thephan wrote:Somewhere between School House Rock's "I'm Just a Bill" and "Three Branches of Government" is where you answer is. We are spinning a pretty basic argument about how the country is set up, and the checks and balances to assure that big population centers are not just completely in charge. Imagine the world where your government was managed completely by California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois. Those states account for about 1/3 the population, leaving the other 2/3 for the remaining 45 states. PA is in @ #6 on the list. Would representation by population represent the interests of the nation, or just the interests of the cities (and retirees apparently)? If you stretch to top ten you are at about 167M of roughly 300M.

My only complaint about the way the bi-camber system is installed is that the founding fathers could not have imagined the type of hell that a large country would endure when you have the whole of the house in a state of constant re-election campaigning with the 2 year term. At any given time at least 1/3 of the house is actively engaged in a reelection campaign, but the truth is that with such a short term they are continuously engaged in their reelection effort.

I studied poli sci in college and am a lawyer, I get the thought process behind setting up the system the way they did, the Connecticut Compromise and all of that. Just pointing out one result of that system; limiting the power of big urban areas is a disadvantage for Democrats. (Not saying that means the system should change)

MoBettle wrote:

thephan wrote:Somewhere between School House Rock's "I'm Just a Bill" and "Three Branches of Government" is where you answer is. We are spinning a pretty basic argument about how the country is set up, and the checks and balances to assure that big population centers are not just completely in charge. Imagine the world where your government was managed completely by California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois. Those states account for about 1/3 the population, leaving the other 2/3 for the remaining 45 states. PA is in @ #6 on the list. Would representation by population represent the interests of the nation, or just the interests of the cities (and retirees apparently)? If you stretch to top ten you are at about 167M of roughly 300M.

My only complaint about the way the bi-camber system is installed is that the founding fathers could not have imagined the type of hell that a large country would endure when you have the whole of the house in a state of constant re-election campaigning with the 2 year term. At any given time at least 1/3 of the house is actively engaged in a reelection campaign, but the truth is that with such a short term they are continuously engaged in their reelection effort.

I studied poli sci in college and am a lawyer, I get the thought process behind setting up the system the way they did, the Connecticut Compromise and all of that. Just pointing out one result of that system; limiting the power of big urban areas is a disadvantage for Democrats. (Not saying that means the system should change)

Lots of Poli sci people today believe the system is too unwieldy. In fact, some historians say it was too unwieldy from the get go, and it would have collapsed without the almost immediate emergence of the party system. There are simply too many checks in the legislative process, making it impossible to anticipate changes. Successive crises--civil war and the great depression are the obvious examples, but civil rights is another--have to take the country to the brink before anything can be done to address the problem. Big problems with fairly obvious solutions such as our current tax code, infrastructure, entitlements and immigration problems not to mention global warming fester forever and all the government can do is kick the can down the road.

To be sure, years ago, political scientists believe that we needed what they then called the "responsible party model" and now that's pretty much what we have and well it seems political scientists were wrong about that one.

TenuredVulture wrote:Successive crises--civil war and the great depression are the obvious examples, but civil rights is another--have to take the country to the brink before anything can be done to address the problem.

Man, 5 years ago, I would have jumped all over this post. Spending 600k lives to keep together a collection of states, poor actions of multiple branches and pseudo-branches of government in response to a financial crisis... all in one sentence!

Any chance that Obama find the best-qualified lefty, or is this certain to be a diversity choice?

Can't wait to whip out my caucus Saturday

702 wrote:Can't wait to whip out my caucus Saturday

where ya gonna stick it?

TomatoPie wrote:Any chance that Obama find the best-qualified lefty, or is this certain to be a diversity choice?

Not mutually exclusive.

Obama press conference at 430, I'll be on an airplane so I'll miss it

slugsrbad wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Any chance that Obama find the best-qualified lefty, or is this certain to be a diversity choice?

Not mutually exclusive.

For sure. But I'm expecting a Wise Transgenda kinda pick here. Win diversity points and get opportunity to smear any GOP senators who resist this person of color without a penis.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:Obama press conference at 430, I'll be on an airplane so I'll miss it

whats the word? he pick someone?

Obama's Next Supreme Court Nominee
Applies to Barack Obama's next formal Supreme Court nominee, whether or not the nomination is successful.
Sri Srinivasan 5/2
Paul Watford 11/4
Merrick Garland 10/3
Patricia Ann Millett 5/1
Adalberto J Jordan 5/1
Jane Kelly 8/1
Kamala D Harris 12/1

http://www.jebbush.com

oops. (just click it. sfw)

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Successive crises--civil war and the great depression are the obvious examples, but civil rights is another--have to take the country to the brink before anything can be done to address the problem.

Man, 5 years ago, I would have jumped all over this post. Spending 600k lives to keep together a collection of states, poor actions of multiple branches and pseudo-branches of government in response to a financial crisis... all in one sentence!

It's not a partisan argument. (That is I'm not blaming intransigent members of one party or another) It's just that all of these problems are fixable, and there are even obvious compromises available that would win the support of healthy majorities of voters. Take corporate taxes--lower rates, eliminate a bunch of loopholes, everyone wins. (I would go so far as to almost eliminate corporate taxes, but increase capital gains and dividend taxes, but that's not an obviously palatable compromises) Now, it may be the case that a dysfunctional corporate tax system is not a crisis, but the overall point is that often, our government can't do simple, obvious things that avert a crisis and instead can only react once a crisis is well underway and obvious. And, I think we're getting pretty close to an infrastructure crisis, unless things have gotten a lot better on our nations highways than they were last summer. Obama's $10 a barrel tax is a pretty painless solution to that problem (especially if you believe oil prices are likely to stay low for the next 2-3 years) but as we all know has no chance of going through.

Actually, think about 2008--the bailout and such were less than ideal responses to the crisis, but given our political system, they were pretty much the only way out. Now, I don't know if that crisis could have been avoided with better regulation, but that really doesn't matter because there was no way to implement those better regulations given how our government is set up.

CalvinBall wrote:

702 wrote:Can't wait to whip out my caucus Saturday

where ya gonna stick it?

Right where it Berns.

TomatoPie wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Any chance that Obama find the best-qualified lefty, or is this certain to be a diversity choice?

Not mutually exclusive.

For sure. But I'm expecting a Wise Transgenda kinda pick here. Win diversity points and get opportunity to smear any GOP senators who resist this person of color without a penis.

That's off-base in a lot of ways, but I'll stick the one where Obama is most likely to select a nominee who has actual appeal across party lines. If you want to ascribe "winning points" as the main thing behind the nomination, that still makes the most sense as Republicans will fare worst in public perception if they are seen opposing a candidate who is inarguably mainstream and wholly qualified.

Although I'm not sure how Obama will negotiate the delicate matter of choosing someone to nominate in a situation where the deck is clearly stacked against their confirmation. Do you select the person you really want with the knowledge that they might very well get shot down, and almost certainly eliminate themselves from future consideration, or go with your B candidate, in the hopes that the your first choice will get a shot further down the road?

swishnicholson wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Any chance that Obama find the best-qualified lefty, or is this certain to be a diversity choice?

Not mutually exclusive.

For sure. But I'm expecting a Wise Transgenda kinda pick here. Win diversity points and get opportunity to smear any GOP senators who resist this person of color without a penis.

Obama is most likely to select a nominee who has actual appeal across party lines.?

Even as I hate to see the court balance turned the wrong way, it would be hard to argue against Sri Srivdonaldcantpronounceit. He's the next Kennedy.

Obama may want to keep his powder dry until summer, when it begins to become apparent if Hillary or Rubio is gonna succeed him. He can push pretty far left if Hillary is in the catbird seat.

TomatoPie wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Any chance that Obama find the best-qualified lefty, or is this certain to be a diversity choice?

Not mutually exclusive.

For sure. But I'm expecting a Wise Transgenda kinda pick here. Win diversity points and get opportunity to smear any GOP senators who resist this person of color without a penis.

Obama is most likely to select a nominee who has actual appeal across party lines.?

Even as I hate to see the court balance turned the wrong way, it would be hard to argue against Sri Srivdonaldcantpronounceit. He's the next Kennedy.

Obama may want to keep his powder dry until summer, when it begins to become apparent if Hillary or Rubio is gonna succeed him. He can push pretty far left if Hillary is in the catbird seat.

it's funny how foreigners have weird names right

TomatoPie wrote:For sure. But I'm expecting a Wise Transgenda kinda pick here. Win diversity points and get opportunity to smear any GOP senators who resist this person of color without a penis.

For those of you who {ahem} have clearly not been paying any attention, there are a handful of well-qualified and already thoroughly vetted candidates whose rejection by turtleface McConnell and his band of acephalic Senate noodniks will entail Ringling Brothers-level hoop-engirdled prevarication gymnastics; appalling lies that will be on full and party-dissolvingly embarrassing display from here to the November elections.

Christie is presenting his 2017 budget for anyone interested.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/20 ... incart_std

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:For sure. But I'm expecting a Wise Transgenda kinda pick here. Win diversity points and get opportunity to smear any GOP senators who resist this person of color without a penis.

For those of you who {ahem} have clearly not been paying any attention, there are a handful of well-qualified and already thoroughly vetted candidates whose rejection by turtleface McConnell and his band of acephalic Senate noodniks will entail Ringling Brothers-level hoop-engirdled prevarication gymnastics; appalling lies that will be on full and party-dissolvingly embarrassing display from here to the November elections.

Well, the current batch of Rs has shown capacity to fu#@&%$# up at every turn. They really could just stonewall; there is no obligation to consider any Obama appointee. But they will yap enough to bring on yet more backlash. It may be time to bottom out and get rid of this flavor of R and bring in some libber terriers.