• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Answer to the Stalemate

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
They call this the Joe Biden rule. He argued that if the vacancy was close to an election, you let the voters decide who appoints his replacement. You'll have to take it up with him.

And Merrick Garland would have been a disaster, just like Sotomayor and Kagan.

I think I've heard you claim to be pro-life. If so, why are you not thanking God for the Biden rule? Did you want yet another pro-murder justice?
Not the case. The Republicans were not following the precedent and as usual were being obstructionist.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/29/one-third-of-all-u-s-presidents-appointed-a-supreme-court-justice-in-an-election-year/?utm_term=.38d946121337

"Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing had hardly been made public when Republicans began proclaiming that President Obama should not appoint the late justice’s successor. President Obama countered that he would perform his constitutional duty and nominate a successor to Scalia, adding, “Your job doesn’t stop until you are voted out or until your term expires.”

The historical record supports that position: 14 presidents have appointed 21 justices during presidential election years. A half-dozen presidents, classic lame ducks, filled Supreme Court seats even though their successors had been elected."

Republicans cited a 1992 speech by then-senator Joe Biden, arguing that if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer, President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement, or else appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate; Republicans termed this principle the "Biden rule". Biden responded that his position was, and remained, that the President and Congress should "work together to overcome partisan differences" regarding judicial nominations.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
OK but I am not a Republican.

I am a small "i" independent.

A former JFK Yellow Dog Democrat.

I agree with your last two sentences.

HankD
Who, then, is "The Party of Obstruction?" Don't give me that "Independent" talk. It just doesn't match your rhetoric.
 

777

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Trump was going to give DACA for immigration reforms and the wall, but Schumer said no. Compromise isn't on the horizon now.

They call this the Joe Biden rule. He argued that if the vacancy was close to an election, you let the voters decide who appoints his replacement. You'll have to take it up with him.

And Merrick Garland would have been a disaster, just like Sotomayor and Kagan.

What Joe was afraid of at the time was that a bunch of conservative justices would try to quit before the election because it was known that GHWB was in trouble and was unlikely to win a second term.

But Garland was appointed by Obama to fill Scalia's old seat in an election year. If Merrick was so great, why did Obama pass him over twice for Sotomayor and Kagan?
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Who, then, is "The Party of Obstruction?" Don't give me that "Independent" talk. It just doesn't match your rhetoric.
OK but I am still an independent. Sorry it upsets you.

I voted for Trump because Trump is not neither a Democrat or a Republican. Trump is Trump.
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The electoral college is provided for by the Constitution as a function of a republic to protect minority rights.

What the Senate is doing with cloture denies peoples' rights. A popular bill can be defeated because the Senate just refuses to end an imaginary debate and call for a vote. Majority rule thus becomes rule by 3/5, or rule by sixty percent. While technically legal and while propped up by good intentions, it nevertheless amounts to mere petulant obstruction by vested interests. Nothing, not even an annual budget as required by law, can be passed in the Senate.
 

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The American people need to stand up and tell our representatives we are tired of political games and we expect to see a bipartisan approach towards governing. Otherwise we need to vote everyone from both parties out who are unwilling to endorse that principle and elect some real representatives of the people.

Ok, this is NEVER going to happen. That is the past, the past is not coming back. So what needs to happen is one party or the other, whoever is in power at the time, must end the filibuster rule permanently. It has to be majority rule and that will lay it back at the feet of the public to vote what policies they want to rule at the time, for good or bad, however one sees it. At least things will get done.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
OK but I am still an independent. Sorry it upsets you.

I voted for Trump because Trump is not neither a Democrat or a Republican. Trump is Trump.
Nothing wrong being an independent. I'd do that but I don't think I could vote in either primary if I did. My brother is registered as an independent.
 

thatbrian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I voted for Trump because Trump is not neither a Democrat or a Republican. Trump is Trump.

Trump is a Republican. He is a not a Conservative Republican (by a long shot), but he is officially a Republican. You know that.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ok, this is NEVER going to happen. That is the past, the past is not coming back. So what needs to happen is one party or the other, whoever is in power at the time, must end the filibuster rule permanently. It has to be majority rule and that will lay it back at the feet of the public to vote what policies they want to rule at the time, for good or bad, however one sees it. At least things will get done.
That won't happen because of people like you. I would support it. A democracy cannot stand without reasonable debate and compromise. A German friend of mine told me a long time ago that what America needed was a benevolent dictator. He loved Spire Agnew and when he went down in flames I harassed him about that.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Fake news.

HankD
I agree with you on that point. Trump is the classic NYC person. I can recognize them. He'll do anything to get what he wants. In this case he pretended to be a "Christian" republican. He's neither. If he hadn't grown up rich I could see him in Times Square dealing a little tourist scam game called 3 Card Monte. They play that game on cardboard boxes on the sidewalk and take off when they see a cop.
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That won't happen because of people like you. I would support it. A democracy cannot stand without reasonable debate and compromise. A German friend of mine told me a long time ago that what America needed was a benevolent dictator. He loved Spire Agnew and when he went down in flames I harassed him about that.

The Germans seem to have had a lot of benevolent dictators....
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hank has both feet firmly planted in midair on many maters, it seems.
True, IMO human language is defective in labeling and that is why I don't like and avoid labels.

But sometimes they are necessary in a general way.
FWIW Politically I am pro-life of a 60% conservative/40% liberal position.
The liberal aspects are troubling to my wife (a Limbaugh devotee).

My compound political label: Pro-life yellow-dog JFK Democrat.

HankD
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I agree with you on that point. Trump is the classic NYC person. I can recognize them. He'll do anything to get what he wants. In this case he pretended to be a "Christian" republican. He's neither. If he hadn't grown up rich I could see him in Times Square dealing a little tourist scam game called 3 Card Monte. They play that game on cardboard boxes on the sidewalk and take off when they see a cop.
No comment (apart from this one).

HankD
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Nothing wrong being an independent. I'd do that but I don't think I could vote in either primary if I did. My brother is registered as an independent.


Depends on the State or Commonwealth. Here in New York - all parties primaries are closed - unless the Party allows such action. The only party that does that in NY is the Independence Party (Note: contrary to popular belief - the IP is not "independent" - they are a recognized party in NY)
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Trump is a Republican. He is a not a Conservative Republican (by a long shot), but he is officially a Republican. You know that.

As a point - "conservative" should not be capitalized - as in this case as it is an adjective.
New York State has an official Conservative Party. ( this is capitalized - as it is a proper noun"

In addition - New York wisely has the fusion law. Most often, the Conservative Party will endorse the Republican Party candidate. (likewise the Working Family Party normally endorses the Democrat Party candidate).

Last election - the NY Conservative party did endorse Mr. Trump.

2016 results

Statewide Total--------------------------------------------------total fusion vote
Dem...............................Clinton.........4,379,783..................4,556,118
Rep................................Trump..........2,527,141..................2,819,533
Conservative..................Trump............292,392------------------------------- (total with Rep party)
Green..............................Stein.............107,935------------------------------- (single party line)
W Families.....................Clinton......... 140,043 ---------------------------------(total with Dem Party)
Independence...............Johnson..........119,160.....................176,598
Women's Equality..........Clinton.............36,292 ---------------------------------(total with Dem Party)
Libertarian.......................Johnson..........57,438 -------------------------------(total with Independence Party)
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
The electoral college is provided for by the Constitution as a function of a republic to protect minority rights.

What the Senate is doing with cloture denies peoples' rights. A popular bill can be defeated because the Senate just refuses to end an imaginary debate and call for a vote. Majority rule thus becomes rule by 3/5, or rule by sixty percent. While technically legal and while propped up by good intentions, it nevertheless amounts to mere petulant obstruction by vested interests. Nothing, not even an annual budget as required by law, can be passed in the Senate.


CMG - you do realize that your second paragraph conterdicks your first paragraph.

Now where in the Constitution does it guarantee - a democracy?
(HInt - check Article IV - Section 4)


Let’s say you have two wolves and a sheep attempting to decide what to eat for dinner. Under the system of democracy all three of the animals will get a vote. The wolves, of course, are going to vote to eat the sheep. The sheep will vote to eat some wheat, oats or perhaps some hay because it is not that interested in getting eaten. The votes are counted: 2 votes for eating the sheep, 1 vote for not eating the sheep. The wolves have it, bad day to be a sheep.

Now what you should be really worried about is the POTUS - Both houses could pass a bill with a 65% vote - yet one man - the POTUS - could Veto it. (takes 2/3 both housed to override)

So in your thinking - the POTUS prohibits the country from being a democracy.
 

church mouse guy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
CMG - you do realize that your second paragraph conterdicks your first paragraph.

Now where in the Constitution does it guarantee - a democracy?
(HInt - check Article IV - Section 4)


Let’s say you have two wolves and a sheep attempting to decide what to eat for dinner. Under the system of democracy all three of the animals will get a vote. The wolves, of course, are going to vote to eat the sheep. The sheep will vote to eat some wheat, oats or perhaps some hay because it is not that interested in getting eaten. The votes are counted: 2 votes for eating the sheep, 1 vote for not eating the sheep. The wolves have it, bad day to be a sheep.

Now what you should be really worried about is the POTUS - Both houses could pass a bill with a 65% vote - yet one man - the POTUS - could Veto it. (takes 2/3 both housed to override)

So in your thinking - the POTUS prohibits the country from being a democracy.
No, I am not arguing that the Constitution says that the Senate needs 3/5 for cloture.

At any rate, you have never addressed the fact that the Constitution has been amended on direct election of Senators.

There are no filibusters nowadays. There are no debates. Legislation de facto needs sixty percent to pass.

Are you opposed to the passage of legislation by majority rule?
 
Top