SCOTUS

[njbill]

It seems to me that there should be three key precepts here.

First, the constitution requires the Senate to give its advice and consent to the president’s nominee to the supreme court. That means the constitution requires the Senate to vote.

The Constitution does not say that if a nomination is made within so many days of an election the Senate is excused from providing advice and consent, i.e., from voting. The Constitution does not provide an exception when the president and the majority of the Senate are of different parties. That is just political mumbo-jumbo.

Second, at some point a nomination is made too close to the election such that the Senate should not vote on the nominee before the election. How many days is that? I don’t know. At a minimum, it seems to me there needs to be enough time for the Senate to give a full and fair consideration to the nominee, and to hold a vote. While this “rule” is not in the constitution, it is a matter of fairness and common sense.

Third, if the incumbent president is defeated in the election, he or she should not nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court. That nomination should be made by the individual whom the country has just voted in as president. If the lame duck president makes such a nomination, the Senate should not vote on the nominee. This rule, also, is not in the constitution but it is in the best interest of the country and is the right way to go.

[Peter Brown]

New candidate coming on strong, and she’s from Michigan.

Joan Larsen.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross ... finalists/

I would think that you prefer this gal, but maybe she's not hot enough for you:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... kg-vpx.cnn

Lol. She’s a bit insane but whatevs. She’s on the side of capitalism so I’ll take her. Have to keep her on a leash. I’m afraid she’s a tad of the loon regarding picking unnecessary culture fights. Hoping some years in Congress will soften her edges.

[njbill]

Pete is hoping for “Judge” Jeanine.

[old salt]

Very nice proof. I am guessing the implication here if I read between the lines us that ole snake in the grass Brett must be boinking them on the side.

I think the implication is that Brett isn't hiring a lot of women because he believes in equality, but rather because he likes nice scenery around his office.

Kind of like Hooters isn't necessarily a shining beacon of equality because they hire so many women.

Good grief. It's more plum positions going to women, even if they're attractive.

[Carroll81]

It seems to me that there should be three key precepts here.

First, the constitution requires the Senate to give its advice and consent to the president’s nominee to the supreme court. That means the constitution requires the Senate to vote.

The Constitution does not say that if a nomination is made within so many days of an election the Senate is excused from providing advice and consent, i.e., from voting. The Constitution does not provide an exception when the president and the majority of the Senate are of different parties. That is just political mumbo-jumbo.

Second, at some point a nomination is made too close to the election such that the Senate should not vote on the nominee before the election. How many days is that? I don’t know. At a minimum, it seems to me there needs to be enough time for the Senate to give a full and fair consideration to the nominee, and to hold a vote. While this “rule” is not in the constitution, it is a matter of fairness and common sense.

Third, if the incumbent president is defeated in the election, he or she should not nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court. That nomination should be made by the individual whom the country has just voted in as president. If the lame duck president makes such a nomination, the Senate should not vote on the nominee. This rule, also, is not in the constitution but it is in the best interest of the country and is the right way to go.

Well stated. Seems simple.

What are your thoughts on recess appointments?

[ggait]

Bill -- I actually think Barrett in 2016 explained a clear rationale (even if you disagree) for Garland's treatment:

1. If you have the WH and the Senate, go ahead.
2. If the WH and Senate are split, then it depends. How close to the election? Is it an ideological change or not? Is the election a re-elect or a lame duck election?

Too bad the GOP Senators (like Graham), though, didn't make any such distinction back in 2016. So they should be torched now for the egregious double standard.

Also agree that the Senate should have voted on Garland. If they vote him down, that's how it goes. The voters can speak later.

[njbill]

What are your thoughts on recess appointments?

They may have their place for some appointments, but I don’t like them for a supreme court justice except perhaps in extreme circumstances. I think one such circumstance occurred in 2016 when McConnell simply failed to do his job and violated the Constitution in my view.

I’m a bit vague on precisely what happened back then, but I think McConnell tried to keep the Senate in session, at least in some respects, to avoid a recess appointment. Also, I think Obama was very reluctant to use this tool.

[holmes435]

Very nice proof. I am guessing the implication here if I read between the lines us that ole snake in the grass Brett must be boinking them on the side.

I think the implication is that Brett isn't hiring a lot of women because he believes in equality, but rather because he likes nice scenery around his office.

Kind of like Hooters isn't necessarily a shining beacon of equality because they hire so many women.

Good grief. It's more plum positions going to women, even if they're attractive.

You're describing affirmative action.

[a fan]

Third, if the incumbent president is defeated in the election, he or she should not nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court. That nomination should be made by the individual whom the country has just voted in as president. If the lame duck president makes such a nomination, the Senate should not vote on the nominee. This rule, also, is not in the constitution but it is in the best interest of the country and is the right way to go.

I've always disagreed with this idea. It's basically saying: "America doesn't get governance from November to January."

If that's the game, make the doggone new terms start in November. We don't have time for games....we voted for you to do your job for your ENTIRE term, not just a few months here and there.

BTW, we're about to learn this lesson the hard way, imho. They've got until November to pass more bailouts. If they don't? A CRAP-TON of American businesses are going under this winter.

[njbill]

Bill -- I actually think Barrett in 2016 explained a clear rationale (even if you disagree) for Garland's treatment:

1. If you have the WH and the Senate, go ahead.
2. If the WH and Senate are split, then it depends. How close to the election? Is it an ideological change or not? Is the election a re-elect or a lame duck election?

Too bad the GOP Senators (like Graham), though, didn't make any such distinction back in 2016. So they should be torched now for the egregious double standard.

Also agree that the Senate should have voted on Garland. If they vote him down, that's how it goes. The voters can speak later.

I actually wasn’t responding to Barrett, but if that is her position then I do disagree, particularly with respect to Garland.

Traditionally, the president has been allowed to have the people he appoints approved, whether it was the secretary of paper clips or a supreme court justice. Only if they were truly unqualified or there was some serious legal or ethical problem would they get voted down.

So regardless of the political landscape, whether the president was in his first or second term, or whether it was close to the election, he generally got his appointments through the Senate.

Now with everything so hyper-politicized, it almost seems that appointments will be voted down if the other party has a majority of the senate. What’s next? Cabinet appointments are going to be voted down?

To my thinking, it was an abomination that McConnell did not hold hearings and allow a vote. I have said this before, but I think that was a big mistake on his part. He had the votes to vote Garland down if that is how he wanted to play ball. I still don’t understand why he didn’t just allow the process to play out. If he had, he wouldn’t be subject to all the criticism he is getting now. Of course he doesn’t care at all about that.

It would be sweet justice if Graham were to be voted out because of his hypocrisy. I don’t think that will happen, though.

[njbill]

Third, if the incumbent president is defeated in the election, he or she should not nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court. That nomination should be made by the individual whom the country has just voted in as president. If the lame duck president makes such a nomination, the Senate should not vote on the nominee. This rule, also, is not in the constitution but it is in the best interest of the country and is the right way to go.

I've always disagreed with this idea. It's basically saying: "America doesn't get governance from November to January."

If that's the game, make the doggone new terms start in November. We don't have time for games....we voted for you to do your job for your ENTIRE term, not just a few months here and there.

BTW, we're about to learn this lesson the hard way, imho. They've got until November to pass more bailouts. If they don't? A CRAP-TON of American businesses are going under this winter.

I’m not saying everything should be shut down.

But an appointment as important as a supreme court justice should be an exception. That’s my view.

And, of course, at least traditionally, a lame duck president has refrained from doing lots of things in the remaining weeks of his administration to allow the incoming president to make those decisions.

[a fan]

Third, if the incumbent president is defeated in the election, he or she should not nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court. That nomination should be made by the individual whom the country has just voted in as president. If the lame duck president makes such a nomination, the Senate should not vote on the nominee. This rule, also, is not in the constitution but it is in the best interest of the country and is the right way to go.

I've always disagreed with this idea. It's basically saying: "America doesn't get governance from November to January."

If that's the game, make the doggone new terms start in November. We don't have time for games....we voted for you to do your job for your ENTIRE term, not just a few months here and there.

BTW, we're about to learn this lesson the hard way, imho. They've got until November to pass more bailouts. If they don't? A CRAP-TON of American businesses are going under this winter.

I’m not saying everything should be shut down.

But an appointment as important as a supreme court justice should be an exception. That’s my view.

And, of course, at least traditionally, a lame duck president has refrained from doing lots of things in the remaining weeks of his administration to allow the incoming president to make those decisions.

I understand, and that's really my point....if you're putting stuff on hold until the new guy comes in? Move up his start date, and cut out the dead space. We need a functioning government. Problem solved.

I don't like this tradition anymore than the asinine, utterly dangerous game of giving the President-elect security briefings before he's/she's sworn in....and even worse---giving the party nominees for President a security briefing. Stupid. WWII was different. Why they kept this tradition is beyond my understanding. It's NOWHERE in the Constitution.

[old salt]

Very nice proof. I am guessing the implication here if I read between the lines us that ole snake in the grass Brett must be boinking them on the side.

I think the implication is that Brett isn't hiring a lot of women because he believes in equality, but rather because he likes nice scenery around his office.

Kind of like Hooters isn't necessarily a shining beacon of equality because they hire so many women.

Good grief. It's more plum positions going to women, even if they're attractive.

You're describing affirmative action.

Meh. Maybe so. He was known for giving lots of opportunities to women law clerks in his previous positions, ...with no ulterior motives.

Is it structured affirmative action if he was not working to fill a quota ?

I once had to write an affirmative action plan for the Naval aviation squadron in which I was serving, With the support of the CO, XO, DH's & Leading Chief, we made it reasonable, fair & workable. We quietly implemented it with no fanfare & no grumbling. It passed muster up the chain of command. Our retention & promotion results confirmed it's effectiveness.

[a fan]

Very nice proof. I am guessing the implication here if I read between the lines us that ole snake in the grass Brett must be boinking them on the side.

I think the implication is that Brett isn't hiring a lot of women because he believes in equality, but rather because he likes nice scenery around his office.

Kind of like Hooters isn't necessarily a shining beacon of equality because they hire so many women.

Good grief. It's more plum positions going to women, even if they're attractive.

Yup. As long as he behaves? Not a problem.

[holmes435]

Meh. Maybe so. He was known for giving lots of opportunities to women law clerks in his previous positions, ...with no ulterior motives.

Is it structured affirmative action if he was not working to fill a quota ?

I once had to write an affirmative action plan for the Naval aviation squadron in which I was serving, With the support of the CO, XO, DH's & Leading Chief, we made it reasonable, fair & workable. We quietly implemented it with no fanfare & no grumbling. It passed muster up the chain of command. Our retention & promotion results confirmed it's effectiveness.

You don't know his motives, aside from hiring pretty women. We don't have a report of their qualifications vs . other applicants. Affirmative Action isn't dependent upon or defined by specific quotas, just promoting under-represented people.


From your own experience as you described, isn't it amazing that when you don't look at someone's outward appearance and rely on their qualifications and unbiased recommendations, you usually get great people?

Plenty of highly qualified men being discriminated against in daycare, nursing and social work environments.

[DocBarrister]

Third, if the incumbent president is defeated in the election, he or she should not nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court. That nomination should be made by the individual whom the country has just voted in as president. If the lame duck president makes such a nomination, the Senate should not vote on the nominee. This rule, also, is not in the constitution but it is in the best interest of the country and is the right way to go.

I've always disagreed with this idea. It's basically saying: "America doesn't get governance from November to January."

If that's the game, make the doggone new terms start in November. We don't have time for games....we voted for you to do your job for your ENTIRE term, not just a few months here and there.

BTW, we're about to learn this lesson the hard way, imho. They've got until November to pass more bailouts. If they don't? A CRAP-TON of American businesses are going under this winter.

A defeated president shouldn’t get the chance to appoint a Supreme Court Justice who may serve for the next forty years.

That time frame makes the November-January argument look a bit silly.

DocBarrister

[holmes435]

Third, if the incumbent president is defeated in the election, he or she should not nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court. That nomination should be made by the individual whom the country has just voted in as president. If the lame duck president makes such a nomination, the Senate should not vote on the nominee. This rule, also, is not in the constitution but it is in the best interest of the country and is the right way to go.

I've always disagreed with this idea. It's basically saying: "America doesn't get governance from November to January."

If that's the game, make the doggone new terms start in November. We don't have time for games....we voted for you to do your job for your ENTIRE term, not just a few months here and there.

BTW, we're about to learn this lesson the hard way, imho. They've got until November to pass more bailouts. If they don't? A CRAP-TON of American businesses are going under this winter.

A defeated president shouldn’t get the chance to appoint a Supreme Court Justice who may serve for the next forty years.

That time frame makes the November-January argument look a bit silly.

DocBarrister

A president should and needs be able to fulfill his duties until he is legally out of office. Pretty simple stuff. To argue otherwise is just reducing McConnell's argument from 11 months to 3 months.

Does it make more sense today to reduce the time from election to inauguration? Maybe, maybe not. If you reduce it, you encourage less deal making and bipartisanship. If you encourage it, you may encourage iconoclasts like McConnell who may use it to increase short-term benefits at the expense of long-term benefits.

[old salt]

Meh. Maybe so. He was known for giving lots of opportunities to women law clerks in his previous positions, ...with no ulterior motives.

Is it structured affirmative action if he was not working to fill a quota ?

I once had to write an affirmative action plan for the Naval aviation squadron in which I was serving, With the support of the CO, XO, DH's & Leading Chief, we made it reasonable, fair & workable. We quietly implemented it with no fanfare & no grumbling. It passed muster up the chain of command. Our retention & promotion results confirmed it's effectiveness.

You don't know his motives, aside from hiring pretty women. We don't have a report of their qualifications vs . other applicants. Affirmative Action isn't dependent upon or defined by specific quotas, just promoting under-represented people.

From your own experience as you described, isn't it amazing that when you don't look at someone's outward appearance and rely on their qualifications and unbiased recommendations, you usually get great people?

Plenty of highly qualified men being discriminated against in daycare, nursing and social work environments.

We have no basis or reason to speculate about his motives. He's given lots of opportunities to highly qualified women & helped them succeed. They speak highly of him. The results speak for themselves. Didn't RBG compliment him for that ?

It's chauvanistic, condescending & insulting to them to imply that their appearance was a factor in their selection or subsequent success. That's like dismissing blacks who succeed as tokens.

[holmes435]

We have no basis or reason to speculate about his motives. He's given lots of opportunities to highly qualified women & helped them succeed. They speak highly of him. The results speak for themselves. Didn't RBG compliment him for that ?

It's chauvanistic, condescending & insulting to them to imply that their appearance was a factor in their selection or subsequent success. That's like dismissing blacks who succeed as tokens.

You're starting to get it! Hiring someone because of one simple aspect isn't really that great!!! Like we shouldn't hire minorities just because they're a minority.

The women he's hiring all seem to be good looking. We don't know how qualified they are vs. others he has rejected. And of course people he hires are going to speak highly of him because he hired them!

And why should we revere RGB?? Didn't she only hire one black person?

When we make sure the applicant pool is pretty close to the hired pool, then we know we've made things better. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.

[old salt]

We have no basis or reason to speculate about his motives. He's given lots of opportunities to highly qualified women & helped them succeed. They speak highly of him. The results speak for themselves. Didn't RBG compliment him for that ?

It's chauvanistic, condescending & insulting to them to imply that their appearance was a factor in their selection or subsequent success. That's like dismissing blacks who succeed as tokens.

You're starting to get it! Hiring someone because of one simple aspect isn't really that great!!! Like we shouldn't hire minorities just because they're a minority.

The women he's hiring all seem to be good looking. We don't know how qualified they are vs. others he has rejected. And of course people he hires are going to speak highly of him because he hired them!

And why should we revere RGB?? Didn't she only hire one black person?

When we make sure the applicant pool is pretty close to the hiring pool, then we know we've made things better. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.

You are assuming that he hires them for one single aspect.
Who should rate them on their attractiveness ?
What should the distribution of their attractiveness ratings be ?
Your last sentence about applicant pool v hiring pool makes no sense, in this context.