djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 10:19:41 GMT -5
That chest-thumping aside, what reading should we apply to the combined assertions of #27 and #29?
edit: what you are seeing as chest thumping i meant as a gigantic eye roll. there seems to be a broad consensus among the GOP that this is a tactical error, that the Democrats didn't consider that before doing it, and that it will come back to bite them. i disagree with all three. i think it was a very calculated decision on their part that they have been considering for well over a year, with a lot of upside and virtually no downside, or they would never have taken it. this was a power that they were willing to give up, as a future minority party, for the privilege of governing today (and whenever, in the future, they hold majority in the Senate).
You've vehemently denied the speciously plausible reading that "the President doesn't need advice from the Senate, the Senate should just be grateful it gets to agree with the President." So what was your point? bringing appointees to a vote is not the same thing as "rubber stamping", imo. historically, this is the way business is done in the Senate. it is particularly absurd with cabinet members. it is like making someone the CEO, and then refusing to even ENTERTAIN his staff requests. it is absurd, and totally contradictory to the idea of responsible governing, historical practice, and the very idea of national mandate. so, do you think it is an abuse of power for a president to have a cabinet of his own choosing?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 10:46:14 GMT -5
There are very important differences between a CEO and the President of a federal Republic, as you know.
As to the question of abuse - the issue really is how much power is vested in the presidency. At the founding of the Republic, the drafters of the Constitution were much exercised by the firm belief that power is corrupting. The problem wasn't that some future officeholder might seek to abuse his office: the problem was that some check must be placed on that officeholder to minimize the effect of his abuse. Abuse of power was assumed - baked in to the model, so to speak.
In 1940, around 443,000 people were employed in civilian agencies of the executive branch: roughly 1 out of every 298 Americans.
By 1965, that had almost doubled to 867,000: 1 for every 224 Americans. Combined outlays for the legislative and judicial branches of government in that year came to $287 million; almost all of the remaining $118 billion in outlays stemmed from the executive branch.
By 1980, civilian agencies of the executive branch employed 1.2 million people: 1 for every 188 Americans. The legislative and judicial branches of government had outlays of around $1.8 billion that year; the executive branch outlays were almost $590 billion.
In 2012, civilian agencies of the executive branch employed 1.374 million people: back out to somewhere around 1 for every 227 Americans. But the outlays of the executive branch exceeded $3.5 trillion that year.
This is the power the President holds. Particularly when the President treats his Executive Orders as superior to legislation, and his personal opinion as superior to judicial findings, the case for checks and balances on that power becomes overwhelming.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 10:52:57 GMT -5
There are very important differences between a CEO and the President of a federal Republic, as you know.
As to the question of abuse - the issue really is how much power is vested in the presidency. At the founding of the Republic, the drafters of the Constitution were much exercised by the firm belief that power is corrupting. The problem wasn't that some future officeholder might seek to abuse his office: the problem was that some check must be placed on that officeholder to minimize the effect of his abuse. Abuse of power was assumed - baked in to the model, so to speak.
In 1940, around 443,000 people were employed in civilian agencies of the executive branch: roughly 1 out of every 298 Americans.
By 1965, that had almost doubled to 867,000: 1 for every 224 Americans. Combined outlays for the legislative and judicial branches of government in that year came to $287 million; almost all of the remaining $118 billion in outlays stemmed from the executive branch.
By 1980, civilian agencies of the executive branch employed 1.2 million people: 1 for every 188 Americans. The legislative and judicial branches of government had outlays of around $1.8 billion that year; the executive branch outlays were almost $590 billion.
In 2012, civilian agencies of the executive branch employed 1.374 million people: back out to somewhere around 1 for every 227 Americans. But the outlays of the executive branch exceeded $3.5 trillion that year.
This is the power the President holds. Particularly when the President treats his Executive Orders as superior to legislation, and his personal opinion as superior to judicial findings, the case for checks and balances on that power becomes overwhelming.
i'd be interested in seeing dollars per capita, adjusted for inflation. i can't make much sense of this data. and i have to go to work in 10 mins......
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 10:54:55 GMT -5
There are very important differences between a CEO and the President of a federal Republic, as you know.
As to the question of abuse - the issue really is how much power is vested in the presidency. At the founding of the Republic, the drafters of the Constitution were much exercised by the firm belief that power is corrupting. The problem wasn't that some future officeholder might seek to abuse his office: the problem was that some check must be placed on that officeholder to minimize the effect of his abuse. Abuse of power was assumed - baked in to the model, so to speak. i think that is a pretty negative view, but i know how "you" that is. i don't think choosing one's own cabinet is an abuse of power by any standard.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2014 10:58:28 GMT -5
... As to the question of abuse - the issue really is how much power is vested in the presidency. At the founding of the Republic, the drafters of the Constitution were much exercised by the firm belief that power is corrupting. ... In the United States Senate, a hold is a parliamentary procedure permitted by the Standing Rules of the United States Senate which allows one or more Senators to prevent a motion from reaching a vote on the Senate floor. If the Senator provides notice privately to his or her party leadership of their intent (and the party leadership agreed), then the hold is known as a secret or anonymous hold. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_hold#Attempts_to_amend_or_abolish_this_rule i am concerned about the corrupting power of this rule in the Senate.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 11:04:36 GMT -5
Rereading that, it didn't really address your question.
What you're talking about, I think, is the difference between the whole Senate getting to vote, with the majority being in the President's party and supporting his choice, or the whole Senate not getting to vote, with the minority not being in the President's party and using parliamentary maneuvers to prevent the vote they'd lose on the floor for lack of bodies.
We all accept that the founding fathers, in a collective bout of short-sightedness, didn't anticipate the emergence of political parties as they operate today. They were pretty forthright about their opinions of "factionalism," in fact.
What you and I are debating is two alternative paradigms in the current party-centered American republican structure.
1) The version where regular popular vote gives a mandate to the party of the majority, who are thereby empowered to implement their vision of policy without obligation to the party of the minority (the "elections have consequences" approach enunciated by the President to Congressional Republicans in 2008, and ignored by the President since 2010). An obvious difficulty for this approach arises when the voters produce gridlock by disobligingly supporting opposed majorities in the two chambers of a bicameral Congress. The House can legitimately claim it has a mandate to stymie and oppose the Senate, and the Senate can legitimately claim it has a mandate to bypass and dictate to the House. That nobody votes for more than one representative in either chamber, with the corollary that everybody vesting political power in an elected representative gives a mandate only to that representative, goes unremarked.
It is my belief that this version, simplistic and appealing to party apparatchiks as it is, is badly misguided.
2) The version where the presence of two (or more) parties in a deliberative assembly creates a moral obligation upon that assembly to give a fair hearing to all parties. As an example, were Mr Reid to find it within himself to allow amendments to bills (even from his own side) more often, he would face fewer cloture votes against threatened filibusters in the Senate (Glenn Kessler did a great job of analyzing Reid's fondness for cloture as a bullying tactic). The 45 Republicans in the Senate were not sent to Washington to watch the Democratic majority work its will; they were sent to represent their electors, and if the Senate leadership will not let them be involved in the drafting and debating of legislation to an extent compatible with that they have an obligation to oppose the legislation that results - it is the last resort left to them. In this paradigm, it is incumbent on the majority to seek compromises that accommodate the minority.
It is my belief that this version must prevail if we are to reverse the polarizing trends of recent decades. The general principle that the majority must accommodate itself to the minority is well-understood in public policy - the majority of couples wishing to be married are not homosexual, for example, and neither are the majority of undergraduate applicants to university Hispanic - but often ignored in representative politics.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 11:06:44 GMT -5
Which do you think more likely -
That the body politic sustain harm from the corrupt actions of an unencumbered majority?
Or that the body politic sustain harm from the corrupt actions of an obstructive minority?
Recognition of the representative authority of a single Senator is not a corruption of the Senate; it is the embodiment of the Senate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 11:11:56 GMT -5
Rereading that, it didn't really address your question.
What you're talking about, I think, is the difference between the whole Senate getting to vote, with the majority being in the President's party and supporting his choice, they are not obligated to do so. in fact, it is their responsibility to do otherwise, if they see fit. it is odd that we are not discussing THAT.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 11:15:26 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 11:17:49 GMT -5
thanks, lizard king: that means something, now. gotta run!!!
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 11:29:00 GMT -5
But it is as accurate to suggest that they do so, and that they do so for reasons of party loyalty primarily, as it is to suggest that Republicans do not, and for the same reason.
It's perfectly possible for even this President to get even this Republican party to vote with him on something. He's demonstrated that it's perfectly possible for even this President to get even this Democratic party to go against him. At issue is that neither happens very often, and when it does happen it generally evidences narrow self-interest more than anything else.
As long as individual elected representatives are more dependent on the elites of their own party apparatus than they are on the people whose votes elect them, any subdivision of any elected assembly on party lines represents a corruption of the political process. In practice, the President is the mouthpiece of a party hivemind, and the leadership of the opposition is likewise a mouthpiece of a party hivemind. These hiveminds are focused always primarily on one another - not on the voters whose needs and priorities they disregard beyond the minimum necessary to placate them in election season, and not even on their own parties or members (no self-aware and self-concerned Democratic Party would have pursued PPACA in the fashion and to the extent it did; that was simply a refusal to accept any compromise with the hated Republicans, and if Republicans had been in turn motivated by more than knee-jerk opposition to the Democratic agenda without consideration for its particulars they would deserve plaudits for a masterful strategy).
In that system, the best we the people can hope for is a constraint on the excess of the party of majority. Opposed majorities in the bicameral Congress merely foster diametrically opposed excesses, and destabilize government as a whole. Leadership of the sort provided by John Boehner in passing legislation on the votes of the minority in the national interest works better in the long run. It is immeasurably good for democracy if a representative party caucus is divided into subfactions, because it increases the likelihood that votes must be secured on a bipartisan basis (and this was possible in the recent past; most of George W Bush's signature legislative achievements had significant Democratic support). It is likewise immeasurably good if the majority leadership sees value in working with the party of the minority; where they do not, and I don't think you or anybody can offer persuasive evidence that any of Reid, Pelosi, or Obama make good faith efforts in this regard, the party of minority should have as many tools as possible to contribute to the political debate. Leaving one's opponents only the most extreme measures is an invitation to anarchy.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 11:59:57 GMT -5
jim- how familiar are you with the level of filibuster activity this term -vs- past terms?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 12:08:09 GMT -5
jim- how familiar are you with the level of filibuster activity this term -vs- past terms? Does this (excerpted from #66) help?
Traditionally, debate in the Senate chamber has involved both parties, with individual Senators able to bring amendments to the floor. Under Reid, debate has devolved into straight up-and-down votes on measures he knows he can get a majority behind before the vote is called.
Heretofore, a Senator concerned about unfunded mandates in a bill, or vague language concerning abortion, or inadequate protections for some pet industry in his State, might have been able to propose an amendment to the bill that addressed those concerns and illustrated to his voters back home that he was doing something. Under Reid, the only option he has for doing something, as opposed to simply voting against what's being done in spite of him, is to block the vote until Reid allows amendments on it.
Reid and Obama both like to paint themselves as helpless victims of a buffeting fate, powerless to control events around them. It's poppycock in both cases. Most of the problems confronting each man are exacerbated by their own high-handed decisionmaking.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 12:10:33 GMT -5
jim- how familiar are you with the level of filibuster activity this term -vs- past terms? Does this (excerpted from #66) help?
Traditionally, debate in the Senate chamber has involved both parties, with individual Senators able to bring amendments to the floor. Under Reid, debate has devolved into straight up-and-down votes on measures he knows he can get a majority behind before the vote is called.
Heretofore, a Senator concerned about unfunded mandates in a bill, or vague language concerning abortion, or inadequate protections for some pet industry in his State, might have been able to propose an amendment to the bill that addressed those concerns and illustrated to his voters back home that he was doing something. Under Reid, the only option he has for doing something, as opposed to simply voting against what's being done in spite of him, is to block the vote until Reid allows amendments on it.
Reid and Obama both like to paint themselves as helpless victims of a buffeting fate, powerless to control events around them. It's poppycock in both cases. Most of the problems confronting each man are exacerbated by their own high-handed decisionmaking.
it is hard to see the highlights in blue. i missed that. thx. i figured you were, but your posts had me wondering. edit: i was actually referring of the failure to bring nominees up to vote, not legislative filibuster. but here is an alternate take to your analysis above by none other than those completely non-partisan folks over at ThinkProgress. thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/11/21/2972671/senate-democrats-invoke-nuclear-option/
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2014 12:14:45 GMT -5
... But it is as accurate to suggest that they do so, and that they do so for reasons of party loyalty primarily, ... I call BS on this. They are members of a political party because they support the same goals as other members of that political party. They vote accordingly.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 12:16:31 GMT -5
Just so I'm clear on this: it's your position that Ben Nelson supported Obamacare, and his vote is evidence of his personal support for the program?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2014 12:18:34 GMT -5
Which do you think more likely -
That the body politic sustain harm from the corrupt actions of an unencumbered majority?
Or that the body politic sustain harm from the corrupt actions of an obstructive minority?
Recognition of the representative authority of a single Senator is not a corruption of the Senate; it is the embodiment of the Senate.
Sounds great. Now, I support straight up or down votes for appointments. (It ain't gonna bring down the Union who the fuck is on the National Labor Relations Board).
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 12:18:37 GMT -5
More generally, are all those people running for re-election on the Democratic Party ticket, and criticizing the Obamacare program they voted for, no longer Democrats?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2014 12:20:12 GMT -5
Just so I'm clear on this: it's your position that Ben Nelson supported Obamacare, and his vote is evidence of his personal support for the program? Or he is a fool. Your choice.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2014 12:22:32 GMT -5
More generally, are all those people running for re-election on the Democratic Party ticket, and criticizing the Obamacare program they voted for, no longer Democrats? The world isn't quite as black and white as that.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 12:22:35 GMT -5
Which do you think more likely -
That the body politic sustain harm from the corrupt actions of an unencumbered majority?
Or that the body politic sustain harm from the corrupt actions of an obstructive minority?
Recognition of the representative authority of a single Senator is not a corruption of the Senate; it is the embodiment of the Senate.
Sounds great. Now, I support straight up or down votes for appointments. (It ain't gonna bring down the Union who the fuck is on the National Labor Relations Board). So, majority rule, then.
Does this mean you don't think a corrupt majority in power is more likely than a corrupt minority without power, or that you don't care if it's corrupt?
It may not bring down the union, but the composition and approach of the NLRB, the EPA, and any of hundreds of other agencies of the executive branch can have a vast, disproportionate, and unaccountable impact on the living and working conditions of millions of Americans.
I hope you don't find yourself, like Niemoller, in the next minority in line some day.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 12:23:36 GMT -5
Which is exactly why simple majority rule is a flawed paradigm in a representative democratic republic.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2014 12:29:40 GMT -5
... So, majority rule, then.
Does this mean you don't think a corrupt majority in power is more likely than a corrupt minority without power, or that you don't care if it's corrupt?
It may not bring down the union, but the composition and approach of the NLRB, the EPA, and any of hundreds of other agencies of the executive branch can have a vast, disproportionate, and unaccountable impact on the living and working conditions of millions of Americans.
I hope you don't find yourself, like Niemoller, in the next minority in line some day.
Not as the absolute you are attempting to paint is as but at times, yes. I find your use of the word "corrupt" in this context absurd. Elections have consequences. Life is risk.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 12:30:00 GMT -5
Sounds great. Now, I support straight up or down votes for appointments. (It ain't gonna bring down the Union who the fuck is on the National Labor Relations Board). So, majority rule, then.
Does this mean you don't think a corrupt majority in power is more likely than a corrupt minority without power, or that you don't care if it's corrupt?
It may not bring down the union, but the composition and approach of the NLRB, the EPA, and any of hundreds of other agencies of the executive branch can have a vast, disproportionate, and unaccountable impact on the living and working conditions of millions of Americans.
I hope you don't find yourself, like Niemoller, in the next minority in line some day.
i think you are exaggerating a bit, here. this is not about the Enabling Act. this is about the president being able to appoint judges or cabinet members of his choice. you would probably argue that this is not an ennumerated power, and i won't be arguing against that. however, it is also a traditional presidential power (to not have your appointees blocked by filibuster- and if you think otherwise, then cite me, say- FIVE cases where this was done in the last generation). am i arguing for an imperial presidency here? no- i am not. i don't see this power as excessive in the way that, say, the NSA monitoring this conversation is. edit: actually, it isn't even about that. it is about using a discharge petition. the GOP can block it by unifying. there is no breach of power in it.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2014 12:32:25 GMT -5
Which is exactly why simple majority rule is a flawed paradigm in a representative democratic republic. I think the Founding Fathers did an excellent job of building into the system times that more than just a simple majority are important. Please note that more than a simple majority isn't required in the Constitution for every little thing that comes along.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 13:00:45 GMT -5
How did you find your use of it in #65?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 13:09:57 GMT -5
Where is a simple majority required anywhere in the Constitution?
The Founding Fathers, as I've already said, didn't anticipate the co-option of the machinery of government into the cartels of political factions - to the extent they addressed the question at all, it was in the most negative terms. Jefferson said if the only way to Heaven was as member of a party, he wouldn't go.
The Senate makes (and unmakes) its own rules; the House, likewise. In both cases, historically the chambers have seen wisdom in enacting mechanisms for the minority to express itself.
Article 1, Section 5, of the Constitution:
And:
And:
I repeat: in the context of a two-party state, under a regime of straight majoritarian up-or-down voting without amendments and other prolegomena, the Senate is rendered a bullying rubber-stamp for the President when the two are of the same party, and a renegade entity opposing the President when the two are of opposite parties. Neither is good for democracy; both result from the accumulation of power within party hierarchies.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 18, 2014 13:12:30 GMT -5
The thing is that the availability of the discharge petition as a tool of the minority party to attempt to shape the debate is a good thing in my perspective. I'm not suggesting the minority party shouldn't be able to peel off members of the majority party to support a discharge petition in which they see merit: quite the reverse, I'm arguing there should be more of that sort of option available to the minority party.
A democracy can be judged by the privileges it affords its weakest members. This is as true of its legislature as of its citizenry.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 18, 2014 13:46:31 GMT -5
That chest-thumping aside, what reading should we apply to the combined assertions of #27 and #29?
edit: what you are seeing as chest thumping i meant as a gigantic eye roll. there seems to be a broad consensus among the GOP that this is a tactical error, that the Democrats didn't consider that before doing it, and that it will come back to bite them. i disagree with all three. i think it was a very calculated decision on their part that they have been considering for well over a year, with a lot of upside and virtually no downside, or they would never have taken it. this was a power that they were willing to give up, as a future minority party, for the privilege of governing today (and whenever, in the future, they hold majority in the Senate).
You've vehemently denied the speciously plausible reading that "the President doesn't need advice from the Senate, the Senate should just be grateful it gets to agree with the President." So what was your point? bringing appointees to a vote is not the same thing as "rubber stamping", imo. historically, this is the way business is done in the Senate. it is particularly absurd with cabinet members. it is like making someone the CEO, and then refusing to even ENTERTAIN his staff requests. it is absurd, and totally contradictory to the idea of responsible governing, historical practice, and the very idea of national mandate. so, do you think it is an abuse of power for a president to have a cabinet of his own choosing? Does it occur to you that the Republicans might ENTERTAIN staff requests if they weren't all glaring "screw you"s to Republicans? Have you ever read what men like John Holdren and Cass Sunstein have written? They're a hair's breadth away from stark raving mad. In fact I defy you to find a senior cabinet member in Pres. Obama's administration not hugging the left extremum of the political scale. I'm sorry, but if a President adopts the approach of stuffing his cabinet with the most pro-immigrant, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-globalism, gun-hatingest progressive yahoos in the whole of the United States, he's going to get a foul-tempered, intransigent opposition party. And it seems to me that the checks and balances Jim is so eloquently defending are there precisely because a President should not be able to stuff his cabinet from top to bottom with individuals whose views are an anathema to an opposition party that lost the federal election by a couple percentage points. There needs to be some moderation. Some compromise and quid pro quo. So let's have you running around the Internet for once. Show us a senior cabinet member or two you wouldn't expect the Republicans to hate to the bone. Show us evidence that there's at least an attempt by the White House to field palatable nominees.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2014 13:59:19 GMT -5
bringing appointees to a vote is not the same thing as "rubber stamping", imo. historically, this is the way business is done in the Senate. it is particularly absurd with cabinet members. it is like making someone the CEO, and then refusing to even ENTERTAIN his staff requests. it is absurd, and totally contradictory to the idea of responsible governing, historical practice, and the very idea of national mandate. so, do you think it is an abuse of power for a president to have a cabinet of his own choosing? Does it occur to you that the Republicans might ENTERTAIN staff requests if they weren't all glaring "screw you"s to Republicans? this is a "tit for tat" argument, and i personally find it beneath a legislator to think this way, so i am not buying it. edit: i don't think any of Obama's appointments are "screw you" appointments, for the record. his appointments are pretty moderate. the RESPONSE has been "screw you", though. on that we can agree.
|
|