Ginsburg: Senate should hold SCOTUS confirmation hearing during election year!

[Perotista]

I'd have to say though that rules are set forth regarding Supreme Court vacancies, impeachments, and many other things. Both parties technically follow the rules and if the rules go against them, they cry foul. The biggest things I don't like is when Harry Reid went nuclear and then McConnell did with SC procedures. This is not what our founders wanted, the parties changing the rules to benefit themselves.

Exactly. The senate is free to change and make their own rules. But one expects that to be done at the beginning of the session. Not during the middle. The whole session should be governed by all the rules set in place and voted on at the beginning, no changes during the session. Reid was the first user of the nuclear option setting the precedence. McConnell escalated it by adding the SCOTUS. But that should have been expected, once the toothpaste is out of the tube, there's no putting it back.

Next the filibuster will be completely done away with. Over 200 years of senate tradition thrown out the window along with minority party rights.. We're entering an era where a president can rule by fiat if his party controls both the House and Senate. The minority party might as well not show up, go home, forget being part of the government. Their voice has no meaning.

 

[Moderate Right]

Exactly. The senate is free to change and make their own rules. But one expects that to be done at the beginning of the session. Not during the middle. The whole session should be governed by all the rules set in place and voted on at the beginning, no changes during the session. Reid was the first user of the nuclear option setting the precedence. McConnell escalated it by adding the SCOTUS. But that should have been expected, once the toothpaste is out of the tube, there's no putting it back.

Next the filibuster will be completely done away with. Over 200 years of senate tradition thrown out the window along with minority party rights.. We're entering an era where a president can rule by fiat if his party controls both the House and Senate. The minority party might as well not show up, go home, forget being part of the government. Their voice has no meaning.

Personally, I believe the House should follow similar rules to the original Senate rules (and the Senate should switch back). It seems crazy to me that when one party controls the House, their vote of 218-217 can basically do whatever the hell they want.

 

[Perotista]

Yes! That is why when pressured I only claim One Party, the USA, Nothing comes before the welfare and best interests of the Nation.

We have the exact same feelings.

 

[Perotista]

Personally, I believe the House should follow similar rules to the original Senate rules (and the Senate should switch back). It seems crazy to me that when one party controls the House, their vote of 218-217 can basically do whatever the hell they want.

The house and senate are different and were designed different on purpose by the framers. The house is suppose to be the peoples house, representing the people. Their rules reflect that where a simple majority rules. The problem is knee jerk reactions or legislation can easily pass. Prime examples are the two impeachments of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump when neither stood a snow balls chance in Hades of ever succeeding.

The senate was designed to be more deliberative. To slow thing down. to halt unwarranted knee jerk reactions. To represent the states instead of the people. But the 17th amendment pretty much changed that. The original idea of having the people pick their own representatives, the house. Then having each state legislature choose their senators so the senators could represent the states and do and vote according to the wishes of their state. Today, the senate is basically a miniature house. Doing away with the filibuster and utilization of the nuclear option will make the senate only representing the political party in power. Not the people, not the states, only a political party.

I too think the nuclear option out to be outlawed and the senate returned to the 60 vote threshold on all nominations and for cloture on legislation. This stops massive lurches left and or right which is what we will be experiencing in the future. The problem is we have quite a lot of folks who want both the house and senate to represent their political party and not the people who elected them, not the people of their districts or the states from which the senators came from. They want rule by political party, not by the people, for the people and not the state being represented and responsible to their states. It's all about political party rule, not people. They are about to get their way.

What's that old saying, "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it." That certainly applies to today's political environment.

 

[ElChupacabra]

The house and senate are different and were designed different on purpose by the framers. The house is suppose to be the peoples house, representing the people. Their rules reflect that where a simple majority rules. The problem is knee jerk reactions or legislation can easily pass. Prime examples are the two impeachments of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump when neither stood a snow balls chance in Hades of ever succeeding.

The senate was designed to be more deliberative. To slow thing down. to halt unwarranted knee jerk reactions. To represent the states instead of the people. But the 17th amendment pretty much changed that. The original idea of having the people pick their own representatives, the house. Then having each state legislature choose their senators so the senators could represent the states and do and vote according to the wishes of their state. Today, the senate is basically a miniature house. Doing away with the filibuster and utilization of the nuclear option will make the senate only representing the political party in power. Not the people, not the states, only a political party.

I too think the nuclear option out to be outlawed and the senate returned to the 60 vote threshold on all nominations and for cloture on legislation. This stops massive lurches left and or right which is what we will be experiencing in the future. The problem is we have quite a lot of folks who want both the house and senate to represent their political party and not the people who elected them, not the people of their districts or the states from which the senators came from. They want rule by political party, not by the people, for the people and not the state being represented and responsible to their states. It's all about political party rule, not people. They are about to get their way.

What's that old saying, "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it." That certainly applies to today's political environment.

While I don't like to be dramatic about things, I do feel there's a real danger to governance given the way everything is playing out. The zero-sum game that both parties are adopting is going to create more room for power struggles; that will create a void in being able to compromise and legislate.

 

[Lucky 1]

So should be follow 2016 republican rules or 2020 republican rules?

Its not Republican rules......its senate precedent going back to the mid 19th century.

That precedent is that when the president and the senate are of the same party.....the nomination more often then not ...goes to a vote......when they are of different parties...the senate has the perogitive to not bring the nominee to a vote.

Nothing new.....

 

[Perotista]

While I don't like to be dramatic about things, I do feel there's a real danger to governance given the way everything is playing out. The zero-sum game that both parties are adopting is going to create more room for power struggles; that will create a void in being able to compromise and legislate.

Exactly. In a bygone era when both party leaders respected and worked together compromise was accomplished in most cases by playing the game of give and take. That is no longer the case. Not in this modern era of polarization and mega, ultra high partisanship. There is no middle ground for either party, it's all or nothing. What I don't understand is why there's only a very few that sees this.

 

[Thazgor]

Who the hell are you to tell us anything?

How are those Muslims you fools brought in for no reason working for you? I read that Sweden is number one or number two in the world on the rape rate list.

The swedish social democrats are like yours democrats. Our swedish prime minister is like your Joe Biden

You should like it here, and you get all IKEA meat balls you can eat!

In Sweden immigrants are rewearded when they do crimes. They can not be deported to their home countries, they are more victims than the victims of their crimes!

 

[Juks]

A Swede quoting Flashback, the "Russian troll farm" centre in Sweden. Makes me somewhat hesitative.



I do however not doubt the information given. The difference is about 7 month.

The swedish social democrats are like yours democrats. Our swedish prime minister is like your Joe Biden
You should like it here, and you get all IKEA meat balls you can eat!
In Sweden immigrants are rewearded when they do crimes. They can not be deported to their home countries, they are more victims than the victims of their crimes!

And there it was, what I was waiting for… Suddenly Flashback makes sense. (Rape by the way is measured differently in Sweden Like assault in Great Britain than in the rest of the world)

 

[Juks]

Sweden: By the way: Immigrants that has done a crime and can not be deported after served sentence, usually, due to that the origin country they claim to come from doesn't recognize them, are kept in lookdown.

So are immigrants that hasn't committed any crime but has had their asylum application rejected and for the same reason can't be deported. We have been criticized repeatedly by human rights organizations and the EU for this..