GOP Senators Agree Not To Agree With Obama's As-Yet-Undeclared SCOTUS Apointee

Lavache_BeadsmanLavache_Beadsman New YorkPosts: 661 ✭✭✭
edited February 2016 in Politics & Current Events
So, guys, I was thinking the other day: remember when we used to actually, like, do forum things on the politics and current events forum? That was fun.

In an effort to try and revive that, what do you guys make of all this
by Lavache_Beadsman

Comments

  • TelMolagMoraTelMolagMora Alliance, OhioPosts: 509 ✭✭
    Could you repost the link please, it's not working for me for some reason.
    무세이 알렉스, remember the name.
  • Lavache_BeadsmanLavache_Beadsman New YorkPosts: 661 ✭✭✭

    Could you repost the link please, it's not working for me for some reason.

    Sorry about that, I'm not sure why it wasn't working at first. The link is just to an NY Times article explaining the GOP's decision to block any nomination the President might make.
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,886 ✭✭✭
    It's pretty difficult for Mitch McConnell to explain his decision not to consider any Supreme Court nominees without looking like he's totally motivated by politics.

    I think that this yet again, highlights the problem with having the executive of the nation sit outside the elected legislature and why voting for any position instantly politicises it.
    In short, this proves that the system of American governance is fundamentally flawed.

    What happens if Sanders or Clinton ends up at 1600 Penn Ave? Then what? Does the GOP dither for 4 years?

    Obama should cut off the Congress' nose to spite its face and appoint Mitch McConnell to the Supreme Court. That'll stun them sideways.
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • Lavache_BeadsmanLavache_Beadsman New YorkPosts: 661 ✭✭✭
    Rollo said:



    What happens if Sanders or Clinton ends up at 1600 Penn Ave? Then what? Does the GOP dither for 4 years?

    Obama should cut off the Congress' nose to spite its face and appoint Mitch McConnell to the Supreme Court. That'll stun them sideways.

    What's interesting to me is that the Supreme Court, for most of American history, has been the one a-political branch of government. They are lifetime appointees, and as such (so the story goes), are not beholden to any authority except to that of the Constitution.

    This was, after all, the source of Republican outrage when the SCOTUS made its gay marriage ruling; they argued that the 14th amendment did not extend equal protection to gay people, and that the court had simply caved under political pressure, and that this was the end of democracy as we knew it.

    But now, they seem fine with acknowledging that the Supreme Court is a political institution, and one that must have a justice with a conservative ideology on the bench. All of the mourning for the Supreme Court's supposed loss of innocence has vanished as if over night.

    To answer the question, I think the GOP's strategy for these last four years has an expiration date; they've been intentionally blocking almost every piece of legislation introduced by the Democrats because they believe that the American voter will interpret Congress' impotence as a failure of the Democratic administration, and thusly a Republican will be elected President in 2016. But if the Republicans lose the presidential election this year (which, at this point, seems likely), I think they'll be forced to concede (at least privately) that their strategy backfired; the American voter isn't stupid, and knows that Republican legislators aren't doing what the taxpayer pays them to do; they aren't governing. Which is to say, I think they'll have to cooperate if they don't win the election.
  • TelMolagMoraTelMolagMora Alliance, OhioPosts: 509 ✭✭
    Reminds me a lot of that government shutdown from a few years ago. There needs to be laws made to prevent inaction like this, especially since it affects just about everyone here in the states in some way. Makes me wonder: do Republicans actually thinking stalling and being stubborn is a good strategy or are they just out of ideas and hoping no one will notice?
    무세이 알렉스, remember the name.
  • Lavache_BeadsmanLavache_Beadsman New YorkPosts: 661 ✭✭✭

    Reminds me a lot of that government shutdown from a few years ago. There needs to be laws made to prevent inaction like this, especially since it affects just about everyone here in the states in some way. Makes me wonder: do Republicans actually thinking stalling and being stubborn is a good strategy or are they just out of ideas and hoping no one will notice?

    Well in fairness--and I am NO fan of the GOP--you could easily say it was wrong of Obama to introduce legislation in the first place that basically held the government hostage and furloughed many low-income employees just so Congress could kick the can that is the budget a little farther on down the road. Some of us on the left say that sometimes.
  • clausitclausit EnglandPosts: 7,809 ✭✭✭✭
    Like I am by no means happy with the English electoral system, or our current government, but at the very least they can get stuff done. From over here it really does feel like the US has been running without a government for the past four years, because the idea of compromise seems to have completely evaporated.It's no wonder that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump gained popularity when the political establishment seem determined to present themselves as incompetent stubborn children. I don't understand how you can make a system where one of the core branches of government is severely compromised just due to petty political squabbling.
    You will come to a place where the streets are not marked. Some windows are lighted but mostly they're darked. A place you could sprain both your elbow and chin. Do you dare to stay out? Do you dare to go in? How much can you lose? How much can you win?
  • Lavache_BeadsmanLavache_Beadsman New YorkPosts: 661 ✭✭✭
    edited March 2016
    Well, in fairness to the founders, there were no political parties until 1791 (constitution was written in 1787). And normally, the different sides of the aisle are not so polarized. You had Clinton, a Democrat, slashing welfare in the 90s, and Eisenhower, a Republican, passing Civil Rights legislation in the 50s and early 60s. Nixon founded the EPA, for god's sake, which first Romney and now Trump want to entirely abolish, and which nearly all Republicans seem to at least have some kind of disdain for.

    But when Obama took office, the GOP had a meeting in which it was decided they would obstruct nearly all legislation the President introduced, so as to make him look bad and retake the Oval Office in 4-8 years. It didn't work in 2012, and if it doesn't work this time around, as I said, I think we'll see an easing of partisan tensions. You're right; the rise of Sanders and Trump is absolutely fueled by the electorate's anger at the impotence of the legislative body.
    by Lavache_Beadsman
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,886 ✭✭✭


    But when Obama took office, the GOP had a meeting in which it was decided they would obstruct nearly all legislation the President introduced, so as to make him look bad and retake the Oval Office in 4-8 years. It didn't work in 2012, and if it doesn't work this time around, as I said, I think we'll see an easing of partisan tensions. You're right; the rise of Sanders and Trump is absolutely fueled by the electorate's anger at the impotence of the legislative body.

    The Taxpayer Protection Pledge doesn't help either.

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/072911-federalpledgesigners.pdf

    This is basically a list of Republicans (and three Democrats) who have publicly declared that they will not listen to reason.
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • Lavache_BeadsmanLavache_Beadsman New YorkPosts: 661 ✭✭✭
    edited March 2016
    Rollo said:



    The Taxpayer Protection Pledge doesn't help either.

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/072911-federalpledgesigners.pdf

    This is basically a list of Republicans (and three Democrats) who have publicly declared that they will not listen to reason.

    Well look, that (insane though it may sound) comes as a surprise to no American voter, and it comes to the good cheer of many Republicans. Most Western countries have a citizenry who understands paying taxes to be a necessary civic duty. American conservatives (without any sense of irony that this philosophy is totally radical, and the foundation for anarchism) see taxation as theft. I come from a somewhat conservative town; most of my peers would, if they had it their way, pay zero dollars in taxes, now that they are actually working. Civics is dead in America.
    by Lavache_Beadsman
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,886 ✭✭✭

    Well look, that (insane though it may sound) comes as a surprise to no American voter, and it comes to the good cheer of many Republicans.

    Grover Norquist started signing up people to his 'No taxes, under any situation, even if your country goes to hell' plan¹ since 1986.


    ¹Senator Alan Simpson on CBS's "60 Minutes", 29th Nov 2011.
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • Lavache_BeadsmanLavache_Beadsman New YorkPosts: 661 ✭✭✭
    edited March 2016
    Rollo said:


    Grover Norquist started signing up people to his 'No taxes, under any situation, even if your country goes to hell' plan¹ since 1986.


    ¹Senator Alan Simpson on CBS's "60 Minutes", 29th Nov 2011.

    Yeah, but understand that children of the adults in 1986 are now coming of age. There used to be a class called "Civics" in American public schools, a generation or two ago. I'd bet the average American under 25 couldn't define that word now.

    Which, yeah America needed some cutting down to size. We needed Chomsky and we needed Watergate, in a kind of perverse way. But this framework in which nobody believes in government is very bad. You get people like Trump running for office. You also get less than half of the country showing up to vote on Election Day.
    by Lavache_Beadsman
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,886 ✭✭✭

    Which, yeah America needed some cutting down to size. We needed Chomsky and we needed Watergate, in a kind of perverse way. But this framework in which nobody believes in government is very bad. You get people like Trump running for office. You also get less than half of the country showing up to vote on Election Day.

    In the latest episode of Dear Hank & John (037 - The Floridiest Place), John hints that the British Parliament is better because the executive which lives inside the House, is more workable than in America which is obstructionist.

    I live in Australia. We have:
    - Compulsory Voting
    - Voting on a Saturday
    - Mechanisms to fire the whole parliament in lieu of a government shutdown
    - Preferential Voting in the House of Representatives
    - Proportional Voting in the Senate

    All of these put together means that a Trump would never arise. Granted we had Tony Abbott as PM for a while who was an absolute horrorshow but the party realised that they'd be unelectable if he was allowed to stay on for terribly long; so after he became untenable, they punted him.

    We also have had +90% turnout for almost a century.

    Doobly-doo: https://soundcloud.com/dearhankandjohn
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • Lavache_BeadsmanLavache_Beadsman New YorkPosts: 661 ✭✭✭
    edited March 2016
    Yes, I listened to the podcast, but they also greatly oversimplified the motivations behind America's foundations. On the one hand, yes, the founders were incredibly conservative and opposed to Britain's monarchical structure and wanted to safeguard against any tyrant coming to power. But on the other hand, "democracy" is not exactly what they had in mind. The electoral college is evidence of that. Not to mention that Senators weren't elected by popular vote until 1913. And then of course the Democrats created the very (ironically) un-democratic "super delegate" model in the 60s.

    So it's fair to say that, in part, America has never really believed in the democratic process, and has never really put faith in the so-called electorate. We've been slowly moving towards giving power to the electorate for the last century or so, but it almost won't matter if Americans are so disgusted with their government that they're not showing up to the elections in which their vote does matter and/or electing candidates solely on the basis that they are "anti-establishment."
    by Lavache_Beadsman
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,886 ✭✭✭

    And then of course the Democrats created the very (ironically) un-democratic "super delegate" model in the 60s.

    Sort of.
    Super Delegates came into existence after the Hunt Commission, at the DNC after 1982.

    Given 1972, 1980 and 1984....



    It's pretty easy to understand why.

    Nixon blew himself to pieces; that explains why "History's Greatest Monster" was elected in 1976. 1984 was perhaps understandable because incumbency has a statistical push.

    Super Delegates exist in theory as a backstop to political obliteration.
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • Lavache_BeadsmanLavache_Beadsman New YorkPosts: 661 ✭✭✭
    Fair enough, but my point is the same...
Sign In or Register to comment.