Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 12:07pm PT
|
Norton, my Official Conservative Source (i.e. the Daily Signal) says that he has always deferred to the judgment of regulators. He has never voted to invalidate a challenged regulation. They also gripe that he voted to rehear en banc the D. C. Circuit's decision validating an individual's right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. They do say that he tends to be more conservative on criminal law matters.
The first assertion is probably the most important, because this administration has greatly expanded the scope of executive branch regulatory agencies, at times in direct contradiction to Congressional language. From the candidates' campaign statements a Trump, Sanders or H. Clinton administration would probably continue that trend.
From a libertarian standpoint, the positions he has taken consistently avoid placing limits on government power. Thus, even his "conservative" law-and-order stance worries libertarians.
On the surface, he seems less left-of-center than previous nominees of Clinton or Obama, but no one appointed by either of those two presidents ever seems to side with individual rights seeking government limitations, and I can't believe Obama would nominate anyone he thought would vote to limit expansions of regulatory or other government arrogations of power.
Then again, you never know for sure what someone will do when they reach the SCOTUS, and are no longer subject to controlling precedent. Certainly Frankfurter, Stevens and Souter, among others, held a philosophy on the SCOTUS different from what their critics feared at confirmation.
John
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 12:18pm PT
|
All of his purported crimes against right wing ideology can be paraded at a hearing. Except our banana Republic senate won't have a hearing. Maybe they are too busy trying to shut down the government over funding women's health providers?
I'm at a loss at how intelligent people still support the Republican party.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 12:25pm PT
|
thanks for your comments, John
you were doing greatly impartial until you had to throw in your opinion that regulatory
actions are "arrogant", perhaps for a Libertarian regulations they don't personally agree with in contrast to their preferred free market preference
but I guess I never took you for having a bias toward Libertarianism, always thought you were fairly neutral on government regulations in that they should not be opposed out of general principle but instead closely examined on their individual merit
GM opposed seat belt regulations for example, they have been quiet on that for decades, Nixon's EPA was the first real attempt to regulate air pollution yet it always gets mentioned in GOP debates as one of those burdensome government regulatory agencies that should be eliminated along with the Dept of Education, etc
I know the California specific regulations you disagree with in your private comments with me, did not know your attitude was so strong to use the word arrogant......
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 01:02pm PT
|
Norton, I specifically had the FCC's purported authority to regulate the internet service providers as public utilities in mind when I used the term "arrogation of power," but I apply it to any expansion of government power, by any means, that contradicts constitutional (in the case of legislation) or legislative (in the case of regulatory) limits.
The cases you cite don't fall under those categories. Congress created the EPA, and Nixon signed the legislation doing so. No one accused his administration of acting outside the scope of the enabling legislation. Congress enacted the NHSA and CPSC so, again, seat belt regulation was within the purview of the statute.
In addition to the FCC's decision that it could regulate ISP's, the Rivers of the United States, the EPA power plant regulations, and other regulations and statutes currently being litigated test whether our allegedly limited government has any real limits. Garland's tendency to be extremely deferential to regulatory determinations concern many conservatives and libertarians for that reason.
John
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 01:31pm PT
|
John, thanks for your regulatory comments.
A new question for you.
Assuming the highly likely hood of a Clinton Presidency and also assuming a new Democratic majority in the Senate, actually fairly likely with Trump down ballot voting,
are not the Senate Republicans running a real risk by not accepting Garland now
rather than having virtually no say in a Clinton appointee with Dem Senate?
I am not convinced McConnell is thinking ahead with all cylinders....
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 01:38pm PT
|
John, thanks for your regulatory comments.
A new question for you.
Assuming the highly likely hood of a Clinton Presidency and also assuming a new Democratic majority in the Senate, actually fairly likely with Trump down ballot voting,
are not the Senate Republicans running a real risk by not accepting Garland now
rather than having virtually no say in a Clinton appointee with Dem Senate?
I am not convinced McConnell is thinking ahead with all cylinders....
Your question presumes that Republicans are capable of dropping their firm obstructionist strategy and making that kind of nuanced trade-off analysis. I've seen nothing in the last 7 years that would indicate that capability.
Curt
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 01:43pm PT
|
Norton writes:
"...are not the Senate Republicans running a real risk by not accepting Garland now
rather than having virtually no say in a Clinton appointee with Dem Senate?"
Congress will still be in session for almost two months after the election before Clinton's sworn in. They can always vote on Garland then. ( unless, of course, Obama pulls his nomination in a fit of childishness )
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 01:49pm PT
|
Your question presumes that Republicans are capable of dropping their firm obstructionist strategy and making that kind of nuanced trade-off analysis. I've seen nothing in the last 7 years that would indicate that capability.
I am not so sure about that, they sure passed a budget quickly (they ignored Cruz and his TeaBag buddies) last time around.
It would not be childish for Obama to pull his nominee once Hillary gets elected.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 01:50pm PT
|
Norton you don't seem to get it--
The Repubs essentially have a free option on Garland now--they may or may not exercise that option, that's their call.
It's out of Obama's hands now--he tried a gambit, but it's failed spectacularly--there's nothing left to be done but to see if the Repubs take Garland, as they choose.
Lorzenzo's little history digressions are interesting as always, but who thinks Obama will have the guts to un-nominate Garland even if Hillary wins and the Dems take the Senate? And even if he does, so what--Garland will be a reliable lefty vote on every substantial issue, Hillary can't really appoint anyone who does anything worse!
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 02:02pm PT
|
The only real losers are tax paying citizens who only want a functional government.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 02:04pm PT
|
Norton, I see it your way, but (as the intervening comments show), others don't. Presidents can always withdraw nominations, although I don't recall a President doing so for a SCOTUS nominee without the nominee's consent.
And DMT, I don't envy McConnell's position. He has had to navigate around the Tea Party, Harry Reid, Barak Obama, the mainstream media, the conservative media, etc. etc. Whoever holds Republican leadership roles for either house of Congress must feel like he or she is leading an army of generals (this describes governance in my church quite well, by the way) or tryhing to herd cats. Maybe an even better analogy would be what each of us considered the ideal government when I was an undergrad at Berkeley: anarchy with me in charge.
John
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 02:12pm PT
|
Not a free option, blahbla. If they don't allow a vote or vote down this moderate candidate, they will look like the obstructionists they are and may pay at the elections.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 17, 2016 - 02:14pm PT
|
What DMT said. It's just more pandering to the right wing base, the same sort of all or nothing obstructionism that has empowered the right wing and is bringing on the coming Trumpocalypse. They are continuing to feed their monster.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 02:19pm PT
|
DIngus,
while I get and agree with what you said....
it seems pretty clear that prominent congressional Republicans have a strong sense
of using their power to keep their comfy careers going by doing what they think their base voters want them to do - and that is to oppose, oppose with everything they have this particular President that fully half of rank and file Republicans believe is not rightfully the President, that he was born in Kenya and that he is a Muslim, and therefore viewed by the base suspiciously.
It also appears that there is a new base developing fast within the GOP, the Donald Trump base voter, white, male, undereducated (stops at High School), angry, and treating today's politics like World Wide Wrestling events.
Unfortunately for the GOP, the tidal wave is decidedly against them with America becoming more non White, more educated, more socially liberal, and there is those pesky women voters who vote more than men do, and they do not like at all what they hear from Republicans and particularly their soon to be Presidential nominee.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 07:16pm PT
|
^So you're saying yes, Bitch McC can squeal like a pig then?
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 09:36pm PT
|
I agree that R's succeeded in getting Obama to nominate a centrist. And I think there is a good chance R's climb down and confirm. Just like they eventually passed a budget that Obama was willing to sign.
If R's wait until after the election, I could see Obama pulling the nomination. Why wouldn't he? If R's delay until the election I don't see that it would make Obama look like the childish one. That would be the R's having their next president gets the nomination wish come true.
And you could certainly get someone far more to the left. He is conservative on criminal matters. There is a reason some R's kept mentioning his name.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2016 - 07:02am PT
|
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 18, 2016 - 09:08am PT
|
Even without McConnell's recent games, Obama would nominate a relative centrist given that his party is in the minority.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2016 - 09:53am PT
|
McConnell must really believe Trump is going to win or he would back this dude faster than
you can say
"Hillary will nominate Robespierre's ghost!"
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 18, 2016 - 10:27am PT
|
I miss Gary Larson, but I give him a ton of credit for quitting before his ideas started getting thin.
He might make a fine Supreme Court justice, too.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!