Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)
Options
Comments
-
Water John wrote: »The FDA are raising the guidelines for EUA of new vaccine. Trump will have a melt down, and we'll be hearing of deep state from the alt right.
So leave him have a melt down. The FDA have years of reputation to uphold and presumably want to continue to have that post trump. The last thing the FDA needs is for an issue with the vaccine which would be manna from heaven for the anti vax crowd.0 -
I think a number of agencies and heads are getting emboldened. Redfield in the CDC has taken a more direct stance. Either they want to preserve their name or sense that Trump will lose.0
-
Not only that, they're threatening to flip the system if they don't get their way. Packing the court, eliminating the filibuster entirely, packing the Senate etc
Packing the court, isn't that what Trump and the GOP are intent on doing?
Packing the senate by allowing the citizens of at least two physical parts of the U.S.A [Washington DC and Puerto Rico] have representation by way of voting rights [which the citizens of both parts of the U.S do NOT have at the moment] in the senate and house of congress, that hardly sounds like something either party could object to as the extra seats would be open to both parties.
Ending the filibuster which is used by the parties to kill bills intended for the good of the citizens the senators are supposed to represent [taking ill senators from their sickbeds to vote on the bills and at the same time speechifying until the time to vote has elapsed ensuring no one - incl the ill senators - cant vote on the bill] sounds like a good idea.0 -
Wouldn't know the detail of the US Constitution but since it's representative shouldn't more powers be transferred to the House of Reps? Leave the Senate like the Senate in other countries, a glorified talking shop.0
-
Well the USA was without political parties for about five minutes after the British left. By the time Washington's first term was up, the first iteration of the "two party system" had taken shape with the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans.And, what's wrong in today's Senate, is the outsized influence of political parties, which aren't provided for at all in the Constitution.
And it was the Founders themselves who organised those parties and lead them for the first 25 years of the Republic. It wasn't like they just founded the country and then retired.
It's a convenience mechanism for politicians too. And an essential one in many ways.They're, well, a convenience mechanism for the voters.
In general, human beings disagree way too much to be able to get anything done unless they organise into groups around root level principles that can be agreed upon by each member and then the group move forward from there. That's where parties come from.
You have a point on full time politicians.I don't think the Founders envisioned them, or professional full time politicians for that mater.
They were unheard of in the early days mainly because the government was so small there wasn't much of a living to be made from working in it. The civil service was a handful of postmen and tax collectors.
For legislators the pay was terrible. This meant only men with a day job could afford to be in politics. Probably for the best.
Compromise is the reason you used to need a 60 votes in the Senate for judicial appointments. It's the reason that you had Republicans supporting the other Obama SC nominees: Sotomayor and Kagan. But the Dems did away with that rule in 2013. The 60 vote threshold, like other features of the American system, was there to make people compromise. The Founders knew compromise had to be built into the system or it wouldn't happen. The alternative of pure majoritarianism was viewed as worse.On that last point I think we'll have to disagree. No State in the modern world would break away; sit back and watch what happens post-Brexit day for a reasonable example. What's missing in today's Senate and hyper-polarized US politics is compromise, so I guess to the victors belong the spoils.
I think the break away (if it happened) would be less like Brexit and more like "Okay, we're not satisfied with this bargain anymore, we'll continue paying our federal income taxes but from now on we'll be ignoring all the dictates of the Federal Government. We'll pay our dues but we'll be doing our own thing."
Then it's a question of whether any Democrat led government would be willing to use force to compel them. Never gonna happen. Especially not if it's a peaceful breakaway.
Well the USA is first and foremost a union of the states, not of the people in the states. Regardless of population, Montana is just as much a state as California. You point out the obvious problem that some states are massive while others are tiny. The system is designed to ensure in spite of population size, neither is allowed to dictate to the other.I think the Founders, through the Electoral College and the Senate, wanted to build trust with the smaller states that they wouldn't be buffaloed. THe trouble is, the pendulums swung till the larger states and hence majority of the public are disenfranchised. This is why you see things like 'Montana votes are worth 16x those of California' or whatever it is, and higher still for Senate seats. Ireland-style PRV might work. Then you might actually get some compromise.
But both large states and smaller states compromise in Congress as the House of Reps is based on pure population size (benefitting the larger states). The Senate allows the smaller states "combine" such that the playing field is levelled.
The Presidency (like Congress) is balanced using the Electoral College. It gives massive influence to the big population states. This is balanced by the many smaller states who can "pool" their support. The election is then decided by the so called "swing states". These states are usually medium population size and are politically moderate.
If the big states don't like this system, they need to recognise that they don't own the system just because they have more people.0 -
Advertisement
-
As you may have surmised, I'm not big on precedents of any kind. I wouldn't give any of these Senators the credit of believing they actually make up their minds in these hearings. Normally these are just opportunities for them to grandstand and make campaign ads while pretending to be Jimmy Stuart in "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington".Brussels Sprout wrote: »Ok so you're going down the textualist route and letting McConnell off the hook on the basis that there's nothing stopping him as set out by the constitution from behaving the way that he did. So the precedent set by previous Senates where they at least met nominees and held hearings rather than rejecting the notion out of hand before a nominee was even picked. Ok.
Normally they make a judgment based on the judicial record of the nominee and the politics of the President who nominated them and then usually vote with their parties.
I'm not saying they can't do it. I'm not saying it's wrong because of precedence or tradition etc.Brussels Sprout wrote: »If that is your firmly held belief then it's a bit odd to complain about the Democrats potentially deciding to throw precedence out the window by adding additional supreme court justices via eliminating the filibuster rule. Neither the supreme court size nor the filibuster are in the constitution after all.
I'm saying it's bad policy and it will upset the compromise between the states and lead smaller states to just stop engaging with the Federal Government and fragment the country.
The Constitution planned for a lot of contingencies in order to maintain the bargain between the states. Court packing and arbitrarily adding states weren't among them. Because it was hard to make comprehensive rules around these things, the responsibility was on politicians to treat these issues carefully enough that the country could be maintained.
For example, in the early Republic, new states were being added fairly regularly. A lot of effort and care went into making sure that for every slave state added, one free state would be added. Aside from the moral issue of slavery, slave states counted their slaves to get outsized representation in Congress despite the fact slaves didn't vote. Naturally enough, the North didn't like this. If the balance wasn't maintained, there was always the threat that either the North or the South would break away. The Union existed because the states consented to it. That hasn't changed one bit.
That's why Republicans need to fill that seat pronto, Democrats be damned. You simply can't concede to that kind of political blackmail. Besides, Democrats talked about doing this stuff before RBG died. They've already shot the hostage.
Again, I'm not invoking precedence when I criticise the Dems for threatening to pack the court, add states and abolish the filibuster. I'm invoking common sense because it would be nice if the country didn't disintegrate.Brussels Sprout wrote: »The way that you say it, If the Democrats cry foul about McConnell's actions in jettisoning precedence then they're "throwing a tantrum". However if they decide to embrace this philosophy themselves, reject precedence and push the constitution to its edges then they get called out regardless.0 -
Packing the court means increasing the number of seats on the court so you can fill it with your own nominees.aloyisious wrote: »Packing the court, isn't that what Trump and the GOP are intent on doing?
All the Republicans want to do is fill a vacancy.
Everybody knows who those Senate seats would go to if those areas became states. They're heavily blue areas.aloyisious wrote: »Packing the senate by allowing the citizens of at least two physical parts of the U.S.A [Washington DC and Puerto Rico] have representation by way of voting rights [which the citizens of both parts of the U.S do NOT have at the moment] in the senate and house of congress, that hardly sounds like something either party could object to as the extra seats would be open to both parties.
DC was never a state because since the Federal Government and the State Governments are two separate entities and therefore due to concerns over corruption and favouritism, the Capitol ought to be in an area controlled directly by the Federal Government and outside the jurisdiction of any state. They can already vote in presidential elections as per a constitutional amendment allowing them to. The only reason to make them a state is to pack the Senate.
Puerto Rico is an autonomously governed protectorate of the US. It's been badly run for a long time and they want to become a state so their debt can be bailed out. The Dems want two extra senators so it's a win win for both.
I love how people are realising that the US Government is DESIGNED for gridlock. It's a feature not a bug guys.aloyisious wrote: »Ending the filibuster which is used by the parties to kill bills intended for the good of the citizens the senators are supposed to represent [taking ill senators from their sickbeds to vote on the bills and at the same time speechifying until the time to vote has elapsed ensuring no one - incl the ill senators - cant vote on the bill] sounds like a good idea.
It's based on the simple idea that if you want to pass legislation that affects 330 million people across 50 separate states, if you want to overrule the right of those states to manage an issue for themselves, you better have a consensus.0 -
Water John wrote: »Amazingly, Trump is not tweeting about the news of the day, 200,000 dead.
Worldometer reckons they hit that grim landmark on September 15th.
The horrible reality is that they are probably underestimating the total since at least the time they changed the way they count Covid19 deaths about two months ago. (Even if the patient has Covid19, they don't count it unless it is written on the death cert, and that is discouraged).
I'm constantly horrified by the current administration's approach to getting the epidemic under control. The idea that the wealthiest country on Earth had two months advance notice of a crisis and has managed to turn that warning time into one of the top ten worst hit nations by *ANY* measure is extraordinary. It is a terrifying indictment of the attitude of the man at the top. He just doesn't give a damn about anyone else, and he claims that the top ten worst response to the pandemic is him doing a great job because it could have been worse! Everyone in the world has had to deal with the same problem, and you're already in the top ten worst. By definition you could not have done any worse!
Being led by someone who's obsessed with being in charge, but has no interest in leading is a recipe for disaster, utter, utter disaster.
If America cannot reject this catastrophic leadership void in November they are going to go over a cliff of irreversible doom. I am even worried that if it is not enough of a rejection then we will see the more polished Mark II version next time around, and then there'll be no escape.0 -
Packing the court means increasing the number of seats on the court so you can fill it with your own nominees.
All the Republicans want to do is fill a vacancy.
Everybody knows who those Senate seats would go to if those areas became states. They're heavily blue areas.
DC was never a state because since the Federal Government and the State Governments are two separate entities and therefore due to concerns over corruption and favouritism, the Capitol ought to be in an area controlled directly by the Federal Government and outside the jurisdiction of any state. They can already vote in presidential elections as per a constitutional amendment allowing them to. The only reason to make them a state is to pack the Senate.
Puerto Rico is an autonomously governed protectorate of the US. It's been badly run for a long time and they want to become a state so their debt can be bailed out. The Dems want two extra senators so it's a win win for both.
I love how people are realising that the US Government is DESIGNED for gridlock. It's a feature not a bug guys.
It's based on the simple idea that if you want to pass legislation that affects 330 million people across 50 separate states, if you want to overrule the right of those states to manage an issue for themselves, you better have a consensus.
I agree that for U.S political government to work in practice you need a consensus of opinion. I think it's nigh impossible there due to Trump's way of making deals with the party he's currently a member of first and then with the OPPOSITION PARTY after that.
On the USSC vacancy, it's a yes on the GOP wanting to fill it, it's just that it's with one of their own so in that they are doing exactly the same the Dems are trying to do. Another example of [POSSIBLE] gridlock, this time with the intent of getting their own man or woman on the bench.0 -
SNIP. Do not just paste links here please.0
-
Advertisement
-
As you may have surmised, I'm not big on precedents of any kind. I wouldn't give any of these Senators the credit of believing they actually make up their minds in these hearings. Normally these are just opportunities for them to grandstand and make campaign ads while pretending to be Jimmy Stuart in "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington".
Normally they make a judgment based on the judicial record of the nominee and the politics of the President who nominated them and then usually vote with their parties.
I'm not saying they can't do it. I'm not saying it's wrong because of precedence or tradition etc.
I'm saying it's bad policy and it will upset the compromise between the states and lead smaller states to just stop engaging with the Federal Government and fragment the country.
The Constitution planned for a lot of contingencies in order to maintain the bargain between the states. Court packing and arbitrarily adding states weren't among them. Because it was hard to make comprehensive rules around these things, the responsibility was on politicians to treat these issues carefully enough that the country could be maintained.
For example, in the early Republic, new states were being added fairly regularly. A lot of effort and care went into making sure that for every slave state added, one free state would be added. Aside from the moral issue of slavery, slave states counted their slaves to get outsized representation in Congress despite the fact slaves didn't vote. Naturally enough, the North didn't like this. If the balance wasn't maintained, there was always the threat that either the North or the South would break away. The Union existed because the states consented to it. That hasn't changed one bit.
That's why Republicans need to fill that seat pronto, Democrats be damned. You simply can't concede to that kind of political blackmail. Besides, Democrats talked about doing this stuff before RBG died. They've already shot the hostage.
Again, I'm not invoking precedence when I criticise the Dems for threatening to pack the court, add states and abolish the filibuster. I'm invoking common sense because it would be nice if the country didn't disintegrate.
The smaller states, especially Republican ones can't not engage with the government. They need money from the Democrat ones (which never counts as socialism but I digress). Trust me Republicans won't be breaking away from the US anytime soon.
The Republicans launched that sort of blackmail 4 years ago when they decided that new justices shouldn't come in the year of an election (and that was 200 days away from the election, not 50).
Ah yes they need to fill the seat ASAP because of the balance between North and South with regards to slavery?0 -
Looks like once more we will get to witness the merits of the US system. The merits of a triumvirate of legislative, executive, judicial are all under the microscope, again.
I expect Trump will get his SCOTUS pick thru with little difficulty. Amy Comey Barrett is locked in for the position.
The liberals and Democrat's will shoot themselves in the foot as they attempt to lay blows on a succesfull conservative woman with 7 kids, 2 adopted, one with special needs.
I see the topics for the first debate have been announced (as per norm) , looking forward to seeing Joe stumble his way thru this without a teleprompter and ear piece. 3 gaffs minimum, could be 5 or 6. <SNIP>
Hard to believe we have had near 4 years of Trump term 1, one of the greatest presidential reigns in US history, TRump term 2 will be epic.0 -
If Trumpists cannot be reasoned with, then short of forcibly suppressing their views, the only way to dispel them is to let their game play out and collapse into ruin and thereafter draw their own conclusions.
The obvious fallacy with that position is that its the left and Democrat supporters who are collapsing everything into ruin... #defund hte blace, antifa, burn the system down, BLM riots, Portland 100+ days of attacks on Federal buildings ...
The truth is glaringly obvious ...
The looney left promised us that Trump would lead to runination.
The looney left have learned the only way for them to deliver on that promise is for they themselves to physically burn it down. And then they will claim we told you he would ruin everything. Its childish and laughable.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22733
Mod Note
As we've pointed out before on this thread and previous iterations, let's ease up on the "fake news" thing.
Characterising legit news outlets as fake news is a form of trolling and will be sanctioned if it continues.
UPDATE: Another user is now threadbanned for ignoring this mod instruction and continuing to troll.0 -
Packing the court means increasing the number of seats on the court so you can fill it with your own nominees.
All the Republicans want to do is fill a vacancy.
Everybody knows who those Senate seats would go to if those areas became states. They're heavily blue areas.
DC was never a state because since the Federal Government and the State Governments are two separate entities and therefore due to concerns over corruption and favouritism, the Capitol ought to be in an area controlled directly by the Federal Government and outside the jurisdiction of any state. They can already vote in presidential elections as per a constitutional amendment allowing them to. The only reason to make them a state is to pack the Senate.
Puerto Rico is an autonomously governed protectorate of the US. It's been badly run for a long time and they want to become a state so their debt can be bailed out. The Dems want two extra senators so it's a win win for both.
I love how people are realising that the US Government is DESIGNED for gridlock. It's a feature not a bug guys.
It's based on the simple idea that if you want to pass legislation that affects 330 million people across 50 separate states, if you want to overrule the right of those states to manage an issue for themselves, you better have a consensus.
I am loving the clarity of your explanation/interpretation of the mechanics of all of this- thanks.
My one question though- all states entered the union with various benefits and disbenefits for the union, so are you not being dismissive of Puerto Rico's claim to statehood? Yes, political and economic expediency is at work right now, but that doesn't preclude there also being a genuine longterm claim given the ties that exist at this stage. I mean, I don't think the Guano Act has been rescinded, so the US does like to acquire new offshore real estate!0 -
The obvious fallacy with that position is that its the left and Democrat supporters who are collapsing everything into ruin... #defund hte blace, antifa, burn the system down, BLM riots, Portland 100+ days of attacks on Federal buildings ...
The truth is glaringly obvious ...
The looney left promised us that Trump would lead to runination.
The looney left have learned the only way for them to deliver on that promise is for they themselves to physically burn it down. And then they will claim we told you he would ruin everything. Its childish and laughable.
They got that one pretty spot on really. Worst economic numbers for years, massive unemployment, one of the worlds worst performing countries in terms of ability to deal with a crisis.
What should worry every single Americans is that this has shown to everyone just how easy it is to derai the US. Trup continuing tin bleat on about the China Virus only serves to show that, if you take it as true, that China could so easily attack and diminish the US. All that spending on the military, 750bn pa, and a virus managed to tear a hole through the country.
What would having Trump for another four years do, only to weaken them still further.0 -
Great representation of the actuality of the situation.Packing the court means increasing the number of seats on the court so you can fill it with your own nominees.
All the Republicans want to do is fill a vacancy.
Everybody knows who those Senate seats would go to if those areas became states. They're heavily blue areas.
DC was never a state because since the Federal Government and the State Governments are two separate entities and therefore due to concerns over corruption and favouritism, the Capitol ought to be in an area controlled directly by the Federal Government and outside the jurisdiction of any state. They can already vote in presidential elections as per a constitutional amendment allowing them to. The only reason to make them a state is to pack the Senate.
Puerto Rico is an autonomously governed protectorate of the US. It's been badly run for a long time and they want to become a state so their debt can be bailed out. The Dems want two extra senators so it's a win win for both.
I love how people are realising that the US Government is DESIGNED for gridlock. It's a feature not a bug guys.
It's based on the simple idea that if you want to pass legislation that affects 330 million people across 50 separate states, if you want to overrule the right of those states to manage an issue for themselves, you better have a consensus.0 -
I love how people are realising that the US Government is DESIGNED for gridlock. It's a feature not a bug guys.
It's based on the simple idea that if you want to pass legislation that affects 330 million people across 50 separate states, if you want to overrule the right of those states to manage an issue for themselves, you better have a consensus.
There's one flaw in your argument: the US Government, as defined by the constitution, was designed by rich Anglo-Saxon landowners as a means to perpetuate the lifestyle they'd become accustomed to while their relatives in Europe were embracing a new reality.
You cannot say that the Founding Fathers drafted a document in the late 1700s to fairly legislate for 330 million people across 50 states when they were trying to protect their own power and wealth and - as you've pointed out yourself - were quite happy to indulge in all kinds of statistical mischief to get what they wanted. Not only that, but the states themselves are not natural territories. They were arbitrary parcels of land bought by, sold to or stolen from various European colonisers, carrying on the bad habits they'd taken with them from the "Old World"
And here's the thing: the Old World moved on. France became a republic at the same time as the US, and is now on the 5th "revised version" of its republican ideals (with numerous amendments to the constitution of the 5th Republic) while the US is still obsessively clinging to it's 18th Century guidelines. There's a hard core of voters who can't seem to understand that, for example, the second amendment was, in fact, a change to the original constitution. By your logic, this effectively demonstrate that the Founding Fathers intended for the constitution to be frequently updated. But no, there's this idea that a bunch of rich slave-owners playing real-life monopoly in the 1700s knew exactly how to handle the politics of half a continent in a much changed world 300 years later.
FFS, even the Roman Catholic Church has re-invented itself since the US constitution was signed. :rolleyes:0 -
Well the USA was without political parties for about five minutes after the British left. By the time Washington's first term was up, the first iteration of the "two party system" had taken shape with the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans.
And it was the Founders themselves who organised those parties and lead them for the first 25 years of the Republic. It wasn't like they just founded the country and then retired.
Compromise is the reason you used to need a 60 votes in the Senate for judicial appointments. It's the reason that you had Republicans supporting the other Obama SC nominees: Sotomayor and Kagan. But the Dems did away with that rule in 2013. The 60 vote threshold, like other features of the American system, was there to make people compromise. The Founders knew compromise had to be built into the system or it wouldn't happen. The alternative of pure majoritarianism was viewed as worse.
But both large states and smaller states compromise in Congress as the House of Reps is based on pure population size (benefitting the larger states). The Senate allows the smaller states "combine" such that the playing field is levelled.
The Presidency (like Congress) is balanced using the Electoral College. It gives massive influence to the big population states. This is balanced by the many smaller states who can "pool" their support. The election is then decided by the so called "swing states". These states are usually medium population size and are politically moderate.
Given the info in your post, it looks like the Dems decision in 2013 to scrap the senate 60-vote rule on the federal judges and executive office appointments is coming back to bite them hard. Compromise will have to re-enter the rooms to ensure stability returns to Washington. https://aclj.org/what-is-the-60-vote-rule-in-the-senate.
I see that NY and Florida have the same number of electoral college votes, tying for 3rd place in the EC system, only California and Texas topping them on the list. One can see why both parties are focusing on Florida, seeing as the NY EC vote result may be a forgone conclusion.
As role-models/influencers go, it looks like more than a few of the present members of the Congress should be removed from office for failing to provide fit guidance to the citizen. It'd be a good outcome if this was the result of Trump being elected in 2016, service of a kind to the nation, and reward him with a retirement from public office, letting his portrait join those of other past presidents on the walls of the White House.0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »There's one flaw in your argument: the US Government, as defined by the constitution, was designed by rich Anglo-Saxon landowners as a means to perpetuate the lifestyle they'd become accustomed to while their relatives in Europe were embracing a new reality.
You cannot say that the Founding Fathers drafted a document in the late 1700s to fairly legislate for 330 million people across 50 states when they were trying to protect their own power and wealth and - as you've pointed out yourself - were quite happy to indulge in all kinds of statistical mischief to get what they wanted. Not only that, but the states themselves are not natural territories. They were arbitrary parcels of land bought by, sold to or stolen from various European colonisers, carrying on the bad habits they'd taken with them from the "Old World"
And here's the thing: the Old World moved on. France became a republic at the same time as the US, and is now on the 5th "revised version" of its republican ideals (with numerous amendments to the constitution of the 5th Republic) while the US is still obsessively clinging to it's 18th Century guidelines. There's a hard core of voters who can't seem to understand that, for example, the second amendment was, in fact, a change to the original constitution. By your logic, this effectively demonstrate that the Founding Fathers intended for the constitution to be frequently updated. But no, there's this idea that a bunch of rich slave-owners playing real-life monopoly in the 1700s knew exactly how to handle the politics of half a continent in a much changed world 300 years later.
FFS, even the Roman Catholic Church has re-invented itself since the US constitution was signed. :rolleyes:
Another point is that the checks and balances are not working correctly.
Originally, political parties were not envisioned, and the checks and balances were not supposed to be between parties but, rather, between the co-equal branches of government.
As it is, a Republican supreme court is varying levels of rubber-stamp on what Republicans want, while it's a roadblock to Democrats, and only some semblance of fairness from, surprisingly, the likes of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, has prevented the total corruption of the Supreme Court. If they put this absolute crackpot fundamentalist, Coney Barrett, who believes that women are little more than chattel and that the US should be a theocracy, onto the supreme court, any semblance of fairness or balance will collapse.
Similarly, the Senate, despite overwhelming evidence, failed to convict Trump in his impeachment trial. That's one of their most vital roles and shows that they are not serving as a check on the Executive branch.
This is not functional democracy, by the standards of the founders of the US, or anyone else.0 -
Advertisement
-
That’s why I said they’ll probably keep paying their dues to the Federal Government. Federal income taxes etc. They won’t physically leave. If the Supreme Court or the Senate gets stacked by some future Democrat government and some Beto O’Rourke type attempted a mass gun confiscation or removed tax exempt status from churches that don’t like gay marriage or tried to prosecute parents who don’t consent to their child’s gender transition, then these states would simply treat the laws as illegitimate since they arose from a process to which they no longer consent.The smaller states, especially Republican ones can't not engage with the government. They need money from the Democrat ones (which never counts as socialism but I digress). Trust me Republicans won't be breaking away from the US anytime soon.
It wouldn’t be unprecedented. Democrats do this all the time with so called “sanctuary cities”. Parts of the country that flat out refuse to enforce federal immigration law.
No. Republicans decided they didn’t like Obama’s nominee and they’d rather wait till after the election when perhaps a Republican president could nominate someone they liked.The Republicans launched that sort of blackmail 4 years ago when they decided that new justices shouldn't come in the year of an election (and that was 200 days away from the election, not 50).
In other words “we don’t like this guy so we’re not having hearings. If the American people want to overrule us they can do so by electing Hillary Clinton and some Democrat Senators.”
This time around the Senate actually likes the nominee so it’s not an issue.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?Ah yes they need to fill the seat ASAP because of the balance between North and South with regards to slavery?
I said that when you intentionally add states in a way that massively upsets the balance of power between the states already in the Union they will just become disillusioned. At best they’ll stop engaging with the Federal Government and at worst they’ll pull out altogether. I cited the addition of slave states in the early Republic as an example of when the North (not the South) was threatening to pull out if slave states artificially boosted their power by adding states willy nilly.
If one side is threatening to use it’s power to stack courts, add states willy nilly overturning the carefully negotiated bargain between the states, why would you give an inch to these people? They wanted to do this stuff before RBG died. As I said, they’ve already shot the hostage so anyone who thinks there’s a middle ground here is mistaken.
No president in history has failed to nominate someone to the Supreme Court when a vacancy arises. This is the most normal thing Trump has done in his entire presidency!0 -
Join Date:Posts: 14291
The failure of the famed "Checks & Balances" comes down largely to the fact that it was based on an assumption that all involved would act in a an honourable way - as "Gentlemen" as they would have described it , such that when faced with a challenge to "do the right thing" a person would indeed do that.
What Trump and McConnell etc. have exposed is the inherent weakness of that structure when faced with people that are not honourable and who's only concern is winning at all costs.
The ability of the Trump administration to simply ignore requests for oversight from another branch or for the Senate to simply ignore the rules around Impeachment and announce well before the trial that they vote against it etc. just highlights the need to actually give real teeth to those checks & balances.
For example - Ignore a valid supoena to appear before a committee? - Arrest and/or Jail for contempt .0 -
Join Date:Posts: 14291
No. Republicans decided they didn’t like Obama’s nominee and they’d rather wait till after the election when perhaps a Republican president could nominate someone they liked.
In other words “we don’t like this guy so we’re not having hearings. If the American people want to overrule us they can do so by electing Hillary Clinton and some Democrat Senators.”
This time around the Senate actually likes the nominee so it’s not an issue.
Actually ,McConnell announced that he wouldn't hold hearings long before Obama even put forward a nomination.
The decision had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of Merrick Garland , it was simply - We don't want Obama to get a SCOTUS nomination. Given that the filibuster was gone , they could have allowed the nomination but just not given him the votes , but McConnell was too worried that a Collins or a Murkowski would change sides so he couldn't take that risk , so he came up with his "excuse"
Exactly the same reason that he slow walked every single judicial nomination such that there was a massive backlog of positions to be filled once Trump took office.
It was a power-grab , pure and simple.
The GOP know that they are losing ground rapidly in the US , their % of the vote is decreasing every single election - By stacking the courts they get to cling to power by ensuring they can block voting rights legislation etc.
Without the air-cover from a stacked courts , they know they'll never hold power again in the future.0 -
then these states would simply treat the laws as illegitimate since they arose from a process to which they no longer consent.
So statewide freemanism.....? HilariousIt wouldn’t be unprecedented. Democrats do this all the time with so called “sanctuary cities”. Parts of the country that flat out refuse to enforce federal immigration law.
Well its not up to individual states to enforce federal laws in the cases where they conflict with states own laws. This is why you saw only Federal Agencies raiding dispensaries when marijuana was first legalised at state levels but not federal.0 -
You’re right. The people in Puerto Rico have US citizenship, they have significant ties. I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that they could receive statehood in the future.hirondelle wrote: »My one question though- all states entered the union with various benefits and disbenefits for the union, so are you not being dismissive of Puerto Rico's claim to statehood? Yes, political and economic expediency is at work right now, but that doesn't preclude there also being a genuine longterm claim given the ties that exist at this stage. I mean, I don't think the Guano Act has been rescinded, so the US does like to acquire new offshore real estate!
My point is that it’s not just up to Puerto Rico. You need their consent but you also need the consent of existing states. Those states don’t have to give consent if they feel that this just a ploy by some other existing states to increase their political power at their expense.
That’s why you usually add states two at a time and make them balance out politically. I mentioned how this was done with slave states and free states originally. A modern example would be in 1959, Hawaii and Alaska were added. Hawaii is a very blue state. Alaska is a very red state. So it balances out.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 14291
You’re right. The people in Puerto Rico have US citizenship, they have significant ties. I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that they could receive statehood in the future.
My point is that it’s not just up to Puerto Rico. You need their consent but you also need the consent of existing states. Those states don’t have to give consent if they feel that this just a ploy by some other existing states to increase their political power at their expense.
That’s why you usually add states two at a time and make them balance out politically. I mentioned how this was done with slave states and free states originally. A modern example would be in 1959, Hawaii and Alaska were added. Hawaii is a very blue state. Alaska is a very red state. So it balances out.
They are now , but they weren't then so not sure of the point you are making?
In the 1st elections you got 3 Democrats and 1 Republican - 1 each in Hawaii and 2 Democrats in Alaska.0 -
With the GOP now floating the idea that the State nominates the Electors where the count is disputed really says a lot about their belief in each persons right to vote and for it to be counted.0
-
You know these guys didn’t just institute a government. They rebelled against one first.CelticRambler wrote: »There's one flaw in your argument: the US Government, as defined by the constitution, was designed by rich Anglo-Saxon landowners as a means to perpetuate the lifestyle they'd become accustomed to while their relatives in Europe were embracing a new reality.
They didn’t do that because they wanted to maintain their own wealth. The war started in 1775 as an extension of the principled protest against taxation without representation. None of the states wanted to leave until the next year when it became clear there wasn’t going to be a settlement. It was highly costly for everybody involved. The British destroyed wealth property in areas they occupied. The country was drowning in debt afterwards. There really wasn’t much profit to be gleaned from all this. The Declaration of Independence reads like an apologetic breakup letter in spots. Leaving was a last resort not the first.
Also at the time the Declaration was signed, the Americans were losing the war badly.
It wasn’t about maintaining slavery either since the British Empire was pro slavery at the time and didn’t abolish it until 1833 and half of the original states didn’t have slavery anyway.
They drafted a document meant to fairly govern a collection of pluralistic states each with varying cultures, economies and political ideas. That principle hasn’t changed. The only difference is in scale which makes the principle more important not less.CelticRambler wrote: »You cannot say that the Founding Fathers drafted a document in the late 1700s to fairly legislate for 330 million people across 50 states
You’ve made no actual argument that it was mainly about wealth and power for the individuals involved and I’m not sure what “statistical mischief” your referring to.CelticRambler wrote: »when they were trying to protect their own power and wealth and - as you've pointed out yourself - were quite happy to indulge in all kinds of statistical mischief to get what they wanted.
What “bad habits”?CelticRambler wrote: »Not only that, but the states themselves are not natural territories. They were arbitrary parcels of land bought by, sold to or stolen from various European colonisers, carrying on the bad habits they'd taken with them from the "Old World"
The French Revolution which was a total cluster*bleep* because it had almost nothing whatsoever to do with the American Revolution.CelticRambler wrote: »And here's the thing: the Old World moved on. France became a republic at the same time as the US,
The American Republic was about recognising the best elements of the English Constitution, English Common Law, classical liberalism, and mixed government. It was about democratising those things, perfecting them and making them applicable to a pluralistic collection of separate states.
The French Revolution was about burning down all of the things in favour of the collective. Naturally enough, it resulted in mass murder, dictatorship and the restoration of the monarchy.
Some would say that the fact that the Americans wrote a Constitution durable enough to last longer than any other country’s while amending it when necessary as opposed to the French burning things down every five minutes is a thing to be commended.CelticRambler wrote: »and is now on the 5th "revised version" of its republican ideals (with numerous amendments to the constitution of the 5th Republic) while the US is still obsessively clinging to it's 18th Century guidelines.
Do you have an argument against the US Constitution other than the fact that it’s old?
No.CelticRambler wrote: »There's a hard core of voters who can't seem to understand that, for example, the second amendment was, in fact, a change to the original constitution. By your logic, this effectively demonstrate that the Founding Fathers intended for the constitution to be frequently updated.
The first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) were made as an extra assuarance to the states that the government couldn’t be used to usurp pre-existing rights. You see it was ASSUMED in the original document that the people already had those rights. The Constitution was written based on the premise of classical liberalism that human beings have rights inherent in their nature as human beings. The government’s job is to protect those rights but the rights that don’t come from government. That’s an important distinction.
The 9th amendment explicitly states this. It says that the fact that they’ve taken the trouble to mention these specific rights doesn’t rule out other naturally inherent rights that have not been mentioned. The purpose of the first ten amendments was to make doubly sure that the original document wouldn’t be misinterpreted.
What makes you think they didn’t?CelticRambler wrote: »But no, there's this idea that a bunch of rich slave-owners playing real-life monopoly in the 1700s knew exactly how to handle the politics of half a continent in a much changed world 300 years later.
Seriously, I’m looking forward to hearing an actual argument.0 -
What’s your point? It was one election, and if you look it up you’d see it was a mid-term with a massive blue wave against an unpopular president. And it was the largest single swing in the history of the Senate.They are now , but they weren't then so not sure of the point you are making?
In the 1st elections you got 3 Democrats and 1 Republican - 1 each in Hawaii and 2 Democrats in Alaska.
If you want a more objective view look at the presidential election results of those state since.
Republicans have carried Alaska 14 out of 15 times with the exception of 1964
Democrats have carried Hawaii 13 out of 15 times with the exceptions of 1972 and 1984.0 -
Advertisement
-
I said they’d treat the specific Federal laws as illigitmate. They’d still follow their own state laws.So statewide freemanism.....? Hilarious
Exactly. As I said before, the way an impasse like that is settled is both sides have to decide how far they’re willing to go.Well its not up to individual states to enforce federal laws in the cases where they conflict with states own laws. This is why you saw only Federal Agencies raiding dispensaries when marijuana was first legalised at state levels but not federal.
Raiding pot sellers is on thing. I wonder would a Democrat led government like to try enforcing a mass gun confiscation in the red states?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement