8 ms·

> The Constitution splits the nomination/confirmation process between two political branches. The process is supposed to be political! The founders explicitly

• Izkata 6y ago
  Branch, not party. Executive and Legislative.
  • _qulr 6y ago
    > Branch, not party. I can read. I was referring to "The process is supposed to be political!" And by political, the implication is partisan, because otherwise it would be true by definition, and thus an uninteresting claim not worthy of ending in an exclamation point.
    • rayiner 6y ago
      Political doesn’t mean partisan. It means characterized by political considerations, rather than rules. Partisanship is one aspect of politics which the founders wanted to avoid. But they always contemplated that the Senate majority and Presidency might disagree for political reasons.
      • jakelazaroff 6y ago
        Sure — and if the Mitch McConnell's objection to Merrick Garland's nomination had been political, it would have been one thing. But it was nakedly partisan: he refused to consider any justice that Obama would nominate, with no real reasoning beyond "we want a Republican to have a chance to fill this vacancy".
      • _qulr 6y ago
        > they always contemplated that the Senate majority and Presidency might disagree for political reasons. They did. The danger to the country is actually when they agree. What happened here is that the Senate refused to compromise, and simply put the government in a holding pattern until they could get a more "agreeable" executive in office. Is that the way separation of powers was intended to work? I think not.
• jb775 6y ago
  The power is split across branches, not political parties. And I think you're forgetting that Senators are elected in by the people. I see a common irrational theme of "let's change the rules because they didn't work out in my favor this time". I don't understand the logic behind this.
  • trsohmers 6y ago
    Senators originally (prior to 1914) were not directly elected by their constituents... the founders set up the Senate to be the more "responsible" "Upper House"and were set to represent the interests of each state and appointed by each state's democratically elected Governor. The intention of senators having longer terms (6 years vs 2 years for House members) in addition to being appointed by each state's Governor and state legislature was so Senators would not be as directly affected by electoral politics and would be forced to actually work together. I think the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was in retrospect a pretty horrible decision that has not added much democratic value to our system.
    • jb775 6y ago
      Well look at how governors have been handling the pandemic. Most of them seem completely one sided in terms of their response, unwilling to compromise and stretching the limits of their power. There isn't a "let's see how it's working and adapt based on new information" mindset, it's a "my way or the highway" mindset. For example, I live in PA and our governor's orders were recently found to be unconstitutional[1]. If anything, governors should have less power, not more. Decisions should be made on a smaller scale, states are too big for a one-size-fits-all model. And I certainly wouldn't want governors hand picking our senators. [1] - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/14/pennsylvania-judge-rules-wolf-levines-shutdown-orders-unconstitutional/ https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/14/pennsylvania-j...
      • jakelazaroff 6y ago
        Unsurprising, given the judge who found the orders unconstitutional was a Trump appointee. The past three and a half years Republicans have spent packing the courts seriously hurts the credibility of the legislative branch. As an aside, Breitbart is one of the least trustworthy sources, and citing it does not help your argument.