• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Auto-confirmation for judges?

haymarket said:
Lots of things changed in America as time passed and our country no longer resembled what it was in the 1700's.

The people now elect Senators. They still represent the people of the state and the state cannot exist without the people. The people are the state.

There can be no interests of the state that are not the interests of the people who comprise the state. You could get rid of the artificial entity known as a state and the people would endure and keep on going. If you got rid of the people, there would be no state.
Click to expand...

the link below is one Haymarket posted months ago, which ruined his argument on the state governments having no power in the federal government before the 17th and that senators always represented the people

State legislatures not only were assumed to have the power to instruct their senators but immediately began to exercise that power once the new government was established. In the very first Congress, Virginia, in response to the Senate’s refusal to deliberate in public, instructed its senators to secure “one of the important privileges of the people” by obtaining their “free admission” to the Senate. When Virginia’s resolution was ignored, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia instructed their senators to propose again that the Senate conduct its business in public. When the senators from those states refused to act on these instructions, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia reissued their instructions, asserting that their senators were “bound by the instructions of the legislature … where such instructions are not repugnant to the constitution of the United States” and condemning their senators’ refusal to act on them. The senators from Maryland and South Carolina continued to ignore their instructions, prompting Maryland to issue a vote of censure. These state instructions, however, ultimately were heeded, and, when the Senate agreed to open its meetings in 1794, it identified itself in its resolution of approval as the Representatives of the sovereignties of the individual states.

above shows senators were instructed by the states and that the senators were representatives of the state governments and not the people


page 96 goes on to explain that senators were being instructed by the states

https://books.google.com/books?id=6...egislature power to instruct senators&f=false

Screen Shot 2017-04-18 at 10.46.58 AM.jpg
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Of course you're not going to answer; it's obvious that you do favor judicial filibusters, but you understand how that contradicts the position you're trying to push here.
Click to expand...

No means I do not favor filibusters for judicial nominees, but it's irrelevant to this thread and I didn't want to discuss. If you want to talk about filibusters in general start a thread.

You do if you keep pushing that third alternative, when it isn't actually relevant to the question.

THIS is what's actually stupid. I've explained multiple times now; you simply keep pretending I haven't.

Or, you simply don't have it in you to grasp the concept. Either way -- stupid.
Click to expand...

My reading comprehension is fine. It's not just me but also Radcen who didn't see any explanation other than "just cause." He or she appears intelligent and a reasonable person, , so it's just possible the problem is with you and poor writing or an illogical position or at least a position you're unable or unwilling to articulate. Either way, I'm done unless you have some other point to make.
 
haymarket said:
Lots of things changed in America as time passed and our country no longer resembled what it was in the 1700's.

The people now elect Senators. They still represent the people of the state and the state cannot exist without the people. The people are the state.

There can be no interests of the state that are not the interests of the people who comprise the state. You could get rid of the artificial entity known as a state and the people would endure and keep on going. If you got rid of the people, there would be no state.
Click to expand...

In this I think you are wrong. States - here I mean state governments - are a distinct entity from the body of the populace and state governments, and the rights and powers granted to them, needed protection from the Federal government. Legislative appointment of senators was supposed to be a way to insure that state governments and the rights and powers granted to them, were protected from Federal encroachment. Popular election of senators has largely neutered that protection as well as reduced the states to little more than just another taxing authority, and a largely redundant one at that.
 
JasperL said:
No means I do not favor filibusters for judicial nominees,
Click to expand...

It's not like that was clear; my question was, "which is it"? And you answered "no."

but it's irrelevant to this thread and I didn't want to discuss. If you want to talk about filibusters in general start a thread.
Click to expand...

it's not irrelevant when when it works against your premise. But you say you don't favor it, so it doesn't. That's all you needed to say in the first place.

My reading comprehension is fine. It's not just me but also Radcen who didn't see any explanation other than "just cause." He or she appears intelligent and a reasonable person, , so it's just possible the problem is with you and poor writing or an illogical position or at least a position you're unable or unwilling to articulate. Either way, I'm done unless you have some other point to make.
Click to expand...

That the both of you can't understand the simple, plain-English phrase "it would upset the system of checks and balances for something which doesn't make any difference" -- that you see this sentence and apparently can only see "just 'cause" -- really IS NOT my problem.
 
Gaius46 said:
In this I think you are wrong. States - here I mean state governments - are a distinct entity from the body of the populace and state governments, and the rights and powers granted to them, needed protection from the Federal government. Legislative appointment of senators was supposed to be a way to insure that state governments and the rights and powers granted to them, were protected from Federal encroachment. Popular election of senators has largely neutered that protection as well as reduced the states to little more than just another taxing authority, and a largely redundant one at that.
Click to expand...

he is wrong, his own link he posted months ago killed his argument

https://books.google.com/books?id=6...egislature power to instruct senators&f=false

Screen Shot 2017-04-18 at 10.46.58 AM.jpg

notice the word "structurally"

to protect the interest of the states as states
 
Last edited:
Gaius46 said:
In this I think you are wrong. States - here I mean state governments - are a distinct entity from the body of the populace and state governments, and the rights and powers granted to them, needed protection from the Federal government. Legislative appointment of senators was supposed to be a way to insure that state governments and the rights and powers granted to them, were protected from Federal encroachment. Popular election of senators has largely neutered that protection as well as reduced the states to little more than just another taxing authority, and a largely redundant one at that.
Click to expand...

The state government represents the state on a state level. The federal government in Washington is our national government. The two are separate and distinct.

A state Senator has always represented the people of the state in that the elected state legislators who sent them to Washington pre-17th Amendment were there because of the people and in the name of the people. It all comes back to the people. All the 17th did was eliminate the middle man.

The states have been reduced in their power by reality. The reality is that people are no longer Mainers or Michiganders or Californians or Mississippians. They are Americans. Today people move around a great deal and the old rules where you were born and lived and probably died in the same area have long ago been gone with the wind.

Today a baby can be born in Ohio, see his family move while he is in grade school to Tennessee, relocate in South Carolina for his high school years, then go off to college in Wisconsin, do graduate work in Wyoming, met the love of their life who has their own travel history in different states and get married and live in Texas, then New Mexico and finally Massachusetts over the next 35 years. They retire to Florida and have kids that live in Georgia and Oklahoma with lives and careers and families of their own. It is that reality that has neutered states.
 
Master PO said:
he is wrong, his own link he posted months ago killed his argument

https://books.google.com/books?id=6...egislature power to instruct senators&f=false

View attachment 67216507

notice the word "structurally"

to protect the interest of the states as states
Click to expand...

There is not now and never was any "interest of the states" without the people who constitute the state in the first placed without whom there would be no state.

As long as the interests of the people are preserved, the interests of the states as home of those people cannot help buy be preserved as well as one constitutes the other.
 
haymarket said:
There is not now and never was any "interest of the states" without the people who constitute the state in the first placed without whom there would be no state.

As long as the interests of the people are preserved, the interests of the states as home of those people cannot help buy be preserved as well as one constitutes the other.
Click to expand...


Screen Shot 2017-04-18 at 10.46.58 AM.jpg

YOU OWN LINK, YOU POSTED! KILLED YOUR ARUGMENT:mrgreen:

https://books.google.com/books?id=6...egislature power to instruct senators&f=false
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
The state government represents the state on a state level. The federal government in Washington is our national government. The two are separate and distinct.

A state Senator has always represented the people of the state in that the elected state legislators who sent them to Washington pre-17th Amendment were there because of the people and in the name of the people. It all comes back to the people. All the 17th did was eliminate the middle man.

The states have been reduced in their power by reality. The reality is that people are no longer Mainers or Michiganders or Californians or Mississippians. They are Americans. Today people move around a great deal and the old rules where you were born and lived and probably died in the same area have long ago been gone with the wind.

Today a baby can be born in Ohio, see his family move while he is in grade school to Tennessee, relocate in South Carolina for his high school years, then go off to college in Wisconsin, do graduate work in Wyoming, met the love of their life who has their own travel history in different states and get married and live in Texas, then New Mexico and finally Massachusetts over the next 35 years. They retire to Florida and have kids that live in Georgia and Oklahoma with lives and careers and families of their own. It is that reality that has neutered states.
Click to expand...


the link below is one Haymarket posted months ago, which ruined his argument on the state governments having no power in the federal government before the 17th and that senators always represented the people

State legislatures not only were assumed to have the power to instruct their senators but immediately began to exercise that power once the new government was established. In the very first Congress, Virginia, in response to the Senate’s refusal to deliberate in public, instructed its senators to secure “one of the important privileges of the people” by obtaining their “free admission” to the Senate. When Virginia’s resolution was ignored, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia instructed their senators to propose again that the Senate conduct its business in public. When the senators from those states refused to act on these instructions, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia reissued their instructions, asserting that their senators were “bound by the instructions of the legislature … where such instructions are not repugnant to the constitution of the United States” and condemning their senators’ refusal to act on them. The senators from Maryland and South Carolina continued to ignore their instructions, prompting Maryland to issue a vote of censure. These state instructions, however, ultimately were heeded, and, when the Senate agreed to open its meetings in 1794, it identified itself in its resolution of approval as the Representatives of the sovereignties of the individual states.

above shows senators were instructed by the states and that the senators were representatives of the state governments and not the people


FROM YOUR OWN LINK, YOU POSTED MONTHS AGO.
https://books.google.com/books?id=6...egislature power to instruct senators&f=false
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
How so? I do not follow your claim nor what point you think arises from it... let alone this reference to my link.
Click to expand...

its your link!:lamo

you just failed to read it when you posted it as you always do, and that gets you into trouble

or are you going to deny its your link?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I still have no idea
A- what I claimed
B- what you claimed
C- what the link supposedly does about either

In what thread did we have this discussion previously?
Click to expand...

that location posted here would violate the rules of the forum, however i will be glad to give you the link to the location and anyone else who would like it.

where your link which you posted shows the opposite of what you have stated here.

the information from your very own link , ....... senators are instructed by state governments and representatives of them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom