RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

[Telconi]

Nonsense, they did exactly as the constitution required.

"They".

The Senate.

The Senate only "does" anything by majority, by 3/5, or by 2/3 vote.

It wasn't the Senate. It was some creepy turtle exercising the will of 50% + 1 of the Senate.

They advised Obama that Harland wasn't going to get their consent, and then proceeded on with business.

No. One person, representing the Senate, did that.

Not what it says in the constitution, my friend.

That's not how that works, McConnel can't block an action alone.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

You may take it as a yes, but I think he means it as a no.

My point is that I get the feeling that his position is motivated more by partisan urges than it is by a scholarly/unbiased view of what's legal and what's illegal.

For the record, I agree with Telconi's view on the legality of McConnell's actions. I think it was a horrible abuse of power that did a lot of harm to inter-party relations and national cohesion, but it was legal.

If the Democrats pack the court, I'm going to maintain the same position. A horrible abuse of power that harms the country, but legal.

The way that these politicians are governing (exclusively on behalf of their base and with a "friend/enemy" mentality) is fucking up our country. It's getting worse with every election cycle.

[Telconi]

My point is that I get the feeling that his position is motivated more by partisan urges than it is by a scholarly/unbiased view of what's legal and what's illegal.

For the record, I agree with Telconi's view on the legality of McConnell's actions. I think it was a horrible abuse of power that did a lot of harm to inter-party relations and national cohesion, but it was legal.

If the Democrats pack the court, I'm going to maintain the same position. A horrible abuse of power that harms the country, but legal.

The way that these politicians are governing (exclusively on behalf of their base and with a "friend/enemy" mentality) is fucking up our country. It's getting worse with every election cycle.

At what point have politicians not done this?

[Eukaryotic Cells]

The way that these politicians are governing (exclusively on behalf of their base and with a "friend/enemy" mentality) is fucking up our country. It's getting worse with every election cycle.

At what point have politicians not done this?

It's always happened, to an extent. Partisanism has to be balanced against other factors, though.

The balance has been tipping way too much towards partisanism in the US since the 1990s.

[Telconi]

At what point have politicians not done this?

It's always happened, to an extent. Partisanism has to be balanced against other factors, though.

The balance has been tipping way too much towards partisanism in the US since the 1990s.

What other factors? They're there to decide policy, the party apparatus exists as a mechanism to accomplish this.

[New haven america]

"They".

The Senate.

The Senate only "does" anything by majority, by 3/5, or by 2/3 vote.

It wasn't the Senate. It was some creepy turtle exercising the will of 50% + 1 of the Senate.



No. One person, representing the Senate, did that.

Not what it says in the constitution, my friend.

That's not how that works, McConnel can't block an action alone.

That's exactly how the senate works Tel.

All you need to do is be part of the majority party and any single senator or small group of senators can stall the thing for however long they feel like, and have.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It seems like it's coming down to Barrett or Lagoa, since I'm sure not a ton of people know much about the latter Politico did a brief writeup on her.

Honestly I kind of think that politically Lagoa would be a safer bet. She's a minority woman who passed through with a bipartisan vote to become a federal judge and doesn't seem to have much controversy surrounding her. That'd complicate things for the Senate Dems.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

It's always happened, to an extent. Partisanism has to be balanced against other factors, though.

The balance has been tipping way too much towards partisanism in the US since the 1990s.

What other factors? They're there to decide policy, the party apparatus exists as a mechanism to accomplish this.

The impact their actions have on norms and procedural rules, for one. When the systems you use to govern become eroded and compromised, that's a problem. If people start engaging in court packing to "win", the Supreme Court will be turned into a rubber stamp.

Maintaining amicable party relations is another factor. Yes, the other side is your opponent, but when one starts viewing them as subhumans who have no political legitimacy, that also creates problems.

[Greater Miami Shores]

It seems like it's coming down to Barrett or Lagoa, since I'm sure not a ton of people know much about the latter Politico did a brief writeup on her.

Honestly I kind of think that politically Lagoa would be a safer bet. She's a minority woman who passes through with a bipartisan vote to become a federal judge and doesn't seem to have much controversy surrounding her. That'd complicate things for the Senate Dems.

Judge Barbara Lagoa is a fellow Cuban American Hispanic of mine, born in Miami, Hialeah Florida, the USA. Since Trump has the majority of the Cuban American vote, I hope he does not pick Lagoa. Lagoa, would only be popular in the Cuban American community. Amy Coney-Barrett is younger at 48 to 52. I hope President Trump picks Judge Amy Coney-Barrett, a catholic and more important to add to his base. But they are both highly qualified conservative US Supreme Court Justice candidates we would be supportive of.

[Telconi]

What other factors? They're there to decide policy, the party apparatus exists as a mechanism to accomplish this.

The impact their actions have on norms and procedural rules, for one. When the systems you use to govern become eroded and compromised, that's a problem. If people start engaging in court packing to "win", the Supreme Court will be turned into a rubber stamp.

Maintaining amicable party relations is another factor. Yes, the other side is your opponent, but when one starts viewing them as subhumans who have no political legitimacy, that also creates problems.

One hardly needs to dehumanize a political opponent to oppose their beliefs. But just because they're human hardly implies that one must maintain any relationship with them, much less an amicable one.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

That's not how that works, McConnel can't block an action alone.

That's exactly how the senate works Tel.

All you need to do is be part of the majority party and any single senator or small group of senators can stall the thing for however long they feel like, and have.

The Leader of the Majority decides what gets to the floor. And McConnell said No.

It's too powerful a position. And Speaker of the House is too. If a few of the ruling party dissent from the Leader's decision, they can only go to the other party and offer to overturn the Leader (or go to their own party, seeking a majority, which is even harder). It's a mountain to climb either way.

I do think McConnell has grabbed an opportunity. Removing the filibuster on Appeals Court and then Supreme Court appointments took away the buffer of 2/3 majority required, and gave him the full power of whatever party held the Senate.

So it goes. The filibuster was always terrible, undemocratic, and a ludicrous exaggeration of "state's powers". Removing it entirely will come with pain for both parties. But Democrats will prevail. Democrats understand that change is not easy: change comes with pain, and failure and humiliation when great ideas go wrong. Fuck the stupid, undemocratic filibuster. I never did anything but hold back change, it belongs in history.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The impact their actions have on norms and procedural rules, for one. When the systems you use to govern become eroded and compromised, that's a problem. If people start engaging in court packing to "win", the Supreme Court will be turned into a rubber stamp.

Maintaining amicable party relations is another factor. Yes, the other side is your opponent, but when one starts viewing them as subhumans who have no political legitimacy, that also creates problems.

One hardly needs to dehumanize a political opponent to oppose their beliefs. But just because they're human hardly implies that one must maintain any relationship with them, much less an amicable one.

"Human, but only as long as they stay out of my face"

[Eukaryotic Cells]

The impact their actions have on norms and procedural rules, for one. When the systems you use to govern become eroded and compromised, that's a problem. If people start engaging in court packing to "win", the Supreme Court will be turned into a rubber stamp.

Maintaining amicable party relations is another factor. Yes, the other side is your opponent, but when one starts viewing them as subhumans who have no political legitimacy, that also creates problems.

One hardly needs to dehumanize a political opponent to oppose their beliefs. But just because they're human hardly implies that one must maintain any relationship with them, much less an amicable one.

The national interest compels one to maintain a working relationship with the other side, otherwise government becomes highly dysfunctional over time.

Congress can barely work on things that they agree upon at a high level. Only emergency situations seem to spur them into action at this point.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

It seems like it's coming down to Barrett or Lagoa, since I'm sure not a ton of people know much about the latter Politico did a brief writeup on her.

Honestly I kind of think that politically Lagoa would be a safer bet. She's a minority woman who passes through with a bipartisan vote to become a federal judge and doesn't seem to have much controversy surrounding her. That'd complicate things for the Senate Dems.

Judge Barbara Lagoa is a fellow Cuban American Hispanic of mine, since Trump has the majority of the Cuban American vote, I hope he does not pick Lagoa. Lagoa, would only be popular in the Cuban American community. Amy Coney-Barrett is younger at 45. I hope Trump picks Judge Amy Coney-Barrett, a catholic and more important to add to his base. But they are both highly qualified conservative US Supreme Court Justice candidates we would be supportive of.

Well I can respect that of two female candidates, you prefer the one who is NOT Cuban-American.

I kind of assumed you'd be for the Cuban-American no matter what. But you did well.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Judge Barbara Lagoa is a fellow Cuban American Hispanic of mine, born in Miami, Hialeah Florida, the USA. Since Trump has the majority of the Cuban American vote, I hope he does not pick Lagoa. Lagoa, would only be popular in the Cuban American community. Amy Coney-Barrett is younger at 48 to 52. I hope President Trump picks Judge Amy Coney-Barrett, a catholic and more important to add to his base. But they are both highly qualified conservative US Supreme Court Justice candidates we would be supportive of.

Well I can respect that of two female candidates, you prefer the one who is NOT Cuban-American.

I kind of assumed you'd be for the Cuban-American no matter what. But you did well.

Thank you my friend.

[Grinning Dragon]

How is the senate "blatantly" disregarding the Constitution?

... and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other ...

Do you think the authors of the Constitution meant "The President and Congress shall, sometime, at the time of their choice, or never within their term, as they see fit, appoint or reject (etc) Judges of the supreme Court" ...?

And don't resort to precedent. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Yes.
The key words here are; "shall" and "at the time of their choice" it doesn't say "must". Over the history of the US, the senate over the years has refused to give a president's nominee a hearing, not to mention the many candidates that failed to reach a majority of the votes to be confirmed.
A president nominates.
The senate either accepts the nomination and goes through the procedures to either confirm, reject or flat out refuse to consider a nomination, thus fulfilling their role as advice and consent.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

... and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other ...

Do you think the authors of the Constitution meant "The President and Congress shall, sometime, at the time of their choice, or never within their term, as they see fit, appoint or reject (etc) Judges of the supreme Court" ...?

And don't resort to precedent. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Yes.
The key words here are; "shall" and "at the time of their choice" it doesn't say "must".

"Shall" == "must"

Over the history of the US, the senate over the years has refused to give a president's nominee a hearing, not to mention the many candidates that failed to reach a majority of the votes to be confirmed.

You resorted to precedent. "Violating the constitution is OK, because it's been done before"

A president nominates.
The senate either accepts the nomination and goes through the procedures to either confirm, reject or flat out refuse to consider a nomination, thus fulfilling their role as advice and consent.

Or as happened in 2016, McConnell personally blocked the Senate from considering Garland. So the Senate never confirmed nor rejected.

"Flat out refuse" is what McConnell did. Not the Senate. If you think the Senate "flat out refused" then show me the vote of a majority of Nays, in which the Senate did that.

McConnell's main justification in 2016 is that it was too close to an election. If there was any constitutional support for blocking the Senate from considering Obama's nomination ... don't you think McConnell would have cited it?

[-Astoria-]

It seems like it's coming down to Barrett or Lagoa, since I'm sure not a ton of people know much about the latter Politico did a brief writeup on her.

Honestly I kind of think that politically Lagoa would be a safer bet. She's a minority woman who passed through with a bipartisan vote to become a federal judge and doesn't seem to have much controversy surrounding her. That'd complicate things for the Senate Dems.

I do hope it's not going to be the former.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It seems like it's coming down to Barrett or Lagoa, since I'm sure not a ton of people know much about the latter Politico did a brief writeup on her.

Honestly I kind of think that politically Lagoa would be a safer bet. She's a minority woman who passed through with a bipartisan vote to become a federal judge and doesn't seem to have much controversy surrounding her. That'd complicate things for the Senate Dems.

I do hope it's not going to be the former.

Between the two I would also favor Barrett but Lagoa doesn't seem like a bad pick from what I've been able to find.

[Grinning Dragon]

Yes.
The key words here are; "shall" and "at the time of their choice" it doesn't say "must".

"Shall" == "must"

Over the history of the US, the senate over the years has refused to give a president's nominee a hearing, not to mention the many candidates that failed to reach a majority of the votes to be confirmed.

You resorted to precedent. "Violating the constitution is OK, because it's been done before"

A president nominates.
The senate either accepts the nomination and goes through the procedures to either confirm, reject or flat out refuse to consider a nomination, thus fulfilling their role as advice and consent.

Or as happened in 2016, McConnell personally blocked the Senate from considering Garland. So the Senate never confirmed nor rejected.

"Flat out refuse" is what McConnell did. Not the Senate. If you think the Senate "flat out refused" then show me the vote of a majority of Nays, in which the Senate did that.

McConnell's main justification in 2016 is that it was too close to an election. If there was any constitutional support for blocking the Senate from considering Obama's nomination ... don't you think McConnell would have cited it?

The precedent exists because it's allowable under the constitution for either the senate to accept or refuse. No different than the hundreds of treaties laying in languish that presidents or appointed officers of the executive have signed and sent to the senate for their advice and consent and the senate refused to give those treaties a vote.

[-Astoria-]

I do hope it's not going to be the former.

Between the two I would also favor Barrett but Lagoa doesn't seem like a bad pick from what I've been able to find.

Do note that I said 'former', ie Barrett, in that she does not win.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

"Shall" == "must"



You resorted to precedent. "Violating the constitution is OK, because it's been done before"



Or as happened in 2016, McConnell personally blocked the Senate from considering Garland. So the Senate never confirmed nor rejected.

"Flat out refuse" is what McConnell did. Not the Senate. If you think the Senate "flat out refused" then show me the vote of a majority of Nays, in which the Senate did that.

McConnell's main justification in 2016 is that it was too close to an election. If there was any constitutional support for blocking the Senate from considering Obama's nomination ... don't you think McConnell would have cited it?

The precedent exists because it's allowable under the constitution for either the senate to accept or refuse.

Which the Senate did not do. In 2016.

No different than the hundreds of treaties laying in languish that presidents or appointed officers of the executive have signed and sent to the senate for their advice and consent and the senate refused to give those treaties a vote.

Article II Section 2: "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur"

Different wording. Stop digging.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Between the two I would also favor Barrett but Lagoa doesn't seem like a bad pick from what I've been able to find.

Do note that I said 'former', ie Barrett, in that she does not win.

My mistake.

Lagoa would be a good pick politically if nothing else. I don't think she's going to get the nod though because she doesn't seem like the sort of arch-conservative the party is gunning for.

[Grinning Dragon]

The precedent exists because it's allowable under the constitution for either the senate to accept or refuse.

Which the Senate did not do. In 2016.

No different than the hundreds of treaties laying in languish that presidents or appointed officers of the executive have signed and sent to the senate for their advice and consent and the senate refused to give those treaties a vote.

Article II Section 2: "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur"

Different wording. Stop digging.

The senate refusing to give a nominee a hearing is within their power just as it's within their power to grant a hearing during an election year, 17 supreme court justices have been appointed during an election year by the senate, also to point out that no supreme court candidate has been appointed during a lame duck session.
The senate refusing to give a nominee a hearing is part of their core role in appointments as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent and simply by not acting.

McConnell's main justification in 2016 is that it was too close to an election. If there was any constitutional support for blocking the Senate from considering Obama's nomination ... don't you think McConnell would have cited it?

This falls under Article 1 Section 5, which in part reads:...Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...

[The Black Forrest]

I do hope it's not going to be the former.

Between the two I would also favor Barrett but Lagoa doesn't seem like a bad pick from what I've been able to find.

Why? Because of her stance on bangbangpewpew?

Lagoa might be the darling as she does fit the republican effort to suppress voting. Jones vs Florida was over the passage of a state referendom which restored voting rights to former felons. She sided against it on the grounds they had to pay all court fees and fines even though the state couldn’t tell them what was owed. Basically pay to vote. Add in she participated in a hearing on an advisory opinion (requested by DeSantis) on the matter while she was a judge on the Florida Supreme Court. She refused to recuse herself from the appeal despite “committing under oath during [her] Senate confirmation” to withdraw from cases in which she previously participated.

She also plays into donnies election efforts to woo hispanics and Latinos. After all he is a friend to them.

Another clincher is she favors the wealthy and companies and has a pattern of not really supporting equal justice for consumers and workers.

https://www.afj.org/document/barbara-la ... nd-report/