|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Describing this as just the normal process of things is a blatant lie Danglars, come on. We've posted the chart many times and it's ignored by all the GOP talking heads in the thread.
ACB was nominated yesterday, 39 days before election. The average and median for confirmation are 65-70 days, and no one has ever been nominated and confirmed this close to an election, in all of history (In fact, one was during the civil war and still didn't happen - do you really think the Civil War was a smaller crisis than Trump losing re-election?)
If you're saying that confirmation before a new Senate is sworn in is normal, that makes more sense, but is still unprecedented.
Just say what you mean : that you want democrats permanently out of power in the country, and are happy to overturn all norms, precedents, and laws to achieve this goal.
|
United States24803 Posts
On September 21 2020 04:26 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 04:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 02:38 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2020 00:52 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 00:49 Danglars wrote:
Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. Could you explain the Republican Party's explanation for why Merrick Garland was not allowed to go to vote? What was the principle, and how did the date of the nomination factor into it? I ask this independent of what is going on with RBG's seat. That’s the current evolution of no votes, and the bipartisan method. See: Miguel Estrada & the Democrats in ‘01. With all due respect, you did not answer my question. For perspective, I did read up on Miguel Estrada at your suggestion which does help provide some additional background on the general topic. The method of the Senate withholding its consent for Presidential nominees is decided upon by the rules of the Senate. If the Senate Majority Leader wishes to do that via filibuster, withholding a vote, or holding a vote that decides on no, it matters very little to me. The Senate has withheld consent for the nominee. The constitutional process is Presidential nominations with advice and consent. I don't really see much difference about an actual vote being called versus not considering past Democratic filibusters of nominees. It's advice and consent and the Senate sets its own rules. If the filibuster is removed for legislation, legislation will pass on 50+1 votes in the Senate. Until then, legislation must gain 60 votes for cloture should a Senator filibuster. Either way, it's the rules of the Senate. The Senate could decide on a mechanism for forcing a vote on something that the Senate Majority Leader decides to not hold a vote on. That's the decision of Senators. Regardless, the Senate withholds consent by the rules of the Senate. If it's denying the Republicans a Latino appeals court judge, for political considerations of painting Republicans to be against minorities, it's denied consent. If it's McConnell trying to shield vulnerable Senators from a tough vote, or political optics of a filibuster, it's denied consent. The mechanism of the withdrawing of consent is in the Senate rules, and isn't detailed otherwise. I refer you to the text of the constitution, should you have questions regarding the different wording for treaties and appointments. That's the mechanism, which is part of the Why (The Constitutional Process IS the why in some aspects). The other why is Democratic governance. In a split government, the argument goes that the voters should have a vote on the nominating person should it happen in the same year of nomination, since the voters have split their decision several years ago in who rules the Senate and who rules the Executive Branch. In the "Why Then and not Now," it's because the voters have given the Republicans both the presidency and the Senate, so there is no ambiguity between the two branches involved in nominating justices. Perhaps I need more explanation as to your mindset if you still have lingering questions after this post. I'm happy to hear it. Thank you, this is much more detailed and on point. Regarding the bolded text above, from where/when does that argument originate? More specifically, where/when does "same year" (presumably after January 1st of the election year) come from as opposed to 6 month period prior, or 18 month period prior?
Danglars, I took a step back as we discussed a few days ago but I'm hoping now that you can address this other aspect of the question I originally asked.
|
On September 27 2020 00:51 Nevuk wrote:
Describing this as just the normal process of things is a blatant lie Danglars, come on. We've posted the chart many times and it's ignored by all the GOP talking heads in the thread.
ACB was nominated yesterday, 39 days before election. The average and median for confirmation are 65-70 days, and no one has ever been nominated and confirmed this close to an election, in all of history (In fact, one was during the civil war and still didn't happen - do you really think the Civil War was a smaller crisis than Trump losing re-election?)
If you're saying that confirmation before a new Senate is sworn in is normal, that makes more sense, but is still unprecedented.
Just say what you mean : that you want democrats permanently out of power in the country, and are happy to overturn all norms, precedents, and laws to achieve this goal.
On average it's taken longer, and there's rarely been supreme court vacancies this close to an election. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's confirmation process herself was only 42 days (But oh man, hear them whine about 39!), 33 days with O'Connor (first woman justice on the supreme court), 19 with John Paul Stevens. She's aided by basically the same Senators already holding a hearing on her in the last three years.
The average will shift lower, because that's how averages work. She's one of many united Presidency-Senate nominees sworn in in an election year. It's literally the constitutional process at work. The President appoints, the Senate advises and consents.
The last time there was a vacancy this close to an election, Abraham Lincoln was president, and half the United States was in rebellion. You bring up this interesting case. You want to say it breaks precedent, but are trying to ignore the unprecedented natures of a vacancy this close to an election. So please, do away with this partisan propaganda with such an unprecedented case (first not in a civil war), and an unprecedented result. Let me also translate this in the language you address me with: the Democratic and otherwise leftist "talking heads" in this forum ignore the constitutional process and history of united party politics, because it suits them to do so. You have only partisan reasons to ignore faster Supreme Court confirmations, in favor of focusing on mean/median, and the unprecedented nature of the vacancy giving rise to unprecedented nominations prior to an election.
I've heard enough griping about the Senate (both unrepresentative nature, and packing it with more states), Electoral College vs popular vote, and Supreme Court packing on here to know that you're willing to change any precedent as long as it will bring Democrats back into power in all branches of the government. Give me a break. You know this.
|
On September 27 2020 01:13 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 04:26 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 04:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 02:38 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2020 00:52 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 00:49 Danglars wrote:
Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. Could you explain the Republican Party's explanation for why Merrick Garland was not allowed to go to vote? What was the principle, and how did the date of the nomination factor into it? I ask this independent of what is going on with RBG's seat. That’s the current evolution of no votes, and the bipartisan method. See: Miguel Estrada & the Democrats in ‘01. With all due respect, you did not answer my question. For perspective, I did read up on Miguel Estrada at your suggestion which does help provide some additional background on the general topic. The method of the Senate withholding its consent for Presidential nominees is decided upon by the rules of the Senate. If the Senate Majority Leader wishes to do that via filibuster, withholding a vote, or holding a vote that decides on no, it matters very little to me. The Senate has withheld consent for the nominee. The constitutional process is Presidential nominations with advice and consent. I don't really see much difference about an actual vote being called versus not considering past Democratic filibusters of nominees. It's advice and consent and the Senate sets its own rules. If the filibuster is removed for legislation, legislation will pass on 50+1 votes in the Senate. Until then, legislation must gain 60 votes for cloture should a Senator filibuster. Either way, it's the rules of the Senate. The Senate could decide on a mechanism for forcing a vote on something that the Senate Majority Leader decides to not hold a vote on. That's the decision of Senators. Regardless, the Senate withholds consent by the rules of the Senate. If it's denying the Republicans a Latino appeals court judge, for political considerations of painting Republicans to be against minorities, it's denied consent. If it's McConnell trying to shield vulnerable Senators from a tough vote, or political optics of a filibuster, it's denied consent. The mechanism of the withdrawing of consent is in the Senate rules, and isn't detailed otherwise. I refer you to the text of the constitution, should you have questions regarding the different wording for treaties and appointments. That's the mechanism, which is part of the Why (The Constitutional Process IS the why in some aspects). The other why is Democratic governance. In a split government, the argument goes that the voters should have a vote on the nominating person should it happen in the same year of nomination, since the voters have split their decision several years ago in who rules the Senate and who rules the Executive Branch. In the "Why Then and not Now," it's because the voters have given the Republicans both the presidency and the Senate, so there is no ambiguity between the two branches involved in nominating justices. Perhaps I need more explanation as to your mindset if you still have lingering questions after this post. I'm happy to hear it. Thank you, this is much more detailed and on point. Regarding the bolded text above, from where/when does that argument originate? More specifically, where/when does "same year" (presumably after January 1st of the election year) come from as opposed to 6 month period prior, or 18 month period prior? Danglars, I took a step back as we discussed a few days ago but I'm hoping now that you can address this other aspect of the question I originally asked.
The specific tradition mostly went unstated throughout it's history. However, you can see the rationale as pretty obvious on it's face. The process of nomination of Supreme Court justices follows the doctrine of divided powers, well written in the Federalist Papers in the late 1700s. Power is set against power, and the system of checks and balances makes no one office solely responsible for judicial nominees. In the case of a lost presidency, the party cannot nominate their choice. In the case of a lost Senate, the party cannot consent and thus confirm the nominee. The judicial philosophies between parties has diverged over history, which is why you have to go back to (cheating on Nouar's suspended investigation) President Cleveland and 1888 to find the Senate confirming a nominee of the opposite party in an election year. You may quibble on why it's a year, but the President serves four years, which is a nice division into quarters of the length of his power. Election years serve as an important reconciliation for divided government, should the American People decide that one party is more fit to lead it in both elected branches. When the people have a chance to remove a divided government, in essence, to present a nationwide consensus instead of a divided government, they should be given an opportunity to do so in an election year. If the American people have already delivered to the national government a united government, then no conflict exists for suitable nominees. The reason this is a year vs 6 months or 18 months is the traditional way we talk about presidents; you do not say that Obama was elected for 8 6-month terms or 2 and 2/3 18-month terms, he was elected for a 4-year term and re-elected. It's no dividing line or fundamental reckoning, as much of tradition exists.
Will you answer my question about your standards then and now, or am I only to guess whether or not your current standards are the same as your past posting standards?
|
United States24803 Posts
On September 27 2020 01:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 01:13 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 04:26 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 04:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 02:38 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2020 00:52 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 00:49 Danglars wrote:
Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. Could you explain the Republican Party's explanation for why Merrick Garland was not allowed to go to vote? What was the principle, and how did the date of the nomination factor into it? I ask this independent of what is going on with RBG's seat. That’s the current evolution of no votes, and the bipartisan method. See: Miguel Estrada & the Democrats in ‘01. With all due respect, you did not answer my question. For perspective, I did read up on Miguel Estrada at your suggestion which does help provide some additional background on the general topic. The method of the Senate withholding its consent for Presidential nominees is decided upon by the rules of the Senate. If the Senate Majority Leader wishes to do that via filibuster, withholding a vote, or holding a vote that decides on no, it matters very little to me. The Senate has withheld consent for the nominee. The constitutional process is Presidential nominations with advice and consent. I don't really see much difference about an actual vote being called versus not considering past Democratic filibusters of nominees. It's advice and consent and the Senate sets its own rules. If the filibuster is removed for legislation, legislation will pass on 50+1 votes in the Senate. Until then, legislation must gain 60 votes for cloture should a Senator filibuster. Either way, it's the rules of the Senate. The Senate could decide on a mechanism for forcing a vote on something that the Senate Majority Leader decides to not hold a vote on. That's the decision of Senators. Regardless, the Senate withholds consent by the rules of the Senate. If it's denying the Republicans a Latino appeals court judge, for political considerations of painting Republicans to be against minorities, it's denied consent. If it's McConnell trying to shield vulnerable Senators from a tough vote, or political optics of a filibuster, it's denied consent. The mechanism of the withdrawing of consent is in the Senate rules, and isn't detailed otherwise. I refer you to the text of the constitution, should you have questions regarding the different wording for treaties and appointments. That's the mechanism, which is part of the Why (The Constitutional Process IS the why in some aspects). The other why is Democratic governance. In a split government, the argument goes that the voters should have a vote on the nominating person should it happen in the same year of nomination, since the voters have split their decision several years ago in who rules the Senate and who rules the Executive Branch. In the "Why Then and not Now," it's because the voters have given the Republicans both the presidency and the Senate, so there is no ambiguity between the two branches involved in nominating justices. Perhaps I need more explanation as to your mindset if you still have lingering questions after this post. I'm happy to hear it. Thank you, this is much more detailed and on point. Regarding the bolded text above, from where/when does that argument originate? More specifically, where/when does "same year" (presumably after January 1st of the election year) come from as opposed to 6 month period prior, or 18 month period prior? Danglars, I took a step back as we discussed a few days ago but I'm hoping now that you can address this other aspect of the question I originally asked. The specific tradition mostly went unstated throughout it's history. However, you can see the rationale as pretty obvious on it's face. The process of nomination of Supreme Court justices follows the doctrine of divided powers, well written in the Federalist Papers in the late 1700s. Power is set against power, and the system of checks and balances makes no one office solely responsible for judicial nominees. In the case of a lost presidency, the party cannot nominate their choice. In the case of a lost Senate, the party cannot consent and thus confirm the nominee. The judicial philosophies between parties has diverged over history, which is why you have to go back to (cheating on Nouar's suspended investigation) President Cleveland and 1888 to find the Senate confirming a nominee of the opposite party in an election year. You may quibble on why it's a year, but the President serves four years, which is a nice division into quarters of the length of his power. Election years serve as an important reconciliation for divided government, should the American People decide that one party is more fit to lead it in both elected branches. When the people have a chance to remove a divided government, in essence, to present a nationwide consensus instead of a divided government, they should be given an opportunity to do so in an election year. If the American people have already delivered to the national government a united government, then no conflict exists for suitable nominees. The reason this is a year vs 6 months or 18 months is the traditional way we talk about presidents; you do not say that Obama was elected for 8 6-month terms or 2 and 2/3 18-month terms, he was elected for a 4-year term and re-elected. It's no dividing line or fundamental reckoning, as much of tradition exists.
It looks like the answer to my question about the length of time is simply that many of these types of issues (other than the specific one in question) have been considered based on whether it is an election year or not. I don't have any significant issues with that, or evidence that standards suddenly changed the practice from 6 months to election year, or 18 months to election year.
The other question about when the 'argument' originated is more complicated to discuss. This idea that new SCOTUS justices can be seated right before the election when the senate and the president are the same party, but not when the parties are split, does not make sense to me. I recognize you are providing an attempt at a general GOP explanation of the issue and not necessarily your own nuanced opinion, so I am essentially responding directly to the GOP explanation which you don't have to try to defend if you do not want to. As others said a few days ago, Senate terms are long and so the controlling party could be several years out of date with the will of the people (especially considering how favorable the 2018 election was for GOP senators). Current polling also shows that the GOP is set to lose seats in the near future, quite possibly flipping control to the Democrats. In this particular election year, Trump is also behind in polling (you can argue how far behind based on how much you trust polling and what happened in 2016, but reasonable he's at least somewhat behind, if not a lot). It's pretty hard to make the argument that it's the current will of the American people to seat a SCOTUS justice during the lame duck period between now and January (or alternately shortly before election day).
In addition, the argument that holding up Garland made sense due to the 2016 split between the president and the senate's parties makes sense to me only if it also makes sense to hold up the current nomination until after January. If there is concern that the will of the people was not represented by the party of the president (then Democrat), then waiting until the next president was decided made some sense. I still have some reservations about the waiting period being ~ a year since that's a long time to leave a SCOTUS seat vacant, but as long as the period is applied consistently I don't feel outraged. I do think, even if the parties are split and the senate wants to hold up the seat until after January, they still should be compelled to let it go to vote, but that's a separate issue.
I think a look at precedent should follow discussion about principles rather than be pointed to up front as justification like I've heard McConnell and others do. When was the last time a senate seat opened up early in an election year (like in Garland's case), the president nominated someone, and the senate refused to consider the nominee, despite them being quite qualified? That's the only precedent that seems relevant to 2016. When is the last time a seat opened up in September of an election year (or closer) and a nominee was seated before January? That's the only precedent that matters for the current situation.
Will you answer my question about your standards then and now, or am I only to guess whether or not your current standards are the same as your past posting standards? I refer you to my post from a few days ago regarding discussing other topics.
|
The idea of expanding the court is ridiculous IMO. At some point someone needs to be the adult in the room and avoid endless escalations.
Its clear the GOP have no interest in actually governing. The Democrats need to work on changing the minds of the electorate. Until the GOP is defeated at every level of government its always going to be like this.
The Democrats arent perfect but at least they believe in a functioning Government even if they cant always execute.
Im pretty convinced your run of the mill Trump voter just enjoys his trolling and doesnt give a shit about any policy. Thats not how a functioning democracy should work.
|
On September 27 2020 02:14 Sadist wrote:
The idea of expanding the court is ridiculous IMO. At some point someone needs to be the adult in the room and avoid endless escalations.
When you look at how many major policy decisions have been made by the supreme court in the last 20 years, do you not see a benefit to issues instead being actually legislated?
I'm cheering for democrats to pack the court so that the court loses its power. Once it stops being credible, senate/house will begin ignoring it.
|
On September 27 2020 02:14 Sadist wrote:
The idea of expanding the court is ridiculous IMO. At some point someone needs to be the adult in the room and avoid endless escalations.
Its clear the GOP have no interest in actually governing. The Democrats need to work on changing the minds of the electorate. Until the GOP is defeated at every level of government its always going to be like this.
The Democrats arent perfect but at least they believe in a functioning Government even if they cant always execute.
Im pretty convinced your run of the mill Trump voter just enjoys his trolling and doesnt give a shit about any policy. Thats not how a functioning democracy should work.
The escalation will exist forever, it enables GOP power and Democrats are too spineless to try and seize that power back.
And unfortunately, your last point is probably true to an extent, its also the reason why changing the minds of the electorate is just not going to happen. The Democrats and Republicans are already extremely similar, I'm basically convinced what keeps the vitriol so thick between supporters of either is a Red Team vs. Blue Team sports mentality.
I'd rather see firm Democrat control over everything, expanding the Supreme Court, aggressively increasing voter enfranchisement efforts, etc. to make sure Republicans never see any major power ever again, and then maybe we can see a political realignment as the Democrats take their place as the center-right party they are and another party fractures off with the hopeful-die-off of the Republican party.
I doubt it'll ever happen though. 
|
|
|
On September 26 2020 22:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 19:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
Don't really disagree with you. Mostly just pointing out that despite Democrats running on fearing Republicans, they don't actually have a way/plan to stop the SCOTUS stuff they are fearmongering about.
Same goes for the idea of a Trump coup. If he actually did it, we'd have Biden out trying to convince protesters to obey the fascists and telling them violent resistance is unjustified. But for Trump being so contemptable on a personal level (shitting on POW's and such) to military personnel, there'd be no hope within liberal framing to stop him. You do understand your entire second paragraph is fan fiction correct? And fleet saying you trust me as much as Danglars is the worst insult I've ever heard. I don't think the American system is not broken, I just don't believe that GH is at all accurate in how or why. What is strange to me is that people the GHs perspective is that different from the far right trumpnsupport, you have different names.for the different groups but the root message is almost always the same as is the burden of proof " if it is against the dems it is true". Many of you mistake this that I'm a dem or support them completely. It is far from the truth, it is just that so many people here are completely willing to call out the obvious bullshit when it comes from a right spin but not the same when it comes from a "left" spin. And that hurts the left far more than all the right stuff people get so worked up about.
I don't think you have much grounds to be insulted, honestly. I've shown pretty clearly that I respect Danglars and filtering posters' content through an understanding of their specific bias is what people in this thread -do- (and rightfully so).
I also reject the linear framing of 'left or right'. People are more nuanced than that. Trying to set it up as someone being left or right (and therefore justifying your dislike of them) is neither fair nor productive.
|
On September 27 2020 01:57 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 01:34 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2020 01:13 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 04:26 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 04:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 02:38 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2020 00:52 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 00:49 Danglars wrote:
Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. Could you explain the Republican Party's explanation for why Merrick Garland was not allowed to go to vote? What was the principle, and how did the date of the nomination factor into it? I ask this independent of what is going on with RBG's seat. That’s the current evolution of no votes, and the bipartisan method. See: Miguel Estrada & the Democrats in ‘01. With all due respect, you did not answer my question. For perspective, I did read up on Miguel Estrada at your suggestion which does help provide some additional background on the general topic. The method of the Senate withholding its consent for Presidential nominees is decided upon by the rules of the Senate. If the Senate Majority Leader wishes to do that via filibuster, withholding a vote, or holding a vote that decides on no, it matters very little to me. The Senate has withheld consent for the nominee. The constitutional process is Presidential nominations with advice and consent. I don't really see much difference about an actual vote being called versus not considering past Democratic filibusters of nominees. It's advice and consent and the Senate sets its own rules. If the filibuster is removed for legislation, legislation will pass on 50+1 votes in the Senate. Until then, legislation must gain 60 votes for cloture should a Senator filibuster. Either way, it's the rules of the Senate. The Senate could decide on a mechanism for forcing a vote on something that the Senate Majority Leader decides to not hold a vote on. That's the decision of Senators. Regardless, the Senate withholds consent by the rules of the Senate. If it's denying the Republicans a Latino appeals court judge, for political considerations of painting Republicans to be against minorities, it's denied consent. If it's McConnell trying to shield vulnerable Senators from a tough vote, or political optics of a filibuster, it's denied consent. The mechanism of the withdrawing of consent is in the Senate rules, and isn't detailed otherwise. I refer you to the text of the constitution, should you have questions regarding the different wording for treaties and appointments. That's the mechanism, which is part of the Why (The Constitutional Process IS the why in some aspects). The other why is Democratic governance. In a split government, the argument goes that the voters should have a vote on the nominating person should it happen in the same year of nomination, since the voters have split their decision several years ago in who rules the Senate and who rules the Executive Branch. In the "Why Then and not Now," it's because the voters have given the Republicans both the presidency and the Senate, so there is no ambiguity between the two branches involved in nominating justices. Perhaps I need more explanation as to your mindset if you still have lingering questions after this post. I'm happy to hear it. Thank you, this is much more detailed and on point. Regarding the bolded text above, from where/when does that argument originate? More specifically, where/when does "same year" (presumably after January 1st of the election year) come from as opposed to 6 month period prior, or 18 month period prior? Danglars, I took a step back as we discussed a few days ago but I'm hoping now that you can address this other aspect of the question I originally asked. The specific tradition mostly went unstated throughout it's history. However, you can see the rationale as pretty obvious on it's face. The process of nomination of Supreme Court justices follows the doctrine of divided powers, well written in the Federalist Papers in the late 1700s. Power is set against power, and the system of checks and balances makes no one office solely responsible for judicial nominees. In the case of a lost presidency, the party cannot nominate their choice. In the case of a lost Senate, the party cannot consent and thus confirm the nominee. The judicial philosophies between parties has diverged over history, which is why you have to go back to (cheating on Nouar's suspended investigation) President Cleveland and 1888 to find the Senate confirming a nominee of the opposite party in an election year. You may quibble on why it's a year, but the President serves four years, which is a nice division into quarters of the length of his power. Election years serve as an important reconciliation for divided government, should the American People decide that one party is more fit to lead it in both elected branches. When the people have a chance to remove a divided government, in essence, to present a nationwide consensus instead of a divided government, they should be given an opportunity to do so in an election year. If the American people have already delivered to the national government a united government, then no conflict exists for suitable nominees. The reason this is a year vs 6 months or 18 months is the traditional way we talk about presidents; you do not say that Obama was elected for 8 6-month terms or 2 and 2/3 18-month terms, he was elected for a 4-year term and re-elected. It's no dividing line or fundamental reckoning, as much of tradition exists. It looks like the answer to my question about the length of time is simply that many of these types of issues (other than the specific one in question) have been considered based on whether it is an election year or not. I don't have any significant issues with that, or evidence that standards suddenly changed the practice from 6 months to election year, or 18 months to election year. The other question about when the 'argument' originated is more complicated to discuss. This idea that new SCOTUS justices can be seated right before the election when the senate and the president are the same party, but not when the parties are split, does not make sense to me. I recognize you are providing an attempt at a general GOP explanation of the issue and not necessarily your own nuanced opinion, so I am essentially responding directly to the GOP explanation which you don't have to try to defend if you do not want to. As others said a few days ago, Senate terms are long and so the controlling party could be several years out of date with the will of the people (especially considering how favorable the 2018 election was for GOP senators). Current polling also shows that the GOP is set to lose seats in the near future, quite possibly flipping control to the Democrats. In this particular election year, Trump is also behind in polling (you can argue how far behind based on how much you trust polling and what happened in 2016, but reasonable he's at least somewhat behind, if not a lot). It's pretty hard to make the argument that it's the current will of the American people to seat a SCOTUS justice during the lame duck period between now and January (or alternately shortly before election day). In addition, the argument that holding up Garland made sense due to the 2016 split between the president and the senate's parties makes sense to me only if it also makes sense to hold up the current nomination until after January. If there is concern that the will of the people was not represented by the party of the president (then Democrat), then waiting until the next president was decided made some sense. I still have some reservations about the waiting period being ~ a year since that's a long time to leave a SCOTUS seat vacant, but as long as the period is applied consistently I don't feel outraged. I do think, even if the parties are split and the senate wants to hold up the seat until after January, they still should be compelled to let it go to vote, but that's a separate issue. I think a look at precedent should follow discussion about principles rather than be pointed to up front as justification like I've heard McConnell and others do. When was the last time a senate seat opened up early in an election year (like in Garland's case), the president nominated someone, and the senate refused to consider the nominee, despite them being quite qualified? That's the only precedent that seems relevant to 2016. When is the last time a seat opened up in September of an election year (or closer) and a nominee was seated before January? That's the only precedent that matters for the current situation. Show nested quote +Will you answer my question about your standards then and now, or am I only to guess whether or not your current standards are the same as your past posting standards? I refer you to my post from a few days ago regarding discussing other topics.
I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think it's sufficient to prove your point. The only poll that matters is the one taken on election day. Prior to that, it's your given right as an American to not give a damn about who's running and what they're running on. This forum over-selects for people that follow politics on a daily or weekly basis. That isn't representative of the country as a whole, as seen in many interviews and 2016 retrospectives. Media figures this year and last have gone around to the riot-hit areas and asked (along with the normal questions regarding thoughts on protests) what they thought about Trump's latest tweet or anonymously-sourced stories. Most didn't even know what had happened. Look at the 2016 election polling. Trump won big among undecideds 2 weeks prior to the election. Are they deficient as citizens for not making up their minds before the election is at hand? I say no.
So when I say "will of the people" I mean "the will of the people in a secret ballot on the only day that matters." It disentangles all the "shy Tories" that see some young pollster straight out of college and don't feel like explaining why they're voting Trump. National polling is a nice thing to look at to look at trends and what issues matter, but it's like the national popular vote: it doesn't matter. The constitution goes out every 2, 4, and 6 years for representatives, presidents, and senators. That's the true will of the people, or at least, the better measure of it. For the rest of the nuance, see the Federalist papers explanation of why it's important to insulate the loci of power from changing mob opinion. Now, as before, voters can look back at the last 4 years and decide on whether Trump deserves another term.
You appear to be in favor of Senate rules reform. The current rules give great authority to the Senate majority leader. He's selected from the majority party, and in current times, has the capacity to determine that the Senate withdraws consent by means of not holding a vote. Maybe both parties can agree that some number below 51 can compel a vote on nominees up and down. This is equivalent to changes in what Senate business can be blocked by filibuster. This comes under "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." And regarding precedent, this vacancy will receive a vote in a time period longer than faster confirmed justices. The proximity to an election does not come into play when the Senate advice and consent is asked for.
|
|
|
United States24803 Posts
On September 27 2020 04:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 01:57 micronesia wrote:On September 27 2020 01:34 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2020 01:13 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 04:26 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 04:19 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2020 04:05 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 02:38 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2020 00:52 micronesia wrote:On September 21 2020 00:49 Danglars wrote:
Senates of opposite party of the president have refused to confirm judicial nominees for ages. The Senate and President are same-party. Ignorance is no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy. Could you explain the Republican Party's explanation for why Merrick Garland was not allowed to go to vote? What was the principle, and how did the date of the nomination factor into it? I ask this independent of what is going on with RBG's seat. That’s the current evolution of no votes, and the bipartisan method. See: Miguel Estrada & the Democrats in ‘01. With all due respect, you did not answer my question. For perspective, I did read up on Miguel Estrada at your suggestion which does help provide some additional background on the general topic. The method of the Senate withholding its consent for Presidential nominees is decided upon by the rules of the Senate. If the Senate Majority Leader wishes to do that via filibuster, withholding a vote, or holding a vote that decides on no, it matters very little to me. The Senate has withheld consent for the nominee. The constitutional process is Presidential nominations with advice and consent. I don't really see much difference about an actual vote being called versus not considering past Democratic filibusters of nominees. It's advice and consent and the Senate sets its own rules. If the filibuster is removed for legislation, legislation will pass on 50+1 votes in the Senate. Until then, legislation must gain 60 votes for cloture should a Senator filibuster. Either way, it's the rules of the Senate. The Senate could decide on a mechanism for forcing a vote on something that the Senate Majority Leader decides to not hold a vote on. That's the decision of Senators. Regardless, the Senate withholds consent by the rules of the Senate. If it's denying the Republicans a Latino appeals court judge, for political considerations of painting Republicans to be against minorities, it's denied consent. If it's McConnell trying to shield vulnerable Senators from a tough vote, or political optics of a filibuster, it's denied consent. The mechanism of the withdrawing of consent is in the Senate rules, and isn't detailed otherwise. I refer you to the text of the constitution, should you have questions regarding the different wording for treaties and appointments. That's the mechanism, which is part of the Why (The Constitutional Process IS the why in some aspects). The other why is Democratic governance. In a split government, the argument goes that the voters should have a vote on the nominating person should it happen in the same year of nomination, since the voters have split their decision several years ago in who rules the Senate and who rules the Executive Branch. In the "Why Then and not Now," it's because the voters have given the Republicans both the presidency and the Senate, so there is no ambiguity between the two branches involved in nominating justices. Perhaps I need more explanation as to your mindset if you still have lingering questions after this post. I'm happy to hear it. Thank you, this is much more detailed and on point. Regarding the bolded text above, from where/when does that argument originate? More specifically, where/when does "same year" (presumably after January 1st of the election year) come from as opposed to 6 month period prior, or 18 month period prior? Danglars, I took a step back as we discussed a few days ago but I'm hoping now that you can address this other aspect of the question I originally asked. The specific tradition mostly went unstated throughout it's history. However, you can see the rationale as pretty obvious on it's face. The process of nomination of Supreme Court justices follows the doctrine of divided powers, well written in the Federalist Papers in the late 1700s. Power is set against power, and the system of checks and balances makes no one office solely responsible for judicial nominees. In the case of a lost presidency, the party cannot nominate their choice. In the case of a lost Senate, the party cannot consent and thus confirm the nominee. The judicial philosophies between parties has diverged over history, which is why you have to go back to (cheating on Nouar's suspended investigation) President Cleveland and 1888 to find the Senate confirming a nominee of the opposite party in an election year. You may quibble on why it's a year, but the President serves four years, which is a nice division into quarters of the length of his power. Election years serve as an important reconciliation for divided government, should the American People decide that one party is more fit to lead it in both elected branches. When the people have a chance to remove a divided government, in essence, to present a nationwide consensus instead of a divided government, they should be given an opportunity to do so in an election year. If the American people have already delivered to the national government a united government, then no conflict exists for suitable nominees. The reason this is a year vs 6 months or 18 months is the traditional way we talk about presidents; you do not say that Obama was elected for 8 6-month terms or 2 and 2/3 18-month terms, he was elected for a 4-year term and re-elected. It's no dividing line or fundamental reckoning, as much of tradition exists. It looks like the answer to my question about the length of time is simply that many of these types of issues (other than the specific one in question) have been considered based on whether it is an election year or not. I don't have any significant issues with that, or evidence that standards suddenly changed the practice from 6 months to election year, or 18 months to election year. The other question about when the 'argument' originated is more complicated to discuss. This idea that new SCOTUS justices can be seated right before the election when the senate and the president are the same party, but not when the parties are split, does not make sense to me. I recognize you are providing an attempt at a general GOP explanation of the issue and not necessarily your own nuanced opinion, so I am essentially responding directly to the GOP explanation which you don't have to try to defend if you do not want to. As others said a few days ago, Senate terms are long and so the controlling party could be several years out of date with the will of the people (especially considering how favorable the 2018 election was for GOP senators). Current polling also shows that the GOP is set to lose seats in the near future, quite possibly flipping control to the Democrats. In this particular election year, Trump is also behind in polling (you can argue how far behind based on how much you trust polling and what happened in 2016, but reasonable he's at least somewhat behind, if not a lot). It's pretty hard to make the argument that it's the current will of the American people to seat a SCOTUS justice during the lame duck period between now and January (or alternately shortly before election day). In addition, the argument that holding up Garland made sense due to the 2016 split between the president and the senate's parties makes sense to me only if it also makes sense to hold up the current nomination until after January. If there is concern that the will of the people was not represented by the party of the president (then Democrat), then waiting until the next president was decided made some sense. I still have some reservations about the waiting period being ~ a year since that's a long time to leave a SCOTUS seat vacant, but as long as the period is applied consistently I don't feel outraged. I do think, even if the parties are split and the senate wants to hold up the seat until after January, they still should be compelled to let it go to vote, but that's a separate issue. I think a look at precedent should follow discussion about principles rather than be pointed to up front as justification like I've heard McConnell and others do. When was the last time a senate seat opened up early in an election year (like in Garland's case), the president nominated someone, and the senate refused to consider the nominee, despite them being quite qualified? That's the only precedent that seems relevant to 2016. When is the last time a seat opened up in September of an election year (or closer) and a nominee was seated before January? That's the only precedent that matters for the current situation. Will you answer my question about your standards then and now, or am I only to guess whether or not your current standards are the same as your past posting standards? I refer you to my post from a few days ago regarding discussing other topics. I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think it's sufficient to prove your point. The only poll that matters is the one taken on election day. Prior to that, it's your given right as an American to not give a damn about who's running and what they're running on. This forum over-selects for people that follow politics on a daily or weekly basis. That isn't representative of the country as a whole, as seen in many interviews and 2016 retrospectives. Media figures this year and last have gone around to the riot-hit areas and asked (along with the normal questions regarding thoughts on protests) what they thought about Trump's latest tweet or anonymously-sourced stories. Most didn't even know what had happened. Look at the 2016 election polling. Trump won big among undecideds 2 weeks prior to the election. Are they deficient as citizens for not making up their minds before the election is at hand? I say no. So when I say "will of the people" I mean "the will of the people in a secret ballot on the only day that matters." It disentangles all the "shy Tories" that see some young pollster straight out of college and don't feel like explaining why they're voting Trump. National polling is a nice thing to look at to look at trends and what issues matter, but it's like the national popular vote: it doesn't matter. The constitution goes out every 2, 4, and 6 years for representatives, presidents, and senators. That's the true will of the people, or at least, the better measure of it. For the rest of the nuance, see the Federalist papers explanation of why it's important to insulate the loci of power from changing mob opinion. Now, as before, voters can look back at the last 4 years and decide on whether Trump deserves another term. Perhaps we have been speaking past each other but nothing here seems to contradict my discussion about why it seems to me like Scalia's vacancy and RBG's vacancy should be treated the same way (either both seats get filled regardless of the upcoming election, or neither get filled.... only filling Scalia's seat could also make sense to me since it was vacated much earlier in the term).
You appear to be in favor of Senate rules reform. The current rules give great authority to the Senate majority leader. He's selected from the majority party, and in current times, has the capacity to determine that the Senate withdraws consent by means of not holding a vote. Maybe both parties can agree that some number below 51 can compel a vote on nominees up and down. This is equivalent to changes in what Senate business can be blocked by filibuster. This comes under "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." Yes I've been giving this some thought for a while but I see it as mostly a separate issue.
And regarding precedent, this vacancy will receive a vote in a time period longer than faster confirmed justices. This does not seem relevant to the discussion we were having. If someone was nominated and seated in 10 seconds halfway through year one of Reagan's first term, that wouldn't really change anything about whether or not to hold a vote on a nominee in a presidential election year.
The proximity to an election does not come into play when the Senate advice and consent is asked for.
Didn't Obama ask for Senate advice and consent for Garland? Wasn't that blocked by McConnell due to proximity to the election?
|
On September 27 2020 02:14 Sadist wrote:
The idea of expanding the court is ridiculous IMO. At some point someone needs to be the adult in the room and avoid endless escalations.
Its clear the GOP have no interest in actually governing. The Democrats need to work on changing the minds of the electorate. Until the GOP is defeated at every level of government its always going to be like this.
The Democrats arent perfect but at least they believe in a functioning Government even if they cant always execute.
Im pretty convinced your run of the mill Trump voter just enjoys his trolling and doesnt give a shit about any policy. Thats not how a functioning democracy should work.
And likewise, I'm pretty convinced your run of the mill Democrat doesn't care what gets broken in the process, as long as the process results in the crippling of the Trump administration and the ejection of Trump from office. His own intelligence agencies can act as a 5th column against him, instead of a subordinate department, and the average Democrat doesn't give a damn.
I'm pretty convinced your average Democrat doesn't care about COVID relief, given how the Republican Senate measures have just been filibustered by Democrats. Same with police reform; that bill also got filibustered. It's all of the Democratic priorities, or none at all. You call that governance? I guess machine realpolitik is a form of governance, if that's your thing.
I find the worst parts of the 2017-2020 Democratic media and politician relationship to the country arises from Democrats failure to "[change] the minds of the electorate." The rest is well attributed to acting out of frustration at finding themselves unable to convince enough of middle America that they present a good vision for the future governance of the country. The more Trumpian angle would be something like + Show Spoiler +The Democrats will focus on telling poor whites to apologize for their privilege, and focus on transgender bathroom equality, all while ignoring the thousands of deaths of despair from the opium epidemic. They'll be pulling down the statues of abolitionists, founding fathers, and Union generals, because they're incapable of valuing people beyond the worst construction of their example. They'll riot, while claiming it's all mostly peaceful and not that big of a deal. And after all the studied ignorance of the results of their rhetoric, they'll try to wash their hands of it and claim it has nothing to do with the party itself. Do not be gullible; these are exactly the acts encouraged by a lack of leadership from Democratic governors, and they want to gain political power by blaming them all on Trump. The Democrats are committed to power at all costs, whether that mean adding States, destroying the Electoral College and pushing the popular vote, packing the Supreme Court, and using national power to foist their agenda on all the states that reject their party platform.
|
On September 27 2020 04:24 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 02:14 Sadist wrote:
The idea of expanding the court is ridiculous IMO. At some point someone needs to be the adult in the room and avoid endless escalations.
Its clear the GOP have no interest in actually governing. The Democrats need to work on changing the minds of the electorate. Until the GOP is defeated at every level of government its always going to be like this.
The Democrats arent perfect but at least they believe in a functioning Government even if they cant always execute.
Im pretty convinced your run of the mill Trump voter just enjoys his trolling and doesnt give a shit about any policy. Thats not how a functioning democracy should work.
I'm pretty convinced your average Democrat doesn't care about COVID relief, given how the Republican Senate measures have just been filibustered by Democrats.
I don't think you actually believe this
|
On September 27 2020 04:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 04:24 Danglars wrote:On September 27 2020 02:14 Sadist wrote:
The idea of expanding the court is ridiculous IMO. At some point someone needs to be the adult in the room and avoid endless escalations.
Its clear the GOP have no interest in actually governing. The Democrats need to work on changing the minds of the electorate. Until the GOP is defeated at every level of government its always going to be like this.
The Democrats arent perfect but at least they believe in a functioning Government even if they cant always execute.
Im pretty convinced your run of the mill Trump voter just enjoys his trolling and doesnt give a shit about any policy. Thats not how a functioning democracy should work.
I'm pretty convinced your average Democrat doesn't care about COVID relief, given how the Republican Senate measures have just been filibustered by Democrats. I don't think you actually believe this
The all or nothing approach is indicative of it. Do you have an opinion about Democrats decision to filibuster the Senate covid relief bill? Primarily if that’s an opinion that differs from the ones expressed in this thread?
|
|
|
On September 27 2020 04:24 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2020 02:14 Sadist wrote:
The idea of expanding the court is ridiculous IMO. At some point someone needs to be the adult in the room and avoid endless escalations.
Its clear the GOP have no interest in actually governing. The Democrats need to work on changing the minds of the electorate. Until the GOP is defeated at every level of government its always going to be like this.
The Democrats arent perfect but at least they believe in a functioning Government even if they cant always execute.
Im pretty convinced your run of the mill Trump voter just enjoys his trolling and doesnt give a shit about any policy. Thats not how a functioning democracy should work.
And likewise, I'm pretty convinced your run of the mill Democrat doesn't care what gets broken in the process, as long as the process results in the crippling of the Trump administration and the ejection of Trump from office. His own intelligence agencies can act as a 5th column against him, instead of a subordinate department, and the average Democrat doesn't give a damn. I'm pretty convinced your average Democrat doesn't care about COVID relief, given how the Republican Senate measures have just been filibustered by Democrats. Same with police reform; that bill also got filibustered. It's all of the Democratic priorities, or none at all. You call that governance? I guess machine realpolitik is a form of governance, if that's your thing. I find the worst parts of the 2017-2020 Democratic media and politician relationship to the country arises from Democrats failure to "[change] the minds of the electorate." The rest is well attributed to acting out of frustration at finding themselves unable to convince enough of middle America that they present a good vision for the future governance of the country. The more Trumpian angle would be something like + Show Spoiler +The Democrats will focus on telling poor whites to apologize for their privilege, and focus on transgender bathroom equality, all while ignoring the thousands of deaths of despair from the opium epidemic. They'll be pulling down the statues of abolitionists, founding fathers, and Union generals, because they're incapable of valuing people beyond the worst construction of their example. They'll riot, while claiming it's all mostly peaceful and not that big of a deal. And after all the studied ignorance of the results of their rhetoric, they'll try to wash their hands of it and claim it has nothing to do with the party itself. Do not be gullible; these are exactly the acts encouraged by a lack of leadership from Democratic governors, and they want to gain political power by blaming them all on Trump. The Democrats are committed to power at all costs, whether that mean adding States, destroying the Electoral College and pushing the popular vote, packing the Supreme Court, and using national power to foist their agenda on all the states that reject their party platform. .
Flipping the script, do you really call it governance when the party in power uses that power to punch down almost exclusively? Is it necessary to pick the specific SC nominee they have? Someone guaranteed to be controversial? Why not pick someone more even, with a spotless record, who couldn't realistically be argued against, instead of an obviously conservative pick with numerous statements attributed to her that would make a lot of people question her objectivity in the role?
Do you call it governance when the President uses his pulpit to foist conspiracy theories and his party supports him lockstep all the way?
Do you call it governance when the primary method is to divide and conquer and stoke divisions in the country when they're already at an all-time high?
You can't possibly be going after the Democrats for poor governance when... they aren't actually in a position to govern. Proper governance isn't 'my party won so fuck you and everything you believe in and we're going to spend four years ramming that down your throat', proper governance is about trying to make sure everybody gets something. You don't really care about proper governance, though, so why even bring it up? You're openly gleeful about the idea of the Republicans ramming through a SC pick who fits your ideology because it tilts the scales in your favour and pretty much by definition because it fucks with the idea of the Democrats being able to govern effectively.
The last time the Democrats had a President he made a big effort to meet Republicans in the middle and they shafted him at every turn. America is not a country that will permit good governance anymore. And it wasn't the Democrats who made that decision. Your guys made that choice.
Once the Democrats start playing dirty (or at least throw away the social norms as badly as the Republicans have) then yeah, its Thunderdome. Expand the SC, pull every dirty trick, governance will break down. And at that point what complaint can you rationally raise? You've eagerly backed the process leading you there.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27459 Posts
On September 27 2020 06:22 JimmiC wrote:This is so incredibly disappointing, especially at a main stream party. To have a position that the kid was in over his head, mislead and deserves counseling and a lessor sentence I can understand the perspective. But that standing ovations after he crossed Stateline with a assualt rifle and ends up murdering three people? This is what you stand and cheer for? That is so disturbing. https://ca.yahoo.com/news/mother-alleged-kenosha-shooter-gets-210905177.html
Of course they fucking did. Why a segment of the conservative population isn’t even worth engaging with, as much as they cry to be misunderstood and under threat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
