Progressive turn a 180 degrees on Judge nomanation

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Joann Stubbs, Sep 8, 2018.

  1. DOTR
    Offline

    DOTR Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    6,661
    Thanks Received:
    991
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +6,439
    They cant stop a thing.
     
  2. Manonthestreet
    Offline

    Manonthestreet Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    19,322
    Thanks Received:
    6,807
    Trophy Points:
    430
    Ratings:
    +16,943
    Remember that drivel they used to spout of the Senate being the most deliberative Body in the world....more like biggest clown car...….kicker more women equals less deliberation
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    46,916
    Thanks Received:
    5,539
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +18,117
    Had the rules been codified 20 years ago, we wouldn't be having the Party bosses deciding what the playing field looks like.
     
  4. Darkwind
    Offline

    Darkwind Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    21,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,154
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,806
    So, we live in this world, no?

    Maybe we should be advocating to do that starting right now?
     
  5. RodISHI
    Offline

    RodISHI Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    17,826
    Thanks Received:
    4,923
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +12,349
    Dems and their pet leftist are really giving voters a desire to vote for them with crap like this photo op for their latest stunt at the Kavanaugh hearing.
    (it is too disgusting to download the picture so you'll have to go to facebook to see it if you haven't already seen how low they can go)

    Paul Robichaud
     
  6. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    46,916
    Thanks Received:
    5,539
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +18,117
    Yes; absolutely!

    We currently have a constitution that is silent on whether a majority is needed to pass a law in the House or Senate. If they were so inclined; a truly obstructionist party could make it where you could pass a bill 20-80 meaning that if you get 20 votes; it passes. In a 2 party reality, it won't happen because the majority will always out vote the minority. If we had 3 parties or 4 parties that were in the Senate though, the party that has a plurality could theoretically pass such a rule as long as the other factions didn't vote against them. There seems to be nothing in the Constitution about packing the court. In '37 they passed an act to stop it. But the Constitution remains silent on it and therefore the act can be overturned or simply ignored.
     
  7. Darkwind
    Offline

    Darkwind Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    21,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,154
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,806
    Yes. The problem is, the Constitution is not silent on the makeup of the legislative branch. It is invested with a House of Representatives elected directly by the people, and a Senate that is appointed by the States legislatures, also directly elected by the people.

    Right now, we have already circumvented the Constitution by the amendment (yeah, I know, amendments are part of the constitution) that allows for the direct election of US Senators.

    We need a return to the basics of the Constitution in order to start doing away with this fucked up two party system.
     
  8. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    46,916
    Thanks Received:
    5,539
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +18,117
    Disagree.

    As long as you have political parties; you'll have someone who is in charge of the parties and able to exert influence over those elected officials. Having 2 parties is no better than having 6 parties or 55 parties or 3 parties or whatever integer you wish to use. Take 1/2 the Dems and 1/2 the Republicans and you have 49 Senators in the Senate... Nothing would pass without the 49 votes and they would nominate a leader who would do exactly what Mitch McConnell does today and what Harry Reid did before him. 3 parties; same problems. And it would be true whenever you have any integer less than 100 (meaning 100 different political parties). Whoever is in charge will slate the rules to favor their party. That is just the nature of the beast.

    Now if you crafted the rules and made it to where it took a 3/4 majority to change them...that would take the parties out of the equation.
     
  9. Shrimpbox
    Offline

    Shrimpbox Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,885
    Thanks Received:
    677
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Carrabelle, fl. 60 miles s of tallahassee
    Ratings:
    +2,621
    First, no denied obama the right to nominate someone. The senate decided that they would postpone the advise and consent part until after the election in order to get the pulse of the American people. Had Hilary won, garland would probably be on the court now, the senate would have approved someone. And as you usually do, you forget the Democratic comments about postponing this stuff in the past. Democrats play hardball politics all the time, real hardball politics, yet when republicans finally show some backbone it’s just how horrible from people like you. I’m sure where it will go from here, it will continue as it has for 250 years.
     
  10. JBvM
    Offline

    JBvM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,012
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    50
    Location:
    here
    Ratings:
    +867
    What has changed? Trump has thrown out the rule book and given everyone a road map
     

Share This Page