3507

Witnesses are an important part of the trial.

3507

American Vet wrote:

"Is it illegal? No

"Then both parties are simply following the political process that has been established/enacted."

The process was not designed for, and not intended for, blocking one party's nominee for almost a year and then rushing the other party's nominee in a much shorter time.

American Vet wrote:

"You say it is "unfair"; others say the Republicans are simply doing what they are elected to do.

"If, as you say, the majority of the American people favor democrats - how do Republicans manage to 'control' (have a majority) the Senate?"

I think you know, or could figure that out. It's because the Senate majority derives from numbers of states (unlike the House majority, which derives from the numbers of people).

American Vet wrote:

"It is a common tactic to something is "unfair" because one does not like the outcome."

Of course that happens, but it is also common to say something is "unfair" when it really is "unfair".

As an example:

The colonists in the 13 colonies before the U.S. was formed felt that King George III was treating them unfairly. Of course anyone could have claimed they were merely disgruntled and just _saying_ that some things were unfair. So what they did was to lay out their case to the world, in their Declaration of Independence, with, as they said, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind".

And even after that, anyone could have claimed they were merely disgruntled and just _saying_ that some things were unfair. But the people who paid attention and cared about fairness would probably agree with the Declaration of Independence, and acknowledge that what they said was unfair really was unfair.

3507

People, and the USA, are capable of better than that. Even the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are, at least in part, studies in fairness.

American Vet

And "fair" and "equal" often DO NOT coincide. And therein lies the problem: Someone gets to decide 'what is fair'.

Do you want to be treated equally? Or fairly (keeping in mind that someone else decides 'what is fair')?

American Vet

"The process was not designed for, and not intended for, blocking one party's nominee for almost a year and then rushing the other party's nominee in a much shorter time."

Then it is process problem that may need to be fixed - and there is a legislative process to do just that.


I think you know, or could figure that out. It's because the Senate majority derives from numbers of states (unlike the House majority, which derives from the numbers of people).

Of course I know: Bit it seemed you did not. And there is a reason for it - and I think you know that as well. But if not:

"When the United States was founded, many worried about the populous states having an undue influence on legislation that might be passed by the new Congress. So, a bicameral legislature was created. One part, the House of Representatives was based on the concept of "one person, one v**e." The number of House members each state got was based on that state's population.

That was just what the founders were afraid of, so they set up a second body in Congress - the Senate. Its membership was based on the idea that each state in this new United States would have equal representation, with two Senators from each state having seats in the Senate. The idea was balancing the power of the citizen against the power of the separate states. Both bodies were required to pass all new legislation. That was designed to prevent either body from misusing its power to control things.

And that was the idea. The United States of America is not a democracy. It is a Representative Republic. Both the people and the states are represented in its Congress to form a legislative body that supposedly would create balanced legislation."
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212004820


"Of course that happens, but it is also common to say something is "unfair" when it really is "unfair".

And the British monarchy felt it was quite fair since they were the monarchy and the colonists were mere subjects.
And this is precisely what I stated - "fair" decided by someone else.

As you said, the colonist presented their complaint and "the people who paid attention and cared about fairness would probably agree with the Declaration of Independence, and acknowledge that what they said was unfair really was unfair". Not quite an accurate statement: there were quite a few "loyalists" who wanted to stay aligned with the British monarchy.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Well now Emily I don’t believe you have a point here and a very good point at that.👏🏻👏🏻

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Thank you Americans Vet I was going to post something similar but no need you’ve done it rather sufficiently in “clarifying packing a court.”

While seats have caried over the years
the last time Congress changed the number of Supreme Court justices was in 1869, again to “meet a political end”. Ulysses S. Grant was elected president in 1868 with the backing of the congress, the only ones who can change the seat numbers, Who increased the number of justices from seven back to nine..

The history of increasing and decreasing the seats is Interesting part of history mini don’t even understand that has always been based on political motivation by the controlling party and what they needed to have achieved..

The left is making an concerted effort to stack the court, no doubt again trying to change the number of supreme court justices and yes it is Congress who puts forth bill but it’s still got to be v**ed on between Congress and Senate, not likely to happen just like it didn’t with FDR…. The liars and c***ters once again at work.

American Vet

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Interesting allegations, thank you for posting it feeding off of another post

So then what was so unfair when bo appointed his two SC justices to the SCOTUS itself??
Point out please “specifically what was unfair in the vetting proceeds or rules of procedure..” I’m curious of your position snd what brings you to your conclusions…

He did made two successful appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States, right?? Sure he did.~~The first was Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice David H. Souter. Sotomayor was confirmed by the United States Senate on August 6, 2009, by a v**e of 68–31. The second appointment was that of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace the retired John Paul Stevens. Kagan was confirmed by the Senate on August 5, 2010, by a v**e of 63–37…

The Ms.

“ unfair “ is the battle cry when someone doesn’t get the outcomes they want. Coined by whinny kids 😝😝😝

The Ms.

And the Constitution is all about the “Process”!

American Vet

3507

To answer your question directly, I'd rather be treated fairly, even if other people decide what's fair, but not if only one or a few people decide what's fair for all. In an active democracy, a common idea of fairness emerges, and that's a good thing, even though it's likely to be fuzzy around the edges. In an active democracy, I can contribute to the general formulation of fairness. I am doing so, for example by occasionally writing to my congressional representative, and by v****g; almost everything has some element of fairness or unfairness in it.

A draft definition of fairness appears below, within this post. "Equal" is also treated below, in a parenthetical comment.

Whether "fairly" coincides with "equally" depends on the situation.

An example where fair and equal do NOT coincide is when, through some decision or overly risky behavior, one individual or a small group causes a big disaster which affects a very large group of people. A lot about that is equal because (a) any of us could, if determined, cause a big disaster for a large group (roughly equal opportunity); and (b) many big disasters affect, roughly, _all_ of us (e.g., a bad economy, a p******c, or pollution). But it is unfair to all except the one or few who caused it and may deserve the consequences of their own action.

Equal opportunity also exists between the two Parties in Congress. Either Party could do some dastardly deed that would disgust the Founders. There's no way the Founders could have prevented all such wrongs by writing laws about them all. Without a concept of fairness, and an attempt at fair behavior, and holding people accountable for being reasonably fair, Congress would be just a race to the bottom. So would the presidency, the rest of government, and the rest of society and humanity. Yeah there's some subjectivity involved, but that's generally true of human existence, since we're not just robots.

Neither "fair" nor "equal" will be perfect! (People will never be exactly equal to each other, each person has a different collection of aspects, so they will not all be affected exactly equally by a thing.) I think this is the foundation where you and I diverge: you discard the attempt to be fair, because it's partly subjective (or, imperfect), while I say be as fair as we can and keep improving that if we can.

Do you need an explanation of fairness -- is it just undefined for you? If necessary, I would make a first draft definition of fairness as follows: To be fair is to be consistent with rules, logic, AND ethics. To be ethical is to sincerely try to avoid unnecessary harm to others, and to behave in a way that one could accept as reasonable if in the other person's position.

Like most things, my definition's almost surely _imperfect_, but it's a lot better than giving up on fairness altogether. Such concepts can be refined as needed, with experience, but only if you start trying or allow others to start the trying.

3507

"feeding off another post"?

"bo"?

Mitch McConnell deliberately prevented Obama from getting a nominee onto the Supreme Court in the last year of Obama's tenure as President. McConnell claimed it was according to principle (having to do with the last year of a p**********l term), and then violated his own principle in the last couple of months of Trump's term. And then when confronted about it he said "You would do it too." Lindsay Graham did similarly (he said "use my words against me" and then violated the same declared principle regarding "last year of term" of a president), but I think McConnell deserves by far the most blame. So far as I know, nobody but Republicans have ever done that, but now of course to obtain e******y the Democrats will have to do something equally underhanded, or else somehow make it impossible for Republicans to keep doing odd unfair stuff like that, or, as a third alternative, find some other adjustment such as expanding the size of the court. Expanding the size of the court _is_ a legal option -- there's nothing in the Law which says what the size of the court has to be: Congress can change it.

What McConnell did had consequences for all of us. It resulted in one fewer appointments to the Supreme Court from Obama and one more appointments to the Supreme Court from Trump. McConnell did it by declaring one principle during Obama's term and then doing the exact opposite during Trump's term. Delaying the confirmation hearing of Merrick Garland for many months until the nomination expired was a deliberate and dastardly thing to do. That nomination deserved a hearing; McConnell denied it a hearing.

3507

The reason you write for the Senate doesn't look to me like a very good reason. But anyway, we do have the Senate which is not based on the numbers of people, but instead has 2 senators from each "state".

And, as we like stability (even to the extent that "mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed" (as said in the Decl. of Indep.)), we still have the Senate composed that way, whether it's a good idea or not.

But, as I said earlier, there was an unfairness done, to the majority of the _people_, which generally prefers the Democratic presidents and their nominees. I didn't say something else like "to the majority of the states" or wh**ever. Now, as to whether it was an "unfairness", as I say it is, I am referring to Mitch McConnell deliberately denying the Merrick Garland nomination to the Supreme Court a hearing, for many months, for McConnell's declared principle (regarding last year of a p**********l term) which he extremely violated in the last couple of months of the Trump administration. The Merrick Garland nomination deserved a hearing; McConnell denied it a hearing, and _I_ say that was "unfair". If there _had_ been a hearing for it, I would call that much more "fair". My concept of fairness generally holds that things which are supposed to get hearings really should get hearings.

If you have some other concept about fairness, or maybe don't care in the same way about fairness, so be it, but I'm saying _my_ piece about it, and maybe some people feel likewise, and maybe some other people feel otherwise.

And I'll probably say essentially the same thing again and again, such as in some letter to a congressperson or in wh**ever handy venue presents itself. That's part of my little contribution to the democratic process, being one person in it. Meanwhile you _could_ say McConnell was _fair_ about _that_; I wonder whether people will agree with you on that point, or will instead just fail to respond meaningfully at all. Maybe a lot of people will just say that fairness is irrelevant; if so, then they shouldn't complain that anything somebody _else_ does is unfair, either.