Tuesday, 3 October 2017

Joe bidden and his famous quote...This is a BFD!

quote [ Anthony Kennedy’s Questioning Suggests Extreme Partisan Gerrymandering Could Be in Danger
A ruling against Wisconsin’s GOP maps would have huge national significance. ]

Once again 5/4 but which way. I just can't help but think of Hillary Clinton at this moment. and how the the Dems allowed the Republicans to steal a seat on the SCOTUS
[SFW] [politics]
[by bbqkink@8:14pmGMT]


lilmookieesquire said @ 12:59am GMT on 4th Oct [Score:1 Sad]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Ms. Murphy more fundamental questions.

“Could you tell me what the value is to democracy from political gerrymandering?” Justice Sotomayor asked. “How does that help our system of government?”

Ms. Murphy said that gerrymandering “produces values in terms of accountability that are valuable so that the people understand who isn’t and who is in power.”
HoZay said @ 10:26pm GMT on 4th Oct [Score:1 Sad]
+1 Funsadful
HoZay said @ 10:15pm GMT on 3rd Oct
You're blaming the democrats because the republicans stole a judge?
foobar said @ 10:28pm GMT on 3rd Oct [Score:1 Funny]
Well, they let them, but I'm not sure that was a mistake. Republicans have set up a precedent for the next Democrat controlled senate to refuse to consider any Republican nominee.
badbob said @ 11:05pm GMT on 3rd Oct
I'm not sure that was a good precedent to set for either side in the long run. Where do you draw the line on starting to ignore a nomination? The Republicans have set it at about 9 months (Mar to Jan) but why not more than a year or just wait until the next time you've got your party in the White House? You would be gambling on holding the senate majority, thank you nuclear option precedent, in the mean time but thankfully there is some consequence to no action… unless the presidency and senate would flip parties at the same time… damn you balancing of political powers!
bbqkink said @ 12:30am GMT on 4th Oct [Score:1 Underrated]
Mostly I am blaming Obama...It was his seat. If there was going to be a constitutional crises let's have it over this.
HoZay said @ 5:48am GMT on 4th Oct
What was he supposed to do?
bbqkink said @ 4:14pm GMT on 4th Oct
Force the issue...do a recess appointment even though they didn't officially recess, make the SCOTUS get involved, scream and holler...what ever it took.

Chances are all he could have done is force a vote, but make people understand just how unconstitutional all of this was.
HoZay said[1] @ 6:58pm GMT on 4th Oct
bbqkink said[1] @ 8:03pm GMT on 4th Oct
In the United States, a recess appointment is an appointment by the President of a federal official, who would normally require Senate confirmation, while the U.S. Senate is in recess. The United States Constitution requires most senior federal officials be confirmed by the Senate before assuming office, but the President may act alone to make the appointment while the Senate is in recess. To remain in effect, a recess appointment must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress, or the position becomes vacant again; in current practice this means that a recess appointment must be approved by roughly the end of the next calendar year.

It would have started a constitutional fight but he could have done it and at least he would have got a vote. In stead of a fight I don't hardly remember any objection.
HoZay said @ 10:13pm GMT on 4th Oct
From my link above, which you didn't read:
The real problem with trying to make such an intersession recess appointment is that the Supreme Court has held that such an appointment would be unconstitutional in Noel Canning v. NLRB. Dayen and Kilgore purport to address Noel Canning — claiming it does not apply since the case concerned only intrasession recess appointments — but they ignore what Justice Breyer’s opinion for the court actually says. As Seth Barrett Tillman points out, Noel Canning clearly precludes such an appointment. From Justice Breyer’s opinion:

we conclude that the phrase “the recess” applies to both intra-session and inter-session recesses. If a Senate recess is so short [i.e., less than 3 days] that it does not require the consent of the House, it is too short to trigger the Recess Appointments Clause. See Art. I, § 5, cl. 4. And a recess lasting less than 10 days is presumptively too short as well.

If a three-day recess is too short, a three-second recess would certainly be as well and, contrary to Dayen’s and Kilgore’s suggestion, Justice Breyer’s opinion makes no distinction between intrasession and intersession recesses. All told, every justice on the court embraced an opinion rejecting the idea that such an intersession recess appointment would be constitutional.

Obama believes in the Constitution - he's not going to try to do something by trickery that's already been rejected by the court.
bbqkink said[1] @ 10:54pm GMT on 4th Oct
Obama believes in the Constitution - he's not going to try to do something by trickery that's already been rejected by the court.

Ya I know and that is the problem. You let the Republicans go directly against the constitution, in a way that nobody has ever done before, but to draw attention to the that you have to do something that you feel will lose..so fucking what. Even if you lose you not win but put yourself in a better position.

Hey its time to cause some waves. And the deciding vote had just died..so there is that.
midden said @ 12:39am GMT on 4th Oct
"Chief Justice John Roberts was skeptical of that test during Tuesday’s arguments. “The main problem for me,” he said, “is that in every case that comes before us, we will have to decide whether the Democrat wins or the Republican wins.”"

No, the Court only needs to decide on a standard test that will apply to the case before them as well all future cases, regardless of which party has the upper hand. The current political affiliations of the plaintiff and defendant in the case are irrelevant.
bbqkink said @ 1:36am GMT on 4th Oct
There has been little pretense the the court is still not partisan. Koch retreats, justice show up at campaign rallies.
cb361 said @ 8:56am GMT on 4th Oct
Was this 'lifetime tenure' thing that you guys have meant to ensure that the supreme court isn't partisan?

If so, it's a perfect example that rules don't matter, only people matter.

People obviously put a lot of thought into designing the American state, and viewed through the lens of SE posts, it seems to be a complete shambles. Not because the rules are wrong, but because the people are wrong.

You can have a ridiculous set of rules, but if the people are sensible, it'll still work,
5th Earth said @ 1:35am GMT on 4th Oct
Since no one else is saying it... "Joe bidden"?
bbqkink said[1] @ 1:37am GMT on 4th Oct
for POTUS?
I was a Bidden guy back in 08. Thought his way ti deal with the war was the best. But now I think he missed his chance...Can still be a player but I don't see POTUS.
apomorph said @ 2:10am GMT on 4th Oct [Score:2 Funny]
steele said @ 3:13am GMT on 4th Oct
Bye! :(
arrowhen said @ 3:29am GMT on 4th Oct [Score:1 Underrated]
Bye, then.
bbqkink said @ 8:45pm GMT on 4th Oct
Didn't even notice until after you comment...

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.

Posts of Import
4 More Years!
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings