The Constitution does allow a sitting president to put forward a nominee
The senate has the legal right to appoint (or not) that nominee
The senate is elected by a democratic vote
You left out that it is the Senate's constitutional responsibility to accept the nomination and complete a confirmation hearing. Intentional, or by accident?
What it came down was the Senate refused to do their duty, as defined by the constitution of the United States of America, a document they all swore an oath to uphold and defend, so they prevent a sitting President from executing his constitutional responsibility and right. McConnell thumbed his nose at the constitution and extended a middle finger to the Democrats and the majority of American voters. Oh, but it sold well with his "constitutionalist" base, even though it was a direct affront to the very document they claim to love and defend. McConnell could have been compliant, held the hearing and then blocked the appointment. That would have been following the rules and completely above board. But Mitch doesn't play by the rules. He makes his own and only applies the ones that feed his power and ego. See the problem now?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Quite the thread - I guess that's politics these days!
So I don't really follow US Supreme Court activity very closely at all, and so I wasn't very familiar with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her work, but the more I read about her the more impressed I am with the impact and influence she's had, no doubt about that.
But I'm surprised that there is so much controversy over filling the vacancy created by her passing.
I do get the frustration of the democrats here given that the republican-controlled senate denied Obama's attempt to name a replacement in his final year. But I don't think the republican-controlled senate is breaking their own precedent - didn't the democratic-controlled senate do the exact same thing to George HW Bush in 1992? Is there any precedent at all for this situation, where the majority controlled senate would reject a nominee from their own president? I don't think so. Can't really use 2016 as the precedent because the circumstances now aren't the same at all - republicans control the senate and have the president.
Here's what it comes down to for me:
The Constitution does allow a sitting president to put forward a nominee
The senate has the legal right to appoint (or not) that nominee
The senate is elected by a democratic vote
So I get that the democrats don't like what's happening here, as there is no doubt that this will push the supreme court to the "right".......but what the republicans are doing is most certainly within their legal and constitutional rights, and it most certainly qualifies as democratic.
If the US public doesn't agree with what the republicans are doing, they need to elect more democrats to the senate. But they haven't done that (at least not yet), and until they do, there shouldn't be any surprise (or even controversy really) that Trump will nominate a replacement and the senate will confirm that nominee.
Neither the Senate nor the President is elected by democratic vote in the US
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
You left out that it is the Senate's constitutional responsibility to accept the nomination and complete a confirmation hearing. Intentional, or by accident?
What it came down was the Senate refused to do their duty, as defined by the constitution of the United States of America, a document they all swore an oath to uphold and defend, so they prevent a sitting President from executing his constitutional responsibility and right. McConnell thumbed his nose at the constitution and extended a middle finger to the Democrats and the majority of American voters. Oh, but it sold well with his "constitutionalist" base, even though it was a direct affront to the very document they claim to love and defend. McConnell could have been compliant, held the hearing and then blocked the appointment. That would have been following the rules and completely above board. But Mitch doesn't play by the rules. He makes his own and only applies the ones that feed his power and ego. See the problem now?
I didn't intentionally or accidentally leave that out - I was trying to imply exactly what you're saying - and I like how you framed it. Isn't that exactly what they are intending to do? Or am I missing something (entirely possible!)?
I get what you're saying about 2016, and that they (the republican senate majority) didn't do this, and that's the problem (or was the problem in 2016). Easy to be cynical about that, and frankly, I would support your criticisms about that. No argument from me on your assessment of how that played out.
I just don't see the argument against what they're doing now.........and there seems to be significant objection to what they're doing now. Girlysports may have come close to explaining that a few posts up when she referred to the confirmation hearing as a "sham" - I agree with that to the extent that any political process like this one is a sham. But that's not new, nor is it unique to this senate or to the republican party.
The Following User Says Thank You to Brad Marsh For This Useful Post:
I didn't intentionally or accidentally leave that out - I was trying to imply exactly what you're saying - and I like how you framed it. Isn't that exactly what they are intending to do? Or am I missing something (entirely possible!)?
I get what you're saying about 2016, and that they (the republican senate majority) didn't do this, and that's the problem (or was the problem in 2016). Easy to be cynical about that, and frankly, I would support your criticisms about that. No argument from me on your assessment of how that played out.
I just don't see the argument against what they're doing now.........and there seems to be significant objection to what they're doing now. Girlysports may have come close to explaining that a few posts up when she referred to the confirmation hearing as a "sham" - I agree with that to the extent that any political process like this one is a sham. But that's not new, nor is it unique to this senate or to the republican party.
Just because the outcome is known ahead of time doesn't make it a sham. It's the system functioning as intended.
Just because the outcome is known ahead of time doesn't make it a sham. It's the system functioning as intended.
No way. Even if the result is known that the Republicans will nominated a conservative judge it's called a nomination for a reason. The Republicsn President nominates from a long list of conservative judges and they debate the merits of the judges so that he/she gets bi-partisan support. There have been cases in history where a judge was nominated and after deliberation withdrew himself. For example Dubya nominated Harriet Miers before Sam Alito. The Republican senators protested that she was unqualified and she withdrew.
Today the GOP have already confirm regardless of who it is. That is a sham.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Last edited by GirlySports; 09-23-2020 at 06:36 PM.
It seems like either the EC or the Senate would be ok on it's own, and serve a purpose to give smaller states a voice. Together they are a problem, and give smaller states way too much power.
So much this. I'm not sure which change makes more sense. There is something mathematically beautiful about the senate composition, but it's pretty crazy that there are 7 states who have 1/435 congressman, but 2/100 senators.
1 senator per 20M people in California. 1 per 290k in Wyoming.
1 per 5M in Michigan, the 10th most populated state. 1 per 700k in New Hampshire, the 10th least populated state.
I guess the scary thing with a truly popular vote for president is how to handle recounts in a narrow contest.
House is by pop, senate by state and president by EC. That is the balance.
I think it works. We see how much it sucks to be in Alberta and have no say in anything.
The American Triple E senate does have the benefit of providing a voice to smaller states and prevents a tyranny of the majority. The problem in the American system is the president is also not elected by direct representation and the senate and president choose the Supreme Court. This means you end up with 2.5 of your 3 seperate levels of government not always following the will of the voters.
The fix is to make the presidency popular vote only or have justices confirmed by the house instead of the senate.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FireGilbert For This Useful Post:
Pretty sad actually. We live in a world that's so sideways, clear satire suckers those who wish to demonstrate they can lead with their hearts rather than their heads.
But just like that, a wild alt right boogeyman manifests. Didn't even hear the whistle.
The American Triple E senate does have the benefit of providing a voice to smaller states and prevents a tyranny of the majority. The problem in the American system is the president is also not elected by direct representation and the senate and president choose the Supreme Court. This means you end up with 2.5 of your 3 seperate levels of government not always following the will of the voters.
The fix is to make the presidency popular vote only or have justices confirmed by the house instead of the senate.
I dont like by popular vote, maybe increase the EC ratios a bit?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
The American Triple E senate does have the benefit of providing a voice to smaller states and prevents a tyranny of the majority. The problem in the American system is the president is also not elected by direct representation and the senate and president choose the Supreme Court. This means you end up with 2.5 of your 3 seperate levels of government not always following the will of the voters.
The fix is to make the presidency popular vote only or have justices confirmed by the house instead of the senate.
That flies in the face of the constitution and the way the system was set up. The senate was originally appointed by the states to act as representatives of the state's government. Remember, the United States was founded as a republic of states, not one monolithic body with political divisions of states/provinces. The constitution limits the power of the federal government and explicitly says how government should function. The senate was established so states with small populations (the southern states at the time) had equal influence in the governance process, hence the state appointment/representation system. The idea of the popular vote electing senators was an after effect of politics and the people's desires to control who their representatives were. A minor but important change to the process, but completely allowable as the states had to approve such change.
I like what you are suggesting, but it would require a constitutional change to happen. The senate was there to act a counter weight to the vote of the large states. That counter weight has been misplaced and the power of the senate perverted. Both bodies should provide oversight over each other IMO, and your idea fits that role. The senate should maintain the ability to run the confirmation process, but once that process is completed the nominee should have to go before the house for a secondary vote, allowing the people to weigh in and have their say. The states get their say through the senator, then the people have their say through the house or representatives. Once a candidate passes both bodies they are considered confirmed. That actually makes the most sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports
I dont like by popular vote, maybe increase the EC ratios a bit?
And Americans hate the electoral college because it is not representative. The American people want a democracy instead of a republic. That is the change that has to be made. The system works if the rules are followed, the problem is that the rules are perverted for the sake of maintenance of power. The government is there to govern, for all people, not just the corporations who paid for your campaign. That's the problem.
And Americans hate the electoral college because it is not representative. The American people want a democracy instead of a republic. That is the change that has to be made. The system works if the rules are followed, the problem is that the rules are perverted for the sake of maintenance of power. The government is there to govern, for all people, not just the corporations who paid for your campaign. That's the problem.
That is interesting. A popular vote Presidential race would have to be done the French Way with 2 rounds? Would you do a ranked ballot? The thing I see is that over time, additional parties would start to campaign and get traction which is that the two major parties do not want. Last election Gary Johnson got 4% of the vote in a system where nobody cares. In a straight popular vote he would get more.
The Democrats and Republicans may be at each other throats about almost everything but one thing they agree on it their two party duopoly.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
