I'm also very pessimistic about the practical probabilities of getting such an amendment passed, the country being where it is and those who benefit from the things such an amendment would curtail being engaged in a full-court press against democracy itself.
Put simply, if we could get such an amendment passed, we wouldn't need it (right away). And because we do, we can't/it won't. IMO.
The Senate actually proposed an amendment explicitly obligating them to hear nominations back in 1844. It failed.
oooh is there text of this amendment somewhere? I'm curious now how it stacks up against the one I wrote.
“That the duty of the Senate to confirm or reject the nominations of the President, is as imperative as his duty to nominate; that such has heretofore been the settled practice of the government; and that it is not now expedient or proper to alter it.”
It seems quite cut-and-dried that the Senate does not have this constitutional responsibility. It really ought to, though.
No, the grant of power is the duty to exercise the power. When the constitution says "with the advice and consent of the senate" that means its their duty to do so.
It says "by and with". It means that the President cannot appoint unless he has consent, not that the Congress must deliver it. Refusal is an exercise of power.
It's a flaw in the document.
They didn't refuse either, is the thing.
Exactly. There's a reason the veto has a fallback of "10 days to respond, if no response given treat like bill was signed"
The founders just never envisioned a party not wanting to fill positions. Disagree about who should fill them maybe, but not the very idea that one branch would try to unilaterally block the other from doing anything
I'm also very pessimistic about the practical probabilities of getting such an amendment passed, the country being where it is and those who benefit from the things such an amendment would curtail being engaged in a full-court press against democracy itself.
Put simply, if we could get such an amendment passed, we wouldn't need it (right away). And because we do, we can't/it won't. IMO.
The Senate actually proposed an amendment explicitly obligating them to hear nominations back in 1844. It failed.
oooh is there text of this amendment somewhere? I'm curious now how it stacks up against the one I wrote.
“That the duty of the Senate to confirm or reject the nominations of the President, is as imperative as his duty to nominate; that such has heretofore been the settled practice of the government; and that it is not now expedient or proper to alter it.”
It seems quite cut-and-dried that the Senate does not have this constitutional responsibility. It really ought to, though.
No, the grant of power is the duty to exercise the power. When the constitution says "with the advice and consent of the senate" that means its their duty to do so.
It says "by and with". It means that the President cannot appoint unless he has consent, not that the Congress must deliver it. Refusal is an exercise of power.
It's a flaw in the document.
They didn't refuse either, is the thing.
Exactly. There's a reason the veto has a fallback of "10 days to respond, if no response given treat like bill was signed"
The founders just never envisioned a party not wanting to fill positions. Disagree about who should fill them maybe, but not the very idea that one branch would try to unilaterally block the other from doing anything
It only goes into any detail on the workings of Congress really. The fine mechanisms of the other branches are left undefined.
I'm also very pessimistic about the practical probabilities of getting such an amendment passed, the country being where it is and those who benefit from the things such an amendment would curtail being engaged in a full-court press against democracy itself.
Put simply, if we could get such an amendment passed, we wouldn't need it (right away). And because we do, we can't/it won't. IMO.
The Senate actually proposed an amendment explicitly obligating them to hear nominations back in 1844. It failed.
oooh is there text of this amendment somewhere? I'm curious now how it stacks up against the one I wrote.
“That the duty of the Senate to confirm or reject the nominations of the President, is as imperative as his duty to nominate; that such has heretofore been the settled practice of the government; and that it is not now expedient or proper to alter it.”
It seems quite cut-and-dried that the Senate does not have this constitutional responsibility. It really ought to, though.
No, the grant of power is the duty to exercise the power. When the constitution says "with the advice and consent of the senate" that means its their duty to do so.
It says "by and with". It means that the President cannot appoint unless he has consent, not that the Congress must deliver it. Refusal is an exercise of power.
It's a flaw in the document.
They didn't refuse either, is the thing.
And for me the big issue is we don't even know how many people made the decision to not vote. Unless this was something that a Republican Senator was going to go to the wall on, it could have been as few as just McConnell making a unilateral decision. And even if a Republican WAS willing to go to the wall, and potentially try to unseat McConnell over this, unless 4 were willing to abandon their party over it (it was 54/46 during the 114th Congress), then it means that 28 Republicans are all that it would take to retain control.
That such a small fraction, and the Majority Leader himself, have so much capacity to dick over the system, is, IMO hugely flawed.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
If they try that again the president should seat the justice anyway and then pack the court.
The sooner the republicans and their bullshit is sent to the dustbin of history the better.
The ends justify the means at this point.
If you ever want a Democrat to take the Presidency again do not fucking do this.
The next Democratic president needs to institute a series of democratic reforms designed to prevent this shit from ever happening again
and they need to break the Republican party's ability to regain anywhere near this amount of power
It's a tall order and it'll take a boldness on the part of the person, the party, and the public, but it's the only way to secure the safety and stability of the democracy.
If they try that again the president should seat the justice anyway and then pack the court.
The sooner the republicans and their bullshit is sent to the dustbin of history the better.
The ends justify the means at this point.
If you ever want a Democrat to take the Presidency again do not fucking do this.
The next Democratic president needs to institute a series of democratic reforms designed to prevent this shit from ever happening again
and they need to break the Republican party's ability to regain anywhere near this amount of power
It's a tall order and it'll take a boldness on the part of the person, the party, and the public, but it's the only way to secure the safety and stability of the democracy.
So far on my list, off the top of my head,
1) SCOTUS nominations process as relates to the Senate.
2) Tax Returns for Presidential nominees and Presidents in term.
3) Related, full divestiture of any and all assets that might cause a conflict of interest.
4) Reclarification of separation of powers with regard presidential authority (specifically firing of upper levels of DoJ/FBI Director/etc). Allow the President to stand them down temporarily (that being defined), but require some sort of procedure to fire them. Even if it's just the successful nomination of a replacement.
I'm sure I've missed something. Hell, I'd completely forgotten about 2 and 3 until this morning, with all the extraneous bullshit that's been going on with regard Russia.
So if RGB were to take occasional fully paid jaunts to a retreat owned and/or led by George Soros, that'd be totally cool? Nobody on the right wing would freak out?
Because I'm calling shenanigans. If that came out, Fox News and Breitbart would lose their minds, and Alex Jones would need to be tranq'd for his own safety, lest he blow a gasket in his outrage.
Just the appearance of potential impropriety flipped around would probably be a really damned huge problem, unless there's some indication that this already happens? I haven't looked, maybe she and he are BFFs and nobody says boo about it in an impressive show of restraint.
But I highly doubt it.
I'm not a hypothetical person on the right wing.
Were the situation reversed as you've outlined it would still not be an argument for impeachment. Justice Ginsberg taking a sponsored trip funded by the AFL-CIO, for example, in order to give speeches about jurisprudence and labor at an event that was itself sponsored by George Soros would not be proof of corruption justifying impeachment and removal from the bench.
Please point out in my statement where I said anything about impeachment.
I'm pointing out that this behaviour is being handwaved away as 'no big deal', when I believe with every fiber of my being that if George Soros was caught on camera buying RBG a cheap cup of coffee it would be on Fox as their main story for *months*.
Kindly don't assign to me arguments or positions I'm not actually making.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
So if RGB were to take occasional fully paid jaunts to a retreat owned and/or led by George Soros, that'd be totally cool? Nobody on the right wing would freak out?
Because I'm calling shenanigans. If that came out, Fox News and Breitbart would lose their minds, and Alex Jones would need to be tranq'd for his own safety, lest he blow a gasket in his outrage.
Just the appearance of potential impropriety flipped around would probably be a really damned huge problem, unless there's some indication that this already happens? I haven't looked, maybe she and he are BFFs and nobody says boo about it in an impressive show of restraint.
But I highly doubt it.
I'm not a hypothetical person on the right wing.
Were the situation reversed as you've outlined it would still not be an argument for impeachment. Justice Ginsberg taking a sponsored trip funded by the AFL-CIO, for example, in order to give speeches about jurisprudence and labor at an event that was itself sponsored by George Soros would not be proof of corruption justifying impeachment and removal from the bench.
Please point out in my statement where I said anything about impeachment.
I'm pointing out that this behaviour is being handwaved away as 'no big deal', when I believe with every fiber of my being that if George Soros was caught on camera buying RBG a cheap cup of coffee it would be on Fox as their main story for *months*.
Kindly don't assign to me arguments or positions I'm not actually making.
The original line of discussion, if you follow the quote trees, was the statement that Scalia wasn't removed even though he was obviously/blatantly corrupt.
I asked if there was proof.
The response was to post a NYT article about Common Cause taking issue with a single sponsored trip. The other article posted pointed out that the majority of sponsored trips are actually paid for by universities.
I stated that these aren't proof of corruption and thus justification for impeachment and removal from the bench. And to your post I replied that I would be consistent in position if the scenario were reversed and it was Justice Ginsberg and a more left leaning group which sponsored her trip to a conference which was itself sponsored by Soros.
If you weren't replying to me that's fine, but it seems like you were. So I would ask that you don't ascribe motivations to my posts for the sake of outrage.
If they try that again the president should seat the justice anyway and then pack the court.
The sooner the republicans and their bullshit is sent to the dustbin of history the better.
The ends justify the means at this point.
If you ever want a Democrat to take the Presidency again do not fucking do this.
If you have any better idea to curtail the GOP capturing the SCOTUS, I'd like to hear it. Because it is happening on the other side of the fence right now.
I didn't argue that a Justice couldn't be corrupt.
Fair enough.
It's difficult to read some of the arguments for the impeachment of Gorsuch as solely based on corruption and not partisanship when it's simultaneously being stated that a SCOTUS appointment was "stolen" and thus impeachment based on partisanship is the way forward.
How was Garland's seat not stolen?
The precedent set by the 1805 impeachment of Justice Chase seems to have stood because it was blatantly partisanship, the same partisanship which resulted in Marbury v. Madison, and seems to have set a strong precedent for an impeachable offense simultaneously being an indictable (criminal) offense.
Ok.
Leaving aside your patronizing assumption that I'm simply not "gasping[sic] the full scope of what's going on there", I'm not unconcerned about the Trump administration. I've specifically posted issues I take with the Trump administration and the officials that Trump has appointed in the appropriate threads. However, I have not taken that concern and framed it as an argument that the appointments are illegitimate and that the individual, regardless of how dangerous I think their actions are in their official capacity, has committed a criminal offense in merely accepting that appointment.
The two issues are deeply connected, Trump was step two in getting Gorsuch on the bench. And the man needn't have committed a legal offense to deserve impeachment, he was acting unethically to get a seat by following the GOP and Trump's leads. This would apply to any justice who accepted this poisoned chalice.
1. Gorsuch didn't need an "opening" to be nominated or confirmed. He does not nominate Justices nor does he confirm them.
2. Certainly legislation can be passed which would directly address this situation. That is completely separate from impeachment on partisan grounds, which has (a) been attempted before and (b) sets a dangerous precedent if successful.
1. He didn't have to master mind it, all he has to was accept their offer and he knew the conditions going in. Which he had to, unless he was living under rock during the Obama admin. The only reason Gorsuch got his job is because the GOP undermined confirming Garland - if Garland had got in he wouldn't be in that seat. Gorsuch poison can't be disentangled from the political situation with Garland.
2. Ok. Except the argument isn't purely on partisan grounds, that Gorsuch is a Republican is besides the point - it's the underlying factors of how he got his seat which is in question. It'd be the same were a Dem candidate to do it. The it's failed before shouldn't mean the subject of a SCOTUS being impeached would be stricken from pursuing until the end of time. Somethings eventually have to done over again, whether they succeed or fail. A lot has changed since then. How would it be dangerous?
No, there is no such implication. I've explicitly outlined exactly what I'm stating in my replies. The appearance of impropriety or the appearance of a conflict of interest does not automatically equal proof of corruption, the post to which I was replying arguing that a Justice should be removed for those two things.
I agree that there is an appearance of "sketchiness" with at least the one sponsored trip that Common Cause took issue with in 2011. That does not mean I agree that it's proof of corruption and thus grounds for removal from the bench.
I think this discussion is getting mixed between actual corruption being caught (which you'd be correct in assuming they haven't been found guilty of) and being people suspecting it is going on. That was the implication of your argument with the latter, because bringing up the former seems a bit odd - and I don't think anyone was arguing against.
The Senate is not obligated to respond to a nomination. This has been pointed out in this very thread that multiple times in the past the Senate has not voted on nominations for Federal judgeships before a new Senate.
If we assume for the sake of argument that this is not true, it is still not a justification for making personal partisan leaning an impeachable offense unless the argument is purely from a place of partisanship.
The two issues are deeply connected, Trump was step two in getting Gorsuch on the bench. And the man needn't have committed a legal offense to deserve impeachment, he was acting unethically to get a seat by following the GOP and Trump's leads. This would apply to any justice who accepted this poisoned chalice.
1. He didn't have to master mind it, all he has to was accept their offer and he knew the conditions going in. Which he had to, unless he was living under rock during the Obama admin. The only reason Gorsuch got his job is because the GOP undermined confirming Garland - if Garland had got in he wouldn't be in that seat. Gorsuch poison can't be disentangled from the political situation with Garland.
This is ascribing an unprovable motive to Gorsuch in a process that he had no hand in other than accepting a nomination.
2. Ok. Except the argument isn't purely on partisan grounds, that Gorsuch is a Republican is besides the point - it's the underlying factors of how he got his seat which is in question. It'd be the same were a Dem candidate to do it. The it's failed before shouldn't mean the subject of a SCOTUS being impeached would be stricken from pursuing until the end of time. Somethings eventually have to done over again, whether they succeed or fail. A lot has changed since then. How would it be dangerous?
These two arguments seem to contradict each other. If you do not agree that an impeachable offense should be an indictable offense then it seems that you think an impeachable offense should include being of the "incorrect" partisan persuasion. Which is exactly why the Chase impeachment is an important precedent, the Anti Federalists now in power under the Jefferson administration very much wanted the power to remove SCOTUS Justices who had Federalist leanings in order to appoint Anti Federalist Justices based solely on partisan leanings.
Which means when there is an inevitable Republican led government after the Democrats "fix" the system then those Justices appointed would then be impeachable by the same precedent. Which would undermine judicial independence.
I think this discussion is getting mixed between actual corruption being caught (which you'd be correct in assuming they haven't been found guilty of) and being people suspecting it is going on. That was the implication of your argument with the latter, because bringing up the former seems a bit odd - and I don't think anyone was arguing against.
If there's any "mixing" it's not on my part. I addressed a specific comment regarding Scalia, his "open corruption", and the apparent problem that he wasn't removed from the bench for the former. Also it's not an implication if you're making it, it's an inference.
Gorsuch bears no responsibility for the actions that placed him on the bench.
I don't understand how we're getting there. Such that any actionable wrongdoing took place, it begins and ends with McConnell.
Gorsuch may be fruit from the poisoned tree, but Nixon's appointees should stand as clear enough precedent that this doesn't negate his position.
If you accept a job you know you only have because some shady shit went down, you're complicit.
Also, Nixon's shenanigans weren't treasonous (at least not Watergate) and AFAIK didn't actually swing him the election. Trump is illegitimate and as such his ability to influence the Court for potentially decades should be called into question.
Also also if norms can be unilaterally discarded for political gain, Democrats might as well get some of that gain too. Particularly as their court would secure individual rights, reform campaign finance, etc.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
Gorsuch bears no responsibility for the actions that placed him on the bench.
I don't understand how we're getting there. Such that any actionable wrongdoing took place, it begins and ends with McConnell.
Gorsuch may be fruit from the poisoned tree, but Nixon's appointees should stand as clear enough precedent that this doesn't negate his position.
I'd counter that perhaps they show that our entire supreme court process is fundamentally flawed and incompatible with the continued function of democracy. A proven criminal and liar, despite impeachment, still managed to shape our political world for thirty years through the court?
If you weren't replying to me that's fine, but it seems like you were. So I would ask that you don't ascribe motivations to my posts for the sake of outrage.
If I was referencing your comments, I would have quoted them. (edit; that's not snark, that's actually something I make a point of). I was speaking generally, and I stand by my statements.
And what 'outrage'. I asked you not to put words in my mouth, something you just did to Harry recently yourself.
This certainly is a strange argument that the SCOTUS on the bench can't be corrupt.
I didn't argue that a Justice couldn't be corrupt.
If that (questionable propriety) was flipped, the right wing media and politicians would be beside themselves throwing shit and shade about it. Full stop.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Forar, trying to make a point about the behavior of the right-wing media is not getting you anywhere because there's no reason for any of us to care. RWM is unconnected to reality, their opinion is irrelevant to the discussion.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
There is no way to "play by the rules" here. The other side is not interested in playing by the rules. This is a fucking Prisoner's Dilemma, and we know the other side is going to betray. every. time.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
There is no way to "play by the rules" here. The other side is not interested in playing by the rules. This is a fucking Prisoner's Dilemma, and we know the other side is going to betray. every. time.
So you fix the rules. You don't escalate more! Democrats have escalated in the past and it does not work.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
You are t making it worse. Again it's like a repeated prisoners dilemma. If one side is defecting and you want them to stop you have to defect until they stop. It is better for democrats to defect in the short and long term; to make it clear that disrespecting the norms of government has consequences.
The alternative is that Republicans will never respect norms and the nation will effectively be a one party state because one side, in its desire to respect the way things ought to be done, will never have the ability to govern.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
There is no way to "play by the rules" here. The other side is not interested in playing by the rules. This is a fucking Prisoner's Dilemma, and we know the other side is going to betray. every. time.
So you fix the rules. You don't escalate more! Democrats have escalated in the past and it does not work.
How, when the cooperation of your opponent is necessary to change the rules? And we know they will "betray" every time?
Gorsuch bears no responsibility for the actions that placed him on the bench.
I don't understand how we're getting there. Such that any actionable wrongdoing took place, it begins and ends with McConnell.
Gorsuch may be fruit from the poisoned tree, but Nixon's appointees should stand as clear enough precedent that this doesn't negate his position.
It doesn't matter if Gorsuch was complicit or not. You don't get to keep stolen property just cause you didn't know it was stolen when it was given to you.
And Nixon's election was not illegitimate afaik, nor was the process by which he appointed justices.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
There is no way to "play by the rules" here. The other side is not interested in playing by the rules. This is a fucking Prisoner's Dilemma, and we know the other side is going to betray. every. time.
So you fix the rules. You don't escalate more! Democrats have escalated in the past and it does not work.
How, when the cooperation of your opponent is necessary to change the rules? And we know they will "betray" every time?
The question is: do you believe inpeaching and removing Gorsuch will escalate partisan conflict in the Senate? If so, is there some level of escalation that is too much, and if so, do you believe that the GOP will stop before then?
My answers are
Yes
Yes
No
And because of that, embarking on a path of further escalation seems like a really bad idea.
Forar, trying to make a point about the behavior of the right-wing media is not getting you anywhere because there's no reason for any of us to care. RWM is unconnected to reality, their opinion is irrelevant to the discussion.
No one in here cares what they think.
Donald Trump receives information from Fox News, as evidenced by him livetweeting their shows, commenting with their talking points, referencing their guests and commentators.
Edit: Same with Alex Jones. And Steve Bannon is in the White House ffs!
I strongly disagree that their opinions and statements are irrelevant.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I'm also very pessimistic about the practical probabilities of getting such an amendment passed, the country being where it is and those who benefit from the things such an amendment would curtail being engaged in a full-court press against democracy itself.
Put simply, if we could get such an amendment passed, we wouldn't need it (right away). And because we do, we can't/it won't. IMO.
The Senate actually proposed an amendment explicitly obligating them to hear nominations back in 1844. It failed.
oooh is there text of this amendment somewhere? I'm curious now how it stacks up against the one I wrote.
“That the duty of the Senate to confirm or reject the nominations of the President, is as imperative as his duty to nominate; that such has heretofore been the settled practice of the government; and that it is not now expedient or proper to alter it.”
It seems quite cut-and-dried that the Senate does not have this constitutional responsibility. It really ought to, though.
No, the grant of power is the duty to exercise the power. When the constitution says "with the advice and consent of the senate" that means its their duty to do so.
It says "by and with". It means that the President cannot appoint unless he has consent, not that the Congress must deliver it. Refusal is an exercise of power.
It's a flaw in the document.
They didn't refuse either, is the thing.
Exactly. There's a reason the veto has a fallback of "10 days to respond, if no response given treat like bill was signed"
The founders just never envisioned a party not wanting to fill positions. Disagree about who should fill them maybe, but not the very idea that one branch would try to unilaterally block the other from doing anything
I really try to avoid saying "the founders thought" because they were a lot of different people with widely varying visions of civics.
But they didn't write into the document what to do when government stops working entirely because they had just showed what they would do when government stops working entirely.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
There is no way to "play by the rules" here. The other side is not interested in playing by the rules. This is a fucking Prisoner's Dilemma, and we know the other side is going to betray. every. time.
So you fix the rules. You don't escalate more! Democrats have escalated in the past and it does not work.
How, when the cooperation of your opponent is necessary to change the rules? And we know they will "betray" every time?
The question is: do you believe inpeaching and removing Gorsuch will escalate partisan conflict in the Senate? If so, is there some level of escalation that is too much, and if so, do you believe that the GOP will stop before then?
My answers are
Yes
Yes
No
And because of that, embarking on a path of further escalation seems like a really bad idea.
I actually don't want to talk about that because honestly I'm undecided on what exact actions Dems should take re: this situation when they regain power.
I want to know how you think the rules can be changed, realistically, to prevent this crisis from happening in the future, when one party will absolutely positively refuse to agree to a rules change.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
There is no way to "play by the rules" here. The other side is not interested in playing by the rules. This is a fucking Prisoner's Dilemma, and we know the other side is going to betray. every. time.
So you fix the rules. You don't escalate more! Democrats have escalated in the past and it does not work.
How, when the cooperation of your opponent is necessary to change the rules? And we know they will "betray" every time?
The question is: do you believe inpeaching and removing Gorsuch will escalate partisan conflict in the Senate? If so, is there some level of escalation that is too much, and if so, do you believe that the GOP will stop before then?
My answers are
Yes
Yes
No
And because of that, embarking on a path of further escalation seems like a really bad idea.
If you don't believe in "yes" for the last question, what does it matter?
There are a lot of good algorithms to maximize score in the iterated prisoner's dilemma, but if you know your opponent is going to always betray you just always betray. If you don't believe the Republicans will stop escalating regardless of what the Democrats do, why would they concede the benefits of escalation solely to the Republicans?
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
There is no way to "play by the rules" here. The other side is not interested in playing by the rules. This is a fucking Prisoner's Dilemma, and we know the other side is going to betray. every. time.
So you fix the rules. You don't escalate more! Democrats have escalated in the past and it does not work.
How, when the cooperation of your opponent is necessary to change the rules? And we know they will "betray" every time?
The question is: do you believe inpeaching and removing Gorsuch will escalate partisan conflict in the Senate? If so, is there some level of escalation that is too much, and if so, do you believe that the GOP will stop before then?
My answers are
Yes
Yes
No
And because of that, embarking on a path of further escalation seems like a really bad idea.
I actually don't want to talk about that because honestly I'm undecided on what exact actions Dems should take re: this situation when they regain power.
I want to know how you think the rules can be changed, realistically, to prevent this crisis from happening in the future, when one party will absolutely positively refuse to agree to a rules change.
Elections, and a Constitutional amendment, and a return to normalcy.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
There is no way to "play by the rules" here. The other side is not interested in playing by the rules. This is a fucking Prisoner's Dilemma, and we know the other side is going to betray. every. time.
So you fix the rules. You don't escalate more! Democrats have escalated in the past and it does not work.
How, when the cooperation of your opponent is necessary to change the rules? And we know they will "betray" every time?
The question is: do you believe inpeaching and removing Gorsuch will escalate partisan conflict in the Senate? If so, is there some level of escalation that is too much, and if so, do you believe that the GOP will stop before then?
My answers are
Yes
Yes
No
And because of that, embarking on a path of further escalation seems like a really bad idea.
If you don't believe in "yes" for the last question, what does it matter?
There are a lot of good algorithms to maximize score in the iterated prisoner's dilemma, but if you know your opponent is going to always betray you just always betray. If you don't believe the Republicans will stop escalating regardless of what the Democrats do, why would they concede the benefits of escalation solely to the Republicans?
Because at least each GOP escalation only needs to top their own previous one, and we slow the destruction of the Republic. The prisoners problem isn't the best analogy here because there are other consequences beyond betrayal of the opponent. 340 million third parties also suffer at each betrayal.
This isn't just a partisan game. Doing right when you're in power is the only way to ensure that the People sometimes has a govt that does right.
Forar, trying to make a point about the behavior of the right-wing media is not getting you anywhere because there's no reason for any of us to care. RWM is unconnected to reality, their opinion is irrelevant to the discussion.
No one in here cares what they think.
Donald Trump receives information from Fox News, as evidenced by him livetweeting their shows, commenting with their talking points, referencing their guests and commentators.
Edit: Same with Alex Jones. And Steve Bannon is in the White House ffs!
I strongly disagree that their opinions and statements are irrelevant.
Dude please, now you are just ranting about things we are not discussing at all. Trump's information vectors are irrelevant to a discussion of whether the RWM would be mad about Soros junkets, and neither one is the slightest but relevant to the question of whether we should impeach Gorsuch. It's just venting anger.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
There is no way to "play by the rules" here. The other side is not interested in playing by the rules. This is a fucking Prisoner's Dilemma, and we know the other side is going to betray. every. time.
So you fix the rules. You don't escalate more! Democrats have escalated in the past and it does not work.
How, when the cooperation of your opponent is necessary to change the rules? And we know they will "betray" every time?
The question is: do you believe inpeaching and removing Gorsuch will escalate partisan conflict in the Senate? If so, is there some level of escalation that is too much, and if so, do you believe that the GOP will stop before then?
My answers are
Yes
Yes
No
And because of that, embarking on a path of further escalation seems like a really bad idea.
I actually don't want to talk about that because honestly I'm undecided on what exact actions Dems should take re: this situation when they regain power.
I want to know how you think the rules can be changed, realistically, to prevent this crisis from happening in the future, when one party will absolutely positively refuse to agree to a rules change.
Elections, and a Constitutional amendment, and a return to normalcy.
The electorate has refused to punish their elected officials for literally breaking the government. I don't agree elections will allow Dems to fix this problem. I am incredibly skeptical that a Constitutional amendment will go anywhere when it is proposed by Democrats. It will be opposed tooth and nail by Republicans and Republican-lead states no matter what.
Not sure we can ever go back to normalcy. That's the point. When one side always betrays, efforts to go back to normalcy by the other side are pointless and will result in concessions traded for no gain.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
There is no way to "play by the rules" here. The other side is not interested in playing by the rules. This is a fucking Prisoner's Dilemma, and we know the other side is going to betray. every. time.
So you fix the rules. You don't escalate more! Democrats have escalated in the past and it does not work.
How, when the cooperation of your opponent is necessary to change the rules? And we know they will "betray" every time?
The question is: do you believe inpeaching and removing Gorsuch will escalate partisan conflict in the Senate? If so, is there some level of escalation that is too much, and if so, do you believe that the GOP will stop before then?
My answers are
Yes
Yes
No
And because of that, embarking on a path of further escalation seems like a really bad idea.
I actually don't want to talk about that because honestly I'm undecided on what exact actions Dems should take re: this situation when they regain power.
I want to know how you think the rules can be changed, realistically, to prevent this crisis from happening in the future, when one party will absolutely positively refuse to agree to a rules change.
Elections, and a Constitutional amendment, and a return to normalcy.
The electorate has refused to punish their elected officials for literally breaking the government. I don't agree elections will allow Dems to fix this problem. I am incredibly skeptical that a Constitutional amendment will go anywhere when it is proposed by Democrats. It will be opposed tooth and nail by Republicans and Republican-lead states no matter what.
Not sure we can ever go back to normalcy. That's the point. When one side always betrays, efforts to go back to normalcy by the other side are pointless and will result in concessions traded for no gain.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
There is no way to "play by the rules" here. The other side is not interested in playing by the rules. This is a fucking Prisoner's Dilemma, and we know the other side is going to betray. every. time.
So you fix the rules. You don't escalate more! Democrats have escalated in the past and it does not work.
How, when the cooperation of your opponent is necessary to change the rules? And we know they will "betray" every time?
The question is: do you believe inpeaching and removing Gorsuch will escalate partisan conflict in the Senate? If so, is there some level of escalation that is too much, and if so, do you believe that the GOP will stop before then?
My answers are
Yes
Yes
No
And because of that, embarking on a path of further escalation seems like a really bad idea.
If you don't believe in "yes" for the last question, what does it matter?
There are a lot of good algorithms to maximize score in the iterated prisoner's dilemma, but if you know your opponent is going to always betray you just always betray. If you don't believe the Republicans will stop escalating regardless of what the Democrats do, why would they concede the benefits of escalation solely to the Republicans?
Because at least each GOP escalation only needs to top their own previous one, and we slow the destruction of the Republic. The prisoners problem isn't the best analogy here because there are other consequences beyond betrayal of the opponent. 340 million third parties also suffer at each betrayal.
This isn't just a partisan game. Doing right when you're in power is the only way to ensure that the People sometimes has a govt that does right.
The end point remains the destruction of the Republic! We need an option that is not the destruction of the Republic. Breaking Republican political power is a necessary precondition to do that, pretty sure.
And given the way the conservative bloc on the court works to maintain Republican political power...
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Acting like the Democrats violating norms in response to the Republicans violating norms for years and years is just false equivalency. When norms are violated, sometimes norms must be violated in response, because there is no counter-measure within the norms to fix it.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
There is no way to "play by the rules" here. The other side is not interested in playing by the rules. This is a fucking Prisoner's Dilemma, and we know the other side is going to betray. every. time.
So you fix the rules. You don't escalate more! Democrats have escalated in the past and it does not work.
How, when the cooperation of your opponent is necessary to change the rules? And we know they will "betray" every time?
The question is: do you believe inpeaching and removing Gorsuch will escalate partisan conflict in the Senate? If so, is there some level of escalation that is too much, and if so, do you believe that the GOP will stop before then?
My answers are
Yes
Yes
No
And because of that, embarking on a path of further escalation seems like a really bad idea.
If you don't believe in "yes" for the last question, what does it matter?
There are a lot of good algorithms to maximize score in the iterated prisoner's dilemma, but if you know your opponent is going to always betray you just always betray. If you don't believe the Republicans will stop escalating regardless of what the Democrats do, why would they concede the benefits of escalation solely to the Republicans?
Because at least each GOP escalation only needs to top their own previous one, and we slow the destruction of the Republic. The prisoners problem isn't the best analogy here because there are other consequences beyond betrayal of the opponent. 340 million third parties also suffer at each betrayal.
This isn't just a partisan game. Doing right when you're in power is the only way to ensure that the People sometimes has a govt that does right.
Do third parties suffer directly from the destruction of norms, or the policy consequences of the destruction of norms? I ask because if its the latter, as I believe, a slow destruction where the worse side gets to make all the disastrous policy is worse than a rapid destruction where at least sometimes the better side makes policy.
Posts
The sooner the republicans and their bullshit is sent to the dustbin of history the better.
The ends justify the means at this point.
Exactly. There's a reason the veto has a fallback of "10 days to respond, if no response given treat like bill was signed"
The founders just never envisioned a party not wanting to fill positions. Disagree about who should fill them maybe, but not the very idea that one branch would try to unilaterally block the other from doing anything
It only goes into any detail on the workings of Congress really. The fine mechanisms of the other branches are left undefined.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
If you ever want a Democrat to take the Presidency again do not fucking do this.
That such a small fraction, and the Majority Leader himself, have so much capacity to dick over the system, is, IMO hugely flawed.
The next Democratic president needs to institute a series of democratic reforms designed to prevent this shit from ever happening again
and they need to break the Republican party's ability to regain anywhere near this amount of power
It's a tall order and it'll take a boldness on the part of the person, the party, and the public, but it's the only way to secure the safety and stability of the democracy.
1) SCOTUS nominations process as relates to the Senate.
2) Tax Returns for Presidential nominees and Presidents in term.
3) Related, full divestiture of any and all assets that might cause a conflict of interest.
4) Reclarification of separation of powers with regard presidential authority (specifically firing of upper levels of DoJ/FBI Director/etc). Allow the President to stand them down temporarily (that being defined), but require some sort of procedure to fire them. Even if it's just the successful nomination of a replacement.
I'm sure I've missed something. Hell, I'd completely forgotten about 2 and 3 until this morning, with all the extraneous bullshit that's been going on with regard Russia.
Please point out in my statement where I said anything about impeachment.
I'm pointing out that this behaviour is being handwaved away as 'no big deal', when I believe with every fiber of my being that if George Soros was caught on camera buying RBG a cheap cup of coffee it would be on Fox as their main story for *months*.
Kindly don't assign to me arguments or positions I'm not actually making.
The original line of discussion, if you follow the quote trees, was the statement that Scalia wasn't removed even though he was obviously/blatantly corrupt.
I asked if there was proof.
The response was to post a NYT article about Common Cause taking issue with a single sponsored trip. The other article posted pointed out that the majority of sponsored trips are actually paid for by universities.
I stated that these aren't proof of corruption and thus justification for impeachment and removal from the bench. And to your post I replied that I would be consistent in position if the scenario were reversed and it was Justice Ginsberg and a more left leaning group which sponsored her trip to a conference which was itself sponsored by Soros.
If you weren't replying to me that's fine, but it seems like you were. So I would ask that you don't ascribe motivations to my posts for the sake of outrage.
They're done for the current term, Oct 2 is the start of the next term.
If you have any better idea to curtail the GOP capturing the SCOTUS, I'd like to hear it. Because it is happening on the other side of the fence right now.
Fair enough.
How was Garland's seat not stolen?
Ok.
The two issues are deeply connected, Trump was step two in getting Gorsuch on the bench. And the man needn't have committed a legal offense to deserve impeachment, he was acting unethically to get a seat by following the GOP and Trump's leads. This would apply to any justice who accepted this poisoned chalice.
1. He didn't have to master mind it, all he has to was accept their offer and he knew the conditions going in. Which he had to, unless he was living under rock during the Obama admin. The only reason Gorsuch got his job is because the GOP undermined confirming Garland - if Garland had got in he wouldn't be in that seat. Gorsuch poison can't be disentangled from the political situation with Garland.
2. Ok. Except the argument isn't purely on partisan grounds, that Gorsuch is a Republican is besides the point - it's the underlying factors of how he got his seat which is in question. It'd be the same were a Dem candidate to do it. The it's failed before shouldn't mean the subject of a SCOTUS being impeached would be stricken from pursuing until the end of time. Somethings eventually have to done over again, whether they succeed or fail. A lot has changed since then. How would it be dangerous?
I think this discussion is getting mixed between actual corruption being caught (which you'd be correct in assuming they haven't been found guilty of) and being people suspecting it is going on. That was the implication of your argument with the latter, because bringing up the former seems a bit odd - and I don't think anyone was arguing against.
The Senate is not obligated to respond to a nomination. This has been pointed out in this very thread that multiple times in the past the Senate has not voted on nominations for Federal judgeships before a new Senate.
If we assume for the sake of argument that this is not true, it is still not a justification for making personal partisan leaning an impeachable offense unless the argument is purely from a place of partisanship.
This is wrong, as I've already outlined.
This is ascribing an unprovable motive to Gorsuch in a process that he had no hand in other than accepting a nomination.
These two arguments seem to contradict each other. If you do not agree that an impeachable offense should be an indictable offense then it seems that you think an impeachable offense should include being of the "incorrect" partisan persuasion. Which is exactly why the Chase impeachment is an important precedent, the Anti Federalists now in power under the Jefferson administration very much wanted the power to remove SCOTUS Justices who had Federalist leanings in order to appoint Anti Federalist Justices based solely on partisan leanings.
Which means when there is an inevitable Republican led government after the Democrats "fix" the system then those Justices appointed would then be impeachable by the same precedent. Which would undermine judicial independence.
If there's any "mixing" it's not on my part. I addressed a specific comment regarding Scalia, his "open corruption", and the apparent problem that he wasn't removed from the bench for the former. Also it's not an implication if you're making it, it's an inference.
Regardless, it is clear that standards differ between people in this discussion.
I don't understand how we're getting there. Such that any actionable wrongdoing took place, it begins and ends with McConnell.
Gorsuch may be fruit from the poisoned tree, but Nixon's appointees should stand as clear enough precedent that this doesn't negate his position.
If you accept a job you know you only have because some shady shit went down, you're complicit.
Also, Nixon's shenanigans weren't treasonous (at least not Watergate) and AFAIK didn't actually swing him the election. Trump is illegitimate and as such his ability to influence the Court for potentially decades should be called into question.
Also also if norms can be unilaterally discarded for political gain, Democrats might as well get some of that gain too. Particularly as their court would secure individual rights, reform campaign finance, etc.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I'd counter that perhaps they show that our entire supreme court process is fundamentally flawed and incompatible with the continued function of democracy. A proven criminal and liar, despite impeachment, still managed to shape our political world for thirty years through the court?
If I was referencing your comments, I would have quoted them. (edit; that's not snark, that's actually something I make a point of). I was speaking generally, and I stand by my statements.
And what 'outrage'. I asked you not to put words in my mouth, something you just did to Harry recently yourself.
If that (questionable propriety) was flipped, the right wing media and politicians would be beside themselves throwing shit and shade about it. Full stop.
No one in here cares what they think.
No, you don't make it worse to make it better.
There is no way to "play by the rules" here. The other side is not interested in playing by the rules. This is a fucking Prisoner's Dilemma, and we know the other side is going to betray. every. time.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
So you fix the rules. You don't escalate more! Democrats have escalated in the past and it does not work.
You are t making it worse. Again it's like a repeated prisoners dilemma. If one side is defecting and you want them to stop you have to defect until they stop. It is better for democrats to defect in the short and long term; to make it clear that disrespecting the norms of government has consequences.
The alternative is that Republicans will never respect norms and the nation will effectively be a one party state because one side, in its desire to respect the way things ought to be done, will never have the ability to govern.
How, when the cooperation of your opponent is necessary to change the rules? And we know they will "betray" every time?
It doesn't matter if Gorsuch was complicit or not. You don't get to keep stolen property just cause you didn't know it was stolen when it was given to you.
And Nixon's election was not illegitimate afaik, nor was the process by which he appointed justices.
The question is: do you believe inpeaching and removing Gorsuch will escalate partisan conflict in the Senate? If so, is there some level of escalation that is too much, and if so, do you believe that the GOP will stop before then?
My answers are
Yes
Yes
No
And because of that, embarking on a path of further escalation seems like a really bad idea.
Donald Trump receives information from Fox News, as evidenced by him livetweeting their shows, commenting with their talking points, referencing their guests and commentators.
Edit: Same with Alex Jones. And Steve Bannon is in the White House ffs!
I strongly disagree that their opinions and statements are irrelevant.
I really try to avoid saying "the founders thought" because they were a lot of different people with widely varying visions of civics.
But they didn't write into the document what to do when government stops working entirely because they had just showed what they would do when government stops working entirely.
I actually don't want to talk about that because honestly I'm undecided on what exact actions Dems should take re: this situation when they regain power.
I want to know how you think the rules can be changed, realistically, to prevent this crisis from happening in the future, when one party will absolutely positively refuse to agree to a rules change.
If you don't believe in "yes" for the last question, what does it matter?
There are a lot of good algorithms to maximize score in the iterated prisoner's dilemma, but if you know your opponent is going to always betray you just always betray. If you don't believe the Republicans will stop escalating regardless of what the Democrats do, why would they concede the benefits of escalation solely to the Republicans?
Elections, and a Constitutional amendment, and a return to normalcy.
Because at least each GOP escalation only needs to top their own previous one, and we slow the destruction of the Republic. The prisoners problem isn't the best analogy here because there are other consequences beyond betrayal of the opponent. 340 million third parties also suffer at each betrayal.
This isn't just a partisan game. Doing right when you're in power is the only way to ensure that the People sometimes has a govt that does right.
Dude please, now you are just ranting about things we are not discussing at all. Trump's information vectors are irrelevant to a discussion of whether the RWM would be mad about Soros junkets, and neither one is the slightest but relevant to the question of whether we should impeach Gorsuch. It's just venting anger.
The electorate has refused to punish their elected officials for literally breaking the government. I don't agree elections will allow Dems to fix this problem. I am incredibly skeptical that a Constitutional amendment will go anywhere when it is proposed by Democrats. It will be opposed tooth and nail by Republicans and Republican-lead states no matter what.
Not sure we can ever go back to normalcy. That's the point. When one side always betrays, efforts to go back to normalcy by the other side are pointless and will result in concessions traded for no gain.
So then what?
The end point remains the destruction of the Republic! We need an option that is not the destruction of the Republic. Breaking Republican political power is a necessary precondition to do that, pretty sure.
And given the way the conservative bloc on the court works to maintain Republican political power...
Do third parties suffer directly from the destruction of norms, or the policy consequences of the destruction of norms? I ask because if its the latter, as I believe, a slow destruction where the worse side gets to make all the disastrous policy is worse than a rapid destruction where at least sometimes the better side makes policy.