Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499146)

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?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499147)

Hillary will govern as a Reagan Democrat.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 499151)

ETA: Transcript .... It is my view that if the President goes the way of presidents Filmore and Johnson ....

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499144)

This is an interesting article.

The question I have is: Is this nomination bullshit another sign that the Republican party is actually in its death throes?

They have completely lost the middle/independents. Neither Hillary nor Bernie may be the right person to pick them up, which will make this election much closer than it should be. But if the left was running Biden or someone who people (i) couldn't label a communist or (ii) didn't consider a shape shifting reptile who rose from the depths of darkness (who is also a woman), this election would already be over.

So what's the takeaway? First, the Republicans are absolutely placing all their chips on this election. If they don't win the Presidency, they can only hope to filibuster everything until midterms when they (probably) win back the Senate and then begin obstructing in earnest again. If they lose, they lose the Supreme Court. And the stakes are much higher than 5-4 decisions going forward because Kennedy is 79. If they lose that lean right-swing vote now that Scalia is gone, they're fucked. Now that they're playing these games, there's no way someone as far right as Scalia ever sits on the bench again. Based on the Senate's current behavior, if I were a Senator, my vote wouldn't go to anyone who even leans right. Ever.* Ginsburg and Breyer could also easily be up during the next 4 years. So they absolutely need this.

Second, the problem they have is that, because they've lost the moderates, they absolutely must depend on the right wing crazies who make up their base. They need them to come out in overwhelming numbers, so they need the Supreme Court as the key issue. You don't come out to vote? Kiss your Second Amendment rights good bye. There is no way around it. And it's like a snowball. The more they embrace their lunatic side, the less likely they are to win the general. At this point, I don't think the nominee can even pull a Romney and immediately switch to more reasonable stances on issues after winning the primary. He'll lose too much support.

What is the party going to look like in 4 years given the demographic changes that are looming? What are their options if they lose this election and the Senate? All signs point to: Move further right.

TM

*And it's sad, but that's where we're going. If the next President is a Democrat, the Republicans will vote every single nominee down in hopes that they win the Presidency at some point. So, get used to having an 8 Justice Court.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499147)

Tax penalties for inversions? Not happening.

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.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499176)

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.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499175)

What's up with the margins?

TM

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499149)

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.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 499154)

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.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 499177)

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.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 499182)

Chris Christie for Transportation Secretary!

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 499184)

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.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 499177)

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.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 499184)

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.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 499183)

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?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 498943)

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.

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive (Post 499194)

Ahem.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 499173)

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.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 499174)

I've heard this argument, but the counterargument is Gore winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote. I think the counterargument prevails.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 499195)

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?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 499136)

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!