Justice Kennedy Retiring

[*michaelsean*]

(06-28-2018, 08:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: He discussed that possibility but it was never agreed to or even voted on and never put into effect...until McConnell needed someone else to blame for his partisanship maneuver.

Speaking of which...


Purely political.  

But that what you get with the average Trump supporter (let alone the diehard ones): They are all in and can't see their own hypocrisy.

WTS, I was against the delay under Obama and a delay under Trump.  The system is what it is now.

As to the Mueller investigation the only caveat would be that given the political climate *IF* Trump were found guilty of something or impeached there will be much gnashing of teeth and beating of breast about whether his appointees were legitimate.

That first line sounds like the Republicans in the 90's discussing something akin to Obamacare.   

All his appointments would be legit.  There's no retroactivity when you remove someone from office.

   

[*michaelsean*]

(06-28-2018, 09:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It was mentioned earlier about McCain possibly voting against a nominee, but because of the focus on abortion rights we may see Collins and/or Murkowski switch sides.

Yes that was assuming all Republicans fall in line.  

[hollodero]

(06-28-2018, 09:17 AM)michaelsean Wrote: They can't consider the maneuver.  They don't have the numbers.  

If I'm not mistaken, they would need one republican senator. There seem to be some that are leaving anyway and are not the biggest Trump fans. And by some I mean Flake, or the two women who sunk that great "healthcare for all for a fraction of the cost" Obamacare repeal. 

[hollodero]

(06-28-2018, 09:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's the civility argument at play. When people talk about needing more civility in society, what they are really saying is "don't treat us the same way we have been treating you, that's not fair!"

I have to admit, there is a part of me that wants to see us roll around in the mud. That just causes a further deterioration of democracy, though, and I want us to become more democratic, not less. What we need to be doing is focusing on policies that benefit the people. Ground game, messaging, getting out the vote. Let the pigs play in the mud and try to play out Animal Farm, we should stay on message because we have a message that is better for the people.

I understand that. But as I said, it gets tricky to be the civil one. If the shoe is on the other foot in future years, democrats can't possibly expect the same courtesy, they can expect the exact same maneuver yet again. It would look a bit foolish to me to expect otherwise.
And to the public, there's a clear message, and it's not "one party is more civil". It's rather, look, we're winning, the democrats are losers. And in a sense, that would be true.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-28-2018, 09:23 AM)hollodero Wrote: If I'm not mistaken, they would need one republican senator. There seem to be some that are leaving anyway and are not the biggest Trump fans. And by some I mean Flake, or the two women who sunk that great "healthcare for all for a fraction of the cost" Obamacare repeal. 

I assume the VP can break a tie in this as in all other things.  But yeah my answer was based on the Republicans all falling in line.  If they don't, then obviously a different story.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 09:29 AM)hollodero Wrote: I understand that. But as I said, it gets tricky to be the civil one. If the shoe is on the other foot in future years, democrats can't possibly expect the same courtesy, they can expect the exact same maneuver yet again. It would look a bit foolish to me to expect otherwise.
And to the public, there's a clear message, and it's not "one party is more civil". It's rather, look, we're winning, the democrats are losers. And in a sense, that would be true.

This is why we need to become more democratic. We need to codify the unwritten norms that are being thrown out the window by our current batch of elected officials. Lots of things need to happen, and they can with us being more civil and adherent to these norms. There is going to be a change in this country, either by ballot box or bullet. I want us to push for that change by ballot box.

[hollodero]

(06-28-2018, 09:36 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is why we need to become more democratic. We need to codify the unwritten norms that are being thrown out the window by our current batch of elected officials. Lots of things need to happen, and they can with us being more civil and adherent to these norms. There is going to be a change in this country, either by ballot box or bullet. I want us to push for that change by ballot box.

I agree with the idea, I'm just not optimistic it can be done, at least not in the foreseeable future. You have one party behaving less than ideal and another one that has completely turned cynic. And wide parts of the electorate cheer for that.
So whatever can be codified at some time in the right circumstances, it can be just undone again with ease. And since approximately 100% of Republicans believe this administration deserves nothing but nobel prizes and Trump is the greatest guy since Jesus, it doesn't look like the right of center part of the electorate would referee that one in your sense. While wide parts of the left spectrum or independents just get frustrated and don't vote any more for the party that loses the mud-throwing games. That's the picture I get. 

Just for verification, there was a rule in place demanding 60% of senators have to appoint a supreme court judge, right. This would be one of these norms I guess, that can be (and was) wiped out easily. The party who won't do that and tries to collect points with the voters by being so civil is losing.

Finally, I think what you want to achieve can only be achieved by giving the other side a taste of their own medicine. Else, they would have zero incentive to change things, since the current way to do things plays out so fine for them.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 10:17 AM)hollodero Wrote: I agree with the idea, I'm just not optimistic it can be done, at least not in the foreseeable future. You have one party behaving less than ideal and another one that has completely turned cynic. And wide parts of the electorate cheer for that.
So whatever can be codified at some time in the right circumstances, it can be just undone again with ease. And since approximately 100% of Republicans believe this administration deserves nothing but nobel prizes and Trump is the greatest guy since Jesus, it doesn't look like the right of center part of the electorate would referee that one in your sense. While wide parts of the left spectrum or independents just get frustrated and don't vote any more for the party that loses the mud-throwing games. That's the picture I get. 

Just for verification, there was a rule in place demanding 60% of senators have to appoint a supreme court judge, right. This would be one of these norms I guess, that can be (and was) wiped out easily. The party who won't do that and tries to collect points with the voters by being so civil is losing.

Finally, I think what you want to achieve can only be achieved by giving the other side a taste of their own medicine. Else, they would have zero incentive to change things, since the current way to do things plays out so fine for them.

Well, the only way to really do this all in full would be a new constitution or some serious amendments. Which is a long game.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-28-2018, 10:17 AM)hollodero Wrote: I agree with the idea, I'm just not optimistic it can be done, at least not in the foreseeable future. You have one party behaving less than ideal and another one that has completely turned cynic. And wide parts of the electorate cheer for that.
So whatever can be codified at some time in the right circumstances, it can be just undone again with ease. And since approximately 100% of Republicans believe this administration deserves nothing but nobel prizes and Trump is the greatest guy since Jesus, it doesn't look like the right of center part of the electorate would referee that one in your sense. While wide parts of the left spectrum or independents just get frustrated and don't vote any more for the party that loses the mud-throwing games. That's the picture I get. 

Just for verification, there was a rule in place demanding 60% of senators have to appoint a supreme court judge, right. This would be one of these norms I guess, that can be (and was) wiped out easily. The party who won't do that and tries to collect points with the voters by being so civil is losing.

Finally, I think what you want to achieve can only be achieved by giving the other side a taste of their own medicine. Else, they would have zero incentive to change things, since the current way to do things plays out so fine for them.

No the rule wasn't that 60% of the Senators have to approve, it's that 60% have to agree to end debate and move forward with a vote. (That's where the filibuster comes in) The Dems actually changed that first when the Republicans were holding up judicial appointments.

[Benton]

(06-28-2018, 09:07 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is easy to say when you are someone that may not be as impacted as some others. With the potential shifts against the rights of women, minorities, and the LGBT community that could come with this, it is a concerning predicament.

I think sometimes you have to have that reminder, though.

In Kentucky, lots of folks got red fever a couple years back. I was pretty shocked when I saw 20-30 year union members suddenly supporting candidates that openly said they were going to get rid of labor unions and prevailing wage. Most of the workers would respond with 'they won't do it, that's just talk to get elected' when asked why they would support a candidate openly speaking out against their best interest.

Now, they act like they got misled. Last week I was covering a rally for a Democratic candidate who was a state rep but now is running for a local office and I saw several of those guys who just two years ago were bashing the same candidate for being 'too much like Obama.' 

We've become a country of extremism. The only way it gets back to moderate it to let it swing completely to the right. Democrats would do well to just step aside, let it go and be better prepared for when it gets back to the middle. In 5-10 years, people are going to need long-term solutions to problems after all the GOP deficit spending, siding with private business over public good, etc. Dems should be ready.

[jj22]

McConnell on Kennedy retiring: "It's imperative that the president's nominee be treated fairly."

I mean really. You can't make this stuff up. But as long as hypocrisy works and is ignored by certain voters.... why not.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-28-2018, 12:37 PM)jj22 Wrote: McConnell on Kennedy retiring: "It's imperative that the president's nominee be treated fairly."

I mean really. You can't make this stuff up. But as long as hypocrisy works and is ignored by certain voters.... why not.

There.  Now that's hypocrisy. 

[hollodero]

(06-28-2018, 10:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, the only way to really do this all in full would be a new constitution or some serious amendments. Which is a long game.

Yes it is. Getting rid of the two party system would bea very valuable step that probably would solve many problems. Or other stuff. I hope this works out, I just am afraid that time's getting a bit short. More and more people seem to be willing to go uniparty these days.

52% of republicans would be ok with postponing the 2020 elections. That I find just amazing.

(06-28-2018, 10:25 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No the rule wasn't that 60% of the Senators have to approve, it's that 60% have to agree to end debate and move forward with a vote. (That's where the filibuster comes in) The Dems actually changed that first when the Republicans were holding up judicial appointments.

Ah ok... got it.
And ah, the democrats. I know little about that, but I think these two examples aren't much alike. The holding up of appointments seemed uncalled for - while holding up Gorsuch was anything but uncalled for. I'm sure not strong on the nuances. But this clearly was a stolen seat to begin with.

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2018, 09:07 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is no executive authority that carries as much weight and lasting impact as a SCOTUS nomination.

IDK, LBJ nominated Abe Fortas to the Supreme Court and he also signed the CRA.

If we come up with sweeping immigration reform can POTUS sign that of Mueller is not concluded? How about we amend the CRA to address sexual orientation, can POTUS sign that, how about revocation of Roe v. Wade?

To me it's just a case of how can we delay this and not do exactly what we complained about.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 04:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IDK, LBJ nominated Abe Fortas to the Supreme Court and he also signed the CRA.

If we come up with sweeping immigration reform can POTUS sign that of Mueller is not concluded? How about we amend the CRA to address sexual orientation, can POTUS sign that, how about revocation of Roe v. Wade?

To me it's just a case of how can we delay this and not do exactly what we complained about.

The CRA was a Congressional act; it was legislation. Presidents may help guide legislation along, but legislation is not the prerogative of the executive. Appointments are, as we are reminded whenever anyone talks about obstructing a nomination.

See the difference?

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2018, 04:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The CRA was a Congressional act; it was legislation. Presidents may help guide legislation along, but legislation is not the prerogative of the executive. Appointments are, as we are reminded whenever anyone talks about obstructing a nomination.

See the difference?

But the executive does have veto power, correct?  Also congress has to approve the nomination, correct? I think they call it checks and balances

So No.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 04:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But the executive does have veto power, correct?  Also congress has to approve the nomination, correct? I think they call it checks and balances

So No.

That doesn't change where the prerogative lies.

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2018, 05:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That doesn't change where the prerogative lies.

Bobby Brown has nothing to do with it. You original statement was:

Quote:There is no executive authority that carries as much weight and lasting impact as a SCOTUS nomination.

...I countered that's not true and provided sound examples. Prerogative Power has no bearing on the impact of any executive authority; to include the authority of Veto.

So to look more smarter I will counter with: Prerogative doesn't change the lasting impact.













I know

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 05:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Bobby Brown has nothing to do with it. You original statement was:


...I countered that's not true and provided sound examples. Prerogative Power has no bearing on the impact of any executive authority; to include the authority of Veto.

So to look more smarter I will counter with: Prerogative doesn't change the lasting impact.

I know

Veto can be overridden, POTUS can make a recess appointment. Prerogative matters when the check and balances can be maneuvered around. With the nominations originating with the POTUS, it is the authority with the most weight and lasting impact.

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2018, 05:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Veto can be overridden, POTUS can make a recess appointment. Prerogative matters when the check and balances can be maneuvered around.

And a Presidential nominee can be not confirmed. So as I said: Prerogative doesn't change the lasting impact.

But I do not expect you to change your mind. Just understand I find the "wait for Mueller" reason to delay to be smoke and mirrors. Of course that's only my opinion. You either advocate all powers or no powers