US Politics: 50 shades of Scalia

[Martell Spy]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/chuck-grassley-supreme-court-vote-merrick-garland-221344

How Democrats could force a Supreme Court vote
Sen. Grassley expects them to use a rare procedural maneuver to press the issue.
 

 

[TrackerNeil]

6 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/chuck-grassley-supreme-court-vote-merrick-garland-221344

How Democrats could force a Supreme Court vote
Sen. Grassley expects them to use a rare procedural maneuver to press the issue.

Odd that a Republican senator is so loquacious about how to circumvent the blockade he supposedly supports. That wall is cracking and it's not even April!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I hope it works.  Judge Garland deserves a vote.

[The Marquis de Leech]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I hope it works.  Judge Garland deserves a vote.

The Garland thing really sums up Obama - he nominates a moderate, extremely well-qualified guy whom no-one can find fault with, on the basis that it's the decent and sensible thing to do. Whereupon the Republicans throw their toys out the cot - again.

[Martell Spy]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/the-supreme-court-the-nightmare-scenario-213776

 

The Supreme Court: The Nightmare Scenario

A year without a justice is the least of our worries. We could be in for a full-scale constitutional meltdown

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Martell,

The problem with "silence as assent" is that is what the recess appointment is supposed to address.  Clearly the framers contemplated Senate inaction.  They just didn't consider a Sentate that would never be in recess.  I doubt the SCOTUS would accept a Justice who hasn't been approved by the Senate or is a recess appointment.

[lokisnow]

15 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/the-supreme-court-the-nightmare-scenario-213776

 

The Supreme Court: The Nightmare Scenario

A year without a justice is the least of our worries. We could be in for a full-scale constitutional meltdown

 

Violating the non binding norms of non constitutional senate traditions that are not formalized by senate is not remotely a constitutional crisis.

Besides, of republicans keep the senate but lose the presidency they will vote on rules first, and now that democrats have revealed their strategy of "silence implies consent" republicans can easily pass a senate rule that states "silence or inaction shall not be considered consent to a nomination." 

Once they pass an actual rule it is constitutional and the strategy outlined in the article is unconstitutional.

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

Once they pass an actual rule it is constitutional and the strategy outlined in the article is unconstitutional.

Says who?

A 4-4 Supreme Court?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RBPL,

No, the presumption that the act is Constitutional and the politcal reality that the SCOTUS will decline to hear such a case because it is a "political question" and that the SCOTUS has no means to enforce its decision, whatever it is, once it is made, will do that.

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

RBPL,

No, the presumption that the act is Constitutional and the politcal reality that the SCOTUS will decline to hear such a case because it is a "political question" and that the SCOTUS has no means to enforce its decision, whatever it is, once it is made, will do that.

You're missing the point.

If a Republican Senate passes a rule change, and a Clinton Administration cheerfully decides to ignore the rule change (arguing that if the Senate wanted to say No to a nominee, it would have done so via vote), who on earth is going to stop Clinton doing this?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RBPL,

That's where the fit hits the shan.  If the Administration seeks to put a new justice on the court without Senate approval and if the SCOTUS accepts such an unconfirmed Justice as a member... things will get bad.  

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

The Garland thing really sums up Obama - he nominates a moderate, extremely well-qualified guy whom no-one can find fault with, on the basis that it's the decent and sensible thing to do. Whereupon the Republicans throw their toys out the cot - again.

Nah, he almost certainly nominated Garland on the basis that it would make the GOP squirm the most considering what they've previously said about him. He's rubbing their own shit in their face. He's trolling them.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Violating the non binding norms of non constitutional senate traditions that are not formalized by senate is not remotely a constitutional crisis.

Besides, of republicans keep the senate but lose the presidency they will vote on rules first, and now that democrats have revealed their strategy of "silence implies consent" republicans can easily pass a senate rule that states "silence or inaction shall not be considered consent to a nomination." 

Once they pass an actual rule it is constitutional and the strategy outlined in the article is unconstitutional.

Of course it is. Because it exposes the way the government as set up by the US Constitution is incapable of dealing with the current situation.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

RBPL,

That's where the fit hits the shan.  If the Administration seeks to put a new justice on the court without Senate approval and if the SCOTUS accepts such an unconfirmed Justice as a member... things will get bad.  

The Senate has only themselves to blame at that point. They should've formally voted down the nominee. If they did that, and an Administration still tried to seat the person as a justice, there's no way the Court would accept them as a member.

Comic break.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

The Senate has only themselves to blame at that point. They should've formally voted down the nominee. If they did that, and an Administration still tried to seat the person as a justice, there's no way the Court would accept them as a member.

Comic break.

No argument.  I suspect if they try that the Senate will vote the nominee down.  To protect its power.

[lokisnow]

significant typo here I thought I edited a correction, but apparently the edit did not go through:

Violating the non binding norms of non constitutional senate traditions that are not formalized by senate RULES is not remotely a constitutional crisis.

The constitution grants the Senate the power to set their own rules.

If the Senate passes a rule that states: "Silence or Inaction by the Senate in regards to presidential appointments does not signify consent" then they have set a RULE as they are allowed to set by the constitution. And this RULE then precludes the possibility of the president using the loophole outlined in the linked article that "silence implies consent" 

My point is that it is incredibly easy for the Senate to set RULES that explicitly define what Advise and Consent is. If the president then tried to seat appointments that did not meet these new RULES of Advise and Consent his appointments would be in violation of the constitution--even though the constitution is vague enough to suggest that the president can define Advise and Consent however he wants to, since the constitution also says the Senate can define its own rules the Senate can of course formalize their own definitions of advise and consent. No court would side with the president.

The current problem arises because there are not explicit rules defining what Advise and Consent is within the Senate body. The way appointments and nominations works is defined by NORMS--not by formal rules--and these NORMS and TRADITIONS are obviously vulnerable to novel tactics (such as outlined in the above link) specifically because they are not codified.

It's easy to violate an unwritten Senate norm as the article suggests while keeping your violation within the bounds of being Constitutional.

It is not easy to violate a formal rule of senate procedure while keeping your violation within the bounds of being Constitutional.

For instance it is easy to violate the unwritten behavioral norm to NOT burn the American flag and still have the violation be Constitutional.

and it would be easy for the Senate to pass a RULE stating that the burning of an American flag by a sitting Senator is grounds for expulsion from the Senate body and still have that Senate rule be constitutional.

 

[Swordfish]

49 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

significant typo here I thought I edited a correction, but apparently the edit did not go through:

Violating the non binding norms of non constitutional senate traditions that are not formalized by senate RULES is not remotely a constitutional crisis.

The constitution grants the Senate the power to set their own rules.

If the Senate passes a rule that states: "Silence or Inaction by the Senate in regards to presidential appointments does not signify consent" then they have set a RULE as they are allowed to set by the constitution. And this RULE then precludes the possibility of the president using the loophole outlined in the linked article that "silence implies consent" 

My point is that it is incredibly easy for the Senate to set RULES that explicitly define what Advise and Consent is. If the president then tried to seat appointments that did not meet these new RULES of Advise and Consent his appointments would be in violation of the constitution--even though the constitution is vague enough to suggest that the president can define Advise and Consent however he wants to, since the constitution also says the Senate can define its own rules the Senate can of course formalize their own definitions of advise and consent. No court would side with the president.

The current problem arises because there are not explicit rules defining what Advise and Consent is within the Senate body. The way appointments and nominations works is defined by NORMS--not by formal rules--and these NORMS and TRADITIONS are obviously vulnerable to novel tactics (such as outlined in the above link) specifically because they are not codified.

It's easy to violate an unwritten Senate norm as the article suggests while keeping your violation within the bounds of being Constitutional.

It is not easy to violate a formal rule of senate procedure while keeping your violation within the bounds of being Constitutional.

For instance it is easy to violate the unwritten behavioral norm to NOT burn the American flag and still have the violation be Constitutional.

and it would be easy for the Senate to pass a RULE stating that the burning of an American flag by a sitting Senator is grounds for expulsion from the Senate body and still have that Senate rule be constitutional.

 

Yes.

 

That article is 50% nonsensical, 50% Henny Penny, and 50% wishful thinking.  It's not going to happen.

 

 

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, lokisnow said:

significant typo here I thought I edited a correction, but apparently the edit did not go through:

Violating the non binding norms of non constitutional senate traditions that are not formalized by senate RULES is not remotely a constitutional crisis.

The constitution grants the Senate the power to set their own rules.

If the Senate passes a rule that states: "Silence or Inaction by the Senate in regards to presidential appointments does not signify consent" then they have set a RULE as they are allowed to set by the constitution. And this RULE then precludes the possibility of the president using the loophole outlined in the linked article that "silence implies consent" 

My point is that it is incredibly easy for the Senate to set RULES that explicitly define what Advise and Consent is. If the president then tried to seat appointments that did not meet these new RULES of Advise and Consent his appointments would be in violation of the constitution--even though the constitution is vague enough to suggest that the president can define Advise and Consent however he wants to, since the constitution also says the Senate can define its own rules the Senate can of course formalize their own definitions of advise and consent. No court would side with the president.

The current problem arises because there are not explicit rules defining what Advise and Consent is within the Senate body. The way appointments and nominations works is defined by NORMS--not by formal rules--and these NORMS and TRADITIONS are obviously vulnerable to novel tactics (such as outlined in the above link) specifically because they are not codified.

It's easy to violate an unwritten Senate norm as the article suggests while keeping your violation within the bounds of being Constitutional.

It is not easy to violate a formal rule of senate procedure while keeping your violation within the bounds of being Constitutional.

For instance it is easy to violate the unwritten behavioral norm to NOT burn the American flag and still have the violation be Constitutional.

and it would be easy for the Senate to pass a RULE stating that the burning of an American flag by a sitting Senator is grounds for expulsion from the Senate body and still have that Senate rule be constitutional.

 

You seem to not be getting what kind of crisis is being discussed. The whole point is that because the Constitution doesn't actually define the way this stuff works or provide a framework for a system where they can't not work, the government relies on those norms and traditions to function.

And when those norms and traditions are ignored, you get a crisis because either the government doesn't work or the government starts going off the rails in order to work and the first will basically always eventually devolve into the second. Because shit still needs to get done, one way or the other. It's why you see, for instance, the steady creep of executive power within the US government.

It's easy for the Senate to do alot of things but the crisis in question is that they don't and they possibly won't and there's nothing to make them do so. The Constitution sets up a situation where there is no clear resolution and no framework for one to be forced to be found. Hence, a crisis.

[lokisnow]

2 hours ago, Shryke said:

You seem to not be getting what kind of crisis is being discussed. The whole point is that because the Constitution doesn't actually define the way this stuff works or provide a framework for a system where they can't not work, the government relies on those norms and traditions to function.

And when those norms and traditions are ignored, you get a crisis because either the government doesn't work or the government starts going off the rails in order to work and the first will basically always eventually devolve into the second. Because shit still needs to get done, one way or the other. It's why you see, for instance, the steady creep of executive power within the US government.

It's easy for the Senate to do alot of things but the crisis in question is that they don't and they possibly won't and there's nothing to make them do so. The Constitution sets up a situation where there is no clear resolution and no framework for one to be forced to be found. Hence, a crisis.

Okay let's look at the specific CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS(!) that arose a few years ago when the unwritten norms and traditions of Senate procedure in regards to presidential appointments to the judiciary occured.

The outcome was not the government ceasing to function, it was the Senate codifying banal new rules in response to escalating violations of the unwritten norms and traditions of Senate procedure.

So the last time we had a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS over the judiciary the Senate just passed some new rules and the crisis was done and the government continued to function.

The new rules explicitly exempted the supreme court, so we are having essentially a repeat of the events and arguments just on the smaller, more influential stage of the supreme court.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Okay let's look at the specific CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS(!) that arose a few years ago when the unwritten norms and traditions of Senate procedure in regards to presidential appointments to the judiciary occured.

The outcome was not the government ceasing to function, it was the Senate codifying banal new rules in response to escalating violations of the unwritten norms and traditions of Senate procedure.

So the last time we had a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS over the judiciary the Senate just passed some new rules and the crisis was done and the government continued to function.

The new rules explicitly exempted the supreme court, so we are having essentially a repeat of the events and arguments just on the smaller, more influential stage of the supreme court.

What makes you think it was done? It's still ongoing. What we are seeing right now is not new but simply a continued escalation of an ongoing crisis with the US government as set up by the US Constitution.