in sum the republican senators were not stealing the nomination, the senate controls the nomination.
The Senate's constitutional duty is to provide "advice and consent" for presidential appointments. In not holding hearings or a vote for Garland the Senate failed to do this, and left one of the most important offices in the federal government empty for a year. This is unconscionable.
in sum the republican senators were not stealing the nomination, the senate controls the nomination.
The Senate's constitutional duty is to provide "advice and consent" for presidential appointments. In not holding hearings or a vote for Garland the Senate failed to do this, and left one of the most important offices in the federal government empty for a year. This is unconscionable.
They did their job for their constituents, If the democrats were in the same position they'ds do the same thing
Even if this is true, that doesn't make it right.
I may concede that the senate did not advise the president, but the senate is not obligated to provide consent to the presidents nominees, lest you want me to lampoon the democratic senators on how they have been acting around his cabinet nominees. There was no public/official meetings as they publicly said they wanted the election to decide who was to be nominated to the supreme court and therefore locking in Garland after a Hillary victory would be a concession if only to block Hillary from finding someone worse (in their eyes anyways). Besides this is politics, being right is mostly a matter of opinion.
in sum the republican senators were not stealing the nomination, the senate controls the nomination.
The Senate's constitutional duty is to provide "advice and consent" for presidential appointments. In not holding hearings or a vote for Garland the Senate failed to do this, and left one of the most important offices in the federal government empty for a year. This is unconscionable.
They did their job for their constituents, If the democrats were in the same position they'ds do the same thing
Even if this is true, that doesn't make it right.
There is also the argument that the wording of the law is such that if Congress chooses not to bring the nominee to a vote as they did they are ceding their right to vote on the matter and the appointment goes through... I saw a bit of that point bandied around during the Garland shenanigans.
I may concede that the senate did not advise the president, but the senate is not obligated to provide consent to the presidents nominees, lest you want me to lampoon the democratic senators on how they have been acting around his cabinet nominees.
Congress is not obligated to provide consent, but they are obligated to make a decision. They left Garland in limbo, not even saying "no".
There was no public/official meetings as they publicly said they wanted the election to decide who was to be nominated to the supreme court and therefore locking in Garland after a Hillary victory would be a concession if only to block Hillary from finding someone worse (in their eyes anyways). Besides this is politics, being right is mostly a matter of opinion.
The people already voted for the person they wanted to decide on supreme court nominations in 2012. Obama's duty to nominate a justice didn't end until January 20, 2017.
I may concede that the senate did not advise the president, but the senate is not obligated to provide consent to the presidents nominees, lest you want me to lampoon the democratic senators on how they have been acting around his cabinet nominees.
Congress is not obligated to provide consent, but they are obligated to make a decision. They left Garland in limbo, not even saying "no".
There was no public/official meetings as they publicly said they wanted the election to decide who was to be nominated to the supreme court and therefore locking in Garland after a Hillary victory would be a concession if only to block Hillary from finding someone worse (in their eyes anyways). Besides this is politics, being right is mostly a matter of opinion.
The people already voted for the person they wanted to decide on supreme court nominations in 2012. Obama's duty to nominate a justice didn't end until January 20, 2017.
not making a decision is a decision, as the constitution states that certain nominations must receive the consent of the senate.
Besides Obama exercised his right to nominate someone; which I had covered in my first post on the topic about how they wanted the option of someone they like better, but deliberately left Garland in limbo as a hedge against losing their gambit.
I may concede that the senate did not advise the president, but the senate is not obligated to provide consent to the presidents nominees, lest you want me to lampoon the democratic senators on how they have been acting around his cabinet nominees.
Congress is not obligated to provide consent, but they are obligated to make a decision. They left Garland in limbo, not even saying "no"
not making a decision is a decision, as the constitution states that certain nominations must receive the consent of the senate
Two things:
1. Saying that not making a decision is a decision makes about as much sense as saying colorless is a color, being naked is an outfit, lacking religion is a religion, etc. Lacking the entire quality is not in of itself the quality. So no, not making a decision is not a decision because that is nonsense under scrutiny.
2. Are you sure a nominee must have the consent of the Senate? This isn't rhetorical. I'm on my phone and can't look up the Constitution at the moment. If I remember correctly though, there was pressure on Garland and Obama to use the fact that the Constitution was just vague enough that to interpret inaction as relinquishing consent to put Garland on the court and then roll the dice in Court when a challenge arose.
Your just going to have to get over it the way conservatives have had to get over the million times the left have cheated the system. Garland was to the left of everyone but Sotomayor, who has made it clear again and again that furthering left wing political agendas comes before the job of actually safeguarding the American peoples constitutional rights. The constitution is an incredible safeguard against tyranny but it requires people who will fight government tyranny and that's not who the left nominates, they nominate political activists who view government tyranny as an acceptable means to an end in their never ending march to transform America into anything other then America.
During World War 2 the US government worked with the mafia and paid those murderous thugs handsomely to protect American shipping so the US could save lives and win the war. I imagine that left a really nasty taste in the mouth of people but it was a necessary evil. Sorry, the world isn't perfect I hate it too.
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Your just going to have to get over it the way conservatives have had to get over the million times the left have cheated the system. Garland was to the left of everyone but Sotomayor, who has made it clear again and again that furthering left wing political agendas comes before the job of actually safeguarding the American peoples constitutional rights. The constitution is an incredible safeguard against tyranny but it requires people who will fight government tyranny and that's not who the left nominates, they nominate political activists who view government tyranny as an acceptable means to an end in their never ending march to transform America into anything other then America.
So you are saying the only way to support and protect the constitution was to violate the constitution?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
So you are saying the only way to support and protect the constitution was to violate the constitution?
It wouldn't be if the American system had not been fundamentally undermined from within but yes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
The constitution is an incredible safeguard against tyranny but it requires people who will fight government tyranny and that's not who the left nominates, they nominate political activists who view government tyranny as an acceptable means to an end in their never ending march to transform America into anything other then America.
If the Constitution "requires people who will fight government tyranny", then you're disqualified. You are clearly stating here that you yourself "view government tyranny as an acceptable means to an end". Tyranny is the unlawful seizure of political power. That's exactly what the GOP did. How bad does it have to be before you draw the line? If Trump lost in 2020 to a left-wing candidate but then staged a coup and declared himself King, would that be a "necessary evil" too?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, a decision would be holding confirmation hearings and then rejecting Garland. Then Obama would nominate someone else, who would get confirmation hearings and be either confirmed or rejected, and so on. That's how the process works. The Republicans decided they didn't like that, so they stuck their thumbs up their butts and refused to do their job.
If I remember correctly though, there was pressure on Garland and Obama to use the fact that the Constitution was just vague enough that to interpret inaction as relinquishing consent to put Garland on the court and then roll the dice in Court when a challenge arose.
Yeah, there's a reason Constitutional Law Professor Obama didn't do that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Tyranny is the unlawful seizure of political power
Like the Revolutionary War or the Democrats refusing to impeach Bill Clinton despite his guilt and their constitutional responsibility.
If Trump lost in 2020 to a left-wing candidate but then staged a coup and declared himself King, would that be a "necessary evil" too?
No, I wouldn't support that. It's more complicated then this and I have no interest in purity pissing contests.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
One person doing something wrong doesn't make someone else doing the same thing right.
OK, I'm curious what you would have to say about sanctuary cities and the rule of law then.
I'm curious what Blinking Spirit thinks about that too? The last time I saw it discussed here it was pretty much "teh he he the Republicans can't do ***** about it teh he he"
refusing to impeach Trump right now?
Impeach him for what, it's not something stupid like "being a facist" is it?
Public Mod Note
(osieorb18):
Warning for Spam - Off-topic post
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
The leaders of the American Revolution wrote the Supreme Court appointment process. They had an outright fetish for governmental procedure and the rule of law. The election of 1800 was the first time in modern history an elected head of state had been voted out of office, and despite the bitter partisan rivalry between Adams and Jefferson it went off without a hitch. So don't try to tell me that they'd be down with hijacking a Court seat.
Impeach him for what, it's not something stupid like "being a facist" is it?
If being a left-wing judge is bad enough to violate the Constitution over, why shouldn't being fascist be bad enough to impeach over? You were the one who introduced this notion that political ideology is a valid test for holding an office.
Impeach him for what, it's not something stupid like "being a facist" is it?
No, actually I'm referring to taking (and keeping) money and gifts from representatives of foreign governments. Previous presidents faced with a similar situation have either surrendered the gift/money, deposited the money (or money gained by selling the gift) into the treasury, or donated it to charity. Trump has done none of that, and is therefore committing an impeachable offense.
But Congress has to actually indict him, and the Republicans don't want to do that.
To be fair, Dred Scott v. Sandford has been universally and unequivocally condemned in retrospect by virtually every single individual as being one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever made.
I don't doubt that, but that's not what I am arguing. The 7-2 decision was clearly made along partisan lines (in this case, the 2 against both happened to be Northern Judges and of the 7, 5 were southern and 2 were from the west).
What I'm talking about is more about hot-button issues that cause partisan lines to be drawn today. Let's take an example of a hot-button issue of its time: interracial marriage. As late as the 60s, interracial marriages were forbidden in many states. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Loving v. Virginia that all laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Let that sink in for a moment. In the politically-unstable environment of the early 60s, the Supreme Court made a 9-0 ruling on an issue that many people at the time had sheer hatred for. It was a non-partisan decision.
And just a little bit later, the Civil Rights Act passed through the House of Represenatives with 78% of Democrats and 81% of Republicans backing it. Clearly, decisions in partisan politics can be made accross the party lines. I am not arguing that every case in the Supreme Court is going to have lines drawn between liberal and conservative, but to pretend that those lines don't exist is lying to yourself.
Same thing for another landmark case of its time, such as Brown v. Board of Education. Again, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that state-enforced segregated schools were unconstitutional.
Even Roe v. Wade wasn't a partisan decision. It wasn't unanimous, but at 7-2 the decision clearly was not split on partisan lines.
AGain, not example or partisan. Abortion at the time was incredibly hot topic, and even today, can make the most liberal people uncomfortable (even if they overall agree with the right of choice)
Now compare it to a similar hot-button issue of our time: gay marriage. The Obergefell v. Hodges case was a 5-4 decision. Not surprisingly, the decision was strictly made on partisan lines.
I don't disagree. Partisan Politics has hit critical mass, peaked, is as bad as it ever was, ect. I am not disagreeing with that or calling any of your examples wrong. All I am arguing is that the SC has been partisan for a lot linger than this. Ginsburg's comments towards Trump are simply more direct than most presidents have seen. I have not
I could go on and on. This is why the Supreme Court has become far more relevant than it has ever been. Judges no longer make non-partisan decisions like they used to. They strictly make the decisions based on whether the ruling lines up with their political ideology. A Supreme Court packed with liberals, for example, would severely undermine the 2nd Amendment. Conversely, a court packed with conservatives could do something like severely undermine the 14th Amendment or overturn cases they do not agree with, such as Roe v. Wade. Such nightmare scenarios would have been unthinkable decades ago. But today they are a real possibility.
When I brought up the Dred Scott decision, we were in the midst of a Civil War, where terms like doughboy and copperhead were thrown around (I am not trying to suggest we are about to enter another Civil War). We are reaching another extreme though in politics, and it isn't a coicedence that the SC was extremely partisan back then when tensions were flaring and Congress itself was also tearing itself apart along the lines. The SC is supposed to be a non-partisan body, of that we agree. My point was that how could the SC not be expected to be become heavily influenced by partisans when their appointment to duty is completely based on their politics and ruling. It's the flaw of our original plan that did not take into account a two-party system.
Even if this is true, that doesn't make it right.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I may concede that the senate did not advise the president, but the senate is not obligated to provide consent to the presidents nominees, lest you want me to lampoon the democratic senators on how they have been acting around his cabinet nominees. There was no public/official meetings as they publicly said they wanted the election to decide who was to be nominated to the supreme court and therefore locking in Garland after a Hillary victory would be a concession if only to block Hillary from finding someone worse (in their eyes anyways). Besides this is politics, being right is mostly a matter of opinion.
There is also the argument that the wording of the law is such that if Congress chooses not to bring the nominee to a vote as they did they are ceding their right to vote on the matter and the appointment goes through... I saw a bit of that point bandied around during the Garland shenanigans.
The people already voted for the person they wanted to decide on supreme court nominations in 2012. Obama's duty to nominate a justice didn't end until January 20, 2017.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
not making a decision is a decision, as the constitution states that certain nominations must receive the consent of the senate.
Besides Obama exercised his right to nominate someone; which I had covered in my first post on the topic about how they wanted the option of someone they like better, but deliberately left Garland in limbo as a hedge against losing their gambit.
Two things:
1. Saying that not making a decision is a decision makes about as much sense as saying colorless is a color, being naked is an outfit, lacking religion is a religion, etc. Lacking the entire quality is not in of itself the quality. So no, not making a decision is not a decision because that is nonsense under scrutiny.
2. Are you sure a nominee must have the consent of the Senate? This isn't rhetorical. I'm on my phone and can't look up the Constitution at the moment. If I remember correctly though, there was pressure on Garland and Obama to use the fact that the Constitution was just vague enough that to interpret inaction as relinquishing consent to put Garland on the court and then roll the dice in Court when a challenge arose.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
During World War 2 the US government worked with the mafia and paid those murderous thugs handsomely to protect American shipping so the US could save lives and win the war. I imagine that left a really nasty taste in the mouth of people but it was a necessary evil. Sorry, the world isn't perfect I hate it too.
So you are saying the only way to support and protect the constitution was to violate the constitution?
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
It wouldn't be if the American system had not been fundamentally undermined from within but yes.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Yeah, there's a reason Constitutional Law Professor Obama didn't do that.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Like the Revolutionary War or the Democrats refusing to impeach Bill Clinton despite his guilt and their constitutional responsibility.
No, I wouldn't support that. It's more complicated then this and I have no interest in purity pissing contests.
One person doing something wrong doesn't make someone else doing the same thing right.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
OK, I'm curious what you would have to say about sanctuary cities and the rule of law then.
I'm curious what Blinking Spirit thinks about that too? The last time I saw it discussed here it was pretty much "teh he he the Republicans can't do ***** about it teh he he"
Impeach him for what, it's not something stupid like "being a facist" is it?
...what? Whatever you think about that, it had nothing to do with an acquisition of political office. Are you just throwing out random grievances?
The name of the forum is "Debate". If you're not willing to explain your reasoning, what are you doing here?
It's not the job of local police officers to enforce federal laws.
If being a left-wing judge is bad enough to violate the Constitution over, why shouldn't being fascist be bad enough to impeach over? You were the one who introduced this notion that political ideology is a valid test for holding an office.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Fundamentally undermined from within? In what way? By whom? Elaborate, please.
But Congress has to actually indict him, and the Republicans don't want to do that.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I don't doubt that, but that's not what I am arguing. The 7-2 decision was clearly made along partisan lines (in this case, the 2 against both happened to be Northern Judges and of the 7, 5 were southern and 2 were from the west).
And just a little bit later, the Civil Rights Act passed through the House of Represenatives with 78% of Democrats and 81% of Republicans backing it. Clearly, decisions in partisan politics can be made accross the party lines. I am not arguing that every case in the Supreme Court is going to have lines drawn between liberal and conservative, but to pretend that those lines don't exist is lying to yourself.
AGain, not example or partisan. Abortion at the time was incredibly hot topic, and even today, can make the most liberal people uncomfortable (even if they overall agree with the right of choice)
I don't disagree. Partisan Politics has hit critical mass, peaked, is as bad as it ever was, ect. I am not disagreeing with that or calling any of your examples wrong. All I am arguing is that the SC has been partisan for a lot linger than this. Ginsburg's comments towards Trump are simply more direct than most presidents have seen. I have not
When I brought up the Dred Scott decision, we were in the midst of a Civil War, where terms like doughboy and copperhead were thrown around (I am not trying to suggest we are about to enter another Civil War). We are reaching another extreme though in politics, and it isn't a coicedence that the SC was extremely partisan back then when tensions were flaring and Congress itself was also tearing itself apart along the lines. The SC is supposed to be a non-partisan body, of that we agree. My point was that how could the SC not be expected to be become heavily influenced by partisans when their appointment to duty is completely based on their politics and ruling. It's the flaw of our original plan that did not take into account a two-party system.
The GJ way path to no lynching: