Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There are only 2 possibilities in this world, Compost.My point was that OP's sweeping generalization about republican's willingness to vote requires some fleshing out. You appear to be obsessed with Rules of Order. Still, thanks for reiterating your point.It does not matter "why".You have glossed over the reasons some Republicans are not holding a roll call and not voting on nominees to the Supreme Court. Details matter. Some republicans at the convention don't want to proceed with nominating Trump. I don't know what they intend to do exactly, but why not find out before you declare that "republicans don't like to vote on things, it seems". As for nominee to SCOTUS, please name the viable candidate or candidates nominated and let's discuss them in turn. As for polls here at USMB, it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that not everybody feels a burning desire to participate in polls. Believe it or not, some people don't consider a little bitty opinion poll on an online discussion forum important enough to spend time on. That hardly equates to a widespread trend in the voting attitudes of conservatives, does it?At the GOP convention, some Republicans can't seem to get their own party to agree to merely hold a roll call vote on the rules by which the convention is bound. In the Senate, the GOP members refuse to vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court. I guess the trend extends down to polls offered on USMB for I don't often see many folks voting in them either, and this forum seems to be populated more by conservatives than by liberals.
What else will the GOP not be willing to vote on? I wonder if at some point the GOP will want to tell you and I we shouldn't or can't vote on "such and such?" Perhaps Republicans are all for accountability when it's someone other than they being held accountable as a consequence of the vote?
Do you have anything other than vague general accusations against republicans to support your premise?
Rules of order are rules of order. They should be followed.
Otherwise what do you do next? Does everybody go get their guns out, and then you have a melee to determine order ?!
Rules of order exist precisely to prevent guns of order.
Q.E.D.
At the GOP convention, some Republicans can't seem to get their own party to agree to merely hold a roll call vote on the rules by which the convention is bound. In the Senate, the GOP members refuse to vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court. I guess the trend extends down to polls offered on USMB for I don't often see many folks voting in them either, and this forum seems to be populated more by conservatives than by liberals.
What else will the GOP not be willing to vote on? I wonder if at some point the GOP will want to tell you and I we shouldn't or can't vote on "such and such?" Perhaps Republicans are all for accountability when it's someone other than they being held accountable as a consequence of the vote?
I've already pointed out that the vote was ultimately taken. Rules of Order remain intact at the convention. For now, we remain safe from guns, sir.There are only 2 possibilities in this world, Compost.My point was that OP's sweeping generalization about republican's willingness to vote requires some fleshing out. You appear to be obsessed with Rules of Order. Still, thanks for reiterating your point.It does not matter "why".You have glossed over the reasons some Republicans are not holding a roll call and not voting on nominees to the Supreme Court. Details matter. Some republicans at the convention don't want to proceed with nominating Trump. I don't know what they intend to do exactly, but why not find out before you declare that "republicans don't like to vote on things, it seems". As for nominee to SCOTUS, please name the viable candidate or candidates nominated and let's discuss them in turn. As for polls here at USMB, it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that not everybody feels a burning desire to participate in polls. Believe it or not, some people don't consider a little bitty opinion poll on an online discussion forum important enough to spend time on. That hardly equates to a widespread trend in the voting attitudes of conservatives, does it?At the GOP convention, some Republicans can't seem to get their own party to agree to merely hold a roll call vote on the rules by which the convention is bound. In the Senate, the GOP members refuse to vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court. I guess the trend extends down to polls offered on USMB for I don't often see many folks voting in them either, and this forum seems to be populated more by conservatives than by liberals.
What else will the GOP not be willing to vote on? I wonder if at some point the GOP will want to tell you and I we shouldn't or can't vote on "such and such?" Perhaps Republicans are all for accountability when it's someone other than they being held accountable as a consequence of the vote?
Do you have anything other than vague general accusations against republicans to support your premise?
Rules of order are rules of order. They should be followed.
Otherwise what do you do next? Does everybody go get their guns out, and then you have a melee to determine order ?!
Rules of order exist precisely to prevent guns of order.
Q.E.D.
First, there are rules of order.
Second, there are guns.
That's why rules of order are critical.
Perhaps you are not very familiar with guns and therefore you take rules of order lightly.
I was an Infantry officer. I know all about guns.
That's why I respect rules of order.
Q.E.D.
Now 320 I cannot tell if you are being honest or just being politically correct.Anyone a president nominate is a viable candidate for SCOTUS? Really? Does that include Harriet Miers?
Yes.
So what about Bork?
After he fired the special prosecutor in the Nixon investigations quid pro quo, do you think HE also would have been a qualified candidate ?!
It is the job of the US Senate to weed out all the Bork's and Ginsberg's of the world and make sure they do NOT get appointed to the High Court. Or do you disagree with that statement also ?!
At the GOP convention, some Republicans can't seem to get their own party to agree to merely hold a roll call vote on the rules by which the convention is bound. In the Senate, the GOP members refuse to vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court. I guess the trend extends down to polls offered on USMB for I don't often see many folks voting in them either, and this forum seems to be populated more by conservatives than by liberals.
What else will the GOP not be willing to vote on? I wonder if at some point the GOP will want to tell you and I we shouldn't or can't vote on "such and such?" Perhaps Republicans are all for accountability when it's someone other than they being held accountable as a consequence of the vote?
Actually, they DID vote.By voice vote, and the people who were screaming for a roll call vote were upset that the Chairman declared that they lost and wanted a recount via roll call.
Now 320 I cannot tell if you are being honest or just being politically correct.Anyone a president nominate is a viable candidate for SCOTUS? Really? Does that include Harriet Miers?
Yes.
So what about Bork?
After he fired the special prosecutor in the Nixon investigations quid pro quo, do you think HE also would have been a qualified candidate ?!
It is the job of the US Senate to weed out all the Bork's and Ginsberg's of the world and make sure they do NOT get appointed to the High Court. Or do you disagree with that statement also ?!
I don't care who a President nominates; that is a President's choice, not mine, not yours, not anyone else's. The Senators need to vote for or against the person, and whatever outcome results is fine with me so long as they do vote on the Senate floor for or against the person.
Now 320 I cannot tell if you are being honest or just being politically correct.Anyone a president nominate is a viable candidate for SCOTUS? Really? Does that include Harriet Miers?
Yes.
So what about Bork?
After he fired the special prosecutor in the Nixon investigations quid pro quo, do you think HE also would have been a qualified candidate ?!
It is the job of the US Senate to weed out all the Bork's and Ginsberg's of the world and make sure they do NOT get appointed to the High Court. Or do you disagree with that statement also ?!
I don't care who a President nominates; that is a President's choice, not mine, not yours, not anyone else's. The Senators need to vote for or against the person, and whatever outcome results is fine with me so long as they do vote on the Senate floor for or against the person.
You certainly SHOULD care, and of course it is OUR choice, that's why we vote.
Now 320 I cannot tell if you are being honest or just being politically correct.Anyone a president nominate is a viable candidate for SCOTUS? Really? Does that include Harriet Miers?
Yes.
So what about Bork?
After he fired the special prosecutor in the Nixon investigations quid pro quo, do you think HE also would have been a qualified candidate ?!
It is the job of the US Senate to weed out all the Bork's and Ginsberg's of the world and make sure they do NOT get appointed to the High Court. Or do you disagree with that statement also ?!
I don't care who a President nominates; that is a President's choice, not mine, not yours, not anyone else's. The Senators need to vote for or against the person, and whatever outcome results is fine with me so long as they do vote on the Senate floor for or against the person.
You certainly SHOULD care, and of course it is OUR choice, that's why we vote.
Well, the majority of American voters who voted voted for Barrack Obama, so that accorded him the authority to choose the nominees to federal judgeships, including SCOTUS positions.
How droll. Who do you think you are that you dare deign tell me what I should care about as goes whom a President nominates to the SCOTUS?
Now 320 I cannot tell if you are being honest or just being politically correct.Yes.
So what about Bork?
After he fired the special prosecutor in the Nixon investigations quid pro quo, do you think HE also would have been a qualified candidate ?!
It is the job of the US Senate to weed out all the Bork's and Ginsberg's of the world and make sure they do NOT get appointed to the High Court. Or do you disagree with that statement also ?!
I don't care who a President nominates; that is a President's choice, not mine, not yours, not anyone else's. The Senators need to vote for or against the person, and whatever outcome results is fine with me so long as they do vote on the Senate floor for or against the person.
You certainly SHOULD care, and of course it is OUR choice, that's why we vote.
Well, the majority of American voters who voted voted for Barrack Obama, so that accorded him the authority to choose the nominees to federal judgeships, including SCOTUS positions.
How droll. Who do you think you are that you dare deign tell me what I should care about as goes whom a President nominates to the SCOTUS?
Perhaps you missed my post where I agreed, the Senate should vote on the nominee they have before them. It's chicken shit not to.
and this forum seems to be populated more by conservatives than by liberals.
More white than blacks and conservative. I am sure.
6 percents are blacks in USMB. 46-46 are white and conservative. 2% the rest.
320 You are a funny man.At the GOP convention, some Republicans can't seem to get their own party to agree to merely hold a roll call vote on the rules by which the convention is bound. In the Senate, the GOP members refuse to vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court. I guess the trend extends down to polls offered on USMB for I don't often see many folks voting in them either, and this forum seems to be populated more by conservatives than by liberals.
What else will the GOP not be willing to vote on? I wonder if at some point the GOP will want to tell you and I we shouldn't or can't vote on "such and such?" Perhaps Republicans are all for accountability when it's someone other than they being held accountable as a consequence of the vote?
I appreciate your very dignified and piercing humor however.
I am an independent nonpartisan who votes not for either major party but for the person running for office.
I always understand that whether I vote for a Democrat or a Republican there are going to be pro's and con's with any candidate.
Having said that, I agree with you that many commentators across the Nation were troubled by the dismissal of the call for a roll call vote in the RNC Convention which happened early on. That was a blatant violation of orderly procedure.
The SCOTUS nomination in the US Senate is a completely different matter.
We have a major weakness in the US Constitution about the appointment of SCOTUS justices unfortunately. The problem is that it is too vague on that point. The fact that a justice like Ginsberg has been allowed to be appointed to the High Court is a bright line that the Constitution is not working in this respect.
The Court cannot afford to seat yet another Ginsberg let alone two more of them. If that were to happen then the SCOTUS would simply become a 2nd Federal Legislature, and not really a US Supreme Court.
Now you may or may not agree with me, but that is what I see as a major problem, from my perspective of an independent nonpartisan voter.
Therefore I fully support Mitch McConnell's refusal to conduct any hearings at the present time.
While I agree that under normal circumstance it would be an outrage and an affront to the President to completely ignore his nominations, it is because of our current special circumstances on the High Court that it make perfect sense for McConnell to refuse. If BHO had nominated a truly strict-constructionist candidate then I am sure McConnell would have proceeded with the confirmation hearings. But BHO did not.
This problem is not going away after Hillary becomes elected.
Therefore it is likely that McConnell will need to refuse to conduct hearings for the next 4 years as well.
Therefore I suspect the High Court will shrink to only 7 justices in the near future, and after Ginsberg resigns or dies, then it will be a balanced Court again with Kennedy becoming the swing voter.
What the court needs is more swing voters. Not more Ginsberg's.
Ginsberg has been an insult to the US Constitution and to the US Supreme Court.
6 percents are blacks in USMB. 46-46 are white and conservative. 2% the rest.
Well that's interesting, assuming it's true. Given that 92% of the folks on USMB are white, and in consideration of 91 percent of the average white American’s closest friends and family members are white, and just 1 percent are black, and for as often as I see folks on USMB generalizing about how black folks think, behave, interact with others, etc., it seems as though at least one of must also be so of USMB members:
- White folks on USMB have or have had an uncommonly diverse circles of close acquaintances and friends.
- White folks on USMB hardly know well many, if any, black folks; thus those generalizations must be based on a lot of hearsay and very little firsthand experience with black folks.
I once had a client in Oregon and we found ourselves in a discussion about race issues in Oregon. I asked her what she thought about black folks. Her reply, "I don't think about black folks. I don't even know any black folks; there're so few in Oregon. What is there for me to think? Black folks can do whatever they want. There aren't enough of them for me to bother caring even if I wanted to care one way or another."
I was okay with that. Why wouldn't I be? It is what it is, and she was direct and clear: she didn't have an opinion about black folks because she had no legit basis for having one. There's a degree of integrity in her stance that I have to commend. I wish more folks had as much.
