|
Luna Was Here posted:The only people I've ran into in my town that cared about voting for county officials were people over the age of 60 and I don't even think they knew with 100% certainty who they were electing and why Of course, this is part of the reason that the Republicans were able to gerrymander in the first place because state elections are not much better attended by the young and liberals than county elections. This also applies to referendums and initiatives. The county level is often partly responsible for transit issues, so in the few places where public transit exists, you should probably pay more attention.
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:It's more than that, really. For decades he's been a sort of freelance ambassador that presidents call when they need someone who can handle their poo poo. He's the guy that dealt with Qaddafi and Kim Il Sung in the 90s for instance. Domestically, he's really into Habitat for Humanity. Swings hammers and poo poo. Yeah, and I completely believe that Obama is going to be the same, or at least a combination between Carter and Bill Clinton. Going around, reminding people of the good parts of his administration, able to criticize Republicans without worrying about winning elections himself. It's well worth comparing to the the Republican ex-Presidents, which did some of the similar bully pulpit things, but mostly just played golf and bickered with each other.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:This. There is a very low glass ceiling at the UN for US citizens. Considering that we've sent idiots like John Bolton as our ambassador, I don't blame them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
euphronius posted:No. No. Yep, this is right. Really the idea that nomination confirmations should not be contentious or politicized is the actual "mere tradition" in this case. Congress has every right to reject or accept nominees as they see fit, the idea that it should not be politically based is just a thing like earmarks that mainly exist to grease the wheels of the system. Now someone could theoretically sue them, and if it did filter up somehow to the Supreme Court and get granted cert, there's no way it wouldn't be 8-0 affirming Congress's right to be assholes unless some of the Justices decide they really want to see another civil war before they die.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
blowfish posted:does the south have more firepower this time around? Only because the south is allied with the midwest, and contains our larger military bases, so probably. euphronius posted:Rejecting is fine. Not even holding hearings is anti democratic nihilism. Yeah, I agree, but there is no system within the US Constitution for Congress to be compelled to act like there are for some state constitutions. Like Congress gets to decide when, where, and how it will decide things, but are limited in what things they can decide. Or more accurately, can have their actions struck down, not their inactions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
euphronius posted:200+ years of timely holding hearing means firmly holding hearings is constitutional. Yes. They are allowed to hold their hearings in a timely manner. But they are not disallowed from holding them in an untimely manner, there's no speed requirement like there is for court cases, unless I'm unaware of existing precedent on it. Either way, it's not there as a strict reading, only possibly implied as being necessary for the actual functioning of the system. I'm not saying it's right, but the Constitution has no recourse here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
euphronius posted:What has been done for 200 years without controversy IS the Constitution. That is constitutional law. Not only what the document says by how it is interpreted. For 200 years the senate had interpreted the constitution to mean X. Now out of the blue and for entirely base reasons they are saying -X. No, it's not, at least that's not what constitutional law/unconstitutional usually means. The Senate's interpretation of the Constitution doesn't mean poo poo, only the Supreme Court's does. For example, filibustering appears nowhere in the Constitution, and since the Supreme Court has generally stayed out of controlling how Congress runs its business, they're not going to strike it down. You can argue it works against the functioning of government, and be completely right, but the whole scheme is based around each branch having a way to be an rear end in a top hat to the other branches and keeping them from doing what they want to do on their own (that is, checks and balances). There's not a requirement that they must go along with the other branches, and in fact, them stymieing other branches is often well within their job. euphronius posted:Like if this were January 2017 and trump was elected maybe the Gop would have a point. Right, but that's purely due to it being more reasonable politically, it has nothing to do with that being more "constitutional".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Platonicsolid posted:The constitution is pretty clear that each house can make its own rules, no matter how assinine. Right, this is my general point. euphronius posted:That's extremely wrong. congress and the president are co equal branches with the Supreme Court and their interpretation is equally valid except in the extreme fringe cases of judicial review. Yes, there's more to constitutional law than the Constitution itself, but we're not the UK with an unwritten constitution (which by the way, Parliament in this case could just change current law pretty much at their whim, it would just provoke a strong negative response from the people). The Supreme Court is limited to considering law in a big "C" Constitutional manner, based on the Constitution and the precedents set by itself. The opinions of the legislative branch and, in lesser cases, the executive only inform, do not decide. If Congress has assumed one thing since the start, but the Supreme Court decides it does not match the system outlined by the Constitution, well, tough poo poo, Congress, fix it. The "extreme fringe cases of judicial review" is pretty much the Supreme Court's only power, and they only got that because they up and decided it, and no one challenged them. You're talking about constitutional law in a small "C" manner, where it's about the constitution of government, and what actions and procedures can be taken. This is different than what the Supreme Court is allowed to consider and rule on. In such you're using the word in a much different manner than it is normally used within the US, the equivalent of pointing out that the Republicans in favoring free markets are the real liberals. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:crossposting: I don't disagree, but calling that "constitutional" is misleading. I realize I'm being pedantic, but it's important when deciding the recourse the other branches of government may have.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I'd describe it as "not unconstitutional" at least. And Congress could always impeach, but they can impeach for things that aren't constitutional violations, so welp Yeah, that's probably more accurate. It's not like it's supported as what we should do to implement the Constitution, just that in stupid a "there's no rule that a dog can't play baseball" manner, it is "not unconstitutional". I actually feel like given the large focus on the legislative branch in the actual Constitution, they have an outsized amount of power and are the real currently overpowered branch despite the focus on the executive.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Ra Ra Rasputin posted:I keep having this feeling that when the founding fathers wrote the constitution they didn't account for the potential of there being so many massive assholes that just stall and block and refuse to do their jobs. I think it's the opposite, though obviously there were political differences. The paralysis and weakness of the federal government under the Articles of Confederation was meant a feature, not a bug, and many of them did not want to go too far away from that. Basically it was meant to be a lot like the EU, the idea of America as a nation instead of a collection of states didn't really take off until after the Civil War. It's also worth remembering that quite a few just assumed that there would be another revolution or civil war or something that would shake things up again, so if the government is stuck in paralysis, that was expected and the ultimate solution was war.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
climboutonalimb posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...13e8_story.html Wait, Ruben Bolling's comics of Scalia going around and dispensing two-fisted justice are true?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 22:05
|
|