Election Day 2016

[WuDrWu]

I saw a new commercial from Koch on MSNBC this morning, and found it powerful. I encourage all to find and watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtxobump1BU&feature=youtu.be

I stand corrected, it was just new to me. It's still appropriate for the time.

[ShockingButTrue]

I'm really looking forward to tuning into one of the media's Chief-Name-Caller/Divider: Don Lemon of CNN.

Tell the truth & shame the devil.

[ShockTalk]

Now I'm legitimately asking because you all have made me think I've misunderstood the meaning. I've always taken lame duck to mean a president that is waiting out the time period between the election and the inauguration. Is that not how you interpret it? If it's just a president that can't get elected again, why wouldn't Obama have been a lame duck in February of 2015? or 14? I just don't get where the cut-off is if it's not election day.

1) Lame duck of a one term president would start the time after losing the election. 2) For a second term president, probably the same except he/she should probably have the blessing of the same party's nominee if already chosen.

My question would be: How many times has a president in his second term, with the opposing party controlling congress, successfully appointed a supreme court judge in his last 12 months? If that has never happened, I'd call a president being in that situation a lame duck for that purpose.

[jdshock]

My question would be: How many times has a president in his second term, with the opposing party controlling congress, successfully appointed a supreme court judge in his last 12 months? If that has never happened, I'd call a president being in that situation a lame duck for that purpose.

I'm not sure I have an answer to your incredibly specific hypothetical. Six presidents have appointed Supreme Court justices while they were true lame duck, though, the examples are old: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...election-year/

[shockmonster]

I'm not sure I have an answer to your incredibly specific hypothetical. Six presidents have appointed Supreme Court justices while they were true lame duck, though, the examples are old: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...election-year/

It would appear that I have a greater respect for our Constitution than you do. The Checks and Balances are an important part of our Democracy. MY personal definition would be final year of his Presidency but the Senate gets to define it.

[jdshock]

It would appear that I have a greater respect for our Constitution than you do. The Checks and Balances are an important part of our Democracy. MY personal definition would be final year of his Presidency but the Senate gets to define it.

So, hypothetically, let's say Scalia and RBG both passed away, Republicans could've chosen to leave seven on the court, and you'd be okay with that? What if it were three? What if they "defined" it as two years? How bad of a scenario would it need to be for you to vote out a Republican?

The Republicans also made the same ridiculous argument that has been made on here: no moves should be made in the final year. Don't tell me that you honestly believe in 2020, if the same situation occurs, the Senate would say "let's let Democracy decide and wait until after the election."

The Senate should not be able to leave empty seats on the Court as a political strategy, and then just get reelected. The general public doesn't care because it has too little respect for what the Supreme Court does.

Also, what do you mean about checks and balances?? You understand that this is the legislative branch holding ALL of the power, spitting in the face of the checks and balances system, right?

[MoValley John]

So, hypothetically, let's say Scalia and RBG both passed away, Republicans could've chosen to leave seven on the court, and you'd be okay with that? What if it were three? What if they "defined" it as two years? How bad of a scenario would it need to be for you to vote out a Republican?

The Republicans also made the same ridiculous argument that has been made on here: no moves should be made in the final year. Don't tell me that you honestly believe in 2020, if the same situation occurs, the Senate would say "let's let Democracy decide and wait until after the election."

The Senate should not be able to leave empty seats on the Court as a political strategy, and then just get reelected. The general public doesn't care because it has too little respect for what the Supreme Court does.

Also, what do you mean about checks and balances?? You understand that this is the legislative branch holding ALL of the power, spitting in the face of the checks and balances system, right?

Just stop. Please. I know you're bitter, but it's time to move on. We can play hypothetical all day long, it gets you nowhere. Hypothetically, what if all of Congress got a bad case of the shits, for a whole year, and couldn't operate or form a quorum? Then what?

[MoValley John]

What if Trump gets caught banging RBG, just because he wanted to nail a justice? Would that be some sort of a breech in the separation of powers?

What if...

[wufan]

So, hypothetically, let's say Scalia and RBG both passed away, Republicans could've chosen to leave seven on the court, and you'd be okay with that? What if it were three? What if they "defined" it as two years? How bad of a scenario would it need to be for you to vote out a Republican?

The Republicans also made the same ridiculous argument that has been made on here: no moves should be made in the final year. Don't tell me that you honestly believe in 2020, if the same situation occurs, the Senate would say "let's let Democracy decide and wait until after the election."

The Senate should not be able to leave empty seats on the Court as a political strategy, and then just get reelected. The general public doesn't care because it has too little respect for what the Supreme Court does.

Also, what do you mean about checks and balances?? You understand that this is the legislative branch holding ALL of the power, spitting in the face of the checks and balances system, right?

I don't really think this is a fair assessment. You are only upset, in my view, because the republicans did this to your party, and that's okay. It has happened in the past when parties were reversed. Having one party with a majority in all of the legislative branches has happened in the past too.

Checks and balances today are as they were yesterday, however I would say that there is an unfair lean towards the national gov. I would like to see that reversed. The SCJ his quite powerful. Interpreting the constitution is probably more important than the presidency.

[MoValley John]

What if, understanding the everpressing need to have nine on the court, as jd says, Obama simply nominated a conservative? Would the repubs confirm him/her?

[jdshock]

What if, understanding the everpressing need to have nine on the court, as jd says, Obama simply nominated a conservative? Would the repubs confirm him/her?

Only if the Republicans are liars since, you know, they weren't supposed to confirm anyone this year lest the public not get their say.

[jdshock]

I don't really think this is a fair assessment. You are only upset, in my view, because the republicans did this to your party, and that's okay. It has happened in the past when parties were reversed. Having one party with a majority in all of the legislative branches has happened in the past too.

Checks and balances today are as they were yesterday, however I would say that there is an unfair lean towards the national gov. I would like to see that reversed. The SCJ his quite powerful. Interpreting the constitution is probably more important than the presidency.

I'd like to think that I'm objective enough to be furious about this regardless of the party. Frankly, I think the only reason you're not unhappy about it is because the Republicans got away with it. I've been unhappy about it since March. The fact that the Republicans kept the majority just depresses me greatly since it means the majority of America thinks abortion is the only thing that matters as a voting issue.

[MoValley John]

Only if the Republicans are liars since, you know, they weren't supposed to confirm anyone this year lest the public not get their say.

It doesn't matter. The court will swing 6-3, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg is giving up her seat and moving to New Zealand.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/justice-ginsburg-wears-dissent-collar-following-contentious-election-n681571

[MoValley John]

I think Cher would love to live in New Zealand. She and RBG could share a condo.

[jdshock]

Just stop. Please. I know you're bitter, but it's time to move on. We can play hypothetical all day long, it gets you nowhere. Hypothetically, what if all of Congress got a bad case of the shits, for a whole year, and couldn't operate or form a quorum? Then what?

I'll be done on this subject after this post. I get that you think my questions were as irrelevant as yours. Mine show if a person has actually considered the ramifications of their beliefs, though. It's a test of whether you believe what you say you do only because it worked out well for you this time or if you have actually considered the limits of your stance.

Your responses reveal which applies to you.