All the posts going around about Reagan nominating Kennedy as a SCotUS justice in an election year as well as...

By
All the posts going around about Reagan nominating Kennedy as a SCotUS justice in an election year as well as various Republicans saying a President (or rather, this president) shouldn't be allowed to nominate a replacement to Scalia during his final years in office. But we have to remember, this behavior isn't limited to the GOP.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283

Comments

Kevin Reynolds said…
tit for tat.
still doesn't make it right.
February 15, 2016 at 12:28 PM
John M said…
Kevin Reynolds True it does not. But it is still to be remembered prior to chant of racism against a black president rears up
February 15, 2016 at 12:30 PM
Timothy Hall said…
This is the way the separation of powers should work. Every last thing must be agreeable to all branches or nothing should be done. It was setup this way so the power would be held by the people through the ballot box. It is clear to me that the voters have been speaking clearly in the last 3 years.
February 15, 2016 at 12:36 PM
Josh Adkins said…
I would have been as unimpressed with my representation then as I am now.  They all need to be told to #justdoyourjob .  If they did their jobs and still can't find compromise that is one thing, but continual scorched earth is stupid.  Timothy Hall yeah the elections are clear... ...as mud.  Elections are cyclical look it up.
February 15, 2016 at 12:45 PM
Timothy Hall said…
Jay Add Sometimes #justdoyourjob  means being obstructionist.
February 15, 2016 at 12:54 PM
Jason ON said…
Timothy Hall​, could you please point out which part of the Constitution explains where obstructionism is "a part of the job?"

Thanks
February 16, 2016 at 9:00 AM
Timothy Hall said…
Jason ON No verse and chapter needed. The structure of the branches of government where there are checks and balances is constructed in such a way that (sans modern pork) if all parties do not agree that there should be no movement towards that ideological end.

The idea was to ensure that the people never have to deal with a tyrannical government ever again and that everything is structured such that the people have the power.

I get these ideas from the federalist papers.
February 16, 2016 at 9:48 AM
Jason ON said…
Well, the Federalist Papers aren't law now, are they?

The idea of checks and balances was to check one branch of government from becoming too powerful and balancing the power out, so that, once again, one branch of government doesn't become too powerful. No where is it mentioned how obstruction is a valid tool for party politics. No where does it mention how obstruction should be used to circumvent constitutionally mandated responsibilities.
February 16, 2016 at 9:53 AM
Timothy Hall said…
Federalist papers is what sold the Union. The first principles for which agreement came from.

Why does the government meet for as long as they do as compared to the founding? Wrangling over power. They have decided to cooperate for the creation of a political class, the very thing they were trying to guard against.

I'd love to see every law set forth to have a sunset clause applied to it unless it has an overwhelming majority in favor of it. Today we get bare majorities that change a substantial amount of our economy. They don't know what they are doing, they are not serving us with what they do. It was never meant to be so top heavy. States rights has been taking it in the shorts for far too long.

I'll give you your argument that it is not there. But I think that you would agree that there should not be the Leviathan like legislation being made where all politicians are satisfied because they got what they wanted even though they disagree with other portions of the bill. Less pork, more thoughtful and generally agreeable limited issues need to be the norm.

Too big and powerful. This article articulates well my general feeling: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/meyer/110922
February 16, 2016 at 10:15 AM
Jason ON said…
The Federalist Papers are what helped codify the Union, not sell it. Regardless, they are not law.
February 16, 2016 at 3:20 PM
Timothy Hall said…
It is readily apparent to me that because of the structure obstruction is a tool to be used. To obstruct bad public policy is a good thing. If all they could do was start new law without it being able to be struck down ... Sounds like we have had too much of it already considering the breadth and quantity of existing legislation...

It is said that we break laws every day that we are not even aware of?
February 16, 2016 at 3:25 PM
Jason ON said…
No, to consider and debate a supposed "bad policy" (and I'm trying real hard to figure out how a sitting president doing his constitutional duty is a "bad policy") and accept it or dismiss it upon it's merits is a food thing. To obstruct is merely a bunch of senators throwing a hissy fit because they can't have their way.
February 16, 2016 at 3:27 PM
Timothy Hall said…
So was Reid doing his job when he sat on republican bills for years?
February 16, 2016 at 3:48 PM
Jason ON said…
I don't know. Pick a particular instance and start a post about it. This one's about GOP senators obstructing progress once again because their fanaticism knows no bounds.
February 16, 2016 at 5:10 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

So, I asked Andrew Tamm, who filled my Stream with a hundred (sarcasm there) animated gifs and cat pictures to...

By
So, I asked Andrew Tamm, who filled my Stream with a hundred (sarcasm there) animated gifs and cat pictures to remove me from whatever Circle he has me in where he posts the animated gifs and cat pictures. It was either that or unfollow him and I didn't see any reason to unfollow him. Me asking https://plus.google.com/112885755521259735422/posts/78dwnvvgh4p <==edited to add the correct link Then he plusses me onto Public posts of animated cat gifs : https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/EuuR1tnU3vJ https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/8r6Grcm2Jpj https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/74PgSu6iL2s Then one of his friends (or Circlers) starts plussing me into posts of animated cat gifs : https://plus.google.com/u/0/107120198886093172821/posts/gRW9JhWLs5T Don't get me wrong, I'm all about sarcasm and messing with people, but this seems sort of childish to me. Am I the only one who thinks so? So far I have only blocked
Read more

I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend.

By
I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend. Why? This stupid #gifwars thing people are so proud of. This Adam Black guy said he doesn't like gifs and now everyone is mass trolling him. Having been mass trolled like this I can relate to him easily enough. Have an opinion and the collective might of Google+'s lower class denizens jump on a bandwagon. I just saw a post where someone wanted to jump on board and had to get clarification she was tagging the proper Adam Black. She wasn't even connected to him ! Nor was she a part of the original discussion. She just wanted to follow the herd. When I called her out of it she claimed, "one gif doesn't make a troll." Perhaps not, but she's contributing to a larger troll effort. One straw doesn't break the camel's back, but thousands will. So, tonight, Google+ disgusts me. It probably will tomorrow as well. And possibly Sunday. I gave up Google+ for two months this spring
Read more