Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

That's not the question. The question is, if McConnell took that action* and there was a lawsuit, could they hold that the process is unconstitutional.

The next question is, could they define a minimum test that meets constitutional standards for 'advice and consent?'

TM

*Determined on his one that the mechanism is that the Majority Leader made all decisions on nominees.

If the majority leader usurped the power of the Senate, I don't think they'd have any trouble rebuking the majority leader. It's not a political question or a separation of powers issue because the issue is an individual senator aggrandizing himself at the expense of the senate as a whole. So too if they attempted to seat an appointee only voted on by the judiciary committee. But I don't think they can go beyond something like "genuine action of the Senate."

But none of that presents the same questions as the Senate simply refusing to act.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

What's up with the margins?

TM

Someone posted a massive picture and it fucked them up.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You'd think some of the candidates might come out against this frightening trend: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-poli...ash-1455754850

Why not? Because this sort of removal of liberty enjoys broad bipartisan support. "It's against terrorism! And it'll help the economy, by more easily enabling negative interest rates!"

Idiocracy.

Oh, please. Does it really impinge on liberty not to have 500-euro bills?

The US used to issue bills of much higher denomination than $100. Eventually those large bills were retired, largely because of how the facilitated crime. This happened decades ago, before "terrorism!" became what it is now (i.e., to some an excuse for everything, to others (like you) the thing that they claimed was the excuse for things that they didn't like -- sort of like "political correctness").

With all of the other forms of payment that now exist, are large bills really necessary or important enough to outweigh the fact that they are so often used to transfer cash obtained thru crime? Honestly, I'm not sure -- my first thought is "but what about in Vegas?" -- but it's something people can look at without the libertarian psycho-babble coming in. Besides, shouldn't you libertarians want to stockpile gold, rather than meaningless paper printed by the evil gummint?

The Economist had a piece about (and in support of) this last week -- first time I'd heard that anyone really cared about this.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

A reference to Filmore! My opinion of Biden just plunged.

Luckily, when that happens, I can just post this:

[Stupid photo no one cares about]

and all is forgiven.

Greedy, take this shit down.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

If the majority leader usurped the power of the Senate, I don't think they'd have any trouble rebuking the majority leader. It's not a political question or a separation of powers issue because the issue is an individual senator aggrandizing himself at the expense of the senate as a whole. So too if they attempted to seat an appointee only voted on by the judiciary committee. But I don't think they can go beyond something like "genuine action of the Senate."

But none of that presents the same questions as the Senate simply refusing to act.

I guess your answer is:

If the Senate refuses to act this year, next year, until the end of time (or whatever), and there was a suit brought based on that inaction, the Supreme Court would not be able to interpret what "advise and consent" means or establish a minimum test.

Obviously my hypothetical isn't perfect. I tried to shift the question to get some sort of understanding of when you think the Court can act to interpret the clause at issue.

So far, I've heard:

• Complete Inaction by Senate for as long as they please: Court can't decide
• Action by Senate so ridiculous that it's pointless to pose the hypothetical: Court can decide

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Chris Christie for Transportation Secretary!

[Hank Chinaski]

Really, wouldn't the smart thing be to encourage Obama to nominate a middle of the road guy, then drag it out until November. If the R's keep the senate and win the White house dink him. Lose the WH, maybe confirm. Lose the Senate? Confirm the next day?

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Chris Christie for Transportation Secretary!

I hope it's only Transportation Secretary. I would crawl over broken glass to vote against a Trump/Christie ticket. And hey, did you all even know that he's a former federal prosecutor? He's always been in it more for himself than the good of the GOP as a whole, and this is just an extension of that.

I hate Chris Christie with a passion so strong that I find it impossible to put into words, and I am equally incapable of verbalizing my reasons for feeling that way. It's like he's my Hilary Swank of politics. I have never seen a single movie she has been in, and yet I desperately despise her for some indescribable reason.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I hope it's only Transportation Secretary. I would crawl over broken glass to vote against a Trump/Christie ticket. And hey, did you all even know that he's a former federal prosecutor? He's always been in it more for himself than the good of the GOP as a whole, and this is just an extension of that.

I hate Chris Christie with a passion so strong that I find it impossible to put into words, and I am equally incapable of verbalizing my reasons for feeling that way. It's like he's my Hilary Swank of politics. I have never seen a single movie she has been in, and yet I desperately despise her for some indescribable reason.

It's your Party; cry if you want to.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

If the majority leader usurped the power of the Senate, I don't think they'd have any trouble rebuking the majority leader. It's not a political question or a separation of powers issue because the issue is an individual senator aggrandizing himself at the expense of the senate as a whole. So too if they attempted to seat an appointee only voted on by the judiciary committee. But I don't think they can go beyond something like "genuine action of the Senate."

But none of that presents the same questions as the Senate simply refusing to act.

And I thought "political question" died in Bush v. Gore and the American People.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I hope it's only Transportation Secretary. I would crawl over broken glass to vote against a Trump/Christie ticket. And hey, did you all even know that he's a former federal prosecutor? He's always been in it more for himself than the good of the GOP as a whole, and this is just an extension of that.

I hate Chris Christie with a passion so strong that I find it impossible to put into words, and I am equally incapable of verbalizing my reasons for feeling that way. It's like he's my Hilary Swank of politics. I have never seen a single movie she has been in, and yet I desperately despise her for some indescribable reason.

This is what Chris Christie got in return for his endorsement:

He gets to cut the line:

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Really, wouldn't the smart thing be to encourage Obama to nominate a middle of the road guy, then drag it out until November. If the R's keep the senate and win the White house dink him. Lose the WH, maybe confirm. Lose the Senate? Confirm the next day?

Yes

[notcasesensitive]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here are my predictions:

Slave: Cruz, is there a bigger ass to vote for?
TaxWonk: Bernie, of course
Ty: Hill, with reluctance, because she's not perfect
TM: Hill, but in a close call
Sidd: O'Malley, for the win!
Sebbie: Christie, for the brawling
Hank: Bush, unless a duller candidate comes along
RT: Hill, I mean, who da biggest policy wonk in the field!?
Dtb: Hill, regardless of the boys.
Les: Bernie, now that Paul has dropped
Atticus: Trump - the man just discussed land-use regulation in a debate!

So I'm betting at least a couple of votes for Bern here.

Ahem.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

Ahem.

ggg is ignorant. If he'd met the big three of FB's he'd include you all. My best memory of ncs is that laugh, as an aside to what she is saying. In the background a giggle, that probaby ggg will/should never hear now?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

We're living in a world where Trump is going to be the nominee because he's willing to say racist things about Muslims. Same deal.

But are they really that scared? Really?