| There are 19 comments on this blog. |
|
|
A person is elected and serves in public office for a term..Doing something politically advantageous is not new for either side of the aisle. There were rules that for the most part did not change on how congress operated then one day someone said.... "We vote on the rules every term soo I guess we will change them to our advantage while we have it"...
In a reasonable time those rules were never argued about ... But since Harry Reid decided that the senate could not be bound by such things we have had one congressional crisis after another. Those rules were put in place to avoid such things ... Reid knew that and did not care. With the shoe on the other foot the whole left cares their experiment has sidelined their agenda and now they are forced to bring up "Rules" and how things used to be.
Would they pledge to bring back the old rules if the regained power? I doubt it but both parties should enact bipartisan legislation that passes 2/3 majority that makes law the rules of the senate and House of Representatives to avoid these manufactured crises.
|
|
|
Unfortunately... both left and right... in making “winning” the goal, rather than governing in a “just” manner, we are on a downward spiral that has no end in sight.
Where you can point to Harry and Nancy and Chuck...and I Would agree. We would also need to point to Newt, Trent and Mitch just to be fair.
Politics is a full contact sport. And where most of us Would like to see compromise... we only like it when the compromise favors our position. And we savage our leaders when it doesn’t.
Whether it’s the Tea Party or the Squad.... our own sides won’t let us compromise.
|
|
|
part 1
|
|
|
No doubt ....I pointed to whom I know broke precedent first, I could be wrong about that but the point of my post is that if Congress wants to point out what's fair they could take it upon themselves to correct that. And it wouldn't be hard at all... They would both lose political advantage and opportunities to capitalize on some things while holding a majority but they would gain so much more ... A well established and majority backed way of conducting the business of the country without the hyperbole and pointing fingers about who did what unconscionable action.
|
|
|
I really like the 'no lame duck' policy. It wan enacted by the Ds to screw over the Rs, but then it ended up totally screwing over the Ds.
The question is at what point do you say a potential lame duck should no longer be allowed to appoint a SCOTUS.
I think that there's a policy that indictments against politicians during elections are supposed to be brought by 09/01, to try and make sure and avoid election interference. Whatever the date is, that should be the same date for appointing a SCOTUS pick.
I'm a huge Trump supporter, but I hope that, if something happens to Ginsburg, he takes the high road and waits until after the election to name an appointment.
I also think that people who are wishing her dead so Trump can pick another appointment are as scummy as communists.
|
|
|
This argument started with the Federalist Papers back in the beginning
Hamilton vs. Jefferson
Hamilton wanted a strong Federal government
Jefferson wanted a weak one with an agrarian society
Read all that shit and tell me what it says in one sentence
Thanks in advance!
Pretty sure it's all in Miranda's play though
|
|
|
at this point...ALWAYS control the senate
they want to add two -100 percent liberal states (4 senate seats)...once illegals have become citizens...it will might well be over...the hope is that they are smart and understand why they wanted to come to america in the first place, for opportunity and safety
hispanics and blacks will be changing over in waves THIS election
|
|
|
Obama nominated Garland in his last year in office - Dems said he should be able to, Reps said he should wait.
Dude didn't get confirmed or a vote. Need Senate to agree to that.
Now Dems say Trump should not nominate, Reps say he should based on Obama doing it.
Same tactics - just swapped spots.
|
|
|
I think everyone understands what happened in the past. No one really wants to change anything jic they are in the advantageous position the next time around.
|
|
|
I don't know if this has been said already, but the difference between this situation and the Scalia situation is that the President and the Senate share the same party. In Scalia's case, they were from different parties.
|
|
|
@GBD, Jefferson probably would have been fine with the Articles of Confederation. The pincipal authors of the Federalist Papers were Hamilton, Madison and Jay.
|
|
|
* principal
|
|
|
been said and talked about on this site for last few years ad nauseam
|
|
|
Subslut- I agree it’s terrible to wish someone dead ... but I don’t think that’s the case here.
Is it wrong to acknowledge the implications of someone so important having one foot in the grave?
I don’t mean that flippantly. She has been ill for a long time. Then it’s revealed it’s liver cancer that was found several months ago... that’s pretty serious for someone 87 years old.
Here is my next question;
Should Supremes be required to be more transparent about their health?
I say, No. It’s a lifetime appointment. If the justice chooses to have it pulled from their cold dead fingers... so be it. They shouldn’t be forced to reveal it.
There was a good article in Politico about Supreme Court health transparency.
|
|
|
Dudebert, yes
I short-circuited my post for brevitys sake, did not mean to imply the Papers were a debate between Jefferson and Hamilton.
But, the gist being that these political battles have been going on since the beginning.
Washington was heavily wearied by the constant bickering of those around him who wanted to control the process and the outcome.
I believe the most critical part of their discussion was how to devise a system that would protect the "rights of the minority party". Unlike the firebrands of the House, the Senate is supposed to be a deliberative body that checks the House. The filibuster being the minority partys go to option to slow the sausage making.
If Biden and team are successful in discarding the filibuster, it WILL come back to haunt them.
And, will lead this national experiment one step closer it's denouement.
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice."
|
|
|
"What up no Balls Deep !! How is it hanging..LOL"
S'up my brother, WorldAss?
My balls are un-descended so I'm able to go deeper than most.
Me?
I'm good
|
|
|
@NR ... I refer back to my statement that elected representatives are elected for a term. In the Case of Scalia the Senate acted in what one would have to construe as favorable of the electorate because they won a majority of seats after that decision to not vote on Garland.
It would stand to reason that if the Majority of the electorate had thought this was beneath the prestige of the Senate then they would have lost control and Garland or a Clinton appointee would be there now.
On the current topic we see the Republicans doubling down on the fact they are the majority and it does look bad (IMO) because of the reasons they provided at the time of the Garland nomination.
If they simply said what the truth of the matter is "We wont bring it up for a vote because we don't have to" it would have been more truthful and less confining as "it's an election year and we should let the electorate decide who gets to nominate" ... The electorate had already decided more than 3 years before and B. Obama had every right to nominate. He would have abdicated his responsibility and authority if he didn't.
BUT the Senate has the right to decide if they will hold confirmation hearings. This is the case no matter who holds the gavels or governance in each house of congress. Elections have consequences at EVERY level.
I point to the facts that Pelosi chose not to bring the House from recess during this pandemic., She held impeachment hearings and did not allow minority party witnesses, She made a delayed impeachment referral to the Senate in an effort to dictate to the Senate how it would conduct its hearings.
Some would say that her actions were uncalled for. I say she has every right to control the house as she sees fit she is the majority leader and sets the agenda in the House.
Both congressional leaders are operating within their limits... Its selfish and petty and unbelievably irresponsibly divisive and outright childish but thats what we got and its a whole lot better than allowing the more radical among us to cancel all of us for not conforming to the minority narrative of the day and locking parents in concentration camps with our "properly educated" children forcing us to grovel for forgiveness for the sins of those who are long dead.
|
|
|
I think Ms Ginsberg will make it to the end of the year and I hope this bullshit the Republicans are saying that they would fill her seat before the end of the year after they blocked Obama Nominee for over a year inspires even more people to vote against this of totally corrupt GOP in both local, state and national races.
Not calling witnesses in the impeachment trial.
Saying they would fill a Supreme Court seat after blocking Obama nominee
on top of all Trumps shit and 140,000 American dead from slow response to covid.
No response to George Floyd
This should get them out to the polls.
Snoop Dogg said he's even voting this year
..... not sure if he can, depending on his passed legal record.
|
|
|
ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz..............burp....
Who farted and woke me up, dammit?
Was that you again, Doofy?
You know CNN gives you the gas so turn it off.
And, here's some fx so you can grab yourself some Beano.
Would somebody open the windows, pleeeease?
|
| There are 19 comments on this blog. |
