scientific.'
|
On November 25 2013 11:49 sam!zdat wrote:
^he has a point
edit: look. the constitution is functionally a sacred text. therefore, it has a problem common to all sacred texts: reality is bigger than the text. much bigger. so there is a very large exegetical layer intervening it between it and the coercive apparatus which it supposedly governs. this exegetical layer (the judiciary, and case history functioning as a sort of 'talmud') is a discourse structured by power - i.e. there is a sort of 'regulatory capture' between the coercive apparatus and the Law. it is not 'scientific.'
I thought you could change the constitution? Maybe that's just in Canada. There's the functional difference (and too important to leave out) between the constitution and a sacred text... And we can always change it towards reality (you can too with sacred texts, but they lose their 'sacred' character then wouldn't they).
|
On November 25 2013 12:08 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 11:49 sam!zdat wrote:
^he has a point
edit: look. the constitution is functionally a sacred text. therefore, it has a problem common to all sacred texts: reality is bigger than the text. much bigger. so there is a very large exegetical layer intervening it between it and the coercive apparatus which it supposedly governs. this exegetical layer (the judiciary, and case history functioning as a sort of 'talmud') is a discourse structured by power - i.e. there is a sort of 'regulatory capture' between the coercive apparatus and the Law. it is not 'scientific.' I thought you could change the constitution? Maybe that's just in Canada. There's the functional difference (and too important to leave out) between the constitution and a sacred text... And we can always change it towards reality (you can too with sacred texts, but they lose their 'sacred' character then wouldn't they).
You can, but it's hard. There are two methods to get there, but once it's an official proposal it must be approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures.
Edit: It's also not easy to get the amendment to the state voting point.
|
no, it's just written into the sacred text that you can change it.
what is reality grasshopper
|
On November 15 2013 14:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 11:20 kwizach wrote:On November 15 2013 07:35 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2013 07:29 Roe wrote:On November 15 2013 07:24 xDaunt wrote:
I don't think that anyone pretends that Obama is good at international relations any more. Not as good as Clinton being in bed with the Saudis, but no one can be worse than Bush. Are you kidding? For as bad as Bush was, Obama is infinitely worse. He has alienated most of our key allies (UK, Israel, and Saudis immediately come to mind, not counting numerous other smaller nations like Poland) and ceded American influence in the Middle East to Russia. Obama's foreign policy has been about as disastrous as it can be in terms of managing diplomatic relations. The only thing that he has done a good job of is avoiding getting us entangled in additional wars. However, the way in which he has done it has been completely inept (see Syria). Your posts on U.S. foreign policy are basically a combination of Republican talking points and Krauthammer blog posts. Please stop pretending you have even any remote knowledge of how the U.S. diplomatic relations' have been going on under Obama. For example (and I've mentioned this before), if the U.S. under Obama has been so bad at managing diplomatic relations, how come it achieved all of its objectives and more during the extremely delicate 2010 IMF quota and governance reform? What's that, you've never heard of it? News flash: the media barely mentions anything of what U.S. foreign policy actually achieves. If you think for one second that most world countries are less likely to work with the U.S. under Obama, even after the NSA scandal, than they were under Bush, you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. None. And I'm not only talking about bilateral relations either - the Obama administration is generally much more apt than the Bush administration at working with other countries in international organizations (which doesn't say much when Bush appointed someone like Bolton to represent the U.S. at the UN). Now, if you're only interested in listening to the Obama bashing that goes on in Krauthammer columns because it's cognitively comfortable to you, be my guest, but don't act you've got any actual understanding of international relations. If you're actually interested in learning about U.S. foreign policy, then open up a few IR academic journals instead. Seriously? This is your rebuttal to my point that Obama has been bad at foreign policy? When compared to his fuck ups in Syria (and elsewhere), you might as well have told me that Obama successfully negotiated international standards for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
You argued that his foreign policy had been "as disastrous as it can be in terms of managing diplomatic relations" - of course, you were in your original post criticizing him by grouping together completely different aspects of foreign policy, being as vague as possible in the process. The example I provided addressed diplomatic relations in the context of international organizations, which can be tremendously important even though they seldom get press coverage (even for important issues). The IMF quota reform involved negotiating changes to the relative weight of western and emerging (BRICS...) powers (notably in terms of voting power), which is basically a matter that is, on a broader scale, going to shape 21st century international relations. The Obama administration basically achieved all of its objectives in the talks and maintained its preponderance and influence through extremely effective negotiating. That you're trying to equate this with "negotiating international standards for peanut butter" speaks volumes about your understanding of international relations.
Like I said, the information on IR you read in newspapers are but the tip of the iceberg, and the same goes for the public declarations by foreign government on U.S. policy you keep taking at face value even though they are half the time made for their own populations rather than actual reflections of the governments' stance with regards to U.S. policy (see many of the declarations by E.U. government following the NSA scandal, even though it did do some damage to U.S.-E.U. relations, but mostly when it came to the leaders themselves being spied on). Even though there's definitely plenty of valid criticism that can be put forward about various aspects of Obama's foreign policy, the idea that the United States were better off in the hands of George W. Bush when it comes to its external relations is outright laughable. To support that idea with the Obama administrations' reaction to the Arab denotes a misunderstanding of both the current situation and the Bush administration's way of conducting foreign policy. I refer you to the rest of my first comment.
|
On November 25 2013 10:32 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 09:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2013 09:13 Adreme wrote:On November 25 2013 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2013 08:33 Adreme wrote:On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2013 06:45 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. Fascinating - apparently the majority of judges on the Supreme Court are not "fit to be [judges]". Do you have any other brilliant criteria you want to pull out of your a** and share with us? Surely you realize what you just wrote has zero credibility, right? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role. What "ideology" are you talking about exactly? What positions too controversial to make them judges are you attributing to the nominees? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) It is exactly that. They're blocking his nominees because they don't like him and his positions, not because the nominees are unqualified or have taken "extreme" stances on issues. On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
And there is no vacancy "crisis." There are vacant seats. That's the one and only relevant criterion to fill them. Exactly. Those 5 justices had to twist the Constitution and the ACA into pretzels in order to make it legitimate. But you are right, the only criteria for a good judge should be "were they confirmed by the Senate?" That sounds great. I hope you've never disagreed with a court decision before in your entire life, because if so then that is obviously you putting yourself above them! I'm sure you missed it, which is fine, but a while back I had a nice long discussion with DoubleReed about the Constitutionality of Obamacare. I'm not going to lay it out again. Suffice it to say that I know my Constitution well enough to know that the ACA fails it and that John Roberts doesn't get to rewrite and selectively choose what he wants to use and what he wants to ignore when evaluating something. Seriously, you act as if merely being educated at some law school is enough for you to pass the test. It was a 5-4 decision. 4 very highly educated people agree with me (including the court "moderate," Kennedy)! And so did half or so of the Courts that ruled on it until the case came to the Supreme Court. So don't give me this BS. Yes, 5 of those justices have no place up there for a such a bad decision. My statement has as much credibility as can be given an anonymous forum back and forth between people who don't even know each other. I'm talking about their political ideology, which whether or not one would care to admit it, matters for these sorts of things. Now I think that the most fair and even handed evaluations of the Constitution would be made by the judges who make decisions based on what the founders said and meant, not on what society has now deemed to be the norm. But I know that's not popular right now, instead most favor some strange judicial oligarchy that gets to decide when society/governance has "moved on" from the the oh-so-quaint ideals laid out in the document they swear to uphold. If you would like to get into the specifics about certain nominees.. well you first. Generally, however, I think Obamacare is really a great criteria to use, and I would bet money that all of those judges the Republicans were filibustering think the ACA is constitutional. I'll bet all the ones they approved also thought that as well, by the way. Just being "qualified" on basis of education or experience is a ridiculous sole criteria. Justices also rule from their ideology/constitutional interpretation, and thus should be confirmed (or not) on that basis as well. Yes, there are vacancies. But the Republicans are not in violation of the Constitution by refusing to confirm a particular judge. it's not like the DC circuit is so busy. it's certainly less busy then when the Dems blocked Bush's appointments. The reason everyone was sure it was going to be upheld was because they actually very solid precedent to have it upheld on commerce clause grounds which the court disregarded with no real justification (something odd for courts usually) and then they had to find a different justification which is still solid legal ground. Also, if we kept the old rules and republicans used your litmus there would never be another federal judge which was my point last night since odds of getting 60 senators and the presidency are fairly low. What in the world are you talking about? Anyone who has paid any attention to commerce clause jurisprudence and the voting tendencies of the current justices knew that Obamacare wouldn't be upheld under the commerce clause. Everyone expected it to pass under that because prior precedent matters to the court (or at least enough of the court) and prior rulings on commerce clause made it a safe bet to pass. The tax ruling was an interesting ruling that did also make sense but I surprised they choose to use that justification when commerce clause argument should easily have been enough. Also, while it is not my job to study courts prior rulings the peoples who job it was seemed fairly confident that the law would be upheld. As I said, anyone who was paying attention knew it wouldn't survive under the commerce clause. All of the "new federalism" cases made that very clear. It just so happens that way too many of the talking heads on TV are clueless when it comes to legal matters (among other things). This includes TV lawyers. I don't blame the average observer for being a little confused about why I am saying this. Everyone was misguided by the "experts" on TV. Edit: Remember how laughably retarded the TV experts were commenting on the Zimmerman trial? Why would you expect them to be any better commenting on appellate decisions? Edit2: In fairness, the legal commentators at all media outlets are bad -- not just TV. In a poll conducted by the American Bar Association, 85% of experts predicted that the Affordable Care Act would be fully upheld., 39 PREVIEW U.S. SUP. CT. CAS. 29, 32 (2012) Most law professors believed that the individual insurance mandate in the Affordable Care Act was so obviously justified by the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses that there could be no serious challenge to its constitutionality. No Small Feat: Who Won the Health Care Case (and Why Did so Many Law Professors Miss the Boat)? Florida Law Review, Vol. 65, pp. 1334, 2013 Even conservative scholars thought that after Reich, with Renhquist pulling back from his earlier Lopez 'Commerce clause has limits', the waters were at best muddy.
I'm not surprised by the poll numbers and I remember seeing them (or something similar) before the decision came out. I thought that they were wrong then, I said so, and I was right. I truly don't see how they could have looked at the case law and the justices' decision history and concluded that the law would pass muster under the commerce clause. I thought it was obvious. The bottom line is that if the individual mandate could survive under the commerce clause, then anything could. There could be no effective limit, which obviously wasn't going to be tolerated by the five conservative justices.
|
On November 25 2013 12:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 10:32 Sub40APM wrote:On November 25 2013 09:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2013 09:13 Adreme wrote:On November 25 2013 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2013 08:33 Adreme wrote:On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2013 06:45 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. Fascinating - apparently the majority of judges on the Supreme Court are not "fit to be [judges]". Do you have any other brilliant criteria you want to pull out of your a** and share with us? Surely you realize what you just wrote has zero credibility, right? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role. What "ideology" are you talking about exactly? What positions too controversial to make them judges are you attributing to the nominees? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) It is exactly that. They're blocking his nominees because they don't like him and his positions, not because the nominees are unqualified or have taken "extreme" stances on issues. On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
And there is no vacancy "crisis." There are vacant seats. That's the one and only relevant criterion to fill them. Exactly. Those 5 justices had to twist the Constitution and the ACA into pretzels in order to make it legitimate. But you are right, the only criteria for a good judge should be "were they confirmed by the Senate?" That sounds great. I hope you've never disagreed with a court decision before in your entire life, because if so then that is obviously you putting yourself above them! I'm sure you missed it, which is fine, but a while back I had a nice long discussion with DoubleReed about the Constitutionality of Obamacare. I'm not going to lay it out again. Suffice it to say that I know my Constitution well enough to know that the ACA fails it and that John Roberts doesn't get to rewrite and selectively choose what he wants to use and what he wants to ignore when evaluating something. Seriously, you act as if merely being educated at some law school is enough for you to pass the test. It was a 5-4 decision. 4 very highly educated people agree with me (including the court "moderate," Kennedy)! And so did half or so of the Courts that ruled on it until the case came to the Supreme Court. So don't give me this BS. Yes, 5 of those justices have no place up there for a such a bad decision. My statement has as much credibility as can be given an anonymous forum back and forth between people who don't even know each other. I'm talking about their political ideology, which whether or not one would care to admit it, matters for these sorts of things. Now I think that the most fair and even handed evaluations of the Constitution would be made by the judges who make decisions based on what the founders said and meant, not on what society has now deemed to be the norm. But I know that's not popular right now, instead most favor some strange judicial oligarchy that gets to decide when society/governance has "moved on" from the the oh-so-quaint ideals laid out in the document they swear to uphold. If you would like to get into the specifics about certain nominees.. well you first. Generally, however, I think Obamacare is really a great criteria to use, and I would bet money that all of those judges the Republicans were filibustering think the ACA is constitutional. I'll bet all the ones they approved also thought that as well, by the way. Just being "qualified" on basis of education or experience is a ridiculous sole criteria. Justices also rule from their ideology/constitutional interpretation, and thus should be confirmed (or not) on that basis as well. Yes, there are vacancies. But the Republicans are not in violation of the Constitution by refusing to confirm a particular judge. it's not like the DC circuit is so busy. it's certainly less busy then when the Dems blocked Bush's appointments. The reason everyone was sure it was going to be upheld was because they actually very solid precedent to have it upheld on commerce clause grounds which the court disregarded with no real justification (something odd for courts usually) and then they had to find a different justification which is still solid legal ground. Also, if we kept the old rules and republicans used your litmus there would never be another federal judge which was my point last night since odds of getting 60 senators and the presidency are fairly low. What in the world are you talking about? Anyone who has paid any attention to commerce clause jurisprudence and the voting tendencies of the current justices knew that Obamacare wouldn't be upheld under the commerce clause. Everyone expected it to pass under that because prior precedent matters to the court (or at least enough of the court) and prior rulings on commerce clause made it a safe bet to pass. The tax ruling was an interesting ruling that did also make sense but I surprised they choose to use that justification when commerce clause argument should easily have been enough. Also, while it is not my job to study courts prior rulings the peoples who job it was seemed fairly confident that the law would be upheld. As I said, anyone who was paying attention knew it wouldn't survive under the commerce clause. All of the "new federalism" cases made that very clear. It just so happens that way too many of the talking heads on TV are clueless when it comes to legal matters (among other things). This includes TV lawyers. I don't blame the average observer for being a little confused about why I am saying this. Everyone was misguided by the "experts" on TV. Edit: Remember how laughably retarded the TV experts were commenting on the Zimmerman trial? Why would you expect them to be any better commenting on appellate decisions? Edit2: In fairness, the legal commentators at all media outlets are bad -- not just TV. In a poll conducted by the American Bar Association, 85% of experts predicted that the Affordable Care Act would be fully upheld., 39 PREVIEW U.S. SUP. CT. CAS. 29, 32 (2012) Most law professors believed that the individual insurance mandate in the Affordable Care Act was so obviously justified by the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses that there could be no serious challenge to its constitutionality. No Small Feat: Who Won the Health Care Case (and Why Did so Many Law Professors Miss the Boat)? Florida Law Review, Vol. 65, pp. 1334, 2013 Even conservative scholars thought that after Reich, with Renhquist pulling back from his earlier Lopez 'Commerce clause has limits', the waters were at best muddy. I'm not surprised by the poll numbers and I remember seeing them (or something similar) before the decision came out. I thought that they were wrong then, I said so, and I was right. I truly don't see how they could have looked at the case law and the justices' decision history and concluded that the law would pass muster under the commerce clause. I thought it was obvious. The bottom line is that if the individual mandate could survive under the commerce clause, then anything could. There could be no effective limit, which obviously wasn't going to be tolerated by the five conservative justices.
With all respect, most of the experts they polled are either former Supreme Court Clerks and now professors or people who argue before the court. So your original statement that 'only idiots thought this would pass under the Commerce Clause' is just factually incorrect. And I dont think it was obvious -- Reich pulled back a lot of what Renquist said in Lopez.
|
On November 25 2013 11:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2013 10:15 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:On November 25 2013 06:45 kwizach wrote:On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:This is ridiculously wrong. Please do tell what the GOP is supposed to have found to be wrong with the people whose nominations they recently rejected? I'm sure each person is "qualified" as in they already are/were a judge or they have a law degree, but they are failing what I called the "Constitutional understanding" test. If a potential justice thinks Obamacare is Constitutional, than they are not fit to be a judge, for instance. Fascinating - apparently the majority of judges on the Supreme Court are not "fit to be [judges]". Do you have any other brilliant criteria you want to pull out of your a** and share with us? Surely you realize what you just wrote has zero credibility, right? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
The founders knew this was going to happen (ideological splits), so I'm not really concerned by saying that, yes, ideology does play a role. What "ideology" are you talking about exactly? What positions too controversial to make them judges are you attributing to the nominees? On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
I'll just repeat myself again: the Republicans have allowed LOTS of Obama appointees, this isn't some "oh block his appointments cause we don't like him" political maneuver. (well, I'm sure some of it is that.) It is exactly that. They're blocking his nominees because they don't like him and his positions, not because the nominees are unqualified or have taken "extreme" stances on issues. On November 25 2013 05:44 Introvert wrote:
And there is no vacancy "crisis." There are vacant seats. That's the one and only relevant criterion to fill them. Exactly. Those 5 justices had to twist the Constitution and the ACA into pretzels in order to make it legitimate. But you are right, the only criteria for a good judge should be "were they confirmed by the Senate?" That sounds great. I hope you've never disagreed with a court decision before in your entire life, because if so then that is obviously you putting yourself above them! I'm sure you missed it, which is fine, but a while back I had a nice long discussion with DoubleReed about the Constitutionality of Obamacare. I'm not going to lay it out again. Suffice it to say that I know my Constitution well enough to know that the ACA fails it and that John Roberts doesn't get to rewrite and selectively choose what he wants to use and what he wants to ignore when evaluating something. Seriously, you act as if merely being educated at some law school is enough for you to pass the test. It was a 5-4 decision. 4 very highly educated people agree with me (including the court "moderate," Kennedy)! And so did half or so of the Courts that ruled on it until the case came to the Supreme Court. So don't give me this BS. Yes, 5 of those justices have no place up there for a such a bad decision. It's too bad that the vast majority of constitutional lawyers, judges, and the judges of the Supreme Court were unaware that "Introvert" knew his Constitution well enough through his own "research and reading" (who needs an actual education in law?) to know that they were all wrong and that the ACA was unconstitutional. You're right, let's prevent anyone who happens to disagree with your detached-from-reality, purely ideological view on the ACA from becoming a judge - that sounds like a brilliant way to run the judiciary. On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:
I'm talking about their political ideology, which whether or not one would care to admit it, matters for these sorts of things. Now I think that the most fair and even handed evaluations of the Constitution would be made by the judges who make decisions based on what the founders said and meant, not on what society has now deemed to be the norm. But I know that's not popular right now, instead most favor some strange judicial oligarchy that gets to decide when society/governance has "moved on" from the the oh-so-quaint ideals laid out in the document they swear to uphold. If you would like to get into the specifics about certain nominees.. well you first. Generally, however, I think Obamacare is really a great criteria to use, and I would bet money that all of those judges the Republicans were filibustering think the ACA is constitutional. I'll bet all the ones they approved also thought that as well, by the way. Just being "qualified" on basis of education or experience is a ridiculous sole criteria. Justices also rule from their ideology/constitutional interpretation, and thus should be confirmed (or not) on that basis as well. You are the one who declared that the nominees "failed the test". Explain how. Explain what is so shocking about their ideology. Your "they should have been against the ACA" criterion is so ludicrously detached from actual constitutional knowledge that it would qualify as a joke on the daily show. If anything, given how the vast majority of experts consider the ACA to be constitutional, looking at who thinks it isn't would be a great way to see who lets ideology get in front of sound appraisal of legality. Anyway, even if opinions on the issue were evenly divided among experts, it would be ridiculous to follow your idea of using it as a litmus test because it would mean ideology would take precedence over competence as the norm to become a judge. On November 25 2013 07:10 Introvert wrote:
Yes, there are vacancies. But the Republicans are not in violation of the Constitution by refusing to confirm a particular judge. it's not like the DC circuit is so busy. it's certainly less busy then when the Dems blocked Bush's appointments. Where have I ever declared that Republicans were in violation of the Constitution? They still wouldn't be in violation of the Constitution if there were no active judges left and they still refused to nominate anyone. They can do plenty of stupidly partisan things that are harmful to the country without being in violation of the Constitution, but that doesn't mean those things aren't stupidly partisan and/or harmful to the country. Slow down a second. You are calling into question my authority to make the contentions I do. But, thankfully, I'm still allowed to make them. So are you... like I've said, I'm sure there are decisions courts have made that I'm sure you object to. I haven't called into question your authority or knowledge to say what you do. If you would like to debate the constitutionality of the ACA, I suppose we could do that.. but it's going to take a while. You act like I'm not supposed to question a ruling once it has gone through. The vote was 5-4! You act as if I stand against the whole of judicial precedent and constitutional scholarship. Roughly half the judges involved (from the lowest levels down) sided with me! The margin could hardly have been slimmer! So please, don't act like I'm some outlier. the problem with the judges and the polls of lawyers is that they rely on precedent. So yes, perhaps the outcome could be called by them, but that doesn't make it the right decision. I would also like to point out the same people who called for it to be upheld A) thought it would be upheld by the Commerce clause and B) that it would be entirely upheld (the medicare/medicaid extortion, as it were, was ruled against). I can go back to Constitutional Convention debates for my side, but you would dismiss it as "outdated" so I don't know what to say. There have been LOTS of bad decisions, many, IMO, involving the CC. see: Wickard v. Filburn. I'm sure if it were 1942 you'd be shouting about how legal it was, right? That decision has actually been acknowledged as so bad it would make a great mockery segment on the Daily Show. These judges are not God's gift to mankind, they make mistakes and are driven by the same things everyone else is.
First of all, on the matter of the constitutionality of the ACA, yes, your position is very clearly in the minority among constitutional law experts.
My point isn't that you're not allowed to have your own opinion on the constitutionality of the ACA. You very much are. And I'm certainly not trying to paint judges as infallible either, or saying that there aren't plenty of SC decisions that I disagree with. My point is that you are presenting your opinion as the undisputable truth on the matter of the constitutionality of the ACA, so much so that you consider it an objective criterion to separate good judges from bad judges. That is what's ridiculously out-of-touch with reality.
On November 25 2013 11:47 Introvert wrote:
I didn't say "prevent the educated from holding seats!" I just said that law school credentials are not the only criteria that should be considered. IMO, the ACA was such a clear issue, constitutionally, it's a very good, basic test for judges. I mean, I just provided ONE quote from Madison himself that completely undoes the contortions that the CC has undergone. But see, judges like to make up new things, or as the analysts like to say- "re-interpret."
Again, the fact that you are presenting the ACA as "a clear issue, constitutionally", only shows how incredibly biased, and dismissive of facts and opinions that go against your view, you are. No, it's not a clear issue. No, your arguments aren't the definitive word on the matter. You're the one who's completely partisan and ideologically-driven, not the nominees that we are discussing. And you still haven't explained what is supposed to be unacceptable about the views they hold to justify not nominating them.
On November 25 2013 11:47 Introvert wrote:
Ideology already IS the issue. How often do presidents bring up backroom janitors for nominations? Ideology is first, competence is second in today's world. The pool is so large finding someone qualified is relatively easy.
It's so easy they've been found and nominated by the president, and rejected by the Republicans in the Senate.
|
On November 25 2013 12:33 kwizach wrote:
in the minority among constitutional law experts.
aka the priesthood
he's essentially right, you know. There's no "correct" answer as to what the constitution from the late fucking 18th century says about anything in the 21st century. of course, HE wouldn't agree with that because he is likely a fundamentalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
