|
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. |
Do you feel that going out of your way to choose wording which offends some people will help with having a productive discussion? Just curious.
|
On February 01 2017 11:34 LegalLord wrote:
Related to Trump's presidency, things seem to be heating up on the Ukrainian front. The Ukrainian government is barely functional and they basically feel that the sanctions are their only leverage in the matter (lol). The situation looks quite similar to what it looked like right before the first Minsk accord failed and we might see a third outbreak of hostilities.
I suspect that the Ukrainian kleptocracy is in its death throes - the EU basically said they don't want the Ukraine, the US has Trump, and their internal government situation is quite horrid.
Tillerson wanted to give weapons to the Ukraine though. I wonder if anything will come of that.
why did you italicize the word the? it doesn't clarify anything and just makes it harder to read.
and I thought the ukraine topic was verboten here. but i haven't kept close track.
|
On February 01 2017 11:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 11:34 LegalLord wrote:
Related to Trump's presidency, things seem to be heating up on the Ukrainian front. The Ukrainian government is barely functional and they basically feel that the sanctions are their only leverage in the matter (lol). The situation looks quite similar to what it looked like right before the first Minsk accord failed and we might see a third outbreak of hostilities.
I suspect that the Ukrainian kleptocracy is in its death throes - the EU basically said they don't want the Ukraine, the US has Trump, and their internal government situation is quite horrid.
Tillerson wanted to give weapons to the Ukraine though. I wonder if anything will come of that. why did you italicize the word the? it doesn't clarify anything and just makes it harder to read. and I thought the ukraine topic was verboten here. but i haven't kept close track.
Directly related to American FP here so it's relevant. Of particular interest is Trump's attitude towards it.
In any case, worth a brief mention, but "not a Ukraine thread" so little more than that.
|
On February 01 2017 11:31 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 11:28 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:05 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution. and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this. I'm just going by the definition of stolen. I criticize the GOP all the time, and I even said that perhaps he should have given a hearing. Of course if he was given a hearing, the GOP would be accused of playing theater after refusing to confirm. What difference would it have made if they held a hearing and then voted him down? The Senate was under no obligation to even hold a hearing. Perhaps we should say Obama failed his constitutional duty for keeping the same clearly-not-going-to-be-confirmed nominee for months on end. The amount of dishonest spin in this post is off the charts. The vacancy was Obama's to fill. The GOP decided to steal it by refusing to fulfill their constitutional duty. At least have the decency to recognize this. The reason Garland had an "approx. 0%" chance of getting confirmed was that the GOP decided to be partisan hacks, which is exactly the point. The vacancy was Obama's to appoint, and the Senate's to affirm. Neither acted outside of their duty or constitutional right. They were under no obligation to confirm, and they still aren't. It's a shame Borking has come to this, but the Court is too powerful now.
Nobody said they had an obligation to confirm his nominee, but they still refused to fulfill their constitutional duty in the appointment process. They outright said that they would not hold hearings or votes on any nominee, thus refusing to allow the sitting president any chance to fill the vacancy. It was the definition of partisan hackery, and you're not doing your credibility any favors by trying to spin it any other way. They stole a position that was Obama's to fill by deciding to engage in unprecedented partisan obstructionism.
|
On February 01 2017 11:14 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% It was stolen. Why did Donald Trump nominate an actual judge for the Supreme Court, instead of Kanye West, Melania Trump, or Chuck Norris? It's so unlike him, to appoint people with actual credentials. I guess his son, ten year old Barron, declined the position? I'm wondering why a college professor is twisting Trump slam-dunking a campaign promise into an attack on a 10 year old kid.
1. Not slam-dunking, just actually appeasing the conservative establishment... which, again, I understand fully. I'd rather see a conservative judge nominated than a non-judge.
2. I was feigning incredulity due to his track record of nominating unqualified people to prestigious positions.
3. Neither I- nor anyone else here, from what I've seen- has attacked Barron Trump on anything. What are you talking about?
|
On February 01 2017 11:31 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 11:28 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:05 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution. and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this. I'm just going by the definition of stolen. I criticize the GOP all the time, and I even said that perhaps he should have given a hearing. Of course if he was given a hearing, the GOP would be accused of playing theater after refusing to confirm. What difference would it have made if they held a hearing and then voted him down? The Senate was under no obligation to even hold a hearing. Perhaps we should say Obama failed his constitutional duty for keeping the same clearly-not-going-to-be-confirmed nominee for months on end. The amount of dishonest spin in this post is off the charts. The vacancy was Obama's to fill. The GOP decided to steal it by refusing to fulfill their constitutional duty. At least have the decency to recognize this. The reason Garland had an "approx. 0%" chance of getting confirmed was that the GOP decided to be partisan hacks, which is exactly the point. The vacancy was Obama's to appoint, and the Senate's to affirm. Neither acted outside of their duty or constitutional right. They were under no obligation to confirm, and they still aren't. It's a shame Borking has come to this, but the Court is too powerful now.
You could even say justices had a constitutional duty to be non-political non-"activist," and have long since abandoned that role. Originally, it was the branch of government least expected to be so politically charged, since they could write no laws and only interpret what was already legislated. Then we got emanations of penumbras, tax-penalty-taxes, in short a legislating bench with varying committments to making discretion sound justified. In changing times, past niceties change.
|
On February 01 2017 11:45 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 11:31 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:28 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:05 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution. and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this. I'm just going by the definition of stolen. I criticize the GOP all the time, and I even said that perhaps he should have given a hearing. Of course if he was given a hearing, the GOP would be accused of playing theater after refusing to confirm. What difference would it have made if they held a hearing and then voted him down? The Senate was under no obligation to even hold a hearing. Perhaps we should say Obama failed his constitutional duty for keeping the same clearly-not-going-to-be-confirmed nominee for months on end. The amount of dishonest spin in this post is off the charts. The vacancy was Obama's to fill. The GOP decided to steal it by refusing to fulfill their constitutional duty. At least have the decency to recognize this. The reason Garland had an "approx. 0%" chance of getting confirmed was that the GOP decided to be partisan hacks, which is exactly the point. The vacancy was Obama's to appoint, and the Senate's to affirm. Neither acted outside of their duty or constitutional right. They were under no obligation to confirm, and they still aren't. It's a shame Borking has come to this, but the Court is too powerful now. Nobody said they had an obligation to confirm his nominee, but they still refused to fulfill their constitutional duty in the appointment process. They outright said that they would not hold hearings or votes on any nominee, thus refusing to allow the sitting president any chance to fill the vacancy. It was the definition of partisan hackery, and you're not doing your credibility any favors by trying to spin it any other way. They stole a position that was Obama's to fill by deciding to engage in unprecedented partisan obstructionism.
I don't recall saying it was a normal process, just that it wasn't stolen. Having a hearing would have had no impact on the result. They opposed any Obama nominee because they knew any of his nominees would be terrible to them. If Obama had nominated Gorsuch they would have voted for him, I'm sure!
We've reached a point where the Court is so important that these battles have to be fought. There is nothing unconstitutional about them. I won't judge the Democrats who oppose Gorsuch on philosophical grounds, at least not too harshly, and not any more than I judge their philosophy as a whole.
|
On the one hand, it should have been Obama's justice to replace since he was president. On the other hand, it's not a president's god-given right to choose a rubber stamp for their policies so that's a thing.
That said, Garland should have gotten a hearing and a vote.
|
On February 01 2017 11:57 LegalLord wrote:
On the one hand, it should have been Obama's justice to replace since he was president. On the other hand, it's not a president's god-given right to choose a rubber stamp for their policies so that's a thing.
That said, Garland should have gotten a hearing and a vote.
Agreed. And Garland was a perfectly acceptable and qualified nominee.
|
On February 01 2017 11:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 11:45 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:31 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:28 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:05 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution. and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this. I'm just going by the definition of stolen. I criticize the GOP all the time, and I even said that perhaps he should have given a hearing. Of course if he was given a hearing, the GOP would be accused of playing theater after refusing to confirm. What difference would it have made if they held a hearing and then voted him down? The Senate was under no obligation to even hold a hearing. Perhaps we should say Obama failed his constitutional duty for keeping the same clearly-not-going-to-be-confirmed nominee for months on end. The amount of dishonest spin in this post is off the charts. The vacancy was Obama's to fill. The GOP decided to steal it by refusing to fulfill their constitutional duty. At least have the decency to recognize this. The reason Garland had an "approx. 0%" chance of getting confirmed was that the GOP decided to be partisan hacks, which is exactly the point. The vacancy was Obama's to appoint, and the Senate's to affirm. Neither acted outside of their duty or constitutional right. They were under no obligation to confirm, and they still aren't. It's a shame Borking has come to this, but the Court is too powerful now. Nobody said they had an obligation to confirm his nominee, but they still refused to fulfill their constitutional duty in the appointment process. They outright said that they would not hold hearings or votes on any nominee, thus refusing to allow the sitting president any chance to fill the vacancy. It was the definition of partisan hackery, and you're not doing your credibility any favors by trying to spin it any other way. They stole a position that was Obama's to fill by deciding to engage in unprecedented partisan obstructionism. I don't recall saying it was a normal process, just that it wasn't stolen. Having a hearing would have had no impact on the result. They opposed any Obama nominee because they knew any of his nominees would be terrible to them. If Obama had nominated Gorsuch they would have voted for him, I'm sure! We've reached a point where the Court is so important that these battles have to be fought. There is nothing unconstitutional about them. I won't judge the Democrats who oppose Gorsuch, at least not too harshly.
But it was stolen. The fact that having a hearing would have had no impact because they would have refused anyone is the fucking point. They decided to refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty in refusing to even consider Obama's nominee through a hearing and a vote, and they decided to violate the spirit of the Constitution by denying the sitting president any chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice.
The Court being "so important" is precisely the reason they decided to steal the seat. It doesn't excuse their behavior in any way. That's like saying elections are "so important" that you're justified in engaging in (legal) voter suppression.
|
On February 01 2017 11:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 11:14 oBlade wrote:On February 01 2017 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% It was stolen. Why did Donald Trump nominate an actual judge for the Supreme Court, instead of Kanye West, Melania Trump, or Chuck Norris? It's so unlike him, to appoint people with actual credentials. I guess his son, ten year old Barron, declined the position? I'm wondering why a college professor is twisting Trump slam-dunking a campaign promise into an attack on a 10 year old kid. 1. Not slam-dunking, just actually appeasing the conservative establishment... which, again, I understand fully. I'd rather see a conservative judge nominated than a non-judge. 2. I was feigning incredulity due to his track record of nominating unqualified people to prestigious positions. 3. Neither I- nor anyone else here, from what I've seen- has attacked Barron Trump on anything. What are you talking about?
Okay, the conservative establishment, and also all the voters who knew (it's not coming through whether you paid the same focus to his potential nominees or not) where he stood on the SC and what they'd be getting since May of last year, yes?
|
On February 01 2017 11:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 11:31 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:28 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:05 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution. and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this. I'm just going by the definition of stolen. I criticize the GOP all the time, and I even said that perhaps he should have given a hearing. Of course if he was given a hearing, the GOP would be accused of playing theater after refusing to confirm. What difference would it have made if they held a hearing and then voted him down? The Senate was under no obligation to even hold a hearing. Perhaps we should say Obama failed his constitutional duty for keeping the same clearly-not-going-to-be-confirmed nominee for months on end. The amount of dishonest spin in this post is off the charts. The vacancy was Obama's to fill. The GOP decided to steal it by refusing to fulfill their constitutional duty. At least have the decency to recognize this. The reason Garland had an "approx. 0%" chance of getting confirmed was that the GOP decided to be partisan hacks, which is exactly the point. The vacancy was Obama's to appoint, and the Senate's to affirm. Neither acted outside of their duty or constitutional right. They were under no obligation to confirm, and they still aren't. It's a shame Borking has come to this, but the Court is too powerful now. You could even say justices had a constitutional duty to be non-political non-"activist," and have long since abandoned that role. Originally, it was the branch of government least expected to be so politically charged, since they could write no laws and only interpret what was already legislated. Then we got emanations of penumbras, tax-penalty-taxes, in short a legislating bench with varying committments to making discretion sound justified. In changing times, past niceties change.
it's still the least politically charged branch of government by quite a lot.
|
On February 01 2017 12:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 11:57 LegalLord wrote:
On the one hand, it should have been Obama's justice to replace since he was president. On the other hand, it's not a president's god-given right to choose a rubber stamp for their policies so that's a thing.
That said, Garland should have gotten a hearing and a vote. Agreed. And Garland was a perfectly acceptable and qualified nominee.
Well the other side of the argument is that so is Gorsuch, so the big contention here is partisan bent of the judge. Which, in principle, shouldn't be a consideration but it is.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if ukraine accedes into the eu one of these days they'll have higher governance standards to root out kleptocracy. then again, maybe not.
|
On February 01 2017 12:07 oneofthem wrote:
if ukraine accedes into the eu one of these days they'll have higher governance standards to root out kleptocracy. then again, maybe not.
The EU, in a more roundabout way, told Ukraine that it's not getting EU membership or free movement, back in December when renewing the Russian sanctions.
They're kinda sorta fucked on that matter.
|
On February 01 2017 12:05 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 11:55 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:45 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:31 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:28 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:05 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution. and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this. I'm just going by the definition of stolen. I criticize the GOP all the time, and I even said that perhaps he should have given a hearing. Of course if he was given a hearing, the GOP would be accused of playing theater after refusing to confirm. What difference would it have made if they held a hearing and then voted him down? The Senate was under no obligation to even hold a hearing. Perhaps we should say Obama failed his constitutional duty for keeping the same clearly-not-going-to-be-confirmed nominee for months on end. The amount of dishonest spin in this post is off the charts. The vacancy was Obama's to fill. The GOP decided to steal it by refusing to fulfill their constitutional duty. At least have the decency to recognize this. The reason Garland had an "approx. 0%" chance of getting confirmed was that the GOP decided to be partisan hacks, which is exactly the point. The vacancy was Obama's to appoint, and the Senate's to affirm. Neither acted outside of their duty or constitutional right. They were under no obligation to confirm, and they still aren't. It's a shame Borking has come to this, but the Court is too powerful now. Nobody said they had an obligation to confirm his nominee, but they still refused to fulfill their constitutional duty in the appointment process. They outright said that they would not hold hearings or votes on any nominee, thus refusing to allow the sitting president any chance to fill the vacancy. It was the definition of partisan hackery, and you're not doing your credibility any favors by trying to spin it any other way. They stole a position that was Obama's to fill by deciding to engage in unprecedented partisan obstructionism. I don't recall saying it was a normal process, just that it wasn't stolen. Having a hearing would have had no impact on the result. They opposed any Obama nominee because they knew any of his nominees would be terrible to them. If Obama had nominated Gorsuch they would have voted for him, I'm sure! We've reached a point where the Court is so important that these battles have to be fought. There is nothing unconstitutional about them. I won't judge the Democrats who oppose Gorsuch, at least not too harshly. But it was stolen. The fact that having a hearing would have had no impact because they would have refused anyone is the fucking point. They decided to refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty in refusing to even consider Obama's nominee through a hearing and a vote, and they decided to violate the spirit of the Constitution by denying the sitting president any chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice. The Court being "so important" is precisely the reason they decided to steal the seat. It doesn't excuse their behavior in any way. That's like saying elections are "so important" that you're justified in engaging in (legal) voter suppression.
That's not stealing, that's "the other party has a majority in Congress come back with someone else." If he failed the vote people would still be saying it was stolen. He had his chance, picked someone unpalatable to the Senate, and didn't try again. That's not stealing, and the Senate is under no obligation to have a hearing or a vote. I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution.
But I get it. "Stole" is a powerful word in this context, so there's no chance anyone on the left drops it. Fine.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 01 2017 12:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 12:07 oneofthem wrote:
if ukraine accedes into the eu one of these days they'll have higher governance standards to root out kleptocracy. then again, maybe not. The EU, in a more roundabout way, told Ukraine that it's not getting EU membership or free movement, back in December when renewing the Russian sanctions. They're kinda sorta fucked on that matter.
well they are fucked either way because no one would want to invest there with that unstability.
|
On February 01 2017 12:11 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 12:05 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:55 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:45 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:31 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:28 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:05 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
depends what your goals and beliefs are.
for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good.
for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues)
People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution. and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this. I'm just going by the definition of stolen. I criticize the GOP all the time, and I even said that perhaps he should have given a hearing. Of course if he was given a hearing, the GOP would be accused of playing theater after refusing to confirm. What difference would it have made if they held a hearing and then voted him down? The Senate was under no obligation to even hold a hearing. Perhaps we should say Obama failed his constitutional duty for keeping the same clearly-not-going-to-be-confirmed nominee for months on end. The amount of dishonest spin in this post is off the charts. The vacancy was Obama's to fill. The GOP decided to steal it by refusing to fulfill their constitutional duty. At least have the decency to recognize this. The reason Garland had an "approx. 0%" chance of getting confirmed was that the GOP decided to be partisan hacks, which is exactly the point. The vacancy was Obama's to appoint, and the Senate's to affirm. Neither acted outside of their duty or constitutional right. They were under no obligation to confirm, and they still aren't. It's a shame Borking has come to this, but the Court is too powerful now. Nobody said they had an obligation to confirm his nominee, but they still refused to fulfill their constitutional duty in the appointment process. They outright said that they would not hold hearings or votes on any nominee, thus refusing to allow the sitting president any chance to fill the vacancy. It was the definition of partisan hackery, and you're not doing your credibility any favors by trying to spin it any other way. They stole a position that was Obama's to fill by deciding to engage in unprecedented partisan obstructionism. I don't recall saying it was a normal process, just that it wasn't stolen. Having a hearing would have had no impact on the result. They opposed any Obama nominee because they knew any of his nominees would be terrible to them. If Obama had nominated Gorsuch they would have voted for him, I'm sure! We've reached a point where the Court is so important that these battles have to be fought. There is nothing unconstitutional about them. I won't judge the Democrats who oppose Gorsuch, at least not too harshly. But it was stolen. The fact that having a hearing would have had no impact because they would have refused anyone is the fucking point. They decided to refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty in refusing to even consider Obama's nominee through a hearing and a vote, and they decided to violate the spirit of the Constitution by denying the sitting president any chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice. The Court being "so important" is precisely the reason they decided to steal the seat. It doesn't excuse their behavior in any way. That's like saying elections are "so important" that you're justified in engaging in (legal) voter suppression. That's not stealing, that's "the other party has a majority in Congress come back with someone else." If he failed the vote people would still be saying it was stolen. He had his chance, picked someone unpalatable to the Senate, and didn't try again. That's not stealing, and the Senate is under no obligation to have a hearing or a vote. I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution. But I get it. "Stole" is a powerful word in this context, so there's no chance anyone on the left drops it. Fine.
no, it's not, they made no comment on specific acceptability, nor did they make any serious effort to discuss reasons and propose alternatives. that's just you being partisan and twisting everything (as most people on all sides do) to make what your side (based on your history and statements I presume you consider the republicans or some part thereof or something related to be your side) did acceptable, rather than face the ugly truth.
Like I said earlier, some people's partisanship prevents them from admitting to it.
|
On February 01 2017 12:11 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 12:05 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:55 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:45 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:31 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:28 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:05 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
depends what your goals and beliefs are.
for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good.
for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues)
People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution. and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this. I'm just going by the definition of stolen. I criticize the GOP all the time, and I even said that perhaps he should have given a hearing. Of course if he was given a hearing, the GOP would be accused of playing theater after refusing to confirm. What difference would it have made if they held a hearing and then voted him down? The Senate was under no obligation to even hold a hearing. Perhaps we should say Obama failed his constitutional duty for keeping the same clearly-not-going-to-be-confirmed nominee for months on end. The amount of dishonest spin in this post is off the charts. The vacancy was Obama's to fill. The GOP decided to steal it by refusing to fulfill their constitutional duty. At least have the decency to recognize this. The reason Garland had an "approx. 0%" chance of getting confirmed was that the GOP decided to be partisan hacks, which is exactly the point. The vacancy was Obama's to appoint, and the Senate's to affirm. Neither acted outside of their duty or constitutional right. They were under no obligation to confirm, and they still aren't. It's a shame Borking has come to this, but the Court is too powerful now. Nobody said they had an obligation to confirm his nominee, but they still refused to fulfill their constitutional duty in the appointment process. They outright said that they would not hold hearings or votes on any nominee, thus refusing to allow the sitting president any chance to fill the vacancy. It was the definition of partisan hackery, and you're not doing your credibility any favors by trying to spin it any other way. They stole a position that was Obama's to fill by deciding to engage in unprecedented partisan obstructionism. I don't recall saying it was a normal process, just that it wasn't stolen. Having a hearing would have had no impact on the result. They opposed any Obama nominee because they knew any of his nominees would be terrible to them. If Obama had nominated Gorsuch they would have voted for him, I'm sure! We've reached a point where the Court is so important that these battles have to be fought. There is nothing unconstitutional about them. I won't judge the Democrats who oppose Gorsuch, at least not too harshly. But it was stolen. The fact that having a hearing would have had no impact because they would have refused anyone is the fucking point. They decided to refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty in refusing to even consider Obama's nominee through a hearing and a vote, and they decided to violate the spirit of the Constitution by denying the sitting president any chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice. The Court being "so important" is precisely the reason they decided to steal the seat. It doesn't excuse their behavior in any way. That's like saying elections are "so important" that you're justified in engaging in (legal) voter suppression. That's not stealing, that's "the other party has a majority in Congress come back with someone else." If he failed the vote people would still be saying it was stolen. He had his chance, picked someone unpalatable to the Senate, and didn't try again. That's not stealing, and the Senate is under no obligation to have a hearing or a vote. I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution. But I get it. "Stole" is a powerful word in this context, so there's no chance anyone on the left drops it. Fine.
I am not an expert on US political history. Is there precedent for an opposed-party Congress/Senate/whatever blocking, or refusing to hear, Presidential supreme court nominations?
+ Show Spoiler +"Nothing gets done unless a single party holds both the Congress and the presidency" doesn't seem like a particularly healthy place for a governing system to be in.
|
On February 01 2017 12:11 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 12:05 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:55 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:45 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:31 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 11:28 kwizach wrote:On February 01 2017 11:05 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
depends what your goals and beliefs are.
for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good.
for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues)
People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution. and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this. I'm just going by the definition of stolen. I criticize the GOP all the time, and I even said that perhaps he should have given a hearing. Of course if he was given a hearing, the GOP would be accused of playing theater after refusing to confirm. What difference would it have made if they held a hearing and then voted him down? The Senate was under no obligation to even hold a hearing. Perhaps we should say Obama failed his constitutional duty for keeping the same clearly-not-going-to-be-confirmed nominee for months on end. The amount of dishonest spin in this post is off the charts. The vacancy was Obama's to fill. The GOP decided to steal it by refusing to fulfill their constitutional duty. At least have the decency to recognize this. The reason Garland had an "approx. 0%" chance of getting confirmed was that the GOP decided to be partisan hacks, which is exactly the point. The vacancy was Obama's to appoint, and the Senate's to affirm. Neither acted outside of their duty or constitutional right. They were under no obligation to confirm, and they still aren't. It's a shame Borking has come to this, but the Court is too powerful now. Nobody said they had an obligation to confirm his nominee, but they still refused to fulfill their constitutional duty in the appointment process. They outright said that they would not hold hearings or votes on any nominee, thus refusing to allow the sitting president any chance to fill the vacancy. It was the definition of partisan hackery, and you're not doing your credibility any favors by trying to spin it any other way. They stole a position that was Obama's to fill by deciding to engage in unprecedented partisan obstructionism. I don't recall saying it was a normal process, just that it wasn't stolen. Having a hearing would have had no impact on the result. They opposed any Obama nominee because they knew any of his nominees would be terrible to them. If Obama had nominated Gorsuch they would have voted for him, I'm sure! We've reached a point where the Court is so important that these battles have to be fought. There is nothing unconstitutional about them. I won't judge the Democrats who oppose Gorsuch, at least not too harshly. But it was stolen. The fact that having a hearing would have had no impact because they would have refused anyone is the fucking point. They decided to refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty in refusing to even consider Obama's nominee through a hearing and a vote, and they decided to violate the spirit of the Constitution by denying the sitting president any chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice. The Court being "so important" is precisely the reason they decided to steal the seat. It doesn't excuse their behavior in any way. That's like saying elections are "so important" that you're justified in engaging in (legal) voter suppression. That's not stealing, that's "the other party has a majority in Congress come back with someone else." If he failed the vote people would still be saying it was stolen. He had his chance, picked someone unpalatable to the Senate, and didn't try again. That's not stealing, and the Senate is under no obligation to have a hearing or a vote. I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution. But I get it. "Stole" is a powerful word in this context, so there's no chance anyone on the left drops it. Fine.
Firstly, you are deliberately going for a red herring that I've already addressed. I am not claiming that the Senate had a legal obligation to hold a hearing and a vote. Can you stop pretending otherwise?
Secondly, you're just rephrasing what I already responded to, so I'll copy/paste what I just said: "the fact that having a hearing would have had no impact because they would have refused anyone is the fucking point. They decided to refuse to fulfill their constitutional duty [this is in reference to the Senate's constitutional role of providing advise and consent -- note again that I am not using the words "legal obligation" here] in refusing to even consider Obama's nominee through a hearing and a vote, and they decided to violate the spirit of the Constitution by denying the sitting president any chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice."
This vacancy was clearly, as per the Constitution, Obama's to fill with the advise and consent of the Senate. The GOP decided to act as partisan hacks in denying the sitting president any chance of filling the vacancy, hoping to see a Republican president elected in November, which is what happened. They therefore clearly stole the sitting president's prerogative to fill the vacancy in order to transfer it to the following president. Trying to argue semantics won't change the fact that what the GOP engaged in was fundamentally wrong and unprecedented partisan hackery. You just happen to be happy about the result because it suits you to have a conservative Justice replacing Scalia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
