Surprise, surprise: Senate Democrats are the adults in the room

[joelbc1]

Please tell us you don't think Dems gerrymander.

Did I?
Do you understand that because of current apportionment. over 80% of US House districts are "safe"....for either party...but they are not even contestable elections in over 80% of the districts? Is that providing for "fair and balanced" elections? What representation can ever be made?

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Yet here you are Menace trying to pick a fight with your fellow Americans. Talk about adults eh?

 

[naturalmwa]

I still wonder who Obama will appoint. Who would be willing to be pre-Borked like this?

Who can he pick who's so obviously wonderful that the GOP will be asses if they don't confirm him? Is there such a saint?

This is a good question. We already treat our politicians so bad that no one decent wants to serve. If we start doing that to our Judges we might be in big trouble.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

This is a good question. We already treat our politicians so bad that no one decent wants to serve. If we start doing that to our Judges we might be in big trouble.

Natural this post sums you up to a T. I like you my friend, but what in yodas green dagabah are you talking about here? I'm going to have to start a thread on this.

 

[naturalmwa]

Natural this post sums you up to a T. I like you my friend, but what in yodas green dagabah are you talking about here? I'm going to have to start a thread on this.

I assume I spelled something wrong and have you flummoxed? For my point was very simple. We should be careful about mistreating our employees if we want good employees.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Oprah.

Obama should nominate Oprah.

Better yet, make her a recess appointment.

From my point of view, given the lack of accomplishments of our GOP Congress, I think a good case can be made that the Senate is in recess pretty nearly all the time.

I mean if a person showed this little activity, we'd probably pronounce him dead.

So Obama should make Oprah a recess appointment today.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

I assume I spelled something wrong and have you flummoxed? For my point was very simple. We should be careful about mistreating our employees if we want good employees.

They happen to be employees that decide how YOUR life goes. It's not as simple as the normal employee/employer relationship Natural. It should be to be honest, but unfortunately they have control of the law making, the military/police, etc.

 

[naturalmwa]

They happen to be employees that decide how YOUR life goes. It's not as simple as the normal employee/employer relationship Natural. It should be to be honest, but unfortunately they have control of the law making, the military/police, etc.

I'm aware. That's why I want good candidates.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

I'm aware. That's why I want good candidates.

Then stop following the bad ones.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'm aware. That's why I want good candidates.

Then fix the money in politics problem. Those who have been elected because of the money our system allows are pretty unlikely to to shut that spigot.

This is a huge problem, as you and most of us acknowledge - even many on the right.

Or should I say a "yuuuge" problem? Since Bernie is the only candidate who believably opposes the disastrous grip of private money on public elections and legislative actions. Hillary makes modest noises with the right tones, but does anyone believe she'll really tackle the problem? Rand Paul is probably the only Republican who might have opposed this selling of democracy. I'm not even sure about him - and he's toast anyway.

Yes, we should still push hard for the best candidates from all parties. But the plutocratic juggernaut has nearly completed its consolidation of power. They are the real Borg.

 

[theVoicefromtheTomb]

Then fix the money in politics problem. Those who have been elected because of the money our system allows are pretty unlikely to to shut that spigot.

This is a huge problem, as you and most of us acknowledge - even many on the right.

Or should I say a "yuuuge" problem? Since Bernie is the only candidate who believably opposes the disastrous grip of private money on public elections and legislative actions. Hillary makes modest noises with the right tones, but does anyone believe she'll really tackle the problem? Rand Paul is probably the only Republican who might have opposed this selling of democracy. I'm not even sure about him - and he's toast anyway.

Yes, we should still push hard for the best candidates from all parties. But the plutocratic juggernaut has nearly completed its consolidation of power. They are the real Borg.

Kind of ironic you brought this up when discussing the replacement of Scalia.

 

[rocketclone]

His quote was with 6 months left until GHWB's re-election, which is about the length of a typical confirmation fight and re-nomination. Obama has nearly a full year left. Not exacly a "gotcha", bud.

Sorry, see Joes quote. Can't have it both ways my friend. He set the tone and I agree with him.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Kind of ironic you brought this up when discussing the replacement of Scalia.

Please explain.

 

[theVoicefromtheTomb]

Please explain.

I am out of my league when discussing the law but my understanding is Citizens United was the case which relaxed campaign funding. Wasn't that also one of Scalia's cases where he wrote the majority opinion? Kind of ironic that we have such a problem with campaign finance that it affects the replacement of the justice who wrote the opinion on the case that relaxed campaign finance.

 

[naturalmwa]

Sorry, see Joes quote. Can't have it both ways my friend. He set the tone and I agree with him.

You're free to agree with Joe. Just as others are free to disagree. Joe hardly settles the issue, but it does show just how centrist Obama tried to be in picking a con as VP.

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

Sorry, see Joes quote. Can't have it both ways my friend. He set the tone and I agree with him.

I don't actually agree with Joe here (I was 10 at the time), but in his defense 6 months is a LITTLE different from a year out.

 

[soybean]

What does the Constitution say about this? Who should nominate a replacement for a Supreme Cout vacancy?

 

[CeMar_Clone]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...twist-in-Senate-move-to-ignore-Scalia-nominee

Democrats = Adults? LOL!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Lone Clone]

I am out of my league when discussing the law but my understanding is Citizens United was the case which relaxed campaign funding. Wasn't that also one of Scalia's cases where he wrote the majority opinion? Kind of ironic that we have such a problem with campaign finance that it affects the replacement of the justice who wrote the opinion on the case that relaxed campaign finance.

Not really. The point of the case was whether people lose their first amendment right to free speech when they join together to speak. The SCOTUS said no.

 

[theVoicefromtheTomb]

I know many discredit wiki but here is what it says

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S.310 (2010), is a U.S. constitutional law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has "re-shaped the political landscape" of the United States.[2][3]

 

[Rifler]

The people already spoke when they re-elected Obama. Even the Republicans know this. It's why they say we should wait until the next President instead of the next Senate. They know it's the President who makes the call.

No, it's the president who makes the nomination........ Nominate away, knock yourself out

 

[theiacowtipper]

Did I?
Do you understand that because of current apportionment. over 80% of US House districts are "safe"....for either party...but they are not even contestable elections in over 80% of the districts? Is that providing for "fair and balanced" elections? What representation can ever be made?

Constitutional amendment. If your state has four representatives, each representative must live in their own district. However, each voter gets four votes for Congress statewide. There may be 25 candidates on the ballot, but you can vote for any four, or one candidate four times. I think that would get a more diverse Congress.

 

[naturalmwa]

Constitutional amendment. If your state has four representatives, each representative must live in their own district. However, each voter gets four votes for Congress statewide. There may be 25 candidates on the ballot, but you can vote for any four, or one candidate four times. I think that would get a more diverse Congress.

That's a novel idea.

 

[Lone Clone]

Constitutional amendment. If your state has four representatives, each representative must live in their own district. However, each voter gets four votes for Congress statewide. There may be 25 candidates on the ballot, but you can vote for any four, or one candidate four times. I think that would get a more diverse Congress.

Destroys the whole point of the House of Representatives. Take a state like Nebraska; Omaha would elect all the congressmen.

 

[aflachawk]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...twist-in-Senate-move-to-ignore-Scalia-nominee

Being in the minority and magnanimous at the same time are pretty damn easy. Republicans have done it for years

 

[theiacowtipper]

Destroys the whole point of the House of Representatives. Take a state like Nebraska; Omaha would elect all the congressmen.

Perhaps to a point. That is mitigated to an extent by allowing a voter to cast all of their votes for one congressman. If a group of people, say rural voters, coalesced around one candidate, their will would be heard. Look at the Nebraska map, one Representative is basically the city of Omaha now.