Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Robert Bork should have been-- fuck... slowly eaten alive by cannibals?

Does this clarify my position on that national embarrassment?

OK, we agree.

I can never figure out how Rs claim this all began because Dems objected to putting a hideous and corrupt asshole on the court and voted for Justice Kennedy instead. (hi Hank!)

Regardless, can we all agree that "but you would do/ have done/ will do/ might do/ would think about doing the same thing" is not a defense to doing the wrong thing, and, when someone does the wrong thing, simply flay them for it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

What? If Bush 1 was functionally president in June already, Bush 1 would be president in November. The whole point is that there is no difference in the decision makers between June and November.

There will be a different decision maker after January 20, 2017.

Biden's talking about timing. The GOP senators are talking about who decides.

somehow my response to this didn't show up- Ty deletion?

So your "interpretation" is that Biden is saying, "Bush shouldn't nominate until November, cuz lots of us are busy. But come November we will give the nominee full consideration, even if Clinton wins?"

other dems, do you agree with adder's take? ggg? Ty? T? sidd?

Are you an elaborate Penske sock? Am I whiffing by responding?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

As to the Supreme Court, I am torn on McConnell's response. On one hand, he's in this position and is being forced to make a stand because rank and file Rs are beyond pissed that congressional leadership have been a bunch of pussies. I would much rather have McConnell been willing to fall on the sword for say, Cromnibus or the debt limit, rather than this, and had he done so, he wouldn't look so much like an idiot now. He appears to have gained a lot of courage since Matt Bevin won KY. I think that the Senate should take up the matter and then vote no, if that's what they want to do.

OTOH, the Ds are being exceedingly hypocritical, as always. I cannot be convinced that a Reid-led Senate would have done anything in an R President's last year. Beside the growing number of Ds found on the record as advocating just this sort of thing when the shoe was on the other foot (now Biden), the Ds have a pretty well-established history of not being able to compete a task as simple as passing a budget. They didn't even try. You cannot tell me they would have considered a GWB nominee to replace a liberal justice who kicked the bucket in 2008 (or even the second half of 2007).

As to Trumps ever increasing likelihood of being the GOP nominee, Mr. Chick and I are pulling the plug on Presidential campaign contributions. We are now putting our political donation funds toward Senate Conservatives Fund candidates and Republican governors (and maybe some state AGs). The Senate will be our last fire break against a felon, a socialist, or whatever Donald Trump is.

I spend a lot of time on the primary and research and read the survey responses for each of the multiple nominees even for the justice of the peace candidates. I voted for primary challengers against my congressman and state representative (who both suck). I admit, though that I usually vote straight party in the general election. Not this time. I cast my first vote for President for Bob Dole when I was 20 and for the first time, I will probably vote Libertarian this go round. Heck I would be as likely to vote for Lyndon LaRouche as Trump.

ETA: I will not in any way argue that McConnell is not a liar and a hypocrite as well. I think we can all agree that Mitch McConnell sucks.

It could have been worse for the Republicans. They could have had Cruz.

I am looking forward to an election cycle where Mitch McConnell has given Obama an engraved invitation to bring his very popular and incredibly powerful self out to campaign directly against vulnerable Republicants in swing states, and where everyone, from the Presidential candidate to the local state rep candidate, gets to run against Mitch McConnell and his no-show Senators.

Don't get me wrong, I very much want the Republicants to do the right thing, but I do appreciate their willingness to go down in flames for doing the wrong thing.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

somehow my response to this didn't show up- Ty deletion?

So your "interpretation" is that Biden is saying, "Bush shouldn't nominate until November, cuz lots of us are busy. But come November we will give the nominee full consideration, even if Clinton wins?"

Are you an elaborate Penske sock? Am I whiffing by responding?

Not to defend the Joe Biden of 1992, but what is a clear difference between then and now is that then-Majority Leader George Mitchell did flatly state that the Senate would not hold hearings or otherwise act in any way regarding any potential GHWB nominee. Not did Robert Byrd in 1988.

Again, I think that the GOP *can* do this. It just is unseemly and (I think) politically unwise.

And the idea that McConnell's statement is somehow consistent with what the Democratic Party supposedly did to nominees of Reagan, GHWB, or W is transparently disingenuous bullshit.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Hypocrisy is in what you believe the Dems would have done? This word, it does not mean what you think it means.

The neverending excuse of the Rs that the Ds are just as crazy as they are deserves nothing but a laugh.

Really, guys, give it up. You're the party nominating Trump.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Not to defend the Joe Biden of 1992, but what is a clear difference between then and now is that then-Majority Leader George Mitchell did flatly state that the Senate would not hold hearings or otherwise act in any way regarding any potential GHWB nominee. Not did Robert Byrd in 1988.

Again, I think that the GOP *can* do this. It just is unseemly and (I think) politically unwise.

And the idea that McConnell's statement is somehow consistent with what the Democratic Party supposedly did to nominees of Reagan, GHWB, or W is transparently disingenuous bullshit.

you left out a "not" relative to Senator Mitchell? how is McConnell's statement different than Biden's? simply the relative leadership positions? Biden was a national player at the time, and he is the VP today. I don't see it as bullshit. I see the game of politics in this country has become poisoned, and ruled by gotcha, gotcha back. I wish the R's today have the foresight to realize they should consider O's nominee. I mean these things balance out across the years, and refusing to consider a nominee leads to the next dem senate refusing to consider an R nominee, and then we get to a SCt. that is as understaffed as several of the Federal courts. But I think you make the dem position silly if you dismiss what Biden and Obama did (they both say they regret what they did for some reason) as Senators.

And none of you are willing to say Adder is flat out stone cold brain dead, which actually says more than anything.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you left out a "not" relative to Senator Mitchell?

Indeed I did. Thanks.

how is McConnell's statement different than Biden's? simply the relative leadership positions? Biden was a national player at the time, and he is the VP today.

Yes. And IIRC, Biden was chair of the Judiciary Committee in 1988 and 1992, but I don't think he ever said "we aren't having hearings on any nominees of Reagan/GHWB." Maybe you view it as a distinction without a difference, but I don't see it that way.

I don't see it as bullshit.

Ok, come on. You don't see a flat refusal by the Majority Leader (supported by GOP members of the Judiciary Committee) to consider *any* nominee as being materially different than one or two Democratic senators - even leading ones like Biden - saying they won't vote for a Reagan/GHWB/W pick? Even with a filibuster threat, it just isn't the same thing.

see the game of politics in this country has become poisoned, and ruled by gotcha, gotcha back. I wish the R's today have the foresight to realize they should consider O's nominee. I mean these things balance out across the years, and refusing to consider a nominee leads to the next dem senate refusing to consider an R nominee, and then we get to a SCt. that is as understaffed as several of the Federal courts.

Yup.

But I think you make the dem position silly if you dismiss what Biden and Obama did (they both say they regret what they did for some reason) as Senators.

I'm not dismissing it at all. And I quite expect Cruz and Rubio to make such statements - I'd actually be shocked if they didn't. And other hard conservatives in the senate, too. I mean, even George Washington had to deal with partisan opposition to a Supreme Court nominee. But to flat out say that it doesn't matter who he picks, she/he will not have a hearing and will not get a vote is quite a different animal.

And none of you are willing to say Adder is flat out stone cold brain dead, which actually says more than anything.

You wish me to denounce Bukharin? Why must I denounce Bukharin?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Ok, come on. You don't see a flat refusal by the Majority Leader (supported by GOP members of the Judiciary Committee) to consider *any* nominee as being materially different than one or two Democratic senators - even leading ones like Biden - saying they won't vote for a Reagan/GHWB/W pick? Even with a filibuster threat, it just isn't the same thing.

ummm, didn't he say Bush 1 shouldn't nominate anyone because it would be wrong, and unprecedented, other than 2 presidents that made very wrong decisions? You guys are smarter than me. But I hear him saying that. Can you help me?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

You wish me to denounce Bukharin? Why must I denounce Bukharin?

there is a reason the board is dead, and this is another brick in the wall.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

ummm, didn't he say Bush 1 shouldn't nominate anyone because it would be wrong, and unprecedented, other than 2 presidents that made very wrong decisions? You guys are smarter than me. But I hear him saying that. Can you help me?

I am not defending whatever Biden said. But he was not the Majority Leader when he said it. How does me making that distinction require you to pretend that I am smarter than you?

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

there is a reason the board is dead, and this is another brick in the wall.

1. I'd have gone with, "all in all, you're just another brick in the wall." And I am not even that much of a Floyd fan.

2. Kidding aside, the fact that I don't call Adder "brain dead" is hardly a reason the board is dead. Heck, I don't even come here often enough to make GGG's list of which poster supports which candidate. (Not that I'm bitter.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

1. I'd have gone with, "all in all, you're just another brick in the wall." And I am not even that much of a Floyd fan.

2. Kidding aside, the fact that I don't call Adder "brain dead" is hardly a reason the board is dead. Heck, I don't even come here often enough to make GGG's list of which poster supports which candidate. (Not that I'm bitter.)

I meant this: being intellectually honest with yourselves doesn't seem to matter, on a board where there really is no contrary poster. There is no reason for me to be here. Enjoy!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

It doesn't say advice or consent. I would love to hear how exactly McConnell's actions are in line with that phrase in your opinion. The flat out refusal to even consider a nominee seems to fly in the face of the actual words and certainly the founders' intent. And we all know how sacred both those principles are to Republicans.

TM

Sorry, it says advise and consent -- but what's the difference? The Constitution requires Senate consent for the President's appointments, and this Senate appears to have decided to withhold consent. I disagree with what you say about the founders' intent -- I'm not sure the founders thought about what would happen in a polarized nation where the Senate simply refuses to give consent. I think you're working too hard to interpret the Constitution as functional -- I think the Constitution allows an untenable impasse. But either way, it's not good.

That said, here is an interesting piece I just came across re all of this:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2016/02/c...n-justice.html

Also, this, which is not at all consistent with what I was saying a few days ago:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...than-they-look

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sorry, it says advise and consent -- but what's the difference? The Constitution requires Senate consent for the President's appointments, and this Senate appears to have decided to withhold consent. I disagree with what you say about the founders' intent -- I'm not sure the founders thought about what would happen in a polarized nation where the Senate simply refuses to give consent. I think you're working too hard to interpret the Constitution as functional -- I think the Constitution allows an untenable impasse. But either way, it's not good.

I don't really understand why we're still arguing this. You seem to be reading the word, "advise," out of the clause. If you don't read it out of the clause, the Senate needs some type of method of advising. If you think the mechanism is for the Speaker to decide he can close his eyes, hum the Battle Hymn, stick his fingers in his ears, and pretend there isn't even a nominee, then I guess we'll just disagree.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I don't really understand why we're still arguing this. You seem to be reading the word, "advise," out of the clause. If you don't read it out of the clause, the Senate needs some type of method of advising. If you think the mechanism is for the Speaker to decide he can close his eyes, hum the Battle Hymn, stick his fingers in his ears, and pretend there isn't even a nominee, then I guess we'll just disagree.

I'm not sure we're even arguing, but my point is this: The Constitution sets up the current impasse, because it doesn't establish a mechanism that works in this situation. There confirmation process has worked through a series of norms that have been breaking down, as each side accuses the other of departing from them. It goes back to the Bork confirmation hearings, which Republicans see as an unprecedented effort to block a qualified nominee on the basis of his views. Of course, Bork's nomination was a conscious effort by Republicans to remake the Court. In short, the Constitution is not up to the task where you have a zero-sum, political fight over who serves on the Court. Saying that the President and Senate must agree doesn't tell you what to do when they don't.