Justice Scalia Dead (1 Viewer)

[pinequick]

There's no mystery with Trump. He would nominate a terrific candidate. The best ever. Just phenomenal.

Interestingly I think he was the only candidate at the last debate that specifically named potential justices he would nominate.

-QG

Donald Trump's "Celebrity Apprentice: Supreme Court Edition" would make for fantastic television.

Let's be honest--after the primary season we've had thus far, this really isn't such a far-fetched joke.

 

[pinequick]

I assume he was hunting so he must have been in pretty good shape.

Yea, fat, unhealthy guys never hunt

Well he wasn't bedridden or anything. I'm just saying, dying in your sleep is something that doesn't happen a whole lot to folks who can still get around pretty well.

Apparently he did say that he wasn't feeling well the night before.And a heart attack when you're sleeping at 79? Totally plausible.

-QG

So did anyone ever account for Cheney's whereabouts.

Fellas, they made a whole movie about this (Pelican Brief).

Plus, public unions [READ: Mob ties] stand to gain huge from Scalia's passing and a likely 4-4 outcome in the upcoming decision (leaving in place the ability for public unions to require dues even from non-members).

:tinfoilhat;

 

[jon_mx]

Let's go recent history....how long did it take for Roberts and Alito to get appointed?

What does it matter? You can throw every example out the window because this one appointment could fundamentally change the balance of the court in a way not seen in our lifetime. Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picksNew York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
...

http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146#ixzz40C9rPuOS

- 7/27/07

Right now we have an open seat, not a hypothetical open seat.

 

[tommyboy]

Sad. The guy was pretty good, kind of a throwback. He'll be missed

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picksNew York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
...

http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146#ixzz40C9rPuOS

- 7/27/07

Right now we have an open seat, not a hypothetical open seat.

Schumer voted against confirming Roberts and Alito. In Friday’s speech, he said his “greatest regret” in the last Congress was not doing more to scuttle Alito.

“Alito shouldn’t have been confirmed,” Schumer said. “I should have done a better job. My colleagues said we didn’t have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and done more.”

...

Schumer said there were four lessons to be learned from Alito and Roberts: Confirmation hearings are meaningless, a nominee’s record should be weighed more heavily than rhetoric, “ideology matters” and “take the president at his word.”

“When a president says he wants to nominate justices in the mold of [Antonin] Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas,” Schumer said, “believe him.”

I'm not arguing one way or the other, but UH asked, so that was the closest I could find. Obviously you found the actual answer.

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “- Well, I guess he was wrong.

eta:

Senator Schumer on Roberts and Alito

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

Undoubtedly, they would. And you would criticize them for it.

You should therefore criticize the Republicans now just as harshly. Will you?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picksNew York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
...

http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146#ixzz40C9rPuOS

- 7/27/07

Right now we have an open seat, not a hypothetical open seat.

Don't do this. The correct response here is not to draw a meaningless distinction, but to acknowledge that Schumer was a goober and was wrong. (Either that, or the current Republicans are right.)

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Let's go recent history....how long did it take for Roberts and Alito to get appointed?

What does it matter? You can throw every example out the window because this one appointment could fundamentally change the balance of the court in a way not seen in our lifetime. Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

As expected, the importance of these appointments is always massively overrated.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Schumer to fight new Bush high court picksNew York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
...

http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146#ixzz40C9rPuOS

- 7/27/07

Right now we have an open seat, not a hypothetical open seat.

Don't do this. The correct response here is not to draw a meaningless distinction, but to acknowledge that Schumer was is a goober and was is usually wrong. (Either that, or the current Republicans are right.)

Better

ETA: Except for his Ted Cruz hate, which is spot on

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Let's go recent history....how long did it take for Roberts and Alito to get appointed?

What does it matter? You can throw every example out the window because this one appointment could fundamentally change the balance of the court in a way not seen in our lifetime. Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

As expected, the importance of these appointments is always massively overrated.

Yeah and jon is also assuming that the GOP will win the White House in this scenario. Bottom line is we can't have an open seat for over a year. Does anyone know the longest opening on the Supreme Court?

 

[dparker713]

Let's go recent history....how long did it take for Roberts and Alito to get appointed?

What does it matter? You can throw every example out the window because this one appointment could fundamentally change the balance of the court in a way not seen in our lifetime. Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

As expected, the importance of these appointments is always massively overrated.

Yeah and jon is also assuming that the GOP will win the White House in this scenario. Bottom line is we can't have an open seat for over a year. Does anyone know the longest opening on the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court does not have a set number of jurists. We could have 8 justices in perpetuity.

 

[pinequick]

Let's go recent history....how long did it take for Roberts and Alito to get appointed?

What does it matter? You can throw every example out the window because this one appointment could fundamentally change the balance of the court in a way not seen in our lifetime. Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

As expected, the importance of these appointments is always massively overrated.

Yeah and jon is also assuming that the GOP will win the White House in this scenario. Bottom line is we can't have an open seat for over a year. Does anyone know the longest opening on the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court does not have a set number of jurists. We could have 8 justices in perpetuity.

Fact check

 

[dparker713]

But couldn't one argue that Scalia was in fact an activist judge for conservative causes? Take Bush vs Gore for instance- wasn't that an activist decision?

Scalia lost his fastball a while ago. His opinions had gotten more erratic over time.

As for Bush v Gore, that case was decided on a 7-2 split that the actions of Florida had violated the Constitution. The 5-4 split was based upon the remedy. 5 members decided that there was insufficient time to send the case back down and conduct a new recount - that for an orderly transition of power the case needed to end with their decision. That section is understandably controversial and split along conservative/progressive lines. Its also pretty unprecedented and a judgement call.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

There is a Chief Justice seat and 8 associate judge seats, they don't just have those seats so they can go empty. No idea what "no set number of jurists" even means.

 

[sho nuff]

Let's go recent history....how long did it take for Roberts and Alito to get appointed?

What does it matter? You can throw every example out the window because this one appointment could fundamentally change the balance of the court in a way not seen in our lifetime. Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

But they aren't reversed...so its the right who may act like children and end up getting spanked because of it.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

There is a Chief Justice seat and 8 associate judge seats, they don't just have those seats so they can go empty. No idea what "no set number of jurists" even means.

The law specifies a certain number of judges on each of the federal appeals courts, yet vacancies can sometimes continue for years at a time. We don't expect the same to happen with the Supreme Court but there's no legal reason why it can't.

 

[pinequick]

There is a Chief Justice seat and 8 associate judge seats, they don't just have those seats so they can go empty. No idea what "no set number of jurists" even means.

My guess is that he means that it's not stipulated in the Constitution. But that doesn't mean that the number isn't set in statute law, which it is (see bottom of the page).

 

[dparker713]

Let's go recent history....how long did it take for Roberts and Alito to get appointed?

What does it matter? You can throw every example out the window because this one appointment could fundamentally change the balance of the court in a way not seen in our lifetime. Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

As expected, the importance of these appointments is always massively overrated.

Yeah and jon is also assuming that the GOP will win the White House in this scenario. Bottom line is we can't have an open seat for over a year. Does anyone know the longest opening on the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court does not have a set number of jurists. We could have 8 justices in perpetuity.

Fact check

Two things, that's a legislative act of Congress, they can set the number of members of the Court to anything they'd like requiring no more consensus than any other bill.

Nothing in that act prevents the Court from proceeding with 8 in perpetuity. A quorum is set at 6 and there is no penalty clause for any party for failure to fill a vacant slot.

 

[pinequick]

Let's go recent history....how long did it take for Roberts and Alito to get appointed?

What does it matter? You can throw every example out the window because this one appointment could fundamentally change the balance of the court in a way not seen in our lifetime. Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

As expected, the importance of these appointments is always massively overrated.

Yeah and jon is also assuming that the GOP will win the White House in this scenario. Bottom line is we can't have an open seat for over a year. Does anyone know the longest opening on the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court does not have a set number of jurists. We could have 8 justices in perpetuity.

Fact check

Two things, that's a legislative act of Congress, they can set the number of members of the Court to anything they'd like requiring no more consensus than any other bill.

Nothing in that act prevents the Court from proceeding with 8 in perpetuity. A quorum is set at 6 and there is no penalty clause for any party for failure to fill a vacant slot.

For the "set number of jurists" to be less than 9, Congress would have to change the Judiciary Act of 1869. They have not.

They can still conduct business with six, but that is very different than suggesting that there is no set number. It's not like they picked "9" out of a hat...

 

[dparker713]

Let's go recent history....how long did it take for Roberts and Alito to get appointed?

What does it matter? You can throw every example out the window because this one appointment could fundamentally change the balance of the court in a way not seen in our lifetime. Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

As expected, the importance of these appointments is always massively overrated.

Yeah and jon is also assuming that the GOP will win the White House in this scenario. Bottom line is we can't have an open seat for over a year. Does anyone know the longest opening on the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court does not have a set number of jurists. We could have 8 justices in perpetuity.

Fact check

Two things, that's a legislative act of Congress, they can set the number of members of the Court to anything they'd like requiring no more consensus than any other bill.

Nothing in that act prevents the Court from proceeding with 8 in perpetuity. A quorum is set at 6 and there is no penalty clause for any party for failure to fill a vacant slot.

For the "set number of jurists" to be less than 9, Congress would have to change the Judiciary Act of 1869. They have not.

They can still conduct business with six, but that is very different than suggesting that there is no set number. It's not like they picked "9" out of a hat...

9 is pretty damn random.

 

[apalmer]

It is kind of weird for a dude in seemingly good health (even if he's 79) to just die in his sleep. He was at a hunting lodge so I assume he was hunting so he must have been in pretty good shape.

Really? So how did my father die while hunting at the age of 48?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

There is a Chief Justice seat and 8 associate judge seats, they don't just have those seats so they can go empty. No idea what "no set number of jurists" even means.

The law specifies a certain number of judges on each of the federal appeals courts, yet vacancies can sometimes continue for years at a time. We don't expect the same to happen with the Supreme Court but there's no legal reason why it can't.

I understand that they (the Senate or the White House) can leave it empty, but logic and the machine of government serving its citizens seems to dictate those open seats are filled as soon as possible with the most qualified candidates.

 

[pinequick]

Let's go recent history....how long did it take for Roberts and Alito to get appointed?

What does it matter? You can throw every example out the window because this one appointment could fundamentally change the balance of the court in a way not seen in our lifetime. Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

As expected, the importance of these appointments is always massively overrated.

Yeah and jon is also assuming that the GOP will win the White House in this scenario. Bottom line is we can't have an open seat for over a year. Does anyone know the longest opening on the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court does not have a set number of jurists. We could have 8 justices in perpetuity.

Fact check

Two things, that's a legislative act of Congress, they can set the number of members of the Court to anything they'd like requiring no more consensus than any other bill.

Nothing in that act prevents the Court from proceeding with 8 in perpetuity. A quorum is set at 6 and there is no penalty clause for any party for failure to fill a vacant slot.

For the "set number of jurists" to be less than 9, Congress would have to change the Judiciary Act of 1869. They have not.

They can still conduct business with six, but that is very different than suggesting that there is no set number. It's not like they picked "9" out of a hat...

9 is pretty damn random.

Yeah, but it's written down in statute law. So that pretty much "sets" it at 9. Not sure what you're trying to say when you suggest "The Supreme Court does not have a set number of jurists." That's not true.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Yeah there is one chief justice seat and 8 associate judge seats. Not sure how this is debatable.

 

[jon_mx]

Let's go recent history....how long did it take for Roberts and Alito to get appointed?

What does it matter? You can throw every example out the window because this one appointment could fundamentally change the balance of the court in a way not seen in our lifetime. Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

As expected, the importance of these appointments is always massively overrated.

Yeah and jon is also assuming that the GOP will win the White House in this scenario. Bottom line is we can't have an open seat for over a year. Does anyone know the longest opening on the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court does not have a set number of jurists. We could have 8 justices in perpetuity.

Fact check

Two things, that's a legislative act of Congress, they can set the number of members of the Court to anything they'd like requiring no more consensus than any other bill.

Nothing in that act prevents the Court from proceeding with 8 in perpetuity. A quorum is set at 6 and there is no penalty clause for any party for failure to fill a vacant slot.

For the "set number of jurists" to be less than 9, Congress would have to change the Judiciary Act of 1869. They have not.They can still conduct business with six, but that is very different than suggesting that there is no set number. It's not like they picked "9" out of a hat...

9 is pretty damn random.

Not that random. Being an odd number makes sense. Three is too smal and no real reason to have more than 10 Five, seven or nine were the most logical choices.

 

[pinequick]

Not that random. Being an odd number makes sense. Three is too smal and no real reason to have more than 10 Five, seven or nine were the most logical choices.

Always been curious why in the hell they started with 6??

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

Undoubtedly, they would. And you would criticize them for it.

You should therefore criticize the Republicans now just as harshly. Will you?

I'm not sure how I feel about this issue, but why should the GOP give the Democrats a courtesy they apparently were prepared to withhold themselves?

And the number of major initiatives that Obama has used executive orders to circumvent Congress is 1 (immigration), 2 (health care), 3 (guns), 4 (Iran), and counting, so again he refused the constitutional tip of the hat to them, so why are they obligated by honor to show him that deference?

 

[Sabertooth]

Not that random. Being an odd number makes sense. Three is too smal and no real reason to have more than 10 Five, seven or nine were the most logical choices.

Always been curious why in the hell they started with 6??

Number of the Beast.

 

[Sabertooth]

Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

Undoubtedly, they would. And you would criticize them for it.

You should therefore criticize the Republicans now just as harshly. Will you?

I'm not sure how I feel about this issue, but why should the GOP give the Democrats a courtesy they apparently were prepared to withhold themselves?

And the number of major initiatives that Obama has used executive orders to circumvent Congress is 1 (immigration), 2 (health care), 3 (guns), 4 (Iran), and counting, so again he refused the constitutional tip of the hat to them, so why are they obligated by honor to show him that deference?

Why would they change now, they have been stonewalling for 8 years?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

Undoubtedly, they would. And you would criticize them for it.

You should therefore criticize the Republicans now just as harshly. Will you?

I'm not sure how I feel about this issue, but why should the GOP give the Democrats a courtesy they apparently were prepared to withhold themselves?

And the number of major initiatives that Obama has used executive orders to circumvent Congress is 1 (immigration), 2 (health care), 3 (guns), 4 (Iran), and counting, so again he refused the constitutional tip of the hat to them, so why are they obligated by honor to show him that deference?

Why would they change now, they have been stonewalling for 8 years?

Sure pick your reason, so why play nice guy now? Honor? To be pleasant? There is no constitutional duty beyond advise and consent.

This is the state of our government. SNAFU.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

Undoubtedly, they would. And you would criticize them for it.

You should therefore criticize the Republicans now just as harshly. Will you?

I'm not sure how I feel about this issue, but why should the GOP give the Democrats a courtesy they apparently were prepared to withhold themselves?

And the number of major initiatives that Obama has used executive orders to circumvent Congress is 1 (immigration), 2 (health care), 3 (guns), 4 (Iran), and counting, so again he refused the constitutional tip of the hat to them, so why are they obligated by honor to show him that deference?

He didn't circumvent congress on Iran, he didn't need Congressional approval. The list of international treaties and agreements put forth by former U.S. presidents without any congressional approval is really, really long. He passed immigration reform because Congress is so inept and ineffective, they were never going to get to changing the laws because everyone wanted so much of their personal pork added in.

Same thing with the background checks, Congress too busy with their hands out waiting for an NRA grease parade to get anything even to the floor.

Obamacare was his baby, he ran on it. We can go back and look at how presidents like GW Bush and Reagan "circumvented" Congress too if you want. Or really any president who got anything done since, well...forever.

 

[skycriesmary]

"Apparently, the GOP thinks that Black Presidents only get 3/5ths a term."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

Undoubtedly, they would. And you would criticize them for it.

You should therefore criticize the Republicans now just as harshly. Will you?

I'm not sure how I feel about this issue, but why should the GOP give the Democrats a courtesy they apparently were prepared to withhold themselves?

And the number of major initiatives that Obama has used executive orders to circumvent Congress is 1 (immigration), 2 (health care), 3 (guns), 4 (Iran), and counting, so again he refused the constitutional tip of the hat to them, so why are they obligated by honor to show him that deference?

He didn't circumvent congress on Iran, he didn't need Congressional approval. The list of international treaties and agreements put forth by former U.S. presidents without any congressional approval is really, really long. He passed immigration reform because Congress is so inept and ineffective, they were never going to get to changing the laws because everyone wanted so much of their personal pork added in.

Same thing with the background checks, Congress too busy with their hands out waiting for an NRA grease parade to get anything even to the floor.

Obamacare was his baby, he ran on it. We can go back and look at how presidents like GW Bush and Reagan "circumvented" Congress too if you want. Or really any president who got anything done since, well...forever.

The US presidents have conducted treaties without Senate approval?

 

[timschochet]

Everything i've watched today on TV sure makes it seem like the Republicans are simply going to refuse to confirm anyone Obama nominates. Every Senator I've seen, every conservative analyst or pundit, they're all unanimous. There's not the slightest dissent about it.

So given that, whatever the precedent might be, it sure doesn't look like we're going to have 9 SC justices until after next January.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Everything i've watched today on TV sure makes it seem like the Republicans are simply going to refuse to confirm anyone Obama nominates. Every Senator I've seen, every conservative analyst or pundit, they're all unanimous. There's not the slightest dissent about it.

So given that, whatever the precedent might be, it sure doesn't look like we're going to have 9 SC justices until after next January.

That is indeed how it looks.

 

[timschochet]

And even after next January, suppose Hillary or Bernie is elected but the Senate stays Republican- they can keep stonewalling forever, can't they? Given their demands of their base why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't the dysfunction simply continue for years? And why shouldn't the Dems respond by refusing to accept the next Republican nomination?

I'm not sure I see a logical way out of this confrontation, minus the rise of some sort of 3rd party movement that specifically runs on bipartisanship.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And even after next January, suppose Hillary or Bernie is elected but the Senate stays Republican- they can keep stonewalling forever, can't they? Given their demands of their base why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't the dysfunction simply continue for years? And why shouldn't the Dems respond by refusing to accept the next Republican nomination?

I'm not sure I see a logical way out of this confrontation, minus the rise of some sort of 3rd party movement that specifically runs on bipartisanship.

I think after January 2017 it gets done no matter what.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

Undoubtedly, they would. And you would criticize them for it.

You should therefore criticize the Republicans now just as harshly. Will you?

I'm not sure how I feel about this issue, but why should the GOP give the Democrats a courtesy they apparently were prepared to withhold themselves?

And the number of major initiatives that Obama has used executive orders to circumvent Congress is 1 (immigration), 2 (health care), 3 (guns), 4 (Iran), and counting, so again he refused the constitutional tip of the hat to them, so why are they obligated by honor to show him that deference?

He didn't circumvent congress on Iran, he didn't need Congressional approval. The list of international treaties and agreements put forth by former U.S. presidents without any congressional approval is really, really long. He passed immigration reform because Congress is so inept and ineffective, they were never going to get to changing the laws because everyone wanted so much of their personal pork added in.

Same thing with the background checks, Congress too busy with their hands out waiting for an NRA grease parade to get anything even to the floor.

Obamacare was his baby, he ran on it. We can go back and look at how presidents like GW Bush and Reagan "circumvented" Congress too if you want. Or really any president who got anything done since, well...forever.

The US presidents have conducted treaties without Senate approval?

I say "treaties" in the vernacular, not the constitutional sense. Treaties are few and far between these days, Executive agreements are used in lieu of them.

That's all you got?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

Undoubtedly, they would. And you would criticize them for it.

You should therefore criticize the Republicans now just as harshly. Will you?

I'm not sure how I feel about this issue, but why should the GOP give the Democrats a courtesy they apparently were prepared to withhold themselves?

And the number of major initiatives that Obama has used executive orders to circumvent Congress is 1 (immigration), 2 (health care), 3 (guns), 4 (Iran), and counting, so again he refused the constitutional tip of the hat to them, so why are they obligated by honor to show him that deference?

He didn't circumvent congress on Iran, he didn't need Congressional approval. The list of international treaties and agreements put forth by former U.S. presidents without any congressional approval is really, really long. He passed immigration reform because Congress is so inept and ineffective, they were never going to get to changing the laws because everyone wanted so much of their personal pork added in.

Same thing with the background checks, Congress too busy with their hands out waiting for an NRA grease parade to get anything even to the floor.

Obamacare was his baby, he ran on it. We can go back and look at how presidents like GW Bush and Reagan "circumvented" Congress too if you want. Or really any president who got anything done since, well...forever.

The US presidents have conducted treaties without Senate approval?

I say "treaties" in the vernacular, not the constitutional sense. Treaties are few and far between these days, Executive agreements are used in lieu of them.

That's all you got?

I'm not battling you here, just getting your take. As I said I'm not sure how I feel about the issue, before I opened the thread I knew it would be complex.

Ok on the treaties bit, thanks for clearing that up.

 

[timschochet]

And even after next January, suppose Hillary or Bernie is elected but the Senate stays Republican- they can keep stonewalling forever, can't they? Given their demands of their base why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't the dysfunction simply continue for years? And why shouldn't the Dems respond by refusing to accept the next Republican nomination?

I'm not sure I see a logical way out of this confrontation, minus the rise of some sort of 3rd party movement that specifically runs on bipartisanship.

I think after January 2017 it gets done no matter what.

Based on what? You think the Republicans are going to accept whomever Hillary or Bernie selects, assuming they win? And if a Republican wins, you think the Dems won't filibuster as payback? This seems ugly.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Dems would pull every nuclear option available if the shoes were reversed.

Undoubtedly, they would. And you would criticize them for it.

You should therefore criticize the Republicans now just as harshly. Will you?

I'm not sure how I feel about this issue, but why should the GOP give the Democrats a courtesy they apparently were prepared to withhold themselves?

And the number of major initiatives that Obama has used executive orders to circumvent Congress is 1 (immigration), 2 (health care), 3 (guns), 4 (Iran), and counting, so again he refused the constitutional tip of the hat to them, so why are they obligated by honor to show him that deference?

He didn't circumvent congress on Iran, he didn't need Congressional approval. The list of international treaties and agreements put forth by former U.S. presidents without any congressional approval is really, really long. He passed immigration reform because Congress is so inept and ineffective, they were never going to get to changing the laws because everyone wanted so much of their personal pork added in.

Same thing with the background checks, Congress too busy with their hands out waiting for an NRA grease parade to get anything even to the floor.

Obamacare was his baby, he ran on it. We can go back and look at how presidents like GW Bush and Reagan "circumvented" Congress too if you want. Or really any president who got anything done since, well...forever.

The US presidents have conducted treaties without Senate approval?

I say "treaties" in the vernacular, not the constitutional sense. Treaties are few and far between these days, Executive agreements are used in lieu of them.

That's all you got?

I'm not battling you here, just getting your take. As I said I'm not sure how I feel about the issue, before I opened the thread I knew it would be complex.

Ok on the treaties bit, thanks for clearing that up.

I'm just spitballing same as you, I'm no constitutional lawyer.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And even after next January, suppose Hillary or Bernie is elected but the Senate stays Republican- they can keep stonewalling forever, can't they? Given their demands of their base why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't the dysfunction simply continue for years? And why shouldn't the Dems respond by refusing to accept the next Republican nomination?

I'm not sure I see a logical way out of this confrontation, minus the rise of some sort of 3rd party movement that specifically runs on bipartisanship.

I think after January 2017 it gets done no matter what.

Based on what? You think the Republicans are going to accept whomever Hillary or Bernie selects, assuming they win? And if a Republican wins, you think the Dems won't filibuster as payback? This seems ugly.

Good point about the Democrats.

I don't know but I don't see us going forever at 8.

I'm guessing both parties deal again after the deck is reshuffled.

 

[Mario Kart]

And even after next January, suppose Hillary or Bernie is elected but the Senate stays Republican- they can keep stonewalling forever, can't they? Given their demands of their base why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't the dysfunction simply continue for years? And why shouldn't the Dems respond by refusing to accept the next Republican nomination?

I'm not sure I see a logical way out of this confrontation, minus the rise of some sort of 3rd party movement that specifically runs on bipartisanship.

I think after January 2017 it gets done no matter what.

It will since the Dems would have control of each chamber.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Everything i've watched today on TV sure makes it seem like the Republicans are simply going to refuse to confirm anyone Obama nominates. Every Senator I've seen, every conservative analyst or pundit, they're all unanimous. There's not the slightest dissent about it.

So given that, whatever the precedent might be, it sure doesn't look like we're going to have 9 SC justices until after next January.

A sad state of affairs. Shameful, even just on the rhetoric, whether it comes to fruition or not. We are dissolving as a country. Blind partisanship is corroding our common bonds. Once finally fully divided we have fallen. Many will cheer the fall, being to blind to perceive what it actually means.

 

[timschochet]

Everything i've watched today on TV sure makes it seem like the Republicans are simply going to refuse to confirm anyone Obama nominates. Every Senator I've seen, every conservative analyst or pundit, they're all unanimous. There's not the slightest dissent about it.

So given that, whatever the precedent might be, it sure doesn't look like we're going to have 9 SC justices until after next January.

A sad state of affairs. Shameful, even just on the rhetoric, whether it comes to fruition or not. We are dissolving as a country. Blind partisanship is corroding our common bonds. Once finally fully divided we have fallen. Many will cheer the fall, being to blind to perceive what it actually means.

It does feel a bit like the 1850s, doesn't it? Except I can't see us going to war with each other. (I hope).

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Ironic that the Repeublicans are going to Bork a nominee, if that is indeed what they do.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Everything i've watched today on TV sure makes it seem like the Republicans are simply going to refuse to confirm anyone Obama nominates. Every Senator I've seen, every conservative analyst or pundit, they're all unanimous. There's not the slightest dissent about it.

So given that, whatever the precedent might be, it sure doesn't look like we're going to have 9 SC justices until after next January.

A sad state of affairs. Shameful, even just on the rhetoric, whether it comes to fruition or not. We are dissolving as a country. Blind partisanship is corroding our common bonds. Once finally fully divided we have fallen. Many will cheer the fall, being to blind to perceive what it actually means.

It does feel a bit like the 1850s, doesn't it? Except I can't see us going to war with each other. (I hope).

I'm not gonna kid ya, I'm not a fan of Arkansas.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ironic that the Repeublicans are going to Bork a nominee, if that is indeed what they do.

Bork begat Souter.

Did the Democrats do the right thing?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Everything i've watched today on TV sure makes it seem like the Republicans are simply going to refuse to confirm anyone Obama nominates. Every Senator I've seen, every conservative analyst or pundit, they're all unanimous. There's not the slightest dissent about it.

So given that, whatever the precedent might be, it sure doesn't look like we're going to have 9 SC justices until after next January.

A sad state of affairs. Shameful, even just on the rhetoric, whether it comes to fruition or not. We are dissolving as a country. Blind partisanship is corroding our common bonds. Once finally fully divided we have fallen. Many will cheer the fall, being to blind to perceive what it actually means.

It does feel a bit like the 1850s, doesn't it? Except I can't see us going to war with each other. (I hope).

I am not as versed in history as are you so I would be reluctant to say. I had not considered the present matter in a context of history perhaps repeating itself, as I have so often heard it does. I was making an observation, jaded likely, that few in our species have the restraint or the wisdom to advance beyond tribalistic thinking. Perhaps during this time a new leader or philosophy will emerge in reaction to the tension. That has happened often enough to be a hope if not a reliable pattern. I guess from my limited understanding of that conflict I can see parallels in the thought process that lead to such recalcitrant and opposed positions that reason and goodwill could not prevail.