Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

Well the article does state that she broke Part 2 of Rule 19, which she did if she was saying the bits of the letter that called into question Session's impartiality regarding non-whites and being a disgrace to the Justice Department.

But it is a pissing stupid rule. If it can be proven a senator has done something "unbecoming of a senator", 'spesh during a debate about their suitability for a position, then there shouldn't be any problem with bringing up that something, surely?

[EnigmaticHat]

Even ignoring the fact that congress runs on precedent and informal procedure as much as the letter of the law, and that is most definitely not a procedure that is actually followed in practice, this is a confirmation hearing.  She's not talking about the guy as a senator, she's talking about him as a potential AG.  Their interpretation of the rule isn't defensible at all.

By that logic, any senator who criticized Obama during his presidential bid should have been gagged, since he was a senator back then.

[wierd]

Selective enforcement of rules and laws is a staple of corrupt government.

I will leave it at that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Honestly, the rules committee should probably be maintained by a bunch of judges or something instead of the Congressthralls.

[misko27]

Selective enforcement of rules and laws is a staple of corrupt government.

I will leave it at that.

Surely procedural bullshit is common to all governments with legislatures, corrupt or otherwise. Procedural bullshit is a sign of contention and dysfunction, not corruption. Besides, there are so many other reasons to consider congress corrupt then procedural bullshit.

Honestly, the rules committee should probably be maintained by a bunch of judges or something instead of the Congressthralls.

I mean at that point why even have a Congress? If you have to start putting judges on the rules committee, why not just put experts on the other committees? Why not just leave Congress to the business of alternating between rubberstamping and filibustering?

We can't just replace congress with the judiciary, as much as we may want to.

Even ignoring the fact that congress runs on precedent and informal procedure as much as the letter of the law, and that is most definitely not a procedure that is actually followed in practice, this is a confirmation hearing.  She's not talking about the guy as a senator, she's talking about him as a potential AG.  Their interpretation of the rule isn't defensible at all.

By that logic, any senator who criticized Obama during his presidential bid should have been gagged, since he was a senator back then.

Reading over McConnell's piece arguing that Neil Gorsuch should get an up-down vote, he said that Harry Reid claimed that Obama's nominees were blocked, then triumphantly announced "We did not block either of Barack Obama's first-term appointments, so he is clearly wrong." (emphasis mine).

The name "Merrick Garland" appeared nowhere in that article.

[muldrake]

Honestly, the rules committee should probably be maintained by a bunch of judges or something instead of the Congressthralls.

This would pretty thoroughly gut separation of powers.

I mean at that point why even have a Congress?

That's a very good question with the most worthless Congress, perhaps, in all of American history.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's a unique problem of the rules committee. I don't think it should be out of their hands because they're not experts (and they are mostly lawyers anyway), it should be out of their hands because of the obvious conflict of interest.

The rules committee isn't even bound by Constitutional standards, they could easily go all HUAC-style and pass a rule that lets them do something like mark Senators as "hostile" or something and permanently bar them from speaking. The only reason for not doing so is fear of backlash, but apparently that's fake news now and the entire Republican party has been infected with whatever outer realm madness Donald Trump found in the bottom of a White Castle deep fryer 40 years ago.

And it wouldn't "gut separation of powers", it is a separation of power, much like the President being unable to just declare Cousin Bubba the Secretary of State without review.

[EnigmaticHat]

Selective enforcement of rules and laws is a staple of corrupt government.

I will leave it at that.

Surely procedural bullshit is common to all governments with legislatures, corrupt or otherwise. Procedural bullshit is a sign of contention and dysfunction, not corruption. Besides, there are so many other reasons to consider congress corrupt then procedural bullshit.

Honestly, the rules committee should probably be maintained by a bunch of judges or something instead of the Congressthralls.

I mean at that point why even have a Congress? If you have to start putting judges on the rules committee, why not just put experts on the other committees? Why not just leave Congress to the business of alternating between rubberstamping and filibustering?

We can't just replace congress with the judiciary, as much as we may want to.

Even ignoring the fact that congress runs on precedent and informal procedure as much as the letter of the law, and that is most definitely not a procedure that is actually followed in practice, this is a confirmation hearing.  She's not talking about the guy as a senator, she's talking about him as a potential AG.  Their interpretation of the rule isn't defensible at all.

By that logic, any senator who criticized Obama during his presidential bid should have been gagged, since he was a senator back then.

Reading over McConnell's piece arguing that Neil Gorsuch should get an up-down vote, he said that Harry Reid claimed that Obama's nominees were blocked, then triumphantly announced "We did not block either of Barack Obama's first-term appointments, so he is clearly wrong." (emphasis mine).

The name "Merrick Garland" appeared nowhere in that article.

That would be because we're not talking about the supreme court here.  We're talking about Jeff Sessions, Attorney General nominee.

Edit: To be clear here, the point of my post was this: the rule hector13 linked was clearly about keeping order during debates by preventing senators from engaging in personal attacks.  The issue is that Jeff Sessions is BOTH a senator and a cabinet nominee at the same time.  So they're applying a rule meant to prevent criticism of senators, to criticism of a nominee.  This is of course completely ridiculous because the entire point of the hearings going on is to provide a time for criticism of nominees.

[muldrake]

And it wouldn't "gut separation of powers", it is a separation of power, much like the President being unable to just declare Cousin Bubba the Secretary of State without review.

Allowing some outside entity to dictate its parliamentary procedures is essentially stripping them of something that is and always has been inherent to the very nature of what a legislature under the U.S. Constitution is.

[misko27]

]
That would be because we're not talking about the supreme court here.  We're talking about Jeff Sessions, Attorney General nominee.

My point was much simpler. There's no real thing to argue against or criticize: it's just sheer, naked hypocrisy. Once the majority leader has embraced that principle, everything is permitted.

And it wouldn't "gut separation of powers", it is a separation of power, much like the President being unable to just declare Cousin Bubba the Secretary of State without review.

I'm not convinced Congress would not allow Trump to simply appoint his cousin to a position at this point. I mean when the wife of the Senate Majority Leader is one of the more legitimate, least controversial nominees we have (and Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader, made a point of voting against her, joining strange bedfellows Warren and Sanders on a 93-6 vote), is anything working?

I get the desire for reform. But I just don't know what would work here. I think you may be on to something about changing the Senate's internal rules, but I don't know if the judiciary is the route to go down.

[muldrake]

I'm not convinced Congress would not allow Trump to simply appoint his cousin to a position at this point.

I'm pretty sure they'd okay it if he appointed a horse as consul.

[Starver]

It may or may not raise the average standards of the group.

(But it would definitely make the place somewhat more stable. )

[wierd]

Naw, it would just add more horse shit to the manure pile.

[TempAcc]

Maybe he's just horsing around.

[Starver]

I thought you'd like being saddled with it, but sounds like the neighs have it.