Swordfish Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 25 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said: Hahahahaha, reading these idiotic defenses of the Senate Republicans refusing to act on the Supreme Court nomination made by the president of the USA brings me to the conclusion that we are seeing yet another crime black people are guilty of, "being President while black". If I were kinder I would say the crime was "being President while Democrat", but no previous Democrat has ever faced this amount of hostility and the only different factor is the fact he's black. The fact that you're incapable of following the discussion does not make me a racist. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 44 minutes ago, Swordfish said: So then you agree that the president has abdicated his constitutional duty by not putting forth those nominations? ok. But we disagree on that too The senate is not refusing to do their duty as you've defined it, they have given their advice that they will do it at the time of their choosing. Namely, after the election. Feel free to read back in the thread to see how I responded to your question. As to the Senate, they are essentially stripping this president of his appointment power, at least in terms of Supreme Court justices. I suppose you wouldn't think it was unconstitutional for the Senate to have done this three years ago, right? After all, they are advising that they'll do it later--for a different president. Same, same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 43 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: Feel free to read back in the thread to see how I responded to your question. As to the Senate, they are essentially stripping this president of his appointment power, at least in terms of Supreme Court justices. I suppose you wouldn't think it was unconstitutional for the Senate to have done this three years ago, right? After all, they are advising that they'll do it later--for a different president. Same, same? No. They aren't. He made his nomination. By that logic, even explicitly voting no would 'strip the president of his appointment power' His appointments are subject to their consent they are not constitutionally required to approve his nominees Constitutionally, yes, I don't think there would have been an issue three years ago or three years from now. There are obviously other issues, but as I've explained a bunch of times, it's not clear to me that there is an explicit constitutional duty to hold hearings or votes. Indeed, as Kal so astutely pointed out, they have not always even held hearings on SC nominees ETA: Let me ask you the question from a different angle. Had they simply not held the hearings, and given no justification, as the president has done with some other federal nominations, but instead remained silent about it, would they still, in your opinion, be abdicating their constitutional duty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 59 minutes ago, Swordfish said: The fact that you're incapable of following the discussion does not make me a racist. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. The fact that you are incapable of seeing that I did not call you a racist does not mean that I called you a racist. As a person who's been a lawyer for over thirty years I have no problem following the argument. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of understanding the concept put forward by numerous posters that Republicans who announced they would not consider any SC nomination until after the election are neglecting their constitutional duties to provide advice and consent to the POTUS when he puts forward the name of a nominee, conduct that from the nature of the way many, not all, Republicans have acted is obviously rooted in racism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 7 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said: The fact that you are incapable of seeing that I did not call you a racist does not mean that I called you a racist. As a person who's been a lawyer for over thirty years I have no problem following the argument. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of understanding the concept put forward by numerous posters that Republicans who announced they would not consider any SC nomination until after the election are neglecting their constitutional duties to provide advice and consent to the POTUS when he puts forward the name of a nominee, conduct that from the nature of the way many, not all, Republicans have acted is obviously rooted in racism. Except that isnt what you said. You said this: Quote Hahahahaha, reading these idiotic defenses of the Senate Republicans refusing to act on the Supreme Court nomination made by the president of the USA brings me to the conclusion that we are seeing yet another crime black people are guilty of, "being President while black Which is pretty clearly implying that the only reason someone might disagree that the actions of the senate are unconstitutional is because of racism. Since I'm really the only one making that argument, and you were quite clearly referring to the 'stupid' arguments in this thread...... Props to you though for walking back from that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Godric Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Swordfish said: No. They aren't. He made his nomination. By that logic, even explicitly voting no would 'strip the president of his appointment power' His appointments are subject to their consent they are not constitutionally required to approve his nominees Constitutionally, yes, I don't think there would have been an issue three years ago or three years from now. There are obviously other issues, but as I've explained a bunch of times, it's not clear to me that there is an explicit constitutional duty to hold hearings or votes. Indeed, as Kal so astutely pointed out, they have not always even held hearings on SC nominees A bunch of other issues really just means politics, does it not? Let's not pretend that the Senate has any concerns over the nominee or about Obama, they're holding on for the off chance that Cruz will get to make the nomination. Nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 26 minutes ago, Lord Godric said: A bunch of other issues really just means politics, does it not? Let's not pretend that the Senate has any concerns over the nominee or about Obama, they're holding on for the off chance that Cruz will get to make the nomination. Nothing more. Yes. Of course that is their motivation. This is a political battle. Not a constitutional battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Godric Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 8 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Yes. Of course that is their motivation. This is a political battle. Not a constitutional battle. I just wonder if Trump is the nominee if they'll continue to fight so hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 4 minutes ago, Lord Godric said: I just wonder if Trump is the nominee if they'll continue to fight so hard. That's a really good question. I don't honestly know. Likewise, I wonder if Obama has a plan in place to change the nominee based on who gets the nomination. Should be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 5 hours ago, Swordfish said: ETA: Let me ask you the question from a different angle. Had they simply not held the hearings, and given no justification, as the president has done with some other federal nominations, but instead remained silent about it, would they still, in your opinion, be abdicating their constitutional duty? Depends how long they delayed but, yes, potentially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 2 hours ago, Swordfish said: I've been giving this some thought over the last week and reading opinions on it since a lot of people are trotting out this particular kind of soundbite, and I think as an argument, it's pretty ineffective. Advise and consent by the senate is a pre-requisite for filling the seat. it's not a constitutional duty. Secondly, they have given their advice, which is 'don't nominate someone right now'. And i would love to hear how withholding their consent on that basis is somehow a constitutional issue. I'm not aware of anything in the constitution that requires them to hold an actual vote in order to withhold their consent. and my point on highlighting that quote of Obama's was that Obama is saying that if Republicans violate the longstanding non-constitutional norms of confirmation hearings then democrats will violate the longstanding non-constitutional norm of preserving the filibuster for supreme court judges. the context of Obama's speech was about the norms of senate functioning smoothly as they have historically. Yes the constitution does not specify what the normal context of advise and consent is, but we all know how those norms have played out, we all know that republican's response here is an outlier event within the history of Supreme Court nominations. But it is an outlier event with a great deal of context of the norms of smooth Senate functioning collapsing post 2010. And within that context, Obama is laying the groundwork that if Garland is not granted a courtesy hearing, then Democrats will nuke the SC filibuster in January (if they win). Regardless, Republicans, if they win, will nuke the filibuster in order to seat Scalia's Thomas' and Kennedy's replacements before the 2018 midterms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Holy Shit. I just read the rest of the thread. You are all Crazy. A supreme court judge is just another judge. Nothing more. And a judge is just an appointed position. Nothing more. The senate routinely refuses to act, or hold hearings, for appointed positions hundreds of times every single year. This is very settled. This is how the senate does things. Inaction is quite often their single most powerful tool, especially as it (usually) leaves no fingerprints of embarassing votes for opponents to utilize. Jesus Christ, I don't know how Swordfish has had this much patience to keep posting in response to such ignorant righteous indignation. Shryke, Kal and I would have all been cheering in celebration and forcefully arguing the validity of this same move if the senate in february 2008 refused to act on Bush nominating Alberto Gonzalez to Ginsberg's seat had she died then. (apropos of nothing, the democrat controlled senate would have swiftly confirmed Gonzalez in spite of the coming election because of their cowardly terror of losing the latino vote in the upcoming election if they rejected the first latino nominee, so they would have never had the spine to reject identity politics being used against them). People are freaking the fuck out because there are only 9 supreme court judges, they never notice the other judges and appointed positions that get subjected to the treatment that Garland is currently being subjected to. Where's the outrage for all the appointments without any action since January 2015? This exact scenario has already occurred hundreds of times just since the most recent congress was seated. This is what happens to appointments. It just does not usually happen to SC justices because they are such high profile appointments. It could easily happen to a secretary of state as well. If Kerry were to die suddenly, the senate would probably take the same nullification approach of refusing to appoint any replacement until after the election. It is outrageous, but it is exactly how the senate works. As I said in the post that inadvertently started this sideshow fire, Obama is playing a long game "meep meep" here. He would love to see Garland seated because I think Garland is very close to his own judicial philosophy, but if he can't get Garland seated he can use the precedent of how Garland was treated to convince the senate to deeply reform all their rules for confirming justices next january, including nuking the filibuster for supreme court, eliminating blue slips and ending secret holds. And if that results in Hillary Clinton appointing Leondra Kruger to the Supreme Court next January, then "meep meep, muthafuckas" you just got ninja-ed again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 17 hours ago, Veloknight said: Yup! If the term lengths are not fixed, only capped, a ton of problems (including non-crisis political issues) can be resolved more easily, because the government is more directly accountable. I wonder if we couldn't reform some of this on a state basis - basically create an automatic recall election of the entire delegation if certain things happen in Congress. One other issue: fixed terms can promote immoderation, which ostensibly is what the Constitution is supposed to love. If I'm elected as a Democratic house rep in 2016 in a purple/red district, and somehow we regain control of Congress (maybe due to a Trump nomination), I know two things: I'm safe to legislate for 2 years I will probably lose my seat in 2018 no matter what happens, based on turnout patterns and the lack of Trump on the ballot Given those 2 things, I have exactly zero incentive to moderate my positions at all, but I do have an incentive to push through as many and as aggressive liberal legislation as I can, and try and set myself up for some other run after my defeat. If I got elected to a house seat with no fixed term, but an election at least every, idk, 4 years, I'd have a much better reason to hope my fellow Democrats and I can moderate to remain appealing to the electorate as long as possible. I disagree because such elected officials in purple and red districts will all opt to act in their own maximum self-interest of being re-elected. They will not collectively believe they will not be re-elected and are therefore free to liberal legislate to extreme. that would never happen, humans do not act that way nor do they think that way, nor do they organize groups that way. Rather, they will all individually panic, once elected these district reps will form a coalition not all that different from blue dogs and within the bubble of this group they will convince themselves that they will definitely all be re-elected only if they demonstrate their bipartisan bonafides or independence from democrat leadership. They will not support strong party agendas in their panicked attempts to demonstrate they aren't like Nancy Pelosi, becuase they will convince themselves this is the only way to win reelection. Some of them may individually be very liberal, but they will all vote like Blue dogs or generic republicans once in office because they think that will win them re-election. And it will not win them re-election, they will all lose in 2018 (and then some), and that is the only point they will realize the proposal you laid out, well after they're already badly beaten. *** However, they could all easily win re-election if they did something very simple. They could reapportion the size of house districts, a task that congress has neglected for 100 years and ten consecutive census for the very stupid reason that they could not fit more large antique desks in their voting room. If they reapportioned the house to have 750 members (this is how many we would have had in 2010, given historic trends of reapportionment before the antique desk fetish stopped the process of reapportionment) and ordered the states to draw new district boundaries for the 2018 elections they might have to replace the antique desks that they sit at with something with a smaller footprint but they would also all be re-elected rather easily. This is the only option that an anti-trump congress would have of being re-elected, otherwise all of the anti-trump people elected would all lose their seats in 2018. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 11 hours ago, Swordfish said: Except that isnt what you said. You said this: Which is pretty clearly implying that the only reason someone might disagree that the actions of the senate are unconstitutional is because of racism. Since I'm really the only one making that argument, and you were quite clearly referring to the 'stupid' arguments in this thread...... Props to you though for walking back from that statement. You think too much of yourself. There was no mention of you in what I said. The defenses used by the Republicans for their actions are all out there. Nothing you've said in this thread is original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 On 3/19/2016 at 9:04 PM, ThinkerX said: I have to wonder if Obama could argue the Senates refusal to even hold hearings could be taken as default assent to his nominee. That the Senate appears to have deliberately removed themselves from the process, therefor leaving Obama free to act without constraint. Thats how I see it. He offered up a nominee, and the senate declined to comment, which is an action of advising, akin to saying I don't care to comment. Do people pleading the 5th stop court proceedings? Does a governeor refusing a death row inmates phone call stop an execution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 9 hours ago, lokisnow said: A supreme court judge is just another judge. Nothing more. And a judge is just an appointed position. Nothing more. The longest period between nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court judge is 125 days. The Republicans want to hold the system hostage for a period more than three times the old record. If they succeed, that's unprecedented obstruction at that level. And the Supreme Court isn't just any court. The "Supreme" in the title is the clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelticgar Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 I kind of like the changing of the rules. It is a progressive and new way to look at the nomination process. For far too long the senate has been stuck in a rut of traditions and precedents. The supreme court is serious business and decisions should not be rushed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 On 3/19/2016 at 9:16 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said: What remedy can be applied by a Court to force the Senate to act? The court could find there is a duty to act, of course they would need to find that it is not a political question first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 2 hours ago, BloodRider said: Thats how I see it. He offered up a nominee, and the senate declined to comment, which is an action of advising, akin to saying I don't care to comment. Do people pleading the 5th stop court proceedings? Does a governeor refusing a death row inmates phone call stop an execution? BR, The Constitution deals with this expressly. If the Senante recesses without dealing with the nomination the nominee can get a "recess appointment". Otherwise, no, failure to act is not construed as assent. The problem, as I see it, is that failure to act by any branch does not give rise to power in the other two branches to require that the intransigent branch act as it has a duty to act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 1 hour ago, GrapefruitPerrier said: The court could find there is a duty to act, of course they would need to find that it is not a political question first. GfP, Sure they could, and it the Senate ignores the Court order, what happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.