Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[DShomshak]

On ‎9‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 12:13 AM, Lord Liaden said:

I can see your point about Kavanaugh's reaction. But what was striking to me, and what may have made an impact on the viewing public, was the contrast between his demeanor and Ford's. While Ford was clearly very emotional (understandably), she was coherent, articulate, and answered every question clearly and forthrightly. While Kavanaugh's responses to questions were rambling, evasive, accusatory, and repetitive. Remember that this person with that thought process is in consideration to be entrusted with assessing the most serious legal issues facing the United States for many years to come.

 

Most worrisome to me was Kavanaugh's opening statement, in which he literally blamed an alliance of Democrats and "leftists" for conspiring to smear his good name. That's the kind of conspiracy-theory rhetoric we get a lot from arch-conservatives in America today, which makes me wonder what degree of bias he'll actually bring with him to the bench, particularly toward any future legislation which may be crafted by those same Democrats he blames for his current woes.

On Friday, the KUOW "Week in Review" program devoted a large segment to discussing the Kavanaugh-Ford testimony. Former Tacoma, WA mayor and current Seattle Chamber of Commerce president Marilyn Strickland noted that (I'll try to quote her as closely as I can remember) "If a woman had cried and sniveled and carried on with histrionics the way Brett Kavanaugh did, she would never be taken seriously again."

 

For the second half, NPR's Legal Affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg raised an interesting question: Given the naked partisanship that Kavanaugh expressed, how often will he be asked to recuse himself from court cases with political aspects? (And nowadays, just about everything has political aspects.)

 

Dean Shomshak

[archer]

A quick question to people who are closely following the Kavanaugh controversy:

 

If the FBI investigation turns up nothing, the supposed victims don't follow up with any legal actions, and Kavanaugh gets confirmed to the Court, are you planning to let the matter drop or will you be planning to refer to him as a rapist in every Supreme Court discussion for the next 20 years?

 

(Note: I am not someone who is following the controversy closely.)

[Ternaugh]

24 minutes ago, archer said:

A quick question to people who are closely following the Kavanaugh controversy:

 

If the FBI investigation turns up nothing, the supposed victims don't follow up with any legal actions, and Kavanaugh gets confirmed to the Court, are you planning to let the matter drop or will you be planning to refer to him as a rapist in every Supreme Court discussion for the next 20 years?

 

(Note: I am not someone who is following the controversy closely.)

 

A quick question to people who are closely following the Benghazi/Her E-mails controversy:

 

If the FBI investigation turns up nothing, the supposed victims don't follow up with any legal actions, and Trump gets elected to the Presidency, are you planning to let the matter drop or will you be planning to refer to her as a criminal in every Trump rally for the next 8 years?

 

(Note: I am not someone who is following the controversy closely. Asking for a friend.)

[Starlord]

2 hours ago, archer said:

A quick question to people who are closely following the Kavanaugh controversy:

 

If the FBI investigation turns up nothing, the supposed victims don't follow up with any legal actions, and Kavanaugh gets confirmed to the Court, are you planning to let the matter drop or will you be planning to refer to him as a rapist in every Supreme Court discussion for the next 20 years?

 

(Note: I am not someone who is following the controversy closely.)

 

Probably, certain levels of proof are not necessary for a belief position.  There is no proof Cosby assaulted 60+ women, yet I believe them.  There is no proof that Trump is addicted to tanning, yet that is what I believe.  There is no proof that Bill Clinton is a serial adulterer that rises to the level of predator,  yet that is what I believe, etc, etc, etc.

[Starlord]

1 hour ago, Ternaugh said:

 

A quick question to people who are closely following the Benghazi/Her E-mails controversy:

 

If the FBI investigation turns up nothing, the supposed victims don't follow up with any legal actions, and Trump gets elected to the Presidency, are you planning to let the matter drop or will you be planning to refer to her as a criminal in every Trump rally for the next 8 years?

 

(Note: I am not someone who is following the controversy closely. Asking for a friend.)

 

Yes, but I wouldn't be caught dead at a Trump rally.

 

PS:  I also think her foundation is pretty damn shady.

[Pariah]

There was an interesting discussion on the local NPR station this morning. The gist: Would the nomination & confirmation process for SCOTUS be less contentious (and less likely to result in screaming, protests, political grandstanding etc.) if Supreme Court appointments were not lifelong? Specifically, what if Supreme Court terms were limited to 18 years, with a new nomination coming every two years? How would it affect the process? How would it affect the Court's decisions?

 

Any thoughts?

[Starlord]

The only meaningful job that should be lifelong is parent.

[csyphrett]

2 hours ago, Pariah said:

There was an interesting discussion on the local NPR station this morning. The gist: Would the nomination & confirmation process for SCOTUS be less contentious (and less likely to result in screaming, protests, political grandstanding etc.) if Supreme Court appointments were not lifelong? Specifically, what if Supreme Court terms were limited to 18 years, with a new nomination coming every two years? How would it affect the process? How would it affect the Court's decisions?

 

Any thoughts?

I think it would be less contentious if both sides picked a guy by default. As it is now, the president picks someone, and he is vetted by the senate Jud Comm. The party of the pres backs the candidate, while the opposition doesn't. I feel if the committee was made up of bureaucrats the contentions would be how to fill that up with my party leaning people to get the justice they want.

CES 

[archer]

Beto O'Rouke, running against Ted Cruz in the TX Senate race, is flagged by the  Federal Elections Commission for accepting “excessive” and “impermissible” donations from individuals from outside of the country.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/01/orourke-ted-cruz-finance-violations-sec/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=atdailycaller

[Ternaugh]

1 hour ago, archer said:

Beto O'Rouke, running against Ted Cruz in the TX Senate race, is flagged by the  Federal Elections Commission for accepting “excessive” and “impermissible” donations from individuals from outside of the country.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/01/orourke-ted-cruz-finance-violations-sec/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=atdailycaller

 

And Ted Cruz was flagged for similar issues. The article below also notes that one of my senators (Dean Heller) also received a letter.

 

Quote

Federal campaign regulators have three times in the last year sent notices to the Cruz campaign - more than any Senator running for re-election this year - for taking tens of thousands of dollars more than legally allowed from dozens of donors. And in another case, a Cruz donor had to file a Federal Election Commission complaint to get the campaign to stop automatically deducting monthly donations from her bank account.

 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/Ted-Cruz-campaign-runs-into-issues-with-FEC-13038381.php

[薔薇語]

10 hours ago, Pariah said:

There was an interesting discussion on the local NPR station this morning. The gist: Would the nomination & confirmation process for SCOTUS be less contentious (and less likely to result in screaming, protests, political grandstanding etc.) if Supreme Court appointments were not lifelong? Specifically, what if Supreme Court terms were limited to 18 years, with a new nomination coming every two years? How would it affect the process? How would it affect the Court's decisions?

 

Any thoughts?

 

Very unlikely. It would mean we would have major swings in court makeup probably once a decade as opposed to once a generation. The steadiness of a court helps protect that veneer of non-partisanship and reliability. By making every president selecting at least 2 nominees a term and potentially 4, we are going to have this as a campaign fight every cycle. That won't be good. 

 

Next there is the procedural issue: how do you compell the senate to confirm? Is there a default to appoint? If not, what prevents a senate from doing what it did in '16 and securing one nominee for the bew guy on top of his guaranteed 2? 

 

Next up, unless there is some provision preventing reappointment, it means judges become actual political figures concerned about a re-election of sorts. 

 

Lastly, it requires an extreme overhaul of Article 3 of the constitution. There is no way anyone is going to get that kind of change delt with well. Either party will accuse the other of wanting to pack the court, which some Dems are already expressing as a good idea for heaven's sake! Can you imagine the level of animosity that would erupt from Republicans trying to amend the constitution and adding 9 more conservative judges to the 4 and a half that are already there? 

 

La Rose. 

 

[Ternaugh]

52 minutes ago, 薔薇語 said:

 

 Can you imagine the level of animosity that would erupt from Republicans trying to amend the constitution and adding 9 more conservative judges to the 4 and a half that are already there? 

 

La Rose. 

 

 

The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number of Supreme court judges to 9, but it started out at 5 and has gone as high as 10 in the past. The number could be changed by Congress, but that's unlikely.

 

https://www.livescience.com/9857-9-supreme-court-justices.html

 

FDR did attempt to have the law changed, after the Court overturned several provisions of his New Deal legislation. He wanted the President to have the right to appoint an extra judge for every member of the Supreme Court who refused to retire after age 70, for a total of up to 15 Justices. FDR's "court packing plan" was ultimately defeated by members of his own party.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

[薔薇語]

1 hour ago, Ternaugh said:

 

The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number of Supreme court judges to 9, but it started out at 5 and has gone as high as 10 in the past. The number could be changed by Congress, but that's unlikely.

 

https://www.livescience.com/9857-9-supreme-court-justices.html

 

FDR did attempt to have the law changed, after the Court overturned several provisions of his New Deal legislation. He wanted the President to have the right to appoint an extra judge for every member of the Supreme Court who refused to retire after age 70, for a total of up to 15 Justices. FDR's "court packing plan" was ultimately defeated by members of his own party.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

 

I am well aware of that. But to change it to have set rolling term limits would require a constitutional amendment. 

 

La Rose. 

 

[wcw43921]

8 hours ago, Pariah said:

There was an interesting discussion on the local NPR station this morning. The gist: Would the nomination & confirmation process for SCOTUS be less contentious (and less likely to result in screaming, protests, political grandstanding etc.) if Supreme Court appointments were not lifelong? Specifically, what if Supreme Court terms were limited to 18 years, with a new nomination coming every two years? How would it affect the process? How would it affect the Court's decisions?

 

Any thoughts?

 

This was my idea--keep the process as it is now; the President selects a nominee for appointment, and the Senate either confirms or denies it.  Should the appointment be confirmed, the Judge would serve a minimum of eight years, and in the next election cycle this proposition is placed on the ballot--"Should Judge (insert name here) Retain A Seat On The Supreme Court?"  If the voters say "YES" the Judge gets to stay another eight years.  If the voters say "NO" the Judge leaves the bench and the nominating process begins again.

 

This would give the voters more of a say in who sits on the bench, without the polarizing effect of a judicial candidate having to campaign for the office as chief executives and legislators must campaign for theirs. Special interest groups could campaign for or against their retention, of course, but the Judges would at least have a chance to stand on their record, rather than running against an opponent in an election.

 

Hope that helps.

[薔薇語]

1 hour ago, wcw43921 said:

This would give the voters more of a say in who sits on the bench, without the polarizing effect of a judicial candidate having to campaign for the office as chief executives and legislators must campaign for theirs. Special interest groups could campaign for or against their retention, of course, but the Judges would at least have a chance to stand on their record, rather than running against an opponent in an election.

 

By giving voters a direct say are we not forcing a judge to be a politician for those 8 years? Rather than disinterested concerns of law they would be compelled to consider the political fallout. We already have such worries without adding on explicit partisan political pressures. I worry that doing so would bring the court's reputation down to congressional levels. Likewise, nuanced issues of law expressed in concurring opinions yea or nay are likely going to be lost in the noise of public discourse even more so than they are now. 

 

Also, like the above it would require a constitutional amendment process likely to be even more bitterly partisan and dividing.   

 

La Rose. 

 

[Ternaugh]

43 minutes ago, 薔薇語 said:

 

By giving voters a direct say are we not forcing a judge to be a politician for those 8 years. Rather than disinterested concerns of law they would be compelled to consider the political fallout. We already have such worries without adding on explicit partisan political pressures. I worry that doing so would bring the court's reputation down to congressional levels. Likewise nuanced issues of law expressed in concurring opinions yea or nay are likely going to be lost in the noise of public discourse even more so than they are now. 

 

Also, like the above it would require a constitutional amendment process likely to be even more bitterly partisan and dividing.   

 

La Rose. 

 

 

I'd have to agree with you. Part of the point of lifetime appointments is so that the justices don't have to run re-election campaigns, and so they can (in theory) keep politics out of their decisions.

[Pariah]

6 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

I’d have to agree with you. Part of the point of lifetime appointments is so that the justices don't have to run re-election campaigns, and so they can (in theory) keep politics out of their decisions.

 

That’s the reasoning behind appointing the Justices to a single 18-year term, I think. No re-election campaigns, no fretting about the political fallout from a decision made in good conscience. One and done.

 

And yes, the Constitution would certainly have to be amended for this to happen. That part is self-evident. 

[Ternaugh]

11 minutes ago, Pariah said:

 

That’s the reasoning behind appointing the Justices to a single 18-year term, I think. No re-election campaigns, no fretting about the political fallout from a decision made in good conscience. One and done.

 

And yes, the Constitution would certainly have to be amended for this to happen. That part is self-evident. 

 

Sorry, I had missed that they would be limited to one term of 18 years. Yes, that might work, as well. 

[Lord Liaden]

At the time the Constitution was drafted, an 18-year appointment, at the age most SCOTUS justices were appointed, would probably have been longer than a lifetime. I doubt they expected most justices to serve beyond a decade.

 

It's to the credit of the drafters of the American Constitution that the system they set up has proven both resilient and flexible for so long. They got a lot of things right the first time. But they could never have dreamed of the world we live in now.

[Starlord]

3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

It's to the credit of the drafters of the American Constitution that the system they set up has proven both resilient and flexible for so long. They got a lot of things right the first time. But they could never have dreamed of the world we live in now.

 

Yes, they could.  

 

[Cygnia]

The Brett Kavanaugh case shows we still blame women for the sins of men

[megaplayboy]

The Senate is essentially broken, as far as representative democracy goes.  The 15 most populous states have around 2/3 of the population/citizens of the country, and in a decade or so, this number will hit around 70%.  The other 35 states have around 1/3, and soon only about 30%.  However, those 15 states have 30 senators, and those 35 have 70.  So you will have 70% of the citizenry represented by 30% of the Senate, and 30% of the citizenry represented by 70% of the Senate.  The Senate's consent is required for any legislation, for the appointment of government officials, and for the removal of government officials via impeachment.  It also has an oversight function.  The population ratio, in 1790, between the most and least populous states, was about 10:1.  The population ratio today, between California and Wyoming, is nearly 80:1.  The amount of power allocated to small states under this scheme is not only disproportionate to their population, it's disproportionate to their economic power as well.  Those small state senators wind up having power not only over policy affecting their own states, but the big states as well, including such crucial things as urban policy, infrastructure policy, and so forth.  The countermajoritarian nature of the Senate is reinforced by the staggered election of Senators, with only 1/3 up every 2 years, while the House members are all up for re-election every 2 years.  The Senate essentially embodies a sort of "tyranny of the minority".  

[Lord Liaden]

But the Senate was set up that way precisely to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" of representation by population, which is the House of Representatives. Two houses of Congress, one rep by pop, the other rep by state. The more populous regions, and the smaller ones, both having a voice, both having real power, but neither able to dictate to the other. Checks and balances. Legislature, Executive, Judiciary, dividing government responsibilities so no individual or body can concentrate all the power; yet also with the means to exercise limited oversight on each other. Checks and balances.

 

Is it an efficient system of government? Not very. But if one of the Founding Fathers' priorities was to prevent the rise of an autocracy like they just threw off, this is a good model, which is one reason why it's been the inspiration for subsequent governments around the world. Is it currently dysfunctional? To a considerable extent, yes; but that's more a function of how those who have been given power have chosen to exercise it, rather than inherent flaws in the system.

[st barbara]

If, as has been reported, Trump is cooling on Kavanaugh as his supreme court nomination and may withdraw it, who is his next choice ?

[Lord Liaden]

I'm not sure Trump is actually cooling on Kavanaugh. I suspect he's just trying to cover his own butt whichever way this investigation goes, so he personally comes out looking as good as possible.

 

That would be a recurring pattern with Trump. He demands loyalty to himself from his underlings, but is quick to cut them loose when they become a liability to him.