[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The Senate has a constitutional duty to "advise and consent" when it comes to all Presidential appointees. That does not mean "ignore unless appointed by a POTUS of the same party". If the will of the Senate is to vote against a Presidential appointee for whatever reason ... even because it's Tuesday ... then so be it. That is within the Constitutional rights of the Senate as a co-equal branch of the federal government. But for the Majority Leader to obstruct the will of the Senate as a body ... precisely because he didn't have the votes to block the appointment only the power to prevent the vote from even coming to the floor ... that is without question a subversion of the constitutional process.

They didn’t have the votes to block the appointment? There were 54 Republicans in the Senate at the time. Which ones were defectors?

Edit: I would also say that a rote dismissal of any candidate nominated by the opposing party is indeed subversion of the constitution, however I posit had Obama offered Gorsuch the GOP would have taken it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Might makes Right. Got it - Dems should repeal the filibuster, and steamroll everything while they're in power. No apologies or compromises needed - they have the power, use it.

note: there is that whole thing about "what goes around comes around". Or how sweet paybacks are. Sound like a government you want to live under?

Before we move onto the filibuster, there’s still the question of with whom does the onus to compromise lie.

Did not McConnell hold all the cards? If so, why is the onus on him to compromise and not Obama? In what other situation does this dynamic exist and the expectation is compromise from the party holding all the cards?

[reader50]

The Constitution gives appointment power to the President. If McConnell will only consider choices he offers, he's effectively demanding the appointment power. "We'll only consider people that we would have nominated" is the same as demanding the nominating power. Rather, the Senate reviews Presidential nominations and approves or disapproves them.

McConnell should have at least held a hearing for the nominees. Does the Constitution need an amendment to define a time limit to schedule a hearing?

A compromise is somewhere-in-the-middle. All-one-way is dictating the result. The Constitution is specifically designed with checks and balances, so no one has all the power. What McConnell did is not consistent with our government design, or "original intent", which conservative judges go on about.

If Reps will not work with good faith without excessive rules forcing normal political behavior like compromises, then I'm in favor of Dems doing the same. Stick it to one, then stick it to the other. Happy days ahead for us all.

[subego]

At least with a Supreme Court nominee, no question the Democrats should do the same should they land themselves in the same position. They’d be fools not to.

I agree a unified Senate majority has de facto control over the nomination process. Whether this usurps checks and balances depends upon whether the Constitution provides the President tools to disrupt the opposition’s unity.

I argue it does. The President’s veto power comes to mind. All Obama had to do was pick-off three wobbly Senators by promising not to veto their pet bill.

Did Obama even try this? If not, I have trouble reconciling an outright refusal to come to the table with the label “compromise”.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

McConnell should have at least held a hearing for the nominees.

Doing this for a preordained “no” vote is a waste of everybody’s time.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

Doing this for a preordained “no” vote is a waste of everybody’s time.

Disagree. Where checks and balances are not otherwise defined, it's up to the voters and the press (the 4th branch) to see who's doing their jobs and how well. It's not an accident that Trump attacked the press every other day. What if Joseph McCarthy's Red Scare hearings had all been handled off-the-record, and the public hadn't seen where the witch hunts were going? People being prosecuted because of their opinions, without evidence of any actual crimes.

Had hearings been held, it would be on the record why the nominees were refused. If the reasons turn out to be partisan BS, the voters can address that (or not) in subsequent elections. With no hearing, there's nothing on the record, especially not politicians facing re-election campaigns.

[subego]

I don’t need a hearing to know the reason Garland was refused was a combination of him not being conservative enough and Obama refusing to give action to get action.

[reader50]

Perhaps other voters do need that hearing. My impression is that you research political matters far more than most voters.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don’t need a hearing to know the reason Garland was refused

It's not for you.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

What if Joseph McCarthy's Red Scare hearings had all been handled off-the-record, and the public hadn't seen where the witch hunts were going?

Are not the prospects of what one can accomplish with a closed-door hearing inherently far greater than what one can accomplish with the absence of a hearing?

I don’t consider these two things to be comparable.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

It's not for you.

Who is it for then?

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Perhaps other voters do need that hearing. My impression is that you research political matters far more than most voters.

I posit those people wouldn’t actually watch the hearing and would instead parrot whatever the press tells them, which is what they did anyways.

[reader50]

Your argument seems to be going towards the skeptic position that "we shouldn't even try". Such a position is self-fulfilling; not trying will always result in failure. Trying, even in seemingly hopeless situations, still succeeds sometimes.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Who is it for then?

People that are swayed by theater and sound bites, which seems to be enough swing voters to make a difference.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Trying, even in seemingly hopeless situations, still succeeds sometimes.

Try what?

That’s not sarcasm or rhetoric. I’m genuinely not sure what specific thing you’re referring to trying. Trying to get Garland nominated by having a hearing? Trying to have a hearing?

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

Try what?

Try having the hearing(s), even if the results are fore-ordained. Let the press report on it as they will, and let voters tune in or out as they choose. And vote in subsequent elections based on their opinions on what they've paid attention to, or not.

Try and let the system work, to inform voters if they choose to be informed. By not having hearings, the press can only report an absence of data, and voters can only pay attention to (or ignore) an absence of data. Either way, it amounts to less-informed voters. By having the hearing(s), at least some people will be more informed.

[subego]

Let me try a different angle.

If the President is in back-and-forth negotiations with a Senate majority over a seat on Supreme Court, which of the following options makes more sense?

1) They go back and forth until both sides are satisfied and then have a hearing.

2) They hold a hearing on every single offer the President makes, even if that offer was already rejected.

Is not option 2 a massive waste of time and resources?



Edit: I don’t recall Harriet Miers getting a hearing.

[reader50]

To my knowledge, Obama made only the one SCOTUS nomination. I don't know how many "offers" were made behind the scenes, and I don't think there are ever pre-nomination hearings. The massive inconvenience of holding one hearing for one nominee isn't all that inconvenient. There were other nominations (Postal Board, lesser Judges) that the Senate ignored too. Did Obama make an excessive number of nominations, more than most Presidents did in 8 years? Are Senators not paid for their time?

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

To my knowledge, Obama made only the one SCOTUS nomination.

Yes.

The negotiations open and Obama offers Garland. This offer is rejected for not being conservative enough. Obama responds by walking away from the table. The negotiations end in failure.

That’s it. That’s the entire story. That’s what an informed voter needs to know. It doesn’t require a hearing because it’s really not that complicated.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This offer is rejected

Restate without passive voice.

[subego]

How’s about “[t]he Senate majority rejects the offer for not…”?

I was honestly just trying to keep the word count down.

[Laminar]

And have we accumulated the requisite sounds bites and virtue signals to feed the next election cycle?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

And have we accumulated the requisite sounds bites and virtue signals to feed the next election cycle?

Originally Posted by reader50 

Try and let the system work.

Originally Posted by reader50 

What if Joseph McCarthy's Red Scare hearings had all been handled off-the-record

Originally Posted by reader50 

What McConnell did is not consistent with our government design

Originally Posted by OAW 

that is without question a subversion of the constitutional process.

Originally Posted by reader50 

Might makes Right. Got it

Yes.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

They didn’t have the votes to block the appointment? There were 54 Republicans in the Senate at the time. Which ones were defectors?

Edit: I would also say that a rote dismissal of any candidate nominated by the opposing party is indeed subversion of the constitution, however I posit had Obama offered Gorsuch the GOP would have taken it.

"Defectors" in what sense? 29 GOP flat out refused to consider the nomination while Obama remained in office. So in that sense there were 25 "defectors". As for voting for confirmation if all 46 DEMS voted in favor then then only 14 GOP moderates would have been needed to confirm a decidedly moderate nominee in an election year. Susan Collins was on board for one. And there were surely others who would have voted in favor if given the opportunity to do so ... in accordance with their own political interests in their state. Because if McConnell was confident he had the votes to defeat the Garland nomination with a straight up or down vote he would have done so and avoided all the political fallout.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

The negotiations open and Obama offers Garland. This offer is rejected for not being conservative enough. Obama responds by walking away from the table. The negotiations end in failure.

That’s it. That’s the entire story. That’s what an informed voter needs to know. It doesn’t require a hearing because it’s really not that complicated.

This is pure, unadulterated revisionist history.

Widely regarded as a moderate, Garland had been praised in the past by many Republicans, including influential senators such as Orrin Hatch of Utah.

But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

What Happened With Merrick Garland In 2016 And Why It Matters Now | NPR

There were no "negotiations" nor was Garland "rejected for not being conservative enough". McConnell publicly stated before a nominee was even announced that ANY Obama nomination ... which means regardless of political ideology ... would be considered "null and void". This is the same McConnell who told a crowd in Kentucky that "One of my proudest moments was when I looked at Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'" Your suggestion that Obama refused to compromise with someone who made it abundantly clear that he was not actually interested in a deal is a flat-out misreading of the historical record in an attempt to put the responsibility for McConnell's unprecedented behavior on Obama.

OAW

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

Who is it for then?

One of the principal ways democracy is accountable is by documentation and public record.

Even if it’s just pro forma.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

This is pure, unadulterated revisionist history.

Because it was safe to assume Obama wasn’t going to pick someone as right-wing as Scalia. An assumption which turned out correct.

If Obama had picked someone as right-wing as Scalia, you honestly think the Republicans would have turned that down because McConnell mouthed something off once?

It’s not unprecedented for politicians to go back on their word. This can be without any change in circumstances, let alone when circumstances conspire to drop the deal of the century in their lap.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

If Obama had picked someone as right-wing as Scalia, you honestly think the Republicans would have turned that down because McConnell mouthed something off once?

Absolutely! These are the same people who fought tooth and nail against Obamacare which was the REPUBLICAN alternative to Hillarycare which was being considered by the Clinton Administration. A private sector run approach straight out of the Heritage Foundation! And they opposed their own policy because Obama supported it. The Tea Party / MAGA crowd has proven time and time again that if Obama was in favor of breathing they would advocate for their “freedom” to hold their breath until they passed out. Because …. ‘Murica!!!

OAW

[subego]

McConnell is neither MAGA or Tea Party, and he’s very good at pushing his party around.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

McConnell is neither MAGA or Tea Party, and he’s very good at pushing his party around.

Fine.

Absolutely! These are the same people who fought tooth and nail against Obamacare which was the REPUBLICAN alternative to Hillarycare which was being considered by the Clinton Administration. A private sector run approach straight out of the Heritage Foundation! And they opposed their own policy because Obama supported it. The GOP has proven time and time again that if Obama was in favor of breathing they would advocate for their “freedom” to hold their breath until they passed out. Because …. ‘Murica!!!

OAW

Better? My point here is that McConnell doesn’t have to push his party around on this. They are quite united already when it comes to opposing all things Obama. Including their own policies.

OAW

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

Because it was safe to assume Obama wasn’t going to pick someone as right-wing as Scalia. An assumption which turned out correct.

If Obama had picked someone as right-wing as Scalia, you honestly think the Republicans would have turned that down because McConnell mouthed something off once?

I wouldn't be so sure.

At the moment, it sure looks like it's more important for the GOP to make the Democrats LOSE than to actually win, themselves.

They're almost literally burning down your democracy to prove it.

[subego]

I forget who it was, maybe Grassley, who said if Hillary won and the Senate flipped they’d ram Garland though.

Republicans are opportunists.

[Laminar]

"Republicans know how things really work."

"When it comes down to it, they can actually get something done."

"Democrats fall in love, but Republicans fall in line."

I don't know how you can look at the last 7ish years and still believe any of these things.

[subego]

Falsify the third.

[Laminar]

Trump/Biden.

Republicans fell in love. Democrats fell in line.

[subego]

I don’t want Trump to become President again for one single reason: it would cause too much psychological stress on my father.

Your falsification doesn’t give me much comfort.

I presume you don’t want Trump to become President. I genuinely, honestly and without an ounce of snark hope you find comfort in the idea fall in love/fall in line is a dead meme.

[Laminar]

Well, it (and other similar principles like I listed above) seem to stem from a base assumption you have that Republican politicians are these highly-strategic, loud-mouthed, but ultimately practical leaders that actually know how the world works and actually get things done and if we have to hurt a few feelings and stomp a few indigenous people to do it, then so be it, I'll take the heat. While Democrats are emotional, fluffy, idealistic, free-roving wisps in the wind that are just confused all of the time by all of the practical Realpolitik-ing of the Republicans.

This seems to color your analysis of actions Republicans take and when questioned, you'll fall back on your catchphrases as some kind of First Principle.

Your falsification doesn’t give me much comfort.

Because it doesn't make you happy or because you don't think it's a good falsification?

Trump is chaos, and chaos is bad governance, but Republican voters fell in love with all of his bullshit. Look around at all of the MAGA shirts, hats, stickers, and gear and tell me Republicans didn't fall head over heels for him. It's pure infatuation, and it was and still is chaos and hell for the Republican party.

Democrats nominated and came out in droves for Biden. Fucking Biden. The most white-bread milquetoast non-denominational great-great-great-great-grandpa in America, and everyone fell in line and decided, "Okay, if this is what we're doing, then I'll do it." Nobody was excited for Biden, but they fell in line.

[subego]

The first principle I operate under, which I have stated on many occasions in many different forms, and is something Republicans absolutely refuse to admit is the following:

Republicans have situational morals.

Republicans fall in line because situational morals allow for that behavior.

Republicans are better at “getting shit done” because situational morals make that easier.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Democrats are emotional, fluffy, idealistic, free-roving wisps in the wind that are just confused all of the time by all of the practical Realpolitik-ing of the Republicans.

Yes. With the qualifier practicality and realpolitik are both morally deficit, unlike the traits attributed to Democrats.

Yes. This moral deficit confuses Democrats. They don’t know what causes it, and fail to find the answer because they look in the wrong place.

Yes. In the arena of politics, one can use a moral deficit to great advantage against a less reproachable opponent.

[Laminar]

I think it's worth specifying whether you're talking about Republican strategists or Republican voters.

Republican strategists know that the words they're saying are total bullshit, but they are effective at driving narratives to shift power in their and their donor's favor.

Republican voters have no clue.

[subego]

This applies to all republicans, myself included.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This applies to all republicans, myself included.

Republican voters refuse to admit it because they don't believe it's true.

Republican strategists refuse to admit it because they don't want to pull back the curtain.

[subego]

What is “it”?

I was discussing morals.



Edit: to clarify, I was responding to the (perhaps unasked) question of who my statement on morals applies to. The answer is all republicans.

Who is and isn’t telling the truth isn’t really part of my claim.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Because it was safe to assume Obama wasn’t going to pick someone as right-wing as Scalia. An assumption which turned out correct.

If Obama had picked someone as right-wing as Scalia, you honestly think the Republicans would have turned that down because McConnell mouthed something off once?

It’s not unprecedented for politicians to go back on their word. This can be without any change in circumstances, let alone when circumstances conspire to drop the deal of the century in their lap.

I know I am a bit late, but let me enter the debate: Ultimately, the issue is whether you can run a society this way. If you scaled down this behavior to your personal life, e. g. at work or within your family, that'd be extremely toxic. “Technically, I told you the truth when I said I did not have an affair with Claire. (I had an affair with Beth.)” Not willing to accept short-term losses to be able to continue to play the long game is very problematic as it will eventually lead to a complete destabilization of the entire political system.

Just like you wouldn't permanently accept toxic people in your life, that will eventually lead to escalation. It'd be unhealthy to accommodate narcissists at the expense of yourself in the hope they will eventually see you are the bigger person.

Ditto for the lack of policy solutions to societal problems. Might work great in the short term, because you can campaign against Democrats, but society will lose as less and less conservative principles are put into federal laws. Instead, you pick fake fights like transgender people (first in bathrooms and then, when the former did not get enough traction, in sports) or previously abortion. Abortion no longer works, because the dog caught the car and the GOP is completely lost as they found out that even in solidly red states, there are very solid majorities in favor of abortion access.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

society will lose as less and less conservative principles are put into federal laws.

What I was replying to was McConnell’s claim he wouldn’t accept any Supreme Court nominee from Obama because it came from Obama.

Had Obama offered a candidate McConnell and his party truly found suitable, for them to reject them would be dumb, right?

If the conservatives offer a policy which liberals think would be to the benefit of society, rejecting it because it came from conservatives would be dumb, right?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

Had Obama offered a candidate McConnell and his party truly found suitable, for them to reject them would be dumb, right?

Most of the things Republicans are doing simply to get one up on the Democrats (a.k.a. "owning the libs", D.C. style), are incredibly dumb.

[subego]

Was it dumb for them to hold out for a more conservative Supreme Court appointment?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

Was it dumb for them to hold out for a more conservative Supreme Court appointment?

I'd argue that it reinforced a distrust and destroyed some of the basic assumptions about how democracy works (because it only does if everyone who participates has an interest in keeping it functioning), so yes.

But even if we were to agree that it was actually a Smart Move™, that's ONE thing against "most" things, as I wrote.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

What is “it”?

I was discussing morals.

Clarification:

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Republican voters refuse to admit they have situational morals because they don't believe it's true.

Republican strategists refuse to admit they have situational morals because they don't want to pull back the curtain.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

What I was replying to was McConnell’s claim he wouldn’t accept any Supreme Court nominee from Obama because it came from Obama.

Had Obama offered a candidate McConnell and his party truly found suitable, for them to reject them would be dumb, right?

If the conservatives offer a policy which liberals think would be to the benefit of society, rejecting it because it came from conservatives would be dumb, right?

https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/rep...ria-1513301526

Democrats care about what's being done. The actions are moral or immoral. Republicans care about who's doing it. The person is moral or immoral.