That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
But the current asserted rationale is an obvious fig leaf to disguise their current partisan interests. They'll just have to find a new fig leaf - Clinton is uniquely radical, her nominees are uniquely radical, the Supreme Court is better off being equally divided between the parties, etc. etc. It's not hard. And how many Republican voters are inclined to punish Republican elected officials for not confirming a democratic SCOTUS nominee?malchior wrote:I can't imagine it'll happen. They are at least paying lip service to the voters having a choice. If the voters choose and the Senate still does not budge then that will be a Caesar crossing the Rubicon moment.
Democrats would hold votes but refuse to confirm. That's at least nominally constitutional. (Also, I doubt that Trump would nominate fire-breathing conservatives, since he is not one himself.)El Guapo wrote:
Note, for what it's worth, I suspect this would also happen if somehow Trump won the presidency but democrats took the Senate.
I don't know. Polls suggest that people are already not happy about the Supreme nonsense. Most of the obstruction up until now has been mostly invisible but this Garland stuff has simply not been. And blocking all nominations for years? I think it'd be a tipping point. It would be far too public. I honestly think if they do it then it is finally Constitutional crisis time. I just don't see what that'd get them.El Guapo wrote:But the current asserted rationale is an obvious fig leaf to disguise their current partisan interests. They'll just have to find a new fig leaf - Clinton is uniquely radical, her nominees are uniquely radical, the Supreme Court is better off being equally divided between the parties, etc. etc. It's not hard. And how many Republican voters are inclined to punish Republican elected officials for not confirming a democratic SCOTUS nominee?malchior wrote:I can't imagine it'll happen. They are at least paying lip service to the voters having a choice. If the voters choose and the Senate still does not budge then that will be a Caesar crossing the Rubicon moment.
As Kraken said they'd at least hold the vote but they aren't as polarized and aren't even close to as radical. It'd have a different outcome probably. However that'd assume Drumpf is involved and it'd be some crazy impractical choice so not approving might be a possibly then. It's hard to look that far ahead. Drumpf messes up all predictions - he is pure chaos.Note, for what it's worth, I suspect this would also happen if somehow Drumpf won the presidency but democrats took the Senate.
Not the same scale by any means, but I had no idea NJ had a Supreme Court vacancy for six years -- that was just ended in April. That's insane!malchior wrote:And blocking all nominations for years? I think it'd be a tipping point. It would be far too public.
Yeah and it is a bit different. IiRC Christie teed up that by kicking a judge off shortly before he would retire anyway and then sought to buck custom and pack the court with a Republican nominee to push through some favorable decisions for himself. Ah Jersey. Also I think they just use a fill in if short so the court was staffed all along.Smoove_B wrote:Not the same scale by any means, but I had no idea NJ had a Supreme Court vacancy for six years -- that was just ended in April. That's insane!malchior wrote:And blocking all nominations for years? I think it'd be a tipping point. It would be far too public.
I haven't really seen any indication that Republicans are paying any significant price for their obstructionism so far. I am inclined to doubt that it would change all that much in 2017. But I could be wrong.malchior wrote:I don't know. Polls suggest that people are already not happy about the Supreme nonsense. Most of the obstruction up until now has been mostly invisible but this Garland stuff has simply not been. And blocking all nominations for years? I think it'd be a tipping point. It would be far too public. I honestly think if they do it then it is finally Constitutional crisis time. I just don't see what that'd get them.El Guapo wrote:But the current asserted rationale is an obvious fig leaf to disguise their current partisan interests. They'll just have to find a new fig leaf - Clinton is uniquely radical, her nominees are uniquely radical, the Supreme Court is better off being equally divided between the parties, etc. etc. It's not hard. And how many Republican voters are inclined to punish Republican elected officials for not confirming a democratic SCOTUS nominee?malchior wrote:I can't imagine it'll happen. They are at least paying lip service to the voters having a choice. If the voters choose and the Senate still does not budge then that will be a Caesar crossing the Rubicon moment.
As Kraken said they'd at least hold the vote but they aren't as polarized and aren't even close to as radical. It'd have a different outcome probably. However that'd assume Drumpf is involved and it'd be some crazy impractical choice so not approving might be a possibly then. It's hard to look that far ahead. Drumpf messes up all predictions - he is pure chaos.Note, for what it's worth, I suspect this would also happen if somehow Drumpf won the presidency but democrats took the Senate.
Looks like this (as well as some of the University's Academic Integrity) was bought and paid for by the Kochs:
Virginia’s largest public university granted the conservative Charles Koch Foundation a say in the hiring and firing of professors in exchange for millions of dollars in donations, according to newly released documents.
The release of donor agreements between George Mason University and the foundation follows years of denials by university administrators that Koch foundation donations inhibit academic freedom.
University President Angel Cabrera wrote a note to faculty Friday night saying the agreements “fall short of the standards of academic independence I expect any gift to meet.” The admission came three days after a judge scrutinized the university’s earlier refusal to release any documents.
The newly released agreements spell out million-dollar deals in which the Koch Foundation endows a fund to pay the salary of one or more professors at the university’s Mercatus Center, a free-market think tank. The agreements require creation of five-member selection committees to choose the professors, and grant the donors the right to name two of the committee members.
The Koch foundation enjoyed similar appointment rights to advisory boards that had the right under the agreements to recommend a professor’s firing if he failed to live up to standards.