Scalia Dead.

[Irish#1]

McConnell isn't the only one that is talking about this. Trump literally said "Delay... Delay... Delay". What exactly does that mean? You know damn well what it means.

The average time waited is 67 days for a confirmation vote. These dudes want to push that to well over a year in order to get a better shot at picking the nominee. That is not working for the people.

It's not going to happen. They will delay for a while, but will run out of steam before the next President takes office.

 

[drayer54]

I think the funny thing is that both sides would be doing the exact same thing if they were in the opposite position.

 

[pkt77242]

I think the funny thing is that both sides would be doing the exact same thing if they were in the opposite position.

I don't know about that. If the positions were switched I would not be a fan of Democrats threatening to allow no one a vote. Now I can understand why Republicans in the current position wouldn't let a very liberal nominee through but if a moderate like Sri Srinivasan gets nominated and he gets voted down a few years after being confirmed on a 97-0 voted for the DC Court of Appeals, then yes I will be upset. Just as I would be upset with Democrats if they did the same thing if the position were reversed (again I would have no problem with a Democrat Senate voting down a super Conservative nominee under the circumstance).

 

[Cackalacky]

I think the funny thing is that both sides would be doing the exact same thing if they were in the opposite position.

You can't really say that though. This isn't hemming and hawing or posturing. It's them refusing to perform their duty. No one has ever refused to even review an appointment before. Ever. This is the first time and it is the republicans taking their Norquist/Krystal obstructionism another step further.

 

[NDgradstudent]

You can't really say that though. This isn't hemming and hawing or posturing. It's them refusing to perform their duty. No one has ever refused to even review an appointment before. Ever. This is the first time and it is the republicans taking their Norquist/Krystal obstructionism another step further.

You can say that; Chuck Schumer said it in 2007:

Given the track record of this President and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances [emphasis in original].

And before somebody says it, the death of a Justice would not be 'extraordinary circumstances'- Schumer is describing a hypothetical future vacancy. He obviously did not regard any vacancy as an extraordinary circumstance.

Like some posters here, Schumer is now pushing the idea that there is some massive moral/constitutional difference between (1) not holding hearings for "political" reasons and (2) holding hearings and then rejecting the nominee for "political" reasons. This is absurd.

The fact is that even though the Democrats started this with Bork basically everybody is a liar when it comes to judicial nominees now. This is one of the problems with having a super-legislature; reform is urgently needed.

 

[drayer54]

It's not like one side is immoral and awful and the other one is being angelic. As referenced above, Chucky Schumer would have done this to Bush and I'm sure if we had President Car Garage right now, the left wouldn't be so suddenly constitutional. It's just politics.

 

[phgreek]

It's not like one side is immoral and awful and the other one is being angelic. As referenced above, Chucky Schumer would have done this to Bush and I'm sure if we had President Car Garage right now, the left wouldn't be so suddenly constitutional. It's just politics.

Yup...

 

[Bishop2b5]

It's not like one side is immoral and awful and the other one is being angelic. As referenced above, Chucky Schumer would have done this to Bush and I'm sure if we had President Car Garage right now, the left wouldn't be so suddenly constitutional. It's just politics.

You're probably exactly right. Democrats consistently refused to confirm Bush's Federal court nominees and Borked Bork for completely partisan reasons. There's been a lot of this from both sides over the years and the Dems have shown that if the roles were reversed, they'd be doing exactly the same thing. It's politics as usual.

 

[pkt77242]

You're probably exactly right. Democrats consistently refused to confirm Bush's Federal court nominees and Borked Bork for completely partisan reasons. There's been a lot of this from both sides over the years and the Dems have shown that if the roles were reversed, they'd be doing exactly the same thing. It's politics as usual.

Huh? They confirmed a ton of GWB's Federal Court nominees (and at about the same success rate as Clinton) so it is kind of hard to say that they consistently refused to confirm Bush's Federal Court Nominees Confirming federal judges during the final two years of the Obama administration: Vacancies up, nominees down | Brookings Institution (article is about Obama but shows rates for both Clinton and Bush as well). But lets look at the Supreme Court Nominees under GWB as that is what we are talking about:
Roberts: Confirmed 78-22
Alito: Confirmed 58-42
Miers: Rejected (well withdrawn but she had no chance of getting through). But you must remember that it wasn't really Democrats but Republicans who ripped her apart. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/politicsspecial1/bushs-court-choice-ends-bid-conservatives-attacked-miers.html?_r=0

ETA: I couldn't help but add this part. Yes Wikipedia isn't always accurate but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

Miers met with the Senate Judiciary Committee after her nomination and in those meetings she was ill-prepared and uninformed on the law.[25] Senator Tom Coburn told her privately that she "flunked" and "[was] going to have to say something next time."[25] Miers had difficulty expressing her views and explaining basic constitutional law concepts.[26] Miers had no experience in constitutional law, and did not have extensive litigation experience; at her Texas law firm, she had been more of a manager.[27] In addition, Miers had rarely handled appeals and did not understand the complicated constitutional questions senators asked of her.[27] To White House lawyers, Miers was "less an attorney than a law firm manager and bar association president."[28]

In an unprecedented move, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy also requested that Miers re-do some of her answers to the questionnaire submitted to her by the Committee, noting that her responses were "inadequate," "insufficient," and "insulting" because she failed or refused to adequately answer various questions with acceptable accuracy or with sufficient detail.[29] Miers also privately expressed a belief in the right to privacy to the pro-choice Arlen Specter, only to later deny that she had communicated that position.[30] Her answers also included an error on constitutional law where she mentioned an explicit constitutional right for proportional representation; though many court rulings have found that legislative and other districts of unequal population violate the equal protection clause, the right to proportional districts is not explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution.[31]

After Miers failed in these private meetings, Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Sam Brownback began drafting a letter asking the President's office to turn over legal memoranda and briefs Miers had written for Bush, in order to elucidate her views on political matters.[32] Brownback and Graham knew the memos were protected by executive privilege, that the White House was not required to turn them over, and that Miers could refuse to deliver the memos and then ostensibly step down on principle.[32] Miers would later use this request as part of a face-saving exit strategy for stepping down. In her letter withdrawing her nomination, she pointed to the senators' request for confidential documents as potentially damaging the executive branch's independence.[33]

 

[Cackalacky]

I guess reading comprehension is in short supply here recently. No one has said they would not confirm or deny and that there would be a problem with that. Go through the process... The point I and others are making ....AGAIN.....is this.....

NEVER HAS A SENATE REFUSED,TO NOT PERFORM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY AND AT THE BAREST OF MINIMUMS """"REVIEW""""" A NOMINEE AND GONE THROUGH WITH IT.


EVERY NOMINEE HAS GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS REGARDLESS OF THE POLITICS OR ASSOCIATED GRANDSTANDING THEATER.

 

[Irish#1]

You guys are getting too worked up. As stated before, both Democrats & Republicans have done this at one time or another so no side is morally better than the other. You can call it posturing, failing to do their job, etc., but it will get done and before the new President takes office.

Is there a law that states this position must be filled within a certain time frame? Is the President required to have a nominee presented to congress within a certain period of time of the position becoming vacant? What's the urgency? With eight in place, if the vote is a tie, the previous ruling of the court below prevails.

It's politics as usual.

 

[woolybug25]

You guys are getting too worked up. As stated before, both Democrats & Republicans have done this at one time or another so no side is morally better than the other. You can call it posturing, failing to do their job, etc., but it will get done and before the new President takes office.

Is there a law that states this position must be filled within a certain time frame? Is the President required to have a nominee presented to congress within a certain period of time of the position becoming vacant? What's the urgency? With eight in place, if the vote is a tie, the previous ruling of the court below prevails.

It's politics as usual.

When have the Democrats said right out that they will not even consider any nominees? That has never happened to my knowledge. I know they participated in the process for every GW, Bush and Reagan nominee.

I don't know how many times Cack or I can repeat the same damn thing over and over. We aren't talking about being tough on nominees or voting them down. The issue we have is openly disregarding their duty of reviewing a nominee for OVER A YEAR for no other reason that political posturing. They have the right to say "no" to a nominee, they do not have the right to purposely delay, outright refuse or obstruct the process. A process we may add, is a constitutional duty of their elected post.

 

[Irish#1]

When have the Democrats said right out that they will not even consider any nominees? That has never happened to my knowledge. I know they participated in the process for every GW, Bush and Reagan nominee.

I don't know how many times Cack or I can repeat the same damn thing over and over. We aren't talking about being tough on nominees or voting them down. The issue we have is openly disregarding their duty of reviewing a nominee for OVER A YEAR for no other reason that political posturing. They have the right to say "no" to a nominee, they do not have the right to purposely delay, outright refuse or obstruct the process. A process we may add, is a constitutional duty of their elected post.

I understand what both of you have written and I understand what the Republicans are saying. You're taking their word at value when they say they won't do anything for over a year. IMO it's more posturing then anything and it will get done in less than a year. "How can you tell a politician is lying? Their lips are moving."

Having said that and playing Devil's Advocate, I will ask again "Is there a law that states this position must be filled within a certain time frame? Is the President required to have a nominee presented to congress within a certain period of time of the position becoming vacant? What's the urgency?"

 

[woolybug25]

I understand what both of you have written and I understand what the Republicans are saying. You're taking their word at value when they say they won't do anything for over a year. IMO it's more posturing then anything and it will get done in less than a year. "How can you tell a politician is lying? Their lips are moving."

Why would they do that? They have literally done exactly what they say they plan on doing throughout Obama's entire Presidency.

Having said that and playing Devil's Advocate, I will ask again "Is there a law that states this position must be filled within a certain time frame? Is the President required to have a nominee presented to congress within a certain period of time of the position becoming vacant? What's the urgency?"

I don't think there is a hard rule on number of days, but under normal circumstances, the nomination of a justice takes about 75 to 90 days, the first 60 or so involving a thorough vetting process by the Senate Judiciary Committee. What the Republicans are trying to do, is completely absolve themselves from the vetting process and delay ANY vote for over a year. I really don't see how, whether specific law exists dictating timeline, a reasonable person can say that this isn't a clear dereliction of duty.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

It sure as shit can be.

I dare you to say "inequality is not a bad thing" in the room of a factory being closed down.



Poll and poll show that Americans aren't signing up for "class warfare" and aren't jealous of the rich. The fairness angle is being misused here.



I think the sentiment, right or wrong, is more like "rich people get rich by breaking unions that provide high-paying jobs and moving the factories to Mexico and China where they can pay their workers 10% of the wage and increase their margins."



I think the sentiment, right or wrong, is more like "we've had tremendous growth in this country and the wealth isn't trickling down quite like they said it would, wages are stagnant, the poor or vilified, and I'm looking at how my father raised six kids' expenses off a postman's salary and how my family can barely afford two kids because that job just isn't there any more and getting pissed."



I think the sentiment, right or wrong, is more like "99% of the economic gains in the the post-recession economy have gone to the 1%, so where exactly is this benefiting me?"

Which is meaningless to the voter if his job is "created" in Mexico.



A factory worker in little ol' Toledo, OH hears that sentence as "a rich guy is going to replace you with a foreigner so long as he can."

And are you saying that if government got out of the way it would magically make Americans more cost competitive with Asian sweatshops?

Not to switch gears here, but is anyone else a little annoyed with the Republican candidates all supporting blocking an appointment to Scalia's seat? As Bernie said today, it seams that they are all claiming to be strict "Constitutionalists" up until the point where they have to abide by it. The Constitution clearly lays out the process of how a justice is nominated and they are all trying to block that for no other reason other than giving their party a better chance of being who chooses it. There is literally no reason outside of that to delay this process for over a year like they are proposing.

Thoughts?

How exactly does increasing the taxes on personal income of the 1% impact job creation? If I'm the CEO of Ford, whether I'm taxed at 32% or 42%, I'm still showing up the next day and running Ford the same way I would.

This reminds me of Mark Cuban's interview in which he says that he's never been in a business meeting in which the business' concerns were discussed and someone brought up their personal tax rate as a factor.



I think this is about as outlandish as thinking Sanders will solve all of the problems.

We've been lowering taxes and making this cushy for large corporations for decades now, with the TPP just around the corner. Many people don't think that cost is worth the reward.



And in a short while it'll all be automatic robots anyway. Should be fun to watch.

I just copied the original texts, and left the quotes they inserted out. I did that to concentrate on their words and ideas, not to bend them out of context, etc.

These two guys are brilliant and well informed.

The context of my previous statement is that when certain political operatives brought up Kennedy lobbying for a reduction of taxes on the upper 1% (circa, 1960,) they (among others) realized and noted that the top 1% were being taxed at a rate of 90%, then.

So they show balance and moderation in all their approaches to economics and social issues as well. They are clearly less likely to be swayed by ideology coming from either end of the political spectrum because they think for themselves.

A few comments (mostly to add to the points made) :

When talking equality versus inequality, the conversation must include so much more that statistical economic numbers. Equality has little to do with money, per se, and more to do with opportunity, and standing in community.

Equality is always anti-segregation. Equality is never defined as dependent helping, which actually disables the people that are trying to be helped, in the long run, though it may be necessary for a short time.

And that is why it is so hard for most conservatives to grasp. Some people see things more concretely and are most interested in the tangibles, while others have different views, based on other overarching concern. It takes all kinds, certainly both previously described. But an economic only filter when talking about equality is a failure from its first attempt. Equality is the failure to succeed or fail based upon effort, intent, and ability. Those who make the target should be rewarded. However, those who attempt and fail, or those incapable of even hitting the outside ring should have a safety net provided for them. It is the right and moral thing to do.

And it makes good business sense. I am tired of the 'burden of the wealthy white man' approach to American political ideology. Within reason, the wealth lost by the top earners has no affect on slowing down, or for that matter speeding up the economy. Several years ago the analogy of five people sitting down for lunch and the wealthy man being charged $25.80 for lunch, and the other four being charged a nickel, all getting the same meal, was a popular illustration of this bigotry.

The rich man doesn't get the same lunch, he gets a grander spread, because any way you cut it, he will have advantages that those that pay a nickel will never see.

And, more importantly it is the nickels that make a modern economy go, and grow. Trickle down theorist since the Reagan administration first proposed this nonsense have to admit what I am saying is true. The whole basis for justifying the theory, even though it cannot work, is that you give the rich more so it will trickle down to those lower on the scale. In every case it turns out that the opposite is true, putting the money in the hands of those down the income spectrum, in other words, the nickel customers does much more good, and faster. It is easier to get the nickels out there, and our economy is based upon moving nickels around, (abject consumerism points this out as true.)

 

[Cackalacky]

I understand what both of you have written and I understand what the Republicans are saying. You're taking their word at value when they say they won't do anything

Senate Democrats are looking increasingly serious about the possibility of changing the Senate rules to permit a 51-vote majority to end debate on nominees to the executive branch and lower federal courts – the so-called “nuclear option.” The move would come after Senate Republicans abused the filibuster to block votes on all three of President Obama’s nominees to fill vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The D.C. Circuit nominees are among 17 federal judicial nominees currently waiting for Senate floor votes. Thirteen of these have been waiting for three weeks or longer; two have been waiting for over 100 days.

And the blanket filibuster of D.C. Circuit nominees is just the latest in the GOP’s onslaught of unprecedented obstruction under President Obama. Here are four charts showing just how far Republican obstruction has gone in the Obama administration.

Failed to confirm one-quarter of President Obama’s judicial nominees.

At this point in President Bush’s term, the Senate had confirmed 91 percent of his nominees to the lower federal courts. As of today, the Senate has confirmed just 76 percent of President Obama’s nominees. Those left out include the 17 nominees still waiting patiently for yes-or-no confirmation votes, as well as many nominees who have been forced to withdraw their nominations after meeting a wall of GOP obstruction. Unquestionably qualified nominees forced to withdraw their names include D.C. Circuit nominee Caitlin Halligan, Ninth Circuit nominee Goodwin Liu and Nevada District Court nominee Elissa Cadish.

The unconfirmed 26 percent also includes nominees who have met with Republican obstruction before even getting a hearing from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Because committee chairman Patrick Leahy won’t schedule a hearing on a nominee until both of that nominee’s home-state senators return “blue slips” signaling their approval for starting the process, Republicans can hold up the confirmation process before it even starts simply by refusing to return a “blue slip.” One example is Georgia senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson’s year-and-a-half-long (and counting) blockade of Eleventh Circuit nominee Jill Pryor, whom they previously found qualified for a district court judgeship.

Stonewalled the D.C. Circuit.

When President Obama nominated three qualified people to the three vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Senate Republicans put up a coordinated front of righteous indignation, accusing the president of trying to “pack” the court to “rubber-stamp” his agenda. This act was somewhat hard to believe coming from a party that less than a decade ago successfully pushed to confirm George W. Bush’s nominees to the very same seats. The cries of “court-packing” were also a little bit undermined by the fact that Senate Republicans had allowed just one of President Obama’s nominees to be confirmed to the court, in contrast to four of Bush’s nominees and eight of Reagan’s.

It all made one believe that maybe the goal was to keep the influential court dominated by conservative Republican appointees.

Forced Obama's judicial nominees to wait over twice as long for confirmation votes as Bush’s nominees did.

Senate Republicans have forced even the nominees whom they ultimately confirm to wait weeks or even months just for up-or-down confirmation vote. Since the Senate requires unanimous consent from its members to hold a vote, a single senator can block a vote indefinitely until he is forced to give up or he runs up against a cloture vote. Under President Obama, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has made extraordinary use of these quiet filibusters, sometimes blocking votes on judicial nominees for months, even when (as is the case the overwhelming majority of the time) no Republicans actually oppose the nominees in question.

One example of this was Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma, nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, who was filibustered for nearly nine months despite the fact that both of his conservative home-state senators said they supported him. When Republicans finally allowed Bacharach’s nomination to come to a vote, he was confirmed unanimously.

President Obama’s confirmed nominees to the lower courts have been forced to wait an average of 107 days between approval by the Senate Judiciary Committee and a confirmation vote on the Senate floor. At this point in George W. Bush's presidency, the average wait for his nominees was just 43 days. This escalation has been especially pronounced among district court nominees, who have historically been quickly approved for trial court positions. President Bush’s district court nominees were confirmed in an average of 34 days. Under President Obama, their average wait has nearly tripled to 100 days.

Caused a vacancy crisis on the federal courts.

Senate Republicans often claim the Senate is doing a great job confirming judicial nominees this year. But according to a PFAW fact sheet [pdf], “Since the start of the 113th Congress in January 2013, the confirmation rate has failed to keep up with the number of vacancies,” leading to more than one in ten seats on the federal courts being or soon to become vacant.

Since the start of this Congress, the number of federal judicial seats that are or will soon be vacant has risen from 90 to 110, an increase of more than 20 percent. The number of judicial emergencies – vacancies that have caused courts to face extraordinary backlogs in cases -- has risen from 27 to 38, an increase of 40 percent.

The Brennan Center also documents the huge surge in federal district court vacancies and judicial emergencies since the start of President Obama's term.

…and it’s not just judges.

Republicans have filibustered more of President Obama’s executive branch nominees than were filibustered under all other presidents combined. From 1949 through the end of 2008, the Senate held cloture votes to end filibusters of 20 executive branch nominees. So far in the Obama administration, the Senate has held cloture votes on 27 executive branch nominees. That means the Senate GOP is on pace to filibuster over twice as many of President Obama’s executive branch nominees as the total number filibustered under all previous presidents combined.

Among President Obama’s executive branch nominees who have faced unsuccessful cloture votes is Rep. Mel Watt, nominated to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency, who became the first sitting member of Congress to be blocked from an administrative position since before the Civil War.


http://www.pfaw.org/sites/default/files/images/exec%20noms%20chart%20update.jpg

You are damn right I take them at their word when they say they are gonna do this. ANd it was soooo predictable. If they don't they now look like a bunch of panzies heading into the election.

Having said that and playing Devil's Advocate, I will ask again "Is there a law that states this position must be filled within a certain time frame? Is the President required to have a nominee presented to congress within a certain period of time of the position becoming vacant? What's the urgency?"

Prior to Thurgood Marhsall's appointment in 1967 ....it took typically one week. Marshall took two months and from then on the time frame has been much greater topping out at 125 days for a vote. The longest vacancy with a 9 judge court is 27 months which was before the Civil War and between the Polk and Tyler admins.

Urgency.... hmmmm... interesting.... Not sure how to even address that framing as I am not sure how much merit the question actually has to the situation. As stated before, judges were routinely appointed and confirmed relatively quickly even during our most contentious periods in history. The docket is very full IIRC and there are significant issues to be addressed. I would say that a 4-4 decision will happen routinely considering some of the items to be deliberated. It would obviously lead to a gridlocked Court, which again defeats the purpose of the SC. So yes, IMO there is urgency to have it filled. And the bottom line is that it is Obama's duty to fill it and the Senate's duty to confirm or deny. And at a minimum to deny them they need to have the process that every other appointee was afforded.

 

[GoIrish41]

I have to spread some reps around, but the above post (#106) is exceptional. Well done Cack.

 

[Irish#1]

Why would they do that? They have literally done exactly what they say they plan on doing throughout Obama's entire Presidency.

Why would they do that? I would imagine to get something in return. That's pretty much how things go in D.C.

Yet Obama has been able to get things like Obamacare through the legislature.

If we don't have another judge approved before the next President, I'll give you $5M vbucks.

 

[woolybug25]

Why would they do that? I would imagine to get something in return. That's pretty much how things go in D.C.

Yet Obama has been able to get things like Obamacare through the legislature.

If we don't have another judge approved before the next President, I'll give you $5M vbucks.

See Cack's post above.

 

[Irish#1]

I have to spread some reps around, but the above post (#106) is exceptional. Well done Cack.

I rep'd him for you.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jeJHrIqWsNw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[dshans]

A bit behind and posted without comment:

Assembled upon the 116th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the People's Party of America, in their first national convention, invoking upon their action the blessing of Almighty God, put forth in the name and on behalf of the people of this country, the following preamble and declaration of principles:

Preamble
The conditions which surround us best justify our cooperation; we meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench.1
The people are demoralized; most of the States have been compelled to isolate the voters at the polling places to prevent universal intimidation and bribery. The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced, business prostrated, homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished, and the land concentrating in the hands of capitalists. The urban workmen are denied the right to organize for self-protection, imported pauperized labor beats down their wages, a hireling standing army, unrecognized by our laws, is established to shoot them down, and they are rapidly degenerating into European conditions. The fruits of the toil of millions are badly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of mankind; and the possessors of these, in turn, despise the Republic and endanger liberty. From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice we breed the two great classes—tramps and millionaires. The national power to create money is appropriated to enrich bond-holders; a vast public debt payable in legal-tender currency has been funded into gold-bearing bonds, thereby adding millions to the burdens of the people.
Silver, which has been accepted as coin since the dawn of history, has been demonetized to add to the purchasing power of gold by decreasing the value of all forms of property as well as human labor, and the supply of currency is purposely abridged to fatten usurers, bankrupt enterprise, and enslave industry. A vast conspiracy against mankind has been organized on two continents, and it is rapidly taking possession of the world. If not met and overthrown at once it forebodes terrible social convulsions, the destruction of civilization, or the establishment of an absolute despotism.
We have witnessed for more than a quarter of a century the struggles of the two great political parties for power and plunder, while grievous wrongs have been inflicted upon the suffering people. We charge that the controlling influences dominating both these parties have permitted the existing dreadful conditions to develop without serious effort to prevent or restrain them. Neither do they now promise us any substantial reform. They have agreed together to ignore, in the coming campaign, ever issue but one. They propose to drown the outcries of a plundered people with the uproar of a sham battle over the tariff, so that capitalists, corporations, national banks, rings, trusts, watered stock, the demonetization of silver and the oppressions of the usurers may all be lost sight of. They propose to sacrifice our homes, lives, and children on the altar of mammon; to destroy the multitude in order to secure corruption funds from the millionaires.
Assembled on the anniversary of the birthday of the nation, and filled with the spirit of the grand general and chief who established our independence, we seek to restore the government of the Republic to the hands of the ''plain people,'' with which class it originated. We assert our purposes to be identical with the purposes of the National Constitution; to form a more perfect union and establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. . . .
Our country finds itself confronted by conditions for which there is not precedent in the history of the world; our annual agricultural productions amount to billions of dollars in value, which must, within a few weeks or months, be exchanged for billions of dollars' worth of commodities consumed in their production; the existing currency supply is wholly inadequate to make this exchange; the results are falling prices, the formation of combines and rings, the impoverishment of the producing class. We pledge ourselves that if given power we will labor to correct these evils by wise and reasonable legislation, in accordance with the terms of our platform. We believe that the power of government—in other words, of the people—should be expanded (as in the case of the postal service) as rapidly and as far as the good sense of an intelligent people and the teaching of experience shall justify, to the end that oppression, injustice, and poverty shall eventually cease in the land. . . .

Platform
We declare, therefore—
First.—That the union of the labor forces of the United States this day consummated shall be permanent and perpetual; may its spirit enter into all hearts for the salvation of the republic and the uplifting of mankind.
Second.—Wealth belongs to him who creates it, and every dollar taken from industry without an equivalent is robbery. ''If any will not work, neither shall he eat.'' The interests of rural and civil labor are the same; their enemies are identical.
Third.—We believe that the time has come when the railroad corporations will either own the people or the people must own the railroads; and should the government enter upon the work of owning and managing all railroads, we should favor an amendment to the constitution by which all persons engaged in the government service shall be placed under a civil-service regulation of the most rigid character, so as to prevent the increase of the power of the national administration by the use of such additional government employees.
FINANCE.—We demand a national currency, safe, sound, and flexible issued by the general government only, a full legal tender for all debts, public and private, and that without the use of banking corporations; a just, equitable, and efficient means of distribution direct to the people, at a tax not to exceed 2 per cent, per annum, to be provided as set forth in the sub-treasury plan of the Farmers' Alliance, or a better system; also by payments in discharge of its obligations for public improvements.

1 We demand free and unlimited coinage of silver and gold at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1.
2 We demand that the amount of circulating medium2 be speedily increased to not less than $50 per capita.
3 We demand a graduated income tax.
4 We believe that the money of the country should be kept as much as possible in the hands of the people, and hence we demand that all State and national revenues shall be limited to the necessary expenses of the government, economically and honestly administered. We demand that postal savings banks be established by the government for the safe deposit of the earnings of the people and to facilitate exchange.
TRANSPORTATION.—Transportation being a means of exchange and a public necessity, the government should own and operate the railroads in the interest of the people. The telegraph and telephone, like the post-office system, being a necessity for the transmission of news, should be owned and operated by the government in the interest of the people.
LAND.—The land, including all the natural sources of wealth, is the heritage of the people, and should not be monopolized for speculative purposes, and alien ownership of land should be prohibited. All land now held by railroads and other corporations in excess of their actual needs, and all lands now owned by aliens should be reclaimed by the government and held for actual settlers only.

Expressions of Sentiments
Your Committee on Platform and Resolutions beg leave unanimously to report the following: Whereas, Other questions have been presented for our consideration, we hereby submit the following, not as a part of the Platform of the People's Party, but as resolutions expressive of the sentiment of this Convention.

1 RESOLVED, That we demand a free ballot and a fair count in all elections and pledge ourselves to secure it to every legal voter without Federal Intervention, through the adoption by the States of the unperverted Australian or secret ballot system.
2 RESOLVED, That the revenue derived from a graduated income tax should be applied to the reduction of the burden of taxation now levied upon the domestic industries of this country.
3 RESOLVED, That we pledge our support to fair and liberal pensions to ex-Union soldiers and sailors.
4 RESOLVED, That we condemn the fallacy of protecting American labor under the present system, which opens our ports to the pauper and criminal classes of the world and crowds out our wage-earners; and we denounce the present ineffective laws against contract labor, and demand the further restriction of undesirable emigration.
5 RESOLVED, That we cordially sympathize with the efforts of organized workingmen to shorten the hours of labor, and demand a rigid enforcement of the existing eight-hour law on Government work, and ask that a penalty clause be added to the said law.
6 RESOLVED, That we regard the maintenance of a large standing army of mercenaries, known as the Pinkerton system, as a menace to our liberties, and we demand its abolition. . . .
7 RESOLVED, That we commend to the favorable consideration of the people and the reform press the legislative system known as the initiative and referendum.
8 RESOLVED, That we favor a constitutional provision limiting the office of President and Vice-President to one term, and providing for the election of Senators of the United States by a direct vote of the people.
9 RESOLVED, That we oppose any subsidy or national aid to any private corporation for any purpose.
10 RESOLVED, That this convention sympathizes with the Knights of Labor and their righteous contest with the tyrannical combine of clothing manufacturers of Rochester, and declare it to be a duty of all who hate tyranny and oppression to refuse to purchase the goods made by the said manufacturers, or to patronize any merchants who sell such goods.

 

[wizards8507]

Obama joins filibuster bid against Alito - tribunedigital-chicagotribune

 

[Cackalacky]

Obama joins filibuster bid against Alito - tribunedigital-chicagotribune

"The Democrats have to do a much better job in making their case on these issues," Obama (D-Ill.) said Sunday on ABC News' "This Week." "These last-minute efforts--using procedural maneuvers inside the Beltway--I think has been the wrong way of going about it."



Despite his criticism, Obama announced his intention to support the maneuver designed to block--or delay--Alito's confirmation this week. The movement, which was launched by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), appeared to lack the 41 senators needed to be successful.

Alito, a federal appeals court judge, is poised to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The Senate is scheduled to cast a final vote on Alito's confirmation Tuesday.

The threat of a filibuster emerged late last week after liberal activists accused Democratic senators of failing to vigorously oppose Alito's ascension to the Supreme Court. After Kerry began the effort, several liberal groups mounted a campaign by Internet, telephone and fax to persuade other senators to follow suit.

"I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values," Obama said. "When you look at his decisions--in particular, during times of war--we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch."

But in the next breath, Obama criticized the merits of a filibuster. The senator has worked to avoid being portrayed as walking in lock step with Democratic partisans, but at the same time he is seeking to be responsive to a core constituency.

"We need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that, if we're going to oppose a nominee that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake," Obama said. "And frankly, I'm not sure that we've successfully done that."

Seems he has at least some grounds and a rather logical assessment of the situation as opposed to just blocking out of spite.

 

[wizards8507]

Seems he has at least some grounds and a rather logical assessment of the situation as opposed to just blocking out of spite.

I absolutely agree that the Republicans have botched the PR side of this.

 

[Cackalacky]

I absolutely agree that the Republicans have botched the PR side of this.

PR? I'd say they are committing a dereliction of duty.

 

[wizards8507]

PR? I'd say they are committing a dereliction of duty.

Obama hasn't named a nominee yet. Is that dereliction of duty? It's the exact same thing.

 

[woolybug25]

Obama hasn't named a nominee yet. Is that dereliction of duty? It's the exact same thing.

That's quite a reach. He is doing his due diligence and planning on making his nomination as quickly as possible. Let's not be intellectually dishonest by portraying that as similar to refusing to do your job.

In re: to the article you linked. I would have disagreed with Obama filibustering in that scenario as well. But it never actually happened. All of Bush's nominations were vetted and voted on.

 

[Cackalacky]

Obama hasn't named a nominee yet. Is that dereliction of duty? It's the exact same thing.

Well yes it is a dereliction... they don't care who the nominee is. They said so two hours after Scalia died and its not the same thing as the article you posted for several reasons.
1. No appointee has been named. They will filibuster regardless and just because. The article is about Alito, who had his opportunity to be confirmed.
2. They have no logical grounds to oppose Obama's appointment as they have no idea who it will be at this point. They have preemptively derelicted their sworn duties. Obama, as a highlighted had legitimate criticism of Alito whom he knew would go through the process as opposed to some nameless liberal boogeyman right now.
3. He was responding to his constituents based on their backlash at Alito being named an appointment as opposed to carte blanche stating they WILL NO CONFIRM ANYONE OBAMA APPOINTS.

That article really has no similarities as nothing like this has been done before. For the trillionth time.

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NY Times Editorial Board, 1987: Party That Controls Senate Has ‘Every Right to Resist’<a href="https://t.co/ivpniD4A93">https://t.co/ivpniD4A93</a> <a href="https://t.co/G6dB7cj6IH">pic.twitter.com/G6dB7cj6IH</a></p>— jimgeraghty (@jimgeraghty) <a href="https://twitter.com/jimgeraghty/status/699944204638818304">February 17, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>