US Politics VIII

[Shryke]

This made my stupid senser go tilt. Exactly how did the Republicans lose the civil war? Unless you are talking about some civil war other than the one fought from 1861 to 1865.

I didn't say Republicans lost the Civil War, I said that some people who are Republicans (specifically, those in the South, although I thought this would be obvious) are still mad about losing a conflict from almost 200 years ago that was fought for, at best, dubious reasons.

Basically, 20 years ago the Democrats did exactly what everyone does during a Supreme Court apointment and Tempra is trying to use it as an excuse for what they intend to do now. "It's not our fault, they did it first!!!"

[lokisnow]

Clinton balanced the budget and deregulated and yet they tried to impeach him.

since I was a republican in middle school at the time, wasn't it a republican majority in congress? so does Clinton get credit for balancing the budget, or should the congress get credit? Who dug in their heels and resisted attempts to balance the budget? One side more than the other, or did both howl equally?

I'd like to brush up on the Clinton era, any good, even-handed books on politics of the nineties?

[G'Kar]

I didn't say Republicans lost the Civil War, I said that some people who are Republicans (specifically, those in the South, although I thought this would be obvious) are still mad about losing a conflict from almost 200 years ago that was fought for, at best, dubious reasons.

No shame in admitting you didn't know Lincoln was a Republican.

[Tempra]

I didn't say Republicans lost the Civil War, I said that some people who are Republicans (specifically, those in the South, although I thought this would be obvious) are still mad about losing a conflict from almost 200 years ago that was fought for, at best, dubious reasons.

Basically, 20 years ago the Democrats did exactly what everyone does during a Supreme Court apointment and Tempra is trying to use it as an excuse for what they intend to do now. "It's not our fault, they did it first!!!"

By everyone, you can only mean republicans. Who exactly did the Republicans Bork? Ginsburg wasn't borked. Breyer wasn't borked. Those were Clinton's only nominations. Thurgood Marshall wasn't borked. You have to go back to Abe Fortas in 1968 for an equivalent to Robert Bork/Thomas when the republicans (and dixiecracts) filibustered his elevation to Chief Justice.

But if you want to compare 1991 to the civil war era, then 1968 harkens back to the time of the Romans.

[Tempra]

Oh, come now. It's not like the Republicans don't use their own litmus tests for judges. Including Roe v. Wade litmus tests.

What else besides Roe v. Wade? There is no originalism litmus test, for example. Alito and Roberts aren't exactly originalists at heart.

Everyone will their own ideas on who should be a supreme court justice, but when you look at all the facts and circumstances, the Democrats take a much harder line approach to judicial nominees than republicans do. Democrats realize how important the judiciary is, republicans just use it as a talking point for legislative officials to get elected.

[Piper]

Yep. Supreme Court confirmations are always goign to be controversial because of their importance. But Democrats have set the standard for supreme court confirmation hearings turning into an utter circus. There is NO room for democrats to complain if Republicans do the same. The Republicans likely don't have the numbers to Bork a nomination, but they can return some of the venom.

Err, do the names Roberts and Alito mean anything to you? Are you remotely familiar with how smooth those confirmation hearing went? You can live in the distant past of Thomas and Bork if it makes your point, but you should at least knowledge that the Roberts and Alito were far, far more recent precedents for Supreme Court Justices being confirmed with little to no muss or fuss. If any Republican says "Thomas," doesn't every Democrat have the right to say "Alito"?

ETA: And, btw, even Bork got an up or down vote by the Senate as a whole - he just lost.

And didn't McCain, in the debates, say something about how the Senate shouldn't really stand in front of the President making judicial appointments, or a I remembering wrong?

[Shryke]

No shame in admitting you didn't know Lincoln was a Republican.

Of course I knew he was. They trumpet it every chance they get, ignoring the fact that the Republican party did a 180 and embraced the southern racists back in like the 60s.

Whether Lincoln was a Republican or not is irrelevant. The current southern racist voter is Republican.

[EHK for Darwin]

Read up on Clarence Thomas's and Bork's confirmation hearing.

Bork was way before my time and yours. Clarence Thomas probably was too, though I vaguely remember a bit of the fiasco. Whatever payback was to be had, has been in the form of countless judicial and civil service nominations held up under Clinton's tenure and the much smaller number of Bush appointees that Republicans shouted bloody murder over when they weren't confirmed on sight. Fact is the Republicans for the most part got their ideal Justices under Bush (Scalito anyone?) without much fuss from the Democrats. if there was a cause for tit for tat, its done. The window closed. Grievances remedied. Democrats conceded this and haven't thrown a serious fit over a candidate in about 20 years and trust me, they've had a few nominees that were worth pitching a fit over. (Bolton anyone?)

Unless Democrats nominate Lenin's eviler leftier twin, there is no cause to fight this tooth and nail, smear the hell out of the nominee, and turn the proceedings into a circus. Doing so would just be petty.

[SwordoftheMorning]

Is it just me, or does anyone else bother to count the number of senators for each party and realize that the GOP doesnt have the numbers to flilbuster, let alone block a moderate or left-leaning nominee ?

Since it'll be late summer before anything is announced, the Minnesota debacle will most likely be settled by then with Franken putting the Dem numbers in the senate at 60. (Thank you Arlen Spector). Its telling that the Conservative action groups are already screaming about 'putting wind in the sails of the Senate Republicans", the only hope the GOP and conservative right has is to scream and holla, even prior to having a clue as to who the President will choose.

The Right continues its epic slide into irrelevance by refusing to learn. Thank God. They go right back to the well-worn habits of the past and cannot fathom its a new day, speed of information wise. And their tumultuous shrieks at even the announcement of a Supremes retirement simply deafen the ears of even their own supporters over time.

Some would say, Hush, dont clue them in. But it dont matter, even tho they pay lip service to "finding a new way" and whatever slang term Mike Steele is tossing out this week, they simply cant do it. And if they really even tried, they simply dont have the numbers to matter.

Unless Obama nominates Jesse Jackson to the court, his nominee is gonna sail thru with relative ease. Thats a fact, all the hair-pulling by the neo-cons not withstanding.

[G'Kar]

Didn't they oppose Harriet Meiers like crazy?

And I love how everybody is counting the Republicans out. Say what you want about them, as a party they are vicious, aggressive, and conniving bastards who know how to inflame passions and win. They are like a trapped animal now. Watch out.

[Annelise]

There is NO room for democrats to complain if Republicans do the same.

You know that never matters, though. Who ever buttons it because they don't have room to talk? Heh, that just goes against being a politician, nevermind party affiliation.

[Tempra]

Err, do the names Roberts and Alito mean anything to you? Are you remotely familiar with how smooth those confirmation hearing went? You can live in the distant past of Thomas and Bork if it makes your point, but you should at least knowledge that the Roberts and Alito were far, far more recent precedents for Supreme Court Justices being confirmed with little to no muss or fuss. If any Republican says "Thomas," doesn't every Democrat have the right to say "Alito"?

ETA: And, btw, even Bork got an up or down vote by the Senate as a whole - he just lost.

And didn't McCain, in the debates, say something about how the Senate shouldn't really stand in front of the President making judicial appointments, or a I remembering wrong?

Relatively speaking, I suppose. Alito passed 58-42, the second lowest vote total of any justice on the court. Roberts went smoother with a 78-22 vote. Ginsburg in turn went 96-3 and Breyer 87-9. And you might not want to use Alito as your example. Roberts is better. Despite Alito receiving a "well qualified" rating (the highest) from the ABA, the senate judiciary committee voted 10-8(down party lines) on Alito. The ACLU formally opposed Alito's nomination. The only other time they've done that? Bork. Alito's senate vote was almost completely down party lines with just 4 democrats switching sides.

And if you look at what started this line of discussion, it was a comment about Republicans causing a circus. Looking at history, it is the democrats, not the republicans, who have created a circus over supreme court justices.

[DanteGabriel]

Is it just me, or does anyone else bother to count the number of senators for each party and realize that the GOP doesnt have the numbers to flilbuster, let alone block a moderate or left-leaning nominee ?

You can probably count on a handful of Dem Senators to break ranks in the cloture vote, though. I'm sure that anyone Obama nominates, even a committed centrist, will be painted by the Republicans and the docile national media as a radical baby-eating abortionist, and that'll peel off a few Blue Dog Dems right there.

Democrats just aren't as good at marching in lockstep as Republicans are.

[AndyP]

Is it just me, or does anyone else bother to count the number of senators for each party and realize that the GOP doesnt have the numbers to flilbuster, let alone block a moderate or left-leaning nominee ?

Since it'll be late summer before anything is announced, the Minnesota debacle will most likely be settled by then with Franken putting the Dem numbers in the senate at 60. (Thank you Arlen Spector). Its telling that the Conservative action groups are already screaming about 'putting wind in the sails of the Senate Republicans", the only hope the GOP and conservative right has is to scream and holla, even prior to having a clue as to who the President will choose.

The Right continues its epic slide into irrelevance by refusing to learn. Thank God. They go right back to the well-worn habits of the past and cannot fathom its a new day, speed of information wise. And their tumultuous shrieks at even the announcement of a Supremes retirement simply deafen the ears of even their own supporters over time.

Some would say, Hush, dont clue them in. But it dont matter, even tho they pay lip service to "finding a new way" and whatever slang term Mike Steele is tossing out this week, they simply cant do it. And if they really even tried, they simply dont have the numbers to matter.

Unless Obama nominates Jesse Jackson to the court, his nominee is gonna sail thru with relative ease. Thats a fact, all the hair-pulling by the neo-cons not withstanding.

It is my understanding that in order report a nominee out of the Judiciary committee they need at least one vote from the minority. Spector was that vote, now he is not.

[SwordoftheMorning]

You can probably count on a handful of Dem Senators to break ranks in the cloture vote, though. I'm sure that anyone Obama nominates, even a committed centrist, will be painted by the Republicans and the docile national media as a radical baby-eating abortionist, and that'll peel off a few Blue Dog Dems right there.

Democrats just aren't as good at marching in lockstep as Republicans are.

Dante,

historically, that would be true. But this is pretty much a different day, and since I firmly believe Obama is gonna nominate a moderate/liberal candidate with good legal and judicial bonifides and (hopefully) no TAX or personal skeletons in the closet. His personal approval rating and support amongst voters will IMO, shuffle those would be no votes right back in line. The character assassination tripe from the far right ? who's really listening outside of the Limbaugh Dittoheads ?

ETA:

Andy, THREE GOP Senators broke ranks to vote for Obama's budget .... I aint bothering to look up the names, but if you believe the entire GOP Senate body will march lockstep as obstructionist to a qualified nominee ...... Dude, you thinking about retiring to Floriday ? Got some great vacation land to sell ya.

[G'Kar]

Democrats voted with their party at higher rates then Republicans last year (92.3% vs. 86 %). I would agree that the homogeneous nature of the Republican party does make it easier for them to take action.

[Piper]

Didn't they oppose Harriet Meiers like crazy?

Only if by "they" you mean the conservatives. Republicans didn't think she was conservative enough so they deep-sixed her nomination. (Very interesting anecdotes about the whole affair in Toobin's book.)

Although I'm pretty sure everyone involved was convinced she was nowhere near qualified for the gig.

Relatively speaking, I suppose. Alito passed 58-42, the second lowest vote total of any justice on the court.

Roberts went smoother with a 78-22 vote. Ginsburg in turn went 96-3 and Breyer 87-9. And you might not want to use Alito as your example. Roberts is better. Despite Alito receiving a "well qualified" rating (the highest) from the ABA, the senate judiciary committee voted 10-8(down party lines) on Alito. The ACLU formally opposed Alito's nomination. The only other time they've done that? Bork. Alito's senate vote was almost completely down party lines with just 4 democrats switching sides.

I feel fine using Alito as my example. He was given an up or down vote by the Senate, no filibuster or other parliamentary tactic used to prevent a clearly very conservative justice from getting his seat. Shouldn't the Republicans honor the precedent and allow a clearly very liberal justice the same courtesy, especially since they're now in a smaller minority than the Dems were when Alito was nominated?

And if you look at what started this line of discussion, it was a comment about Republicans causing a circus. Looking at history, it is the democrats, not the republicans, who have created a circus over supreme court justices.

Let them create a circus if there's material for a circus. If Obama's nominee is a sexual harasser, or is clearly unqualified, let the Republicans point that out - that would be their job as senators. But if they just don't like how liberal his nominee is, then they should just vote against him/her.

[DanteGabriel]

Dante,

historically, that would be true. But this is pretty much a different day, and since I firmly believe Obama is gonna nominate a moderate/liberal candidate with good legal and judicial bonifides and (hopefully) no TAX or personal skeletons in the closet. His personal approval rating and support amongst voters will IMO, shuffle those would be no votes right back in line. The character assassination tripe from the far right ? who's really listening outside of the Limbaugh Dittoheads ?

I hope you're right, but I'd never put money on the Dem congressional caucus acting competently or avoiding self-destructive mistakes.

[EHK for Darwin]

Didn't they oppose Harriet Meiers like crazy?

And I love how everybody is counting the Republicans out. Say what you want about them, as a party they are vicious, aggressive, and conniving bastards who know how to inflame passions and win. They are like a trapped animal now. Watch out.

Even a number of Republicans balked at Harriet Meiers. The problem wasn't her beliefs or ideology, it was that she was unqualified for the position and everyone seemed to be, to one degree or another, in agreement with that no matter what side of the isle they were in.

[DanteGabriel]

Even a number of Republicans balked at Harriet Meiers. The problem wasn't her beliefs or ideology, it was that she was unqualified for the position and everyone seemed to be, to one degree or another, in agreement with that no matter what side of the isle they were in.

I feel like the most squawking and outrage over Miers came from the right, while lefties just kind of watched and laughed. Clearly everyone knew that being the President's ass-kissing personal attorney doesn't qualify you for the Supreme Court. But there was a special note of outrage on the part of the right wingers who protested. Like maybe they were seizing a cheap and easy opportunity to be able to tell themselves that they did have principles and they weren't completely slavishly devoted to every diktat of their Impervious Leader.