|
gohmak posted:Any chance Obama goes for this? No.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And then the case gets to the Supreme Court and Thomas has an aneurysm. The SC will just tell them to work it out. Congress can impeach the President if he won't do his job. The people can vote out Congress if they won't do their job. There is nothing for the court to decide.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The SC will just tell them to work it out. Yeah but we're talking about a hypothetical in which the President says a dog can play basketball for one of the most important balance of power issues in national government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Hillary wont win Awesome username/post combo
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:Yeah but we're talking about a hypothetical in which the President says a dog can play basketball for one of the most important balance of power issues in national government.  It still doesn't go to the SC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The SC will just tell them to work it out. Well that and theres no question what the phrase was meant to say. The history is kinda interesting, starts at page 110.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Well that and theres no question what the phrase was meant to say. The history is kinda interesting, starts at page 110. This thread frequently makes me feel like an undergrad in a well-run seminar class again, and I want to thank all of the knowledgeable folks contributing to that. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
The TLDR for that journal article is that "advice and consent" was a compromise between the senate handling all appointments and the president appointing alone with or with a congressional veto possible. Madison actually proposed the "If the Senate doesn't vote, then its approved" part and that was voted down at the constitutional convention. Also, could you imagine the clusterfuck of the senate handling all appointments?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
 I actually learned something new out of that-- it's always interesting when folks dig into the history and intentions behind these things. I did my note on the elections/Time Place and Manner clause (Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1) with an aim at providing justification for a national elections commission a la Elections Canada or the Australian Electoral Commission, and I went down a rabbit hole of those sort of articles for a while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Zoran posted:No. I am reasonably certain that a Republican president would try it if the roles were reversed, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Given that Trump is going to be the nominee (or he'll be robbed at the convention) it is highly likely that a President Hillary gets a Democratic senate (for two years, then loses it in 2018 because the map is brutal then). Man, we would have been so much better off with senators having 4-year terms so we don't have the echo-boom effect of the presidency flipping the Senate every 2 years. You could just alternate so that there's a seat up every 2 years. One would be the "good seat" and one would be the "bad seat" that's much tougher to defend, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Any chance Obama goes for this? No. If he does it before the election, it hurts his party. After the election, if a Democrat becomes president elect, there isnt much point. If a Republican is elected, it will look like hes overstepping his power in the worst way (and he kind of would be, but not any worse than what the GOP leadership in the Senate is doing right now).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Is that even necessary? Can't he do a recess appointment when the new Congress is gaveled in and tell the Senate to take as long as they want confirming Hillary/Bernie's replacement?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Is that even necessary? Can't he do a recess appointment when the new Congress is gaveled in and tell the Senate to take as long as they want confirming Hillary/Bernie's replacement? It will be fairly difficult to block a nominee after preaching about "let the people decide" for a year. But it is an option, yes - but they'd only serve for a short time and then the replacement would need to be confirmed by a more hostile senate post-2018.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It will be fairly difficult to block a nominee after preaching about "let the people decide" for a year. But it is an option, yes - but they'd only serve for a short time and then the replacement would need to be confirmed by a more hostile senate post-2018. how much more hostile could they possibly be than right at this very moment
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:how much more hostile could they possibly be than right at this very moment They could literally try to rush the podium with knives during the State of the Union address?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It will be fairly difficult to block a nominee after preaching about "let the people decide" for a year. We're talking about the party that begged Obama to delay the employer mandate and then sued him for not executing the letter of the law. evilweasel posted:But it is an option, yes - but they'd only serve for a short time and then the replacement would need to be confirmed by a more hostile senate post-2018. Can the president not just keep doing recess appointments until the McConnell backs down and agrees to have a vote? I don't think there will be a problem getting reasonable judges through if it actually comes to a vote: that's the whole point of bottling it up in committee right, McConnell knows there are at least a few Republicans who don't want to/can't risk blocking every judge who isn't a reincarnation of Roger Taney
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
He can't do a recess appointment until the new year and at that point, why bother.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Obama has already picked Sri Srinivasan, and is just waiting for Tuesday's primaries to be over to announce. Yup. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...campaign=buffer
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Any chance Obama goes for this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
I think the biggest problem with doing it is that Obama would give up the moral high ground in doing so. The moment he tries, the Senate GOP can go "SEE! SEE! HE WAS A SECRET DICTATOR ALL ALONG!" and pretend their obstructionism is protecting The American People from Obama's Dictatorship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
There's too little to gain. Maybe if the case of the Outlaw All Parties Except the Republicans Forever Act of 2016 was about to be decided real soon and the Obama nominee's vote was desperately needed to keep it from being declared constitutional.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Obama will announce his SCOTUS pick at 11am EST
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
Magres posted:I think the biggest problem with doing it is that Obama would give up the moral high ground in doing so. The moment he tries, the Senate GOP can go "SEE! SEE! HE WAS A SECRET DICTATOR ALL ALONG!" and pretend their obstructionism is protecting The American People from Obama's Dictatorship. As if they're not going to do that anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
e: wrong thread, hope Sri is a good justice
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
From what I understand left leaning moderates rarely discover their deep seated love of movement conservatism after being appointed to lifetime appointments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:e: wrong thread, hope Sri is a good justice He's not going to be one... Unless Hillary reappoints him and I guess that is possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:He's not going to be one... Unless Hillary reappoints him and I guess that is possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Well, while saying "gently caress consent of the Senate" and just telling Sri to show up for work on Monday probably isn't going to happen, I'd put the odds of a recess appointment at the end of this session at only 1:3 against. Doesn't the Senate never go on actual "recess" anymore, making this impossible?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Doesn't the Senate never go on actual "recess" anymore, making this impossible? When one Congress is gaveled out and the next gaveled in, there is a mandatory recess. The Pro Forma session ruling was a runny dog poo poo anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Doesn't the Senate never go on actual "recess" anymore, making this impossible? They technically have to to go into a minute long recess at the end of the year. It can be a very long minute for the president. This is per their rules, so Canning doesn't take effect. OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/710102659789922304
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Garland makes it very obvious that Obama knows he won't be getting confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Odd choice, why pick someone who is 63?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
lamentable dustman posted:Odd choice, why pick someone who is 63? If I had to guess, the WH knows he won't be confirmed, and anyone younger wanted to wait for the next go around so they don't get their name dragged through the mud for nothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
lamentable dustman posted:Odd choice, why pick someone who is 63? Because he knows that he's not getting confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Magres posted:I think the biggest problem with doing it is that Obama would give up the moral high ground in doing so. The moment he tries, the Senate GOP can go "SEE! SEE! HE WAS A SECRET DICTATOR ALL ALONG!" and pretend their obstructionism is protecting The American People from Obama's Dictatorship. But everyone who thinks this way is already a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. Edit: Mukaikubo posted:If I had to guess, the WH knows he won't be confirmed, and anyone younger wanted to wait for the next go around so they don't get their name dragged through the mud for nothing. Alternative answer, maybe he'll get confirmed as a compromise because at least he won't be around long. PerniciousKnid fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Uugh Garland was the wrong choice.mcmagic posted:Because he knows that he's not getting confirmed. Still the wrong choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Uugh Garland was the wrong choice. If we're using as our metric "The choice most likely to move the court left over the next few decades", there was no right choice if you decide the GOP is going full obstructionist. Alternately, the hope is that someone who will only serve 15-ish years will have a ghost of a chance more to be voted on than someone who'll serve 30-ish.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:Uugh Garland was the wrong choice. edit so I'm not empty quoting. Garland isn't the guy you actually want to get on the court AND he isn't the guy to influence an election in the face of obstruction (probably).
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:07
|
|
