Presidential Race 2016

I just hope everyone voted. I did. Took just under 15 minutes, despite a lengthy line. Well worth the time to exercise the most important right we have as free people.

 

All 4 were flawed, corrupt or both.

Interesting point on yard signs. I saw far fewer than normal and most of what I saw were local. Lot fewer bumper stickers as well.

 

Same here with the yard signs Matt.

 

Have to concur fellas. I have to drive all over both Orange (R) and LA (D) counties and between signs and stickers I saw exactly....ZERO (It got to the point where I was looking for them). Plenty of local race/propositions signs, but no Presidential stuff. California is generally a foregone conclusion, but this is the first race where both tickets weren't plastered everywhere.

 

Here in rural PA there were Trump signs everywhere starting back in the spring. However, there were a number of places that had only local Republican candidate signs - in most years that would be very unusual. Once September rolled around more Hillary signs popped up, but there were just as many yards that only had local democratic candidates (including my own yard). Definite sign of the lower enthusiasm that led to the lowest winning vote total since the 2000 election.

Since McConnell said he wanted to let the American people have a say in the next Supreme Court justice, and since the Democratic candidate won the popular vote, this means that they'll confirm Merrick Garland as the next justice, right?

 

Every Presidential candidate including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln has been flawed and every future candidate will be flawed. However, there are flaws and there are FLAWS and the two primary options were both FLAWED. That did not prevent me from voting but for the first time ever I was uncomfortable voting for any of the candidates.

 

Heather, I read that this morning too (for those that didn't it says that if the Senate decides not to fulfill their responsibility under the "advise and consent" clause that Obama could just put Garland on the bench). While an interesting idea, I don't think that Obama or Garland would ever do that. Neither wants to make the Supreme Court a pawn in political battles. If there had been any interest in that Obama would have appointed a female or Hispanic judge to help put the Republicans in a pickle during the election. Instead Obama nominated the one guy who they seemed to like the best (or dislike the least). I'd be against the idea too even though I think the Senate's refusal to review Garland was absolutely disgusting and showed Republicans have no care at all for upholding the Constitution despite all of their crap about being originalists.

 

Shot a press conference and one on one intervew with McConnell today. His reasoning is somewhat logical. There has never been an opening on the Supreme Court that was filled while a presidential election season was underway. The only other time it happened was during Grover Cleveland's presidency. Mitch is a politician's politician, and an astute observer and historian of it. Shrewd doesn't begin to cover his depth at mastering it's intricacies. At first I questioned whether it was sour grapes to delay the appointment for what would be an unprecedented, lengthy period of time between nomination and confirmation. But now? Like him or loathe him, the man knows his stuff.

 

How does one define election season? George Washington nominated not one but TWO justices in 1796 the year that John Adams was elected: Samuel Chase nominated January 26, 1796 and Oliver Ellsworth nominated March 3, 1796. John Adams nominated John Marshall, considered one of our greatest justices, IN THE LAME DUCK SESSION!!! Andrew Jackson nominated John Catron on his last day in office. Now the Senate doesn't have to accept the nominee, John Tyler repeatedly had his nominations blocked, but the Senate still did their Constitutional duty! This ridiculousness had nothing to do with Constitutional principles and had everything to do with blocking Obama's nominee at any cost.

 

I'm sorry you went to all the work to research the history of lame duck nominees, under the mistaken impression that SHALL has the same meaning as MUST.
You might say that the idea of SHALL means that the President has the obligation to either sign or veto every bill that comes across his desk. He does not. He can Table it and wash his hands of it.
Or that every bill proposed in the legislative body must be given a full hearing.
Or that the USSC has the obligation to consider every suit on Constitutionality, submitted. Of course it does not.
It's only common sense and it applies to all levels of decision. From the cop on the beat who knows he doesnt HAVE to cite a person he observes jaywalking, to a judge who refuses to hear a case based on merit or standing of a complainant. Or triviality of the complaint itself.

A similar reaction I groaned at was the Libertarian / Conservative Blogs' outrage at Justice Roberts' decision pertaining to Obamacare 'mandated' penalties on non-participation where he correctly decided that these were a tax, and as such it was up to the Legislative bodies, not the Court's, duty to correct those shortcomings. Of course he was right, the Law never should have been passed with those inequitable provisions. But then, as Pelosi famously said. "You have to pass it to see what's in it." And they did.* Nonetheless, Justice Roberts' decision was correct.
But hey... dont believe me... try these articles from journals that are hardly bastions of Conservative thought:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nal-duty-to-consider-a-supreme-court-nominee/

In that piece the Lawyer says it's wise and proper to hear the nomination but hardly mandatory.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/482733/

So... while you and I may complain that refusal to hear is not 'Good Form' it is hardly unusual in the larger sense. And please note the references t the Filibuster tactic. Every Party in power threatens to do away with it, but it will never happen because they would be shooting their future successors in the foot.
* Obviously if you defend how the ACA became law without deliberative hearings and consideration, you have no grounds to demand full hearings on a a nominee.

 

Oh, don't get me wrong. I didn't say I agreed with him (I don't). I'm just saying that he's an exceptional politician...in the kind of way that most people consider negatively. He also swore to make defeating President Obama's reelection in 2012 his top priority that year. He also insisted that getting rid of the Affordable Care Act "root and branch" was his top priority for his own reelection in 2014. He wouldn't say that yesterday because he knows that's never going to happen (sadly, none of the assembled scribes challenged him on that one). And lo and behold, after his meeting with the president, the president-elect is already signaling that some parts of it, namely the requirement for insurers to cover pre-existing conditions and allowing parents to cover their children until they're 26, should stay. In many ways, Senator McConnell should be the poster child for those advocating term limits. But some recent speculation suggests that, although he'll be 78 at the end of his current term, he intends to run for his sixth term in 2020. The reason? He really enjoys being "on offense" as the majority leader. Of course, that could change after the federal election cycles in between, but, for now, I'm afraid we're stuck with him. And that means that Barack Obama and the Democrats will get screwed out of nominating the next associate justice on the Supreme Court. He doesn't always win, but regardless of where you fall on the political and ideological spectrum, Mitch McConnell is a VERY shrewd politician.

 

pettyfog, if the President doesn't act on a bill, doesn't it automatically become law after a certain amount of time? The idea being that doing nothing doesn't stop the mechanisms of governance. The Senate needed to consider the President's nominee, but they didn't even do that. I'm sure they would have rejected him, but at least then they would be participating in the process. I don't disagree with you that they haven't violated the letter of the law, but for a group of people so concerned with keeping the original intent of the Constitution - well, I think they are full of crap. I was pointing out flaws in their logic that they couldn't possibly consider a nominee during a time of transition. However, there is nothing to be done about it except to elect some different Senators.

 

Yep, Ten days. Thus my reference to 'washing hands of it'. At that point it's future campaign fodder.

You can think that all you want but that doesnt make it so. The Constitution is not written, overall, to be a POSITIVE statement of action.
It tends to limit the scope of government. Eg: the Bill of Rights.
Implicit in this is the power to do nothing. If you disagree with this, you have to sign on to application in EVERY federal enforcement paradigm, so think carefully.

That's why I wrote that Justice Roberts' Opinion on ACA was correct, the power to levy that penalty, and the amount of it, was with Congress.
Ergo: Pelosi saying "you have to pass it to see what's in it" and its subsequent passage exactly lays blame where it belongs. Most Conservatives -even 'Libertarians'- vilified him for that, but Sorry... you dont get to oppose activist courts and then wish for activism on your pet issue.

And on that note, though I shuld not have to bring this up, Are you absolutely certain that, in a complementary situation, you would carp at Harry Reid for doing the same?
***
OT:
And btw... I guess I'm what Democrats SAY I should be. Moderate. At times I've been mostly Neo-Con with the exception I loathe McCain and Graham pushing for 'Boots on the Ground' in every freakin' hotspot. What Simpletons!
But I sure as hell DONT push for isolationist memes like Trump is promoting, either. To this day I will defend Dubya's engagement in Iraq vs his limited scope of engagement in Afghanistan. I only fault his original Bremer scenario.

 

I am not certain of that. In fact, I wonder if Democrats will try to block ANY Trump nominee because they could say "Well this has never happened before! We've never had a sitting president have their nominee ignored for nearly a year, so we shouldn't allow the next president blah, blah, blah..." Although I will probably dislike the Trump nominee, I think they shouldn't object to strenuously unless it is a clearly unqualified candidate rather than just someone they disagree with.

More than anything I want the parties to actually govern, which hasn't happened much for a few years. I hope the Democrats don't object to everything Trump, he might surprise me and actually have some good ideas - we'll have to wait and see. I'd like to see them set an example of good governance, even if the Republicans won't play along.