U.S. Elections: 9,444 days

[lokisnow]

The eternal thread continues.

9,444 days elapsed between democrat appointments to the Supreme Court (Fortas and Ginsberg), and democrats did not throw the hissy fit that republicans like Cruz and McCain currently are. In that 25 year period every nominee got a vote in the senate, some did not make it to the court despite being well qualified and some made it to the court despite weak qualifications.

Ultimately, republican presidents appointed 10 consecutive SC justices.

in total, in the 48 years since the major realignment in the 1968 elections, republican presidents have appointed 12 SC justices and democrats have appointed 4. Now republicans are proposing to gradually shrink the size of the court rather than allow the court and congress to continue with the historic norms of functioning.

[Fez]

I hadn't realized the disparity was that stark. Good thing Republicans so badly screwed up the vetting on Stevens and Souter or the court's makeup would've been far worse over the years. Kennedy too, to a much lesser extent.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Are to the point were neither party, going forward, will approve appointments without control of the White House and the Senate?

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are to the point were neither party, going forward, will approve appointments without control of the White House and the Senate?

We've basically been at that point for the past two years. There's a huge number of government officials in Acting capacities because the senate never confirmed them and the backlog of open judicial seats has grown again as well. Only a handful have been confirmed.

On the other hand, thanks to ever-increasing polarization, and the fact that the senate can't be gerrymandered, we're not likely to encounter many more times where the Senate and White House are split. At least at the start of Presidential terms. Mid-terms can still switch things up, which just means the White House needs to get as many people appointed as possible in the first two years of each term

[lokisnow]

13 minutes ago, Fez said:

I hadn't realized the disparity was that stark. Good thing Republicans so badly screwed up the vetting on Stevens and Souter or the court's makeup would've been far worse over the years. Kennedy too, to a much lesser extent.

Souter somewhat, but all three of those are "garland" justices in that they were all confirmed by an opposition party senate.

before Scalia died we had 7 of 9 justices who were confirmed by same party senate, this is why flipping his seat is so crucial as a same party confirmation and republicans really missed an opportunity with not accepting a cross party confirmation of a friendly moderate. 7 of 9 is also really unusual historically I believe, and explains a lot of sC polarization.

thomas is such an anomaly, GHWB really hit a homer in using the CBC to force cross party confirmation of an extreme partisan, extraordinary in how unique that is

[all swedes are racist]

I refuse to accept this thread title. I want everyone to know there was rampant, widespread poster fraud occurring... and despite that, Crooked Locke still beat me! This board is rigged!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lokisnow,

CBC?

[all swedes are racist]

Congressional black caucus?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 The Revolution Will Most Certainly Be Televised...

 https://www.yahoo.com/news/live-from-trump-tower-the-ultimate-conspiracy-090020587.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

[drawkcabi]

VP Candidate Mike Pence's Campaign Plane Slides off Runway at LaGuardia

No injuries.

Everyone is ok so I feel ok saying this.

Find a picture of this plane slid off the runway and there you have in one image everything that needs to be said about the GOP 2016 campaign.

[Inigima]

39 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are to the point were neither party, going forward, will approve appointments without control of the White House and the 

I think it depends on what happens after the election. I think it bears reminding everyone of a few things:

We were nowhere near that point a year ago -- in the modern era refusal to even consider nominees was unheard of until now.

The reason it's an issue now is because of Republican tactics wrt Garland, who was already a centrist candidate Obama was not obliged to nominate.

The Republicans are now threatening to block, sight unseen, all Democratic nominees.

I think we can recover from this if they don't obstruct hypothetical Clinton nominees. But if they do, I don't see how the Democrats can do anything but respond in kind, and it will be the GOP's fault, full stop.

This both sides nonsense needs to stop. If we get there it won't be both sides' fault.

[Kalbear]

The natural next step to this will be to remove the provision that lets people serve their roles without being dismissed for political reasons, something trump has already threatened to do. That way even if a bunch are confirmed when the Senate and potus coincide, the next opportunity for a different potus will just remove them.

[Zorral]

From the previous thread:

7 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

 

Agree that Nikki Haley seems like she's in a pretty sweet position right now, but it's a long time until the next election, and people have a tendency to come out of nowhere.  I wouldn't count Kasich out entirely either. The Republicans are going to have to get control over the field and the message early though to win despite some of the advantages I think they intellectually could have.

Fair point. We also need to wait and see if the Republican Party can get back to normal or if Trumpism is here to stay. 

6 hours ago, Zorral said:

Think this is missing the point of what Orange is doing right now and plans to do in the future.  He's getting set up to call all the shots from now on -- see the Bloomberg piece referenced and linked to above.

 

Quote

It depends on if he loses a close one or gets blown out

A close or blow out doesn't matter to them win or lose.  He's going after a media - political 'party' that dominates like reality tv, no matter what.  None of these people are going away. They're going to suck with even greater fervancy at the tit that tells them what they want to hear.  There is no space for them to hear that others think and feel the same way about their fervancy about him and their attitudes and opinions that we do about theirs.  We believe we have facts, authentic information and rationality on our side to convince them. They believe the same thing except they don't believe in convincing, they believe in armed insurrection, which he's done everything to encourage and whip up.

 

[Ariadne23]

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

This both sides nonsense needs to stop. If we get there it won't be both sides' fault.

I really like to take a conciliatory approach to political conflict whenever possible, but logically, on the whole, given where we are now, I cannot disagree with this statement. In other words, for real, yo.

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

I really like to take a conciliatory approach to political conflict whenever possible, but logically, on the whole, given where we are now, I cannot disagree with this statement. In other words, for real, yo.

Agreement as well, compromise involves both sides. Democrats have been getting punked in the interest of the state and been vilified for their trouble.

[The Anti-Targ]

I remember watching a US news channel video a couple of weeks ago. Can't remember the news channel or the presenter but it was someone at least somewhat well known in the biz. In the midst of asking someone a question she (I'm pretty sure I remember the person being a woman) said "president of the world" in a non-flippant or sarcastic way.

You know what? If y'all want your leader to be recognised president of the world, I feel it's only fair that we get a say in the matter.

How about: ECVs for US States work the same. Then every country that the USA recognises as democratic that holds elections at least as free and fair as the USA gets a minimum 1 ECV plus an extra ECV for every 50 million population to a maximum of 10 ECVs. And the ECV threshold to become president is adjusted accordingly. 

[Wrl6199]

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

I remember watching a US news channel video a couple of weeks ago. Can't remember the news channel or the presenter but it was someone at least somewhat well known in the biz. In the midst of asking someone a question she (I'm pretty sure I remember the person being a woman) said "president of the world" in a non-flippant or sarcastic way.

You know what? If y'all want your leader to be recognised president of the world, I feel it's only fair that we get a say in the matter.

How about: ECVs for US States work the same. Then every country that the USA recognises as democratic that holds elections at least as free and fair as the USA gets a minimum 1 ECV plus an extra ECV for every 50 million population to a maximum of 10 ECVs. And the ECV threshold to become president is adjusted accordingly. 

If if was someone well known in the biz then how come you cant remember what she her name was. Also a news anchor doe-sent reflect the views of the american people

[Jace, Extat]

Yeah, I've never heard that. 'Leader of the free world' is a common one, but anyone who says that is a toolbag.

[all swedes are racist]

and why the threshold of states 'USA recognizes as democratic'? fairly certain populace's of states not deemed so are as, if not more likely to be on the receiving end of uncle sam's ol' fugly stick... shouldnt they get a say on just how their family members are killed/maimed/renditioned?

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, R'hllor's nasty lobster said:

and why the threshold of states 'USA recognizes as democratic'? fairly certain populace's of states not deemed so are as, if not more likely to be on the receiving end of uncle sam's ol' fugly stick... shouldnt they get a say on just how their family members are killed/maimed/renditioned?

The word you're looking for is 'freedomed'