Finally: Talk of expanding the Supreme Court

Vidi said:

No. 1/3 is suicides.

Japan is one stat, Australia is another. They contradict each other. Australia’s suicide rate declined after they passed gun reform.

I’m not proposing a gun ban by the way. As I stated, I personally do not believe in private gun ownership for the reason I stated above ( you can never tell when someone will have a mental health issue ) but I believe in America more.

It’s funny how when someone stares an OPINION without calling for any action or regulation or bans, gun lovers jump up and start telling me how I think and why. Look back at my posts. I’ve not only advocated for NO CHANGES, but stated flat out that I know my opinion on this is an extreme one. But you somehow read my mind and knew what I was REALLY thinking.

Your gift is amazing. If I had ESP as you do, I’d be in Vegas.

Click to expand...

YOu're lying. the majority of intentional gunshot deaths are suicides

Nearly 40,000 People Died From Guns in U.S. Last Year, Highest in 50 Years - The New York Times

(an anti gun organization BTW) stated as follows:


n 2017, about 60 percent of gun deaths were suicides, while about 37 percent were homicides, according to an analysis of the C.D.C. data by the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, a public health think tank. (The group is a sister organization of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, an advocacy group that works to oppose the N.R.A.)

Suicide over all has been on the rise for more than a decade and is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States, according to the health statistics center.

jnug said:

The poster's point is that Obama could have gotten a year out of Garland, maybe more if HRC had won and McConnell feared having to face more liberal Justice nominees than Garland. Could have possibly made it more difficult for GOP Senators running for reelection to spend that last month of campaigning fully in campaign mode. Frankly it would never have been more than a gamble that is just as likely to have completely failed as anything else IMO. Obama does not get a year of Garland and the Senate vote does not change a wit. We do more likely poison the well even more than it has been poisoned.

My view is that we should not be continuing to applaud the main characters in this rush to the bottom. We are a system of norms, not rules and not laws. If anything we might need more rules and laws if people are not going to hold to the norms. But the idea that everybody from both parties should rush to the bottom. breaking all the norms beyond repair is IMO absurd. The idea that we were always at the bottom is if anything more absurd.

In a capitalist economic and financial system do we know what we really get if we are at the bottom? We get Russia. You get government by thuggery and theft. Are we there yet? Obviously not. Are we headed there? Just as obviously yes. Why do we think DonDon admires Putin and Russia so.

Click to expand...

The rush to the bottom, in more than one tradition, has its origins in the nature of the relationship between "the state" and society as a whole. As a matter of principle, society in a market system is based on trade, voluntary exchange. And because production and exchange cannot occur without the consuming party's being satisfied, their is a market niche that provides the broadest opportunity for "win-win" outcomes (between producers and sellers).

Then there are systems where the society is the state, wherein transactions are by nature involuntary and decided for all. In democratic theory slightly over one half the populace wins (the majority) and the other half loses (the minority). Individuals no longer run their own lives, collective choices are made on all individuals behalf whether they like it or not. It's a win-lose system.

Win-lose systems bring out the worst in humanity. And while they may be a necessary evil, the growth of the size of government (in win-lose systems) in relation to society has made the stakes far greater. When, for example, the government spent 7 percent of the GDP in 1910 the battle over the smaller stakes was less consequential to all.

Today, when government spends 40 percent (roughly) of the GDP, and growing, the state consumes nearly 1/2 the national wealth. NOW politics of who gets the loot really matter - a huge chunk national wealth is no longer subject to win-win market solutions. It's all or nothing politics.

Hence, its no surprise that the Supreme Court has become so important to people's lives. You either win or you lose. So the race to the bottom is inevitable - the larger the stakes, the greater the meanness of politics.

maxparrish said:

The rush to the bottom, in more than one tradition, has its origins in the nature of the relationship between "the state" and society as a whole. As a matter of principle, society in a market system is based on trade, voluntary exchange. And because production and exchange cannot occur without the consuming party's being satisfied, their is a market niche that provides the broadest opportunity for "win-win" outcomes (between producers and sellers).

Wherein in systems where the society is the state, wherein transactions are by nature involuntary. Because the choices are collective, in theory slightly over one half the populace wins (the majority) and the other half loses (the minority). Individuals no longer run their own lives, collective choices are made on individuals behalf whether they like it or not. It's a win-lose system.

Win-lose systems bring out the worst in humanity. And while they may be a necessary evil, the growth of the size of government in relation to society has made the stakes far greater. When, for example, the government spent 7 percent of the GDP in 1910 the battle over who gets the government money was when the stakes were far smaller.

Today, when government spends 40 percent (roughly) of the GDP, and growing, the state consumes nearly 1/2 the national wealth. NOW politics really matter - a huge chunk of loot is no longer subject to win-win market solutions. It's all or nothing politics.

Hence, its no surprise that the Supreme Court has become so important to people's lives. You either win or you lose. So the race to the bottom is inevitable - the larger the stakes, the greater the meanness of politics.

Click to expand...

Except most people are neither producers or sellers. They are consumers.

Don't get me wrong, I am no proponent of socialism. That said IMO, Mixed Capitalism which is what we have is the best you get for an economic and financial system. If you simply consider only producers and sellers what you end up with is abject greed which is what gave us the great depression along with other wonderful features of being whipsawed between growth and decline features that were frankly unmanageable. Pure Capitalism DID NOT WORK here. That is as obvious as the fact that pure Socialism works nowhere that I can find.

Market solutions sometimes work and sometimes don't. I cannot tell you the number of "business opportunities" thrown in front of the large VC group that owned us before we were sold to a strategic. They were often nothing more than an idea that somebody thought could be marketed. Never mind if there was any intrinsic value to what they were attempting. They were often just ideas mated to marketeers (people like me). We now have start-ups encouraged to get their product out in the marketplace regardless of whether it is ready or not. "Market' your way through it". Frankly I would never have allowed my company to do that and I never did allow my company to do that. But it is now encouraged by so-called business consultants.....abject greed peddled as business advice. Nice...real nice....another component to the rush to the bottom.

Look at our FAA for God sake. Not too many years ago, the premier and best air safety organization in the world, driven straight into the ditch in two short years...another embarrassment. Another greed induced rush to the bottom story.

Mycroft said:

Sorry, but the Dems are not powerful enough to get this done. They should have thought about doing this back in 2009 instead of ****ing the country over with Obamacare.

Click to expand...

What I find so funny about all of this is that, even if somehow the dimwits were to pass legislation, and even if somehow the Senate were to agree, and even if somehow the President signed off, the USSC would find the measure unconstitutional.. LOL


Idiot time wasting morons..


Tim-

TurtleDude said:

YOu're lying. the majority of intentional gunshot deaths are suicides

Nearly 40,000 People Died From Guns in U.S. Last Year, Highest in 50 Years - The New York Times

(an anti gun organization BTW) stated as follows:


n 2017, about 60 percent of gun deaths were suicides, while about 37 percent were homicides, according to an analysis of the C.D.C. data by the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, a public health think tank. (The group is a sister organization of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, an advocacy group that works to oppose the N.R.A.)

Suicide over all has been on the rise for more than a decade and is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States, according to the health statistics center.

Click to expand...

And? That changes my original point not at all. In fact, you confirmed it.

My PERSONAL OPINION is that because nearly everyone has periods of mental health issues at some point in their lives, I am not PERSONALLY in favor of private gun ownership, but that’s my opinion and we live in a Democracy.

Maybe you have skin in the game. I do not.

Middle_Ground said:

When a party decides a president elected 2xs is not legitimate enough to make an appointment then things need to change.
It has nothing to do with parties keeping and holding power it has to with blance and fairness....what an odd concept?

Click to expand...

That's like saying that if we have 10 elections then each party should win 5 times. That's not how it works. If you aren't proposing ideas that the people want, why should you be making appointments to the court? This is just a scam to let the libs get more influence over the court then they've been able to legitimately achieve. Heck, the next time they get the WH, they might have a couple appointments. They need to figure out how to win within the system instead of trying to change it.

maxparrish said:

Your's is a case of wishful thinking. (Edited for length)

Click to expand...

NLRB v. Noel Canning was where I got the idea for this strategy. The court decided that Obama's recess appointments made during pro forma sessions weren't valid because even though the Senate wasn't actually in session, it still had the ability to conduct business. What drew my eye was the following section from Justice Breyer's opinion:

"...the Senate’s rules make clear that during its pro forma sessions, despite its resolution that it would conduct no business, the Senate retained the power to conduct business. During any pro forma session, the Senate could have conducted business simply by passing a unanimous consent agreement. See Riddick’s 1313. The Senate in fact conducts much of its business through unanimous consent. Id., at 1311–1312. Senate rules presume that a quorum is present unless a present Senator questions it. Id., at 1041–1042. And when the Senate has a quorum, an agreement is unanimously passed if, upon its proposal, no present Senator objects. Id., at 1329–1330. It is consequently unsurprising that the Senate has enacted legislation during pro forma sessions even when it has said that no business will be transacted. Indeed, the Senate passed a bill by unanimous consent during the second pro forma session after its December 17 adjournment. 2011 S. J. 924. And that bill quickly became law. Pub. L. 112–78, 125Stat. 1280."

Since the Senate is technically in session during a pro-forma sitting, according to Senate rules, it had to be assumed that a quorum was present. The Obama Administration's case failed because no Senator actually made a point of order that a quorum wasn't present, and so the Court was forced to assume - according to Senate rules - that a quorum was indeed present and that the Senate retained the ability to do business. So what if a Senator had shown up and made such a motion? Well, according to Senate Rule VI (3) & (4):

"3. If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a question shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll and shall announce the result, and these proceedings shall be without debate.
"4. Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quorum is not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined without debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, or to recess pursuant to a previous order entered by unanimous consent, shall be in order."

So the motion is privileged, it can be called at any time, and until such point as a quorum can be mustered, the Senate loses the ability to conduct business. What's more, the Noel Canning case also sets out the minimum of 10 calendar days during which the Senate cannot conduct business as the point where the President may then legitimately make recess appointments. The Senate concluded it's regular business and entered pro-forma sittings on Sep. 29. The first scheduled pro forma sitting - presided over by Senator Cassidy - was on Oct. 3 (Day 4). If the Vice President had assumed the chair and the Minority Leader made a point of order that a quorum wasn't present, presumably only Senators Cassidy and Reid would have answered the quorum call. A quorum not being present, the Senate would have had no option but to recess until the next scheduled pro forma sitting.

The second pro forma sitting on Oct. 6 (Day 7) was again presided over by Senator Cassidy. According to Senate rules, the first order of business of this sitting would be an automatic quorum call. At this point, the Republicans would have either had to muster 51 of their 54 members or, again, the Senate would have had to recess without possessing the capability to do business. If they did muster a quorum, the clock starts again at the next pro forma sitting when Senator Reid could have made the same point of order.

(Contd.)

By my reckoning - at the minimum - the Republicans would have had to muster 4 quorums between Oct. 3 and election day to block an Obama recess appointment. Maybe they could have done this, maybe not. I know Senator Collins was on record that Judge Garland deserved a vote, so I doubt if she would have been willing to block him. Senator Murkowski was running for re-election, and Alaska is a big state to campaign in... so I doubt if she would have wanted to lose 4 days of the campaign. So that's 2 that probably wouldn't have attended. Ayotte and Kirk ended up losing their elections (not that they would have been aware of that at the time), so they were in hard campaigns and probably wouldn't have been all that excited about losing 4 days. Keep going down the list and the math just keeps getting harder for the Republicans.

You bring up a valid point about the adjournment sine die... that would have been another good fight, and I assume how it turned out would depend on how a recess appointment would have affected the election results. At the very least, even assuming Trump still wins the election and the Republicans still maintained their majority, I have to believe it would have triggered the mother of all filibusters on the part of the Democrats. That could very well have tied up the Senate for a month at a pivotal time for a new Administration - when most Presidents are trying to confirm their cabinet members and set their priorities.

The Democrat Prez candidates should stop with these overly ambitious (and utterly ridiculous) plans (SCOTUS packing/EC abolishing/slavery reparations) and focus on **** that everyday Americans are concerned about.

jnug said:

The poster's point is that Obama could have gotten a year out of Garland, maybe more if HRC had won and McConnell feared having to face more liberal Justice nominees than Garland. Could have possibly made it more difficult for GOP Senators running for reelection to spend that last month of campaigning fully in campaign mode. Frankly it would never have been more than a gamble that is just as likely to have completely failed as anything else IMO. Obama does not get a year of Garland and the Senate vote does not change a wit. We do more likely poison the well even more than it has been poisoned.

My view is that we should not be continuing to applaud the main characters in this rush to the bottom. We are a system of norms, not rules and not laws. If anything we might need more rules and laws if people are not going to hold to the norms. But the idea that everybody from both parties should rush to the bottom. breaking all the norms beyond repair is IMO absurd. The idea that we were always at the bottom is if anything more absurd.

In a capitalist economic and financial system do we know what we really get if we are at the bottom? We get Russia. You get government by thuggery and theft. Are we there yet? Obviously not. Are we headed there? Just as obviously yes. Why do we think DonDon admires Putin and Russia so.

Click to expand...

Jnug... I don't know if you're a basketball fan or not - on paper, basketball is a non-contact sport, but anyone who has ever played it knows just how much contact is involved... especially once you get "into the paint" - the area under and close to the basket. That's hallowed ground on a basketball court. That's where the highest-percentage shots are made... where rebounds are won and lost. If your team can control the paint, you've gone a long way toward winning the game. In short, it's a place where a lot of jostling happens... not all of it entirely consistent with the rulebook. So I thought I'd put up this video of an interview with Boston Celtics star Sam Jones and his interactions with one of basketball's all-time greats, Wilt Chamberlain:



The point of this is that Jones knew he was going over the line and "playing outside the rules" against Chamberlain.... now Wilt could have just taken this and just let Jones push him around.... or he could have pushed back, which is what he did. Bottom line is this.... every now and then you have to throw an elbow under the basket. When that's understood by both parties - and mutual respect is established - then we can get on with the game as it's meant to be played.

Cordelier said:

Jnug... I don't know if you're a basketball fan or not - on paper, basketball is a non-contact sport, but anyone who has ever played it knows just how much contact is involved... especially once you get "into the paint" - the area under and close to the basket. That's hallowed ground on a basketball court. That's where the highest-percentage shots are made... where rebounds are won and lost. If your team can control the paint, you've gone a long way toward winning the game. In short, it's a place where a lot of jostling happens... not all of it entirely consistent with the rulebook. So I thought I'd put up this video of an interview with Boston Celtics star Sam Jones and his interactions with one of basketball's all-time greats, Wilt Chamberlain:



The point of this is that Jones knew he was going over the line and "playing outside the rules" against Chamberlain.... now Wilt could have just taken this and just let Jones push him around.... or he could have pushed back, which is what he did. Bottom line is this.... every now and then you have to throw an elbow under the basket. When that's understood by both parties - and mutual respect is established - then we can get on with the game as it's meant to be played.

Click to expand...

Basketball is not governance. Basketball as we know it exists because we have had governance. I will repeat, if we ever do get to the bottom what you will find there is Russia. That is what you are advocating. Lets just get to the bottom as fast as we can by adopting the view that we all should be rushing to the bottom as fast as possible. Elections that are complete shams. Governmental thuggery and thievery leading to Kleptocracy and ultimately to Oligarchy. Good luck with that. Are you Putin's Press Agent.

So advocate this rush to the bottom all you want to. We already know what is there. Frankly I don't find that very appealing.

jnug said:

Basketball is not governance. Basketball as we know it exists because we have had governance. I will repeat, if we ever do get to the bottom what you will find there is Russia. That is what you are advocating. Lets just get to the bottom as fast as we can by adopting the view that we all should be rushing to the bottom as fast as possible. Elections that are complete shams. Governmental thuggery and thievery leading to Kleptocracy and ultimately to Oligarchy. Good luck with that. Are you Putin's Press Agent.

So advocate this rush to the bottom all you want to. We already know what is there. Frankly I don't find that very appealing.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that basketball is governance, Jnug... what I'm saying is that the same principles apply. Including this one... Hate the game, not the player.

Politics is always going to be politics. Power is always going to be power. The same principles apply no matter where you go. And the most fundamental one is this: "Every nation gets the government it deserves." --- Joseph de Maistre.

Cordelier said:

NLRB v. Noel Canning was where I got the idea for this strategy. The court decided that Obama's recess appointments made during pro forma sessions weren't valid because even though the Senate wasn't actually in session, it still had the ability to conduct business. What drew my eye was the following section from Justice Breyer's opinion:

"...the Senate’s rules make clear that during its pro forma sessions, despite its resolution that it would conduct no business, the Senate retained the power to conduct business. During any pro forma session, the Senate could have conducted business simply by passing a unanimous consent agreement. See Riddick’s 1313. The Senate in fact conducts much of its business through unanimous consent. Id., at 1311–1312. Senate rules presume that a quorum is present unless a present Senator questions it....

Since the Senate is technically in session during a pro-forma sitting, according to Senate rules, it had to be assumed that a quorum was present. The Obama Administration's case failed because no Senator actually made a point of order that a quorum wasn't present, and so the Court was forced to assume - according to Senate rules - that a quorum was indeed present and that the Senate retained the ability to do business.

Click to expand...

Still, SCOTUS has not determined what minimal "ability to do business" that is required to consider a pro-forma sitting as a part of a Session of Congress, and not as a break (recess) in the session. Breyer lists all the possible reasons and examples of why a Pro Forma sitting would NOT be a recess, but he does not list what is minimally necessary to do so. What, for example, is a pro-forma session "without capacity to act" under its own rules? Even Pro Forma sittings have some capacity to act under their rules (eg to make a quorum call, to adjourn, to make or receive communications, to make reports, etc.).

Breyer uses some undisputable examples: ""if the Senate had left the Capitol and effectively given up . . . the business of legislating” then it might be in recess, even if it said it was not). In that circumstance, the Senate is not simply unlikely or unwilling to act upon nominations of the President. It is unable to do so.". Of course, if the Senate had NOT left the Capitol and was available for a quorum call when it was willing to act upon the President's nomination - that implies a different situation, right?

In other words, it retains the capacity to do business but whether it chooses to or not is a different question.

I won't argue this point much because there is some merit in your view that if a pro-forma sitting did not have a quorum and if a quorum could not be found then that the sitting was just a part of a break that, if long enough, might be considered a recess. None the less, I don't get the sense that if it were tested that even Breyer would be swayed by your argument "We do not believe, however, that engaging in the kind of factual appraisal that the Solicitor General suggests is either legally or practically appropriate. From a legal perspective, this approach would run contrary to prece-dent instructing us to “respect . . . coequal and independent departments” and "from a practical perspective, judges cannot easily determine such matters as who is, and who is not, in fact present on the floor during a particular Senate session. Judicial efforts to engage in these kinds of inquiries would risk undue judicial interference with the functioning of the Legislative Branch.".

So what if a Senator had shown up and made such a (quorum) motion? Well, according to Senate Rule VI (3) & (4):

Click to expand...

Well, first the Senate does not lose the total capacity to do business, as pointed out earlier. Second, I imagine that either a quorum call would go out and/or the sitting would be adjourned - after which the Republicans would likely, with the house coordination, end the FORMAL session of Congress and if Obama had snuck any appointments in, then reconvene a new session and end it once more. Not only terminating Garland, but all of Obama's vacancy appointments.

SCOTUS verbiage is the enemy of clarity (as when the word "session" is bracketed by quotes), but basically forcing the Republicans to produce a majority wherein Garland could only sit for a few weeks before being sacked by starting and ending sessions sine die. I doubt Garland would have even gone along with such a circus.

Cont.

Cont. …

Obama's mistake was not in failing to attempt a vacancy appointment - it was natural for him to assume that Hillary would win so that it didn't matter. His error was in arrogantly not following the minimal precedent that was already available: Eisenhower's. When the vacancy occurred during an election year Eisenhower consulted with the Senate Majority (Democratic) and obtained a green light to use a recess appointment to seat a Catholic Democrat (a liberal) William Brennan. Cardinal Spellman had requested Eisenhower to appoint a Catholic, in part because the court had lost its only Catholic in 1949. Eisenhower wished to be bipartisan because he had already appointed two Republicans (the notorious Earl Warren and John Marshall Harlan). After Eisenhower won the election, he still nominated Brennan for the court in January of 1957. He was approved by the Senate.

Had Obama the expansiveness of Eisenhower, rather than a take it or leave it attitude, he might have done the same thing. Found a moderate swing vote Republican to replace Scalia (although Brennan was no moderate) and sought the approval of the Republican Senate.

But arrogance got the better of him and, much to everyone's shock (including mine), Trump won.

maxparrish said:

Still, SCOTUS has not determined what minimal "ability to do business" that is required to consider a pro-forma sitting as a part of a Session of Congress, and not as a break (recess) in the session. Breyer lists all the possible reasons and examples of why a Pro Forma sitting would NOT be a recess, but he does not list what is minimally necessary to do so. What, for example, is a pro-forma session "without capacity to act" under its own rules? Even Pro Forma sittings have some capacity to act under their rules (eg to make a quorum call, to adjourn, to make or receive communications, to make reports, etc.).

(Edited for length)

Click to expand...

I don't know what to tell you, Max... NLRB v. Noel Canning seems clear enough to me.... the Senate is considered to be in session so long as it retains the ability to conduct business. The Senate rules state that the Senate cannot conduct business without the presence of a quorum. Unless a Senator makes a motion that a quorum isn't present, then one is assumed to be present. Once a quorum is determined not to be present, then the Senate loses the ability to conduct business until such point that a quorum can be mustered. If the Senate loses the ability to conduct business for a 10-day period, it is considered to be in a de facto recess as far as the Recess Appointments Clause of the Constitution is concerned.

I'm not sure at what point in the scenario I laid out that the Senate would have had the ability to conduct business, barring the presence of a quorum. Maybe I'm missing something there.... but it seems to me that if you're going to make a counter-argument, you ought to at least spell out a scenario that supports your case, or at the very least point out where mine falls short.

As far as the Brennan precedent goes, I always figured it had more to do with the personal recommendation of Chief Justice Arthur Vanderbilt of the New Jersey Supreme Court. He had already twice took himself out of the running for Eisenhower SCOTUS nominations, and his opinion carried a lot of weight - especially with Attorney General Brownell. I'm not saying the Catholic thing didn't play into it - most things in politics tend to happen for more than one reason - just that it wasn't as simple as you made it out to be. Regardless, though, as you point out Brennan was a recess pick. I don't know why you felt that the Senate Democrats had to "green light" anything.... Congress had already adjourned on July 27. Justice Minton submitted his resignation on Sep. 7, and Brennan himself was appointed on Oct. 15. There would have been no way for Congress to block the recess appointment even if it were so inclined.

jnug said:

Except most people are neither producers or sellers. They are consumers.

Don't get me wrong, I am no proponent of socialism. That said IMO, Mixed Capitalism which is what we have is the best you get for an economic and financial system. If you simply consider only producers and sellers what you end up with is abject greed which is what gave us the great depression along with other wonderful features of being whipsawed between growth and decline features that were frankly unmanageable. Pure Capitalism DID NOT WORK here. That is as obvious as the fact that pure Socialism works nowhere that I can find.

Click to expand...

None the less, one of the major reasons that politics, including Supreme Court politics, have been a race to the bottom is that production and distribution of goods and services are far more dependent on state power vs. the market than they were a hundred and ten years ago. There isn't squabbling over entitlements for huge voting blocks when entitlements were once few, small, and tied to common well-being (e.g. paved streets, storm drains, fire services).

Whatever the empirical exceptions are to EITHER market theory or government theory, the basic difference is still overwhelming rooted in their nature - one tends to the voluntary, the other to the involuntary.

Market solutions sometimes work and sometimes don't. I cannot tell you the number of "business opportunities" thrown in front of the large VC group that owned us before we were sold to a strategic. They were often nothing more than an idea that somebody thought could be marketed. Never mind if there was any intrinsic value to what they were attempting. ... I never did allow my company to do that. ...abject greed peddled as business advice. Nice...real nice....another component to the rush to the bottom.

Click to expand...

Again, in regards to the context of this discussion I don't see the relevancy. Do you think that only in business foolish ideas are promoted as either an investment or benefit? You don't think greed for money and power doesn't exist in state based top-down systems (e.g. Venezuela or Russia)? In fact, the largest difference in the race to the bottom is that idiotic companies that can't adapt and perform poorly tend to kill themselves, while government (no matter how bad) lives forever.

I worked for a local government so bad that it should have folded a hundred times over, and if it were a company the execs investigated for fraud - instead, it lives and will continue to live, collecting ever increasing taxes to "solve" its incompetence and explaining major embarrassments as nothing more than some previous administrations fault.

Look at our FAA for God sake. Not too many years ago, the premier and best air safety organization in the world, driven straight into the ditch in two short years...another embarrassment. Another greed induced rush to the bottom story.

Click to expand...

I am unaware of any major changes in FAA performance in the last two years, nor any report concluding "best air safety organization in the world, driven straight into the ditch". Nor do I see the relevancy to anyone's subjective characterization of FAA as beset by greed.

Tanngrisnir said:

I wouldn't mind seeing rational arguments for doing so and not doing so, but I would have no problems, zero, w/ending the lifetime tenure the justices receive.

Click to expand...

I believe a set term limit for the SC would make the nomination process even more political than it already has become.

maxparrish said:

None the less, one of the major reasons that politics, including Supreme Court politics, have been a race to the bottom is that production and distribution of goods and services are far more dependent on state power vs. the market than they were a hundred and ten years ago. There isn't squabbling over entitlements for huge voting blocks when entitlements were once few, small, and tied to common well-being (e.g. paved streets, storm drains, fire services).

Whatever the empirical exceptions are to EITHER market theory or government theory, the basic difference is still overwhelming rooted in their nature - one tends to the voluntary, the other to the involuntary.



Again, in regards to the context of this discussion I don't see the relevancy. Do you think that only in business foolish ideas are promoted as either an investment or benefit? You don't think greed for money and power doesn't exist in state based top-down systems (e.g. Venezuela or Russia)? In fact, the largest difference in the race to the bottom is that idiotic companies that can't adapt and perform poorly tend to kill themselves, while government (no matter how bad) lives forever.

I worked for a local government so bad that it should have folded a hundred times over, and if it were a company the execs investigated for fraud - instead, it lives and will continue to live, collecting ever increasing taxes to "solve" its incompetence and explaining major embarrassments as nothing more than some previous administrations fault.



I am unaware of any major changes in FAA performance in the last two years, nor any report concluding "best air safety organization in the world, driven straight into the ditch". Nor do I see the relevancy to anyone's subjective characterization of FAA as beset by greed.

Click to expand...

Nope, I already stated earlier that I cannot find a place where pure Socialism has worked anywhere. But in this country you hear constant yammering about going back to a pure Capitalist system as opposed to the Mixed Capitalist system we have and it simply did not work here and the chance that it will work anywhere is almost as bad as thinking a pure Socialist system will work anywhere. Mixed Capitalism is as good as it gets with all its foibles. Better than Pure Capitalism, Pure Socialism or Social democracy which really is Mixed Capitalism leaning Socialist. For example the GOP has been trying to kill Social Security from the day it was conceived. Do we really think the income disparity we have today would be BETTER without Social Security?

I offered earlier that while the Executive and the Legislatures are currently a total mess in this country the Courts were holding a thin blue line. Some cracks are appearing but still holding.

Trump's win rate in the Courts where the Government usually wins at an average win rate of 70% or better is ...........6%! Much of it has been rulings against deregulating with dynamite in the form of corrupt slap dashed rule making. Deregulation done right is done with a scalpel not a stick of dynamite.

And as I stated earlier, while some of their individual statements seem erratic and in fact are erratic I would be heralding the freshman congresspeople we have before heralding the ruthlessly usurious old guard represented by the Mitch McConnells of the world who will corrupt the system and bulldoze the norms that have held this Constitutional Republic together for 250 years to get their way. I reject the notion that we should all join in and rush to the bottom with the McConnells of the world in spite of their consequential political careers. Nancy Pelosi is a tower of Legislative strength who understands Political Power as well as Lyndon Johnson did, Actually better than anybody since Johnson. Yet the freshman are not cowed by her. They are able to elbow themselves into the discussion while not entirely challenging her. Yet we are so jaded, we find it almost impossible to herald them as opposed to the McConnells of the world.

I really do not see the Vietnam War Era and its protests against it as the beginning of our devolvement into a rush to the bottom. The very first real crack IMO was Ray Bork and Iran/Contra in the Reagan years. But even that was nothing compared to the damage Newt Gingrich did before being tossed out by his own party and John Boehner and the No Cooperation pledge the GOP took which can be directly traced back to Newt Gingrich. By the way Newt Gingrich was responsible for the Hastert Rule in the House for Republicans not Representative Hastert. The Hastert Rule by itself would be a great reason to NEVER allow the GOP to have control of the House again. While Mitch McConnell is IMO the most consequential politician of his day (not best, not even best Senator) Newt Gingrich was the most consequential politician of his day (again not best, certainly not best leader in the House nor best Congressman). In both McConnell's and Gingrich's case if you want to substitute most unscrupulous for my most consequential, go right ahead. I could not make an argument against it.

The McConnell's and the Gingrich's are the poster children for a rush to the bottom and I refuse to admire them or support the notion of all of us following them there because we know what waits for us down there in a Capitalist economic and financial system. Russia waiting for us down there and if we think that is worth pursuing we all need to head to a doctor for help.

jnug said:

I offered earlier that while the Executive and the Legislatures are currently a total mess in this country the Courts were holding a thin blue line. Some cracks are appearing but still holding.

Trump's win rate in the Courts where the Government usually wins at an average win rate of 70% or better is ...........6%! Much of it has been rulings against deregulating with dynamite in the form of corrupt slap dashed rule making. Deregulation done right is done with a scalpel not a stick of dynamite.

And as I stated earlier, while some of their individual statements seem erratic and in fact are erratic I would be heralding the freshman congresspeople we have before heralding the ruthlessly usurious old guard represented by the Mitch McConnells of the world who will corrupt the system and bulldoze the norms that have held this Constitutional Republic together for 250 years to get their way. I reject the notion that we should all join in and rush to the bottom with the McConnells of the world in spite of their consequential political careers. Nancy Pelosi is a tower of Legislative strength who understands Political Power as well as Lyndon Johnson did, Actually better than anybody since Johnson. Yet the freshman are not cowed by her. They are able to elbow themselves into the discussion while not entirely challenging her. Yet we are so jaded, we find it almost impossible to herald them as opposed to the McConnells of the world.

I really do not see the Vietnam War Era and its protests against it as the beginning of our devolvement into a rush to the bottom. The very first real crack IMO was Ray Bork and Iran/Contra in the Reagan years. But even that was nothing compared to the damage Newt Gingrich did before being tossed out by his own party and John Boehner and the No Cooperation pledge the GOP took which can be directly traced back to Newt Gingrich. By the way Newt Gingrich was responsible for the Hastert Rule in the House for Republicans not Representative Hastert. The Hastert Rule by itself would be a great reason to NEVER allow the GOP to have control of the House again. While Mitch McConnell is IMO the most consequential politician of his day (not best, not even best Senator) Newt Gingrich was the most consequential politician of his day (again not best, certainly not best leader in the House nor best Congressman). In both McConnell's and Gingrich's case if you want to substitute most unscrupulous for my most consequential, go right ahead. I could not make an argument against it.

The McConnell's and the Gingrich's are the poster children for a rush to the bottom and I refuse to admire them or support the notion of all of us following them there because we know what waits for us down there in a Capitalist economic and financial system. Russia waiting for us down there and if we think that is worth pursuing we all need to head to a doctor for help.

Click to expand...

Jnug - How are Mitch McConnell and Newt Gingrich any different than politicians like Robert Taft or Joe Cannon from years gone by? How is what Nancy Pelosi is experiencing with the House Democratic Freshmen any different than what LBJ experienced with the big influx of ADA Democratic Freshmen after the 1958 mid-terms? I don't get why everyone was so shocked LBJ took JFK's offer of the Vice Presidency back in '60... it seems pretty obvious to me that he was losing his grip on the caucus by that point. The point is there's nothing new under the sun here.... as far as Congress goes, politics is still chugging just like it always has.

Now, of course, as you point out, it's another story entirely at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. I think it's pretty obvious this Presidency isn't quite like any other we've had. I learned a new term the other day that I made sure to add to my vocabulary. It's called the Dunning-Kruger Effect. It's defined as "a psychological phenomenon which leads incompetent people to overestimate their ability because they can't grasp how much they don't know." If that doesn't sum up the Trump Administration, I don't know what does.

Cordelier said:

Jnug - How are Mitch McConnell and Newt Gingrich any different than politicians like Robert Taft or Joe Cannon from years gone by? How is what Nancy Pelosi is experiencing with the House Democratic Freshmen any different than what LBJ experienced with the big influx of ADA Democratic Freshmen after the 1958 mid-terms? I don't get why everyone was so shocked LBJ took JFK's offer of the Vice Presidency back in '60... it seems pretty obvious to me that he was losing his grip on the caucus by that point. The point is there's nothing new under the sun here.... as far as Congress goes, politics is still chugging just like it always has.

Now, of course, as you point out, it's another story entirely at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. I think it's pretty obvious this Presidency isn't quite like any other we've had. I learned a new term the other day that I made sure to add to my vocabulary. It's called the Dunning-Kruger Effect. It's defined as "a psychological phenomenon which leads incompetent people to overestimate their ability because they can't grasp how much they don't know." If that doesn't sum up the Trump Administration, I don't know what does.

Click to expand...

Those guys would take as much advantage of the norms as they could. They would not ignore them or try to change them.
-McConnell, ignoring Senatorial Blue Cards. That is a norm not a rule or a law. But it is a good norm
- McConnell blowing up the SC Justice filibuster
- McConnell insisting that he would not bring a bill to the floor that the President would not sign (that is a big one and its absurd). The Senate Majority Leader position is a hugely powerful position that McConnell has relegated in all cases BUT Justice and Judgeships to the President's lap dog.
- Gingrich, blowing up deliberation and negotiation in the House. Nobody EVER did that before
- Gingrich, the idiot Hastert rule
- Boehner and McConnell together, the no cooperation pledge though actually that one is nothing more than an extension of Newt's Nonsense. Newt was one power-mad little dickhead.

Sorry, won't wash. While I would point out that the Bork nomination by Reagan was clearly somebody in Reaganland convincing him to leave Bork behind as a last gift from his Presidency, it did not fly. Do we actually remember Bork's role in history? He was a partisan hack's partisan hack and lousy lawyer at that. Never should have been nominated. That really started us down the road of poisoning the well.

Biggest offender by far....Newt the Nit. He has IMO retired the trophy from that end of Penn Av.

Harshaw said:

In any case, if anyone's behind this idea claiming it's because you want "balance," but are angry because a liberal judge -- Garland -- didn't replace a conservative Justice -- Scalia -- and thus tilting the Court liberal, you're not fooling anyone. It's not "balance" you want. It's a liberal court.

Click to expand...

it isn't balance they want at all. they want a court that will further dilute the powers of the constitution and the protection that it gives to people.

the constitution is a huge barrier in the way of the liberal agenda. the Founding fathers knew it and that is why they put those things into place.
The issue is that justices do not have the power to change the constitution.

that can only be done through the amendment process.

But if you can get enough leftwing whack jobs on the court they can misinterpret the constitution all day long
and get rid of those protections.

jnug said:

Those guys would take as much advantage of the norms as they could. They would not ignore them or try to change them.
-McConnell, ignoring Senatorial Blue Cards. That is a norm not a rule or a law. But it is a good norm
- McConnell blowing up the SC Justice filibuster
- McConnell insisting that he would not bring a bill to the floor that the President would not sign (that is a big one and its absurd). The Senate Majority Leader position is a hugely powerful position that McConnell has relegated in all cases BUT Justice and Judgeships to the President's lap dog.
- Gingrich, blowing up deliberation and negotiation in the House. Nobody EVER did that before
- Gingrich, the idiot Hastert rule
- Boehner and McConnell together, the no cooperation pledge though actually that one is nothing more than an extension of Newt's Nonsense. Newt was one power-mad little dickhead.

Sorry, won't wash. While I would point out that the Bork nomination by Reagan was clearly somebody in Reaganland convincing him to leave Bork behind as a last gift from his Presidency, it did not fly. Do we actually remember Bork's role in history? He was a partisan hack's partisan hack and lousy lawyer at that. Never should have been nominated. That really started us down the road of poisoning the well.

Biggest offender by far....Newt the Nit. He has IMO retired the trophy from that end of Penn Av.

Click to expand...

The only thing I've really found objectionable as of late was Harry Reid invoking the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominations because it was based on a willful misinterpretation of Senate rules. Other than McConnell's expanding of that to include SC nominations, everything else you cite just strikes me as so much complaining because you don't like the other side's tactics. Like I said earlier - hate the game, not the player. The job of the opposition party is to oppose, and I don't fault them one bit for doing so.... it's what they're supposed to do. If you don't want'em to overreach, then make'em pay a price every time they do. If you're not willing to do that - or you can't - then take your lumps and move on. Can't win'em all.

I don't know what else to say.... like Harry Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen."

Cordelier said:

The only thing I've really found objectionable as of late was Harry Reid invoking the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominations because it was based on a willful misinterpretation of Senate rules. Other than McConnell's expanding of that to include SC nominations, everything else you cite just strikes me as so much complaining because you don't like the other side's tactics. Like I said earlier - hate the game, not the player. The job of the opposition party is to oppose, and I don't fault them one bit for doing so.... it's what they're supposed to do. If you don't want'em to overreach, then make'em pay a price every time they do. If you're not willing to do that - or you can't - then take your lumps and move on. Can't win'em all.

I don't know what else to say.... like Harry Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen."

Click to expand...

Newt completely eliminating deliberation and negotiation means the Congress is simply a matter of who has the Majority. If you are in the Minority you could just as well stay home and it was never EVER that way before. Newt is far and away the biggest offender and IMO its not even close. I don't agree with what Reid did but I could understand why he did it. There is no excuse for that power-mad fat little cockroach, Gingrich as the fitting end to his political career indicates.

Again, deliberation and negotiation is not a rule nor is it a law. Its a norm. But without it, its not even the Congress any longer. Thanks to Newt the well went from a bit rank to completely poisoned.

jnug said:

Newt completely eliminating deliberation and negotiation means the Congress is simply a matter of who has the Majority. If you are in the Minority you could just as well stay home and it was never EVER that way before. Newt is far and away the biggest offender and IMO its not even close. I don't agree with what Reid did but I could understand why he did it. There is no excuse for that power-mad fat little cockroach, Gingrich as the fitting end to his political career indicates.

Again, deliberation and negotiation is not a rule nor is it a law. Its a norm. But without it, its not even the Congress any longer. Thanks to Newt the well went from a bit rank to completely poisoned.

Click to expand...

Nobody ever negotiates unless they're forced to out of necessity, Jnug. Gingrich became Speaker because liberal Republicans pretty much became an extinct species. If you've got a majority and they're solidly behind your conservative agenda, then why would he want to negotiate? His failure wasn't in his style... it was that he overplayed the strong hand he was dealt.