EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6735
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:38 ThaddeusK wrote: Isn't suggesting that the people don't have a voice in this decision despite everyone involved being elected officials just throwing the whole point of a republic out the window? Because political climates are always shifting, and it makes sense to wait for a iminent election to just confirm if the political climate is still in the incumbent's favor. It is purely out of courtesy to the american people, even though the president is well within his/her right to nominate. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:36 biology]major wrote: my anger is at both the dems and the republicans. I have little faith that if HRC won with a senate and house majority, that the republicans would have stopped being obstructionists. They were the inventors of obstructionism with Obama. You really think the dems would have allowed Trump to nominate a justice in his lame duck period if an opening appeared? That is delusional. Which other justice was appointed in a lame duck period? I honestly don't know, it seems wrong just intuitively. The people should have a voice in those kinds of HUGE 30 - 40 year lasting decisions. you are an idiot. First, obama was not in the lame duck period, that is the period after the election but before the new president is sworn in. the vacancy happened in february. second, the dems would have let trump nominate a justice and they would most likely have voted on him because that is what has been done for the entire history of the nation. so it's pretty likely they would've continued doing the thing which has been done for the entire history of the nation. for you to claim they'd have done otherwise you'd hvae to bring some serious evidence, which you have not done. instead it is merely your partisan bias making you think that way (at least that's the likeliest reason). So bring some real proof that dems would've violated the rule, rather than your own questionable claim, which is countered by the history of the nation. that it seems wrong to you intuitively means little, your intuitive judgment is rather poor, and intuitive judgment shouldn't be relied upon entirely for usch things anyways. The people do have a voice in these long lasting decisions, they have it when they elect a president, who nominates people during the course of their term. They had such a choice when they elected obama. so your counterpoint fails completely. furthermore, judges are NOT an elected position, at least not at the federal level. that is by design, and it is furthermore good, as the research has generally found that elected judges do a worse job than appointed judges. can you own up to the fact that you simply don't understand the issues well? and that your judgment isn't that good? PS while you claim your anger is at both reps and dems, on this issue the bulk of the anger should be at the reps, and your level of apparent vitriol seems low vs them compared to what you were saying about the dems. but I shall watch and try to measure more carefully to see if that is only my own bias coloring my observations of how you talk. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:40 Belisarius wrote: I've never understood how the judiciary can claim to be apolitical when its supreme authorities are literally political appointees. The idea is that because it is a for life position the judge owes nothing to no one and is free to act in accordance with the law. They don't have to worry about campaigning, public approval rating, or trading favors with politicians. It's not perfect, but it's actually worked reasonably well I'd say. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
Picking fights carefully is imho the smarter strat. Remember that it was not really the Republicans who won those elections. Their total obstructionism wasn't exactly helping their public image except among some core hardliners. The election was won by a Trump who mainly pointed at all those old men bickering at each other and getting nothing done. Trump won exactly because he didn't associate too much with those house/senate republicans. Also if you blindly oppose anything the elected president and elected majority in house/senate wants, you massively lessen the impact of any opposition when you really want it to count. Replacing a Scalia with a miniScalia? Is this really the worst thing that could happen and where you want to throw all your credibility and oppositional power against? Show "goodwill" here. Fight when there is more on the line. Expressing disagreement but letting it pass this time makes your next message way stronger. And then, once the populist nonsense of Trump is dispelled by the lack of results, come out as winner of the question of "who is more responsible" and win elections. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:42 zlefin wrote: you are an idiot. First, obama was not in the lame duck period, that is the period after the election but before the new president is sworn in. the vacancy happened in february. second, the dems would have let trump nominate a justice and they would most likely have voted on him because that is what has been done for the entire history of the nation. so it's pretty likely they would've continued doing the thing which has been done for the entire history of the nation. for you to claim they'd have done otherwise you'd hvae to bring some serious evidence, which you have not done. instead it is merely your partisan bias making you think that way (at least that's the likeliest reason). So bring some real proof that dems would've violated the rule, rather than your own questionable claim, which is countered by the history of the nation. that it seems wrong to you intuitively means little, your intuitive judgment is rather poor, and intuitive judgment shouldn't be relied upon entirely for usch things anyways. The people do have a voice in these long lasting decisions, they have it when they elect a president, who nominates people during the course of their term. They had such a choice when they elected obama. so your counterpoint fails completely. furthermore, judges are NOT an elected position, at least not at the federal level. that is by design, and it is furthermore good, as the research has generally found that elected judges do a worse job than appointed judges. can you own up to the fact that you simply don't understand the issues well? and that your judgment isn't that good? I used the wrong term. My intuition is fine, given that I was right about Trump's election and had a better grasp on the state of the population, and you said the same thing during the primaries/election and were wrong about basically everything. You should question your intuition. | ||
|
ThaddeusK
United States233 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:42 biology]major wrote: Because political climates are always shifting, and it makes sense to wait for a iminent election to just confirm if the political climate is still in the incumbent's favor. It is purely out of courtesy to the american people, even though the president is well within his/her right to nominate. But the basis for this argument is that elected officials no longer represent the people that elected them by the end of their term, if this is consistently true isn't this a huge flaw in the entire system and the same argument can be put to literally everything they do in the later part of their term in office? | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:48 ThaddeusK wrote: But the basis for this argument is that elected officials no longer represent the people that elected them by the end of their term, if this is consistently true isn't this a huge flaw in the entire system and the same argument can be put to literally everything they do in the later part of their term in office? Yeah so lets make the term only 3 years then until we realize their last year they don't represent the people and need to make it 2 years... I guess each elected official should serve for exactly 1 day to maximally represent the people? | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:49 Logo wrote: Yeah so lets make the term only 3 years then until we realize their last year they don't represent the people and need to make it 2 years... I guess each elected official should serve for exactly 1 day to maximally represent the people? As I said, it is out of courtesy. In a 4 year term, yes the elected official may not represent the needs of the population towards the end of his/her term. It is an imperfect system, and that is fine. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:46 biology]major wrote: I used the wrong term. My intuition is fine, given that I was right about Trump's election and had a better grasp on the state of the population, and you said the same thing during the primaries/election and were wrong about basically everything. You should question your intuition. I was wrong about basically everything? you clearly paid no attention to what I actually said during the entire of the previous year if you think that, given how rarely I even make claims, and most of my claims are so broad as to be near tautological. Can you list all the many things I was actually wrong about, and cite to where I actually said what you think I said? so it's not merely you incorrectly claiming I said things that I did not. And I do monitor my own intuition constantly. No, your intuition is not fine, you weren't notably right about trump's election, nor do you have some deep insight on the state of the population. you happened to be right when looking at an uncertain situation, that's not some grand validation of anything. nor do you backup your reasons with the kind of detail that would demonstrate actual depth of insight greater than those who've studied the issues far more and can backup their reasons with that kidn of detail. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:50 biology]major wrote: As I said, it is out of courtesy. In a 4 year term, yes the elected official may not represent the needs of the population towards the end of his/her term. It is an imperfect system, and that is fine. You're setting an arbitrary post without evidence to justify your viewpoint in absence of real reasoning. Obama had a >50% approval rating in his final year yet somehow he doesn't represent the population? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21997 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:36 biology]major wrote: my anger is at both the dems and the republicans. I have little faith that if HRC won with a senate and house majority, that the republicans would have stopped being obstructionists. They were the inventors of obstructionism with Obama. You really think the dems would have allowed Trump to nominate a justice in his lame duck period if an opening appeared? That is delusional. Which other justice was appointed in a lame duck period? I honestly don't know, it seems wrong just intuitively. The people should have a voice in those kinds of HUGE 30 - 40 year lasting decisions. Except for the fact that Obama was not in his lame duck period... The election was in November. Scalia died in Febuary. The president does not have a year long lame duck period. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:54 Gorsameth wrote: Except for the fact that Obama was not in his lame duck period... The election was in November. Scalia died in Febuary. The president does not have a year long lame duck period. wrong term, meant final year. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21997 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:59 biology]major wrote: So then let me throw out a hypothetical, Kennedy retires and Trump gets another pick. Then in the 7th year of his hypothetical 2 term presidency something bad happens to ginsberg/she retires. How many of you would own up to your hypocricy and admit that you would want the dems to auto block that nomination, and wait for the election? Or would you be fine with Trump getting in 3 picks because "he was an elected official". Before the Republicans decided to fuck up with the rules? He would have had any appointment that came up during his term, aside from maybe after his replacement had been elected. The actual lame duck period. Now? Who knows. The Republicans have decided that all bets are off. | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 02 2017 06:59 biology]major wrote: So then let me throw out a hypothetical, Kennedy retires and Trump gets another pick. Then in the 7th year of his hypothetical 2 term presidency something bad happens to ginsberg/she retires. How many of you would own up to your hypocricy and admit that you would want the dems to auto block that nomination, and wait for the election? Or would you be fine with Trump getting in 3 picks because "he was an elected official". He should get 3 picks, that's a pretty easy one? I mean there should be room for either party to block a particularly bad pick, but not the seat in general. The only grey area would be what's around acceptable filibuster and what happens when neither side will budge. I don't have a concrete view on the filibuster of nominations/confirmations and what makes sense there. The thing about blocking too is this isn't a partisan issue really. If Republicans had the vote to reject Garland they could have just done that right? To me it seems like they were instead holding their own party hostage knowing that some Republicans were likely to approve a reasonably moderate pick like Garland. (This is again why I only support Dem obstructionism of the Supreme Court pick only if they do so to win some sort of procedural victory to end these shenanigans and prevent it from happening again or at least dissuade it from happening again). | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21997 Posts
And your reasoning for stripping a President of his duties a year before his job is done is because? Why is it so hard for you to just admit the truth? You were pissed off that a conservative judge would be replaced (despite being offered another conservative in Garland, he just doesn't hold to 1800's viewpoints like the Republicans would want) by a liberal one, you were in a position to fuck with the system so you did it. There is 0, nill, nada, zilch justification for the Republicans not doing their constitutional obligation. You wanne reject him? Fine, reject him but put it up for a vote and do your damn job. Something the Republican congress is hilariously bad at. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Obama does have the right, as president to select his choice, but the Democrats don't have some right given to them to have judges they like on the court, so ultimately the complaint is partisan because neither Garland nor Gorsuch appear unqualified. Neither side is free of guilt for partisanship here. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
But they also shouldn't let Republicans forget for an instant how abhorrent their behaviors were, preferably backed up by the man Trump is nominating (who hates what the Republicans did if his past writings were any indication). Looks like they aren't going to do either, beyond some noisemakers that are insufficient to hold things back indefinitely. I just hope the noisy angry left won't start angry campaigns against the Senate Dems who decides to allow a hearing on the exceptionally qualified candidate who definitely won't be a Trump stooge. | ||
| ||
