US Politics: Is Obama Yossarian

[ThinkerX]

I have said it before, and I will say it again:

in the event Rand Paul somehow starts gaining momentum, with even a semi-realistic shot at winning the republican party nomination for president, he will meet with a fatal 'accident.'

[DanteGabriel]

I have said it before, and I will say it again:

in the event Rand Paul somehow starts gaining momentum, with even a semi-realistic shot at winning the republican party nomination for president, he will meet with a fatal 'accident.'

He may survive -- he's got great reflexes. Watch how quickly he bolts as soon as a pair of Latino activists introduce themselves at a fundraiser in Iowa. That's some Batman shit.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/watch-rand-paul-bolt-as-an-immigration-activist-confronts-steve-king-20140805

[lokisnow]

In a republican Senate the nominees wouldn't be nearly as liberal. But t there would still be confirmations. Eventually.

Cute. You think republicans respect process enough to allow confirmations, that is horribly unrealistic these days.

Given control of the Senate there will be zero judicial confirmations for a Democrat president.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Given control of the Senate there will be zero judicial confirmations for a Democrat president.

I think there would be confirmations to replace any of the current left leaning judges. Eventually, anyway. More problematic is what would happen if Obama or a Democratic successor were making an appointment to replace Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, or Kennedy.

[Fez]

In a Republican Senate anything could happen. Don't forget, they killed gun control reforms that 80-90% of the people in this country supported after Newtown. People have short memories, and judicial nominations are far from sexy and don't make for must see T.V. for the masses.

Cute. You think republicans respect process enough to allow confirmations, that is horribly unrealistic these days.

Given control of the Senate there will be zero judicial confirmations for a Democrat president.

Say Scalia retires. All of a sudden we have a 4-4 SCOTUS on a lot of major decisions. When SCOTUS is tied, normally as a result of a justice recusing themselves, the lower court decision is upheld by default. Right now the lower courts have many more Democratic nominees than Republican ones; which means that by default SCOTUS will be ruling in favor of liberal positions on every major issue. A Republican senate would want to get another justice on the bench even more than a Democratic president, and would be easily willing to take a Roberts-type replacement (possibly even a Kennedy-type if things dragged on long enough) to ensure that at least some of those decisions still have conservative majorities.

Even Kennedy would get replaced fairly quickly. The only true fight would be over Ginsburg. But again, in 2009 and 2010 Republicans were just as obstructionist as they are now, and they did have the ability to filibuster; they didn't. A deal would be made.

[TrackerNeil]

4 years ago I would have said the same thing about Rand Paul being the party nominee in 2016. It's still a ways out, but he's got the early lead.

I'd advise you to ignore those polls. Right now the only thing they're measuring is name recognition.

In a Republican Senate anything could happen. Don't forget, they killed gun control reforms that 80-90% of the people in this country supported after Newtown. People have short memories, and judicial nominations are far from sexy and don't make for must see T.V. for the masses.

I think you're mistaken there; Supreme Court nominations are big news, and if the Republicans declared an intent to stonewall one everyone would know about it. The comparison to the gun control bill is not very accurate, I think. Defeating a bill is one thing; precipitating a constitutional crisis is quite another. I agree that voters aren't long on the memory, but that doesn't mean they won't remember the day a Republican Senate decided to strip the president of his constitutional powers. Should this little dispute occur near an election, a bunch of Republican candidates could be very, very sorry that their Senate colleagues decided to pick that particular fight.

[Tempra]

Say Scalia retires. All of a sudden we have a 4-4 SCOTUS on a lot of major decisions. When SCOTUS is tied, normally as a result of a justice recusing themselves, the lower court decision is upheld by default. Right now the lower courts have many more Democratic nominees than Republican ones; which means that by default SCOTUS will be ruling in favor of liberal positions on every major issue. A Republican senate would want to get another justice on the bench even more than a Democratic president, and would be easily willing to take a Roberts-type replacement (possibly even a Kennedy-type if things dragged on long enough) to ensure that at least some of those decisions still have conservative majorities.

Even Kennedy would get replaced fairly quickly. The only true fight would be over Ginsburg. But again, in 2009 and 2010 Republicans were just as obstructionist as they are now, and they did have the ability to filibuster; they didn't. A deal would be made.

While I think you are right that Republicans would not block all Obama appointees, you are mistaken that "by default SCOTUS will be ruling in favor of liberal positions on every major issue." Right now, Democratic appointees dominate 9 of the 13 circuit courts of appeal. Since those are effectively courts of last resort, Republican appointees still control the law over a lot of Americans, and a split 4-4 decision can't overturn the law of those circuits. Remember the ACA cases? The Eleventh Ciruit, which is currently controlled by Republican appointees, held that the the mandate was unconstituonal. Without the 5-4 decision overturning the Eleventh Circuit, the ACA wrecks havoc in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama because insurance companies would have had to offer insurance without regard to preexisting conditions and without the influx of new, healthy customers. If a similar result played out in other states under the sway of Republican-controlled circuits, would the ACA have survived? I have my doubts...

[Fez]

While I think you are right that Republicans would not block all Obama appointees, you are mistaken that "by default SCOTUS will be ruling in favor of liberal positions on every major issue." Right now, Democratic appointees dominate 9 of the 13 circuit courts of appeal. Since those are effectively courts of last resort, Republican appointees still control the law over a lot of Americans, and a split 4-4 decision can't overturn the law of those circuits. Remember the ACA cases? The Eleventh Ciruit, which is currently controlled by Republican appointees, held that the the mandate was unconstituonal. Without the 5-4 decision overturning the Eleventh Circuit, the ACA wrecks havoc in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama because insurance companies would have had to offer insurance without regard to preexisting conditions and without the influx of new, healthy customers. If a similar result played out in other states under the sway of Republican-controlled circuits, would the ACA have survived? I have my doubts...

Okay, not every issue. And you're right that Republicans still control 4 of the 13 courts (not the 11th though, that's now a 6-3 Democratic majority after recent appointments; its the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th that are Republican), although I believe all SCOTUS tied decisions only apply to that circuit court's area, not the whole country; so those conservative wins would only affect a minority of the country. Still a lot of it, but not anywhere close to the current amount.

The main point though is that the system gets screwed up in a way Republicans wouldn't like (since 9 of the 13 courts are Democratic) if Scalia or Kennedy isn't replaced, and, combined with the status that SCOTUS nomination fights get in the media (in a way that no bills do), makes it almost certain that a deal would be reached. And that second fact alone makes me think Ginsburg gets replaced too, albeit by a more centrist judge like Breyer.

[Tempra]

Okay, not every issue. And you're right that Republicans still control 4 of the 13 courts (not the 11th though, that's now a 6-3 Democratic majority after recent appointments; its the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th that are Republican), although I believe all SCOTUS tied decisions only apply to that circuit court's area, not the whole country; so those conservative wins would only affect a minority of the country. Still a lot of it, but not anywhere close to the current amount.

The main point though is that the system gets screwed up in a way Republicans wouldn't like (since 9 of the 13 courts are Democratic) if Scalia or Kennedy isn't replaced, and, combined with the status that SCOTUS nomination fights get in the media (in a way that no bills do), makes it almost certain that a deal would be reached. And that second fact alone makes me think Ginsburg gets replaced too, albeit by a more centrist judge like Breyer.

Oops, you are right about the Eleventh Circuit. I guess it's reputation (pre recent Obama appointees, anyways) as one of the most conservative courts isn't strictly based on partisan appointments.

But I agree generally with your point. Republicans could probably block an anti-gun or anti-religion judge, but some liberal or center-left judge would be confirmed without too much fuss.

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

I'd advise you to ignore those polls. Right now the only thing they're measuring is name recognition.

I think you're mistaken there; Supreme Court nominations are big news, and if the Republicans declared an intent to stonewall one everyone would know about it. The comparison to the gun control bill is not very accurate, I think. Defeating a bill is one thing; precipitating a constitutional crisis is quite another. I agree that voters aren't long on the memory, but that doesn't mean they won't remember the day a Republican Senate decided to strip the president of his constitutional powers. Should this little dispute occur near an election, a bunch of Republican candidates could be very, very sorry that their Senate colleagues decided to pick that particular fight.

You give the average person too much credit. Get up and ask the next 10 people you meet who the 9 SCJ are and I doubt many could name any. Too many people just don't give a damn.

[TrackerNeil]

You give the average person too much credit. Get up and ask the next 10 people you meet who the 9 SCJ are and I doubt many could name any. Too many people just don't give a damn.

Well, to me it's a question of what they give a damn about. No, most Americans don't know the names of the justices, and don't think about them much, but they understand a naked power grab. In fact, the struggles that catch the most attention are those that are easily boiled down to the simplest form, and I think a Supreme Court blockade would go something like this:

Obama: The Supreme Court is missing one justice. The Constitution gives me the power to replace those justices. The Republicans say they won't allow that. They are in violation of the US Constitution.

Republicans: We're trying to maintain ideological balance, and the only way to do that is to make sure only we appoint justices to the Supreme Court.

It doesn't take a political junkie to follow that debate; you either follow the Constitution or you don't. It's pretty clear to me where most Americans would come down on that divide. I suspect that, were Republicans to take so unprecedented an action, they'd pay for it at the polls in the next election.

[James Arryn]

I always get nervous when people start this 'Republicans are out of touch' stuff.

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

Well, to me it's a question of what they give a damn about. No, most Americans don't know the names of the justices, and don't think about them much, but they understand a naked power grab. In fact, the struggles that catch the most attention are those that are easily boiled down to the simplest form, and I think a Supreme Court blockade would go something like this:

Obama: The Supreme Court is missing one justice. The Constitution gives me the power to replace those justices. The Republicans say they won't allow that. They are in violation of the US Constitution.

Republicans: We're trying to maintain ideological balance, and the only way to do that is to make sure only we appoint justices to the Supreme Court.

It doesn't take a political junkie to follow that debate; you either follow the Constitution or you don't. It's pretty clear to me where most Americans would come down on that divide. I suspect that, were Republicans to take so unprecedented an action, they'd pay for it at the polls in the next election.

Republicans will argue it's too close to the next presidential election (regardless if that's true or not) and that Obama is making an unethical lame duck appointment (regardless of what the constitution says). They will stall all they can (they're pretty good at this), and claim that Obama's pick is a crazy liberal (regardless of the nominee's political views and background).

Also, they will argue that the constitution gives them the right to reject any and all of his nominations (advise and consent), and that Obama is acting unconstitutionally by forcing a nominee on the Senate.

Come on man. They wanted Obama to order air strikes in Iraq, then right after Obama does this, they roundly criticize him for not doing more. Their goal is to deny Obama any victories. (and I am not a strong Obama supporter).

[TrackerNeil]

Republicans will argue it's too close to the next presidential election (regardless if that's true or not) and that Obama is making an unethical lame duck appointment (regardless of what the constitution says). They will stall all they can (they're pretty good at this), and claim that Obama's pick is a crazy liberal (regardless of the nominee's political views and background).

Also, they will argue that the constitution gives them the right to reject any and all of his nominations (advise and consent), and that Obama is acting unconstitutionally by forcing a nominee on the Senate.

They'll argue all this and more, but I don't think it will do them much good. Obviously, I don't have a crystal ball, but I doubt the various complicated excuses the GOP would contrive won't resonate with the public the way that "they're against the Constitution" will. If they decide to blockade Supreme Court nominations they're going to pay, believe it. I don't think they'll dare.

[Jaxom 1974]

I always get nervous when people start this 'Republicans are out of touch' stuff.

Why?

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

They'll argue all this and more, but I don't think it will do them much good. Obviously, I don't have a crystal ball, but I doubt the various complicated excuses the GOP would contrive won't resonate with the public the way that "they're against the Constitution" will. If they decide to blockade Supreme Court nominations they're going to pay, believe it. I don't think they'll dare.

Remember the last government shut down? They said they wouldn't dare then too.....

[James Arryn]

Why?

Because that's when Dubya happens.

:(

[TrackerNeil]

Remember the last government shut down? They said they wouldn't dare then too.....

House Republicans shut down the government, but we were speaking of the Senate.

[lokisnow]

I agree that voters aren't long on the memory, but that doesn't mean they won't remember the day a Republican Senate decided to strip the president of his constitutional powers.

I don't think an explanation as wonky and complex as stripping the president of powers will ever penetrate the consciousness of the American people.

An idea they will grasp will be the idea presented by republicans: that republicans are protecting the country from a liberal extremist activist judge. A Democrat appointing a judge would threaten the country.

Besides republicans would support politicians if the narrative was "Stripping a Democrat of power".

Republicans don't believe democrats ever legitimately exercise power so that storyline you suggest would only increase support for the obstructionist "protect America" position.

[TrackerNeil]

I don't think an explanation as wonky and complex as stripping the president of powers will ever penetrate the consciousness of the American people.

I don't think "defying the Constitution" is a "wonky and complex" explanation, but as you like.