So I saw something briefly on facebook the other day about a judicial nominee pulling out her name from consideration.
Was it more of the congress/senate refusing to bring her up for a vote? I didn't click on it because I was at work and distracted.
How many of Obama's judicial nominees are being blocked? Are we ever going to get a completed cabinet?
Yes, the Senate refused to vote on her. A lot, and there are plenty of judgeships where nobody is even being named to fill it because of that. Cabinet positions are easier.
Of course poor people who vote in their own self interest as moochers voting for "gifts" but when rich suburbanites vote on nothing but their tax rate its just logical
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Poor conservative voters also have this nasty habit of being terribly unaware of how economics work, and believing that they're just a few years away from striking it rich when they finish their GED so they can move out of their mom's trailer and buy one of their own.
Seriously. Trailer parks are full of GOP voters in the South and Midwest. Most of them are on some kind of federal and/or state assistance.
Now I still support our President but you can't tell me that you agree with President Obama's decisions on everything. I mean the NDAA, Patriot Act extension, drone strikes, etc all weight pretty heavily against him (in my eyes). However: given the chance I would absolutely vote for him again in 2008 and 2012.
Now I still support our President but you can't tell me that you agree with President Obama's decisions on everything. I mean the NDAA, Patriot Act extension, drone strikes, etc all weight pretty heavily against him (in my eyes). However: given the chance I would absolutely vote for him again in 2008 and 2012.
I don't agree with Obama on everything (immigration enforcement, war on drugs) but in what way does the NDAA weigh against Obama, rather than, say, Congress? What's Obama's role in the NDAA?
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Now I still support our President but you can't tell me that you agree with President Obama's decisions on everything. I mean the NDAA, Patriot Act extension, drone strikes, etc all weight pretty heavily against him (in my eyes). However: given the chance I would absolutely vote for him again in 2008 and 2012.
I don't agree with Obama on everything (immigration enforcement, war on drugs) but in what way does the NDAA weigh against Obama, rather than, say, Congress? What's Obama's role in the NDAA?
He was supposed to throw a shit-fit and refuse to sign the budget for our military. Because the only way to ensure there isn't a potentially dangerous knife left lying around is to pick up that knife and stick it in your own back.
Congress would've overridden his veto anyway. That's how much support the NDAA had. Obama couldn't win that fight and it would've dealt him a fatal political blow.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
edited March 2013
Liberals who complain about the NDAA remind me of conservatives who complain about Benghazi.
He couldn't not sign it. It funds the goddamn military. It also contained exactly zero changes to US government policy that has existed for longer than most of us here have been alive.
Don't like it? Good. Get better people into Congress.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a United States federal law specifying the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense. Each year's act also includes other provisions. The U.S. Congress oversees the defense budget primarily through two yearly bills: the National Defense Authorization Act and defense appropriations bills. The authorization bill determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent.
they tacked the bullshit detention thing on as an amendment because the President can't line-item veto amendments; he has to give thumbs-up or down to the entire thing.
He couldn't kill the amendment without defunding the entire military.
Oh I must be mistaken on what I'm talking about then... Shoot. Nothing like making yourself look absolutely stupid to start your week off.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act. It is the military's budget. It contains within it a variety of amendments and clauses that say how and why the military can do certain things, some specifics that bothered people were trotted out to say Oh You Love Obama? Well WHAT ABOUT THIS.
It is one of those things that not many people actually understand, but we all feel like we should have Opinions about it. So I wouldn't feel too bad, urahonky.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a United States federal law specifying the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense. Each year's act also includes other provisions. The U.S. Congress oversees the defense budget primarily through two yearly bills: the National Defense Authorization Act and defense appropriations bills. The authorization bill determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent.
they tacked the bullshit detention thing on as an amendment because the President can't line-item veto amendments; he has to give thumbs-up or down to the entire thing.
He couldn't kill the amendment without defunding the entire military.
(plus, veto-proof majority)
Why does the President not possess the ability to line item veto? Can he at least voice opposition to/make people aware of his objections to specific elements of the act without going against the important/good bits and signing it? Would that not prevent the tacking on of bullshit like the detention thing? Or would too much cherry picking be too politically unpopular on the Hill/disruptive to the processes of government (not that it's not already an issue anyways)?
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a United States federal law specifying the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense. Each year's act also includes other provisions. The U.S. Congress oversees the defense budget primarily through two yearly bills: the National Defense Authorization Act and defense appropriations bills. The authorization bill determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent.
they tacked the bullshit detention thing on as an amendment because the President can't line-item veto amendments; he has to give thumbs-up or down to the entire thing.
He couldn't kill the amendment without defunding the entire military.
(plus, veto-proof majority)
Why does the President not possess the ability to line item veto? Can he at least voice opposition to/make people aware of his objections to specific elements of the act without going against the important/good bits and signing it? Would that not prevent the tacking on of bullshit like the detention thing? Or would too much cherry picking be too politically unpopular on the Hill/disruptive to the processes of government (not that it's not already an issue anyways)?
"The more you know" and all that. I was under a false assumption that NDAA was something different. Though my ignorance was showing because it would have taken a few keystrokes to figure it out but I decided to make myself look like a fool.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
"The more you know" and all that. I was under a false assumption that NDAA was something different. Though my ignorance was showing because it would have taken a few keystrokes to figure it out but I decided to make myself look like a fool.
Line Item veto is unconstitutional, it would basically let the president nullify legislation without congress having a say, that would be a huge overstep of executive power.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Line Item veto is unconstitutional, it would basically let the president nullify legislation without congress having a say, that would be a huge overstep of executive power.
I see.
I guess it was just unfortunate in this circumstance then.
We all want our side to have the greatest powers possible because we trust they would use them for good. But think of how awful it would be if really good legislation had one poison pill, and the majority of the legislation is crossed out and the poison pill remains. So the save puppies and kittens act actually outlaws abortion. That's the power of a line item veto.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Didn't some state governor a few years ago veto individual letters to totally change some clause of a bill?
One of the Great Lakes states has a governor's veto that has been ruled to be allowed on individual words in a bill because it was never defined constitutionally and the justices were apparently sniffing glue that day.
Yeah Honky admitting you made a mistake is a rarity in america, even more so in politics. You went off half cocked, got corrected and accepted correction thats a good thing.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Well that makes me feel a bit better, thanks. I swear someone told me that NDAA was something like "National Detainees Act for Americans" or something of the sort by someone who I thought was smart.
But now that I've seen the light... Everything makes so much more sense now. The dude is a fucking moron.
So I saw something briefly on facebook the other day about a judicial nominee pulling out her name from consideration.
Was it more of the congress/senate refusing to bring her up for a vote? I didn't click on it because I was at work and distracted.
How many of Obama's judicial nominees are being blocked? Are we ever going to get a completed cabinet?
Yes, the Senate refused to vote on her. A lot, and there are plenty of judgeships where nobody is even being named to fill it because of that. Cabinet positions are easier.
Here's a great example of how broken the senate confirmation process is right now.
Tom Coburn (R-OK) recommended a judge for the 10th circuit appeals court in Oklahoma to the White House. The other R Senator from OK also supported the pick. The White House nominated that judge. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination almost unanimously.
The senate Republicans, including Tom Coburn, filibustered the nomination.
Well over 200 days later, the judge was finally confirmed unanimously.
That's right, the GOP held up their own noncontroversial judge for nearly a year.
So I saw something briefly on facebook the other day about a judicial nominee pulling out her name from consideration.
Was it more of the congress/senate refusing to bring her up for a vote? I didn't click on it because I was at work and distracted.
How many of Obama's judicial nominees are being blocked? Are we ever going to get a completed cabinet?
Yes, the Senate refused to vote on her. A lot, and there are plenty of judgeships where nobody is even being named to fill it because of that. Cabinet positions are easier.
Here's a great example of how broken the senate confirmation process is right now.
Tom Coburn (R-OK) recommended a judge for the 10th circuit appeals court in Oklahoma to the White House. The other R Senator from OK also supported the pick. The White House nominated that judge. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination almost unanimously.
The senate Republicans, including Tom Coburn, filibustered the nomination.
Well over 200 days later, the judge was finally confirmed unanimously.
That's right, the GOP held up their own noncontroversial judge for nearly a year.
Three links in from that, I found the GOP rationale for this bullshit: if they delay confirming judges long enough, they might win the White House and appoint their own judges. Then I realized the article was written in July of 2012.
So what the fuck is the rationale for this now? General pettiness? Do they even know? Say what you want about the Nazis, at least they had an ethos.
So I saw something briefly on facebook the other day about a judicial nominee pulling out her name from consideration.
Was it more of the congress/senate refusing to bring her up for a vote? I didn't click on it because I was at work and distracted.
How many of Obama's judicial nominees are being blocked? Are we ever going to get a completed cabinet?
Yes, the Senate refused to vote on her. A lot, and there are plenty of judgeships where nobody is even being named to fill it because of that. Cabinet positions are easier.
Here's a great example of how broken the senate confirmation process is right now.
Tom Coburn (R-OK) recommended a judge for the 10th circuit appeals court in Oklahoma to the White House. The other R Senator from OK also supported the pick. The White House nominated that judge. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination almost unanimously.
The senate Republicans, including Tom Coburn, filibustered the nomination.
Well over 200 days later, the judge was finally confirmed unanimously.
That's right, the GOP held up their own noncontroversial judge for nearly a year.
Three links in from that, I found the GOP rationale for this bullshit: if they delay confirming judges long enough, they might win the White House and appoint their own judges. Then I realized the article was written in July of 2012.
So what the fuck is the rationale for this now? General pettiness? Do they even know? Say what you want about the Nazis, at least they had an ethos.
Thing is, this was their own judge.
I mean, sure, they could probably appoint another one that Obama would not have nominated, but that would have just been filibustered by the Dems.
By now the GOP has gotten away with it for so long that they do not see any reason not to filibuster everything.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
No, seriously. I know the reasons, I want to know the rationale. I want to know what the GOP says that it is doing when it does this, what they hope to accomplish by doing this.
Like, when they were filibustering Hagel it was equally stupid, but I could at least understand why they thought they were doing the right thing--whether they actually believed there some some Benghazi conspiracy, or simply wanted to use the illusion of one to stick it to Obama and look good in front of their constituents. There was the added totally rational reason that a lot of them just didn't like Hagel.
But these are judges, and a lot of them, and in this case even their own judge. Whhhhhhy
Seriously. Harry is the dumbest mother fucker in the room. I don't know how Obama doesn't just call him everyday to say that.
"So you accepted McConnel's word he'd stop being an asshole, in exchange for keeping the filibuster when you know one reason we got killed in 2010 was because of the filibuster, Harry I got to ask you, are you fucking with me?"
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
Yes, the Senate refused to vote on her. A lot, and there are plenty of judgeships where nobody is even being named to fill it because of that. Cabinet positions are easier.
Seriously. Trailer parks are full of GOP voters in the South and Midwest. Most of them are on some kind of federal and/or state assistance.
I don't agree with Obama on everything (immigration enforcement, war on drugs) but in what way does the NDAA weigh against Obama, rather than, say, Congress? What's Obama's role in the NDAA?
He was supposed to throw a shit-fit and refuse to sign the budget for our military. Because the only way to ensure there isn't a potentially dangerous knife left lying around is to pick up that knife and stick it in your own back.
Both should be ashamed of themselves, but I'm guessing Congress was generally okay with it anyway.
He couldn't not sign it. It funds the goddamn military. It also contained exactly zero changes to US government policy that has existed for longer than most of us here have been alive.
Don't like it? Good. Get better people into Congress.
...that's the entire bill.
they tacked the bullshit detention thing on as an amendment because the President can't line-item veto amendments; he has to give thumbs-up or down to the entire thing.
He couldn't kill the amendment without defunding the entire military.
(plus, veto-proof majority)
Yeah. The stuff people complain about were amendments. The main part was the DoD budget for that fiscal year.
When the government is functioning, they pass an NDAA every year.
Pretty much.
It is one of those things that not many people actually understand, but we all feel like we should have Opinions about it. So I wouldn't feel too bad, urahonky.
Damn it, now I have to google NDAA. A Herculean task.
Why does the President not possess the ability to line item veto? Can he at least voice opposition to/make people aware of his objections to specific elements of the act without going against the important/good bits and signing it? Would that not prevent the tacking on of bullshit like the detention thing? Or would too much cherry picking be too politically unpopular on the Hill/disruptive to the processes of government (not that it's not already an issue anyways)?
Because it was ruled unconstitutional.
Ah, but if you learned something it was worth it!
pleasepaypreacher.net
I see.
I guess it was just unfortunate in this circumstance then.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Naw. Admitting that you were mistaken is the opposite of looking stupid.
One of the Great Lakes states has a governor's veto that has been ruled to be allowed on individual words in a bill because it was never defined constitutionally and the justices were apparently sniffing glue that day.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Next time someone talks about how great america's healthcare is and how Obamcare ruins that, shove this link in their face.
pleasepaypreacher.net
But now that I've seen the light... Everything makes so much more sense now. The dude is a fucking moron.
Here's a great example of how broken the senate confirmation process is right now.
Tom Coburn (R-OK) recommended a judge for the 10th circuit appeals court in Oklahoma to the White House. The other R Senator from OK also supported the pick. The White House nominated that judge. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination almost unanimously.
The senate Republicans, including Tom Coburn, filibustered the nomination.
Well over 200 days later, the judge was finally confirmed unanimously.
That's right, the GOP held up their own noncontroversial judge for nearly a year.
First link I could find.
Three links in from that, I found the GOP rationale for this bullshit: if they delay confirming judges long enough, they might win the White House and appoint their own judges. Then I realized the article was written in July of 2012.
So what the fuck is the rationale for this now? General pettiness? Do they even know? Say what you want about the Nazis, at least they had an ethos.
Thing is, this was their own judge.
I mean, sure, they could probably appoint another one that Obama would not have nominated, but that would have just been filibustered by the Dems.
By now the GOP has gotten away with it for so long that they do not see any reason not to filibuster everything.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Like, when they were filibustering Hagel it was equally stupid, but I could at least understand why they thought they were doing the right thing--whether they actually believed there some some Benghazi conspiracy, or simply wanted to use the illusion of one to stick it to Obama and look good in front of their constituents. There was the added totally rational reason that a lot of them just didn't like Hagel.
But these are judges, and a lot of them, and in this case even their own judge. Whhhhhhy
pleasepaypreacher.net
THANKS HARRY REID
"So you accepted McConnel's word he'd stop being an asshole, in exchange for keeping the filibuster when you know one reason we got killed in 2010 was because of the filibuster, Harry I got to ask you, are you fucking with me?"
pleasepaypreacher.net