|
euphronius posted:This is a major crisis and something dramatic would happen at 2. We're at step two right now.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:We're at step two right now. Obama hasn't nominated anyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:Also Republicans would be wise to remember that it is very conceivable that Hillary takes the White House and Democrats take the Senate leading to a much more liberal appointment than Obama is likely to try and get past through the current Senate. Nah, Obama's pulling from the same list as Hillary pretty much no matter what. The only exception is if the Dover Trial guy got put up I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Obama hasn't nominated anyone. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Duh. Right so we are at step one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:born of a necessity to protest the will of the American people Not sure if this is a typo or intentional, but either way it's great. But to be fair, the original letter actually says 'protect the will'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
I don't think the republicans are gonna give a poo poo about what the guy that upheld obamacare is going to say
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Right so we are at step one. Sorry, yeah, that "duh" was directed at myself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Nah, Obama's pulling from the same list as Hillary pretty much no matter what. The only exception is if the Dover Trial guy got put up I guess. While they probably have the same general list, the composition of the Senate does affect who exactly they nominate. A Democratic Senate means they have to care less about politics and can put someone closer to their ideal, who would probably be more liberal. The only reason Obama may nominate a particularly liberal nominee in the current environment is that the Republicans aren't giving him much of an option other than a liberal for Bernie and Hillary to hang a campaign on. If the Republicans were willing to actually do their job, they'd likely get a much more moderate nominee to consider.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Jesus why publish a letter like that? Why not just hold hearings and vote down the nominee? I don't understand what McConnell thinks he's getting out of this. He must be concerned that enough members of his conference would support a moderate to confirm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Yeah I thought the Senate was supposed to be the "grown up" house of Congress where people respected the various processes. The kind of naked obstruction we've been seeing in the last six to eight years seems like it's setting a bad president should the other party get into power and suddenly you want all that back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Jesus why publish a letter like that? Why not just hold hearings and vote down the nominee? I don't understand what McConnell thinks he's getting out of this. He must be concerned that enough members of his conference would support a moderate to confirm. Because it's a public way to be tough guys about standing up to that mean old tyrant Obama. Their electorate probably knows the supreme court mostly as "the thing that gave the gays marriage" and only want to hear that whatever Obama is doing about it, they won't let him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Jesus why publish a letter like that? Why not just hold hearings and vote down the nominee? I don't understand what McConnell thinks he's getting out of this. He must be concerned that enough members of his conference would support a moderate to confirm. It's to protect the incumbents from primary challenges, that's all. It's to prevent any possible criticism that they are showing "weakness" or "caving" to Obama.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Jesus why publish a letter like that? Why not just hold hearings and vote down the nominee? I don't understand what McConnell thinks he's getting out of this. He must be concerned that enough members of his conference would support a moderate to confirm. Yeah, if I were them I would grandstand in the confirmation, let Obama burn a nominee, and vote it down at the end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Yeah, if I were them I would grandstand in the confirmation, let Obama burn a nominee, and vote it down at the end. Best result is for Republicans to grandstand and stall all summer, have the people react negatively and vote the Senate back to the Democrats, then in January after the new Senate is seated Obama can pull his original nominee and go with someone young and super liberal, whom the Senate confirms before Jan. 21.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Radish posted:Saying that you won't even consider any of a president's nominations regardless of quality because you hope to win an election after he's gone in a year is an interesting way of interpreting "separation of powers." They're separating Obama from his office's powers  SousaphoneColossus posted:I don't think anyone is disagreeing that it's a blatantly political dick move that breaks with tradition, but I'm not seeing a) a specific, enforceable Constitutional imperative for the Senate to do anything or b) a real electoral downside to them blocking a nominee from even getting a vote. The nuances of SCOTUS appointment procedures, like the difference between blocking or allowing a nomination on the committee level vs. proceeding to a full Senate vote, are probably lost on most voters. The electoral downside is that it's negating part of the decision of voters in the 2012 election because the GOP is hoping and praying to win the White House so they can install Justice Moore or some other theocratic shitlord to carry on Scalia's dark works. Three Olives posted:I wonder about a hypothetical where the left wing with or without Kenedy, perhaps even Roberts writes a letter to Senate Republicans essentially saying that this is bullshit, that the president has a duty and a responsibility to appoint a successor during his time in office and the Senate has a duty and responsibility to hold a hearing, then you end up with a situation where two branches and a fair chunk of the third is telling Senate Republicans to knock this obstructionist bullshit off and Republicans have to decide if they want to look like obstructionist bullies going into the election or just try and quickly confirm and try and sweep this under the rug. Doing this would, in the eyes of the right wing, just confirm to them that Roberts has gone Full RINO and is now a liberal judicial activist. Though as I've said before: I'm all for Roberts being driven to the breaking point by the right wing fringe and having it cause him to snap and whip to the left. He won't, but it's fun to dream. Three Olives posted:Also Republicans would be wise to remember that it is very conceivable that Hillary takes the White House and Democrats take the Senate leading to a much more liberal appointment than Obama is likely to try and get past through the current Senate. Dems taking the Senate is a hell of a lot less likely than the GOP winning the White House and don't kid yourself in to thinking otherwise. Ogmius815 posted:Jesus why publish a letter like that? Why not just hold hearings and vote down the nominee? I don't understand what McConnell thinks he's getting out of this. He must be concerned that enough members of his conference would support a moderate to confirm. He's concerned about getting primaried and losing his seat. The upside of this published letter is that Obama can openly take them to task right now if he wants to and if the GOP seriously manages to stonewall a SCOTUS nomination for the rest of the year and the Dems can't capitalize enough to take the White House and maybe gain/protect a few seats in Congress then we as a nation deserve the Trumpocracy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
It should not surprise anyone republicans in congress are overplaying their hand. If they said they will hold hearings and consider a nominee, they could keep that charade going until the summer, then vote the nominee down, at which point it probably is too late to start over. They could consider the nominee to death, and get all the grandstanding they want. There are even decent odds they could win the messaging war with such an approach, it would just depend on whose framing of the nominee crystallized first. Instead, this 100% obstructionism out of the gate will play poorly. Pretty much every time they have stomped their feet and taken their ball home it has played poorly to a national audience and well to their base. That works in off year elections but not presidential years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:https://twitter.com/frankthorpNBC/status/702206741199466496 Is there any chance that was a typo for 'protect', or are they literally saying "gently caress the voters"? Edit: read the thing, it does say protect, even if protest is more accurate hangedman1984 fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Maybe I'm naive and dumb but I still think the GOP is just staking out a negotiating position. They can't actually see this through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Edit: I'm the idiot
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
euphronius posted:
sure they can. I doubt it'll help them, but it isn't beyond the realm of the possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:Is there any chance that was a typo for 'protect', or are they literally saying "gently caress the voters"? protect these voters protest those voters
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Maybe I'm naive and dumb but I still think the GOP is just staking out a negotiating position. I guess they're not saying never not in a million years this is written in stone and we promise we will never ever reconsider, so it's plausible, but it seems like if they expect to negotiate this out they are guaranteeing they will look like they caved. Or at least, their alternatives are either be unhustiably obstructionist or get rolled by Obama. Neither really sounds like a victory condition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Pretty much every time they have stomped their feet and taken their ball home it has played poorly to a national audience and well to their base. That works in off year elections but not presidential years. Being that myself and quite a few of my friends are nominally in the republican base - I assure you that it is not and has not played well. It pisses us off to the point where we seriously consider Sanders or an outsider just because  euphronius posted:Maybe I'm naive and dumb but I still think the GOP is just staking out a negotiating position. I hope your right, but they've shot themselves in the foot already.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:It should not surprise anyone republicans in congress are overplaying their hand. It doesn't help the party but it does help them individually. They'd get primary'd if they appeared open to compromise. This is a hole they've dug themselves into.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Its getting to the point where I'm wondering if Congress wants assassination attempts just so they can have grounds to outlaw Democrats. They really can't even be bothered to play the game, deny the appointee and win?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Lemming posted:It doesn't help the party but it does help them individually. They'd get primary'd if they appeared open to compromise. This is a hole they've dug themselves into. Ah, game theory. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Playing the devils advocate, advice and consent should mean that the choice of justice is one that is acceptable to both parties. Nomination and confirmation frames it in a particular way, but really it should just be joint consent. Obama should respect the results of the midterm and the republican controlled senate and find someone acceptable to the republican senate. Both parties are holding out assuming they'll win both the senate and he White House or at very least taking the easy way out and kicking the crisis can down the road.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Obama should respect the results of the midterm and the republican controlled senate and find someone acceptable to the republican senate. Obama couldn't put Scalia II on the court right now, because they won't consider nominees.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
I don't think it's fair to say that both parties are holding out or kicking the can, though? As far as I'm aware, Obama's sincerely reviewing options and won't be taking too long to announce his nominee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Maybe I'm naive and dumb but I still think the GOP is just staking out a negotiating position. The party that actually forced a government shutdown and was only saved by a combination of our lovely media and the healthcare.gov website killing itself? They can easily see this through. There is no way the powerbrokers behind the GOP want Obama appointing a new justice unless they know it'll be heavily pro-business at the very least, and that's not enough to placate the fringe base who will primary them regardless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Playing the devils advocate, advice and consent should mean that the choice of justice is one that is acceptable to both parties. Nomination and confirmation frames it in a particular way, but really it should just be joint consent. Obama should respect the results of the midterm and the republican controlled senate and find someone acceptable to the republican senate. The President nominates someone who they believe is both worthy of the bench and will get a majority vote from the Senate. Despite all the bluster, if the Judicial Committee were to hold actual hearings on an Obama nominee and the nominee were actually put to a vote, that nominee is highly likely to be accepted. There are at least 4 Republicans who aren't going to vote against a qualified nominee, if put on the spot, just because they don't like Obama and then Diamond Joe breaks the tie. As it is now the Senate won't even consider alternate universe Scalia, who is identical to our Scalia only he is 26 and a fitness nut.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The party that actually forced a government shutdown and was only saved by a combination of our lovely media and the healthcare.gov website killing itself? They can easily see this through. Now, is that going to be enough to get the Republicans to cave? I don't know, but acting like everyone's just going to let them off the hook and forget about it is a bit short-sighted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:I'm not so sure about this though. As others have mentioned, this time around is an election year, and that means politics is what people are seeing and talking about basically every night. Once Obama nominates a candidate, anything either he or any of the presidential candidates say about that person is going to be national news, and as long as the vacancy remains open, it's going to stay that way. The Republicans could hope that people would forget about the government shutdown after it ended, but they're not going to forget about a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Most republicans think are they are doing God's work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
e: ignore, point was already made.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:TThere is no way the powerbrokers behind the GOP want Obama appointing ... It's the same power brokers behind parties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:It's the same power brokers behind parties. it's not
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:it's not Is to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:It's the same power brokers behind parties. you dont know much about the kochs huh
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
corn in the bible posted:you dont know much about the kochs huh Yes, they play the same role for the left wing that Soros and Bloomberg play for the right wing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 03:35
|
|