401 replies to this topic

[Raidne]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 30 April 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

But Raidne, to get the amendment passed other than in a constitutional convention, you'd need a 2/3rd vote by the Senate.  And if you can get a 2/3 vote by the Senate to eliminate the filibuster for appointments, then you certainly should be able to get the 51 Seante votes necessary to do that change as a Senate rule change, because that's all you'd need.  In which case, the amendment would be unnecesarry.

Anyway, the reason you'll never get that passed the Senate is abortion.  Simple as that.

I'm not primarily concerned with the filibuster. I think the constitutional provisions regarding recess appointments are unclear and should be fixed for expediency's sake. I was just speculating that it could be a possible side effect.

And what won't get past the Senate? A rule ending the filibuster?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Raidne, on 30 April 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

A refusal by the Justice Department to defend a law before the Court is indeed very rare. Great article on it here:

http://www.nytimes.c...w/27liptak.html

Note that it's not the same thing as not enforcing a law, and I'm sure we all realize that DOMA is still being enforced, distinguishing it from FLOW's complaint about immigration.

Given the state of the federal immigration courts, I can't see how you could possibly argue immigration isn't being enforced either - from what I hear they are the only administrative law judges more overworked than the ones who work in my office. The administration is doing absolutely everything it can with the money it has. It's an interesting problem - I posted a thread about this awhile back. The 9th Circuit actually held that VA is violating due process because of the delay in getting available health care and adjudicating benefits, essentially making the argument that we're taking so long to do anything under the applicable Veterans law that we're not enforcing it. The same thing is going on with immigration. But what is the executive supposed to do? We beg for more funding and show why we need it, in detail, every year, and they don't give it to us. We had an action plan for dealing with the increase and claims and injured Veterans, but nobody cared through years of budget fights. To me, saying the executive isn't enforcing a law when it doesn't have enough funding is just sticking your head in the sand and waiving some fingers around. You want more immigration enforcement? Allocate some more freaking money to it already.

I'm talking specifically about the affirmative waivers that have been issues, not courts getting bogged down or focusing resources on certain types of immigration issues.

[Jon Sprunk]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 30 April 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Anyway, the reason you'll never get that passed the Senate is abortion.  Simple as that.

Hate to do this, but I have to agree with FLoW. Both parties see the filibuster as essential to keep the other side from "ruining the country."

Per DOMA. I hate the law, but until it is struck down or repealed the administration has the duty to carry it out. I don't know if defending it in court counts as the same thing. Are their historical precidents? Did Bush Jr. defend Roe v Wade in court? I think the admin should follow established precident.

[Fez]

Brienne the Beauty, on 28 April 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

http://en.wikipedia...._and_minarchism

I just googled the issue, and according to that article there are two camps of libertarians, one that believes in a minimal state (minarchism) and one that believes in no state at all (anarcho-capitalism.)

An Anarchist isn't a Libertarian, they are an idiot.

[Raidne]

Jon Sprunk, on 30 April 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

Hate to do this, but I have to agree with FLoW. Both parties see the filibuster as essential to keep the other side from "ruining the country."

Per DOMA. I hate the law, but until it is struck down or repealed the administration has the duty to carry it out. I don't know if defending it in court counts as the same thing. Are their historical precidents? Did Bush Jr. defend Roe v Wade in court? I think the admin should follow established precident.

Read the article! It's one page long!

Quote

That is what seemed to have happened in 1990 in another case on a politically divisive issue, after an acting solicitor general told the Supreme Court that the Justice Department would not defend a Federal Communications Commission affirmative-action program because, in language echoing Mr. Holder’s, it “could not withstand the exacting scrutiny required by the Constitution.”

The commission filed its own brief defending the program, and the court upheld it. The acting solicitor general who refused to defend the program, John G. Roberts Jr., is now chief justice of the United States.

As for Roe v. Wade, it's a Court holding. You don't defend it in Court - you cite to it. Sometimes it overturns laws that are passed that you defend in Court.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Raidne, on 30 April 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

Read the article! It's one page long!

The constitutionality of a federal statute was not at issue in Metro Broadcasting.  Rather, it was a rule promulgated by the Executive Branch.

Edited by Former Lord of Winterfell, 30 April 2012 - 04:58 PM.

[Josephxoxo]

To be honest, they're all a bunch of idiots. From Republicians to Democrats who concentrate on gay marriage and petty gun laws rather then putting all their attention on reducing the unemployment rate and debt. The only person that could have probably got this country out of debt was Donald Trump, but he's not running. Watch what happens when China want's its money it lent us. Chinese- American war in the future>>? Probably. I'm also sick of this president spending half the year on vacations rather then working on the most important job in the country.

[Raidne]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 30 April 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

I'm talking specifically about the affirmative waivers that have been issues, not courts getting bogged down or focusing resources on certain types of immigration issues.

You're going to have to educate me, as I'm not recalling what you'd be referring to.

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 30 April 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

The constitutionality of a federal statute was not at issue in Metro Broadcasting.  Rather, it was a rule promulgated by the Executive Branch.

Sure, but the other two examples in the article were federal statutes. I just picked that one out because of who was asking.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Raidne, on 30 April 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

I'm not primarily concerned with the filibuster. I think the constitutional provisions regarding recess appointments are unclear and should be fixed for expediency's sake. I was just speculating that it could be a possible side effect.

Ah, okay.  I agree completely on the recess appointment issue.

Quote

And what won't get past the Senate? A rule ending the filibuster?

Yes.  Or rather, I suppose it is possible, but I think it is really unlikely to happen because of the abortion issue.

Raidne, on 30 April 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

You're going to have to educate me, as I'm not recalling what you'd be referring to.

http://www.washingto...ortation-rules/

Edited by Former Lord of Winterfell, 30 April 2012 - 05:56 PM.

[Tormund Midgetsbane]

Quote

Sure, but we're really talking process rather than substance anyway. Talking substance here is generally pretty futile.

Process is extremely important.  If both sides ignore procedure, then the whole things falls apart.  Why bother putting things to a vote in the first place if you can just get what you want (or don't want) by ignoring the rules? (one of the reasons I see voting as pointless).   The only thing left is to use violence.

[Howdyphillip]

Jon Sprunk, on 30 April 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

Hate to do this, but I have to agree with FLoW. Both parties see the filibuster as essential to keep the other side from "ruining the country."

I have no problem with the filibuster either. I do think that if an issue is important enough for this action, then the cost behind it should be paid. They should be forced to speak the entire time, or else the vote should be called.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Tormund Midgetsbane, on 30 April 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

Process is extremely important.  If both sides ignore procedure, then the whole things falls apart.  Why bother putting things to a vote in the first place if you can just get what you want (or don't want) by ignoring the rules? (one of the reasons I see voting as pointless).   The only thing left is to use violence.

There's a difference between taking advantage of the rules, and actually breaking them.

[Jon Sprunk]

Raidne, on 30 April 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

Read the article! It's one page long!

Yep. My post landed before I read yours. Tyvm.

[Jon Sprunk]

Howdyphillip, on 30 April 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

I have no problem with the filibuster either. I do think that if an issue is important enough for this action, then the cost behind it should be paid. They should be forced to speak the entire time, or else the vote should be called.

This. The "threat of filibuster" is fucking lame. Make them actually do it, on camera.

[Tormund Midgetsbane]

Quote

This. The "threat of filibuster" is fucking lame. Make them actually do it, on camera.

Please.  For the entertainment value of watching Harry Reid up there in a diaper reading from the phonebook if for nothing else.

[TerraPrime]

You don't need to enforce policies to do that. Just bring a $10k donation to his campaign. I'm sure he'll wear a diaper and pee in it for you for that amount of money.

[ThinkerX]

I seem to remember it was Bush II who issued more executive orders than all other presidents combined in order to circumvent Congress (at least some of the time).  I also have vague recollections of FLOW actually supporting Bush II for this (though I might be misremembering).

Regardless of FLOWs stance then, though, the point is Republicans CANNOT legitimately call into question Obama's use of executive orders without also admitting the massive abuse of these orders by a Republican president as well.

Otherwise, law and order is a thing of the past and these debates we have here have the potential to become utterly meaningless because they bear no connection with reality.

[TrackerNeil]

Jon Sprunk, on 30 April 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

This. The "threat of filibuster" is fucking lame. Make them actually do it, on camera.

I'm not sure that's a solution. I can just see Rand Paul or Marco Rubio working with Fox Noise to have viewers submit talking points to be read on the Senate floor. the 24-7 media would LOVE that. Besides, the point of a filibuster is not just to stymie the majority but to waste Senate time. That body only has so much time per session to get things done, so anything that spends that time helps the minority.

Jonathan Bernstein, a great political scientist, likes the filibuster and thinks it should be retained, but with a modification. He thinks that, once per session, the majority party should be able to designate a bill Superbill (or something like that). Superbill could not be filibustered in any way, and that includes proferred amendments. That would enable the minority to retain some power while allowing the majority to enact the most important parts of its agenda. I'm not sure I agree, but it's an interesting idea, and clearly something has to change.

[kalbear]

Quote

The only person that could have probably got this country out of debt was Donald Trump, but he's not running.

What? WHAT?

He owes 4.5 BILLION dollars by himself. That's not including his companies - that is his personal debt. Companies have paid him to leave the company because he was so toxic. He's a horrible businessman and person. He genuinely believes that vaccines cause autism. The notion that he's remotely part of any actual solution is quite possibly the stupidest idea I've heard this year.

[Jon Sprunk]

But the thing about the "threat of filibuster" is that it happens almost invisibly, unless you're keeping up on your daily politics. But an actual filibuster, with the cameras rolling, is going to get some coverage by all the media, so people will realize what their govt is doing.

Enough with the stealth shit. make both parties face the camera and stand by their convictions.