As bad as this situation is, as least we don't still have senators beholden to state legislatures.
What a shitshow that would be.
(I support a repeal of the 17th)
Amusing how you point out the Senate can't be gerrymandered then support making that possible.
Amusing eh? You were amused? With no other comment? You lol'd. No substance, no argument.
Ok.
I would like to hear you explain how that sequence of posts could be interpreted other than "You can't gerrymander the Senate. (By the way, I'd like to make it possible to - indirectly - gerrymander the Senate)."
Because I don't - and/or would rather not - believe that's what you intended to say.
It wasn't! Honestly it hadn't occurred to me that local districts would be, but of course they often are (in all sorts of directions). My feeling about the 17th comes entirely from what I feel is a lack of representation for State interests at the federal level. I think the structure of the House (for the People) and Senate (for the Several States) would remedy some issues like "unfunded mandates" and assaults on portions of the VRA.
I couldn't support a repeal in actuality without some concurrent reform of apportionment, but that's as dead a letter as repealing the 17th. I think diving deeper into gerrymandering as a problem is outside the scope of this thread, but yeah... unfortunate post order is more to blame than anything. That and responding to a throwaway comment in kind, rather than letting it pass by. I ought to have known it'd blow up the thread.
I mean, at some point you're in andrew jackson territory; if Obama just said to Garland 'look, you're on the supreme court, start showing up at argument' (and while we're in the realm of things that will never happen, assuming Garland agreed), the House/Senate would probably impeach him (Garland, if not Obama.) And they'd mostly be right to do it.
dudes should really stop trying to rules lawyer what the 'consent' of the senate means; it means a vote. It has always been understood to mean a vote. At best the court could try to compel the senate to hold a vote (which no SC would ever actually attempt), and the senate would still be like 'nah', and you've gotten nowhere.
The House and Senate could not impeach him. They would be required to interpret the Constitution in order to try him. They could try to impeach him but they don't have jurisdiction because their is no "high crime or misdemeanor" on the books that Obama has committed. Supreme Court is the only place they could sue him. The Senate would then have to prove that they did not provide consent which would require them to vote on Garland. Basically, they either vote on Garland or they have no proof that they did not consent to Garland. If Obama goes and gets consent from all the Democrats and Independents he'll have 46 "votes" which just means he needs to find 5 statements from Republican Senators suggesting that Garland would be a good choice for SCOTUS. Once he compiles all of those, he has what the law defines as consent and can put Garland on the Supreme Court.
For a long time, personal liberty did not include a woman's right to choose her medical care but a Supreme Court case interpreted that to be different. Are you now saying that Supreme Court should not have done its job interpreting the Constitution because everyone knows that personal liberty means women can choose their medical care? There is a reason the Supreme Court exists and it is to settle questions raised by the Constitution.
Rules Lawyering is what the Republicans used to get us into this crisis. As Rules Lawyering is the only way to counter Rules Lawyering outside of changing the rules, Rules Lawyering is our only option to fix the broken SCOTUS. Under the Judicial Act of 1869, President Obama is within his rights as an executor of the law to ensure that the Supreme Court has 9 members. Not doing everything in his power to do so would mean he is vulnerable to impeachment from Republicans as he is in clear violation of the law.
this is nonsense
the constitution lays out a process for appointing SC judges, and gives the senate discretion to act on nominations. Arguing that anything other than an affirmative vote represents 'consent' is not supported by law, history or frankly a common sense reading of the document.
I think it's important to remember that the constitution was designed to do essentially what it's doing: enable a relatively small minority faction to force concessions from the majority. The framers for all the foresight they possessed had very different ideas about the wisdom of popular democracy than we do today and considered the potential for intransigence a feature as opposed to a bug. The intent is to create consensus, because the alternative is what we see from the current republicans.
We are in the modern era much more sanguine about the durability of democratic government and the ability of a relatively narrow majority to govern a country without it descending into civil war, because we have 200 years of history to look back at. Unfortunately our governing document was written without the benefit of that perspective and is perilously hard to amend.
The founders didn't intend for the country to fall into anarchy because the minority party would just decide "if we're not in charge the country must suffer, and we have no obligation to do our duties"
Bold action is required to keep the crisis from just getting worse every year, and ultimately I think the public will support who actually does something
edit: I wouldn't feel this way if congress had no remedy, they do, vote down the nominee
The Minority party is not causing this issue though. There's no gerrymandering in the Senate, folks.
I can't interpret your call for "bold action" in any way other that a call for unilateral, unconstitutional action by the Executive. Some clarification would be good here because over and over I see people flirting with dictatorship in this thread.
I am actually curious to see you explain how McConnell is not currently acting dictatorially in his refusal to acknowledge the duly elected President 's nomination to fill a vacancy on the Court as enumerated by the Constitution.
There are more ways to create a banana republic than just unitary Executive actions.
McConnell could be removed by his peers. He cannot act "dictatorially" in anything but the most loosely construed meaning fo the term. If the Executive were to unilaterally order someone to take a seat on the SCOTUS, that would be Actual Dictator Shit. McConnell is standing on some technicalities here in this ridiculous and shameful effort not to hold a vote or even a debate, but he's unfortunately within the scope of his Constitutional power.
I would like to see someone take on a #4 Extraordinary Measures argument and show how it might play out in a way that isn't terrible. I seriously cannot think of one.
All I am seeing right now is variants of "our republic sure could use a lot more bananas".
Better some bananas than no republic at all.
Congress can stop this. They intentionally choose to cede power to the executive by not acting, as they have done for years in the Obama administration.
I disagree fundamentally with this! Refusal to act, especially when you frame it as part of a continuum like this, is not intentionally ceding power. I didn't accept that position as part of the ACA, and I don't accept it here either.
I mean, at some point you're in andrew jackson territory; if Obama just said to Garland 'look, you're on the supreme court, start showing up at argument' (and while we're in the realm of things that will never happen, assuming Garland agreed), the House/Senate would probably impeach him (Garland, if not Obama.) And they'd mostly be right to do it.
dudes should really stop trying to rules lawyer what the 'consent' of the senate means; it means a vote. It has always been understood to mean a vote. At best the court could try to compel the senate to hold a vote (which no SC would ever actually attempt), and the senate would still be like 'nah', and you've gotten nowhere.
The House and Senate could not impeach him. They would be required to interpret the Constitution in order to try him. They could try to impeach him but they don't have jurisdiction because their is no "high crime or misdemeanor" on the books that Obama has committed. Supreme Court is the only place they could sue him. The Senate would then have to prove that they did not provide consent which would require them to vote on Garland. Basically, they either vote on Garland or they have no proof that they did not consent to Garland. If Obama goes and gets consent from all the Democrats and Independents he'll have 46 "votes" which just means he needs to find 5 statements from Republican Senators suggesting that Garland would be a good choice for SCOTUS. Once he compiles all of those, he has what the law defines as consent and can put Garland on the Supreme Court.
For a long time, personal liberty did not include a woman's right to choose her medical care but a Supreme Court case interpreted that to be different. Are you now saying that Supreme Court should not have done its job interpreting the Constitution because everyone knows that personal liberty means women can choose their medical care? There is a reason the Supreme Court exists and it is to settle questions raised by the Constitution.
Rules Lawyering is what the Republicans used to get us into this crisis. As Rules Lawyering is the only way to counter Rules Lawyering outside of changing the rules, Rules Lawyering is our only option to fix the broken SCOTUS. Under the Judicial Act of 1869, President Obama is within his rights as an executor of the law to ensure that the Supreme Court has 9 members. Not doing everything in his power to do so would mean he is vulnerable to impeachment from Republicans as he is in clear violation of the law.
this is nonsense
the constitution lays out a process for appointing SC judges, and gives the senate discretion to act on nominations. Arguing that anything other than an affirmative vote represents 'consent' is not supported by law, history or frankly a common sense reading of the document.
I think it's important to remember that the constitution was designed to do essentially what it's doing: enable a relatively small minority faction to force concessions from the majority. The framers for all the foresight they possessed had very different ideas about the wisdom of popular democracy than we do today and considered the potential for intransigence a feature as opposed to a bug. The intent is to create consensus, because the alternative is what we see from the current republicans.
We are in the modern era much more sanguine about the durability of democratic government and the ability of a relatively narrow majority to govern a country without it descending into civil war, because we have 200 years of history to look back at. Unfortunately our governing document was written without the benefit of that perspective and is perilously hard to amend.
The founders didn't intend for the country to fall into anarchy because the minority party would just decide "if we're not in charge the country must suffer, and we have no obligation to do our duties"
Bold action is required to keep the crisis from just getting worse every year, and ultimately I think the public will support who actually does something
edit: I wouldn't feel this way if congress had no remedy, they do, vote down the nominee
The Minority party is not causing this issue though. There's no gerrymandering in the Senate, folks.
I can't interpret your call for "bold action" in any way other that a call for unilateral, unconstitutional action by the Executive. Some clarification would be good here because over and over I see people flirting with dictatorship in this thread.
I am actually curious to see you explain how McConnell is not currently acting dictatorially in his refusal to acknowledge the duly elected President 's nomination to fill a vacancy on the Court as enumerated by the Constitution.
There are more ways to create a banana republic than just unitary Executive actions.
McConnell could be removed by his peers. He cannot act "dictatorially" in anything but the most loosely construed meaning fo the term. If the Executive were to unilaterally order someone to take a seat on the SCOTUS, that would be Actual Dictator Shit. McConnell is standing on some technicalities here in this ridiculous and shameful effort not to hold a vote or even a debate, but he's unfortunately within the scope of his Constitutional power.
Obama can be removed the exact same way, for the exact same reasons. That's not a defense.
And no I don't think he's within the scope of his power. "The President is not allowed to appoint anyone" is a clear overreach. It's also one step removed from the Senate taking the appointment ability away from the President'.
I suspect that difference is the key point of disagreement here.
spool, do you or do you not think that the continued refusal to hold a vote on a SCOTUS nominee represents a genuine problem
asked and answered a billion times, dude.
At a certain point, something has to be done.
It's too big of a problem to just shrug and go "oh well" for years and years.
Step 1, vote next Tuesdsy.
Step 2, i am arguing, is Stop hoping the President just takes over.
Other actions are possible here too. The Court itself could exert some pressure. The next President could make it the signature goal of her administration to coerce the Senate back into reality. Some Democrats could get elected.
I still think hearings start this month and we have a new SCOTUS justice before Christmas.
I mean, at some point you're in andrew jackson territory; if Obama just said to Garland 'look, you're on the supreme court, start showing up at argument' (and while we're in the realm of things that will never happen, assuming Garland agreed), the House/Senate would probably impeach him (Garland, if not Obama.) And they'd mostly be right to do it.
dudes should really stop trying to rules lawyer what the 'consent' of the senate means; it means a vote. It has always been understood to mean a vote. At best the court could try to compel the senate to hold a vote (which no SC would ever actually attempt), and the senate would still be like 'nah', and you've gotten nowhere.
The House and Senate could not impeach him. They would be required to interpret the Constitution in order to try him. They could try to impeach him but they don't have jurisdiction because their is no "high crime or misdemeanor" on the books that Obama has committed. Supreme Court is the only place they could sue him. The Senate would then have to prove that they did not provide consent which would require them to vote on Garland. Basically, they either vote on Garland or they have no proof that they did not consent to Garland. If Obama goes and gets consent from all the Democrats and Independents he'll have 46 "votes" which just means he needs to find 5 statements from Republican Senators suggesting that Garland would be a good choice for SCOTUS. Once he compiles all of those, he has what the law defines as consent and can put Garland on the Supreme Court.
For a long time, personal liberty did not include a woman's right to choose her medical care but a Supreme Court case interpreted that to be different. Are you now saying that Supreme Court should not have done its job interpreting the Constitution because everyone knows that personal liberty means women can choose their medical care? There is a reason the Supreme Court exists and it is to settle questions raised by the Constitution.
Rules Lawyering is what the Republicans used to get us into this crisis. As Rules Lawyering is the only way to counter Rules Lawyering outside of changing the rules, Rules Lawyering is our only option to fix the broken SCOTUS. Under the Judicial Act of 1869, President Obama is within his rights as an executor of the law to ensure that the Supreme Court has 9 members. Not doing everything in his power to do so would mean he is vulnerable to impeachment from Republicans as he is in clear violation of the law.
this is nonsense
the constitution lays out a process for appointing SC judges, and gives the senate discretion to act on nominations. Arguing that anything other than an affirmative vote represents 'consent' is not supported by law, history or frankly a common sense reading of the document.
I think it's important to remember that the constitution was designed to do essentially what it's doing: enable a relatively small minority faction to force concessions from the majority. The framers for all the foresight they possessed had very different ideas about the wisdom of popular democracy than we do today and considered the potential for intransigence a feature as opposed to a bug. The intent is to create consensus, because the alternative is what we see from the current republicans.
We are in the modern era much more sanguine about the durability of democratic government and the ability of a relatively narrow majority to govern a country without it descending into civil war, because we have 200 years of history to look back at. Unfortunately our governing document was written without the benefit of that perspective and is perilously hard to amend.
The founders didn't intend for the country to fall into anarchy because the minority party would just decide "if we're not in charge the country must suffer, and we have no obligation to do our duties"
Bold action is required to keep the crisis from just getting worse every year, and ultimately I think the public will support who actually does something
edit: I wouldn't feel this way if congress had no remedy, they do, vote down the nominee
The Minority party is not causing this issue though. There's no gerrymandering in the Senate, folks.
I can't interpret your call for "bold action" in any way other that a call for unilateral, unconstitutional action by the Executive. Some clarification would be good here because over and over I see people flirting with dictatorship in this thread.
I am actually curious to see you explain how McConnell is not currently acting dictatorially in his refusal to acknowledge the duly elected President 's nomination to fill a vacancy on the Court as enumerated by the Constitution.
There are more ways to create a banana republic than just unitary Executive actions.
McConnell could be removed by his peers. He cannot act "dictatorially" in anything but the most loosely construed meaning fo the term. If the Executive were to unilaterally order someone to take a seat on the SCOTUS, that would be Actual Dictator Shit. McConnell is standing on some technicalities here in this ridiculous and shameful effort not to hold a vote or even a debate, but he's unfortunately within the scope of his Constitutional power.
Obama can be removed the exact same way, for the exact same reasons. That's not a defense
I meant removed from his position as Majority Leader, rendering him unable to set the Legislative calendar.
One of the hallmarks of leftwing fascisism is its lack of patience with the democratic process and the citizens underpinning it.
I deleted the rest of your post in this reply because your summary of the Majority's position is not accurate, and the rest of your comment about overreach is irrelevant as a result.
You need 4 justices to take up a case. I don't know about limiys beyond that
Quorum for the Supreme Court is 6 members.
The current procedure of the court is that the assent of 4 justices is required to issue the writ of certiorari. That just says they're accepting the appeal for consideration (and not necessarily even argument, as they can still decide to act without one).
That's different from the number of justices needed to issue a ruling.
And in both cases SCOTUS has the authority to modify those rules anyways. I would expect that if the court got to or near a minimum functional size because of this bullshit they would become very amenable to a narrow ruling that would force the Senate's hand.
You need 4 justices to take up a case. I don't know about limiys beyond that
Quorum for the Supreme Court is 6 members.
The current procedure of the court is that the assent of 4 justices is required to issue the writ of certiorari. That just says they're accepting the appeal for consideration (and not necessarily even argument, as they can still decide to act without one).
That's different from the number of justices needed to issue a ruling.
And in both cases SCOTUS has the authority to modify those rules anyways. I would expect that if the court got to or near a minimum functional size because of this bullshit they would become very amenable to a narrow ruling that would force the Senate's hand.
As bad as this situation is, as least we don't still have senators beholden to state legislatures.
What a shitshow that would be.
(I support a repeal of the 17th)
Amusing how you point out the Senate can't be gerrymandered then support making that possible.
Amusing eh? You were amused? With no other comment? You lol'd. No substance, no argument.
Ok.
I would like to hear you explain how that sequence of posts could be interpreted other than "You can't gerrymander the Senate. (By the way, I'd like to make it possible to - indirectly - gerrymander the Senate)."
Because I don't - and/or would rather not - believe that's what you intended to say.
It wasn't! Honestly it hadn't occurred to me that local districts would be, but of course they often are (in all sorts of directions). My feeling about the 17th comes entirely from what I feel is a lack of representation for State interests at the federal level. I think the structure of the House (for the People) and Senate (for the Several States) would remedy some issues like "unfunded mandates" and assaults on portions of the VRA.
I couldn't support a repeal in actuality without some concurrent reform of apportionment, but that's as dead a letter as repealing the 17th. I think diving deeper into gerrymandering as a problem is outside the scope of this thread, but yeah... unfortunate post order is more to blame than anything. That and responding to a throwaway comment in kind, rather than letting it pass by. I ought to have known it'd blow up the thread.
Not sure if we have a thread for it floating around. I worry that more congressional districts would just lead to even more stasis from gerrymandering though. I do think there's merit to increasing the size of the House... but I think there needs to be a check in place to control the inevitable gerrymandering. That infamous NC district doesn't look so bad if it's in three chunks after all...
I mean, at some point you're in andrew jackson territory; if Obama just said to Garland 'look, you're on the supreme court, start showing up at argument' (and while we're in the realm of things that will never happen, assuming Garland agreed), the House/Senate would probably impeach him (Garland, if not Obama.) And they'd mostly be right to do it.
dudes should really stop trying to rules lawyer what the 'consent' of the senate means; it means a vote. It has always been understood to mean a vote. At best the court could try to compel the senate to hold a vote (which no SC would ever actually attempt), and the senate would still be like 'nah', and you've gotten nowhere.
The House and Senate could not impeach him. They would be required to interpret the Constitution in order to try him. They could try to impeach him but they don't have jurisdiction because their is no "high crime or misdemeanor" on the books that Obama has committed. Supreme Court is the only place they could sue him. The Senate would then have to prove that they did not provide consent which would require them to vote on Garland. Basically, they either vote on Garland or they have no proof that they did not consent to Garland. If Obama goes and gets consent from all the Democrats and Independents he'll have 46 "votes" which just means he needs to find 5 statements from Republican Senators suggesting that Garland would be a good choice for SCOTUS. Once he compiles all of those, he has what the law defines as consent and can put Garland on the Supreme Court.
For a long time, personal liberty did not include a woman's right to choose her medical care but a Supreme Court case interpreted that to be different. Are you now saying that Supreme Court should not have done its job interpreting the Constitution because everyone knows that personal liberty means women can choose their medical care? There is a reason the Supreme Court exists and it is to settle questions raised by the Constitution.
Rules Lawyering is what the Republicans used to get us into this crisis. As Rules Lawyering is the only way to counter Rules Lawyering outside of changing the rules, Rules Lawyering is our only option to fix the broken SCOTUS. Under the Judicial Act of 1869, President Obama is within his rights as an executor of the law to ensure that the Supreme Court has 9 members. Not doing everything in his power to do so would mean he is vulnerable to impeachment from Republicans as he is in clear violation of the law.
this is nonsense
the constitution lays out a process for appointing SC judges, and gives the senate discretion to act on nominations. Arguing that anything other than an affirmative vote represents 'consent' is not supported by law, history or frankly a common sense reading of the document.
I think it's important to remember that the constitution was designed to do essentially what it's doing: enable a relatively small minority faction to force concessions from the majority. The framers for all the foresight they possessed had very different ideas about the wisdom of popular democracy than we do today and considered the potential for intransigence a feature as opposed to a bug. The intent is to create consensus, because the alternative is what we see from the current republicans.
We are in the modern era much more sanguine about the durability of democratic government and the ability of a relatively narrow majority to govern a country without it descending into civil war, because we have 200 years of history to look back at. Unfortunately our governing document was written without the benefit of that perspective and is perilously hard to amend.
The founders didn't intend for the country to fall into anarchy because the minority party would just decide "if we're not in charge the country must suffer, and we have no obligation to do our duties"
Bold action is required to keep the crisis from just getting worse every year, and ultimately I think the public will support who actually does something
edit: I wouldn't feel this way if congress had no remedy, they do, vote down the nominee
The Minority party is not causing this issue though. There's no gerrymandering in the Senate, folks.
I can't interpret your call for "bold action" in any way other that a call for unilateral, unconstitutional action by the Executive. Some clarification would be good here because over and over I see people flirting with dictatorship in this thread.
I am actually curious to see you explain how McConnell is not currently acting dictatorially in his refusal to acknowledge the duly elected President 's nomination to fill a vacancy on the Court as enumerated by the Constitution.
There are more ways to create a banana republic than just unitary Executive actions.
McConnell could be removed by his peers. He cannot act "dictatorially" in anything but the most loosely construed meaning fo the term. If the Executive were to unilaterally order someone to take a seat on the SCOTUS, that would be Actual Dictator Shit. McConnell is standing on some technicalities here in this ridiculous and shameful effort not to hold a vote or even a debate, but he's unfortunately within the scope of his Constitutional power.
Obama can be removed the exact same way, for the exact same reasons. That's not a defense
I meant removed from his position as Majority Leader, rendering him unable to set the Legislative calendar.
One of the hallmarks of leftwing fascisism is its lack of patience with the democratic process and the citizens underpinning it.
I deleted the rest of your post in this reply because your summary of the Majority's position is not accurate, and the rest of your comment about overreach is irrelevant as a result.
"I disagree with your position so I'm going to delete it instead of arguing against it". Really?
And yes that is his position. The issue is not with Garland. He doesn't want Obama nominating *anyone*.
McConnell said just hours after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month that the vacancy should be filled by the next president. "
You need 4 justices to take up a case. I don't know about limiys beyond that
Quorum for the Supreme Court is 6 members.
The current procedure of the court is that the assent of 4 justices is required to issue the writ of certiorari. That just says they're accepting the appeal for consideration (and not necessarily even argument, as they can still decide to act without one).
That's different from the number of justices needed to issue a ruling.
And in both cases SCOTUS has the authority to modify those rules anyways. I would expect that if the court got to or near a minimum functional size because of this bullshit they would become very amenable to a narrow ruling that would force the Senate's hand.
The "rule of four" they can change as it's neither law nor rule, but only a custom they follow. Quorum is defined by the same law that says the court has 9 members. Changing quorum would require Congress changing the law.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
You need 4 justices to take up a case. I don't know about limiys beyond that
Quorum for the Supreme Court is 6 members.
The current procedure of the court is that the assent of 4 justices is required to issue the writ of certiorari. That just says they're accepting the appeal for consideration (and not necessarily even argument, as they can still decide to act without one).
That's different from the number of justices needed to issue a ruling.
And in both cases SCOTUS has the authority to modify those rules anyways. I would expect that if the court got to or near a minimum functional size because of this bullshit they would become very amenable to a narrow ruling that would force the Senate's hand.
You'd have to get SCOTUS to rule that constitutional first. I don't know that the question has ever actually been addressed. Congress's enumerated powers include creating inferior courts as it deems necessary, but that doesn't imply any ability to define the structure of SCOTUS. Arguably, the Senate has the implicit power to bound the size of the court (as part of advice and consent on appointments), but the constitution is silent on the composition of the court.
Unless there's an existing case on the matter... I think Congress setting the size of the court is entirely a matter of tradition. I suspect the moment the prospect of that statute rendering the court impotent came up you'd see a unanimous ruling that Congress can't set procedure for the court.
I mean, at some point you're in andrew jackson territory; if Obama just said to Garland 'look, you're on the supreme court, start showing up at argument' (and while we're in the realm of things that will never happen, assuming Garland agreed), the House/Senate would probably impeach him (Garland, if not Obama.) And they'd mostly be right to do it.
dudes should really stop trying to rules lawyer what the 'consent' of the senate means; it means a vote. It has always been understood to mean a vote. At best the court could try to compel the senate to hold a vote (which no SC would ever actually attempt), and the senate would still be like 'nah', and you've gotten nowhere.
The House and Senate could not impeach him. They would be required to interpret the Constitution in order to try him. They could try to impeach him but they don't have jurisdiction because their is no "high crime or misdemeanor" on the books that Obama has committed. Supreme Court is the only place they could sue him. The Senate would then have to prove that they did not provide consent which would require them to vote on Garland. Basically, they either vote on Garland or they have no proof that they did not consent to Garland. If Obama goes and gets consent from all the Democrats and Independents he'll have 46 "votes" which just means he needs to find 5 statements from Republican Senators suggesting that Garland would be a good choice for SCOTUS. Once he compiles all of those, he has what the law defines as consent and can put Garland on the Supreme Court.
For a long time, personal liberty did not include a woman's right to choose her medical care but a Supreme Court case interpreted that to be different. Are you now saying that Supreme Court should not have done its job interpreting the Constitution because everyone knows that personal liberty means women can choose their medical care? There is a reason the Supreme Court exists and it is to settle questions raised by the Constitution.
Rules Lawyering is what the Republicans used to get us into this crisis. As Rules Lawyering is the only way to counter Rules Lawyering outside of changing the rules, Rules Lawyering is our only option to fix the broken SCOTUS. Under the Judicial Act of 1869, President Obama is within his rights as an executor of the law to ensure that the Supreme Court has 9 members. Not doing everything in his power to do so would mean he is vulnerable to impeachment from Republicans as he is in clear violation of the law.
this is nonsense
the constitution lays out a process for appointing SC judges, and gives the senate discretion to act on nominations. Arguing that anything other than an affirmative vote represents 'consent' is not supported by law, history or frankly a common sense reading of the document.
I think it's important to remember that the constitution was designed to do essentially what it's doing: enable a relatively small minority faction to force concessions from the majority. The framers for all the foresight they possessed had very different ideas about the wisdom of popular democracy than we do today and considered the potential for intransigence a feature as opposed to a bug. The intent is to create consensus, because the alternative is what we see from the current republicans.
We are in the modern era much more sanguine about the durability of democratic government and the ability of a relatively narrow majority to govern a country without it descending into civil war, because we have 200 years of history to look back at. Unfortunately our governing document was written without the benefit of that perspective and is perilously hard to amend.
The founders didn't intend for the country to fall into anarchy because the minority party would just decide "if we're not in charge the country must suffer, and we have no obligation to do our duties"
Bold action is required to keep the crisis from just getting worse every year, and ultimately I think the public will support who actually does something
edit: I wouldn't feel this way if congress had no remedy, they do, vote down the nominee
The Minority party is not causing this issue though. There's no gerrymandering in the Senate, folks.
I can't interpret your call for "bold action" in any way other that a call for unilateral, unconstitutional action by the Executive. Some clarification would be good here because over and over I see people flirting with dictatorship in this thread.
I am actually curious to see you explain how McConnell is not currently acting dictatorially in his refusal to acknowledge the duly elected President 's nomination to fill a vacancy on the Court as enumerated by the Constitution.
There are more ways to create a banana republic than just unitary Executive actions.
McConnell could be removed by his peers. He cannot act "dictatorially" in anything but the most loosely construed meaning fo the term. If the Executive were to unilaterally order someone to take a seat on the SCOTUS, that would be Actual Dictator Shit. McConnell is standing on some technicalities here in this ridiculous and shameful effort not to hold a vote or even a debate, but he's unfortunately within the scope of his Constitutional power.
How can he be removed by his peers after the initial vote of the session? McConnell has control of the chamber.
And what technicality is he standing on, here? It's power, naked as anything.
spool, do you or do you not think that the continued refusal to hold a vote on a SCOTUS nominee represents a genuine problem
asked and answered a billion times, dude.
At a certain point, something has to be done.
It's too big of a problem to just shrug and go "oh well" for years and years.
Step 1, vote next Tuesdsy.
Step 2, i am arguing, is Stop hoping the President just takes over.
Other actions are possible here too. The Court itself could exert some pressure. The next President could make it the signature goal of her administration to coerce the Senate back into reality. Some Democrats could get elected.
I still think hearings start this month and we have a new SCOTUS justice before Christmas.
Why do you believe the Republican Senators are lying? Particularly given the evidence if their sincerity.
spool, do you or do you not think that the continued refusal to hold a vote on a SCOTUS nominee represents a genuine problem
asked and answered a billion times, dude.
At a certain point, something has to be done.
It's too big of a problem to just shrug and go "oh well" for years and years.
Step 1, vote next Tuesdsy.
Step 2, i am arguing, is Stop hoping the President just takes over.
Other actions are possible here too. The Court itself could exert some pressure. The next President could make it the signature goal of her administration to coerce the Senate back into reality. Some Democrats could get elected.
I still think hearings start this month and we have a new SCOTUS justice before Christmas.
Why do you believe the Republican Senators are lying? Particularly given the evidence if their sincerity.
Wishful thinking? Fear of a more liberal judge after Hillary wins?
I mean, at some point you're in andrew jackson territory; if Obama just said to Garland 'look, you're on the supreme court, start showing up at argument' (and while we're in the realm of things that will never happen, assuming Garland agreed), the House/Senate would probably impeach him (Garland, if not Obama.) And they'd mostly be right to do it.
dudes should really stop trying to rules lawyer what the 'consent' of the senate means; it means a vote. It has always been understood to mean a vote. At best the court could try to compel the senate to hold a vote (which no SC would ever actually attempt), and the senate would still be like 'nah', and you've gotten nowhere.
The House and Senate could not impeach him. They would be required to interpret the Constitution in order to try him. They could try to impeach him but they don't have jurisdiction because their is no "high crime or misdemeanor" on the books that Obama has committed. Supreme Court is the only place they could sue him. The Senate would then have to prove that they did not provide consent which would require them to vote on Garland. Basically, they either vote on Garland or they have no proof that they did not consent to Garland. If Obama goes and gets consent from all the Democrats and Independents he'll have 46 "votes" which just means he needs to find 5 statements from Republican Senators suggesting that Garland would be a good choice for SCOTUS. Once he compiles all of those, he has what the law defines as consent and can put Garland on the Supreme Court.
For a long time, personal liberty did not include a woman's right to choose her medical care but a Supreme Court case interpreted that to be different. Are you now saying that Supreme Court should not have done its job interpreting the Constitution because everyone knows that personal liberty means women can choose their medical care? There is a reason the Supreme Court exists and it is to settle questions raised by the Constitution.
Rules Lawyering is what the Republicans used to get us into this crisis. As Rules Lawyering is the only way to counter Rules Lawyering outside of changing the rules, Rules Lawyering is our only option to fix the broken SCOTUS. Under the Judicial Act of 1869, President Obama is within his rights as an executor of the law to ensure that the Supreme Court has 9 members. Not doing everything in his power to do so would mean he is vulnerable to impeachment from Republicans as he is in clear violation of the law.
this is nonsense
the constitution lays out a process for appointing SC judges, and gives the senate discretion to act on nominations. Arguing that anything other than an affirmative vote represents 'consent' is not supported by law, history or frankly a common sense reading of the document.
I think it's important to remember that the constitution was designed to do essentially what it's doing: enable a relatively small minority faction to force concessions from the majority. The framers for all the foresight they possessed had very different ideas about the wisdom of popular democracy than we do today and considered the potential for intransigence a feature as opposed to a bug. The intent is to create consensus, because the alternative is what we see from the current republicans.
We are in the modern era much more sanguine about the durability of democratic government and the ability of a relatively narrow majority to govern a country without it descending into civil war, because we have 200 years of history to look back at. Unfortunately our governing document was written without the benefit of that perspective and is perilously hard to amend.
The founders didn't intend for the country to fall into anarchy because the minority party would just decide "if we're not in charge the country must suffer, and we have no obligation to do our duties"
Bold action is required to keep the crisis from just getting worse every year, and ultimately I think the public will support who actually does something
edit: I wouldn't feel this way if congress had no remedy, they do, vote down the nominee
The Minority party is not causing this issue though. There's no gerrymandering in the Senate, folks.
I can't interpret your call for "bold action" in any way other that a call for unilateral, unconstitutional action by the Executive. Some clarification would be good here because over and over I see people flirting with dictatorship in this thread.
I am actually curious to see you explain how McConnell is not currently acting dictatorially in his refusal to acknowledge the duly elected President 's nomination to fill a vacancy on the Court as enumerated by the Constitution.
There are more ways to create a banana republic than just unitary Executive actions.
McConnell could be removed by his peers. He cannot act "dictatorially" in anything but the most loosely construed meaning fo the term. If the Executive were to unilaterally order someone to take a seat on the SCOTUS, that would be Actual Dictator Shit. McConnell is standing on some technicalities here in this ridiculous and shameful effort not to hold a vote or even a debate, but he's unfortunately within the scope of his Constitutional power.
Obama can be removed the exact same way, for the exact same reasons. That's not a defense
I meant removed from his position as Majority Leader, rendering him unable to set the Legislative calendar.
One of the hallmarks of leftwing fascisism is its lack of patience with the democratic process and the citizens underpinning it.
I deleted the rest of your post in this reply because your summary of the Majority's position is not accurate, and the rest of your comment about overreach is irrelevant as a result.
"I disagree with your position so I'm going to delete it instead of arguing against it". Really?
Your inability to summarize without spinning for yourself, coupled with actually using the phrase "it's almost like..." earlier, makes it impossible to grapple with anything else in your posts right now.
I mean, at some point you're in andrew jackson territory; if Obama just said to Garland 'look, you're on the supreme court, start showing up at argument' (and while we're in the realm of things that will njoever happen, assuming Garland agreed), the House/Senate would probably impeach him (Garland, if not Obama.) And they'd mostly be right to do it.
dudes should really stop trying to rules lawyer what the 'consent' of the senate means; it means a vote. It has always been understood to mean a vote. At best the court could try to compel the senate to hold a vote (which no SC would ever actually attempt), and the senate would still be like 'nah', and you've gotten nowhere.
The House and Senate could not impeach him. They would be required to interpret the Constitution in order to try him. They could try to impeach him but they don't have jurisdiction because their is no "high crime or misdemeanor" on the books that Obama has committed. Supreme Court is the only place they could sue him. The Senate would then have to prove that they did not provide consent which would require them to vote on Garland. Basically, they either vote on Garland or they have no proof that they did not consent to Garland. If Obama goes and gets consent from all the Democrats and Independents he'll have 46 "votes" which just means he needs to find 5 statements from Republican Senators suggesting that Garland would be a good choice for SCOTUS. Once he compiles all of those, he has what the law defines as consent and can put Garland on the Supreme Court.
For a long time, personal liberty did not include a woman's right to choose her medical care but a Supreme Court case interpreted that to be different. Are you now saying that Supreme Court should not have done its job interpreting the Constitution because everyone knows that personal liberty means women can choose their medical care? There is a reason the Supreme Court exists and it is to settle questions raised by the Constitution.
Rules Lawyering is what the Republicans used to get us into this crisis. As Rules Lawyering is the only way to counter Rules Lawyering outside of changing the rules, Rules Lawyering is our only option to fix the broken SCOTUS. Under the Judicial Act of 1869, President Obama is within his rights as an executor of the law to ensure that the Supreme Court has 9 members. Not doing everything in his power to do so would mean he is vulnerable to impeachment from Republicans as he is in clear violation of the law.
this is nonsense
the constitution lays out a process for appointing SC judges, and gives the senate discretion to act on nominations. Arguing that anything other than an affirmative vote represents 'consent' is not supported by law, history or frankly a common sense reading of the document.
I think it's important to remember that the constitution was designed to do essentially what it's doing: enable a relatively small minority faction to force concessions from the majority. The framers for all the foresight they possessed had very different ideas about the wisdom of popular democracy than we do today and considered the potential for intransigence a feature as opposed to a bug. The intent is to create consensus, because the alternative is what we see from the current republicans.
We are in the modern era much more sanguine about the durability of democratic government and the ability of a relatively narrow majority to govern a country without it descending into civil war, because we have 200 years of history to look back at. Unfortunately our governing document was written without the benefit of that perspective and is perilously hard to amend.
The founders didn't intend for the country to fall into anarchy because the minority party would just decide "if we're not in charge the country must suffer, and we have no obligation to do our duties"
Bold action is required to keep the crisis from just getting worse every year, and ultimately I think the public will support who actually does something
edit: I wouldn't feel this way if congress had no remedy, they do, vote down the nominee
The Minority party is not causing this issue though. There's no gerrymandering in the Senate, folks.
I can't interpret your call for "bold action" in any way other that a call for unilateral, unconstitutional action by the Executive. Some clarification would be good here because over and over I see people flirting with dictatorship in this thread.
I am actually curious to see you explain how McConnell is not currently acting dictatorially in his refusal to acknowledge the duly elected President 's nomination to fill a vacancy on the Court as enumerated by the Constitution.
There are more ways to create a banana republic than just unitary Executive actions.
McConnell could be removed by his peers. He cannot act "dictatorially" in anything but the most loosely construed meaning fo the term. If the Executive were to unilaterally order someone to take a seat on the SCOTUS, that would be Actual Dictator Shit. McConnell is standing on some technicalities here in this ridiculous and shameful effort not to hold a vote or even a debate, but he's unfortunately within the scope of his Constitutional power.
How can he be removed by his peers after the initial vote of the session? McConnell has control of the chamber.
And what technicality is he standing on, here? It's power, naked as anything.
Maybe I'm wrong about this but i thought the Majority could trigger a new election whenever it wanted.
Edit: technically (again i might misunderstand this) the nomination is before the committee but they haven't moved it out yet.
I know potentially it could be as little as like 10.8%. There are enough big states with GOP Senators (2x Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois) though that I don't think it's quite that low.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
why would the Majority trigger a new election though?
They're getting what they want out of the leadership.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+1
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
Duckworth is leading Kirk by a wide margin in polling in Illinois, so we may not have a GOP senator for much longer.
I know potentially it could be as little as like 10.8%. There are enough big states with GOP Senators (2x Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois) though that I don't think it's quite that low.
Ohhhh its this thing where we are sideways arguing that the Senate is undemocratic because some states have more people.
Maybe in some other thread. I'm not engaging in that can of worms in here.
I mean, at some point you're in andrew jackson territory; if Obama just said to Garland 'look, you're on the supreme court, start showing up at argument' (and while we're in the realm of things that will njoever happen, assuming Garland agreed), the House/Senate would probably impeach him (Garland, if not Obama.) And they'd mostly be right to do it.
dudes should really stop trying to rules lawyer what the 'consent' of the senate means; it means a vote. It has always been understood to mean a vote. At best the court could try to compel the senate to hold a vote (which no SC would ever actually attempt), and the senate would still be like 'nah', and you've gotten nowhere.
The House and Senate could not impeach him. They would be required to interpret the Constitution in order to try him. They could try to impeach him but they don't have jurisdiction because their is no "high crime or misdemeanor" on the books that Obama has committed. Supreme Court is the only place they could sue him. The Senate would then have to prove that they did not provide consent which would require them to vote on Garland. Basically, they either vote on Garland or they have no proof that they did not consent to Garland. If Obama goes and gets consent from all the Democrats and Independents he'll have 46 "votes" which just means he needs to find 5 statements from Republican Senators suggesting that Garland would be a good choice for SCOTUS. Once he compiles all of those, he has what the law defines as consent and can put Garland on the Supreme Court.
For a long time, personal liberty did not include a woman's right to choose her medical care but a Supreme Court case interpreted that to be different. Are you now saying that Supreme Court should not have done its job interpreting the Constitution because everyone knows that personal liberty means women can choose their medical care? There is a reason the Supreme Court exists and it is to settle questions raised by the Constitution.
Rules Lawyering is what the Republicans used to get us into this crisis. As Rules Lawyering is the only way to counter Rules Lawyering outside of changing the rules, Rules Lawyering is our only option to fix the broken SCOTUS. Under the Judicial Act of 1869, President Obama is within his rights as an executor of the law to ensure that the Supreme Court has 9 members. Not doing everything in his power to do so would mean he is vulnerable to impeachment from Republicans as he is in clear violation of the law.
this is nonsense
the constitution lays out a process for appointing SC judges, and gives the senate discretion to act on nominations. Arguing that anything other than an affirmative vote represents 'consent' is not supported by law, history or frankly a common sense reading of the document.
I think it's important to remember that the constitution was designed to do essentially what it's doing: enable a relatively small minority faction to force concessions from the majority. The framers for all the foresight they possessed had very different ideas about the wisdom of popular democracy than we do today and considered the potential for intransigence a feature as opposed to a bug. The intent is to create consensus, because the alternative is what we see from the current republicans.
We are in the modern era much more sanguine about the durability of democratic government and the ability of a relatively narrow majority to govern a country without it descending into civil war, because we have 200 years of history to look back at. Unfortunately our governing document was written without the benefit of that perspective and is perilously hard to amend.
The founders didn't intend for the country to fall into anarchy because the minority party would just decide "if we're not in charge the country must suffer, and we have no obligation to do our duties"
Bold action is required to keep the crisis from just getting worse every year, and ultimately I think the public will support who actually does something
edit: I wouldn't feel this way if congress had no remedy, they do, vote down the nominee
The Minority party is not causing this issue though. There's no gerrymandering in the Senate, folks.
I can't interpret your call for "bold action" in any way other that a call for unilateral, unconstitutional action by the Executive. Some clarification would be good here because over and over I see people flirting with dictatorship in this thread.
I am actually curious to see you explain how McConnell is not currently acting dictatorially in his refusal to acknowledge the duly elected President 's nomination to fill a vacancy on the Court as enumerated by the Constitution.
There are more ways to create a banana republic than just unitary Executive actions.
McConnell could be removed by his peers. He cannot act "dictatorially" in anything but the most loosely construed meaning fo the term. If the Executive were to unilaterally order someone to take a seat on the SCOTUS, that would be Actual Dictator Shit. McConnell is standing on some technicalities here in this ridiculous and shameful effort not to hold a vote or even a debate, but he's unfortunately within the scope of his Constitutional power.
How can he be removed by his peers after the initial vote of the session? McConnell has control of the chamber.
And what technicality is he standing on, here? It's power, naked as anything.
Maybe I'm wrong about this but i thought the Majority could trigger a new election whenever it wanted.
Possibly through a discharge petition? I'm not familiar with it ever happening. Much like the current circumstance of refusing to acknowledge a nominee for the Court.
Edit: technically (again i might misunderstand this) the nomination is before the committee but they haven't moved it out yet.
Has it been presented to the committee or entered into by the Senate? There ought to be a parliamentary something or other.
I know potentially it could be as little as like 10.8%. There are enough big states with GOP Senators (2x Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois) though that I don't think it's quite that low.
Ohhhh its this thing where we are sideways arguing that the Senate is undemocratic because some states have more people.
Maybe in some other thread. I'm not engaging in that can of worms in here.
The Senate is undemocratic. It's undemocratic by design.
I know potentially it could be as little as like 10.8%. There are enough big states with GOP Senators (2x Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois) though that I don't think it's quite that low.
Ohhhh its this thing where we are sideways arguing that the Senate is undemocratic because some states have more people.
Maybe in some other thread. I'm not engaging in that can of worms in here.
The Senate is undemocratic. It's undemocratic by design.
I know potentially it could be as little as like 10.8%. There are enough big states with GOP Senators (2x Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois) though that I don't think it's quite that low.
Ohhhh its this thing where we are sideways arguing that the Senate is undemocratic because some states have more people.
Maybe in some other thread. I'm not engaging in that can of worms in here.
The Senate is undemocratic. It's undemocratic by design.
I know potentially it could be as little as like 10.8%. There are enough big states with GOP Senators (2x Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois) though that I don't think it's quite that low.
Ohhhh its this thing where we are sideways arguing that the Senate is undemocratic because some states have more people.
Maybe in some other thread. I'm not engaging in that can of worms in here.
The Senate is undemocratic. It's undemocratic by design.
Because of the 17th! *ducks*
I would argue that the 17th actually makes the Senate more democratic, not less. After all it makes Senators directly elected, where before there was another layer of state elections between the people and their Senators.
I know potentially it could be as little as like 10.8%. There are enough big states with GOP Senators (2x Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois) though that I don't think it's quite that low.
Ohhhh its this thing where we are sideways arguing that the Senate is undemocratic because some states have more people.
Maybe in some other thread. I'm not engaging in that can of worms in here.
The Senate is undemocratic. It's undemocratic by design.
Because of the 17th! *ducks*
I don't follow.
Before, States were equal political entities and each was represented equally in the Senate.
Now, State populations are represented in the Senate rather than States themselves, and the representation is not proportional.
I know potentially it could be as little as like 10.8%. There are enough big states with GOP Senators (2x Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois) though that I don't think it's quite that low.
Ohhhh its this thing where we are sideways arguing that the Senate is undemocratic because some states have more people.
Maybe in some other thread. I'm not engaging in that can of worms in here.
The Senate is undemocratic. It's undemocratic by design.
Because of the 17th! *ducks*
I would argue that the 17th actually makes the Senate more democratic, not less. After all it makes Senators directly elected, where before there was another layer of state elections between the people and their Senators.
Its certainly more closely tied to the people in the State.
I know potentially it could be as little as like 10.8%. There are enough big states with GOP Senators (2x Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois) though that I don't think it's quite that low.
Ohhhh its this thing where we are sideways arguing that the Senate is undemocratic because some states have more people.
Maybe in some other thread. I'm not engaging in that can of worms in here.
The Senate is undemocratic. It's undemocratic by design.
Because of the 17th! *ducks*
I don't follow.
Before, States were equal political entities and each was represented equally in the Senate.
I know potentially it could be as little as like 10.8%. There are enough big states with GOP Senators (2x Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois) though that I don't think it's quite that low.
Ohhhh its this thing where we are sideways arguing that the Senate is undemocratic because some states have more people.
Maybe in some other thread. I'm not engaging in that can of worms in here.
The Senate is undemocratic. It's undemocratic by design.
Because of the 17th! *ducks*
I don't follow.
Before, States were equal political entities and each was represented equally in the Senate.
That is still undemocratic, though...
Stop making me explain the joke! This is becoming a meta thing where it takes over the thread again!
Posts
I think that's procedure not law, so barring rocks fall everyone dies we should be ok for a while.
He's said multiple times in the thread that he doesn't support what the Senate GOP is doing.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
It wasn't! Honestly it hadn't occurred to me that local districts would be, but of course they often are (in all sorts of directions). My feeling about the 17th comes entirely from what I feel is a lack of representation for State interests at the federal level. I think the structure of the House (for the People) and Senate (for the Several States) would remedy some issues like "unfunded mandates" and assaults on portions of the VRA.
I couldn't support a repeal in actuality without some concurrent reform of apportionment, but that's as dead a letter as repealing the 17th. I think diving deeper into gerrymandering as a problem is outside the scope of this thread, but yeah... unfortunate post order is more to blame than anything. That and responding to a throwaway comment in kind, rather than letting it pass by. I ought to have known it'd blow up the thread.
McConnell could be removed by his peers. He cannot act "dictatorially" in anything but the most loosely construed meaning fo the term. If the Executive were to unilaterally order someone to take a seat on the SCOTUS, that would be Actual Dictator Shit. McConnell is standing on some technicalities here in this ridiculous and shameful effort not to hold a vote or even a debate, but he's unfortunately within the scope of his Constitutional power.
I disagree fundamentally with this! Refusal to act, especially when you frame it as part of a continuum like this, is not intentionally ceding power. I didn't accept that position as part of the ACA, and I don't accept it here either.
Quorum for the Supreme Court is 6 members.
asked and answered a billion times, dude.
Obama can be removed the exact same way, for the exact same reasons. That's not a defense.
And no I don't think he's within the scope of his power. "The President is not allowed to appoint anyone" is a clear overreach. It's also one step removed from the Senate taking the appointment ability away from the President'.
I suspect that difference is the key point of disagreement here.
At a certain point, something has to be done.
It's too big of a problem to just shrug and go "oh well" for years and years.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Step 1, vote next Tuesdsy.
Step 2, i am arguing, is Stop hoping the President just takes over.
Other actions are possible here too. The Court itself could exert some pressure. The next President could make it the signature goal of her administration to coerce the Senate back into reality. Some Democrats could get elected.
I still think hearings start this month and we have a new SCOTUS justice before Christmas.
I meant removed from his position as Majority Leader, rendering him unable to set the Legislative calendar.
One of the hallmarks of leftwing fascisism is its lack of patience with the democratic process and the citizens underpinning it.
I deleted the rest of your post in this reply because your summary of the Majority's position is not accurate, and the rest of your comment about overreach is irrelevant as a result.
The current procedure of the court is that the assent of 4 justices is required to issue the writ of certiorari. That just says they're accepting the appeal for consideration (and not necessarily even argument, as they can still decide to act without one).
That's different from the number of justices needed to issue a ruling.
And in both cases SCOTUS has the authority to modify those rules anyways. I would expect that if the court got to or near a minimum functional size because of this bullshit they would become very amenable to a narrow ruling that would force the Senate's hand.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Qurum is US code apparently?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1
Not sure if we have a thread for it floating around. I worry that more congressional districts would just lead to even more stasis from gerrymandering though. I do think there's merit to increasing the size of the House... but I think there needs to be a check in place to control the inevitable gerrymandering. That infamous NC district doesn't look so bad if it's in three chunks after all...
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
"I disagree with your position so I'm going to delete it instead of arguing against it". Really?
And yes that is his position. The issue is not with Garland. He doesn't want Obama nominating *anyone*.
McConnell said just hours after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month that the vacancy should be filled by the next president. "
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/273230-mcconnell-no-hearing-for-garland
And of course there have already been arguments to continue that if Clinton wins:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/26/cruz-says-theres-precedent-for-keeping-ninth-supreme-court-seat-empty/
If you go past the Senate the same article mentions a conservative essay that says the Senate has the power to destroy the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile you call attempts to force a vote- not an approval- facism? Claim both sides are the same?
The "rule of four" they can change as it's neither law nor rule, but only a custom they follow. Quorum is defined by the same law that says the court has 9 members. Changing quorum would require Congress changing the law.
You'd have to get SCOTUS to rule that constitutional first. I don't know that the question has ever actually been addressed. Congress's enumerated powers include creating inferior courts as it deems necessary, but that doesn't imply any ability to define the structure of SCOTUS. Arguably, the Senate has the implicit power to bound the size of the court (as part of advice and consent on appointments), but the constitution is silent on the composition of the court.
Unless there's an existing case on the matter... I think Congress setting the size of the court is entirely a matter of tradition. I suspect the moment the prospect of that statute rendering the court impotent came up you'd see a unanimous ruling that Congress can't set procedure for the court.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
How can he be removed by his peers after the initial vote of the session? McConnell has control of the chamber.
And what technicality is he standing on, here? It's power, naked as anything.
Why do you believe the Republican Senators are lying? Particularly given the evidence if their sincerity.
I have no idea where you got this number or how it relates to the Senate.
Wishful thinking? Fear of a more liberal judge after Hillary wins?
Call it desperate optimism.
It's roughly the proportion of the population (iirc) that the senate majority represents.
Your inability to summarize without spinning for yourself, coupled with actually using the phrase "it's almost like..." earlier, makes it impossible to grapple with anything else in your posts right now.
You don't want a discussion with me.
Maybe I'm wrong about this but i thought the Majority could trigger a new election whenever it wanted.
Edit: technically (again i might misunderstand this) the nomination is before the committee but they haven't moved it out yet.
They're getting what they want out of the leadership.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Ohhhh its this thing where we are sideways arguing that the Senate is undemocratic because some states have more people.
Maybe in some other thread. I'm not engaging in that can of worms in here.
I'm theorycrafting, talking about why McConnell is not acting dictatorially and how democratic pressure could resolve the crisis.
Possibly through a discharge petition? I'm not familiar with it ever happening. Much like the current circumstance of refusing to acknowledge a nominee for the Court.
Has it been presented to the committee or entered into by the Senate? There ought to be a parliamentary something or other.
The Senate is undemocratic. It's undemocratic by design.
Because of the 17th! *ducks*
I don't follow.
I would argue that the 17th actually makes the Senate more democratic, not less. After all it makes Senators directly elected, where before there was another layer of state elections between the people and their Senators.
Before, States were equal political entities and each was represented equally in the Senate.
Now, State populations are represented in the Senate rather than States themselves, and the representation is not proportional.
Its certainly more closely tied to the people in the State.
That is still undemocratic, though...
Stop making me explain the joke! This is becoming a meta thing where it takes over the thread again!