0
   

Black Women Send Letter to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in Support of Maxine Waters

 
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2018 08:46 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
I do not perceive any violation of the Constitution.
You refuse to. It's been pointed out to you several times, Article II, Section 2, sentence 2, the Senate is to "advise" on the presidential nominees. You cannot "advise" if all discussion is shut down, as McConnell made clear that was going on.

Quote oralloy:
Quote:
I don't remember Bill Clinton ever having such a massive blockage of his nominees that parts of the federal government stopped functioning.
Neither did Bush 43. That was just the Republican's way of trying to stop the Democrats from doing their Constitutional requirement to "advise" on the nominees.

Fact is, under neither Bush 43 nor Clinton was the government remotely prevented from functioning, as opposed to Trump's Administration. Under Trump, tons of appointments are empty not due to anyone voting down their nominees, but because Trump can't get his Administration's ducks in a row enough to even submit nominations. Only under Trump could anyone say the Federal government is essentially frozen and not working, not under Bush 43 or Clinton.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2018 08:53 pm
@Blickers,
"Since Democrats took control of Congress a year ago, the battle of wills over nominations has left many high-level vacancies unfilled throughout the federal government. For example, the Federal Election Commission is unable to act officially because it does not have the required quorum."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2008/02/bush-ups-the-ante-in-nomination-fight-005990
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2018 09:07 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Quote:
Update, 8:05 a.m., Sept. 13, 2017: Trump has nominated Trey Trainor to serve on the FEC. He is a Texas election law attorney who last year represented Trump's presidential campaign and briefly served in the president's administration.....

.....Scott Braddock, editor of Texas political newsletter Quorum Report, said of Trainor: "No one has fought against transparency in Texas elections with as much energy as President Trump's nominee for the Federal Election Commission. This is a great day for those who don't want you to know who is spending big bucks to influence your vote."
Source
Maybe Republican presidents would do better if they put up some decent nominees. There's a reason the Founding Fathers wrote the "advise" and consent principle into the Constitution-they wanted to keep power balanced so Presidents don't nominate meatballs. These checks and balances clearly have not worked with Trump.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2018 06:23 pm
@Blickers,
I don't think Trump is having a lot of trouble with his nominees. The Politico article that I quoted from is about the Democrats' unprecedented mass blocking of Bush's nominees.
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2018 09:49 pm
@oralloy,
A. Bush's nominees were not mass blocked, Clinton failed to get about the same percentage of nominees stopped.

B. All of Bush's nominees were at least considered in committee, satisfying the "advise" requirement for the Senate the Founders put into the Constitution. In contrast, McConnell made clear the 'advise" requirement for the Senate in the Constitution would be ignored for Merrick Garland, until the Republicans were sure that a Republican was't elected President.

C. Nobody said that Trump's nominees were getting blocked, what I said was that Trump's whole Administration is so addlepated that it can't even get around to submitting nominations for jobs that need to be filled, so the government is now understaffed in a whole bunch of areas.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2018 10:10 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Bush's nominees were not mass blocked,
The Democrats were blocking so many of Bush's nominees that parts of the federal government stopped functioning.

Blickers wrote:
Clinton failed to get about the same percentage of nominees stopped.
I don't recall so many of Clinton's nominees being blocked that parts of the federal government stopped functioning.

Blickers wrote:
All of Bush's nominees were at least considered in committee,
I'm not convinced that this is the case, but I don't think it really matters which method was used to block Bush's nominees. The Republicans were inspired to get revenge regardless of the method that the Democrats used.
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2018 12:48 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
The Democrats were blocking so many of Bush's nominees that parts of the federal government stopped functioning.
And yet a similar percentage of Clinton's nominees were blocked by Republicans, and the government was not shut down. If a president needs to get a nominee through a Senate of controlled by the rival party, there are ways to get it done.

Quote oralloy:
Quote:
I don't recall so many of Clinton's nominees being blocked that parts of the federal government stopped functioning.
A similar percentage of Clinton's nominees were blocked as Bush's. It might have helped if the only department that was rendered unable to act due to lack of nominees for the board, the Federal Election Commission, had a Bush nominee that was not a tireless foe of transparency, as Bush's nominee, Trey Trainor, was. Sometimes nominees are rejected because of ideology, but sometimes they are rejected because they are unqualified. Trainor was clearly one of the latter.

Quote oralloy:
Quote:
I don't think it really matters which method was used to block Bush's nominees. The Republicans were inspired to get revenge regardless of the method that the Democrats used.
I think it matter a great deal if the method used to block a nominee was Constitutional or not Constitutional. Rejection of Bush's nominees was carried on not only in the Constitutional way, but the traditional way that nominees have been rejected since the beginning of the Republic. The Republican Senate's rejection of Merrick Garland was both against the longstanding tradition of the Senate and unConstitutional at the same time. Which probably goes a long way towards explaining why the Senate never did before what the McConnell Senate did to Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2018 07:02 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
And yet a similar percentage of Clinton's nominees were blocked by Republicans, and the government was not shut down.
I am skeptical that whatever happened to Bill Clinton was anything like what the Democrats did to Bush in 2007-2008 -- especially since parts of the federal government did not shut down from lack of filled positions under Bill Clinton.
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2018 09:14 pm
@oralloy,
Yet the numbers add up-Bill Clinton's appointments were defeated by about the same percentage as Bush's appointments were defeated. Clinton avoided having the Federal Election Commission or other agencies of the government shut down by nominating decent, qualified people that the other party could sometimes support instead of ideological meatballs like Bush 43 often nominated.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2018 10:25 pm
@Blickers,
Whomever was responsible for Harriet Meyers not being a Supreme Court Justice deserves praise and accommodations.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Jul, 2018 11:27 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Yet the numbers add up-Bill Clinton's appointments were defeated by about the same percentage as Bush's appointments were defeated.
I'd like to see numbers comparing any point in the Clinton Administration to the period of the Bush Administration when Harry Reid was blocking most of their nominees.
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2018 10:52 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
I'd like to see numbers comparing any point in the Clinton Administration to the period of the Bush Administration when Harry Reid was blocking most of their nominees.
Already gave them to you. Senate did not pass 42 out of 45 Clinton nominees for judgeships. And that's just the lower court justices, there are more appointees the Republican Senate shot down.

Quote:
During his presidency, Clinton nominated 45 people for 42 different federal district judgeships to federal district courts who were never confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Like the appellate court nominations mentioned above, many of these nominees were blocked by Republicans either in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was controlled by Republicans for six of the eight years of Clinton’s presidency, or on the Senate floor, where one nominee, Ronnie L. White, was defeated by senators.

Of the 42 federal district judgeship vacancies in question, 17 eventually were filled with different Clinton nominees, 24 were filled by nominees of President George W. Bush and one never ended up becoming vacant because the district judge holding it never received confirmation to be elevated to an appellate court.
Source
At least then the Senate agreed to give advice and consent on the nominees, which the Constitution requires. When McConnell shot down Merrick Garland without at least discussing it in committee, the Republican Senate refused to give advice and consent as the Constitution requires. UnConstitutional on the Republicans' part..
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2018 03:42 am
@Blickers,
How is "Republicans blocking judicial nominees" comparable to "Democrats blocking nominees to nearly every position in the entire government"?
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2018 02:20 am
Rep. Maxine Waters: I Think President Donald Trump Is Vladimir Putin's Apprentice.

Did Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin discuss the lifting of U.S. sanctions against Russia, and the upcoming elections?
Rep. Maxine Waters joins Joy Reid on her predictions, and challenges Republicans to prevent Putin’s White House visit.

Published on Jul 23, 2018
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2018 02:36 am
@oralloy,
Do you think Putin is a friend of this country?
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2018 03:04 am
Congresswoman Maxine Waters Gets REAL.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters talks throwing "shade," watching "The Real" and appealing to millennials.

Published on Feb 22, 2017
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2018 03:23 am
Maxine Waters agrees with LeBron James:

Trump’s a ‘bum’


Published September 23, 2017
Quote:
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) called President Trump a "bum & a disgrace" in a tweet Saturday, agreeing with NBA star LeBron James's earlier comments bashing Trump.

"Thank you @jemelehill & @KingJames! Speak truth to power. Trump is a bum & a disgrace & it's never too early to get ready for impeachment," Waters tweeted.

Waters's tweet came after James called Trump a "bum" over the president's announcement that fellow NBA player Stephen Curry was no longer welcome at the White House.

Trump had tweeted that he was rescinding the White House invitation to Curry after the Golden State Warriors point guard said Friday he would not attend the White House to celebrate his team's championship victory over James's Cleveland Cavaliers.

Curry also said that the rest of the Warriors should not attend the traditional White House celebration, saying, “We basically don’t stand for what our president has said, and the things he hasn’t said at the right time."

Waters has repeatedly called for Trump's impeachment and resignation throughout his presidency. On Friday, Waters said that she could "guarantee" that Trump had colluded with Russians, and was actively obstructing justice and attempting to undermine American democracy.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/352056-maxine-waters-agrees-with-lebron-james-trumps-a-bum
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2018 03:51 am
Maxine Waters Checks GOP Congressman Who Told Her To Stop Talking About Discrimination

Published May 12, 2018
Quote:
When are these Republicans going to learn that Rep. Maxine Waters doesn’t put up with any disrespect?

This is a lesson that Congressman Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania had to learn when he kept interrupting the California congresswoman while she was on the floor in front of the House Financial Services committee. See, Waters was debating against the repeal of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection’s 2013 auto lending guidance., which was put in place by former President Obama to protect consumers from racial discrimination by car loan providers.

Kelly, a staunch Trump supporter, took it upon himself to speak over her and tell her to stop talking about discrimination.

“We’re trying to make America great every day and every way and the best way to do that is to stop talking about discrimination and start talking about the nation,” Kelly scolded Waters.

“We’re coming together as a people in spite of what you say.”

Auntie Maxine wasn’t having any of it and let Kelly know how offended she was by his statements.

“I want you to know that I am more offended as an African-American woman than you will ever be,” she said, speaking directly to Kelly.

“And this business about making America great again, it is your president that’s dividing this country and don’t talk to me about the fact that we don’t understand… No, I will not yield, no I will not yield. Don’t tell me we don’t understand, that’s the attitude given toward women time and

She also pointed out to Republican chair Tom McClintock that while he was reprimanding her for not following protocol and speaking directly to him, he never did the same for Kelly.

“You did not interrupt [Kelly] when he was making those outrageous remarks about him knowing more about discrimination than I know about discrimination. I resent that, and I resent the talk about making America great again.”

She continued: “He’s down here making a speech [about] this dishonorable president of the United States of America… and no I don’t yield (to Kelly), not one second to you. Not one second. Not one second to you.“

https://hellobeautiful.com/2999222/maxine-waters-checks-gop-congressman-discrimination/
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2018 11:18 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
How is "Republicans blocking judicial nominees" comparable to "Democrats blocking nominees to nearly every position in the entire government"?
Just because the Republicans blocked almost all of Clinton's judicial nominees doesn't mean they didn't block most of his other nominees as well. The only reason they okayed Steven Breyer for the Supreme Court was because Breyer was on the list of 20 finalists for Bush 41's Supreme Court appointments. Bush didn't appoint Breyer, but the fact that Breyer was on the final list of judges Bush 41 was considering meant that the Republicans back then knew that Breyer was the best they could hope to get out Clinton and the position had to be filled, so they confirmed Breyer.

After shooting down all of Clinton's appointees, the Republicans have the nerve to complain when the Democrats repaid the favor with Bush 43. What crybabies.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/19/2018 at 11:16:41