‘Not completely unreasonable’ in the sense that in betraying his oath of office, his sworn duty, the Constitution and our republican form of government, he’s put party before country in exactly the same way he has ever since that Kenyan usurper first darkened the White House door.
The reason I said it's not completely unreasonable is because- apart from the fact that 3% of the US Senate is currently running for President and 33% of them are trying to keep their jobs, the US is the most politically polarized we've been since the Civil War, and a Presidential Election year isn't really the best time for the public to focus on something as important as a Supreme Court nominee.
The simpler explanation is usually the correct one. The GOP won’t allow this president to appoint the new Supreme Court justice because then they won’t get to. It’s party before country for the GOP. You can dress that up any way you want, the way you do above for instance, but it’s not going to be convincing.
Consider your explanation: Desperate electoral power struggles, reaching and keeping national office working like a rusty hamster wheel, the electorate sharply divided right down the middle, never before seen ongoing constitutional crises, most of which boils down to who gets to decide the composition of the Supreme Court, but now is not the time to trouble the hard-working American people with the normal functioning of government as set out in the Constitution?
For real? Is the simpler explanation wrong, really?
Presidential Election year isn't really the best time for the public to focus on something as important as a Supreme Court nominee.
Luckily, the nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice is not left to the public; it is a power left to the President, with consent of the Senate.
Considering and failing to confirm a nominee in the eleven! months left until Omaha leaves office is not completely unreasonable, in that they would still be fulling their duties, at least nominally. Refusing to even consider a nominee, based on their dislike of the president, is completely unreasonable. They are failing to fulfill the duties they swore to fulfill.
Luckily, the nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice is not left to the public; it is a power left to the President, with consent of the Senate.
An active and participatory electorate being crucial to the success of the Republic, it's vital that the public be informed about who the President and the Senate are considering for the job.
Refusing to even consider a nominee, based on their dislike of the president, is completely unreasonable.
No, it's really not. It's the environment we live in today, it's politique pratique. I don't like it, and I don't agree with it, but it's how things have been done for a while, and it's how things are done now. With Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid still in leadership positions, you'll understand if I don't hold out much hope for a return of civility to the Senate.
The GOP won’t allow this president to appoint the new Supreme Court justice because then they won’t get to.
I think everyone understands that's fairly obvious, but again I'm reminded of President Bush's second term when the Democrats- including then Senator Obama, advocated the exact same position. I don't mind people disagreeing with the practice- I disagree with the practice, but I can't stand the blatant hypocrisy of painting this as some nefarious plot cooked up by the GOP when- at worst, they're simply using the same underhanded tricks that Senate Democrats used ten years ago.
It’s party before country for the GOP. You can dress that up any way you want, the way you do above for instance, but it’s not going to be convincing.
What makes you think that those two things are mutually exclusive? Are you honestly making the case that something can't be simultaneously good for the GOP and the country as a whole?
but now is not the time to trouble the hard-working American people with the normal functioning of government as set out in the Constitution?
For real? Is the simpler explanation wrong, really?
If people are going to keep invoking the Constitution in this argument, I think it'd be helpful if they at least quoted directly the applicable parts that they're discussing. So let's take a look shall we?
The United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2:
He [The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law
Highlight for us please, the section of Article II that establishes a timeline for filling Supreme Court vacancies. Or the part that says the US Government will cease to function without a full court. Or even the part that says how many Supreme Court justices there have to be.
Let me save you some time: It's not in there. All the Constitution says is that there is to be a Supreme Court, and that the President shall appoint it's members with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a timely confirmation process, nothing that threatens to shut down the Federal Government if a seat is empty for too long, and absolutely nothing that says there must be nine Justices- in fact, the Supreme Court started with six members, then went to seven, then nine, then ten, then back down to nine where it's been ever since.
Again, disagree with the politics of it all you want- I'm right there with you, but no matter how you "dress it up" the Constitution isn't at issue here.
Democrats- including then Senator Obama, advocated the exact same position.
Senator Obama voting against Alito’s confirmation is not the same position as refusing to even consider any nomination. You linked a clip of that gooney bird Schumer making clucking sounds to the effect of not considering Bush appointees, as if that ever happened, though it didn’t. The last time the Senate refused to even consider Supreme Court nominations was in ’68 when Johnson had seven months left in his term. He wasn’t running for re-election so the GOP re-worked the meaning of ‘lame duck’ then, too.
nothing that threatens to shut down the Federal Government
You mean like not getting to go sit up front on Air Force One?
no matter how you "dress it up" the Constitution isn't at issue here
Of course not. As far as Sen. McConnell is concerned, whether the Constitution applies depends on who’s in the White House.
The Senate saying no to anyone (which again, I don't think they should've done), or them waiting and saying no to a specific candidate, are functionally no different, so I don't know from where you get this idea that Senate Democrats have the moral high ground here.
You mean like not getting to go sit up front on Air Force One?
And that has what exactly to do with what we're discussing?
no matter how you "dress it up" the Constitution isn't at issue here
I don't know from where you get this idea that Senate Democrats have the moral high ground here.
What moral high ground? Unless you mean putting the good of the country before partisan advantage and personal enmity for the president, in which case that's not a reflection on Democrats so much as it is about hardline Republican leadership. You don't get points for not staging an unconditional civil rebellion starting from the minute you lose an election.
[Air Force One] And that has what exactly to do with what we're discussing?
Personal enmity for the president is enough reason for the GOP to shut down the United States Government in a fit of pique. Every so often. At what point is that less politics than spite? Less policy than malice?
[Constitution is a "sometimes thing."] Again, completely unrelated to the topic here.
So you keep saying. As one can probably expect, at least until Trump takes the White House, at which point dissent or opposition in Congress will become treason and rancor again. Like clockwork.
And in the 11 months we still have before President Obama leaves office, he may very well have a nominee that gets confirmed also. It's way too early to cite that as a difference.
You don't get points for not staging an unconditional civil rebellion starting from the minute you lose an election.
Sophistry. The Republican Leadership, regardless what you may think of them, hasn't done anything that the Democrats didn't do when they were in power; it's a plague on both their houses.
As one can probably expect, at least until Trump takes the White House, at which point dissent or opposition in Congress will become treason and rancor again.
You forgot the part where President Trump goes full-on Brothers Grimm and lures small children into the White House and then cooks them and eats them.
No, it’s not. It may suit you to judge Democrats by their intentions but not their actions, and it may suit you to judge Republicans by their actions but not their intentions, but it’s magical thinking.
The Republican Leadership, regardless what you may think of them, hasn't done anything that the Democrats didn't do when they were in power
False equivalence.
You forgot the part where President Trump goes full-on Brothers Grimm and lures small children into the White House and then cooks them and eats them.
Reduction to absurdity. Not because it’s absurd that Trump would eat a child. If nothing else, then because it’s absurd to think there’s anything either party would never do.
And your basis for that argument is what exactly? It's February 26th, 2016 that's 255 days between now and the election in November, and nearly a full eleven months before President Obama leaves office, yet you're claiming as fact that no one will be confirmed to the Supreme Court between now and then. So either: A) Your argument has no basis in fact and you're just speculating like everyone else, or B) You're claiming to have knowledge of the future. Are you a time-traveler? Do you have visions of things to come? Is your future self sending you periodic faxes? If so, can you tell me how my Pirates are going to do this season?
The rhetoric thus far from Republican Leadership has been identical to the rhetoric we saw from Democrats in 2006 and 2007-- as evidenced by the videos I linked previously. Chuck Schumer made the same arguments about rejecting any nominee out of hand, and President Obama joined in Senator Kerry's filibuster, once there was a nominee. In the end however, the Senate did ultimately confirm Samuel Alito, and the Senate may very well end up confirming a nominee this time too. So unless you're willing to tell us how you're getting your information from the future, then it's absolutely too early to claim what Republicans will or won't do.
False equivalence.
Identical behavior between two groups is only a false equivalent if you're making the argument that the two groups are, or should be, held to different standards.
Reduction to absurdity.
You're absolutely right, because it was an absurd premise. You argue that:
...at least until Trump takes the White House, at which point dissent or opposition in Congress will become treason and rancor again
Again, what's your basis for this argument? Do you have any evidence that Donald Trump would attempt to expand the legal definition of treason (18 U.S. Code § 2381) to include criticizing the President? Do you have any evidence that Congress would go along with such a change? Any evidence that the Supreme Court would consider-- even for a moment, upholding such a blatant violation of the First Amendment? If so, by all means share it with the rest of us.
Are you a time-traveler? Do you have visions of things to come?
Yes. I’m a visitor from a strange realm we call “The Past.”
it's absolutely too early to claim what Republicans will or won't do
Quick, you better get the GOP Senate leadership on the horn, pronto! Someone has to tell them what you’ve figured out before it’s too late!
Identical behavior between two groups
There’s your problem right there.
You argue that
At the risk of seeming contrarian, let me suggest that I’m not arguing anything. I doubt the good folks reading us here are all that into arguments at all.
Do you have any evidence that Donald Trump would attempt to expand the legal definition of treason (18 U.S. Code § 2381) to include criticizing the President?
A wise lady that comes on the radio sometimes signs off her program with the admonition to “Go easy, and if you can’t go easy, go as easy as you can.”
Remember that business about the simplest explanation being the most likely? Bearing that in mind, do you suppose I meant a) that dissent and opposition would be called treason and rancor, or b) that I was foretelling a dystopian future Hell world in which substantial changes were made to that title and section of relevant and applicable federal law? Take your time before you answer. Hint, if you wanted to redefine treason, how would you best browbeat the opposition to doing so?
Some of us from across the yawning chasm of time remember a thing called the PATRIOT Act. How old were you then?
"not completely unreasonable argument?"
No, nevermind. I don't want to know. I'm having enough trouble maintaining faith in human nature as it is.
‘Not completely unreasonable’ in the sense that in betraying his oath of office, his sworn duty, the Constitution and our republican form of government, he’s put party before country in exactly the same way he has ever since that Kenyan usurper first darkened the White House door.
Yes, how dare the Republicans play politics with something as important as a Supreme Court nominee.
The reason I said it's not completely unreasonable is because- apart from the fact that 3% of the US Senate is currently running for President and 33% of them are trying to keep their jobs, the US is the most politically polarized we've been since the Civil War, and a Presidential Election year isn't really the best time for the public to focus on something as important as a Supreme Court nominee.
The simpler explanation is usually the correct one. The GOP won’t allow this president to appoint the new Supreme Court justice because then they won’t get to. It’s party before country for the GOP. You can dress that up any way you want, the way you do above for instance, but it’s not going to be convincing.
Consider your explanation: Desperate electoral power struggles, reaching and keeping national office working like a rusty hamster wheel, the electorate sharply divided right down the middle, never before seen ongoing constitutional crises, most of which boils down to who gets to decide the composition of the Supreme Court, but now is not the time to trouble the hard-working American people with the normal functioning of government as set out in the Constitution?
For real? Is the simpler explanation wrong, really?
Luckily, the nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice is not left to the public; it is a power left to the President, with consent of the Senate.
Considering and failing to confirm a nominee in the eleven! months left until Omaha leaves office is not completely unreasonable, in that they would still be fulling their duties, at least nominally. Refusing to even consider a nominee, based on their dislike of the president, is completely unreasonable. They are failing to fulfill the duties they swore to fulfill.
An active and participatory electorate being crucial to the success of the Republic, it's vital that the public be informed about who the President and the Senate are considering for the job.
No, it's really not. It's the environment we live in today, it's politique pratique. I don't like it, and I don't agree with it, but it's how things have been done for a while, and it's how things are done now. With Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid still in leadership positions, you'll understand if I don't hold out much hope for a return of civility to the Senate.
I think everyone understands that's fairly obvious, but again I'm reminded of President Bush's second term when the Democrats- including then Senator Obama, advocated the exact same position. I don't mind people disagreeing with the practice- I disagree with the practice, but I can't stand the blatant hypocrisy of painting this as some nefarious plot cooked up by the GOP when- at worst, they're simply using the same underhanded tricks that Senate Democrats used ten years ago.
What makes you think that those two things are mutually exclusive? Are you honestly making the case that something can't be simultaneously good for the GOP and the country as a whole?
If people are going to keep invoking the Constitution in this argument, I think it'd be helpful if they at least quoted directly the applicable parts that they're discussing. So let's take a look shall we?
The United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2:
He [The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law
Highlight for us please, the section of Article II that establishes a timeline for filling Supreme Court vacancies. Or the part that says the US Government will cease to function without a full court. Or even the part that says how many Supreme Court justices there have to be.
Let me save you some time: It's not in there. All the Constitution says is that there is to be a Supreme Court, and that the President shall appoint it's members with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a timely confirmation process, nothing that threatens to shut down the Federal Government if a seat is empty for too long, and absolutely nothing that says there must be nine Justices- in fact, the Supreme Court started with six members, then went to seven, then nine, then ten, then back down to nine where it's been ever since.
Again, disagree with the politics of it all you want- I'm right there with you, but no matter how you "dress it up" the Constitution isn't at issue here.
Senator Obama voting against Alito’s confirmation is not the same position as refusing to even consider any nomination. You linked a clip of that gooney bird Schumer making clucking sounds to the effect of not considering Bush appointees, as if that ever happened, though it didn’t. The last time the Senate refused to even consider Supreme Court nominations was in ’68 when Johnson had seven months left in his term. He wasn’t running for re-election so the GOP re-worked the meaning of ‘lame duck’ then, too.
You mean like not getting to go sit up front on Air Force One?
Of course not. As far as Sen. McConnell is concerned, whether the Constitution applies depends on who’s in the White House.
A distinction without a difference.
The Senate saying no to anyone (which again, I don't think they should've done), or them waiting and saying no to a specific candidate, are functionally no different, so I don't know from where you get this idea that Senate Democrats have the moral high ground here.
And that has what exactly to do with what we're discussing?
Again, completely unrelated to the topic here.
One difference. Alito was confirmed.
What moral high ground? Unless you mean putting the good of the country before partisan advantage and personal enmity for the president, in which case that's not a reflection on Democrats so much as it is about hardline Republican leadership. You don't get points for not staging an unconditional civil rebellion starting from the minute you lose an election.
Personal enmity for the president is enough reason for the GOP to shut down the United States Government in a fit of pique. Every so often. At what point is that less politics than spite? Less policy than malice?
So you keep saying. As one can probably expect, at least until Trump takes the White House, at which point dissent or opposition in Congress will become treason and rancor again. Like clockwork.
And in the 11 months we still have before President Obama leaves office, he may very well have a nominee that gets confirmed also. It's way too early to cite that as a difference.
Sophistry. The Republican Leadership, regardless what you may think of them, hasn't done anything that the Democrats didn't do when they were in power; it's a plague on both their houses.
You forgot the part where President Trump goes full-on Brothers Grimm and lures small children into the White House and then cooks them and eats them.
No, it’s not. It may suit you to judge Democrats by their intentions but not their actions, and it may suit you to judge Republicans by their actions but not their intentions, but it’s magical thinking.
False equivalence.
Reduction to absurdity. Not because it’s absurd that Trump would eat a child. If nothing else, then because it’s absurd to think there’s anything either party would never do.
And your basis for that argument is what exactly? It's February 26th, 2016 that's 255 days between now and the election in November, and nearly a full eleven months before President Obama leaves office, yet you're claiming as fact that no one will be confirmed to the Supreme Court between now and then. So either: A) Your argument has no basis in fact and you're just speculating like everyone else, or B) You're claiming to have knowledge of the future. Are you a time-traveler? Do you have visions of things to come? Is your future self sending you periodic faxes? If so, can you tell me how my Pirates are going to do this season?
The rhetoric thus far from Republican Leadership has been identical to the rhetoric we saw from Democrats in 2006 and 2007-- as evidenced by the videos I linked previously. Chuck Schumer made the same arguments about rejecting any nominee out of hand, and President Obama joined in Senator Kerry's filibuster, once there was a nominee. In the end however, the Senate did ultimately confirm Samuel Alito, and the Senate may very well end up confirming a nominee this time too. So unless you're willing to tell us how you're getting your information from the future, then it's absolutely too early to claim what Republicans will or won't do.
Identical behavior between two groups is only a false equivalent if you're making the argument that the two groups are, or should be, held to different standards.
You're absolutely right, because it was an absurd premise. You argue that:
...at least until Trump takes the White House, at which point dissent or opposition in Congress will become treason and rancor again
Again, what's your basis for this argument? Do you have any evidence that Donald Trump would attempt to expand the legal definition of treason (18 U.S. Code § 2381) to include criticizing the President? Do you have any evidence that Congress would go along with such a change? Any evidence that the Supreme Court would consider-- even for a moment, upholding such a blatant violation of the First Amendment? If so, by all means share it with the rest of us.
Now you’re arguing for its own sake, I’m not ‘claiming’ that.
Yes. I’m a visitor from a strange realm we call “The Past.”
Quick, you better get the GOP Senate leadership on the horn, pronto! Someone has to tell them what you’ve figured out before it’s too late!
There’s your problem right there.
At the risk of seeming contrarian, let me suggest that I’m not arguing anything. I doubt the good folks reading us here are all that into arguments at all.
A wise lady that comes on the radio sometimes signs off her program with the admonition to “Go easy, and if you can’t go easy, go as easy as you can.”
Remember that business about the simplest explanation being the most likely? Bearing that in mind, do you suppose I meant a) that dissent and opposition would be called treason and rancor, or b) that I was foretelling a dystopian future Hell world in which substantial changes were made to that title and section of relevant and applicable federal law? Take your time before you answer. Hint, if you wanted to redefine treason, how would you best browbeat the opposition to doing so?
Some of us from across the yawning chasm of time remember a thing called the PATRIOT Act. How old were you then?