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 15:07:12 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_choose
This is probably needlessly abstract, but what I'm driving at is an idea of fair negotiation between two parties utilizing this protocol.
It's not by any means a perfect fit for the confirmation question, but it empowers the agency of both parties in the crafting of a compromise. |
|
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 15:20:19 GMT -5
It is my opinion that Rice knowingly lied about an incident in which an Ambassador was murdered, and that she did so to spare the President political embarrassment.
A more obvious disqualifying circumstance for a potential Secretary of State were hard to imagine.
i never reached that conclusion, but i can see why you would object to her if she did. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2014 15:27:26 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_choose
This is probably needlessly abstract, but what I'm driving at is an idea of fair negotiation between two parties utilizing this protocol.
It's not by any means a perfect fit for the confirmation question, but it empowers the agency of both parties in the crafting of a compromise. Divide and choose assumes the parties have equal entitlements ... (from the link) The President has won the position by the electoral process and a group of 51 Senators have won theirs through the electoral process (or been legally appointed). 49 Senators do not have equal entitlements to get their way. |
|
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 15:32:40 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_choose
This is probably needlessly abstract, but what I'm driving at is an idea of fair negotiation between two parties utilizing this protocol.
It's not by any means a perfect fit for the confirmation question, but it empowers the agency of both parties in the crafting of a compromise. Divide and choose assumes the parties have equal entitlements ... (from the link) The President has won the position by the electoral process and a group of 51 Senators have won theirs through the electoral process (or been legally appointed). 49 Senators do not have equal entitlements to get their way. there once was sort of an understanding that the majority party would have certain privileges that come with that (ie- making judicial appointments to federal benches). there was once a time when the other party didn't stand in the way no matter how much they objected to the party in power. what has been slowly eroding is the cooperation between parties. what is clear is that there is plenty of blame to go around. however, rather than blaming, the GOP could fix it by simply cooperating with appointments. that would have opened the door to future cooperation from Democrats. but i guess expecting either party to take the high road is kindof a long shot now. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2014 15:46:49 GMT -5
... there once was sort of an understanding that the majority party would have certain privileges that come with that (ie- making judicial appointments to federal benches). there was once a time when the other party didn't stand in the way no matter how much they objected to the party in power. ... Or you had votes like these when the President nominated someone who was a poor choice: Haynsworth was defeated by a 55 to 45 vote on November 21, 1969. 19 Democrats and 26 Republicans voted for Haynsworth while 38 Democrats and 17 Republicans voted against the nomination. Haynsworth was the first Supreme Court nominee since John J. Parker (1930) to be defeated by the Senate.
...
On April 8, 1970, the United States Senate refused to confirm Carswell's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. The vote was 51 to 45, with 17 Democrats and 28 Republicans voting for Carswell, and 38 Democrats and 13 Republicans voting against him. Nixon accused Democrats of having an anti-Southern bias as a result. |
|
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 16:14:54 GMT -5
You officially get Godwin credit by begging for a Nazi analogy here.  i find the fact that you are equating playing nice to genocide to be disturbing to the point of nausea.As for our earlier discussion about the 2-year filibuster, I shall return later to complete it.  i already completed it. rest your weary fingers.  |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2014 16:21:42 GMT -5
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. I save the higher stuff for more deserving targets. I'll reciprocate your compliment. I don't think you're too obtuse to even comprehend the argument I'm making. I really meant for this to be on topic and not about your response. Majority rule is the norm. Written into the Constitution are the specific situations when a decision is of such importance that more than a simple majority is required. Extending a requirement of a 3/5ths vote for everything is what I disagree with. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2014 16:33:12 GMT -5
... The reason Kerry was nominated was that Republicans vehemently opposed the appointment of Obama's preferred candidate, Rice. Senators advised against her nomination and it was never made. The system the way it is supposed to work.  |
|
