|
VitalSigns posted:The Senate can vote to expel a member Oh, Jesus, how has this not been weaponized yet? Just when I thought that current partisanship was, at least, about as bad as it could get.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Oh, Jesus, how has this not been weaponized yet? Just when I thought that current partisanship was, at least, about as bad as it could get. 2/3rds vote needed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Oh, Jesus, how has this not been weaponized yet? Just when I thought that current partisanship was, at least, about as bad as it could get. Because if it would be used on anyone it would be used on Ted Cruz.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Oh, Jesus, how has this not been weaponized yet? Just when I thought that current partisanship was, at least, about as bad as it could get. Its rather undemocratic. It's mostly there to expel members convicted of serious criminal offenses, or who snap and assault someone on the floor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
I'm hoping for a scenario where Obama withdraws the nomination after it languishes in committee and Senate Republicans whine about how it's unfair to the nominee 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Its rather undemocratic. It's mostly there to expel members convicted of serious criminal offenses, or who snap and assault someone on the floor. Of course, the vote to expel (Representative) Preston Brooks failed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Antti posted:Of course, the vote to expel (Representative) Preston Brooks failed. I wonder if it would have failed had he caned a Congressman instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
It hasn't been used, I believe, since the Republicans in Congress refused to seat Democrats from Southern states after the Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:I'm hoping for a scenario where Obama withdraws the nomination after it languishes in committee and Senate Republicans whine about how it's unfair to the nominee What committee?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:2/3rds vote needed. The Republicans hitting ⅔ of the Senate is the magical threshold for the end of comprehensible reality, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
If Clinton ends up winning the election, I wouldn't be surprised if they withdraw him before Republicans panic-confirm him-- under the then-acceptable, then-correct premise that a president shouldn't be making major appointments in the interregnum. I would wager that he knows the score.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:If Clinton ends up winning the election, I wouldn't be surprised if they withdraw him before Republicans panic-confirm him-- under the then-acceptable, then-correct premise that a president shouldn't be making major appointments in the interregnum. I would wager that he knows the score. I don't see Obama taking it away from Garland like that. Also it would be a boon to Obama's legacy to sit 3 nominees and flip the court during his presidency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
von Metternich posted:It hasn't been used, I believe, since the Republicans in Congress refused to seat Democrats from Southern states after the Civil War. No one has been formally expelled since then, but votes to expel have been scheduled many times since. The Senator involved has always resigned before the vote when he knew what the outcome would be. John Ensign in 2011 is the most recent. Bob Packwood in 1995 is similar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
gohmak posted:What committee? Judicial nominees go through Judiciary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:If Clinton ends up winning the election, I wouldn't be surprised if they withdraw him before Republicans panic-confirm him-- under the then-acceptable, then-correct premise that a president shouldn't be making major appointments in the interregnum. I would wager that he knows the score. Not that it would matter or stop them but the hypocrisy of a bunch of Republicans who lost the election rush-confirming him in the lame duck session on their way out the door after 8 months of screaming "no nominees during the last year of a presidency! The American people should decide!" would be a sight to behold.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Not that it would matter or stop them but the hypocrisy of a bunch of Republicans who lost the election rush-confirming him in the lame duck session on their way out the door after 8 months of screaming "no nominees during the last year of a presidency! The American people should decide!" would be a sight to behold. Gotta make it clear to Hillary that they're gonna treat her exactly the same as they did Obama. The American people have made their decision clear. So we, the Senate, feel it imperative that we make it clear that we should wait for the American People to decide again, and again, and again until those chucklefucks get it right. It's about the principle of the thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Judicial nominees go through Judiciary. The republicans already said that will not happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
gohmak posted:The republicans already said that will not happen. The democrats on the committee could hold "shadow" committee meetings. (idk if theres an actual term for that so I'll just go British)
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Gotta make it clear to Hillary that they're gonna treat her exactly the same as they did Obama. I'm not sure the future tense is really the one you should be using.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:I'm not sure the future tense is really the one you should be using. It's been 16 years, they've got to make sure she remembers the searing heat that results when the white hot ball of rage is focused on you like the eye of Sauron. She's just been dealing with the indirect heat bleeding off Obama the last few years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Gyges posted:It's been 16 years, they've got to make sure she remembers the searing heat that results when the white hot ball of rage is focused on you like the eye of Sauron. She's just been dealing with the indirect heat bleeding off Obama the last few years. I wonder what it would take to get congress to hold hearings on Vince Foster's death. again
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Gyges posted:It's been 16 years, they've got to make sure she remembers the searing heat that results when the white hot ball of rage is focused on you like the eye of Sauron. She's just been dealing with the indirect heat bleeding off Obama the last few years. The email and Benghazi stuff is the GOP not focused on Hilary you say? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
I'm still frustrated at this pick because of Garland's age. If this isn't a sacrificial appointment, then IMO this is a huge Obama blunder. This is the opportunity to stack the court with liberals for a good while but instead he picks an aging centrist who's older than John Roberts and will likely get replaced by the two term conservative president that is elected when Hilary's re-elect campaign fails.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:If Clinton ends up winning the election, I wouldn't be surprised if they withdraw him before Republicans panic-confirm him-- under the then-acceptable, then-correct premise that a president shouldn't be making major appointments in the interregnum. I would wager that he knows the score. hearing Republicans gnash their teeth and moan about not being allowed to confirm Garland would be a truly amazing moment in politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
climboutonalimb posted:I'm still frustrated at this pick because of Garland's age. If this isn't a sacrificial appointment, then IMO this is a huge Obama blunder. This is the opportunity to stack the court with liberals for a good while but instead he picks an aging centrist who's older than John Roberts and will likely get replaced by the two term conservative president that is elected when Hilary's re-elect campaign fails. Hey, stop gazing into the Palantir
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
climboutonalimb posted:This is the opportunity to stack the court with liberals for a good while You cannot stack the court with liberals without the Senate's consent. The Senate has a majority of hard-line conservatives. The theoretical beauty of appointing an actual liberal is ruined by the cruel truth that no such appointment would succeed. If Obama appointed a liberal now, not only would the conservatives not vote him/her in, but also they would be able to claim that they were opposing an inappropriate candidate, rather than being exposed as opposing a candidate whom, on professional grounds, they have already publicly approved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
gohmak posted:The republicans already said that will not happen. Right. It'll be bottled up in the Judiciary committee. I'm actually not 100% sure if it's possible for it not to go to committee - they can fail to act on it there, but the Rules imply that it has to go to committee. There's a procedure for skipping committee for bills, but it doesn't seem to apply to nominations. At least that's a quick read of the rules - my copy of Riddick's and my copy of Frist's COS's book (the two Senate procedural bibles) are at home and I'm too lazy to dig through Riddick's online, if it even has this situation listed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Right. It'll be bottled up in the Judiciary committee. I'm actually not 100% sure if it's possible for it not to go to committee - they can fail to act on it there, but the Rules imply that it has to go to committee. There's a procedure for skipping committee for bills, but it doesn't seem to apply to nominations. Bork was voted down in committee and then voted down by the full senate so the committee. That means that apparently the committee doesn't have to approve for the full senate to vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Bork was voted down in committee and then voted down by the full senate so the committee. That means that apparently the committee doesn't have to approve for the full senate to vote. IIRC the committee vote is merely a recommendation. The full Senate can approve or disapprove independent of the committee, but it's rare that they contradict it. I guess they could still bottle up the nominee by just never ending their hearings if the Senate never demanded it. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Mar 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Bork was voted down in committee and then voted down by the full senate so the committee. That means that apparently the committee doesn't have to approve for the full senate to vote. He was reported out with a negative recommendation. Until the nomination is reported out, it isn't properly in front of the Senate as a whole. The committee is not obligated to report out a nomination. (Like most things, you could presumably change any of this by unanimous consent but it's unlikely since if you had UC you'd just have reported it out anyway.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
TwinsensRevenge posted:hearing Republicans gnash their teeth and moan about not being allowed to confirm Garland would be a truly amazing moment in politics. But largely empty. They could just muddy the waters with "oh YOU were Garland's biggest support for EIGHT MONTHS, and NOW he's not good enough for YOU? Don't waste the public' time with a new nominee just because you got your greedy hands on the Oval Office for four more years, blah blah blah" and the public (having just tuned the gently caress out because the election ended) would be confused at best, and more likely totally oblivious. It would be fun to watch though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Why are people acting like Garland is Scalia 2.0 and someone Obama would have had to hold his nose to nominate? Isn't it perfectly likely that Obama (who is not nearly as much of a flaming leftist as people like to imagine) just thinks this guy (whose record is lightyears to the left of Scalia's) would be a good justice?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:But largely empty. They could just muddy the waters with "oh YOU were Garland's biggest support for EIGHT MONTHS, and NOW he's not good enough for YOU? Don't waste the public' time with a new nominee just because you got your greedy hands on the Oval Office for four more years, blah blah blah" and the public (having just tuned the gently caress out because the election ended) would be confused at best, and more likely totally oblivious. "Elections have consequences mother fuckers" should be Obama's farewell speech if that happens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Obama's apparently thinking about how law professors and historians will say what an admirable and principled choice it was for him to nominate a moderate. How noble! The unfortunate reality is that instead of a legal scholar here, we need a flat out litmus test that those same law professors would find crude and boorish. Will the nominee vote to overturn Citizen's United? Anything less is more about shaping a 'legacy' by Obama, rather than trying to actually shift the court in a positive direction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Smilin Joe Fission posted:Obama's apparently thinking about how law professors and historians will say what an admirable and principled choice it was for him to nominate a moderate. How noble! The unfortunate reality is that instead of a legal scholar here, we need a flat out litmus test that those same law professors would find crude and boorish. Yep, you're right this is crude and boorish. You ought to know that any Justice that isn't a movement conservative is going to be opposed to CU.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Smilin Joe Fission posted:Obama's apparently thinking about how law professors and historians will say what an admirable and principled choice it was for him to nominate a moderate. How noble! The unfortunate reality is that instead of a legal scholar here, we need a flat out litmus test that those same law professors would find crude and boorish. Ideological litmus tests are just what the Democratic party needs. Look how well it's worked for the Republicans!
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Look how well it's worked for the Republicans! Hasn't it essentially been a home run for them in terms of getting conservative justices onto the court and advancing conservative policies?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Smilin Joe Fission posted:Hasn't it essentially been a home run for them in terms of getting conservative justices onto the court and advancing conservative policies? In the short run, yes. In the long run it's destroyed the party and will leave them crippled for a generation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Well this is a thing.Joementum posted:Hard to understand where Republican voters get all these weird ideas about Obama that are causing them to flock to Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Well this is a thing. Ah, yes the feeling of soul deep revulsion. I hadn't felt that in a few days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 22:07
|
|