|
Mooseontheloose posted:It seems like if the Republicans wanted to reject OBama out of hand without being obstructionist they would allow him to nominate someone, draw out the hearing, and then vote the person down bringing you close to the election. I don't know, I heard that Obama has a pretty strict litmus test of eating white babies, pissing on the original copy of the constitution, and burning a bible in order to be considered. Unless Bernie ads being able to sing the State Anthem of the USSR in Russian, on key, I'm not sure how much more liberal the nominee can get. Obama is probably going to sit down with the people he would have considered to replace RBG and talk with them about whether or not they're down with having a front row seat to the circus. If one of them is up to it, he'll nominate them and spend the rest of the time forwarding his planned stump speeches for the Democratic Nominee to Mitch McConnell. Accompanied by a brief .mp3 of him in his most Campaign Obama voice saying "And I'm gonna be talking like this the whole time" He'll also take into account Grassley, and if Jane Kelly is someone he's have trouble just stonewalling the gently caress out of, an unlikely thing for Grassley, she'll 100% be the nominee. Ted Cruz could help this along by being Ted Cruz enough the other Republicans in the Senate want to get this off his plate before he begins proudly wearing his King of the Ashes crown. While Majority leader Turtle is important, if Obama can somehow get the Judicial Committee to vote his nominee through it becomes much, much harder for McConnell to stonewall.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:Except that a recess appointment takes away a valuable political weapon during an election year, and only lasts until the end of the next Senate term. Plus it plays into the KING DICTATOR OBAMA narrative that the Republicans keep trying to make stick. I don't think Obama is dumb enough to do that when a tied court is already a net gain for liberals due to the makeup of the lower courts. Yeah there's no benefit to a recess appointment. 4-4s are almost as good as 5-4s given that most circuits are liberal now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
A recess appointment is also impossible because the Senate doesn't go into recess anymore, specifically to prevent recess appointments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:A recess appointment is also impossible because the Senate doesn't go into recess anymore, specifically to prevent recess appointments. Do it anyway, have the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of the Senate’s chicanery.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yeah there's no benefit to a recess appointment. 4-4s are almost as good as 5-4s given that most circuits are liberal now. Is the union contribution case 4-4 now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Do it anyway, have the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of the Senate’s chicanery. NRLB v. Canning already settled this in favor of Congress. The executive doesn't have the authority to determine when Congress is in session. Even if the session is 3 people motioning and closing business for the day in a minute.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Is the union contribution case 4-4 now? Yeah and if it's a tied ruling it goes back to in favor of the unions from the lower court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Is the union contribution case 4-4 now? Yep, and the lower court ruled in favor of the unions. At the plaintiffs request so they could get to the Supreme Court faster 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah and if it's a 4-4 ruling it goes back to in favor of the unions. That's fantastic. The best thing Scalia ever did in his public life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Do it anyway, have the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of the Senate’s chicanery. I'd rather the focus be on the GOP being assholes refusing to do their constitutional duty and not a really public fight that plays right into their "Obama is ruling by bypassing Congress!" narrative. Besides this has already been answered - the fake sessions totally count.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Harry Reid did a wonderful job constructing the pro forma sessions to block off Bush recess appointments, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the Republicans turned it around when they got the chance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Harry Reid did a wonderful job constructing the pro forma sessions to block off Bush recess appointments, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the Republicans turned it around when they got the chance. The best part is that it automatically grants the House the right to block recess appointments as both the House and Senate must agree to a recess. If the Senate wants to let Obama recess appoint and the House doesn't, the House can force the Senate to hold pro-forma sessions by refusing to consent to the Senate's recess. This was exactly the scenario that led to Canning in the first place. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:One nitpick: the senate is the only half of congress that gets a vote and it is not gerrymandered. Well, it's sort of gerrymandered in that half of the senators are represent 16% of the people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Well, it's sort of gerrymandered in that half of the senators are represent 16% of the people. It’s incredible that the Democrats remain competitive with that kind of institutional disadvantage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Is the union contribution case 4-4 now? I'm honestly wondering if the likelihood of this going against public sector unions helped influence NATCA's (ATC union) support of the recent privatization bill. I know that more stable funding is a huge part of that decision, but I can't help but think that the supreme court case likely going against them also played a factor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yep, and the lower court ruled in favor of the unions. At the plaintiffs request so they could get to the Supreme Court faster If the plaintiff asked to lose at the appellate level, why doesn't that cause standing issues?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:If the plaintiff asked to lose at the appellate level, why doesn't that cause standing issues? You're trying to overturn binding Supreme Court precedent and you're aware that a circuit court can't do that, and you just say that while you believe your legal arguments are correct you view the Supreme Court case as controlling the circuit court's decision and that only the Supreme Court can reverse itself instead of trying to distinguish your case from the earlier one. It's still a controversy so there's still standing, you just concede you can't get the relief you seek at that level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Is the union contribution case 4-4 now? The flip side of this is that Fisher II is still 4-3 in favor of killing affirmative action because of Kagan's recusal. And it sets precedent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You're trying to overturn binding Supreme Court precedent and you're aware that a circuit court can't do that, and you just say that while you believe your legal arguments are correct you view the Supreme Court case as controlling the circuit court's decision and that only the Supreme Court can reverse itself instead of trying to distinguish your case from the earlier one. It's still a controversy so there's still standing, you just concede you can't get the relief you seek at that level. "My arguments are persevered. thank you for you for your time..." or something like that? Now that you say it, I kind of remember something like that happening in the oral arguments at the 7th circuit in McDonald v. Chicago. Platystemon posted:It’s incredible that the Democrats remain competitive with that kind of institutional disadvantage. New England mitigates it slightly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Was Goodwin Liu supposed to have been Obama's pick for SCOTUS, or would that have been something farther down the line?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yep, and the lower court ruled in favor of the unions. At the plaintiffs request so they could get to the Supreme Court faster Oh my god, this is beautiful 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
ElegantFugue posted:Oh my god, this is beautiful Scalia dying is literally the best thing he has done for liberals
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/almightygod/status/698633940429570049 Buckwheat Sings posted:Yeah, not going to lie, whoever wins this presidency will most likely have a recession hit at some point and it's going to be rough. Yep, the downside to a Dem winning this year is that if they don't also take the Senate then appointments will continue to not be filled and the 2018 midterms will likely hand the GOP an even large majority, if not a super majority, should we have any sort of recession. If it's bad enough then the incumbent is hosed in 2020 too. HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:And Bob Cusack just finished explaining over the phone how the senate will attempt to technically stay in session for the next 11 months so the president can't make a recess appointment. I hope that Kennedy ends up making a statement to the effect of "Democrats were mature enough to confirm me during an election cycle when Reagan appointed me. What does it say about Republicans who refuse to even consider President Obama's potential nominee?" Because even if Roberts somehow manages to not make comments, should the GOP actually stonewall for months, Kennedy will probably get especially fed up by it. Though the GOP ignoring Kennedy's own appointment is worth it for moments like last night's debate where the moderator basically shamed Cruz in to silence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Predicting it now- Obama sues Congress for not upholding a timely Sup Com process. It goes 4-4.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Well, it's sort of gerrymandered in that half of the senators are represent 16% of the people. Representing "the people" is not why the Senate exists. It's there to represent the states' interests. See: Federalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
direct election of senators makes that a bit muddier though
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Predicting it now- Obama sues Congress for not upholding a timely Sup Com process. More like "refuse cert based on political question doctrine, unrecorded 8-0 vote"
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Representing "the people" is not why the Senate exists. It's there to represent the states' interests. It exists to slow down the house of representatives, which means it did its job during the Obama administration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:direct election of senators makes that a bit muddier though Not really. It's the citizens of the state that elect their own senators. They then represent the interests of the state as a whole. The House is dominated by the interests of urban areas. The Senate is dominated by the interests of rural areas. Forcing compromises that are acceptable to both is part of the way the system is supposed to work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Predicting it now- Obama sues Congress for not upholding a timely Sup Com process. on what grounds
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The House is dominated by the interests of urban areas. So what? People should have a say. Real estate shouldn’t.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
CheeseSpawn posted:I'm thinking the Republicans are going to pretend to throw up resistance but accept Obama's appointee. Basically, they can get a liberal moderate judge now or bet everything on the election and get a fully liberal judge if they lose. you do know they could just never confirm anyone,right? there is no time limit and the gop is not losing the senate
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:So what? People should have a say. Real estate shouldn’t. The food people in cities eat comes from people who live on farms in rural areas, for example. They depend on each other and should respect each others' needs. Short-sighted policies tilted toward urban centers can have disastrous long-term consequences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Representing "the people" is not why the Senate exists. It's there to represent the states' interests. That's some top notch analysis right there. See also: 17th Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:on what grounds I'm just a humble country lawyer but it seems to me that
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Predicting it now- Obama sues Congress for not upholding a timely Sup Com process. It goes political question doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Short-sighted policies tilted toward urban centers can have disastrous long-term consequences. I don’t want to tilt anything toward urban centers. Why yes, lots of people happen to live in urban centers. Their votes shouldn’t count for any more or any less than anyone else’s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Does anyone really think that the GOP are going to fall in line to confirm President Clinton or Sanders' nominee? I don't see why we won't be at 8 until another one of them dies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Does anyone really think that the GOP are going to fall in line to confirm President Clinton or Sanders' nominee? I don't see why we won't be at 8 until another one of them dies. Because in the event of President [either of those] they probably won't hold the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Because in the event of President [either of those] they probably won't hold the Senate. They won't have 60 votes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 19:09
|
|