B-Man Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Today’s WSJ op-ed by Senator Cruz is a great articulation of the conservative position on Scalia’s replacement. Conservatives have looked for precedents, and Cruz points to important ones, as Senator Cruz writes: In “The Audacity of Hope,” then-Sen. Obama wrote that the Constitution “is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.” The extreme positions that the Obama administration has taken in the Supreme Court—for example, its argument in Hosanna-Taborthat the government can interfere with a church’s choice of ministers—are further evidence of President Obama’s devotion to living-constitutionalism. The president’s appointments to the Supreme Court have proven just as devoted. After all, justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan voted to invent a right to same-sex marriage. Does anyone really believe that another Obama nominee would be different? The stakes are too high to allow President Obama, in the waning months of his final term, to make a lifetime appointment that would reshape the Supreme Court for a generation. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-scalia-seat-let-the-people-speak-1457307358
1billsfan Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) Trump basically gets one kind of vote: the uneducated white vote. He gets nothing else as is evidenced by how bad his unfavorables look. He will get no Latinos, no women, no blacks, no wealthy, and no educated. I know he stands there and tells you "Look, the Latinos love me. Okay? They really love me!" But they don't. Nor do the women. Nor does anyone other than the uneducated white vote who somehow thinks Trump is special. I know you think there are legions of you across the country...but there are not. Look at the difference between the open and closed primaries and you'll see the truth. Trump will NOT get the Democrats to vote for him like they are doing in the opens. Trump equals a Hillary landslide of epic proportions...and it will come after she repeatedly beats the snotschitt out of him in every debate. Virginia Primary / Trump voters 47% of voters with no more than a high school degree 30% of voters with college degree 23% of voters with post-graduate degree While the majority of Trump's voters were ones who have no more than a high school degree, Rubio only beat him by 6% points with the voters who have college degrees. What this says is that Trump has a wide appeal across the electorate. The “uneducated” are just putting him over the top in terms of the winning margins. But it’s not like he has no supporters with the “educated”. He basically splits them with the others still in the race. As for the breakdowns of voting blocks, Cruz would do worse with women and blacks than Trump would. There's simply no debating this point. Not that it will matter much against Clinton, but Trump would do much better and make it closer than Cruz would. Edited March 7, 2016 by 1billsfan
Tiberius Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Virginia Primary / Trump voters 47% of voters with no more than a high school degree 30% of voters with college degree 23% of voters with post-graduate degree While the majority of Trump's voters were ones who have no more than a high school degree, Rubio only beat him by 6% points with the voters who have college degrees. What this says is that Trump has a wide appeal across the electorate. The “uneducated” are just putting him over the top in terms of the winning margins. But it’s not like he has no supporters with the “educated”. He basically splits them with the others still in the race. As for the breakdowns of voting blocks, Cruz would do worse with women and blacks than Trump would. There's simply no debating this point. Not that it will matter much against Clinton, but Trump would do much better and make it closer than Cruz would. How much different is that than the general population? I think like only 30% of people have college degrees
unbillievable Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 I hate getting lumped into the same group as people who majored in Gender (or University) Studies. We need to start separating the college education statistics into groups with useful degrees vs worthless ones. Maybe call one side "professionals," and the other "indoctrined."
1billsfan Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 How much different is that than the general population? I think like only 30% of people have college degrees Those percentages are of what percentage Trump got of that particular voting block. It doesn't have anything to do with the overall percentage of voters with college degrees. Sorry if it was confusing.
IDBillzFan Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Virginia Primary / Trump voters Virginia. Open primary. Pay attention: Trump is winning with Democrats voting in open primaries. Cruz is winning with straight-up GOP-only closed primaries. Ask yourself why. Then ask yourself if that will carry over to the general. Then be honest with yourself. When you hear Trump bark about all the people he's bringing to the elections, you need to understand who they are and what they will actually do when it's Trump vs. Clinton. Hint: It won't include them voting for Trump.
Observer Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Today’s WSJ op-ed by Senator Cruz is a great articulation of the conservative position on Scalia’s replacement. Conservatives have looked for precedents, and Cruz points to important ones, as Senator Cruz writes: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-scalia-seat-let-the-people-speak-1457307358 Cruz's argument amounts to, "I don't like Obama so I get to ignore the Constitution." He wants to take his ball and go home. I get it. But that's not the way the system is supposed to work. The president gets to nominate and the Senate advises and consents. Works no matter who is president. There's no clause that says, "If the president pisses off Ted Cruz, the Senate doesn't have to advise and consent." That editorial is not the work of the strong legal mind that I think Ted Cruz has--it's the work of a poor loser who doesn't like that he's holding ten high vs three queens.
B-Man Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Cruz's argument amounts to, "I don't like Obama so I get to ignore the Constitution." He wants to take his ball and go home. I get it. But that's not the way the system is supposed to work. The president gets to nominate and the Senate advises and consents. Works no matter who is president. There's no clause that says, "If the president pisses off Ted Cruz, the Senate doesn't have to advise and consent." That editorial is not the work of the strong legal mind that I think Ted Cruz has--it's the work of a poor loser who doesn't like that he's holding ten high vs three queens. It says nothing of the sort, you are projecting the same argument that you tried earlier in the other thread. You said it yourself. "the senate advices and consents"............not rubberstamps You act like no candidate has ever been turned down before. Its plain to see which side the childishness is on. .
1billsfan Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Virginia. Open primary. Pay attention: Trump is winning with Democrats voting in open primaries. Cruz is winning with straight-up GOP-only closed primaries. Ask yourself why. Then ask yourself if that will carry over to the general. Then be honest with yourself. When you hear Trump bark about all the people he's bringing to the elections, you need to understand who they are and what they will actually do when it's Trump vs. Clinton. Hint: It won't include them voting for Trump. Do you honestly think that Dems motivations for voting for Trump in the open GOP primaries is because they're so invested, and such warriors for Hillary that they're trying to get the easiest opponent and that's why they are doing this? It's not because they loathe Hillary and want to be able to vote for Trump in the general? I think it's far fetched to think that anything but a tiny fraction of dem voters would be that invested in Hillary. Trump's crossover appeal is the reason why the GOP should start getting behind the only guy with the shot to defeat Hillary. Cruz's national appeal is extremely narrow.
Observer Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 It says nothing of the sort, you are projecting the same argument that you tried earlier in the other thread. You said it yourself. "the senate advices and consents"............not rubberstamps You act like no candidate has ever been turned down before. Its plain to see which side the childishness is on. . Has the Senate said that it will not advise and consent on Obama's pick? Yes. They can hide behind procedure but what they are doing is a child's game and not worthy of a Supreme Court nomination moment. If they shoot down a candidate, they are at least doing their job. Of course, Obama hasn't yet put them to the test as there's no nominee.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Cruz's argument amounts to, "I don't like Obama so I get to ignore the Constitution." He wants to take his ball and go home. I get it. But that's not the way the system is supposed to work. The president gets to nominate and the Senate advises and consents. Works no matter who is president. There's no clause that says, "If the president pisses off Ted Cruz, the Senate doesn't have to advise and consent." That editorial is not the work of the strong legal mind that I think Ted Cruz has--it's the work of a poor loser who doesn't like that he's holding ten high vs three queens. There is no abrogation Constitutional duties. The Constitution does not specify what "advise and consent" means. There is no Constitutionally prescribed procedure. As such, the Senate, which was in existence prior to the Constitution, is free to perform those duties through it's own functions, and as it sees fit so long as it is not acting outside of the scope of it's Constitutional authority. The Senate has advised the President not to nominate, and has stated that it will not consent.
IDBillzFan Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Do you honestly think that Dems motivations for voting for Trump in the open GOP primaries is because they're so invested, and such warriors for Hillary that they're trying to get the easiest opponent and that's why they are doing this? It's not because they loathe Hillary and want to be able to vote for Trump in the general? Gee, how crazy is it to imagine that the DNC would be ready to dispatch thousands of their members to vote in an open primary so they could run again Trump? Who could imagine the left would do this? And more important...why? Trump's crossover appeal is the reason why the GOP should start getting behind the only guy with the shot to defeat Hillary. Cruz's national appeal is extremely narrow. You're wrong again. Trump right now is the only guy who actually LOSES to Hillary. Real Clear Politics has Clinton over Trump by 8%. Hell, it has Bernie beating Trump by 12%! Why oh, why would the left want Trump against Hillary? Meanwhile, Hillary is losing to Cruz by 1% and losing to Rubio by 3%. I'll tell you again: pay attention. You're listening to one person...Trump. He's a nutbag and is essentially wrong about everything. Don't be wrong about everything because of him.
Observer Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 There is no abrogation Constitutional duties. The Constitution does not specify what "advise and consent" means. There is no Constitutionally prescribed procedure. As such, the Senate, which was in existence prior to the Constitution, is free to perform those duties through it's own functions, and as it sees fit so long as it is not acting outside of the scope of it's Constitutional authority. The Senate has advised the President not to nominate, and has stated that it will not consent. So you think the Senate is doing its job in refusing to consider a President's nominee? You don't see this as a dangerous game we're playing with our founding document? Because I sure do. And you don't get to change the past when it's convenient. In the history of this process, the "advice" always comes after the nomination (except Washington) and the process often takes place in the year of an election. You know this is gamesmanship. Just admit it and also admit you like the game being played because you don't like Obama. Be that honest about things. Gee, how crazy is it to imagine that the DNC would be ready to dispatch thousands of their members to vote in an open primary so they could run again Trump? Who could imagine the left would do this? And more important...why? You're wrong again. Trump right now is the only guy who actually LOSES to Hillary. Real Clear Politics has Clinton over Trump by 8%. Hell, it has Bernie beating Trump by 12%! Why oh, why would the left want Trump against Hillary? Meanwhile, Hillary is losing to Cruz by 1% and losing to Rubio by 3%. I'll tell you again: pay attention. You're listening to one person...Trump. He's a nutbag and is essentially wrong about everything. Don't be wrong about everything because of him. Stepford Voters for Trump!
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 So you think the Senate is doing its job in refusing to consider a President's nominee? You don't see this as a dangerous game we're playing with our founding document? Because I sure do. And you don't get to change the past when it's convenient. In the history of this process, the "advice" always comes after the nomination (except Washington) and the process often takes place in the year of an election. Tradition is not Law. The Constitution was written, very carefully, dictating exact process and procedure where it was intended. The Constitution intended only what it says. There is no dangerous precedent, rather this is a return to an Origionalist interpretation of the document giving way to a firm and true separation of powers. You know this is gamesmanship. Just admit it and also admit you like the game being played because you don't like Obama. Be that honest about things. Anyone here familiar with my posting history will tell you that I always concern myself with process rather than individual outcomes, as process is more important to a lasting prosperous and free society. They'll also tell you that I place all remaining candidates on roughly equal footing with the sitting president.
Observer Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) Tradition is not Law. The Constitution was written, very carefully, dictating exact process and procedure where it was intended. The Constitution intended only what it says. There is no dangerous precedent, rather this is a return to an Origionalist interpretation of the document giving way to a firm and true separation of powers. If you're an Originalist, you're getting it wrong. The president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint." The President must nominate. And then the Senate must advise and consent (or not consent). The Senate doesn't get to not go through the Constitutional process once there's a nominee. The Senate can always reject (not consent) to the nominee. It's gamesmanship with the Constitution. We all know it. Maybe you don't have a stake in the gamesmanship but you know that's what it is. Anyone here familiar with my posting history will tell you that I always concern myself with process rather than individual outcomes, as process is more important to a lasting prosperous and free society. They'll also tell you that I place all remaining candidates on roughly equal footing with the sitting president. Asking this group to vouch for you (or anyone) is a dangerous request. Edited March 7, 2016 by Observer
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 If you're an Originalist, you're getting it wrong. The president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint." The President must nominate. And then the Senate must advise and consent (or not consent). The Senate doesn't get to not go through the Constitutional process once there's a nominee. The Senate can always reject (not consent) to the nominee. It's gamesmanship with the Constitution. We all know it. Maybe you don't have a stake in the gamesmanship but you know that's what it is. Asking this group to vouch for you (or anyone) is a dangerous request. The Constitution doesn't specify process, by design. In this case, it is specifically silent on the process of "advise and consent." The method by which that is done is entirely at the discretion of the Senate, as written into their parlimentary procedures. And by those procedures, "advise and consent" begins when the nomination is received from the White House. The Senate can't - and shouldn't - prevent the President from making a nomination, as that power is vested solely in the executive. But once the nomination is received from the President, the Senate is under absolutely no Constitutional obligation to do anything with it. I know you're going to disagree. But that's how the law is actually meant to work, whether you believe it or not.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) If you're an Originalist, you're getting it wrong. The president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint." The President must nominate. And then the Senate must advise and consent (or not consent). The Senate doesn't get to not go through the Constitutional process once there's a nominee. The Senate can always reject (not consent) to the nominee. It's gamesmanship with the Constitution. We all know it. Maybe you don't have a stake in the gamesmanship but you know that's what it is. There is absolutely nothing the Senate can do to keep President Obama from nominating. Nothing. So once we have a nominee? Describe to me the Constitutionally mandated process through which or by which the Senate must advise and consent. Also, please explain to me why the Senate is obligated to advise before it consents. The Document carefully states "and" rather than "then". The Senate is intentionally given a wide berth on it's processes, and this is feature rather than flaw: the States held their autonomy tightly, and the Senate was elected by the State legislatures. Asking this group to vouch for you (or anyone) is a dangerous request. Fair point, though I'm not asking them to vouch for me, but rather to acknowledge my positions; which they may, or may not, agree with in some part, or none. Edited March 7, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker
Azalin Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Anyone here familiar with my posting history will tell you that I always concern myself with process rather than individual outcomes, as process is more important to a lasting prosperous and free society. They'll also tell you that I place all remaining candidates on roughly equal footing with the sitting president. Asking this group to vouch for you (or anyone) is a dangerous request. I'll vouch for him. Look at his posting history and you'll see that he's been consistent on both points.
1billsfan Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Gee, how crazy is it to imagine that the DNC would be ready to dispatch thousands of their members to vote in an open primary so they could run again Trump? Who could imagine the left would do this? And more important...why? You're wrong again. Trump right now is the only guy who actually LOSES to Hillary. Real Clear Politics has Clinton over Trump by 8%. Hell, it has Bernie beating Trump by 12%! Why oh, why would the left want Trump against Hillary? Meanwhile, Hillary is losing to Cruz by 1% and losing to Rubio by 3%. I'll tell you again: pay attention. You're listening to one person...Trump. He's a nutbag and is essentially wrong about everything. Don't be wrong about everything because of him. No one’s right or wrong yet, that’s what elections are for. BTW, I’m more for throwing the DC bums in power out than I am this huge fan of Donald Trump. He’s the one and only destructor in the field and that’s what I’m rooting and voting for. As for polls, check out this nonsensical NBC Michigan poll… Trumps wallops Cruz by 20 points, yet he loses the general election to Clinton by 16 points, while Cruz loses to Clinton by 7 points…in the same poll. There’s something way way off right there. I’ve come to not trust the non-southern polls very much when it comes to Trump. I think a lot of people are simply lying because they’re too embarrassed to say they’ll vote for him against Clinton. We shall see what happens tomorrow. I wouldn’t get so crazy about this, the cards are stacked against whoever it is going against Hillary. I really think she’ll be the next president. I just think that Trump has a chance and Cruz doesn’t no matter what the polls are saying.
Recommended Posts