tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post7847583602894439544..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Nominations UpdateJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-4954986815479250702013-08-02T22:58:34.014-05:002013-08-02T22:58:34.014-05:00Just for myself, I think it's kinda dumb.* No...Just for myself, I think it's kinda dumb.* Not as dumb as elected judges, but pretty dumb. The principle--that removing a judge from normal election or reappointment cycles allows them the freedom to work--isn't a foolish one, I don't think. But that could be accomplished with a non-lifetime long term.<br /><br />What I'd like to see, on SCOTUS at least, would be basically 18 year terms. Just to be "cute," I'd say that the longest tenured Justice would step down two years after the last vacancy (so it would be a little clearer if folks retire, get sick, etc). Re-nominations would be at the discretion of the President and Senate. Under normal conditions, each seating of the Senate will vote on one SCOTUS judge, and given the 22nd, no President would directly select an entire majority.<br /><br />*Or at least, it has become dumb. I'd need to know a lot more history to figure out if I think it's an inherent problem, or one which has been exacerbated by contemporary politics.The Bitter Fignoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-25452735957753504832013-08-02T16:41:24.799-05:002013-08-02T16:41:24.799-05:00I read your article on the Senate horse race updat...I read your article on the Senate horse race update, and I think that you forgot a major elephant in the room. One of the biggest factors for the 2014 races will be the Obamacare roll-out. <br /><br />If the roll-out is competent, then there will be a lot of unhappy poor people in Southern states who will discover that their Republican legislatures are denying them Medicaid. Like raising the minimum wage, this single issue has the potential to bring a lot of people to the polls. They will see a concrete benefit to voting for Democrats like they have never seen before.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-27924005982845122122013-08-02T14:40:29.685-05:002013-08-02T14:40:29.685-05:00Jonathan,
Could you give me your opinion on lifet...Jonathan,<br /><br />Could you give me your opinion on lifetime appointments for federal judges? I think it is maybe the dumbest and most harmful part of our system of government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-73335931735901914412013-08-02T13:11:33.381-05:002013-08-02T13:11:33.381-05:00I wonder: couldn't we agree that for any appoi...I wonder: couldn't we agree that for any appointee under 40 to an executive branch posting, we'll just do a thorough Google search and let it go at that. After all, the intent of the vetting is not to learn more about the nominee, it's to identify PR issues before they get into the media. And these days the media don't do shoe-leather reporting, they just Google. {/cynicism off]Bill Harshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02094598931693185805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-91016474582308580532013-08-02T12:54:22.999-05:002013-08-02T12:54:22.999-05:00Republicans have "filibustered" their ow...Republicans have "filibustered" their own stuff in the recent past (I want to say 2006?) Brought in cots, the whole nine yards.<br /><br />It got media coverage. But, that coverage also pointed out that it was a stunt. It didn't end up moving the ball. I'm tempted to point to JBs recent column on going public: if PRESIDENTS can't get policy done by the bully pulpit, CONGRESS certainly can't.<br />Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-24801014464820680022013-08-02T12:10:58.487-05:002013-08-02T12:10:58.487-05:00I know you think the "talking filibuster"...I know you think the "talking filibuster" version of filibuster reform won't really help. Could it help in reverse (either for judicial nominations or legislation)? For example, let's say we're a couple days from a government shutdown this fall, and the GOP won't let the Dem bill come up for a vote. Do you think it would help for Dem's to speak in favor of it 24-7 for a few days on the Senate floor, to draw attention to the fact that they can't get a vote? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com