tgb wrote:The American public has already had a say. Twice. This is the worst unconstitutional Republican obstructionism ever. Is there a time limit? If When Hillary is elected will they be able to say "No hearings until after the next election 4 years from now"?
Although Judge Judy as a member of SCOTUS would be awesome
Of course they will be able to say that, and they will have the same interest in doing so that they do now. The only question is whether the political cost of leaving a vacancy for 4 years is too high, and I'm not sure if it is.
Now, by the same token I expect that if the GOP won the presidency but lost the Senate (which is unlikely, but theoretically possible), the democrats would probably refuse to confirm any Rubio / Trump / Cruz nominee.
I'm not so sure. I'd have to see more evidence that the Dems are capable of full blown obstructionism versus simple delay tactics. They just don't seem to hate enough to warrant that level of effort.
GreenGoo wrote:I'm not so sure. I'd have to see more evidence that the Dems are capable of full blown obstructionism versus simple delay tactics. They just don't seem to hate enough to warrant that level of effort.
It's not a certainty, and I don't know for sure whether the democrats would do what the Republicans are now doing if the situations were reversed. BUT in this scenario, where they have an opening for a liberal Supreme Court majority that's obstructed for a full year then President Cruz wants to fill it with a right-wing jurist? I think democrats and their voting base would collectively lose their minds, and in that fact pattern I would be surprised to see a Cruz nominee get confirmed.
GreenGoo wrote:I'm not so sure. I'd have to see more evidence that the Dems are capable of full blown obstructionism versus simple delay tactics. They just don't seem to hate enough to warrant that level of effort.
It's not a certainty, and I don't know for sure whether the democrats would do what the Republicans are now doing if the situations were reversed. BUT in this scenario, where they have an opening for a liberal Supreme Court majority that's obstructed for a full year then President Cruz wants to fill it with a right-wing jurist? I think democrats and their voting base would collectively lose their minds, and in that fact pattern I would be surprised to see a Cruz nominee get confirmed.
Yet, you think it is crazy to be just as opposed to allowing that liberal majority.
Actually a SCOTUS deadlocked at 4-4 may not be the worst situation. The staus quo is not too onerous, and not a lot of crazyness would ensue. But what happens when the next justice falls by the wayside...
GreenGoo wrote:I'm not so sure. I'd have to see more evidence that the Dems are capable of full blown obstructionism versus simple delay tactics. They just don't seem to hate enough to warrant that level of effort.
It's not a certainty, and I don't know for sure whether the democrats would do what the Republicans are now doing if the situations were reversed. BUT in this scenario, where they have an opening for a liberal Supreme Court majority that's obstructed for a full year then President Cruz wants to fill it with a right-wing jurist? I think democrats and their voting base would collectively lose their minds, and in that fact pattern I would be surprised to see a Cruz nominee get confirmed.
It depends on the level of compromise each side is willing to make. If Cruz was able to bring himself to nominate someone closer to center, I can see Dems supporting the nominee. In this case we've got many people stating they will delay to the ends of the earth before they even know who the nominee is. That's...a lot of anger. Or something.
GreenGoo wrote:I'm not so sure. I'd have to see more evidence that the Dems are capable of full blown obstructionism versus simple delay tactics. They just don't seem to hate enough to warrant that level of effort.
To be fair, the Dems absolutely did it during the last go around. And the Republicans at the time said all of the same things that the Democrats are saying now. It's like no one realizes that we have it all on video.
In the mid-2000s it was Democrats holding up judicial appointments (albeit not Supreme that I recall) due to ideological bullshit. And Republicans cried about how it's the President's job to fill these vacancies. Now Republicans want to hold up judicial appointments (Supreme) due to ideological bullshit. And Democrats are crying about it.
Part of me says "maybe you should have thought about the rather obvious consequences of your party's actions a decade ago?". Part of my wants to point out what hypocritical assholes Republicans are for whining 10 years ago, and now suddenly it's the most righteous strategy in the land.
Stop acting like fucking toddlers and do your fucking jobs (to both sides).
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
Just wait until Trump gets elected and reverts to the liberal ideology he's espoused for most of his life and a Republican Senate is stuck rejecting the Republican president's nominees.
I'm able to laugh because I'll be on Mars as previously mentioned.
GreenGoo wrote:I'm not so sure. I'd have to see more evidence that the Dems are capable of full blown obstructionism versus simple delay tactics. They just don't seem to hate enough to warrant that level of effort.
To be fair, the Dems absolutely did it during the last go around. And the Republicans at the time said all of the same things that the Democrats are saying now. It's like no one realizes that we have it all on video.
I was/am certainly open to the possibility, and if as you say it has already happened, then ok. I expect politicians to ignore facts when they complain, but I'm slightly appalled at all the talk here on OO about how "mean" the Reps have been to Obama, if as you say, Dems were just as "mean" to Bush.
Given that 9/11 allowed for some bipartisan actions, I just don't remember it that way. It's possible I missed it or have forgotten.
In any case, you're specifically talking about Judge appointments. In the Dems case were they just delaying, or did they put their foot down and refuse to participate? As I mentioned, everyone is going to delay as part of politics. When I talk about obstruction, I'm talking about unreasonably long periods of inactivity. How long were the Dems holding their breath? A delay of nearly a year for a new SCOTUS judge seems unreasonably long, imo. Doing it for 4 years as El Guapo suggests might be possible is unfathomable.
Last edited by GreenGoo on Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RunningMn9 wrote:
Stop acting like fucking toddlers and do your fucking jobs (to both sides).
The problem (with the system, really) is that Republicans *are* doing their fucking jobs. They were elected to advance right-leaning / conservative ideas and policies, and that's exactly what they're doing by refusing to confirm any Obama nominee. And Obama's doing his fucking job by moving ahead with nominating someone.
While there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides, it's not true that the Democrats were just as obstructionist as the Republicans are now. Bush's Tax Cuts, the Patriot Act, the Iraq war vote, No Child Left Behind all come to mind as counterexamples of that, as does the number of presidential nominees that were filibustered.
Defiant wrote:While there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides, it's not true that the Democrats were just as obstructionist as the Republicans are now. Bush's Tax Cuts, the Patriot Act, the Iraq war vote, No Child Left Behind all come to mind as counterexamples of that, as does the number of presidential nominees that were filibustered.
Patriot act is a poor example. Both sides are in love with it.
"Put the politics aside," the president urged in the video. "Put our national security first. Pass the USA Freedom Act -- now. And let's protect the security and civil liberties of every American."
I guess strategically, nominating Sandoval might embarrass the GOP even more for stonewalling one of their own, but the left would likely throw an unholy fit about it. Even though Sandoval is moderate and left-leaning on some issues, nominating him would once again seem like Obama trying to "compromise" in the face of intransigence, which hasn't always been viewed favorably by Democrats. It also makes it seem like he's rewarding the GOP for their obstructionism.
I'm going to guess that Defiant is right and this is one of those leaked stories to make the actual moderate nominee seem more palatable.
Captain Caveman wrote:I guess strategically, nominating Sandoval might embarrass the GOP even more for stonewalling one of their own, but the left would likely throw an unholy fit about it. Even though Sandoval is moderate and left-leaning on some issues, nominating him would once again seem like Obama trying to "compromise" in the face of intransigence, which hasn't always been viewed favorably by Democrats. It also makes it seem like he's rewarding the GOP for their obstructionism.
I'm going to guess that Defiant is right and this is one of those leaked stories to make the actual moderate nominee seem more palatable.
Or to make the GOP look even more obstructionist in the view of the public, since the GOP leadership has already said they wouldn't give Sandoval a hearing either. One can imagine Obama giving a speech where he says "we've looked at every qualified candidate, Democrat and Republican, and the GOP says they won't even hold a hearing even on a Republican nominee!"
But I'm inclined to agree that actually picking Sandoval probably wouldn't work so well politically.
Captain Caveman wrote:
I'm going to guess that Defiant is right and this is one of those leaked stories to make the actual moderate nominee seem more palatable.
Well, as much as I'd like the credit, I'm pretty sure I stole the idea from an episode of the West Wing.
GreenGoo wrote:In any case, you're specifically talking about Judge appointments. In the Dems case were they just delaying, or did they put their foot down and refuse to participate?
Read about the Gang of 14. You'll recall terms like the "nuclear option" and stupid bullshit like that. It was slightly different because the Dems weren't the majority party in the Senate. They were using filibuster threats to block votes on nominees.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
El Guapo wrote:The problem (with the system, really) is that Republicans *are* doing their fucking jobs. They were elected to advance right-leaning / conservative ideas and policies, and that's exactly what they're doing by refusing to confirm any Obama nominee. And Obama's doing his fucking job by moving ahead with nominating someone.
Their job title is "US Senator". That they interpret their job title as "Republican US Senator" and "Democratic President" is the problem with the system. Do you job within the context of your ideology.
Doing their job can be satisfied by voting "No" on a judicial nominee. Refusing to hold confirmation hearings or even allow a vote - that's refusing to do your job. Avoiding this fight by not even making a nomination - that's refusing to do your job.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
GreenGoo wrote:In any case, you're specifically talking about Judge appointments. In the Dems case were they just delaying, or did they put their foot down and refuse to participate?
Read about the Gang of 14. You'll recall terms like the "nuclear option" and stupid bullshit like that. It was slightly different because the Dems weren't the majority party in the Senate. They were using filibuster threats to block votes on nominees.
Thanks. I didn't see much detail about the problem, with most of the article covering the solution. Still it must have been pretty bad to warrant party betrayals on both sides of the aisle.
Members of the worldwide, male-only society wear dark-green robes emblazoned with a large cross and the motto “Deum Diligite Animalia Diligentes,” which means “Honoring God by honoring His creatures,”
By shooting birds out of the sky? Sounds about right.
Members of the worldwide, male-only society wear dark-green robes emblazoned with a large cross and the motto “Deum Diligite Animalia Diligentes,” which means “Honoring God by honoring His creatures,”
By shooting birds out of the sky? Sounds about right.
I had to lookup what a "boxed bird shoot competition" was... doesn't seem to involve any sky.
El Guapo wrote:The problem (with the system, really) is that Republicans *are* doing their fucking jobs. They were elected to advance right-leaning / conservative ideas and policies, and that's exactly what they're doing by refusing to confirm any Obama nominee. And Obama's doing his fucking job by moving ahead with nominating someone.
Their job title is "US Senator". That they interpret their job title as "Republican US Senator" and "Democratic President" is the problem with the system. Do you job within the context of your ideology.
Doing their job can be satisfied by voting "No" on a judicial nominee. Refusing to hold confirmation hearings or even allow a vote - that's refusing to do your job. Avoiding this fight by not even making a nomination - that's refusing to do your job.
Obama's going to make a nomination, so you can rest easy on that.
As for the rest - I take it that you would be satisfied that the Senate was doing their job if they held hearings and then voted every nominee down until 2017?
El Guapo wrote:
As for the rest - I take it that you would be satisfied that the Senate was doing their job if they held hearings and then voted every nominee down until 2017?
I would be. It's like saying "I'm going to filibuster this entire thing and we both know it so why make me go through the hardwork of actual filibustering? Let's just both say I'm doing it and then we can both go home to our families in time for dinner".
The last thing I want is to make it easier for politicians to not do their jobs.
El Guapo wrote:
As for the rest - I take it that you would be satisfied that the Senate was doing their job if they held hearings and then voted every nominee down until 2017?
I would be. It's like saying "I'm going to filibuster this entire thing and we both know it so why make me go through the hardwork of actual filibustering? Let's just both say I'm doing it and then we can both go home to our families in time for dinner".
The last thing I want is to make it easier for politicians to not do their jobs.
I wonder if the meta bet for the Republicans is that it is less damaging for them to simply say "We won't consider your nominee" than to say "Sure we'll accept him, but then vote him down". Because not accepting a nominee might mean Obama only gets to submit one candidate, whereas letting the process continue might mean having to vote down multiple candidates.
El Guapo wrote:
As for the rest - I take it that you would be satisfied that the Senate was doing their job if they held hearings and then voted every nominee down until 2017?
I would be. It's like saying "I'm going to filibuster this entire thing and we both know it so why make me go through the hardwork of actual filibustering? Let's just both say I'm doing it and then we can both go home to our families in time for dinner".
The last thing I want is to make it easier for politicians to not do their jobs.
I wonder if the meta bet for the Republicans is that it is less damaging for them to simply say "We won't consider your nominee" than to say "Sure we'll accept him, but then vote him down". Because not accepting a nominee might mean Obama only gets to submit one candidate, whereas letting the process continue might mean having to vote down multiple candidates.
I read an article yesterday that argued that not holding hearings is the right call (politically) for McConnell, because if you pretend to consider the nominee, then all of the presidential candidates have to take positions on that nominee and give reasons, and that will cause more media attention. And on top of that by doing this the critical focus is on McConnell and not on the presidential candidates.
El Guapo wrote:As for the rest - I take it that you would be satisfied that the Senate was doing their job if they held hearings and then voted every nominee down until 2017?
Their job isn't to vote "Yes".
Their job is to hold confirmation hearings. Their job is to vote. If they vote "No", that is their choice.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
El Guapo wrote:As for the rest - I take it that you would be satisfied that the Senate was doing their job if they held hearings and then voted every nominee down until 2017?
Their job isn't to vote "Yes".
Their job is to hold confirmation hearings. Their job is to vote. If they vote "No", that is their choice.
It's generally implicit in the whole hearing process that the people conducting the hearing are at least considering how they should vote and are actually looking to confirm some nominee. If they are already decided to confirm no nominee no matter who it is, I don't see a real difference in terms of them "doing their job" between no hearings and hearings where they pantomime an actual hearing but know they're not going to vote yes on anyone. If anything, the former is saving taxpayer money and people's time.
Of course, they should hold hearings and actually consider and then confirm a nominee. But that's not in the cards.
El Guapo wrote:It's generally implicit in the whole hearing process that the people conducting the hearing are at least considering how they should vote and are actually looking to confirm some nominee. If they are already decided to confirm no nominee no matter who it is, I don't see a real difference in terms of them "doing their job" between no hearings and hearings where they pantomime an actual hearing but know they're not going to vote yes on anyone. If anything, the former is saving taxpayer money and people's time.
Of course, they should hold hearings and actually consider and then confirm a nominee. But that's not in the cards.
Obviously, when I say "Do your fucking job", it's implicit that I mean that they should do their fucking job, which is to provide advice and consent the President for judicial nominees.
I obviously don't really mean to set up a sham of a process where Senators are sitting there playing Candy Crush because they've already decided to vote no. However, I would rather they hold confirmation hearings - which are usually televised (thus applying pressure to actually do their fucking jobs to avoid looking like assholes) - and actually hold a vote. The mechanics of doing that, and creating the Congressional record of doing that, apply pressure. ESPECIALLY when it's a nominee that you already confirmed to a federal court.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
El Guapo wrote:It's generally implicit in the whole hearing process that the people conducting the hearing are at least considering how they should vote and are actually looking to confirm some nominee. If they are already decided to confirm no nominee no matter who it is, I don't see a real difference in terms of them "doing their job" between no hearings and hearings where they pantomime an actual hearing but know they're not going to vote yes on anyone. If anything, the former is saving taxpayer money and people's time.
Of course, they should hold hearings and actually consider and then confirm a nominee. But that's not in the cards.
Obviously, when I say "Do your fucking job", it's implicit that I mean that they should do their fucking job, which is to provide advice and consent the President for judicial nominees.
I obviously don't really mean to set up a sham of a process where Senators are sitting there playing Candy Crush because they've already decided to vote no. However, I would rather they hold confirmation hearings - which are usually televised (thus applying pressure to actually do their fucking jobs to avoid looking like assholes) - and actually hold a vote. The mechanics of doing that, and creating the Congressional record of doing that, apply pressure. ESPECIALLY when it's a nominee that you already confirmed to a federal court.
But this is getting back to my basic point. I definitely want the Senate to consider and then confirm a reasonable (which mainly here means qualified) nominee. But all of this is working under the assumption that Obama's going to nominate a candidate who generally shares his legal / political / etc. framework and philosophy. That framework / philosophy is so entirely different from Obama's that there is almost certainly no nominee on which Obama and the Senate majority has common ground. If Obama were to nominate Cruz, I would bet a lot of money that McConnell would revisit his no hearings philosophy with a quickness.
As a result, essentially any nominee selected by Obama is going to result in Supreme Court decisions for years that would have enormously negative public policy consequences from the perspective of the Senate majority. As a result a lot of regulations and policies would go into effect that the Senate majority would never vote for in a million years. And again, the senators in question were elected to enact good laws and public policies (defined by their views which they presumably campaigned on).
I am pretty sure that Congress has periodically refused to enact laws solely or primarily for the purpose of denying the President an achievement - obstruction for obstruction's sake. But this isn't that - this is obstruction for purposes of advancing what they view as good public policy. That's what I mean when I say that, as much as I really really want them to actually consider reasonable Obama nominees, this is kind of doing the jobs that they were elected to do.
Which gets back to my frustrations with our constitutional system and its lack of a mechanism to adjudicate disagreements among branches of government (and general lack of a means of effecting majority will).
El Guapo wrote:It's generally implicit in the whole hearing process that the people conducting the hearing are at least considering how they should vote and are actually looking to confirm some nominee. If they are already decided to confirm no nominee no matter who it is, I don't see a real difference in terms of them "doing their job" between no hearings and hearings where they pantomime an actual hearing but know they're not going to vote yes on anyone. If anything, the former is saving taxpayer money and people's time.
Of course, they should hold hearings and actually consider and then confirm a nominee. But that's not in the cards.
Obviously, when I say "Do your fucking job", it's implicit that I mean that they should do their fucking job, which is to provide advice and consent the President for judicial nominees.
I obviously don't really mean to set up a sham of a process where Senators are sitting there playing Candy Crush because they've already decided to vote no. However, I would rather they hold confirmation hearings - which are usually televised (thus applying pressure to actually do their fucking jobs to avoid looking like assholes) - and actually hold a vote. The mechanics of doing that, and creating the Congressional record of doing that, apply pressure. ESPECIALLY when it's a nominee that you already confirmed to a federal court.
But this is getting back to my basic point. I definitely want the Senate to consider and then confirm a reasonable (which mainly here means qualified) nominee. But all of this is working under the assumption that Obama's going to nominate a candidate who generally shares his legal / political / etc. framework and philosophy. That framework / philosophy is so entirely different from Obama's that there is almost certainly no nominee on which Obama and the Senate majority has common ground. If Obama were to nominate Cruz, I would bet a lot of money that McConnell would revisit his no hearings philosophy with a quickness.
May I present exhibit A:
When Srinivasan was confirmed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2013, he became the first judge confirmed to that court since 2006, and the first of Obama's four nominations to that court.
He is the only Obama appointee to be confirmed unanimously. The Senate voted 97-0 in his favor after the Judiciary Committee approved his nomination 18-0. For comparison, Obama's three other nominees were approved along party lines.
Presumably the reason why Srinivasan received a unanimous vote is because both parties judged that his framework and philosophy was compatible or at least not damaging to the party's framework and philosophy. Yet even mention of his name does not get the current crop of Republicans to change their mind on the 'no consideration' routine. Did something change to the Republican party framework when I wasn't looking?
As I recall the GOP *did* seriously fight Obama's nominations to the DC Circuit, as those similarly threatened (and did) take it from a conservative to a liberal majority. But the difference there is that at the time the democrats had a Senate majority, so they could ultimately get their way by eliminating the filibuster (which they eventually did for judicial nominees below the Supreme Court).
I don't know why Srinivasan got a unanimous vote while the others were on party lines, but if the GOP could have simply blocked all of them and leave it at that (i.e. if they had taken the Senate in 2012) you can bet that he and the others would not have been confirmed.
So that's the answer going forward? From now on, no President can nominate a federal justice unless his party controls the Senate? Because that's where this is headed.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
Nah - only within a year of the next Presidential election - how isn't that reasonable? A system where 25-30% of the time you can't do a basic constitutional function seems pretty well oiled.
RunningMn9 wrote:So that's the answer going forward? From now on, no President can nominate a federal justice unless his party controls the Senate? Because that's where this is headed.
Yes, that is exactly where this is headed. I mean, strictly speaking that's where we are right now, but I fully expect that to be the norm going forward, at least at the Supreme Court level (and probably at the circuit level), at least where the partisan majority of the court is at stake. The Senate would probably (though not certainly) let the President replace a justice of the same party at least during a non-presidential election year (e.g., if Ginsburg had died / resigned last year).
That's the problem. Our governing system's functionality rests upon norms of behavior which often call for people to act against their political / philosophical self-interests, and those norms are all dying over time.
'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it', a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong
What do we do? If feels like we're begging for a single branch of government, like Congress (and perhaps the populace that elect them) is searching for an emperor.
