2nd April 2017, 8:56 AM
I remember the Jill Stein stuff, and I remember very quickly finding out she had some pretty wacky ideas about science thus ruling her out. I also recall being just a tad embarrassed by the crowds of Bernie supporters who basically said "Bernie, you're gonna be president whether you like it or not!" after he started promoting Hillary when it was clear he had lost.
So, supreme court nominations!
This most recent debacle has shown a critical weakness in the system of how they get nominated. The republicans did something absolutely ridiculous in refusing to even officially consider Obama's nominee. They didn't even bother trying to vote against him, they just refused to actually vote. Something about ducks, I dunno... Now they've got their own nominee, and whatever happens with this one, there's still the previous nominee sitting around completely unconsidered, for eternity. They just, skipped over him.
I wouldn't be so infuriated if they had actually put it to a vote and denied him, but that didn't even happen!
I submit a change to the rules. ANY supreme court candidate nominated for consideration MUST be voted on before any new candidates can be presented, regardless of whether the president who nominated them has left office. This would negate this tactic of leaving the supreme court in tatters for a year just to get "your" candidate up for consideration. They would not be able to avoid it. Now, if that candidate has some scandelous information, that's fine, because they can still just all vote "no" and clear the nominee out of the way, but they can't just leave the candidate unconsidered.
So, supreme court nominations!
This most recent debacle has shown a critical weakness in the system of how they get nominated. The republicans did something absolutely ridiculous in refusing to even officially consider Obama's nominee. They didn't even bother trying to vote against him, they just refused to actually vote. Something about ducks, I dunno... Now they've got their own nominee, and whatever happens with this one, there's still the previous nominee sitting around completely unconsidered, for eternity. They just, skipped over him.
I wouldn't be so infuriated if they had actually put it to a vote and denied him, but that didn't even happen!
I submit a change to the rules. ANY supreme court candidate nominated for consideration MUST be voted on before any new candidates can be presented, regardless of whether the president who nominated them has left office. This would negate this tactic of leaving the supreme court in tatters for a year just to get "your" candidate up for consideration. They would not be able to avoid it. Now, if that candidate has some scandelous information, that's fine, because they can still just all vote "no" and clear the nominee out of the way, but they can't just leave the candidate unconsidered.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)