Originally Posted by Adder (Post 499152)

I don't think you'd have any choice.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499157)

Your single sentence responses tend to get annoying. The whole point of a conversation is to understand why you think what you think.

TM

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 499135)

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.)

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 499127)

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.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 499158)

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. The court has no power to force the senate to take any action. Even if it wanted to order its co-equal branch to do something, what would it order and how would it enforce it? Send the Marshals to force them to vote?

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 499158)

Whether a political question or barred by the separation of powers, the court would stay out of it.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 499158)

ETA: Also, it's not my fault you use too god damn many words.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499164)

http://winningdemocrats.com/gop-fran...cotus-nominee/

TM

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499142)

After removing the political operatives and pundits, the number of people who care about Hillary's emails or Libby's outing Plame could fit in the same bus.



"Congress" didn't care about Plame and it doesn't care about Hillary. The GOP cares about Hillary, and the Democrats cared about Plame. And that's an overstatement, because neither really cared about either issue. Both were opportunistic plays for political gain.



They're not all different. Libby engaged in a tawdry political act, technically exposing himself to prosecution. Hillary did something probably stupid, possibly intentionally aimed at keeping public information private, technically exposing her to possible prosecution.

Clapper, on the other hand, lied to Congress. That he has the cover of perjury being difficult to prove, and that Congress knew it was being duped, doesn't undo his culpability. Of the three, he is most deserving of prosecution, or loss of office, following by Libby, and then Hillary.



Plame was a nobody. There was a bit more there there than there is in Hillary's case, but not much, and certainly nowhere near as much as there was in Clapper's case.



You can't give Clapper a pass and say Libby's prosecution was warranted. The selectivity employed there isn't defensible. The fair result would be Libby and Clapper being forced to resign and publicly censured, and Hillary being let off the hook.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499146)

But that is not at issue. I won't argue that they're not allowed to reject a nominee. I just think the Senate actually has to reject him/her. And that requires a vote.

If you read the words, there needs to be a mechanism which provides for some form of advise and then consent (or not). Yes, there is no fix for when they choose to ignore those words (other than a suit which the Supreme Court would decide, I suppose) and pretend there is no nominee. But it seems to me that if they want a zero-sum political fight over who serves on the Court, they actually need to debate the nominee (advise) and hold a vote (consent). Or maybe you believe that the power to make the decision resting solely with the majority leader is a sufficient mechanism. I don't.

If you sat on the Supreme Court and this issue came before you, would you rule in favor of the Republicans (non-)interpretation of the clause and permit them to not even entertain the Presidents nomination? How would you interpret those words practically?

TM

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 499155)

As long as the Republicant's keep their local power in the statehouses, they will have a disproportionate voice in Congress. Dems get more total votes for Congresss, but Republicants still hold the majority because they draw more of the lines.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499166)

Are you saying the Court has no power to interpret the clause of the Constitution relating to the appointment process of the justices? If McConnell decided as majority leader he was the only person who got to approve a nominee, do you think the Court doesn't have jurisdiction to settle that question?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 499171)

WTF is wrong with the Republicans who don't want to close Guantanamo?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 499170)

Democrats have a structural advantage with the Presidency. The Electoral College makes it easier for them to win, and the greater turn-out in presidential elections favors Democrats.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 499172)

I think they could reject a nominee appointed via a process they deem inadequate. I don't think they can force an appointment.