Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

When it comes to the Supreme Court, it's fairly clear that Bork was THE turning point. It was THE politicization of the Court. The Rs move was an incremental step in the war that ensued. There's also a credible argument that it has become so important because the Court is increasingly viewed as a way of imposing law outside the legislative process. IMO, what the Rs did wasn't out of the blue nor was it some sort of massive break from norms

Further, Ds had an opportunity to take the Rs to task and make them pay a political price. They failed to win the Senate back in a year they absolutely should have won the Senate back. So, the electorate certainty didn't consider an issue worth punishing the Rs for.

Ds got beat. Big time. When they're back in power, they'll escalate as needed. So the dance continues.

[Dr. Strangelove]

New reports show Michael Flynn called the Russian Ambassador FIVE TIMES on Dec. 29 (the day the new sanctions were announced and diplomats were expelled).

The Trump team is denying that they even mentioned the sanctions during the FIVE TIMES they talked that day. They merely exchanged pleasantries and spoke FIVE TIMES about setting up a call between Trump and Putin

[CGVT]

The electorate is too stupid and easily manipulated to ever make a party pay.

Most are one or two issue voters and are swayed by slogans and sound bites. Hope and change! Drain the Swamp!

Do you really think most Trump voters had any idea what his cabinet was going to look like? Do you think they even care?

We are fucked.

[iam416]

So, I don't necessarily disagree with you re electorate. I'm more in line with WC Fields than not.

But, "outrageous" behavior, IMO, has to be judged contextually and, at bottom, it is judged by the relevant social body. With the Supreme Court, the relevant body is the whole of the US. They considered the circumstances, considered the relatively newfound massive importance of the Court, considered the fact that it was a "conservative" justice being replace (I think this actually matters) and didn't take the Rs to task.

If the Rs had tried this in 1916, then the results would have been different. Hell, in the 1930s the public took FDR to task for his attempts, as they were, to pack the Court. In 2016, however, the context is considerably changed. Including, of course, the removal of the filibuster which was a D move. People, IMO, view almost anything as fair game when it comes to the Court.

IMO, that view began with Bork and has become entrenched with, as I've noted, the increasing importance of the Court.

That's my take. I offer it only as an opinion. I feel like I can defend the opinion, but I also appreciate that others can credibly disagree. FTR, I didn't support the Rs move, but I wasn't outraged at all.

So, that's my say on it. I think it's an interesting and good conversation and appreciate your perspective and willingness to discuss.

[Dr. Strangelove]

D'Souza's on a roll

[ame]https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/820381140112412673[/ame]

[ame]https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/820395973931171841[/ame]

[CGVT]

Wow.

[hack]

But, "outrageous" behavior, IMO, has to be judged contextually and, at bottom, it is judged by the relevant social body. With the Supreme Court, the relevant body is the whole of the US. They considered the circumstances, considered the relatively newfound massive importance of the Court, considered the fact that it was a "conservative" justice being replace (I think this actually matters) and didn't take the Rs to task.

If the Rs had tried this in 1916, then the results would have been different. Hell, in the 1930s the public took FDR to task for his attempts, as they were, to pack the Court. In 2016, however, the context is considerably changed. Including, of course, the removal of the filibuster which was a D move. People, IMO, view almost anything as fair game when it comes to the Court.

But in all these cases the Senate did its job in deliberating the nomination and voting on it, no?

[iam416]

Yes, I believe so. But my point wouldn't be that this wasn't something new. My opinion is that it was an incremental step in the ongoing battle for the Court.

So, IMO, the result is what matters. The Rs, IMO, took an incremental approach to keeping Garland off the Court. I believe I could make a credible case the Ds did the same thing with Bork.

Put another way, the Rs could have simply waited the relatively standard 5-6 months -- until August since the term doesn't start until late September -- and then voted him down. I feel fairly certain that if they were required to give him a hearing and a vote, that would have been the outcome.

The means they chose broke norms. But, I don't think the ends were particularly novel for this particular day and age. I think that's why the American public wasn't particularly outraged. They're accustomed to the politicization of the Court that has occurred over the past 30-40 years and have come to accept (if not agree with) the fact that Justices will be contested. At bottom, that's what happened with Garland -- at least IMO.

As I noted earlier, I also think the context of the "replacee" Justice matters a great deal. I don't think the Rs would have done this if it were RBG being replaced (this is purely visceral with no shred of evidence to support). But, the door is now open and if the Ds get a chance to prevent DJT from replacing, say, Kennedy, they will. The Rs will note the difference I mentioned, gain little sympathy, and lose. And, it's not entirely unlikely. It's a bad Senate map for the Ds in 2018, but, I mean...Trump....the Ds could have the Senate in 2019 when he's on his way out.

Anyway, this is only my opinion. Reasonable minds may disagree and, certainly, way smarter folks think differently. Just my two cents.

[hack]

I guess my point is ``gets considered in Senate; nomination dies'' is different than ``doesn't get considered in Senate''. That's a broken norm. I'd rather they have waited until August and voted him down, making the Senate appear that they were doing their job as written. Instead what this really looks like is McConnell using his position to say ``I dare you to stop me from doing what I'm doing''. Each time someone in DC behaves like that is a weakening of the system. One of the thousand cuts.

In the end though, if you trace it back to Bork, I have no problem with the idea that not every nomination sails through in a collegial process. The point of having these hearings is to make sure the person is fit for the job. If nobody is ever rejected then it's questionable whether you're really and truly vetting them.

The Tillerson hearings are a great example of what a waste of time this can be. It was a parade of unconvincing answers and claims of ignorance. If the process isn't going to be vigorous, and sometimes result in rejections, then why should it exist?

[entropy]

My suspect, again, that both parties are more similar than they are different.... Favors/policy/decisions are influenced and always have been.

[entropy]

D'Souza's on a roll

https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/820381140112412673

https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/sta...95973931171841

wow.. umm. wow.

I bet she celebrates similar small acts of protest.. like dumping tea in a harbor.

[iam416]

I guess my point is ``gets considered in Senate; nomination dies'' is different than ``doesn't get considered in Senate''. That's a broken norm.

We certainly agree on the procedural difference. We disagree on the significance of that difference, and that's fine. I think I've made my points as well as I wish to without going too deep into the history of judicial confirmation -- perhaps I could have hit the filibuster thing a little harder, but otherwise I think I've set forth the basis for my opinion. I acknowledge it's just that -- an opinion and appreciate that your opinion is both credible and supportable.

I, too, would have preferred to the procedural formality as I am process, process, process. It does matter. Absolutely. The political and, I guess, "social" significance of working outside that normal process in terms of "outrage" or whatever, depends, however, on the end result (IMO). I can think of numerous things where I scream process, process, process (EOs/Agency Rules), but the outcome is politically viable and the extra-procedural pathway politically tolerable.

Finally, please don't mistake the last point as one of equivalency. It's intended to illustrate that I can really do get where you and others are coming from on the issue.

[Da Geezer]

When it comes to the Supreme Court, it's fairly clear that Bork was THE turning point. It was THE politicization of the Court. The Rs move was an incremental step in the war that ensued. There's also a credible argument that it has become so important because the Court is increasingly viewed as a way of imposing law outside the legislative process. IMO, what the Rs did wasn't out of the blue nor was it some sort of massive break from norms

True. After I read CGVT"s post, I looked up the nominations he mentions on SCOTUSblog. The only nomination that was approved during the last year of a presidency in which the other party controlled the Senate was Kennedy in 87-88. Kennedy was nominated after the Dems broke all norms and traditions in voting down Bork after they had unanimously approved him for the federal bench in 81-82. Reagan then nominated Ginsberg. After that also failed, Reagan nominated Kennedy, who was approved unanimously.

So I was wrong in saying the rejection of a nominee at the end of a presidential term was a violation of norms. It was absolutely the norm if the Senate was controlled by the opposing party. Talent is right in saying that the Senate, had they voted, would probably have turned down the Garland nomination. At least that would have followed the recent historical norm.

You young bucks don't remember the nature of the Bork hearings. There were no arguments that he was not qualified. He was, and the whole Senate had agreed to that in 1982. His hearing was the first of its kind in which what the nominee thought or believed was what caused his rejection. It is interesting to contemplate how the country would be different if Bork had been in the place of Kennedy since 1988.

So, to be clear, the Dems were the ones who changed the nomination process to be about what a nominee "believes" and not whether he is "qualified". This is the same as Harry Reid changing the rules of the filibuster to not allow it against nominees to other positions. Radical change to promote the socialist agenda.

Reid also added Obamacare to a budget bill so he didn't have to worry about a filibuster, and he was able to pass it with no Republican support. First time ever for a major social program. Again, radical change violating established norms to achieve socialist ends.

IMO, the left is always more radical than the right, in terms of actual violence, or violence to existing norms. Read some of Hannibal's posts if you want to see what the rank-and-file conservative view is of the leftist Republicans who have dominated that party all of my lifetime.

[iam416]

I think left and right are both pretty much in the same ballpark, in the same dugout, sharing the same lockerroom when it comes to Machiavellian willingness to implement their agenda/prevent the other's agenda. I don't have an opinion as to which side is technically worse, but I do believe they're close enough that it's partisan to posture otherwise.

I disagreed with Hoss a bit on this issue and certainly disagree with you, Geezer, if you think the left is materially worse than the right in this regard.

[Da Geezer]

Yup, we disagree. I believe the left is materially worse than the right simply because the left is the "party of government" and because socialism is about growing the power of the state. That is what I mean when I say the progs vote to eat. Most have "jobs" that are directly dependent on statism. I don't include you in that statement because you could make far more in the private sector (a distinction I've made before, and is crystallized when considering who is a "net tax payer").

Also, when talking about established norms, one could expect any conservative to be more aware of norms that any prog. That is what the word conservative means

When did the right break established norms in the nature of Bork, or of the filibuster? I have honestly tried to think of examples, and that's why I initially conceded SLF's point about Garland. I can't think of any. Help please?