Ruth Bader Ginsburg crossed a very important line

[glenn1]

There is no such thing as a 'Biden Rule' that says the Senate will not vote on justices in a situation like this. If you believe it you've been duped yet again.

It never ceases to amaze me how easily conservatives can be convinced of anything so long as it suits their personal preferences.

True but likewise there is no rule that says "the Senate must vote on nominations within __ time period" either. An imperfect analog would be like how Congress has sole power to declare war but no set method to do so - a pre-Iraq "authorization of the use of force" is just as valid as a post Pearl Harbor formal declaration.

That doesn't mean that what the GOP Senate is doing is justified or that it's not based upon anything other than what "suits their personal preferences" as you say. Politicians tend to rationalize things all the time to suit those personal preferences, see voting down Bork on purely ideological grounds or NJ Democrats completely crapping on the laws to remove a losing Toricelli from his Senate bid to replace him with Lautenberg. If there ain't a law against it both sides do what helps them, if they can convince a judge that the law isn't fair they'll say ah heck the law to get their way.

 

[fskimospy]

It utterly amazes me that the dems don't understand the concept of blowback. The rule isn't codified in law but in practice. Deal with it.

What practice is it codified in? Be as specific as you can. Before you go looking here's a hint: the 'Biden Rule' has never been practiced.

Duped again.

 

[LegendKiller]

What practice is it codified in? Be as specific as you can. Before you go looking here's a hint: the 'Biden Rule' has never been practiced.

Duped again.

Practiced, discussed, threatened, who gives a shit. Your guys set the rules.

 

[fskimospy]

True but likewise there is no rule that says "the Senate must vote on nominations within __ time period" either. An imperfect analog would be like how Congress has sole power to declare war but no set method to do so - a pre-Iraq "authorization of the use of force" is just as valid as a post Pearl Harbor formal declaration.

That doesn't mean that what the GOP Senate is doing is justified or that it's not based upon anything other than what "suits their personal preferences" as you say. Politicians tend to rationalize things all the time to suit those personal preferences, see voting down Bork on purely ideological grounds or NJ Democrats completely crapping on the laws to remove a losing Toricelli from his Senate bid to replace him with Lautenberg. If there ain't a law against it both sides do what helps them, if they can convince a judge that the law isn't fair they'll say ah heck the law to get their way.

Supreme Court justices had been voted down on a number of occasions on ideological grounds before Bork, so that wasn't new at all, btw.

I agree that parties can disregard norms when it is to their advantage but I do not think this disregard has been symmetric in recent years. Especially when we consider a governing body with as few actual rules as the Senate, a rampant disregard of governing norms seriously threatens its ability to function as intended.

 

[fskimospy]

Practiced, discussed, threatened, who gives a shit. Your guys set the rules.

You said it was codified in practice. Name the time it was practiced. If you can't then by your own logic it was never codified.

Game, set, match.

 

[thraashman]

Practiced, discussed, threatened, who gives a shit. Your guys set the rules.

So ... by that logic Trump is a murderer? He discussed in front of hundreds of witnesses that idea that he would go into the street and shoot someone and not lose supporters. So by your logic, if he talked about it then it's codified as a rule. So Trump, by your logic, is by rule a murderer.

Or can you just admit you're an idiot and support a bullshit idea for bullshit reasons because of bullshit beliefs?

 

[Blackjack200]

Don't know where you got that crap from, but there is nothing that says the senate has to have a vote on a certain nominee in a certain amount of time. There is nothing "unconstitutional" about them not voting on a candidate right now.

Sure, no requirement that they vote on a nominee within a year, or eight. Which is why:

I'm under no illusion that a GOP Senate will confirm or even consider a SCOTUS justice under Clinton. They will make some ridiculous claim about one of their manufactured scandals disqualifying her from nominating justices, and then let the SCOTUS dwindle to seven, then six justices. That's how bad the GOP and their constituents are right now.

If the Senate somehow flips, of course that's another story.

 

[glenn1]

Supreme Court justices had been voted down on a number of occasions on ideological grounds before Bork, so that wasn't new at all, btw.

I agree that parties can disregard norms when it is to their advantage but I do not think this disregard has been symmetric in recent years. Especially when we consider a governing body with as few actual rules as the Senate, a rampant disregard of governing norms seriously threatens its ability to function as intended.

Perception bias and recency bias are in play. Both sides have been twisting or abandoning rules to suit their temporary needs recently, see Harry Reed invoking a partial "nuclear option" recently. If you want to argue one side is doing it more or whatever be my guest but you're basically admitting they both play the same sport then even if the scoreboard may be temporarily favoring one side or the other because they've got the ball.

 

[fskimospy]

Perception bias and recency bias are in play. Both sides have been twisting or abandoning rules to suit their temporary needs recently, see Harry Reed invoking a partial "nuclear option" recently. If you want to argue one side is doing it more or whatever be my guest but you're basically admitting they both play the same sport then even if the scoreboard may be temporarily favoring one side or the other because they've got the ball.

Well that's the thing though, when Republicans didn't have the ball they violated the Senate's norms so egregiously that the nuclear option was inevitable. I think Reid's only mistake was not to completely remove the filibuster.

I would agree overall that governing norms in the Senate have been wearing away for the last few decades, but there is simply no precedent for what the Republican Senate minority/majority has been doing in recent years. If you think there is an equivalent to the misuse of the filibuster, the refusal to staff the executive branch, and the total embargo of SCOTUS nominations I'd be genuinely interested to hear it.

To me it seems the answer is pretty clear. Both sides do it to some extent, but one has been far, far worse during the last decade.

 

[PokerGuy]

To me it seems the answer is pretty clear. Both sides do it to some extent, but one has been far, far worse during the last decade.

You're assuming of course that the senate operates in a vacuum. It doesn't. If more idiots get nominated to positions and the senate has to keep them out, then an increase in senate gyrations to keep idiots out is not a bad thing at all. It all needs to be viewed in context.

 

[fskimospy]

You're assuming of course that the senate operates in a vacuum. It doesn't. If more idiots get nominated to positions and the senate has to keep them out, then an increase in senate gyrations to keep idiots out is not a bad thing at all. It all needs to be viewed in context.

Do you actually think that the hand of the Republican party has been forced to filibuster appointments and other legislation at stratospheric levels by Obama nominating more 'idiots' than presidents before him? Seriously?

I mean, come on.

 

[TeeJay1952]

Don't know where you got that crap from, but there is nothing that says the senate has to have a vote on a certain nominee in a certain amount of time. There is nothing "unconstitutional" about them not voting on a candidate right now.

So the defence is arguing about what "now" means?(Feb -next Jan is not "now) Or is now Obama is in charge? The other one (Biden Rule) being bandied about is not a rule. If you think something is reprehensible it seems you feel a obligation to duplicate it.If something was wrong, we aspire to do better not replicate. Someone tell Trump: "We are the good guys!"

 

[LegendKiller]

So ... by that logic Trump is a murderer? He discussed in front of hundreds of witnesses that idea that he would go into the street and shoot someone and not lose supporters. So by your logic, if he talked about it then it's codified as a rule. So Trump, by your logic, is by rule a murderer.

Or can you just admit you're an idiot and support a bullshit idea for bullshit reasons because of bullshit beliefs?

No more so than obama and others being murderers for saying cops are racist or jumping to conclusions about travon and others. We can keep going all day.

 

[PokerGuy]

Do you actually think that the hand of the Republican party has been forced to filibuster appointments and other legislation at stratospheric levels by Obama nominating more 'idiots' than presidents before him? Seriously?

I mean, come on.

Yes, not just nominating idiots. The senate has had to do a lot more to fend off all sorts of terrible ideas, bad legislation, executive power grabs (like him trying to pretend the senate was out of session etc), terrible nominations and so forth.

 

[PokerGuy]

So the defence is arguing about what "now" means?(Feb -next Jan is not "now)

I'm saying it can't be "unconstitutional" for them not to put it up for a vote if there is no constitutional requirement for them to vote. They are required to provide advice and consent, but there's nothing that says how quickly they have to do so.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, not just nominating idiots. The senate has had to do a lot more to fend off all sorts of terrible ideas, bad legislation, executive power grabs (like him trying to pretend the senate was out of session etc), terrible nominations and so forth.

You're actually arguing that the number of filibusters per session doubled immediately upon Obama coming into office because what the Democrats were trying to do was so uniquely terrible and so much worse than every other president in all of US history that a party operating by the norms of the Senate in the past would have done the same thing?

I find that to be laughable.

 

[dank69]

I'm saying it can't be "unconstitutional" for them not to put it up for a vote if there is no constitutional requirement for them to vote. They are required to provide advice and consent, but there's nothing that says how quickly they have to do so.

Then they never have to put it up for a vote and putting that line in the Constitution was a stupid thing for our forefathers to do.

 

[thraashman]

No more so than obama and others being murderers for saying cops are racist or jumping to conclusions about travon and others. We can keep going all day.

Even among posts from you, this one is stupid and doesn't follow along with the logic you were using.

 

[fskimospy]

Then they never have to put it up for a vote and putting that line in the Constitution was a stupid thing for our forefathers to do.

Sure was stupid of them, haha.

 

[dank69]

Sure was stupid of them, haha.

It's a really great logical line of thinking by whoever PokerGuy is parroting. Nobody in our government has to do anything that doesn't have a specific time limit attached to it. I guess Obama never has to sign a bill that comes to him after his veto is overridden.

 

[fskimospy]

It's a really great logical line of thinking by whoever PokerGuy is parroting. Nobody in our government has to do anything that doesn't have a specific time limit attached to it. I guess Obama never has to sign a bill that comes to him after his veto is overridden.

He doesn't, actually. In fact the Constitution has a provision for the president refusing to sign or veto something, which is that after 10 days it becomes a law anyway even without his signature. Similarly if his veto is overridden it becomes law without his signature.

The Senate doesn't have to do anything with Obama's nominees if it doesn't want to. Now you might think that the Senate SHOULD want to do things with his nominees because having a well functioning country should be their top priority. It all makes a lot more sense when you realize that isn't their top priority though, haha.

 

[Phynaz]

I guess Obama never has to sign a bill that comes to him after his veto is overridden.

Did you think any president has to sign something after their veto is overridden?

Are you not aware there's nothing to sign, once the veto is overridden the bill becomes law?

If you don't have a grade school education in US Govt. maybe you should stop posting about politics.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, not just nominating idiots. The senate has had to do a lot more to fend off all sorts of terrible ideas, bad legislation, executive power grabs (like him trying to pretend the senate was out of session etc), terrible nominations and so forth.

You poor sad fool. Isn't it natural that you wouldn't see it's the modern American conservative who has become sick. The world is moving on and everything you stand for is dying. You belong to the party of the fear of death through change which is a terrible idea since change itself is what is accelerating. More and more everything you cling to in order to create value in life for your ego is disappearing and nothing can stop that from happening. It takes an ever shortening period of time now to become a dinosaur. The tighter you cling and the more you fight, the greater your fall will be. Say goodbye to yourself and everything you believe. Trust me, the water is fine.

 

[Blackjack200]

Did you think any president has to sign something after their veto is overridden?

Are you not aware there's nothing to sign, once the veto is overridden the bill becomes law?

If you don't have a grade school education in US Govt. maybe you should stop posting about politics.

What's your point? That someone misunderstood a fine point of the mechanics of the federal legislative process or that Obama has no obstructive tactics available to him similar in nature to the senate simply refusing to provide advice and consent?

Because I guarantee you he does. Are you going to argue Dank's point or plant your flag on a pedantic victory and ignore the rest of the discussion?

 

[glenn1]

What's your point? That someone misunderstood a fine point of the mechanics of the federal legislative process or that Obama has no obstructive tactics available to him similar in nature to the senate simply refusing to provide advice and consent?

Because I guarantee you he does. Are you going to argue Dank's point or plant your flag on a pedantic victory and ignore the rest of the discussion?

There's something to be said about the cunning use of flags.