|
Meat Recital posted:You left off the best part It's less impressive when you realize that 4 of those were because of the Civil War and Reconstruction.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I seem to recall that one of the other states did something strange and unpleasant with either its legislative record or legal system, such that everything was contained in a single canonical document that had to contain the full record of revisions within the same document. Kentucky, maybe? Did anyone ever point out to them that, if included in the same document, the record of revisions is itself a revision and therefore needs to be recorded?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:It's less impressive when you realize that 4 of those were because of the Civil War and Reconstruction. No it's still pretty impressive because despite a literal military peacekeeping force being posted in the state to ensure they didn't pull any poo poo, they pulled poo poo four times and had to change it, four times.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:No it's still pretty impressive because despite a literal military peacekeeping force being posted in the state to ensure they didn't pull any poo poo, they pulled poo poo four times and had to change it, four times. No that's wrong. Getting readmitted required to change the Constitution a few times if I recall correcrly. It wasn't so much on Alabama, but on Congress and the mismanagement of Reconstruction. They tore up the original constitution (v. 1) so they could secede (v. 2). They tore up the secession one at the start of the Reconstruction (v. 3). They redid the Reconstruction one so they could be readmitted to the Union under the Reconstruction acts since Congress imposed a new requirement of being approved by the majority of the voting populace (v. 4) which they operated under for a few years, but didn't actually get the requisite voting turnout. Then Congress turned on Johnson, dropped the requirement for a majority turnout, and Alabama ended up passing their fourth Constitution (v. 5) since 1860, and let it settle until the 1901 one (v. 6).
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Meat Recital posted:You left off the best part Actually the best part is that most counties are prohibited from passing their own local ordinances and must petition the legislature to get even minor poo poo done (by amending the constitution). And if the bylaw (actually amendment) doesn't pass the legislature with unanimous support it must be voted on in a referendum, resulting in many referendums on essentially local matters which gain overwhelming support in the areas they effect but are defeated anyway by the rest of the state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Actually the best part is that most counties are prohibited from passing their own local ordinances and must petition the legislature to get even minor poo poo done (by amending the constitution). And if the bylaw (actually amendment) doesn't pass the legislature with unanimous support it must be voted on in a referendum, resulting in many referendums on essentially local matters which gain overwhelming support in the areas they effect but are defeated anyway by the rest of the state.  Has anyone tried suing Alabama by saying this mess isnt a 'republican government'? Or do they get an out because sub state units are ultimately beholden to the state and so the state can freely do this ridiculous bs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:
the republican government clause essentially means that states can't set up a monarchy but it does not care how dumb their voting is (all the work for that is done by the civil war amendments)
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the republican government clause essentially means that states can't set up a monarchy but it does not care how dumb their voting is (all the work for that is done by the civil war amendments) Not even constitutional monarchy? With a parliamentary and everything? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Yeah, but they have to pay for electricity to run it indefinitely, so when you think about it, if they win the case, they save an infinite amount of money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Not even constitutional monarchy? With a parliamentary and everything? I don't know, but now I plan to take over a small country, petition for US statehood, and find out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Barudak posted:I don't know, but now I plan to take over a small country, petition for US statehood, and find out. I hear that there is a lovely island off the coast of Europe that recently became available.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Barudak posted:I don't know, but now I plan to take over a small country, petition for US statehood, and find out. Well, nobody is stepping up for UK's Prime Minister position. They might just be desperate enough...
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:I hear that there is a lovely island off the coast of Europe that recently became available. It's even full of racist assholes so the GOP should be on board with them joining.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Do you really want Imperial Texans with Teacups?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Barudak posted:I don't know, but now I plan to take over a small country, petition for US statehood, and find out. Sorry but Harry Reid killed the filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Is this the right place to ask where the 9th seat appointment stands right now? My understanding as of May was that the then-current nominee could simply sit on the Senate agenda until the current congress adjourns on January 3rd 2017, at which point the appointment automagically goes through should Obama choose to pull the trigger. Is that right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Is this the right place to ask where the 9th seat appointment stands right now? My understanding as of May was that the then-current nominee could simply sit on the Senate agenda until the current congress adjourns on January 3rd 2017, at which point the appointment automagically goes through should Obama choose to pull the trigger. Is that right? Absolutely nothing has happened since then. There is no incentive or pressure that could cause something to happen until the election.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Is this the right place to ask where the 9th seat appointment stands right now? My understanding as of May was that the then-current nominee could simply sit on the Senate agenda until the current congress adjourns on January 3rd 2017, at which point the appointment automagically goes through should Obama choose to pull the trigger. Is that right? Obama could make a recess appointment on that date but it would only last one year. It would not be a permanent appointment and it's probably not worth doing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Obama could make a recess appointment on that date but it would only last one year. It would not be a permanent appointment and it's probably not worth doing. It would put pressure on the senate to actually do something, but theres a high likelihood that there'll be a Democratic president and senate at the time so it'd be kinda pointless. He might do it anyway for "legacy" purposes - Scalia died during Obama's term, its his appointment, he should get a vote on his appointment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Sorry but Harry Reid killed the filibuster.  Well played.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It would put pressure on the senate to actually do something, but theres a high likelihood that there'll be a Democratic president and senate at the time so it'd be kinda pointless. He might do it anyway for "legacy" purposes - Scalia died during Obama's term, its his appointment, he should get a vote on his appointment. ...or wait for  :
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Obama could make a recess appointment on that date but it would only last one year. It would not be a permanent appointment and it's probably not worth doing. BTW, if a Circuit Court Judge gets recess appointed to SCOTUS, do hey go back to the Circuit Court when the term ends? It seems otherwise there would be a sort of loophole around lifetime appointment....
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:BTW, if a Circuit Court Judge gets recess appointed to SCOTUS, do hey go back to the Circuit Court when the term ends? It seems otherwise there would be a sort of loophole around lifetime appointment.... Nope. Have to resign as a circuit judge to take up the recess appointment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:BTW, if a Circuit Court Judge gets recess appointed to SCOTUS, do hey go back to the Circuit Court when the term ends? It seems otherwise there would be a sort of loophole around lifetime appointment.... You don't have to accept the appointment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
When Rehnquist died, I wrote a letter to Bush asking him to recess appoint me to the court because it would be a huge resume boost I never heard back
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:When Rehnquist died, I wrote a letter to Bush asking him to recess appoint me to the court because it would be a huge resume boost missed opportunity imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Is this the right place to ask where the 9th seat appointment stands right now? My understanding as of May was that the then-current nominee could simply sit on the Senate agenda until the current congress adjourns on January 3rd 2017, at which point the appointment automagically goes through should Obama choose to pull the trigger. Is that right? If the GOP actually manages to stonewall until next year but Clinton wins he'll just let her (and possibly a Dem controlled Senate) make a decision on the 9th justice. There's a high likelihood of the GOP confirming Garland to prevent Clinton getting that kind of freedom precisely because there's few things more terrifying to the right wing than the idea of Clinton picking a new justice for the SCOTUS while having a Dem senate that would rubberstamp it unless the person is someone like Harriet Miers. If Clinton were to pick some extreme liberal justice (like another Sotomayor or RBG) a Dem-held senate would probably have no problem confirming them and you might even see a bunch of GOPers in safe(?) states go along with the confirmation since they won't be able to stop it anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Seems like there would be time for everyone to see what the post election senate would look like. If the dems win both the White House and the senate, Obama withdraws garland with a nice speech deferring the pick to Hillary and the mandate of the voter etc etc. if republicans win they wait until Inauguration Day to find Scalia 2.0, the re-borkening. If the status quo perista though... Dem White House and republican senate, I would hope garland gets approved and we all move on. Who am i kidding though. The senate will find some reason to not vote and we'll have 8 or fewer justices for the next four years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Since the Senate is seated prior to inauguration, it's funny to imagine Obama getting rubber-stamp approval for a staunch liberal justice in that two weeks or so before the 20th. That's not really his style and the chances of a Dem Senate are far from good, but it's a funny thought of having Obama ram one last thing down their throats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Seems like there would be time for everyone to see what the post election senate would look like. If the dems win both the White House and the senate, Obama withdraws garland with a nice speech deferring the pick to Hillary and the mandate of the voter etc etc. if republicans win they wait until Inauguration Day to find Scalia 2.0, the re-borkening. Obama is not withdrawing Garland with a nice speech about deferring to the next President. He's almost certainly not withdrawing Garland for any reason because it lends legitimacy to the bullshit idiocy that the Republicans are putting forward that a President's term is actually only 3 years with a 1 year vagrancy charge pending.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Merrick Garland's nomination will not be withdrawn for any reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Seems like there would be time for everyone to see what the post election senate would look like. If the dems win both the White House and the senate, Obama withdraws garland with a nice speech deferring the pick to Hillary and the mandate of the voter etc etc. if republicans win they wait until Inauguration Day to find Scalia 2.0, the re-borkening. Isn't that pretty much admitting the republicans were right for stonewalling Garland though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Merrick Garland's nomination will not be withdrawn for any reason. There's a reasonable chance that Hillary will just renominate Garland if the republicans don't confirm him until she's president, also
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:Isn't that pretty much admitting the republicans were right for stonewalling Garland though? Not in a moral sense. It seems like the right thing to do from their practical perspective though. They get to forestall the net leftward move a change from Scalia to garland would be and they get abortion as an election issue for their base. I don't think their dragging their feet will be a net negative for their party at the poll. Long term it's probably a disaster. Playing scorched earth in what is supposed to be a collegial, deliberative body is bad for the republic. But that's been the tone since civil rights and then again since Gingrich.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
What happens to the nomination when the presidency changes hands? If the Republicans don't confirm him during the lame duck session, is the nomination voided when Clinton (or Trump, god have mercy on us) takes office? If that happens, will Clinton likely nominate Garland again?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:What happens to the nomination when the presidency changes hands? If the Republicans don't confirm him during the lame duck session, is the nomination voided when Clinton (or Trump, god have mercy on us) takes office? Yes, and who the gently caress knows maybe are your answers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Obama withdraws garland He is not going to withdraw Garland. If he says anything in a Clinton+Dem victory situation it'll be "ok now that you played your stupid game and lost get back to work on this confirmation and give him the vote he deserves." Unless Garland dies or withdraws himself he is going to be the nominee until the GOP votes on him or runs out the clock. hangedman1984 posted:Isn't that pretty much admitting the republicans were right for stonewalling Garland though? Yes. It would get reported as "Obama agrees with GOP" and he'd be legitimizing their 11th hour SCOTUS blocking bullshit as a result. Then if/when this kind of thing happens with a future vacancy it'd come up again and be used by whatever party needs to stonewall the other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:He is not going to withdraw Garland. If he says anything in a Clinton+Dem victory situation it'll be "ok now that you played your stupid game and lost get back to work on this confirmation and give him the vote he deserves." It's going to come up again for the remainder of this political epoch no matter how it goes for garland. The GOP playing scorched earth has worked for them and until it no longer works, they'll do it. What the narrative is almost doesn't matter because a single narrative no longer exists. Breitbart will report it one way and the post and the time op-Ed pages another, not that these should be equated. Will Obama pull him? I think President-elect Hillary will want him to. He may not want to being in full-legacy mode. Looking at the crystal ball I've pulled directly from my rear end, I'd say Garland will get yanked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
If they do nominate him during the lame duck I'm looking forward to the contortions they go through to justify it. At what point do you just say "gently caress it, we know this blatantly contradicts what we've been saying all year, but we're doing this anyway, because we can." It's not like they're fooling anyone about what's going on here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:It's going to come up again for the remainder of this political epoch no matter how it goes for garland. The GOP playing scorched earth has worked for them and until it no longer works, they'll do it. The scorched Earth campaign has actually not been working. It has at best been delaying the inevitable, but mostly been loving up the doable by refusing to compromise on anything. They could have had a dumbass grand bargain that cut entitlements, but they couldn't make it work because they'd have to negotiate with Obama in a semblance of good faith. They're getting crushed on social issues and most of the things they're "blocking" in congress are being pushed via Executive Order or via the Courts. Two things they don't control and are less and less likely to control thanks to their strategy. In the courts they hosed up, thanks to Cruz, and Obama got a poo poo load of appointments through. As it is now, the 4-4 split doesn't help them much with so many of the Circuits being liberal majority. Their only real avenue at this juncture is hopping the court somehow hears more cases that Kagan is recusing herself from before Garland is appointed and Kennedy is no longer the vote upon which 5-4 decisions rest. On top of that, once the campaign really gets going the refusal of the Republicans to even talk to Garland is going to be used to help rip the majority from their hands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 22:17
|
|