Redefining "Lameduck"
Posted by Ben Dover (+104) 5 years ago
Words and concepts matter, or so we are told. I am flummoxed and angered by the lack of concern or outrage that our Congress is being allowed to redefine the concept of what it means to be a "lameduck" President. A lameduck is defined as a duly elected official whose successor has already been selected.

By the traditional definition, President Obama is NOT yet a lameduck President. The party nominees are still yet to be decided. He is still bound by the constitution to carry out all of his duties. The Senate is bound by the constitution to carry out their duties.

Allowing the current republican lead senate to redefine what it means to be a lameduck is outrageous and an egregious abuse of their power. It establishes a terrible precedent. If the current President is a "lameduck" ten months before the general election where will the next line in the sand occur?

Will the next President of the United States, even be allowed to run the country at all? After all they would only be in power for approximately 1400 days. Why allow that individual to appoint anyone or make any long-term decisions? Is there a substantive difference between being in power for 300 days versus 1400 days? If so, what would that difference be?

Republicans like to remind us about the importance of the rule of law and a strict constructionists view of our founding documents. Yet, they are now defecating on the Constitution and throwing a temper-tantrum that would send any two-year old into a timeout.

We cannot allow them to get away with this change in definition. They must be held accountable. In my opinion, the party in charge of the House and Senate matters more than who will be President. With all the noise about who will be next in the Whitehouse, it's easy to overlook the actions, or lack thereof, of a do-nothing congress.

We can't make that mistake. If we don't force Congress to do their job, we will continue to have an ineffective, non-functional, and obstructionist government. Disrespecting the President and the presidency by the lameduck treatment is unprofessional. This behavior needs to STOP NOW.
Top
+13
-4
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+16318) 5 years ago
Preaching to the choir here, Ben. Only total Republican partisans like Oddjob and Tommy would vote down your post.

But, they hate America, anyway.
Top
+7
-5
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1908) 5 years ago
If the POTUS is from the OTHER party (and especially if he has the OTHER skin tone) then he becomes a lamb duck the instant he is re-elected and shouldn't be allowed to do anything. In other words, the other party can only have one term presidents. OUR party, on the other hand. . .

So speaketh the Repugnicans.

The Constitution applies only when they want it to.
Top
+1
-3
Posted by Oddjob (+185) 5 years ago
Ah, Gunnar...

There you go again, rolling up the big green "props" with insults and unwarranted assumptions! Works pretty well, doesn't it? And as an added bonus, you never have to post anything that shows a modicum of intelligence to get a bunch of fools to vote "likes" for you!

Don't let it go to your head though, because like I told Amorette.. I don't use the buttons. If I think it's worth the time and effort, I'll deliver a comment.

Have a nice day!
Top
+4
-3
Posted by Brandy Allen (-2407) 5 years ago
Gunner should be the one voting this down, most conservatives think the government has too much power as is. Now egalitarians want to redefine terminology to aid their progressive agenda. They attempted to do this with the libor exchange rate debacle "theft" by redefine what stealing is, now its all legal. The manipulation of London inter banking operating rates was a Hugh shift in what stealing really is, and a lesson in how easy it is to manipulate terminology.
Top
+3
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8918) 5 years ago
most conservatives think the government has too much power as is


It's interesting though - how BIG do you think the government is going to get in order to find and deport all these illegal aliens that the Trumpster is going on about?

It MAY be as large as the last big government expansion - the creation of the Dept. of homeland security, under conservative president bush...
Top
+3
-3
Posted by Dark Beer (+256) 5 years ago
Reply to Brandy Allen (#365275)
Brandy Allen wrote:
Gunner should be the one voting this down, most conservatives think the government has too much power as is. Now egalitarians want to redefine terminology to aid their progressive agenda. They attempted to do this with the libor exchange rate debacle "theft" by redefine what stealing is, now its all legal. The manipulation of London inter banking operating rates was a Hugh shift in what stealing really is, and a lesson in how easy it is to manipulate terminology.


There is NOTHING "egalitarian" about republicans attempting to redefine what it means to be a lameduck President. You're trying to spin straw into gold there Brandystiltskins. The Republicans have the duty to use the power granted by the Constitution to hold hearings and approve a new Supreme Court Justice. They are refusing to use the power they have been granted and are derelict in their appointed duties.
Top
+1
-2
banned
Posted by ZZZzz (-551) 5 years ago
Didn`t this happen when GWB was in office,and obama actually showed up and voted to block any nomination that GWB was to put forth?Same attitude from Biden. The only differences seem to be that GWB was not as far in to his second term and the Republicans are following a precedent set by the Democrats.I might not have all of this perfectly right but I remember it and I see smatterings of this in the news.I do not think most news organizations are willing to push this story.
Top
+3
-2
Posted by Dark Beer (+256) 5 years ago
Reply to ZZZzz (#365281)
ZZZzz wrote:
Didn`t this happen when GWB was in office,and obama actually showed up and voted to block any nomination that GWB was to put forth?Same attitude from Biden. The only differences seem to be that GWB was not as far in to his second term and the Republicans are following a precedent set by the Democrats.I might not have all of this perfectly right but I remember it and I see smatterings of this in the news.I do not think most news organizations are willing to push this story.



Yes. It wasn't right then and it isn't right now. Senators, regardless of party, need to do the job they were elected to do. You can read about it here:
http://thefederalist.com/...-nominees/
Top
+3
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8918) 5 years ago
Dearest ZZZzzz -

I would not wish to cause anyone the least amount of bother, but I feel that I must raise the gentlest of disagreements, no, a merest of quibbles, with the statements that you have brought forth for the public's consideration.

In the first case, and I hesitate to even remark upon this, but I believe that Mr. Biden was answering a hypothetical that had been asked of him - that, if, heaven forfend, a Supreme Court Justice should pass from this vale of tears during a presidential campaign, should the question of his replacement be taken up by that most august of bodies, the Senate of the United States. At the time the question was posed, the year had turned from winter to spring, and was, in fact, now deep into the summer. It was Mr. Biden's feeling that, in all honesty, the nomination should NOT be taken up.

It causes me no small amount of pain to declare that, had I, at the time the callowest of youths and a regular listener of noted American entertainer Rush Limbaugh, would have protested Mr. Biden's theoretical answer to the posed hypothetical in the most vociferous and partisan of terms.

My only defense, at this great remove, is to comment that Mr. Biden was merely wrong, and that the President is, until his or her successor takes the oath of office, the singular executor of the people's political will, and as such, has the constitutional duty to maintain the forms and mechanisms of our peerless democracy.

In regards to any deleterious impact that the rhetoric of Mr. Limbaugh may have had upon my development in the waning years of my adolescence, all I can say is that I was also an enthusiastic masturbator, and everything, in the end, seems to have worked out for the best.

Now, as for the second point, which you most rightly raise, I would not disagree with you in the slightest, save for the smallest, most niggling of details. As I recall, the Honorable George W. Bush put forth the name of one Samuel Alito as a nomination to the Supreme Court of this land, and that the Senate Majority Leader, the Democrat Harry Reid, took that nomination and presented it first to the Judiciary Committee, who, while wondering if perhaps Mr. Alito was somewhat outside the mainstream of judicial thinking, deferred to Mr. Bush's right as Chief Executive, and sent the nomination forward to the entire body.

It was at this juncture, that the Junior Senator for Illinois did stand in the well of the Senate, and, calling forth that rhetorical skill for which he was known, contended that Mr. Alito was, in fact, far enough beyond the pale of modern jurisprudence that 40 of his fellow senators should join him in blocking cloture. This minimal bar was not reached, and the Senate moved to a floor vote on Mr. Alito's nomination, a vote which confirmed Mr. Bush's choice to the Supreme Court.

I would not have you think for the merest of moments, ZZZzzz, that I take any sort of pleasure in this momentary breach of comity between us, and I trust you will understand that I do not make these statements in a hectoring or even refractory spirit, as I merely seek to bring to light several aspects of these incidents that I feel may be beneficial for your consideration, though their worth is, as always, yours to decide.
Top
+4
-3
banned
Posted by ZZZzz (-551) 5 years ago
My thoughts are that the initial time frame and that you are probably still an enthusiastic masturbator should be taken in to consideration.
Top
+2
-5
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8918) 5 years ago
Dearest ZZZzzz -

I have however, given up on listening to Rush Limbaugh, so a felicitous ending for all involved.

I appreciate your engagement with my mere scribbles, and hope that our further intercourse can be as fulfilling.
Top
+3
-2
banned
Posted by ZZZzz (-551) 5 years ago
Just continue the ongoing intercourse with yourself.Talking to oneself I am referring to of course.Without enthusiasm this self intercourse you seem to enjoy and engage in is most likely to be less fruitful.Find a corner or a mirror somewhere or someplace maybe.
Top
+1
-4
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8918) 5 years ago
My good friend ZZZzzz -

I fear that you have taken my words and the intent behind them amiss, and this fills me with a deep sadness, for I want nothing more nor anything less than to arise the least discernible amount of passions within you, my interlocutor, as such heat tend to cloud the thinking and reason of even the most rational of beings, which I deeply and firmly believe that you are.
Top
+3
-1