Merged Scalia is dead

[Tony Stark]

I just saw an interesting idea. Perhaps not the most likely scenario, but plausible. Suppose that Obama nominates a left-wing judge, and then in November, a Republican president is elected, but the Senate goes Democratic. Could the Democratic Senate take control, nuke the filibuster, and then confirm the nomination before the new president takes over? Seems quite doable.

Perhaps Obama's best strategy is not to nominate anybody, unless and until that scenario comes to pass.

I guess it is possible. The new Senators would take office January 3rd, irrc. Obama, could do what Republicans have wanted him to do (that is stop being President) a little early, and resign. Then, in his final revenge to the Republicans have President Joe Biden nominate him to fill Scalia's seat. And the new Democratic Senate quickly confirms before President Ted Cruz is sworn in.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I am not talking about just being against torture. I am talking about directing unrestrained vitriol at those who authorized torture. I think there is a world of difference between torturing an innocent person for sadistic reasons (as many liberals have accused Bush and Cheney of doing) and torturing a murderous terrorist in order to get information about other murderous plots that the terrorist is taunting us with. The latter is not even in the same morality ballpark.

i wasnt going to involve myself in this half of the discussion but for those against the waterboarding it should be put in perspective that the terrorists version of torture is far less humane and merciful. Its one thing to improve morals and have the feels for not engaging in torture, and to take measures to avoid involving innocents... but people really treat the issue like its the worst thing in the world. One only has to look at current practice in other countries to figure that the waterboarding from a moral standpoint is not nearly as bankrupt relative to other forms of torture implemented... hell for that matter how normal laws are carried out in a select few countries

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Somehow "ding dong the witch is retired" doesn't have quite the same charm, amirite?

I explained myself. He said gays were immoral and said it was OK to execute an innocent person. Why should I pretend he was a decent person? You were glad KSM was tortured.

.. I am not talking about just being against torture. I am talking about directing unrestrained vitriol at those who authorized torture. I think there is a world of difference between torturing an innocent person for sadistic reasons (as many liberals have accused Bush and Cheney of doing) and torturing a murderous terrorist in order to get information about other murderous plots that the terrorist is taunting us with. The latter is not even in the same morality ballpark.

So basically you approve torture and many of us don't.

Bush and Cheney are responsible for more American deaths than died on 911, not because they were making the country safe, but because they had a fantasy about Westernizing the Middle East.

I'm fine with my morality.

 

[Cain]

You have the freedom to move to Wyoming.

And gay men have the right to marry women.

Why? The rules of the game are known in advance, and you have the ability to take advantage of them. If you really want to have a lot of influence, you should move to the Congressional district of the current Speaker of the House.

You're missing the point. The point is not that Cain's vote is diminished. It's that the system is inequitable.

 

[plague311]

I am not talking about just being against torture. I am talking about directing unrestrained vitriol at those who authorized torture. I think there is a world of difference between torturing an innocent person for sadistic reasons (as many liberals have accused Bush and Cheney of doing) and torturing a murderous terrorist in order to get information about other murderous plots that the terrorist is taunting us with. The latter is not even in the same morality ballpark.

Do we have any idea how much useful information we've acquired from torture?

 

[Cain]

I think there is a contradiction here. We should use a lose interpretation but the rate of amendments by the founders suggests a strict interpretation on their part where they saw the necessity of amending?

The first ten amendments were critical to getting the Constitution ratified. States were not even on board yet. hell, Marbury v. Madison was still ten years away.

The "just-amend-it-then" crowd suggests this story about how if there's some problem, we can just change the Constitution. It's not that simple in practice.

 

[MikeG]

....... One only has to look at current practice in other countries to figure that the waterboarding from a moral standpoint is not nearly as bankrupt relative to other forms of torture implemented........

Gee, that's a mighty high moral position you're advocating there. That should enable America to feel so proud of itself.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Gee, that's a mighty high moral position you're advocating there. That should enable America to feel so proud of itself.

All I'm pointing out is that waterboarding isn't the "worst" form of torture in the world so if you're going to protest about it i might agree but many of these arguments seem to indicate a lack of awareness in how bad it CAN be. I thought i was obvious that i don't necessarily advocate unnecessary torture... but that part was obviously left out of the quote... im also well aware that we arent yanking finger nails or teeth out, breaking fingers and toes, putting people in hard labor camps and the like. I guess pointing that out makes me some kind of inhuman and morally bankrupt individual just for merely suggesting that worse things exist to be aware of.

 

[Belz...]

I live in a state with over 35 million people. I have two Senators. Wyoming doesn't even have a million people, but the state gets the same number of votes in the Senate. While my Senators may advocate universal health-care and gun control, they're canceled out by The Equality State (Wyoming's nickname).

That doesn't answer my question: how is it undemocratic? I understand the situation, but not the conclusion.

The idea is that each State, with its unique situation, mores and views, gets the same voice. There's logic in that, just as much as a proportional number of delegates would. I don't think either positions are more or less democratic than the other.

Canada is in the same situation as well. I can't imagine how pissed Prince Edward's Island would be if their unique situation was basically worth nothing on the federal level just because B.C. is bigger.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Of course what people like Scalia never seem to understand is, if you convict and execute an innocent man, that means the guilty party, the actual murderer, goes free.

Is that what we want?

It's a perfect example of eating your cake and having it to.

You get a vote boosting capital murder conviction and execution, and if the poor sap really was innocent then you can look forward to getting a chance at another one sometime in the future.

It's a win-win for everybody.

Except maybe the poor sap, but then he probably was guilty of something ... sometime ... somewhere.

Anyway, you can't make an omelet, etc., etc.

 

[Tony Stark]

All I'm pointing out is that waterboarding isn't the worst form of torture in the world so if you're going to protest about it start protesting about some of the worst versions of it and maintain consistency in your views.

Nothing that I said pointed to advocating it, next time you should ask for clarification, but I thought that was already pretty clear

There are certainly worse forms of torture. But they are not being carried out on my behalf.

 

[Crossbow]

Does anyone else recall the various stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans who were recently bitching and complaining about how “Obama leads from behind” and yet these same stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans demand that the Scalia seat remain vacant for at least another year just in case some other stupid, idiotic, lying Republican wins the election.

Ugh!

 

[Suddenly]

So there is no limit to how far modern understanding can diverge from their understanding of these principles?

From the specific understanding? No, not really.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Does anyone else recall the various stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans who were recently bitching and complaining about how “Obama leads from behind” and yet these same stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans demand that the Scalia seat remain vacant for at least another year just in case some other stupid, idiotic, lying Republican wins the election.

Ugh!

Election year woes.. although realistically id agree.... needs to be done when realistic... not by the tides of the election. Considering the length of tenure appointing new justices isnt exactly a luxury many POTUS's have to begin with.

 

[Tony Stark]

Election year woes.. although realistically id agree.... needs to be done when realistic... not by the tides of the election. Considering the length of tenure appointing new justices isnt exactly a luxury many POTUS's have to begin with.

Every single post WW2 President except for Carter appointed at least one new justice. In fact, all of the others except Ford appointed at least two. Eisenhower had five. Truman, four. Reagan and Nixon, three.

 

[sunmaster14]

I explained myself. He said gays were immoral and said it was OK to execute an innocent person.

Actually, he never said gays were immoral, and he never said that it was OK to execute an innocent person. You just don't understand his arguments with respect to these issues.

Why should I pretend he was a decent person?

I'm not asking you to pretend. Actually I'm not asking anything of you. I was only pointing out that liberals in general believe conservatives are evil, and conservatives in general believe that liberals are misguided. The former leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

You were glad KSM was tortured.

No actually I was unhappy about it, given the obsession by liberals on the issue. In KSM's specific case, I would not have tortured him. On the other hand, I can certainly understand why the CIA felt it was necessary. And I'm certainly not going to get bent out of shape because some evil dickwad was mildly tortured. Hell, Obama burns innocent people to death with his drone strikes from 30,000 feet. That bothers me a lot more.

So basically you approve torture and many of us don't.

I think it's more accurate to say that I disapprove of torture, but I would, in extremely unusual circumstances, condone it.

Bush and Cheney are responsible for more American deaths than died on 911, not because they were making the country safe, but because they had a fantasy about Westernizing the Middle East.

I'm fine with my morality.

As far as I can tell, it fails the test of consistency. That would bother me.

 

[elbe]

I was only pointing out that liberals in general believe conservatives are evil, and conservatives in general believe that liberals are misguided. The former leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

I didn't know that conservative stereotypes didn't hate their political rivals; it's just the liberal stereotypes instead that hate the conservatives, thanks!

 

[Tony Stark]

I'm not asking you to pretend. Actually I'm not asking anything of you. I was only pointing out that liberals in general believe conservatives are evil, and conservatives in general believe that liberals are misguided. The former leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

Many, many people suffer because of conservative policies. Both in the US and abroad. Certainly more than because of liberal policies.

No actually I was unhappy about it, given the obsession by liberals on the issue. In KSM's specific case, I would not have tortured him. On the other hand, I can certainly understand why the CIA felt it was necessary. And I'm certainly not going to get bent out of shape because some evil dickwad was mildly tortured. Hell, Obama burns innocent people to death with his drone strikes from 30,000 feet. That bothers me a lot more.

But you don't care about the hundreds of thousands of people that died because of the Cheney/Bush war in Iraq.

 

[Cain]

That doesn't answer my question: how is it undemocratic? I understand the situation, but not the conclusion.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

I've already explained why it's undemocratic: some people have outsized influence due to place of residence; it's not "one person, one vote."

Now you can always argue that representative democracy is inappropriate or misguided, but you're going to clash with reality if you say the Senate is not undemocratic. Then again, it wouldn't be your first time.

 

[Belz...]

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

I've already explained why it's undemocratic: some people have outsized influence due to place of residence; it's not "one person, one vote."

You haven't explained how that's undemocratic.