If McCain wins, do the Democrats gain a seat in the Senate?

[techs]

If McCain wins then his seat from Arizona needs to be filled. Arizona has a Democratic governor. I don't know the procedure in Arizona. Does the governor nominate a replacement senator?

And if McCain wins does he give a Cabinet post to Joe Lieberman? Connecticut has a Republican governor. Would she nominate a Republican?

 

[Farang]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1968256/posts

 

[Craig234]

Thing is, it's a moot question IMO, won't happen.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Farang
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1968256/posts

Arizona law says the Governor must appoint a replacement from the same party based on that parties recommendations.
Got that from the link, but its just what someone says is the law in a blog.

But, could McCain balance it out with a Lieberman cabinet position?
Wonder what the law is in Connecticut?

 

[Drakkon]

Read: http://www.senate.gov/artandhi...rces/pdf/Vacancies.pdf

There are a couple state with special rules but for the most part gov can pick anyone they want to serve (So to answer the OP - in the case of AZ it is true they can only pick someone of same party affiliation - in other words no if mccain wins they do no gain a seat in the senate) in the interim until there is a special election for a new representative to the senate

On the flip side if Obama wins the D govs of Illinois and Delaware would get to make appointments. It will be interesting if any senators are chosen by either candidate as it would leave a seat open for a potential special election that if the dems gain enough seats they probably wouldn't risk any more of them unnecessarily.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Farang
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1968256/posts

Arizona law says the Governor must appoint a replacement from the same party based on that parties recommendations.
Got that from the link, but its just what someone says is the law in a blog.

But, could McCain balance it out with a Lieberman cabinet position?
Wonder what the law is in Connecticut?

In a google search I found this issue raised in 2000 and someone said the governor, a Republican, would get to appoint someone.

On the reverse, Obama could appoint a Republican senator to the cabinet, although besides Hagel (who has a Republican governor) nobody is coming to mind off the top of my head.

 

[rockyct]

Obama is more likely to appoint McCain a cabinet member than for McCain to win the election.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Thing is, it's a moot question IMO, won't happen.

I think it's a moot question, but for another reason. Democrats are already poised to make big gains in the Senate. One more seat is nothing to sneeze at, but there is every possibility that they will end up with a filibusterer proof majority no matter who wins.

As much as the Democrat in me wants to see that happen, I don't think it would be good in the long run if Obama was elected. I don't want to see the Democrats turn into the same kind of bullies the Republicans did up until 2006, and I think that's what happens when the other party has so little power.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Craig234
Thing is, it's a moot question IMO, won't happen.

I think it's a moot question, but for another reason. Democrats are already poised to make big gains in the Senate. One more seat is nothing to sneeze at, but there is every possibility that they will end up with a filibusterer proof majority no matter who wins.

As much as the Democrat in me wants to see that happen, I don't think it would be good in the long run if Obama was elected. I don't want to see the Democrats turn into the same kind of bullies the Republicans did up until 2006, and I think that's what happens when the other party has so little power.

Filibuster-proof majority = 60 seats. I don't think that's likely to happen. It's possible, I guess.

It's more likely to happen in 2-4 years, assuming the political landscape doesn't tilt back in favor of the Republicans by then.

And like you, I don't think it would be a good thing. Probably hurt the Democrats in the long run, but more importantly, it gives them way too much power to steamroll everyone else.

 

[marleymarl]

You lost me at "If McCain wins "

 

[ProfJohn]

Just a thought...

Say the Democrats don't get to 60.
And President Obama nominates a few judge the right doesn't like so the Republicans filibuster them.

Do you think the Democrats will start to talk about the 'nuclear' option themselves? Or will they just piss and moan like the Republicans did for years.
Based on the way the Democrats use the courts to enact their policy I think they go nuclear. Every judge they get puts them one step closer to gay marriage or gun control etc etc.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Just a thought...

Say the Democrats don't get to 60.
And President Obama nominates a few judge the right doesn't like so the Republicans filibuster them.

Do you think the Democrats will start to talk about the 'nuclear' option themselves? Or will they just piss and moan like the Republicans did for years.
Based on the way the Democrats use the courts to enact their policy I think they go nuclear. Every judge they get puts them one step closer to gay marriage or gun control etc etc.

All I can say is that I'd be dollars to donuts that if the Republicans DO filibuster, the same Democrats who supported the idea before will be against the filibuster if the Republicans are doing it, and the same Republicans who foamed at the mouth about a "straight up or down vote" just a few years ago will come to the rescue of the filibuster.

And I'd also be willing to bet that Republicans will make a HUGE fuss over virtually every judicial nomination President Obama might make. Given how widespread the fantasy of judicial bias has become on the right, prospective justices will have to come to the confirmation hearing directly from an NRA meeting to gain approval from the righties.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Just a thought...

Say the Democrats don't get to 60.
And President Obama nominates a few judge the right doesn't like so the Republicans filibuster them.

Do you think the Democrats will start to talk about the 'nuclear' option themselves? Or will they just piss and moan like the Republicans did for years.
Based on the way the Democrats use the courts to enact their policy I think they go nuclear. Every judge they get puts them one step closer to gay marriage or gun control etc etc.

The Democrats don't 'use the courts to enact their policy'. What's funny is the vast majority of the judges that conservatives endlessly complain about (add the 'librul judiciary' to the list with the 'librul scientists', etc.) are actually Republican appointees. Maybe, just maybe, these judges are... you know... interpreting the law and the constitution and that's how they come to these decisions.

Anyways, if the Democrats don't have 60 votes (and even if they do) I expect a blizzard of filibusters that would make even this year's record shattering total pale in comparison. Even though this year it looks like the Republicans in the Senate (yes, the very ones who labeled the Democrats 'obstructionist') will break the previous filibuster record by more than 200%. Next Congress I could easily see that total double again. If it comes down to that, I don't know what I would say. If the Republicans do what I think they will, they will in effect be shutting down the government. At that point, what do you do? Do you allow the minority in a single chamber to hold the entire government hostage?

I firmly believe in the rights of the minority, but I'm genuinely worried that the Republicans will force a situation where a choice has to be made between the function of government and respect of those rights. What is the answer then?

As for the Democrats, they have already controlled the Senate this year and you have heard only moderate complaints about the Republicans using the filibuster even though they have been the most obstructionist minority in Senate history. It's fairly likely that the Dems will lose their respect for the filibuster in much the same way that the Republicans have suddenly found a newfound love for the rights of the minority party. That's just politics.

Seriously though, the Senate is the single most fragile institution in our government. Pretty much the only thing that keeps it functioning is a general agreement between all its members not to blow it up... as even a single member can grind the chamber to a halt. I'm worried the Republicans will try and blow it up.

 

[ProfJohn]

Eskimo, gay marriage is the perfect example of liberals using the courts to get policies they favor put into place.

Has there been ONE state that passed a law allowing gay marriage? Just one?

As far as I know every state that has had a vote has either had gay marriage banned or the bill did not pass. But I don't know of one state that had a bill to allow gay marriage.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Just a thought...

Say the Democrats don't get to 60.
And President Obama nominates a few judge the right doesn't like so the Republicans filibuster them.

Do you think the Democrats will start to talk about the 'nuclear' option themselves? Or will they just piss and moan like the Republicans did for years.
Based on the way the Democrats use the courts to enact their policy I think they go nuclear. Every judge they get puts them one step closer to gay marriage or gun control etc etc.

The Democrats don't 'use the courts to enact their policy'.

Hi, I'm Roe vs. Wade!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Eskimo, gay marriage is the perfect example of liberals using the courts to get policies they favor put into place.

Has there been ONE state that passed a law allowing gay marriage? Just one?

As far as I know every state that has had a vote has either had gay marriage banned or the bill did not pass. But I don't know of one state that had a bill to allow gay marriage.

Man, you're just shooting yourself in the foot. The most recent gay marriage case in California was heard by the California Supreme Court. A court in which 6 of the 7 justices were appointed by Republicans. So please explain to me how the 'libruls' used the courts to get policies they favored put into place.

Why is everything political to you? Did it ever occur to you that the justices were just doing their job as opposed to advancing an ideological agenda?

You should certainly know that what laws are passed and what the Constitution says are in no way required to have the slightest thing to do with one another. Segregationist laws were passed all over the south for a hundred years, it didn't make them any more constitutional.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Just a thought...

Say the Democrats don't get to 60.
And President Obama nominates a few judge the right doesn't like so the Republicans filibuster them.

Do you think the Democrats will start to talk about the 'nuclear' option themselves? Or will they just piss and moan like the Republicans did for years.
Based on the way the Democrats use the courts to enact their policy I think they go nuclear. Every judge they get puts them one step closer to gay marriage or gun control etc etc.

The Democrats don't 'use the courts to enact their policy'.

Hi, I'm Roe vs. Wade!

Hi, I'm the Burger court at the time of Roe v. Wade's decision! I'm a court where Republican appointees outnumber Democratic appointees by 6-3! Same question to you as to Pro-Jo. How are the Democrats advancing their agenda in this way when the courts making these decisions are dominated by Republican appointees? This is certainly an odd strategy on the Dem's part.

 

[ProfJohn]

Eskimo, did the public vote gay marriage into law? Or did the courts decide the case?

We can argue whether it was good law or bad law all day and it won't change the fact that the liberals can not get gay marriage put in place by the people so they went to the courts.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Hi, I'm the Burger court at the time of Roe v. Wade's decision! I'm a court where Republican appointees outnumber Democratic appointees by 6-3! Same question to you as to Pro-Jo. How are the Democrats advancing their agenda in this way when the courts making these decisions are dominated by Republican appointees? This is certainly an odd strategy on the Dem's part.

I know you are not this stupid.

It does not matter how many judges were Republican or Democrat. What matters is that the left wanted certain policies or laws changed and they didn't have enough support in the public to get the laws passed so they went to the courts.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Eskimo, did the public vote gay marriage into law? Or did the courts decide the case?

We can argue whether it was good law or bad law all day and it won't change the fact that the liberals can not get gay marriage put in place by the people so they went to the courts.

No, we won't argue whether it is good or bad law. The courts determined it was an equal protection violation of their constitutional rights. This isn't policy, it's the constitution. Would you have said that the blacks used the courts to further their policies to end segregation, or would you say that the policies put in place discriminated against blacks?What in the holy hell do you think the courts are there for?

Furthermore it wasn't 'the Democrats' who put gay marriage up to the courts, it was citizens like you and me who felt (correctly it turns out) that their constitutional rights were being violated. As a party I bet the Democrats wish the whole gay marriage thing would just go away, as unfortunately the homophobes are not restricted to just the Republican party.

You said the Democrats use the courts to put their policies into place, then as support for that you mentioned a court case in which a court where there were 600% more Republican appointees than Democrats decided something. That's an awfully shitty argument.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: techs
...
a Lieberman cabinet position?
...

That would just make one more republican in the cabinet. He switched parties years ago. He just hasn't formalized it yet.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Hi, I'm the Burger court at the time of Roe v. Wade's decision! I'm a court where Republican appointees outnumber Democratic appointees by 6-3! Same question to you as to Pro-Jo. How are the Democrats advancing their agenda in this way when the courts making these decisions are dominated by Republican appointees? This is certainly an odd strategy on the Dem's part.

I know you are not this stupid.

It does not matter how many judges were Republican or Democrat. What matters is that the left wanted certain policies or laws changed and they didn't have enough support in the public to get the laws passed so they went to the courts.

It unfortunately appears you ARE this stupid.

They wanted the laws changed because they were AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION. The ENTIRE PURPOSE of the Constitution is that it doesn't matter what the laws say or what the majority wants, the Constitution reigns supreme.

You know that's the whole point of having a Constitution, right? Again, refer to my example of segregation. The blacks wanted certain policies and laws changed and they didn't have enough support in the public to get the laws passed and so they went to the courts. Oh but let me guess, in THAT case that was the courts doing the right thing. (because you agree with the outcome) It's only in the damn homos' case where people who couldn't get redress through the legislative system and went to the courts are 'enacting their policy' through them.

Give me a fucking break.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Eskimo, did the public vote gay marriage into law? Or did the courts decide the case?

We can argue whether it was good law or bad law all day and it won't change the fact that the liberals can not get gay marriage put in place by the people so they went to the courts.

If equal rights guaranteed by the Constitution are too liberal for you, consider moving to an Islamist theocracy like Saudi Arabia.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Just a thought...

Say the Democrats don't get to 60.
And President Obama nominates a few judge the right doesn't like so the Republicans filibuster them.

Do you think the Democrats will start to talk about the 'nuclear' option themselves? Or will they just piss and moan like the Republicans did for years.
Based on the way the Democrats use the courts to enact their policy I think they go nuclear. Every judge they get puts them one step closer to gay marriage or gun control etc etc.

The Democrats don't 'use the courts to enact their policy'.

Hi, I'm Roe vs. Wade!

Hi, I'm the Burger court at the time of Roe v. Wade's decision! I'm a court where Republican appointees outnumber Democratic appointees by 6-3! Same question to you as to Pro-Jo. How are the Democrats advancing their agenda in this way when the courts making these decisions are dominated by Republican appointees? This is certainly an odd strategy on the Dem's part.

All that proves is that Nixon was a dumbass at picking his choices and getting them by the strongly Democratic Senate.

Besides, look at the number of hours of abortion questioning that Roberts and Alito got, and the scare tactics after Gonzalez v Carhart was decided.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

All that proves is that Nixon was a dumbass at picking his choices and getting them by the strongly Democratic Senate.

Besides, look at the number of hours of abortion questioning that Roberts and Alito got, and the scare tactics after Gonzalez v Carhart was decided.

You used Roe v. Wade as an example of how Democrats use the courts to advance their policy positions. Considering the Democrats had nothing to do with the filing of the lawsuit and had appointed only 3 out of the 9 justices on the court, your argument fails.