Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Things I hadn't considered about the Electoral College
The point being it is POLITICAL. Those who control the senate and presidency call the shots. Just as Harry Reid did, one of the nastiest senators ever.
Harry Reid started it. The link I posted is accurate. Paybacks are a b!tch. I fully expect the new regime to mix it up and screw with the US traditions and Constitutional composition. Some folks can never accept what is without winning.
I never said it wasn't accurate. I don't have a problem with it, as they have the right to do so. My argument is calling it payback, since Mitch is every bit as nasty as Harry, and would have done it anyway, otherwise, he would have never gotten any of Trump's nominees approved. I do not believe Joe will pack the court or do anything else that the fear mongers have led you to believe. As for Trump, let him recount. He is so far behind in votes and has lost 12 tries in court already.
Gary didn't make any claims about the Supreme court and neither did his link. Reid was the first to use the Nuclear option for Federal judges but not Supreme court nominees.
His link tells a half-true story and specifically references the Supreme Court when Reid specifically left the Supreme Court out of the situation:
Eight years later in 2013, it would be Harry Reid and a Democratic majority that would do away with the filibuster for executive branch appointments and judicial nominations, with the exception of the Supreme Court. Despite warnings from the minority that it was a decision they would live to regret, Reid and the Democrats deployed the nuclear option anyway.
Their day of reckoning came on Jan. 20, 2017, with a Republican president and Senate in control of judicial nominations. For the past four years, President Donald Trump and Republicans have done their constitutional duty in nominating and confirming federal judges, including now three Supreme Court nominations. But don’t blame Trump or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Blame Harry Reid who put politics ahead of principle and opened the door for Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and soon Amy Coney Barrett.
"I’ll have so many judges because President Obama and (Biden) left me 128 judges to fill," Trump said Sept. 29. "You just don’t do that."
While Trump inflates the number, the bigger question is did Obama, and by extension Joe Biden, drop the ball on judicial appointments?
There’s broad agreement that their problem was not a lack of trying, but the power of a Republican Senate to bottle up their nominees.
"Scholars have referred to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's actions during this time as a blockade of judicial appointments," said Michigan State political scientist Ian Ostrander. "Very few judicial nominations were successful during the 114th Congress,"
Republicans won control of the Senate in 2014. From that point on, the numbers show how hard it was for Obama to seat the people he put forward. The bad, the good and the ugly: Obama’s judicial saga in three acts
We don’t know where Trump got his figure of 128 vacancies, but it’s wrong. The accurate number is 105. That said, the fundamental point remains the same. Obama had a hard time getting judges confirmed.
A key part of understanding judicial confirmations lies in the Senate. The Senate is the gatekeeper and, without its nod, no nomination goes through. The party that holds the Senate wields final control.
During the two years before Republicans took the Senate, Obama had a confirmation success rate of nearly 90%./
His link tells a half-true story and specifically references the Supreme Court when Reid specifically left the Supreme Court out of the situation:
Eight years later in 2013, it would be Harry Reid and a Democratic majority that would do away with the filibuster for executive branch appointments and judicial nominations, with the exception of the Supreme Court. Despite warnings from the minority that it was a decision they would live to regret, Reid and the Democrats deployed the nuclear option anyway.
Their day of reckoning came on Jan. 20, 2017, with a Republican president and Senate in control of judicial nominations. For the past four years, President Donald Trump and Republicans have done their constitutional duty in nominating and confirming federal judges, including now three Supreme Court nominations. But don’t blame Trump or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Blame Harry Reid who put politics ahead of principle and opened the door for Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and soon Amy Coney Barrett.
"I’ll have so many judges because President Obama and (Biden) left me 128 judges to fill," Trump said Sept. 29. "You just don’t do that."
While Trump inflates the number, the bigger question is did Obama, and by extension Joe Biden, drop the ball on judicial appointments?
There’s broad agreement that their problem was not a lack of trying, but the power of a Republican Senate to bottle up their nominees.
"Scholars have referred to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's actions during this time as a blockade of judicial appointments," said Michigan State political scientist Ian Ostrander. "Very few judicial nominations were successful during the 114th Congress,"
Republicans won control of the Senate in 2014. From that point on, the numbers show how hard it was for Obama to seat the people he put forward. The bad, the good and the ugly: Obama’s judicial saga in three acts
We don’t know where Trump got his figure of 128 vacancies, but it’s wrong. The accurate number is 105. That said, the fundamental point remains the same. Obama had a hard time getting judges confirmed.
A key part of understanding judicial confirmations lies in the Senate. The Senate is the gatekeeper and, without its nod, no nomination goes through. The party that holds the Senate wields final control.
During the two years before Republicans took the Senate, Obama had a confirmation success rate of nearly 90%./
As I said, the article linked specifically said "Eight years later in 2013, it would be Harry Reid and a Democratic majority that would do away with the filibuster for executive branch appointments and judicial nominations, with the exception of the Supreme Court." We all know why Harry Reid did it, and we all know why Mitch did what he did. I'm only pointing out that both the article and Gary know that Harry Reid did not include the Supreme Court in his Nuclear Option. My comment was about this quote from you: " @Gary1952 Except that your claims about Harry Reid and the Supreme Court are garbage" Again, Gary made no claims about the Supreme court. I agree with everything else you say. Our system should not allow for those in power to change the rules anytime they want and I'm strongly in favor of term limits.
Fair enough, but I find these Whataboutism arguments for why the GOP has behaved so odiously for forty years ridiculous. Time and again, moderate Democrats, which Harry Reid absolutely was, have attempted to "reach across the aisle" to achieve some sort of compromise with Republicans only to be slapped in the face for doing so and then blamed for problems the GOP actively sought to create. There is no moral equivalency here. And these judiciary appointments are just one example of many. Even Nixon had ten times the class of the current inhabitant of the White House. And the fact that McConnell and the rest continue to support his efforts to subvert our democracy has no moral equivalent.
Fair enough, but I find these Whataboutism arguments for why the GOP has behaved so odiously for forty years ridiculous. Time and again, moderate Democrats, which Harry Reid absolutely was, have attempted to "reach across the aisle" to achieve some sort of compromise with Republicans only to be slapped in the face for doing so and then blamed for problems the GOP actively sought to create. There is no moral equivalency here. And these judiciary appointments are just one example of many. Even Nixon had ten times the class of the current inhabitant of the White House. And the fact that McConnell and the rest continue to support his efforts to subvert our democracy has not moral equivalent.
Totally agree, Lewis. Because liberals tend to have a lot of empathy, we are often taken advantage of by those who only care about themselves. This occurs on all levels. I am very grateful we have someone like Joe and I hope Kamala will help provide some resistance to being too nice and accommodating going forward.
Comments
I do not believe Joe will pack the court or do anything else that the fear mongers have led you to believe.
As for Trump, let him recount. He is so far behind in votes and has lost 12 tries in court already.
https://politifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/02/donald-trump/fact-check-why-barack-obama-failed-fill-over-100-j/
We all know why Harry Reid did it, and we all know why Mitch did what he did. I'm only pointing out that both the article and Gary know that Harry Reid did not include the Supreme Court in his Nuclear Option. My comment was about this quote from you: "
@Gary1952 Except that your claims about Harry Reid and the Supreme Court are garbage" Again, Gary made no claims about the Supreme court.
I agree with everything else you say. Our system should not allow for those in power to change the rules anytime they want and I'm strongly in favor of term limits.