"When those who disapproved of Biden's overall performance were asked to name a single thing he'd done that they did approved of, 56% had nothing positive to say."
So, a majority of people who don't like Biden also don't approve of what hes doing. Wow. That's surprising.
And it's also speaks pretty poorly of the modern GOP.. With trump, there were legitimate problems that people on the left and right and all reasonable people should disagree with. His attacks on the press. His attacks on the election system. Is attacks on truth ann facts. HIs disregard for truth and facts. His overt proversions and corruptions. His surrounding himself with perverts and the corrupt. And yet, in spite of the league of criminality and corruption he surrounded himself with, he still maintained significant support within the GOP.
With Biden, just not making enough progress is enough for the majority of the GOP to condemn him. There is no significant corruption or dishonesty is dishonesty or criminality associated with Biden. Hes just not making enough progress fast enough lo, this one year later.
That is an informative Poll. But it doesn't speak well of the modern GOP.
This is absolutely hilarious. You trying to spin a poll about Biden's abysmal job performance into blaming in on the GOP. You do realize that Biden's approval rating is in the low 40"s to high 30's. This suggesting that it's only the GOP that has problems with Biden's do nothing approach is absurd.
I know it's a foreign concept to the DFL as of the past 3 administrations, but maybe the answer to getting things done is negotiation and compromise. Like they did as recently as the Clinton administration. This "my way or the highway" approach of the P-BO and Biden administrations seems to be less than productive.
Re: "Abysmal job performance..." is a matter of opinion. He inherited a shitshow from the clown before him and he's turning things around. He has not done as well as one might hope in some regards, but he's been steady, reasonable and an adult and that counts for a helluva lot, given the trainwreck of the last administration.
The point I'm making is that people are not happy with Biden because enough progress has not been made. NOT because he has actively failed at something or deliberately done wrong, he just hasn't made enough progress fast enough in the mind of a lot of people.
And you have to be blindly partisan to see that the GOP is actively not cooperating with Biden and with Obama before him. They both have attempted partisan outreach, but the GOP has actively been fighting them.
Is your allegiance to conservative/GOP pals made you unable to see this?
And I'm not saying that the Democrats are blameless. At all. But they HAVE tried to reach across the aisle, in spite of the GOP doing all they can to block and interfere.
Biden inherited an economy that had been performing amazingly well until the government decided to shut everything down. Biden inherited a "working, developed vaccine" and the beginnings of a distribution system to get it out.
The point being made is that Biden has done virtually nothing so far in his presidency, even though he has a majority of both houses of congress. He shouldn't need the GOP with majorities on both houses of congress. It's the DFL that's stopped him from accomplishing things, not the GOP. Further, simple expecting the GOP to accept whatever is offered without any push back isn't how legislation has been done up until recently.
It's interesting that the GOP is blindly partisan" because they won't rubber stamp the minimal number of things Biden has pushed, but the DFL isn't "blindly partisan" for behaving in exactly the same way during much of Bush's administration and all of Trump's administration. Talk about "blindly partisan", I think we see it from you.
I have little of no allegiance to the GOP, and no "conservative" anything to have allegiance to. But you keep telling yourself that everything is always the fault of the GOP.
Give one specific example of the DFL seriously trying to negotiate in good faith with the GOP since Biden was elected?
This notion that the GOP is always to blame, no matter what is childish and simplistic.
We could look at how DFL candidates have fared in the special elections since Biden took office. Hint, not well. Even where DFL candidates won, the margins were down significantly.
We could look at Biden's poll numbers and how quickly and far they've fallen.
We could look at the crushing defeat in the SF school board recall election last night.
We'll be able to see how the mid terms come out this November.
It will be interesting to see how Biden and the DFL react when/if they lose the majority in one or both houses of congress.
What's surprising is that Biden has been suckling at the federal teat for long enough to remember how things used to work in the legislature. Where things like negotiation and compromise were common, and where demonizing the other party wasn't par for the course. Maybe Biden's memory is really going away and he's just forgotten how things used to/should work.
Hell, maybe Biden is being so strident about, and possibly exaggerating, the possibility of war in Ukraine just so he can broker some sort of deal that'll make him look good. Who knows.
What I do know, is that "It's the other guy's fault" as one's default position isn't going to play well for very long. Most people are smart enough to realize that nothing is that one sided.
Finally, "blameless" isn't the issue. Responsibility is. The DFL ran and won on "Give us majorities in both houses of congress and we'll accomplish wonderful things.". They got what they asked for, and they haven't delivered on their promises, only blamed the GOP. In 2022, the line will be "We just need more of a majority, and we'll finally do what we promised we'd do with the majority in 2020.", and if they somehow win they still won't live up to their promises. Hell, the DFL has been failing to deliver on their promises for decades of complete control of many large urban areas, not delivering on a national scale isn't a surprise.
Craig... "Give one specific example of the DFL seriously trying to negotiate in good faith with the GOP since Biden was elected?
The infrastructure package? It ended when the GOP just barely budged to meet him no where near half way.
"On the day President Biden’s first attempt at a bipartisan infrastructure deal collapsed, he dialed up a Republican senator he saw as a potential negotiating partner for a renewed push.
In that June 8 phone call, Biden told Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) that he wanted a public works agreement with Republicans in the neighborhood of $600 billion. More notably, Biden showed deep interest in provisions on energy resiliency that Cassidy had been working on for weeks."
Craig... "This notion that the GOP is always to blame, no matter what is childish and simplistic."
Of course, this is not what I've said. The reality is that we don't have a majority in the Senate. We have 50 who vote Dem and 50 who vote GOP, typically. We have not been able to pass some things precisely because of both GOP non-cooperation AND the help of two Democrats who sided with the GOP.
And Democrats and the GOP, as I've noted repeatedly, led to things like the Crime Bill or "Welfare Reform" which were both problematic for many reasons.
You do realize that the problem with Biden's "infrastructure" package was that it included very little "infrastructure".
The reality is that the DFL does have a majority in the senate. You might not be aware, but the VP casts the deciding vote when there is a tie. Hence, a majority.
It's interesting that you're attempting to lay the "blame" on the GOP when the very "proof" you offer points out that it was the DFL who was the party that was "upset/angry". I'm unsure how the DFL getting "upset/angry" is the fault of the GOP.
As far as Biden's SCOTUS pick, I was unaware that he'd actually nominated a s specific individual. Are you suggesting that the GOP has unilaterally decided that there will be zero support for Biden's pick (when he actually picks someone)? Are you suggesting that the GOP will follow the lead of the DFL in their treatment of nominees of GOP presidents?
What you appear to be saying is that the reason Biden can't get anything done, is because of "2 democrats", and "democrats/liberals" who were "unhappy", but that it's really all the GOP's problem anyway,
Yes, reality does matter?
How many democrats supported Trump in his legislative agenda? Or voted for Trump's SCOTUS nominees?
I guess that whole sauce for the goose/gander thing only works one way.
FYI, it appears (at first glance) that no one in the DFL voted for any of Trump's SCOTUS nominees. It seems strange that there would be an expectation of bipartisanship of the GOP that the DFL was unwilling to engage in over the past few years.
I don't see how "reaching across the aisle" to pick up GOP votes for a bad bill is a sign of a successful party or presidency. Biden's infrastructure bill is a horror and like the "Covid relief" bill, spends a tiny portion on that which is in the title of the bill. With Covid relief, it was less than 10% was spent for actual covid relief. With the infrastructure bill, only around 5% was earmarked for that which the vast majority of people think of when the term "infrastructure" is mentioned. Frankly, Trump was all that much better, beyond his smaller price tag, but it was more focused on infrastructure without all the totally unrelated pork and tax increases.
So pretending the infrastructure or covid relief bills are America improving Biden successes demonstrates some grave ignorance. Getting something passed isn't enough to label it a success. Some have tried that ploy to pretend Obama was a successful president. Actual benefits to the most Americans is a better gauge and Biden is woefully without such successes. Rather, his actions and policies have gone a long way toward Making America Crap Again.
If you want to get support from the other party, you need to provide a reason which compels that support. Crafting crappy bills and policies won't get that done. And it's not really the other party which needs convincing. It's those who support the other party. In Trump's case, his policies won over a greater share of blacks and Latinos than any Republican president before him. If not for the cheating Dems did in 2020, it may have been enough to give Trump another four years. The Dems can't afford to lose any greater percentage of voters from those two groups than they already have. Keep pissing people off and those Dem voters who are paying attention will withhold their support for the party (which has no justification anyway) even if they don't vote GOP.
Craig... "it appears (at first glance) that no one in the DFL voted for any of Trump's SCOTUS nominees."
Not factually correct. There weren't many, but there were some Democrat votes for 2 of Trump's scotus picks, including the one who may have sexually assaulted a woman/women.
It seems strange that you copy/pasted my quote (for which I'm appreciative as it rarely happens), but seemingly failed to read it.
Apparently "It appears (at first) glance", somehow confused you into thinking that I meant "This is a matter of undisputed Truth".
The fact that you haven't provided any data, to support your claim makes me suspect that you're just relying on your memory. The reality is that based on the numbers of DFL senators and the numbers of votes, it doesn't appear as if there was more than minimal DFL votes for Trump's candidates.
Even if there were 1 or 2, it doesn't change the point. You expect the GOP to behave one way, while you excuse the DFL for behaving the same way.
Of course, the "sexually harassed women" is an unproven accusation which the DFL had ample opportunity to prove, and to rebut the evidence to the contrary.
I'm confused, does this mean that we're to believe every single accusation of "sexual harassment" against every single politician regardless of the lack of proof? Or does that mean that we establish different standards depending on our political leanings?
Based on the data I've seen, it seems hard to dispute that those who voted the SF school board out were predominantly voters on the left side of the spectrum.
After a little more research, the total of DFL candidates that voted for Trump's SCOTUS nominees was 3 total DFL senators who voted for Trump's nominees. That's the total over 3 nominations.
I don't want to do the math, but that's an average of one DFL senator per nominee. So Dan assumes that 100% of GOP senators will vote against Biden's nominee, and is prepared to condemn them based on his prejudiced, biased, assumptions about what might happen, while not condemning the DFL for virtually the same actual level of support.
Sotomayor had 9 GOP votes. Breyer had 33 GOP votes. Kagan had 5 GOP votes.
Based on actual historical data, it seems likely that Biden's nominee will get significantly more GOP votes that any of Trump's did. Likely more GOP votes for this one nominee than the total DFL votes for 3 nominee.
"Based on the data I've seen, it seems hard to dispute that those who voted the SF school board out were predominantly voters on the left side of the spectrum."
Oh, I have no doubt of that. But if those who voted were primarily those who were defending one particular school for which they had a personal connection and fondness, it doesn't merit regarding the vote as a particular sign the left is beginning to get wise. Not in this particular case anyway.
"Based on actual historical data, it seems likely that Biden's nominee will get significantly more GOP votes that any of Trump's did. Likely more GOP votes for this one nominee than the total DFL votes for 3 nominee."
More's the pity. Graham has already said he'd vote for one of them who is from his state (and I can't wait to vote against this guy if I'm considered eligible in time after moving there). I could see Collins voting for a Biden pick, and Murkowski as well. The question remains regarding whether or not any of Biden's choices have shown fealty to the Constitution in their track record, and that should be the only determining factor in giving or withholding support...not "reaching across the aisle" or some such one-way attitude not shared by the Dems. Given Biden's track record as president...to say nothing of his rampant stupidity in all his time in politics...it would best serve the nation to obstruct anything he does until it can be proven it won't be detrimental to do otherwise. This is especially true with that which will last longer than his time in office.
That's the problem. Historically (as recently as Ginsberg) the prevailing view of the Senate was that POTUS has the constitutional responsibility to appoint Judges and the role of the senate is advise and consent. In the past, once the nominee got through the hearings (the advise part), then the senate would overwhelmingly consent. In recent history, it's likely that the practice of not confirming with a large majority started with Thomas.
Kagan was 63-37 Alito was 58-42 Breyer was 87-9 Roberts was 78-22
I think that it's safe to say that the GOP is much more willing to accept the doctrine that gives POTUS that responsibility of selecting judges, and voting accordingly, than the DFL. As someone who thinks that the separation of powers is important, and that it's not the role of the senate to thwart that exercise of lawful executive power, I expect that GOP to rise above the petty partisan crap we've seen from the DFL regarding SCOTUS nominees.
"Advice and Consent" is a check on presidential power. The Senate is not obliged in any way to "consent" to any treaty or appointment put forth by the president. Any suggestion they must consent to a judicial nominee is no more than a rubber stamp and thus make the entire process unnecessary. The senate is obliged to know why a nominee merits the position or not. No senator is doing his job if he doesn't do his due diligence, nor is he doing his job to simply vote for or against without having done so. Merit is the only criteria and merit in the case of SCOTUS is directly related to past performance regarding adherence to the Constitution.
I'm not suggesting a rubber stamp either. I am suggesting that failing some specific, significant example of unfitness for the position it's not the job of the senate to check POTUS in the legitimate exercise of his responsibilities for purely partisan reasons. It's certainly possible to acknowledge that someone is qualified for a position while disagreeing with their philosophy regarding that position. It's not even necessary that the nominee be the most qualified. The reality is that no one nominated for a SCOTUS seat is not qualified for that seat. Hell, being a lawyer isn't specifically required. All I'm saying is that simply voting against a nominee after they've gone through the process for partisan reasons seems pointless.
I do not advocate for denying a candidate for purely partisan reasons. I'm insisting that devotion to the Constitution must be measurable in some manner as that is what is most important for the job. THAT is what qualifies or disqualifies, not that they can win a court case. To win a court case without adhering to the Constitution is not an admirable quality. It denotes a quality bullshitter. We want better for the Supreme Court. It's hard enough as it is without determining that devotion exists. Sure. Even the best might get something wrong in a ruling. But if that person never demonstrated a grasp of Constitutional principles prior to nomination, that person should never have been approved by the Senate at all.
I would also disagree with your statement that no one nominated is unqualified. Sotomayor has proven she's not qualified. I wouldn't be surprised that her ethnicity and sex always was the main reason she advanced as far as she did in the legal system given her SCOTUS work thus far.
The process is where one comes to the decision to vote up or down. This is why it's good that the majority leader has the authority to determine whether or not a nominee will be considered, as McConnell denied Garland. Imagine if THAT buffoon were on the bench!! But the process should expose the nominee and whether than exposure happens is up to the senators tasked with questioning the nominee.
But I agree...to find no fault in a nominee except that he/she was nominated by the president who is of the other party is bad form. I certainly believe scrutiny of any Biden nominee is more important than ever, given he's a really stupid man. But the process should still reveal the cut of a nominee's jib if done properly.
18 comments:
From the CNN story...
"When those who disapproved of Biden's overall performance were asked to name a single thing he'd done that they did approved of, 56% had nothing positive to say."
So, a majority of people who don't like Biden also don't approve of what hes doing. Wow. That's surprising.
And it's also speaks pretty poorly of the modern GOP.. With trump, there were legitimate problems that people on the left and right and all reasonable people should disagree with. His attacks on the press. His attacks on the election system. Is attacks on truth ann facts. HIs disregard for truth and facts. His overt proversions and corruptions. His surrounding himself with perverts and the corrupt. And yet, in spite of the league of criminality and corruption he surrounded himself with, he still maintained significant support within the GOP.
With Biden, just not making enough progress is enough for the majority of the GOP to condemn him. There is no significant corruption or dishonesty is dishonesty or criminality associated with Biden. Hes just not making enough progress fast enough lo, this one year later.
That is an informative Poll. But it doesn't speak well of the modern GOP.
This is absolutely hilarious. You trying to spin a poll about Biden's abysmal job performance into blaming in on the GOP. You do realize that Biden's approval rating is in the low 40"s to high 30's. This suggesting that it's only the GOP that has problems with Biden's do nothing approach is absurd.
I know it's a foreign concept to the DFL as of the past 3 administrations, but maybe the answer to getting things done is negotiation and compromise. Like they did as recently as the Clinton administration. This "my way or the highway" approach of the P-BO and Biden administrations seems to be less than productive.
Re: "Abysmal job performance..." is a matter of opinion. He inherited a shitshow from the clown before him and he's turning things around. He has not done as well as one might hope in some regards, but he's been steady, reasonable and an adult and that counts for a helluva lot, given the trainwreck of the last administration.
The point I'm making is that people are not happy with Biden because enough progress has not been made. NOT because he has actively failed at something or deliberately done wrong, he just hasn't made enough progress fast enough in the mind of a lot of people.
And you have to be blindly partisan to see that the GOP is actively not cooperating with Biden and with Obama before him. They both have attempted partisan outreach, but the GOP has actively been fighting them.
Is your allegiance to conservative/GOP pals made you unable to see this?
And I'm not saying that the Democrats are blameless. At all. But they HAVE tried to reach across the aisle, in spite of the GOP doing all they can to block and interfere.
Back to blame Trump.
Biden inherited an economy that had been performing amazingly well until the government decided to shut everything down. Biden inherited a "working, developed vaccine" and the beginnings of a distribution system to get it out.
The point being made is that Biden has done virtually nothing so far in his presidency, even though he has a majority of both houses of congress. He shouldn't need the GOP with majorities on both houses of congress. It's the DFL that's stopped him from accomplishing things, not the GOP. Further, simple expecting the GOP to accept whatever is offered without any push back isn't how legislation has been done up until recently.
It's interesting that the GOP is blindly partisan" because they won't rubber stamp the minimal number of things Biden has pushed, but the DFL isn't "blindly partisan" for behaving in exactly the same way during much of Bush's administration and all of Trump's administration. Talk about "blindly partisan", I think we see it from you.
I have little of no allegiance to the GOP, and no "conservative" anything to have allegiance to. But you keep telling yourself that everything is always the fault of the GOP.
Give one specific example of the DFL seriously trying to negotiate in good faith with the GOP since Biden was elected?
This notion that the GOP is always to blame, no matter what is childish and simplistic.
We could look at how DFL candidates have fared in the special elections since Biden took office. Hint, not well. Even where DFL candidates won, the margins were down significantly.
We could look at Biden's poll numbers and how quickly and far they've fallen.
We could look at the crushing defeat in the SF school board recall election last night.
We'll be able to see how the mid terms come out this November.
It will be interesting to see how Biden and the DFL react when/if they lose the majority in one or both houses of congress.
What's surprising is that Biden has been suckling at the federal teat for long enough to remember how things used to work in the legislature. Where things like negotiation and compromise were common, and where demonizing the other party wasn't par for the course. Maybe Biden's memory is really going away and he's just forgotten how things used to/should work.
Hell, maybe Biden is being so strident about, and possibly exaggerating, the possibility of war in Ukraine just so he can broker some sort of deal that'll make him look good. Who knows.
What I do know, is that "It's the other guy's fault" as one's default position isn't going to play well for very long. Most people are smart enough to realize that nothing is that one sided.
Finally, "blameless" isn't the issue. Responsibility is. The DFL ran and won on "Give us majorities in both houses of congress and we'll accomplish wonderful things.". They got what they asked for, and they haven't delivered on their promises, only blamed the GOP. In 2022, the line will be "We just need more of a majority, and we'll finally do what we promised we'd do with the majority in 2020.", and if they somehow win they still won't live up to their promises. Hell, the DFL has been failing to deliver on their promises for decades of complete control of many large urban areas, not delivering on a national scale isn't a surprise.
Craig... "Give one specific example of the DFL seriously trying to negotiate in good faith with the GOP since Biden was elected?
The infrastructure package? It ended when the GOP just barely budged to meet him no where near half way.
"On the day President Biden’s first attempt at a bipartisan infrastructure deal collapsed, he dialed up a Republican senator he saw as a potential negotiating partner for a renewed push.
In that June 8 phone call, Biden told Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) that he wanted a public works agreement with Republicans in the neighborhood of $600 billion. More notably, Biden showed deep interest in provisions on energy resiliency that Cassidy had been working on for weeks."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-quiet-biden-gop-talks-behind-the-infrastructure-deal/2021/08/01/4f669dea-f165-11eb-81d2-ffae0f931b8f_story.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/10/how-biden-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-beat-the-odds.html
Indeed, Biden's determined attempts to reach a bipartisan agreement left many Democrats/liberals unhappy.
https://www.vox.com/2021/5/21/22446283/biden-negotiation-republicans-american-jobs-plan
Also, Biden is seeking GOP support for his SCOTUS nominee...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/01/biden-supreme-court-pick/
For two very obvious examples.
Craig... "This notion that the GOP is always to blame, no matter what is childish and simplistic."
Of course, this is not what I've said. The reality is that we don't have a majority in the Senate. We have 50 who vote Dem and 50 who vote GOP, typically. We have not been able to pass some things precisely because of both GOP non-cooperation AND the help of two Democrats who sided with the GOP.
And Democrats and the GOP, as I've noted repeatedly, led to things like the Crime Bill or "Welfare Reform" which were both problematic for many reasons.
Reality matters.
You do realize that the problem with Biden's "infrastructure" package was that it included very little "infrastructure".
The reality is that the DFL does have a majority in the senate. You might not be aware, but the VP casts the deciding vote when there is a tie. Hence, a majority.
It's interesting that you're attempting to lay the "blame" on the GOP when the very "proof" you offer points out that it was the DFL who was the party that was "upset/angry". I'm unsure how the DFL getting "upset/angry" is the fault of the GOP.
As far as Biden's SCOTUS pick, I was unaware that he'd actually nominated a s specific individual. Are you suggesting that the GOP has unilaterally decided that there will be zero support for Biden's pick (when he actually picks someone)? Are you suggesting that the GOP will follow the lead of the DFL in their treatment of nominees of GOP presidents?
What you appear to be saying is that the reason Biden can't get anything done, is because of "2 democrats", and "democrats/liberals" who were "unhappy", but that it's really all the GOP's problem anyway,
Yes, reality does matter?
How many democrats supported Trump in his legislative agenda? Or voted for Trump's SCOTUS nominees?
I guess that whole sauce for the goose/gander thing only works one way.
FYI, it appears (at first glance) that no one in the DFL voted for any of Trump's SCOTUS nominees. It seems strange that there would be an expectation of bipartisanship of the GOP that the DFL was unwilling to engage in over the past few years.
I don't see how "reaching across the aisle" to pick up GOP votes for a bad bill is a sign of a successful party or presidency. Biden's infrastructure bill is a horror and like the "Covid relief" bill, spends a tiny portion on that which is in the title of the bill. With Covid relief, it was less than 10% was spent for actual covid relief. With the infrastructure bill, only around 5% was earmarked for that which the vast majority of people think of when the term "infrastructure" is mentioned. Frankly, Trump was all that much better, beyond his smaller price tag, but it was more focused on infrastructure without all the totally unrelated pork and tax increases.
So pretending the infrastructure or covid relief bills are America improving Biden successes demonstrates some grave ignorance. Getting something passed isn't enough to label it a success. Some have tried that ploy to pretend Obama was a successful president. Actual benefits to the most Americans is a better gauge and Biden is woefully without such successes. Rather, his actions and policies have gone a long way toward Making America Crap Again.
If you want to get support from the other party, you need to provide a reason which compels that support. Crafting crappy bills and policies won't get that done. And it's not really the other party which needs convincing. It's those who support the other party. In Trump's case, his policies won over a greater share of blacks and Latinos than any Republican president before him. If not for the cheating Dems did in 2020, it may have been enough to give Trump another four years. The Dems can't afford to lose any greater percentage of voters from those two groups than they already have. Keep pissing people off and those Dem voters who are paying attention will withhold their support for the party (which has no justification anyway) even if they don't vote GOP.
By the way, Andrea Widberg has a great piece providing insights into that Frisco school board vote, which puts the episode in a different light.
Craig... "it appears (at first glance) that no one in the DFL voted for any of Trump's SCOTUS nominees."
Not factually correct. There weren't many, but there were some Democrat votes for 2 of Trump's scotus picks, including the one who may have sexually assaulted a woman/women.
Dan,
It seems strange that you copy/pasted my quote (for which I'm appreciative as it rarely happens), but seemingly failed to read it.
Apparently "It appears (at first) glance", somehow confused you into thinking that I meant "This is a matter of undisputed Truth".
The fact that you haven't provided any data, to support your claim makes me suspect that you're just relying on your memory. The reality is that based on the numbers of DFL senators and the numbers of votes, it doesn't appear as if there was more than minimal DFL votes for Trump's candidates.
Even if there were 1 or 2, it doesn't change the point. You expect the GOP to behave one way, while you excuse the DFL for behaving the same way.
Of course, the "sexually harassed women" is an unproven accusation which the DFL had ample opportunity to prove, and to rebut the evidence to the contrary.
I'm confused, does this mean that we're to believe every single accusation of "sexual harassment" against every single politician regardless of the lack of proof? Or does that mean that we establish different standards depending on our political leanings?
Art,
Based on the data I've seen, it seems hard to dispute that those who voted the SF school board out were predominantly voters on the left side of the spectrum.
After a little more research, the total of DFL candidates that voted for Trump's SCOTUS nominees was 3 total DFL senators who voted for Trump's nominees. That's the total over 3 nominations.
I don't want to do the math, but that's an average of one DFL senator per nominee. So Dan assumes that 100% of GOP senators will vote against Biden's nominee, and is prepared to condemn them based on his prejudiced, biased, assumptions about what might happen, while not condemning the DFL for virtually the same actual level of support.
Sotomayor had 9 GOP votes.
Breyer had 33 GOP votes.
Kagan had 5 GOP votes.
Based on actual historical data, it seems likely that Biden's nominee will get significantly more GOP votes that any of Trump's did. Likely more GOP votes for this one nominee than the total DFL votes for 3 nominee.
"Based on the data I've seen, it seems hard to dispute that those who voted the SF school board out were predominantly voters on the left side of the spectrum."
Oh, I have no doubt of that. But if those who voted were primarily those who were defending one particular school for which they had a personal connection and fondness, it doesn't merit regarding the vote as a particular sign the left is beginning to get wise. Not in this particular case anyway.
"Based on actual historical data, it seems likely that Biden's nominee will get significantly more GOP votes that any of Trump's did. Likely more GOP votes for this one nominee than the total DFL votes for 3 nominee."
More's the pity. Graham has already said he'd vote for one of them who is from his state (and I can't wait to vote against this guy if I'm considered eligible in time after moving there). I could see Collins voting for a Biden pick, and Murkowski as well. The question remains regarding whether or not any of Biden's choices have shown fealty to the Constitution in their track record, and that should be the only determining factor in giving or withholding support...not "reaching across the aisle" or some such one-way attitude not shared by the Dems. Given Biden's track record as president...to say nothing of his rampant stupidity in all his time in politics...it would best serve the nation to obstruct anything he does until it can be proven it won't be detrimental to do otherwise. This is especially true with that which will last longer than his time in office.
Art,
That's the problem. Historically (as recently as Ginsberg) the prevailing view of the Senate was that POTUS has the constitutional responsibility to appoint Judges and the role of the senate is advise and consent. In the past, once the nominee got through the hearings (the advise part), then the senate would overwhelmingly consent. In recent history, it's likely that the practice of not confirming with a large majority started with Thomas.
Kagan was 63-37
Alito was 58-42
Breyer was 87-9
Roberts was 78-22
I think that it's safe to say that the GOP is much more willing to accept the doctrine that gives POTUS that responsibility of selecting judges, and voting accordingly, than the DFL. As someone who thinks that the separation of powers is important, and that it's not the role of the senate to thwart that exercise of lawful executive power, I expect that GOP to rise above the petty partisan crap we've seen from the DFL regarding SCOTUS nominees.
"Advice and Consent" is a check on presidential power. The Senate is not obliged in any way to "consent" to any treaty or appointment put forth by the president. Any suggestion they must consent to a judicial nominee is no more than a rubber stamp and thus make the entire process unnecessary. The senate is obliged to know why a nominee merits the position or not. No senator is doing his job if he doesn't do his due diligence, nor is he doing his job to simply vote for or against without having done so. Merit is the only criteria and merit in the case of SCOTUS is directly related to past performance regarding adherence to the Constitution.
Art,
I'm not suggesting a rubber stamp either. I am suggesting that failing some specific, significant example of unfitness for the position it's not the job of the senate to check POTUS in the legitimate exercise of his responsibilities for purely partisan reasons. It's certainly possible to acknowledge that someone is qualified for a position while disagreeing with their philosophy regarding that position. It's not even necessary that the nominee be the most qualified. The reality is that no one nominated for a SCOTUS seat is not qualified for that seat. Hell, being a lawyer isn't specifically required. All I'm saying is that simply voting against a nominee after they've gone through the process for partisan reasons seems pointless.
I do not advocate for denying a candidate for purely partisan reasons. I'm insisting that devotion to the Constitution must be measurable in some manner as that is what is most important for the job. THAT is what qualifies or disqualifies, not that they can win a court case. To win a court case without adhering to the Constitution is not an admirable quality. It denotes a quality bullshitter. We want better for the Supreme Court. It's hard enough as it is without determining that devotion exists. Sure. Even the best might get something wrong in a ruling. But if that person never demonstrated a grasp of Constitutional principles prior to nomination, that person should never have been approved by the Senate at all.
I would also disagree with your statement that no one nominated is unqualified. Sotomayor has proven she's not qualified. I wouldn't be surprised that her ethnicity and sex always was the main reason she advanced as far as she did in the legal system given her SCOTUS work thus far.
The process is where one comes to the decision to vote up or down. This is why it's good that the majority leader has the authority to determine whether or not a nominee will be considered, as McConnell denied Garland. Imagine if THAT buffoon were on the bench!! But the process should expose the nominee and whether than exposure happens is up to the senators tasked with questioning the nominee.
But I agree...to find no fault in a nominee except that he/she was nominated by the president who is of the other party is bad form. I certainly believe scrutiny of any Biden nominee is more important than ever, given he's a really stupid man. But the process should still reveal the cut of a nominee's jib if done properly.
Post a Comment