Suspension of Committee Rules

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I hear you.  I just don't see in the Constitution where it says a president may only nominate judges for the first 3/4 of his term.

I'm glad Garland's not on SCOTUS, don't get me wrong.  And sure, the Senate can and will do whatever it pleases.  But an understaffed judiciary has consequences of its own--not to mention the inevitable blowback we'll face when we are no longer the majority party.  I'd just rather win cleanly and keep good precedents.  FDR's court packing plan is still sitting on some lefty think tank's shelf somewhere, and I'd rather not give them an excuse to dust it off again.

The 3/4 of a term is a red herring.  That had virtually nothing to do with the actual motivations.  Yeah, yeah, McConnell says whatever.  But that wasn't what was really happening.  The unvarnished truth is that those in power used that power to further their agenda.  Why does that need to be justified?  They were voted in.  Let the country succeed or suffer based on that.  It is ridiculous to think that the public votes for someone and does NOT expect them to do everything they can to further the agenda they were voted in to promote.

 I'm just saying, "Hey free for all." As long as everyone is able to do it, then it's fair game.  It's when the left says,"It's not fascism if we do it," that's when it's wrong.  The rules need to be agreed upon and the same for everyone.  And everything needs to be above board.  Apart from that, let it happen.

And that plan is coming off the shelf anyway. 

When the left's useful idiots are burning down Berkley to avoid even having Milo speak at a completely voluntary forum, and they're shooting pepper spray at someone who happens to be wearing a red baseball cap, they don't care about right and wrong or equal rights for all.  They only care about their own rights.  Others' rights can go in the toilet.  

Edited February 3, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, Mike said:

If what you say is true, then the Senate didn't act in my best interests with regard to Judge Garland. I'm not saying they did anything wrong in the sense of illegal, just in the sense of what I opine to be wrong. If you disagree, or if the entire forum disagrees with me that's not a problem. I'm not saying I'm the barometer of right and wrong, just talking as one citizen. 

Depends on what your interests are...

In the case of Garland, he didn't even get a hearing.  Mitch McConnell never scheduled it.  So, yes, it's not just pulling the handbrakes, it's turning the engine off.  But, at that time, the Obama Administration was winding down not running full-speed ahead on the freeway.  Yes, @Just_A_Guy is right and there is technically no Constitutional provision that limits a President's court appointments to only the first 3/4 of his administration.  And Garland is decidedly qualified to sit on that SCOTUS chair unlike say, Harriet Miers who I was scratching my head on.

But then these are the things that happened that led to Garland sitting on the sidelines -

1.)  The Obama Administration was able to pack the SCOTUS with 2 judges by the time Scalia passed away.

2.)  The Obama Administration packed the appellate courts with 55 out of the 168 judges - these were ultra-liberal judges that couldn't get 60 votes in the Senate which caused Harry Reid to get rid of the 60-vote requirement.

3.)  Biden, as the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman under H Bush,  gave a speech on the Senate Floor that the Senate should not consider SCOTUS nominations in an election year until after the elections so that the SCOTUS appointment becomes a referendum voted on in the elections.  Note, this speech was given on H Bush's first year as President and there was no SCOTUS vacancy.  There was no vote to adopt the speech into a Senate rule.

4.)  Scalia - a strict constitutionalist that has always ruled conservative to the Constitution - is the one who passed away.  Garland, although historically more center than left, is far from a Scalia and his appointment would have changed the balance of the court for decades.

5.)  The "Biden Rule" expressed that the consideration should be delayed until after the elections.  Well, after the elections is Nov 3.   If Clinton would have won, the Senate would have held the Garland hearings on Nov 3 and had him installed in the SCOTUS before Jan 20.  Garland would be a safer pick than anybody Clinton would nominate.  But Trump won.  The Biden Rule would have been for the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold the hearings for Garland on Nov 3, send him directly to the floor and have all the Republicans vote him down.  But they didn't do that.  They didn't want to be put on record as somebody who voted down a qualified candidate like Garland simply because he is not a Scalia.

In any case, Trump was clear on who he's going to appoint to the SCOTUS.  So, you can say that the SCOTUS referendum was voted on by the people.

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

When the left's useful idiots are burning down Berkley to avoid even having Milo speak at a completely voluntary forum, and they're shooting pepper spray at someone who happens to be wearing a red baseball cap, they don't care about right and wrong or equal rights for all.  They only care about their own rights.  Others' rights can go in the toilet.  

This is how stupid the left has gotten... Milo offends both the left and the right even as he is a conservative hardliner.  There was nothing to fear from a Milo speech.  All they saw was Brietbart and they all got a-triggered!  But that's not even the stupidest thing they did.  The most stupid thing they did is accuse Milo of being a Nazi!  A very-out-there gay guy who is jewish by descent... a Nazi white supremacist!  Idiots.

See, this character assassination tactic has now been rendered completely useless.  Most everybody is now wise to it as the left has overplayed that hand.  Trump - white supremacist, Jeff Sessions - white supremacist,  Bannon - white supremacist,  Tim Scott - house negro.  Only the extreme leftists believe that anymore, I think.

[Just_A_Guy]

@anatess2 I largely agree with you; just a couple of quibbles:

-IIRC Biden's speech was in 1992 which would have been the last year of Bush-I's term.

-The trouble with calling the presidential election a referendum on SCOTUS, is that Hillary actually won the popular vote.  I don't know what to make of that, from a purely democratic (small "d") perspective.  I kind of prefer @Carborendum's more republican (small "r") approach of saying, generally, that *everyone* in elected office plays the hand dealt to them.  But that's part of my quibble with Garland--the Senate didn't get a chance to play its hand; because a half-dozen high muckey mucks decreed that they wouldn't even hold a hearing over the guy.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

19 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@anatess2 I largely agree with you; just a couple of quibbles:

-IIRC Biden's speech was in 1992 which would have been the last year of Bush-I's term.

-The trouble with calling the presidential election a referendum on SCOTUS, is that Hillary actually won the popular vote.  I don't know what to make of that, from a purely democratic (small "d") perspective.  I kind of prefer @Carborendum's more republican (small "r") approach of saying, generally, that *everyone* in elected office plays the hand dealt to them.  But that's part of my quibble with Garland--the Senate didn't get a chance to play its hand; because a half-dozen high muckey mucks decreed that they wouldn't even hold a hearing over the guy.

Yes, referendum "by the people" was not quite accurate.  Just like how the President is elected by the States, not necessarily the people, the SCOTUS nominee is also approved by the States, not necessarily the people, hence the approval process is in the Senate and not the House.  So, the accurate term is referendum by the states.

[Traveler]

On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 2:09 PM, Carborendum said:

Well, Ron Wyden is a Democratic Senator.  And Dick Cheney was the one who first used the word quagmire to describe going into Iraq.  But you know how journalists are.  They hear a new word and think it's so cool they have to repeat it sufficiently to make it a household word.

 

When someone thinks they are a hammer – it is not such a problem except that they begin to think that everything else is a hail. 

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

When the left's useful idiots are burning down Berkley to avoid even having Milo speak at a completely voluntary forum, and they're shooting pepper spray at someone who happens to be wearing a red baseball cap, they don't care about right and wrong or equal rights for all.  

It was a bit worse than that.  These were professional rioters, they showed up in uniform, used group tactics - these dudes were trained and sent there to cause mayhem.  

[Guest]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

It was a bit worse than that.  These were professional rioters, they showed up in uniform, used group tactics - these dudes were trained and sent there to cause mayhem.  

What you're saying is that instead of useful idiots, they are brown shirts.  I'm not going to argue over that.

[NeuroTypical]

A force of brownshirts, whipping up all the protesters to see how many would join and become useful idiots, yes.  

[askandanswer]

On 03/02/2017 at 10:22 AM, Mike said:

@anatess2 It does kinda look like an eye. It also looks like she's pulling her hair out. I suppose that's apropos on a political sub-forum.

I haven't been able to work out if this avatar is facing towards me or away from me.

[anatess2]

On 2/5/2017 at 0:20 PM, askandanswer said:

I haven't been able to work out if this avatar is facing towards me or away from me.

It's looking you straight in the eye. 

 

[Vort]

On 2/5/2017 at 9:20 AM, askandanswer said:

I haven't been able to work out if this avatar is facing towards me or away from me.

[askandanswer]

These one are facing both ways - they keep on changing. When I look at the one on the left she is clearly going in a clock wise direction, but when when I look at the one on the right, they change direction and start going anti-clockiwise and when I look at the one in the middle they start going in unison.

[Vort]

After what the Democrats did to Bork, I doubt I will ever have an ounce of sympathy toward them regarding any SCOTUS appointment.

[askandanswer]

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

It's looking you straight in the eye.