|
Replies: 36
| visibility 1
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
there's issues with the supreme court?***
Oct 22, 2020, 9:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Republican shenanigans? There was this Garland guy.
Oct 22, 2020, 9:38 AM
|
|
But the issues are broader than that. Life tenure in general is a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24476]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Pres A nominates someone. The votes to confirm are not
Oct 22, 2020, 10:09 AM
|
|
there, they pass on it rather than fight about it.
Pres B nominates someone. The votes exist, they confirm.
Both occur exactly as the Constitution describes. What shenanigans are you referring to?
Surely you are not going to say that the process shouldn't be politically or ideologically motivated, or do we we need a reminder of which party made it political? From Bork to Blaise-Ford, the history on this is pretty one sided. And if its not politically/ideologically motivated, what do you care about Merrick vs Brett?
Maybe you want It so the politics go your way!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Pres A nominates someone. The votes to confirm are not
Oct 22, 2020, 10:12 AM
|
|
But your argument means that Congress could essentially empty a Supreme Court by failing to hold a hearing for years if they want to.
And by the way, court-packing is constitutionally permitted also.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24476]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
I dont think that is true. The minority party cannot, for
Oct 22, 2020, 10:45 AM
|
|
instance, prevent this vote. If the dems cant court pack in this case, or prevent this vote, the reps cant either. Instead, the majority party is doing what it is allowed to do.
If that is what you dont like - if the wording of the Constitution in describing the Senate's role didnt seem to anticipate political concerns - I can agree. However, the dems created that mess, a thing not even open for debate. Its just biting them in the buttocks now.
And if the next pres has a fix for that, fine. But it was your post that said "republican shenanigans". There was nothing of the sort. The dems are just having their own rules kicked up their derrières. We can agree that this needs fixing, but not by blaming reps. The dems started it and are now crying uncle. Fine. I agree. But that is what is happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: I dont think that is true. The minority party cannot, for
Oct 22, 2020, 10:53 AM
|
|
I don't follow your argument, so I'm not sure whether I disagree or not.
The Constitution does not set a number of Justices, which means a President can always nominate more Justices and Congress can always confirm them. That's the concern with court-packing. It's legal but hasn't been contemplated (that I know of) since FDR.
Similarly, the Constitution does not expressly require the Senate to move at any particular speed in confirming a President's nominee. Thus, the Senate can legally hold up seating a Justice indefinitely (as it did in 2016).
I don't know what you think the Dems did to "start it," but the current complaint is over a rule invented in 2016 and reversed in 2020 by Republicans who cared about winning, not principles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24476]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Bork. One of the best jurists ever nominated.
Oct 22, 2020, 11:12 AM
|
|
For the first time in history - at least to that extent - one party decided they didn't like him politically, and quashed the nomination over politics.
Until then, the Senate had taken a role the language seems to indicate: the Pres decides, and if the Senate finds the person qualified they approve. Like a person approving an expense reimbursement: it fits the policy, it gets approved. But we know what can happen if the approver has it in for the submitter. The approval process doesn't contemplate personal animosity, and neither does the Court nomination process. With Bork that animosity was introduced, and, geez people, was Blaise-Ford about anything but that? One culminated in the other. Here we are.
I dont know what the answer is. But we wont find it by blaming the reps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Bork. One of the best jurists ever nominated.
Oct 22, 2020, 11:18 AM
|
|
Bork was denied confirmation, that's nothing new. The Senate has denied nominees since [jumps on Google] 1795. The Senate's decision to confirm or reject is by its nature a political determination.
How does that mean anything about Mitch McConnell's hypocritical "last year of the term" rule?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24476]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Hardly anyone disagrees that the Bork nomination was
Oct 22, 2020, 11:34 AM
|
|
the introduction of that kind of partisanship into this process. No one claimed that he was the first one not confirmed. Or maybe it is now so partisan now you assume all decisions previous have been partisan. Not true.
What does that have to do with what anyone said? Nothing. For whatever reason, the Senate did what it is allowed to do. Of course it was partisan. Of course it was verbally justified. I'm not claiming otherwise. It was nakedly partisan.
That's not the same as 'shenanigans'. It just means the dems dont like it. No one should, but the Senate nevertheless did exactly what both parties are allowed to do, and have done. Calling it "shenanigans" hides what it was: partisan politics. Dems wanted it, they got it.
Again, fix it if we can. I'm with you on that. But the starting point cant be blaming reps. I will keep this up as long as we want, but the history of this, and the inaccuracy of calling a partisan action "shenanigans", and of saying one party did it, will remain, and it will always come back to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Hardly anyone disagrees that the Bork nomination was
Oct 22, 2020, 11:45 AM
|
|
Honestly I don't know the history of partisanship before Bork, but I'd like to point out that about a half dozen Republicans voted NOT to confirm Bork. And a couple Democrats voted to confirm him. (Thanks Google!)
The "shenanigans" I'm talking about is the false principle introduced by McConnell 4 years ago. I'm not blaming Republicans. I'm blaming McConnell and any others that lied, which would include Lindsay "use this against me later" Graham. He literally said he would deserve to have the McConnell principle used against him if he reversed course in 4 years.
The reforms I'm talking about could help prevent those shenanigans, by adding some formality to the process. If you think something Bork-related should be added to those reforms, then that could be a great idea too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24476]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Blaise-Ford was a righteous defender of womanhood and
Oct 22, 2020, 12:07 PM
|
|
exposer of evil, but McConnell is "shenanigans". Got it now. Forgive me, wasn't on the right page.
And yes, thanks to google I am sure you read about the sad partisan nature of that confirmation and its role in where we are now.
I am trying to communicate, with actual history and Constitutional rules that have been followed, that if you want to suggest reform, and get people on your side about it, if you start with "its about rep shenanigans" the response from the reps will be, "Eh, you started it, and we now play it better than you do, which is what you're mad about. No, we'll take our chances on from here. But thanks."
If instead you want a discussion where the real problems are illuminated rather that just what people are mad about, and solutions that foster individual freedom are explored, you have to start with the truth, which is that partisan motivation is controlling both the nomination and confirmation process, one in which neither party can claim righteousness. You start there.
Or you can lead with "rep shenanigans" and stay in the partisan arguing, which the dems started with Bork.
Choice is yours. The reps are happy either way. And I'm not talking about you personally here at all, just this overall discussion lots of people are having.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Blaise-Ford was a righteous defender of womanhood and
Oct 22, 2020, 12:14 PM
|
|
Well you're right that it doesn't matter as much "who started it," what's more important is putting in mutually agreeable rules to prevent nonsense.
I'm not sure how Blaise-Ford got into this, because that won't get you a win on the "who started it" debate, nor is an alleged rape victim an obvious instance of shenanigans.
Whatever you might not like about the ways certain nominees were treated, they got an up or down vote and life went on. That ended in 2016. That's why I point to that.
Bork got a vote. Some Pubs voted against him. Some Dems voted for him.
Kavanaugh got a vote. He's on the Supreme Court for the rest of his life.
These are not equivalent to saying "screw you" to the Constitution by not doing your job of having an up or down vote.
All that said, I agree with you that there is much to complain about partisan nastiness during confirmation hearings. I wonder if that problem can be addressed with reforms. I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24476]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
It wont win the 'who started it debate' (I already know who
Oct 22, 2020, 12:55 PM
|
|
started it), but it makes a complaint about McConnell pretty mild.
I have some feminist type females in my family, and they were the pictures of righteous indignation when Ford came to light. I mean, fire breathing. One started using #metoo on all her communication. Even they are now like, "Yeah, that was pretty embarrassing, looking back on it." Anyone who doesn't think they are intellectually immune from being led around by the nose is fooling themselves. We all are, including yours truly.
But yes, we are in agreement about where we need to go from here. Good comments from you, the fun arguing aside. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: It wont win the 'who started it debate' (I already know who
Oct 22, 2020, 12:57 PM
|
|
Thanks for your perspective on this. Makes me want to go back and look at the history of all this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49031]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38808
Joined: 12/31/97
|
Calling it shenanigans is completely accurate...
Oct 22, 2020, 12:00 PM
[ in reply to Hardly anyone disagrees that the Bork nomination was ] |
|
one, because the word shenanigans doesn't even imply illegal. Second, because you can't announce a rule, hug on the rule, slobber on the rule, drape yourself in the incredible truth and justice of the rule, publicly claim its totally non-partisan and you would do the exact same thing no matter who the president or the nominee are and then 4 years later pretend it never happened or it was based on some other rationale. That is shenanigans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31449]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10176
Joined: 1/28/15
|
Re: Calling it shenanigans is completely accurate...
Oct 22, 2020, 1:29 PM
|
|
I'm going to pistol whip the next person who says shenanigans
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Republican shenanigans? There was this Garland guy.
Oct 22, 2020, 11:06 AM
|
|
Maybe terms should be 15 years max. A lifetime appointment used to be shorter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24476]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
That is a reasonable idea. However, that can bite one, too.
Oct 22, 2020, 11:19 AM
|
|
You can have a 60 year old of the stature of Ruth reach mandatory ouster when a pres you dont like is in office. Seems to me that this, rather than solving the problem, just brings it around more often. If fitness is an issue, sure that might be a good reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: That is a reasonable idea. However, that can bite one, too.
Oct 22, 2020, 11:23 AM
|
|
Agreed. The benefit will be predictability, rather than RBG thinking she can outlive a presidential administration and rolling the dice. It shouldn't be a justice's choice to try to schedule their departure around politics.
Also, 15 years is enough for any one justice. With people living longer, every President is motivated to nominate the youngest person possible instead of the best candidate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49031]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38808
Joined: 12/31/97
|
How long before the election would Ginsburg have had to
Oct 22, 2020, 1:28 PM
[ in reply to Re: Republican shenanigans? There was this Garland guy. ] |
|
retire to get her replacement confirmed? You know McConnell sat on most of Obama's second half of second term nominees, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8982]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9780
Joined: 4/27/13
|
Re: Biden will form a bipartisan commission to consider
Oct 22, 2020, 9:25 AM
|
|
executive branch plans to undermine the judicial branch
nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2203]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 4333
Joined: 9/10/18
|
Re: Biden will form a bipartisan commission to consider
Oct 22, 2020, 9:32 AM
|
|
I wonder if he is offering a cut of his China deal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Biden will form a bipartisan commission to consider
Oct 22, 2020, 10:54 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Biden will form a bipartisan commission to consider
Oct 22, 2020, 11:10 AM
|
|
So I guess you're saying but but but whatever Mike Lee said.
Sounds like some reform might be needed. Maybe a bipartisan commission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
he is so presidential***
Oct 22, 2020, 9:28 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47750]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30413
Joined: 11/15/99
|
Bipartisan....LOL
Oct 22, 2020, 9:41 AM
|
|
If he appoints a pub it would prolly be Susan Collins. Or Mitt (except he can't remember his name.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Bipartisan....LOL
Oct 22, 2020, 9:42 AM
|
|
OK, let's criticize him up and down if that happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12591]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6312
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: Bipartisan....LOL
Oct 22, 2020, 9:56 AM
|
|
The issue needs to be settled going forward on nominations in an election year. I definitely believe the GOP was hypocritical to hold up Garland's nomination while pushing through Barrett. I think the acting President should be able to nominate whomever they desire up to a point. That point needs to be defined.I feel the Dems would have done exactly the same thing were the roles reversed and would be just as hypocritical.I support Judge Barrett, but the GOP should have allowed Garland to have his hearing and ultimately to have been confirmed unless some exceptional character flaw was discovered. If these judges are well qualified and don't have any proven skeletons in their closet, they should be confirmed regardless of judicial philosophy. That's the way it used to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56062]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31634
Joined: 8/27/02
|
They should be able to appoint judges as long as they're
Oct 22, 2020, 10:10 AM
|
|
the president. You don't stop being the president during an election year or if you're a lame duck after an election.
If Trump loses this election and Clarence Thomas immediately retires from the Supreme Court, Trump is wholly within his rights to appoint a replacement because he's still the president until mid-January.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
Susan Collins probably won't be an option***
Oct 22, 2020, 10:00 AM
[ in reply to Bipartisan....LOL ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155803]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65782
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Finally, if there's one thing Trump has made me miss,
Oct 22, 2020, 10:49 AM
|
|
it's the usual DC way of having spitballing sessions to form a round table to appoint a focus group to oversee a commission to run point over a committee to kick something around for a few months before doing nothing about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33608
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Finally, if there's one thing Trump has made me miss,
Oct 22, 2020, 10:54 AM
|
|
Yes, I too miss actual deliberative processes, and can't wait to be done with today's arbitrary and capricious leadership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155803]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65782
Joined: 5/6/13
|
It's called gridlock,
Oct 22, 2020, 10:55 AM
|
|
and I'm ok with it too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 36
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
