It's a Good Day Not to Live in Wisonsin

[calamity]

lol @ the Dairy State.

Republican-led Wisconsin legislature approves bills to diminish executive power after Democratic election wins

I imagine the banana in that republic will brown rather quickly.

 

[Felis Leo]

lol @ the Dairy State.

Republican-led Wisconsin legislature approves bills to diminish executive power after Democratic election wins

I imagine the banana in that republic will brown rather quickly.

Well, here is the problem with this idea, calamity. Typically, in a Banana Republic, the legislature made up mainly of cronies of the dictator grants more and more power to the executive branch of the government, until the country is a democracy in name only, when in reality it is an effective autocracy. At what time in history did a Banana Republic form when a legislature took executive powers away from the government?

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Well, here is the problem with this idea, calamity. Typically, in a Banana Republic, the legislature made up mainly of cronies of the dictator grants more and more power to the executive branch of the government, until the country is a democracy in name only, when in reality it is an effective autocracy. At what time in history did a Banana Republic form when a legislature took executive powers away from the government?

Well, this one time in Wisconsin...

 

[notquiteright]

Well, here is the problem with this idea, calamity. Typically, in a Banana Republic, the legislature made up mainly of cronies of the dictator grants more and more power to the executive branch of the government, until the country is a democracy in name only, when in reality it is an effective autocracy. At what time in history did a Banana Republic form when a legislature took executive powers away from the government?

Well the model is the lesser used (or recognized) oligarchy model where the legislature are shills for tRump's 'deep state' true power base. In this model the true power lies in a small group of extremely powerful (and ruthless) men behind the scenes and the President/Prime minister is just a figure head. The Russians went through this after the epic fail of the USSR.

Back on topic- I don't think much of the butt hurt GOP bills will hold up to judicial review because the rest of the banana republic model isn't in place (yet) eace

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

The next time a Republican says he/she respects and honors our military personal and vets for 'fighting for our freedoms and democracy' I'll bring this up to them. Yet another example of GOP hypocrisy and them crapping on democracy.

It is sooooo scary how far the Republican party has fallen. It's disgraceful.

 

[Grand Mal]

Well, here is the problem with this idea, calamity. Typically, in a Banana Republic, the legislature made up mainly of cronies of the dictator grants more and more power to the executive branch of the government, until the country is a democracy in name only, when in reality it is an effective autocracy. At what time in history did a Banana Republic form when a legislature took executive powers away from the government?

Uh, when the Congress took away the Presidential appointment to the Supreme Court?
Or was it before that?

 

[uptower]

This is the real voter fraud isn't it? Gerrymandering, voter suppression and other tricks that allow the GOP to hold onto power in a state despite having a clear minority. In Wisconsin the Dems won 53% of the vote yet only hold 36%. The converse is true for the GOP. With that majority in legislature only and no mandate they play sore losers to try and strip the incoming Governor of power because he's not 'one of theirs'. I truly hope the courts do their duty and strike these bills down.

They're trying the same in Michigan too; undermining and overturning before the opposition takes office.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Uh, when the Congress took away the Presidential appointment to the Supreme Court?
Or was it before that?

Rejecting a Supreme Court nominee is a constitutional right of the congress

 

[Felis Leo]

Uh, when the Congress took away the Presidential appointment to the Supreme Court?
Or was it before that?

Well, Grand Mal, I would argue that that was something entirely within the purview of the United States Senate. It may have been unpopular among those on the political left, but it was by no means illegitimate. I imagine if Trump wins the Presidency in 2020 but the Democrats retook a majority in the Senate, and Trump then nominated a conservative justice, the Democrats would be quick to shoot down the nominee, and probably refuse him a hearing, as is the Senate's absolute right. I will certainly not argue the validity of their action, even if I disagree with the result.

 

[Grand Mal]

Rejecting a Supreme Court nominee is a constitutional right of the congress

Yeah, but they didn't even vote on it. They didn't reject the nominee, they rejected the nomination. It's a subtle but important difference between voting and rejecting Obama's nominee and flat-out rejecting his right to put the nomination before the Congress.
Obama's right to the process was denied by the GOP.

 

[Grand Mal]

Well, Grand Mal, I would argue that that was something entirely within the purview of the United States Senate. It may have been unpopular among those on the political left, but it was by no means illegitimate. I imagine if Trump wins the Presidency in 2020 but the Democrats retook a majority in the Senate, and Trump then nominated a conservative justice, the Democrats would be quick to shoot down the nominee, and probably refuse him a hearing, as is the Senate's absolute right. I will certainly not argue the validity of their action, even if I disagree with the result.

The legislative branch took the process away from the executive when they refused to consider the nomination and vote on it. If the Congress had done it's job and rejected the nominee nobody could complain but they rejected Obama's right to put his nomination forward, saying they would wait a year for the election.
The GOP seems to be aquiring a habit of dirty politics, and right-wing voters are aquiring the habit of saying, "Is it illegal? No? Then it's acceptable."

 

[Parrish]

Didn't the NC lege try the same thing with Roy Cooper?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yeah, but they didn't even vote on it. They didn't reject the nominee, they rejected the nomination. It's a subtle but important difference between voting and rejecting Obama's nominee and flat-out rejecting his right to put the nomination before the Congress.
Obama's right to the process was denied by the GOP.

Obama has no right to the process. Not holding a vote is the same as rejecting. The problem is Jeff the political Flake and The RINO from Illinois who was so dumb I forget his name and won't bother to look it up because he rejected Donald Trump and lost his senate seat, would've delivered Garland to the court, which would've been atrocious to the constitution, so McConnell made the right move, we got Trump in there and now we got some good judges. elections have consequences. We won the senate in 2014 and so we get to decide judge nominations.

 

[Grand Mal]

Obama has no right to the process. Not holding a vote is the same as rejecting. The problem is Jeff the political Flake and The RINO from Illinois who was so dumb I forget his name and won't bother to look it up because he rejected Donald Trump and lost his senate seat, would've delivered Garland to the court, which would've been atrocious to the constitution, so McConnell made the right move, we got Trump in there and now we got some good judges. elections have consequences. We won the senate in 2014 and so we get to decide judge nominations.

(sigh)
Yes, you get to decide nominations. Where in the constitution does it say you get to decide whether the nomination happens?
That's what happened. The legislative branch decided the executive branch couldn't have access to the process.
Listen. It's a small point, a subtle difference, but it's dirty politics. It's not the way the people who designed it intended it to be. But if the result is what you want you can spin it, you can justify it, you can even applaud it but don't forget that what goes around, comes around and in politics nothing is ever decided. When the Democrats pull the same dirty trick will you sit on your hands chewing your lip in silence?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Obama has no right to the process. Not holding a vote is the same as rejecting. The problem is Jeff the political Flake and The RINO from Illinois who was so dumb I forget his name and won't bother to look it up because he rejected Donald Trump and lost his senate seat, would've delivered Garland to the court, which would've been atrocious to the constitution, so McConnell made the right move, we got Trump in there and now we got some good judges. elections have consequences. We won the senate in 2014 and so we get to decide judge nominations.

LOL! What pig-ignorant twaddle. There is nothning 'atrocious', whatsoever, about Garland or his record as a judge, nor can you cite anything that indicates that.