McConnell hints against nuke option to kill Dem filibusters

[Coyote]

He will get Scalia's spot. But the I'm hoping the Dems can obstruct enough to prevent a far right conservative, and force them to pick a more moderate choice (much as Obama did). Then there are the 2018 mid year elections.

So now you're advocating that they shorten Trump's term by obstructing his appointments in the same way Republicans are. Ma'am, and with all due respect that reeks of hypocrisy. Democrats no longer have a choice in the matter, and neither do you until the 2018 elections. But by then, it will all be said and done.

He will get Scalia's spot. But the I'm hoping the Dems can obstruct enough to prevent a far right conservative, and force them to pick a more moderate choice (much as Obama did). Then there are the 2018 mid year elections.

So now you're advocating that they shorten Trump's term by obstructing his appointments in the same way Republicans are. Ma'am, and with all due respect that reeks of hypocrisy. Democrats no longer have a choice in the matter, and neither do you until the 2018 elections. But by then, it will all be said and done.

Umh...can I quote you here? "Turnabout's fair play"

 

[TemplarKormac]

Congress point blank refused to even hold a hearing on Obama's appointment (that's not "advise and consent" - that's flat out obstruction - you can't "advise and consent" with out first holding a hearing).

As long as the Constitution says nothing against it, they are acting in full compliance with it. Also, they made their "consent" clear. They weren't giving it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Umh...can I quote you here? "Turnabout's fair play"

Yeah? Turnabout is fair play. And Democrats set the precedent. However, you were just recently voicing objections to it, but are now pushing for it. I see that as a hypocritical argument.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

McConnell will use the nuclear option. Count on it.

 

[Coyote]

Umh...can I quote you here? "Turnabout's fair play"

Yeah? Turnabout is fair play. And Democrats set the precedent. But you were just recently voicing objections to it, but are now pushing for it. I see that as a hypocritical argument.

I disagree with who started precedents here - it's an escelating game of one-upsmanship. I don't think either side has a clear conscience.

I'm on the fence about it.

I don't think it's good for our country to keep this up. But both sides need to sit down and talk and act like adults, and allow the sitting president to put forth his choices for SCOTUS - give them a hearing and either deny or consent. The majority of the time - a tough hearing is held (just so the opponents can kick the turf a bit) and the candidate is consented on. Most of the time the president selects solidly qualified candidates that are not too extreme, so the opposition is mostly ideological and it's difficult to deny a choice based soly on that. That is how it should be.

But it hasn't been. Your side denied my president that opportunity that was his right. It was not "advise and consent" because they refused to even hold a hearing. And it was for purely partisan reasons - had nothing to do with the qualifications of the candidate (who was actually one that they could have easily agreed on).

That boosted this issue to a whole new level of acrimony.

And there has been a pattern here of more and more judicial appointments being obstructed from even a hearing o the point where we have one of the highest numbers of unfilled judicial vacancies ever. The number has reached an all time high with Obama's picks. And it's purely on ideological grounds.

So, turn about. How would you feel if it were your presidential pick instead of Obama, these past 8 years? Would you be calling for an end to obstructionist tactics? Would you consider their refusal to hold a hearing on his Supreme Court pick to be dirty politics?

 

[TemplarKormac]

How would you feel if it were your presidential pick instead of Obama, these past 8 years? Would you be calling for an end to obstructionist tactics? Would you consider their refusal to hold a hearing on his Supreme Court pick to be dirty politics?

I would respect the constitutional process.

 

[Coyote]

How would you feel if it were your presidential pick instead of Obama, these past 8 years?

I would respect the constitutional process.

So you're ok if the Dems shorten Trumps term just like the Reps did?

PS - I do not think you are respecting the constitutional process, I think you are respecting a perversion of it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your side denied my president that opportunity that was his right. It was not "advise and consent" because they refused to even hold a hearing. And it was for purely partisan reasons

The president has no rights unless directly or indirectly implied in the Constitution. Article II does not mandate that the Senate respond to the nomination. It doesn't require them to. Thus, the Senate has a right to sit there on its hands while in session and not confirm a single nominee sent forth by the president. Partisan or not, the constitution allows it.

 

[Coyote]

Your side denied my president that opportunity that was his right. It was not "advise and consent" because they refused to even hold a hearing. And it was for purely partisan reasons

The president has no rights unless directly or indirectly implied in the Constitution. Article II does not mandate that the Senate respond to the nomination. It doesn't require them to. Thus, the Senate has a right to sit there on its hands while in recess and not confirm a single nominee sent forth by the president. Partisan or not, the constitution allows it.

I don't think the writers of the Constitution ever intended it to be used as a roadblock. The Constitution can be abused.

 

[TemplarKormac]

PS - I do not think you are respecting the constitutional process, I think you are respecting a perversion of it.

It isn't a perversion, it's being interpreted as written.

I've taken special interest in studying the law and the Constitution. I am never going to twist it to suit my partisan wants or needs. That's an affront to all the men who worked tirelessly to write it.

Obama has the right to make nominations, you're correct. However, that's not in question. You are ignoring the rights of the Senate. They are not mandated by the Constitution to act on the nomination. Period.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Constitution can be abused.

But when you are acting well within your rights under Article II, you aren't abusing the Constitution.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you're ok if the Dems shorten Trumps term just like the Reps did?

Whether you like it or not, Obama's term is still four years, because he can still nominate justices. But the Senate, however, isn't required to confirm them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Also Coyote, let's also check out Article 1, Section 5 of the US Constitution. It plainly states "each House may determine the rules of its proceedings", thus, that allows the Senate the right to determine whether to act on the nomination or not.

So when I say I'd respect the constitutional process, I meant exactly that. Because the Senate is well within its rights to act or not act.

Your argument is based on a misconception that the Senate is abusing the Constitution. It isn't.

 

[Coyote]

PS - I do not think you are respecting the constitutional process, I think you are respecting a perversion of it.

It isn't a perversion, it's being interpreted as written.

I've taken special interest in studying the law and the Constitution. I am never going to twist it to suit my partisan wants or needs. That's an affront to all the men who worked tirelessly to write it.

Obama has the right to make nominations, you're correct. However, that's not in question. You are ignoring the rights of the Senate. They are not mandated by the Constitution to act on the nomination. Period.

I've gotta to go to bed soon, tonight I broke my self imposed electronic diet and binged

I think "intent" matters here. And also the difference between the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law".

If the intent is to obstruct the legitimate rights of the president - not because the nomination is unqualified, but soly because they do not want him to exercise his right - then is that an honest following of the Constitution or a perversion of it? Is that exercising their duty - or abusing it?

Yes, they are technically within their rights - clearly so, because they are doing it. But does that make it RIGHT?

That's how I see it anyway, and I am seeing it as an unending series of bad precedents that can have bad consequences. For example blocking the appointment of judges has led to a record number of long term vacancies, over burdened courts, too few judges, cases being dismissed on that basis.

That's why I think this has become a perversion of it's original intent. It's not healthy for our government or our people and it's all just going to lead to ever more partisan gridlock.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've gotta to go to bed soon, tonight I broke my self imposed electronic diet and binged

BAD Coyote. BAD.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think "intent" matters here. And also the difference between the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law".

The intent, as well as the spirit and letter of the law are covered. The spirit here is the lack of a requirement via the Constitution for the Senate to act on a nomination. The "intent" is the founder's purposefully not adding that requirement. Thus as the "letter of the law" it says nothing about requiring the Senate to act.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, they are technically within their rights - clearly so, because they are doing it. But does that make it RIGHT?

Perhaps not to you. I have no opinion on whether it's right or not. I'm arguing from a constitutional basis, nothing more.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's how I see it anyway, and I am seeing it as an unending series of bad precedents that can have bad consequences. For example blocking the appointment of judges has led to a record number of long term vacancies, over burdened courts, too few judges, cases being dismissed on that basis.

Even if it isn't what you want in the way of who is nominated, that cycle will be broken next year.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If the intent is to obstruct the legitimate rights of the president

The president still maintains his rights to make nominations. So no, the Senate isn't obstructing anything. They are refusing to act on his nominees.

Very big difference there.

 

[Coyote]

I think "intent" matters here. And also the difference between the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law".

The intent, as well as the spirit and letter of the law are covered. The spirit here is the lack of a requirement via the Constitution for the Senate to act on a nomination. The "intent" is the founder's purposefully not adding that requirement. Thus as the "letter of the law" it says nothing about requiring the Senate to act.

And

Yes, they are technically within their rights - clearly so, because they are doing it. But does that make it RIGHT?

Perhaps not to you. I have no opinion on whether it's right or not. I'm arguing from a constitutional basis, nothing more.

That's not the basis I'm arguing from - and that's not the basis that those who obstruct the appointments are coming from either. They are using the Constitution for their own ideological gains, in a way it wasn't intended to be used.

If you can find me anything that indicates the framers of the Constitution intended the "advise and consent" clause to be for the purpose of deliberately blocking nominations indefinately for partisan purposes I'd be interested.

What I think they intended was for it to act as check and balance to the President when it came to critical appointments like the judiciary - and that makes sense when you consider in other countries, how easily a ruler can load up the judiciary with corrupt judges of his choosing.

But that is not what is happening here - the Constitution is being misused for political purposes and it's been escalating as each side ups the ante.