Jump to content

U.S. Elections: 9,444 days


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

31 minutes 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?

You have to be reasonably certain that the voting is no more corrupted than what happens in the USA.

 

40 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

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

I guess that makes most presidents, or at least their official PR machines, toolbags.

 

45 minutes ago, Wrl6199 said:

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

I'm not good at remembering names, so sue me. Though I'm reasonably sure it is not the same news anchor who thought members of congress have term limits. Though I guess death is technically a term limit.

 

Man it's hard to put some levity into politics threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

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

I think the Republicans are going about this the wrong way. Rather than block any and all nominees, what they should do is make their own list and say that they will only consider nominees from that list. This would be the logical extension of the policy implemented by the Democrats in the late 1980s: if the Senate has the right to block nominations purely on ideological grounds, there's no reason that they can't save some back-and-forth and just say which nominees will get a vote to begin with. Of course, this entire discussion is only meaningful if the Republicans maintain control of the Senate -- if not, then we may finally witness the end of the filibuster.

50 minutes ago, Zorral said:

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.

This is the worst case scenario and while it is not completely impossible, I don't think it is going to come to pass -- not yet anyway. The saddest thing about this mess is that both Republicans and Democrats have been using so-called facts, authentic information and rationality to deceive, mislead  and sometimes even outright lie for so long that a substantial number of people have lost their faith in these things. If you have been repeatedly screwed over by silver-tongued politicians and members of the media to the point where you simply don't trust any of them anymore, what course of action is left?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I think the Republicans are going about this the wrong way. Rather than block any and all nominees, what they should do is make their own list and say that they will only consider nominees from that list. This would be the logical extension of the policy implemented by the Democrats in the late 1980s: if the Senate has the right to block nominations purely on ideological grounds, there's no reason that they can't save some back-and-forth and just say which nominees will get a vote to begin with. Of course, this entire discussion is only meaningful if the Republicans maintain control of the Senate -- if not, then we may finally witness the end of the filibuster.

 

Yeah, I keep hearing that the Democrats might keep it for 2018 but...if you can't get SCOTUS nominations through what's the point? Besides gamesmanship I'm not sure why you should need more than a majority to get a vote on appointments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Altherion said:

This would be the logical extension of the policy implemented by the Democrats in the late 1980s: if the Senate has the right to block nominations purely on ideological grounds,

Bork got a vote. He was rejected, but Democrats weren't rejecting every nominee that was put up .

Garland isn't getting a vote. Repubicans are refusing to approve any nominee.

Stop with the false equivalence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Castel said:

Yeah, I keep hearing that the Democrats might keep it for 2018 but...if you can't get SCOTUS nominations through what's the point? Besides gamesmanship I'm not sure why you should need more than a majority to get a vote on appointments. 

Not to mention that (1) there's still the Presidential veto, and (2) the filibuster will be nuked the next time the Republicans hold Congress and the Presidency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Bork got a vote. He was rejected, but Democrats weren't rejecting every nominee that was put up .

Garland isn't getting a vote. Repubicans are refusing to approve any nominee.

Well yes, but it's kind of hard to justify that strategy in the long term (although I suppose not impossible). That's why I'm trying to guess at what they could do that is not quite as drastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Well yes, but it's kind of hard to justify that strategy in the long term (although I suppose not impossible). That's why I'm trying to guess at what they could do that is not quite as drastic.

What evidence do you see that the Republican Party will be "non-drastic" during a hypothetical Clinton presidency?  Their base certainly wants drastic.  Demands it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wethers said:

What evidence do you see that the Republican Party will be "non-drastic" during a hypothetical Clinton presidency?  Their base certainly wants drastic.  Demands it.

Take a look at the Republican reaction to McCain's initial statement on this topic. It's not impossible or even unprecedented that they maintain the current strategy, but there is certainly division on whether it should be done or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Take a look at the Republican reaction to McCain's initial statement on this topic. It's not impossible or even unprecedented that they maintain the current strategy, but there is certainly division on whether it should be done or not.

I'll take your word for it.  All I had noticed is that McCain backed off his initial statement (very sightly) and seemed to be slammed for backing off by the "All your base (R) belong to Trump" crowd.

Edited to add - not unprecedented systematically block any and all nominations for 5 straight years while the opposing party is in the White House?  Has that been done in the last 100 years (other than starting last year)?  Honest question, perhaps it has, in which case it would be a much-needed history lesson for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Inigima said:

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.

There has been 30 years of escalating rhetoric and obstructionism with regards to judicial nominations.  From Bork to Thomas' high tech lynching, the filibuster of Estrada, the Democratic blockade of Bush's CoA nominees (only ending with threats of invoking the Nuclear Option), the attempted filibuster of Alito (and his subsequent vilification), the Republican blockade of the DC Circuit (ending with invocation of the Nuclear Option), the inaction on Garland, and Trump/Clinton both establishing litmus tests for their nominees.  All this history has led us to the entirely predictable present, where the Republicans, the party without control of the White House and the power to nominate, are forced to play their remaining card: a refusal to vote on any SCOTUS nominee.  The Republicans have been backed into a corner with the unexpected death of Scalia and, perhaps more importantly, Democrats' signaling that they will ram their appointees down Republicans' throats without compromise  (i.e. a Gang of 14 deal).

Any notion that the judiciary is above politics has been shattered.  Anyone who doesn't recognize the Democrats' role in this mess is simply a partisan hack.  Harry Reid threatened to shut down the Senate if the Republicans invoked the nunclear option in 2005. He then turned around and gleefully went nuclear when the Democrats controlled the White House.  Terrible decision.  As McCain lamented, "This changes everything."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wethers said:

Edited to add - not unprecedented systematically block any and all nominations for 5 straight years while the opposing party is in the White House?  Has that been done in the last 100 years (other than starting last year)?  Honest question, perhaps it has, in which case it would be a much-needed history lesson for me.

The situation now is unprecedented, never mind blocking out an entire term.

For perspective, the previous record holder in terms of gap between nomination and a vote was this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis

Garland has now easily surpassed that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I'm getting this right:

The Republicans' current bad behaviour is actually the fault of the Democrats and anyone who doesn't agree is a partisan hack?

OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

The situation now is unprecedented, never mind blocking out an entire term.

For perspective, the previous record holder in terms of gap between nomination and a vote was this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis

Garland has now easily surpassed that. 

Of course, that's if you limit it to SCOTUS nominees.  Priscilla Owen was nominated in 2001 to the 5th Circuit and not confirmed until 2005.  

But, but, that's different...I know.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tempra said:

All this history has led us to the entirely predictable present, where the Republicans, the party without control of the White House and the power to nominate, are forced to play their remaining card: a refusal to vote on any SCOTUS nominee.

Yup, "forced".  No other choice.  I mean, what else could they possibly do?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

Let me see if I'm getting this right:

The Republicans' current bad behaviour is actually the fault of the Democrats and anyone who doesn't agree is a partisan hack?

OK.

That's Tempra's argument in a nutshell, yes. I guess political scientist Jonathan Bernstein is also a hack:

Quote

It’s true that both parties have made more use of the filibuster over the last 25 years. The Democrats were the first, in the George W. Bush administration, to employ it to block circuit-court nominees. But Republicans were responsible for the two biggest increases in filibusters -- in 1993 and 2009, the first years of the Bill Clinton and Barack Obama administrations, respectively.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, mormont said:

Let me see if I'm getting this right:

The Republicans' current bad behaviour is actually the fault of the Democrats and anyone who doesn't agree is a partisan hack?

OK.

No, both parties have been politicizing the Judiciary for some time.  Both are responsible for their own actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...