TakeYouToTasker

January 1, 2012 Buffalo @ New England**** I attended the game in Foxboro. When we jumped out to a quick 21-0 lead in the first quarter I was ecstatic. We were going to beat the vaunted Patriots in their own house. I was decked out in full Bills regalia, and I was losing my damn mind. I wasn't the only Bills fan in my section either. There we two of the heaviest, most foul mouthed, drunken women I have ever met in my whole life sitting 3 rows behind me loudly cheering as well. They were absolutely vile, and I, despite my joy, was apologizing to the people sitting around us, assuring them that these were not typical Bills fans (I stretched the truth a bit there). By the end of the game I had Patriots fans consoling me. How in the world did we give up 49 points in 3 quarters of play?!?!? Edit: Bills Trivia! This was the only NFL appearance of Brandon Coutu's career. 0-1 on FGs 3/3 on PATs

The low road is backfiring spectacularly for them. People know they're being lied to, and they're growing very tired of it.

Bear in mind that the Cruz/Paul stuff is all entirely speculative. Senator Paul has never voiced anything that could be construed as objection to Kavanaugh's nomination. Mitch McConnell reportedly told the White House that Kavanaugh might have a harder time getting through Paul; though Paul himself has said "I look forward to the upcoming hearings, reviewing the record, and meeting personally with Judge Kavanaugh, with an open mind." on his twitter account. While Senator Cruz released the following statement on his official Congressional website: "By any measure, Judge Kavanaugh is one of the most respected federal judges in the country and I look forward to supporting his nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States. For over a decade, Judge Kavanaugh has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often referred to as the second highest court in the land. He has over 300 published opinions, with a strong record of defending the Second Amendment, safeguarding the separation of powers, reining in the unchecked power of federal agencies, and preserving our precious religious liberties. "Senate Democrats, sadly, will try to demagogue this nomination, but their efforts will not be successful. I am confident that the Senate will take up his nomination quickly, and I fully expect that he will be confirmed before the first Monday in October, the beginning of the Supreme Court's Term. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I look forward to his confirmation hearing, where Judge Kavanaugh will have the opportunity to demonstrate to the American people that he will uphold the rule of law and interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning."

I'd offer that the fact that the President has already seen his first nominee pass this same Senate's confirmation hearing throws water on your objection. The President knows what sort of nominee will pass.

I wish I had thought to add this earlier, and added to my prior response, but why wouldn't it be considered grandstanding by the President to nominate someone he knows Paul and Cruz wouldn't vote to confirm? Why would you lay the blame at the fault of the men who said they would not do a thing, and not at the fault of the man who knew they would not do the thing, and proceeded anyway? Why do you feel it is both prudent, and good governance, for an Executive to attempt to bully through his rubber stamp desires instead of working with members of his own party in the Senate to achieve an accord?

Fair point. I should have said modern political history. This includes those justices you mentioned. While they were confirmed by a wide bi-partisan margin, their confirmations required bi-partisanship. President Trump's nominees do not.

Stop protecting President Obama's legacy. The Senate is not supposed to be a rubber stamp for the Executive. It is incumbent on the President to nominate someone whom the Senate will confirm. If the President cannot nominate someone who can win the votes of 50 Republican Senators, then he does not deserve to have his Court. This is a legitimate Constitutional check on the power of the Executive.

Depends. Do you believe a demand for an Origionalist jurist is impure?

Well, yeah. Kafka didn't have syphilis.

That's sort of the exact point of a representative democratic republic, Joe.

I highly recommend reading Das Kapital in German, if you do actually know the language.

Again, it's not the job of the Senate to rubber stamp whatever the President wants. The reasoning that says otherwise is a central part of the Obama legacy, and you're protecting it. Constitutional government, and the process, is more important than individual outcome. It is the President's responsibility to nominate someone whom the Senate will confirm; and if we're being intellectually honest, no President in history has ever had an easier path to having their nominees confirmed now that the nuclear option is in play. He doesn't need to get to 60 votes. He doesn't need a single Democrat. If he, in this environment, can't bring himself to nominate someone who can pass the rigors of a purely conservative vetting process, the failure is his, not the Senates.

Neil Gorsuch was confirmed in just over two months: nominated January 31, 2017, confirmed April 7, 2017. Again, if Paul and Cruz reject the nomination, they are doing their jobs vetting the nominee, and advising and consenting through the Constitutional process. Literally their jobs. If the President wants his nominee confirmed, he needs to work with the Senate to do so, which includes nominating someone palatable to them, rather than rubber stamping whatever the Executive wants. He's done it before, and he can do it again. The President, in his position, should be acutely aware of the approaching timelines, and the importance of getting a justice confirmed. As such, it's his job to nominate someone who the Senate will confirm; not the other way around.

It's not idealism, Joe. It's literally how the process was designed to work. And I'm consistent in advocating for process. Process is much more important to long term stability and success than individual outcomes. Did, or did not, Cruz and Paul vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch?

It is not impossible. Further, you need to realize that your advocating for the breaking down of our institutions. Government should never act as a monolith. It's dangerous. Again, if Cruz and Paul reject the pick, the President will simply go back to the drawing board and nominate another jurist. Simple as that. And no, Paul and Cruz would not be exercising outsized power. They would be doing their Constitutional duty as a check on the Executive. It's how our government is supposed to work. It's a feature, not a flaw.

If Paul and Cruz don't feel the pick represents their governing philosophies, and they reject him, and the Administration is unable to sway any centrist Democrats, Trump will simply nominate another jurist, hopefully consulting with Paul and Cruz (amongst others) on a list of whom they might approve. It is not the job of Republicans in the Senate to rubber stamp the President's choices. Especially in an environment when the President's choices are not being honestly vetted by Democrats. It is the job of Republicans in the Senate to act as statesmen, and to advise and consent as they deem best. It speaks to the downfall and failure of our institutions when a person demands the Senate abrogate it's responsibilities in favor of simply becoming a tool of the Executive.

So... Today Ezra Klein admitted that he does not know how our form of government works? The Supreme Court was not designed to be a democratic institution. It was, in fact, designed to be anti-democratic as a check on the populism of Congress, working to strike down law and action which our Constitution does not permit, in order to ensure that our Federal government abides by it's charter, and adheres to the law.

Politically brilliant. As if they weren't acting insane enough, in the middle of their meltdown, force them to take a stand against allowing Americans to keep more of their paychecks; which they'll do with vitriol. They'll have to argue, at the same time, against the last round of cuts, which benefited American workers and the economy, and be forced to tell people who are doing better than they have in years that they are stupid. Does that sound like a winner to you? Again, politically brilliant.

If this is true, and 2/3 of Americans are against overturning Roe v Wade, then there should be no problem overturning Roe v Wade, as there should be immediate and overwhelming popular support to pass a Federal law legalizing abortion. IE. forcing Congress to do it's job. In my view, Roe v Wade was incorrectly decided, not because I believe abortion to be immoral (I do), but rather because the Federal government is not given power by the Constitution to prevent states from restricting abortion in it's carefully enumerated powers, most certainly not by the Judicial branch. Repeal Roe, force Congress to act on the will of the people, and pass a law defining if, and when, abortion is acceptable. Then have those laws challenged, and vetted by the Courts. If necessary, and popular opinion is truly there, amend the Constitution. This is how the process was designed to work.

That's absolutely disgusting. Abortion, even if you believe it a necessary thing, should not be celebrated as a good thing. It should be stigmatized, and viewed as incredibly shameful by those who think it should be legal; except in edge cases like rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is threatened, and even then, it should be viewed through the same tragic lens as an animal chewing off it's own leg to escape a trap. This woman is everything that is wrong with this debate. Truly sickening.

The US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: What does this mean? It means "after the fact". Our Constitution expressly forbids prosecution for things that were not illegal, but were then criminalized after that fact. This was added to the Constitution because it is a ploy, in the form of bills of attainder, that the British Crown used against the Colonies in order to clamp down on their treason against the Crown. This understanding if buttressed by the Federalist Papers. In Federalist no. 78, Alexander Hamilton expressed: "the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law" is among "the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny."

Which, of course, makes a ton of sense. I mean, who doesn't like veal?

Women and children first isn't just for the chivalrous.

Morally small cowards who lack the conviction to be the face of their own arguments.

The institutions which are within government can be abolished, reformed, consolidated and re-chartered, or replaced. The institutions in the private sphere are off limits, and are Constitutionally protected.