Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Yeah. Those are the exception, not the norm, so generally, avoiding even numbers is the strongest priority, I think. Assuming that you believe it is better that decisions not be deadlocked, but rather, are decisively resolved.

I think that's preferable because of the significant delay and difficulty involved in getting such a case there.

sardia
Posts: 6611
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Yeah. Those are the exception, not the norm, so generally, avoiding even numbers is the strongest priority, I think. Assuming that you believe it is better that decisions not be deadlocked, but rather, are decisively resolved.

I think that's preferable because of the significant delay and difficulty involved in getting such a case there.

I don't get the importance of prime numbers. Are you afraid of a 4 way split? Or is there a mystical aspect I'm not aware of? The biggest properties I see are as follows

Odd means no ties.
More justices more resistant to change. You can infer this by induction. A 1 judge court will instantly change when an appointment occurs. An infinite court judge will never change. Therefore, those who argue for smaller courts are arguing for faster change.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

They think numbers are meaningful. Ties can already happen if a Judge recuses. This morning an editorial in the Washington Post suggested changing life tenure.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Yeah. Those are the exception, not the norm, so generally, avoiding even numbers is the strongest priority, I think. Assuming that you believe it is better that decisions not be deadlocked, but rather, are decisively resolved.

I think that's preferable because of the significant delay and difficulty involved in getting such a case there.

I don't get the importance of prime numbers. Are you afraid of a 4 way split? Or is there a mystical aspect I'm not aware of? The biggest properties I see are as follows

Odd means no ties.
More justices more resistant to change. You can infer this by induction. A 1 judge court will instantly change when an appointment occurs. An infinite court judge will never change. Therefore, those who argue for smaller courts are arguing for faster change.

Odd is most important, yes. 8 does potentially allow for a four way split as well, but in practice, that would be unusual. 6 allows for both a two and three way split. Generally, two way splits are far more common than three way splits, but there is a slight advantage for less possible splits in terms of decisive decision making.

Smaller courts change more abruptly, but not necessarily faster. A single judge court will not change for long periods of time(barring changes in viewpoints, of course), and then change very suddenly. An infinite judge court will change very gradually. Over a sufficiently long period of time, both will change, but the way in which they do so differs greatly.

Obviously, 1 is a fairly bad number, because it's abrupt, not necessarily very representative, and provides no recourse if a judge needs to recuse themselves. We can eliminate that as a reasonable option. 2 sucks, because deadlocks will be stupidly common. So, 3 serves as sort of a minimal bar, I think. A 3 judge court could be functional, but I think that might be few enough to still have fairly abrupt changes. 9 gives us a fairly steady changeover, where we see a decent representation of different presidents in terms of appointees. I'd say there's at least some value to that.

Posts: 1329
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

And a nominee has been put forward. The question is, is anyone going to bite?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11264
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

The immediate response:

Mitch McConnell: Majority Leader Says Senate Won't Consider Supreme Court Nominee Until After Election

"The American people should have a say in the court's direction," McConnell said on the Senate floor Wednesday, responding to President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland as the new justice.

Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3824
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:The immediate response:

Mitch McConnell: Majority Leader Says Senate Won't Consider Supreme Court Nominee Until After Election

"The American people should have a say in the court's direction," McConnell said on the Senate floor Wednesday, responding to President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland as the new justice.

The American people should (I say, as not one of them) have the same say as they normally have. They elect people to make such decisions as they come up, as with many other decisions. They aren't asked to elect people to the highest office(s) of the land based upon their exact intentions with regard to such decisions. (Nor would it be practical. Unless you're just party-voting (abdicating the fine details of your own opinions), imagine the problem if you like one potential-POTUS's policy on border control but another pPOTUS's ideas about Iran, and try to work out which of the two pPOTii would definitely make the SCOTUS most to your liking...)

Right now, SFAICT, the GOP's getting the option of a non-partisan nominee, perhaps with an eye to convincing them to accept it. Should this decision get delayed and (let us say) Hilary gets into the hotseat and proposes a candidate shifted even slightly more towards the Democrat's position, then they may no longer have enough of the 'practical high-ground' for a similar veto and end up having to suck it up, worse off than they would have been had they acquiesced with this decision...

(And what's that quote, ah yes...: "This nomination will upset the balance of the Supreme Court to the radical left for many decades." Really? And yet it appears the complainant with this comment was never concerned when the SC was over-balanced to the right... Sauce for the goose, etc! Plus this guy's (potentially) "...the oldest Supreme Court justice [inductee] in 40 years", so he might not be around as long as a younger 'stooge' for the Democrats.)

But that's just the opinion from a (probably biased, certainly uninformed) furriner who has no say in the process of any kind... (And, hopefully, has no noticeable future interest in the direction the whole decision goes, beyond the usual white noise of how the US stirs up world politics.)

sardia
Posts: 6611
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:The immediate response:

Mitch McConnell: Majority Leader Says Senate Won't Consider Supreme Court Nominee Until After Election

"The American people should have a say in the court's direction," McConnell said on the Senate floor Wednesday, responding to President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland as the new justice.

That's not the important part. Back channel communications gave a more interesting, and yet worse offer. The GOP is offering to confirm the nominee during the lame duck session if Hillary wins the election. Which is pretty insulting, minor concession.
The Pros are that Obama gets to nominate to boost his legacy, instead of a more liberal Clinton nominee. The cons is the GOP gets to play the odds in exchange for a minor headache nominating a more liberal judge.

The GOP is playing hardball on this. Obama should push back by pointing out the Trumpocalypse that's coming and this is as good as it's gonna get. Then threaten to nominate a 30 year old Kagan/Sotomayer. He can't actually get this through, but it's a decent threat. Other potential bargaining chips are the age of the justice, and the moderateness of the justice. He could offer to nominate someone who's gonna retire/croak in 10 years, giving the GOP a chance for a pickup.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

The calculus is fairly simple.

If Clinton wins, then confirming a moderate after the election is the best case for the Republicans, it denies Clinton since Obama already has his candidate down, and Obama can't walk it back without appearing to be a dick.

If the Democrats win the Senate and the Presidency, Obama gets the legacy, and since his candidate was picked with an eye towards getting him past a hostile Senate he is almost certainly a moderate compared to whoever Clinton might nominate.

If the Republicans lose the Senate, they still nominate, and the Democrats have to fight it out in the Senate.

On the other hand if the Republican candidate wins then the strategy gives the Republican the nod and if they can retain the Senate then they can put their stamp on the Court.

McConnell is playing for the big win. The Court, the Presidency and both Houses, with weak downsides if he loses. I don't like him but he is a consummate politician.

sardia
Posts: 6611
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

I agree, that's why Obama should threaten a liberal candidate if Hillary wins. It's a gamble but no worse than what McConnell is offering.

Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3824
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

(It does momentarily confuse someone over here, t'other side of the pond, when "Liberal" effectively means "Maoist Commie Pinko Lefty", at least to some people, rather than (at least prior to the Con-Dem coalition government) "Happy-Clappy Inoffensive Moderate Who Sits Firmly, But Ineffectively, Upon The Fence". Even more than the at-first-sight related term "Libertarian" confuses me, and the fact that Red and Blue are all swapped around, politically. )

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I agree, that's why Obama should threaten a liberal candidate if Hillary wins. It's a gamble but no worse than what McConnell is offering.

...like he wasn't going to select a liberal candidate regardless? Seems a hollow threat.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

sardia wrote:I agree, that's why Obama should threaten a liberal candidate if Hillary wins. It's a gamble but no worse than what McConnell is offering.
Too late. He has already shot his gun. If he changes candidates now it destroys the narrative that the Democrats are selling. The only question I see at this point is if McConnell can hold the line.

sardia
Posts: 6611
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:I agree, that's why Obama should threaten a liberal candidate if Hillary wins. It's a gamble but no worse than what McConnell is offering.

...like he wasn't going to select a liberal candidate regardless? Seems a hollow threat.

When did you become a hardliner? The only reason Garland will have a liberal impact is that Scalia was so conservative. Meaning Garland will vote conservative in several areas like policing criminal justice and terrorism. Or have you adopted a new norm that anyone who isn't Scalia is a pinko commie?

Morris, the Democrats made the right play here. The stick is to withdraw the nomination due to personal issues if the election goes to Hillary. The carrot is the nominee is really old. So it's not hard to replace him. The fact that Democrats have a sense of shame as a weakness isn't a big deal in this scenario. It's not the most liberal solution, but it's fairly safe to secure a small gain in order to Stave off a Cruz or Trump nominee.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:I agree, that's why Obama should threaten a liberal candidate if Hillary wins. It's a gamble but no worse than what McConnell is offering.

...like he wasn't going to select a liberal candidate regardless? Seems a hollow threat.

When did you become a hardliner? The only reason Garland will have a liberal impact is that Scalia was so conservative. Meaning Garland will vote conservative in several areas like policing criminal justice and terrorism. Or have you adopted a new norm that anyone who isn't Scalia is a pinko commie?

Morris, the Democrats made the right play here. The stick is to withdraw the nomination due to personal issues if the election goes to Hillary. The carrot is the nominee is really old. So it's not hard to replace him. The fact that Democrats have a sense of shame as a weakness isn't a big deal in this scenario. It's not the most liberal solution, but it's fairly safe to secure a small gain in order to Stave off a Cruz or Trump nominee.

Me? A hardliner? Hah. No, it's just obvious that Obama doesn't have much of a stick here. Swapping nominees now to be vindictive isn't reasonable.

It's painfully obvious that presidents nominate justices who generally fall on their side of the aisle. It's a cinch that Obama expects Garland to represent ideals similar to his. This is incredibly obvious to everyone. For republicans, that's something they obviously will want to oppose. "Don't do what I want, and I'll nominate someone LIBERAL" is kind of a pointless threat, in light of that.

sardia
Posts: 6611
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

You don't think Hillary with a democratic Senate couldn't nominate someone younger and more liberal? How about putting Elizabeth Warren onto the court? Or for lols, Obama (a less liberal but race baiting choice to twerk the GOP)

Justices aren't binary, they have degrees of liberal or conservatism. How partisan they are depends on the strength of that nominees Senate. Do you not recognize that Garland is a moderate?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

sardia wrote:You don't think Hillary with a democratic Senate couldn't nominate someone younger and more liberal? How about putting Elizabeth Warren onto the court? Or for lols, Obama (a less liberal but race baiting choice to twerk the GOP)

Maybe. But the republicans can stall on that, too. It's not as if they're suddenly going to be entirely compliant post-election. They may be implying that now, with their rhetoric, but cmon.

This could get hilarious. Maybe Lord Business will promise to nominate Cruz, provided he drops out now.

sardia
Posts: 6611
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Stop it, you're giving be chills. Though I wonder if ego would get in the way of a Trump Cruz ticket.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Stop it, you're giving be chills. Though I wonder if ego would get in the way of a Trump Cruz ticket.

Oh, probably.

I'm not sure who Trump WOULD nominate, but ego will likely be involved somehow. I'm not sure that Trump will embrace the old wisdom of shoring up weaknesses by picking a different veep from you, though. Normal strategy would be for someone like him to grab an establishment veep to broaden the base of appeal, but...he may give precisely zero craps about that and pick someone outrageous. Hmmm.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

sardia wrote:Morris, the Democrats made the right play here.
Sure, but there is no reason for Obama to play games. Whoever is next will get their own picks given the age of the Court. If I were him I would be worrying about my legacy. Not Hillary's.
sardia wrote:You don't think Hillary with a democratic Senate couldn't nominate someone younger and more liberal?
Sure but She won't have a filibuster proof majority and there doesn't seem to be any appetite to change that currently.
Tyndmyr wrote:he may give precisely zero craps about that and pick someone outrageous. Hmmm.

Posts: 1329
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Tyndmyr wrote:[snipped]but...he may give precisely zero craps about that and pick someone outrageous. Hmmm.

Trump - Palin 2016
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

sardia
Posts: 6611
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Obama nominated a moderate because he wants his legacy to include one more judge.
Filibuster isn't a threat because a majority Senate can change the rules to have filibuster not apply on nominations. Hillary would need a majority Senate though.

Tyndmyr, why did you call Obama's nominee a liberal? He doesn't seem very liberal. He'll shift the court into a liberal direction, but that's not entirely his fault.
Last edited by sardia on Thu Mar 17, 2016 5:23 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

I wouldn't bet the farm on a majority senate. I mean, it could happen, but...it's far from a sure thing.

ijuin
Posts: 956
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:(It does momentarily confuse someone over here, t'other side of the pond, when "Liberal" effectively means "Maoist Commie Pinko Lefty", at least to some people, rather than (at least prior to the Con-Dem coalition government) "Happy-Clappy Inoffensive Moderate Who Sits Firmly, But Ineffectively, Upon The Fence". Even more than the at-first-sight related term "Libertarian" confuses me, and the fact that Red and Blue are all swapped around, politically. )

From the perspective of the rhetoric employed by the American Right Wing, anybody who is even an inch to the left of them is an insane Lefty. It's all part of the narrative that says that any deviation from the Right Way must necessarily be the Wrong Way.

Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3824
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

ijuin wrote:From the perspective of the rhetoric employed by the American Right Wing, anybody who is even an inch to the left of them is an insane Lefty. It's all part of the narrative that says that any deviation from the Right Way must necessarily be the Wrong Way.

I wonder if some of you have played Liberal Crime Squad? (Originally from the Dwarf Fortress guy, so there's probably some of you here who are familiar with this bit of Bay12's output, too.)

Warning: The graphics are less pretty than DF. But, other than that, it can also be pretty graphic.

sardia
Posts: 6611
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I wouldn't bet the farm on a majority senate. I mean, it could happen, but...it's far from a sure thing.

That's why you don't bet the farm, you bet McConnell on what happens today, while the future is still uncertain. Right now, it's all upside for McConnell if Obama politely waits until after the Nov Election.
If Democrats win big, GOP cuts their losses with the moderate Garland. If GOP wins big, they get to replace Scalia with a conservative, or even a super conservative. Obama shouldn't give McConnell a free lunch here. If we're gonna be nakedly partisan, we go balls deep. Threaten, quietly or otherwise, to scuttle the nomination during the lame duck session, which opens the door for the Democrats to nominate someone YOUNG and more Liberal. This puts a price on McConnell's hedging, which as of now he is doing for free.* If the GOP balks at Obama reraising the stakes, the Democrats have the odds on their side, though everyone is still taking a gamble. Democrats can simply rewrite Senate rules regarding filibuster like Tyndmyr says, and seize their SCOTUS victory. The courts won't be able to stop them because it'll be packed with Democrats. The end result is the Dems may be able to squeeze the GOP down a few percentage points on this and/or get a nomination in sooner rather than later.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rep ... ent-trump/
http://i.imgur.com/TScUep4.jpg

*Let's assume that stalling on a nomination all year doesn't cost them any percentage points during the election, which isn't true.
Note: I see more upside to the GOP conceding on this, and I don't really see the upside to Obama getting the nomination now except as a hedge against a GOP victory.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

sardia wrote: Right now, it's all upside for McConnell if Obama politely waits until after the Nov Election.
It quit being polite when he named the nominee. The Dems will pound this for everything it's worth.
sardia wrote:The courts won't be able to stop us because it'll be packed with Democrats.
You sound like a Republican. Nominate a moderate and you've already moved the Court to the left, given who your replacing. If the candidate wants to walk away, that is one thing, but withdrawing him to put someone more liberal in is just what the Republicans expect. It would be an admission from Obama that he is no better than McConnell, which is probably true, but this is all about appearances.

ucim
Posts: 6630
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC

I wonder how it would go down if a rule were made that the person who was President at the time of the death of a Supreme Court Jester gets to make the nomination, even after his term is over (should it come to that).

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

sardia
Posts: 6611
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

ucim wrote:I wonder how it would go down if a rule were made that the person who was President at the time of the death of a Supreme Court Jester gets to make the nomination, even after his term is over (should it come to that).

Jose

That doesn't solve the problem (fear of unfair changes lasting forever). The only solution I'd like is fixed terms that stagger judges, like say 18 years so each president gets to nominate 1 judge every 2 years.

ucim
Posts: 6630
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC

sardia wrote:That doesn't solve the problem (fear of unfair changes lasting forever)
That's not the problem. The problem is that it is possible (and likely) that the Senate can deny a sitting president a nomination xe's supposed to do as part of xis job, and is entitled to do.

sardia wrote:The only solution I'd like is fixed terms that stagger judges, like say 18 years so each president gets to nominate [n] judge every [k] years. [(where n and k are constants that have been munged by the Madness (and not the madness that is the Republican Party)]
That doesn't solve the problem of what to do if a judge dies before his term is over, which is the problem we are facing now, and what the whole nomination process is about.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3824
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

ucim wrote:That doesn't solve the problem of what to do if a judge dies before his term is over, which is the problem we are facing now, and what the whole nomination process is about.

Make a stratified SCOTUS and SCOTUS-in-waiting with constant backup positions.

Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die ...being the regular SCOTUS, and a similarly-sized queue of replacements, perhaps being the Not Quite Supreme Court Of The United States. The NQSCOTUS can take on important-but-not-that-important cases that SCOTUS cannot/will not currently handle (SCOTUS can be petitioned to re-examine things, but it's not an automatic right, or else NSQCOTUS means nothing...) and... I'm riffing here... will themselves decide which of their number moves up to SCOTUS level upon retirement/etc causing a vacancy in the (totally not specified, by number!) nine-person top-table... The sitting President could have a casting vote in that, at the very least, and would initiate the new replacement(s) necessary to buff back up the NQSCOTUS team, within their own term.

There'd have to be some good reason why someone good enough to get into the NQSCOTUS would not necessarily progress any further. It shouldn't ever look like stagnation. Or there be a very good reason why a person being a solid and long-standing backbon to NQSCOTUS would be perceived as more important than becoming the new 'junior' member to the SCOTUS - without it become a Francis Urquhart/Underwood 'House Of Cards'-style sizzling resentment issue in being overlooked for political reasons), but it might yet fall into just "next <direction>-looking SCOTUS to depart is replaced by longest-serving <direction>-looking NQSCOTUS, who is themselves replaced by <direction>-looking new appointee to NQSCOTUS.

'Preloading' NQSCOTUS in the hope of loading SCOTUS in the future would be a difficult task, as any shift in NQSCOTUS politics would be politically difficult to force into SCOTUS (society would probably shift quicker, making the system always 'lag', if anything, regardless of direction) but convention that a 5:4 political swing at the top switches with a 4:5 swing at the top upon the next change wouldn't be a bad thing (everyone knowing that it'll flip back again at the next opportunity), and would provide pressure to make NQSCOTUS the inverse swing1.

(No, not sure if any of that would work, and does rather depend upon a huge shake-up of a system I don't pretend to understand, but while I'm riffing I might as well go the full air-guitar!)

1 Not that I know enough about historic incumbents (and societal/political shifts) to rule out the possibility that a perceived left-leaning candidate on their appointment became a perceived right-leaning member by the end, or vice-versa. Everyone seems to be suggesting that people are (at least by this level of advancement!) firmly polarised... being described as 'moderate' if they even look like 'swinging'.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

ucim wrote:That's not the problem. The problem is that it is possible (and likely) that the Senate can deny a sitting president a nomination xe's supposed to do as part of xis job, and is entitled to do.
One of the duties of the Legislative is to act as a brake on the Executive. They get paid to do exactly what is is that they are doing, given how they feel about it. The Legislative branch is a coequal body.

This is a political question, as compared to the Legislative duty that they have to do the things that are required of both bodies of the Legislature as stated in the Constitution. The Senate has no duty to be satisfied with the nominee. In this case the majority has Advised the President that they will withhold Consent, which is the only explicit Constitutional duty they have regarding this question. The Executive can attempt to make it cost the majority party. This is the relevant section.
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,..., shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

ucim
Posts: 6630
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:[multplicative identity] of the duties of the Legislative is to act as a brake on the Executive. They get paid to do exactly what is is that they are doing, given how they feel about it. [...] The Senate has no duty to be satisfied with the nominee. In this case the majority has Advised the President that they will withhold Consent...
The Senate however does have a duty to examine the nominee. They may of course withhold consent if they do not believe a particular nominee is worthy of the job, but to decide to not even look; that is, to not take the President seriously in the performance of the duties assigned to xim, is a shirking of responsibility on the part of the Senate, which, being "coequal" as stated in the post above, is also charged with the responsibility of filling the seat.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

The Constitution doesn't have a duty to any such thing, does it? They could formally hold hearings, but I see no such implicit duty to do more than what they have done. The Constitution doesn't include any language about how consent is denied. Any action at this point would be a dog and pony show. The Democrats know this. If there was any legal duty to do so, the issue would be subject to adjudication and the Democrats would be before a Judge.
ucim wrote:is also also charged with the responsibility of filling the seat.
If the President resurrected Scalia and offered him as the nominee then Obama would probably get his hearing, but it is Obama's duty to fill the seat, not the Senates, and that means satisfying the majority to get their consent.

This is about making some people good guys and someone else bad guys. Politics. Purely in and of itself, the status quo merely means that close issues don't get settled.

ucim
Posts: 6630
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC

No, there is little "thou shalt do" in the Constitution pertaining to duties of the Senators, and I suppose they could, legally, sit on their rump for their entire term refusing to do anything but cash their salary checks, until they were voted out at the ballot box. Politics as usual. But although there's no legal law requiring intelligent thought to occur before making decisions, I don't see how it would be a bad idea to set things up to not reward the contemptuous absence of it.

morriswalters wrote:...and that means satisfying the majority to get their consent.
I have no problem with that. But I have a problem with the Senate refusing to even look, irrespective of who or what was put forth. They do it because it's politically powerful, not because it's good for the country. So, I propose making doing so not politically powerful.

There may be a downside, but this isn't it.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

ucim wrote: They do it because it's politically powerful, not because it's good for the country.
Whose country are we talking about? A conservative Christian who believes that empowering gay couples to marry is a sin? Is it any less his country than yours? The Court upheld that position, even against a direct ballot issue to the question. No matter how I feel about that, it makes the control of the Court a political issue. And what's good for the country depends on where someone is standing, and in whose shoes.
ucim wrote: But although there's no legal suggestion requiring intelligent thought to occur before making decisions, I don't see how it would be a bad idea to set things up to not reward the contemptuous absence of it.
My posts indicate the disdain I feel for McConnell, but the phrases I would use to describe him however are, savvy, intelligent, committed, and dedicated to the causes that the electorate in Kentucky sees as important. McConnell has made a calculation that has no downside to Republicans if it turns out a Republican wins the Presidency. And very little downside if they don't.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
morriswalters wrote:...& that means satisfying the majority to get their consent.
I have no problem with that. But I have a problem with the Senate refusing to even look, irrespective of who or what was put forth. They do it because it's politically powerful, not because it's good for the country. So, I propose making doing so not politically powerful.

There March be a downside, but this isn't it.

Jose

I'm pretty sure they believe that blocking liberals IS good for the country. Just as liberals believe the opposite.

That's pretty normal for factionalism.

ucim
Posts: 6630
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC

I've no objection to blocking policies you don't like. However, in a functioning government, blocking everything that comes from a person you don't like, without even looking at it, is not governance. It is evidence that one does not care about the policies, just the personal attack. This is not governance.

This is not the kind of behavior that we should tolerate, let alone hold up as an example.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

In the case of SCOTUS it is most certainly about governance. This is about minority politics. SCOTUS can make legal precendent, gays have used the court to challenge discriminatory legal antecendents in their position as a minority, and it requires no imagination at all to apply this to a white plurality that sees its power draining away. The court will determine how the country is governed.

ucim
Posts: 6630
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:In the case of SCOTUS it is most certainly about governance.
How so? It certainly affects governance, as you point out. But the "na na na I can't hear you" nonsense the Republicans are pulling is not how I want the country to be governed (irrespective of which side of the battle I happen to be on). We might as well be governed by fistfights in alphabetical order.

Thus, I proposed a rule that would disarm this particular weapon, and thus encouraging the aforementioned party (and any future parties who would find themselves in this position) to use more intellectual reasons to confirm or not confirm a candidate - because I want the country to be governed with intelligence rather than by intelligent trickery. There is a difference.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.