[stupac2]

What makes you think that? It's been done before (for instance, Earl Warren was a recess appointee before being confirmed)

These cases aren't similar at all. Warren was appointed when Eisenhower had three years left in his presidential term and the possibility of another term after that, so his appointment didn't face the prospect of being instantly overturned. And he didn't tip a 5-4 court in the opposite direction.

Sure, but there's nothing stopping it (well, besides the senate refusing to go into recess, which they will probably do). You made it sound like it's illegal or the rest of the court would refuse to seat the member, which is clearly not the case.

I don't think you understand, Ferrari.  What stupac2 is talking about is essentially a parliamentary system in which you vote for an entire government, with both executive and legislative power.  Then, when that government becomes unpopular, it gets voted out and replaced with a new one.

I'm all for this.  If you like democracy, you should be in favor of this, too, because these types of governments are much more responsive to the current mood of the people (for better or worse).

Also, can we please do away with the death and 2nd amendment talk?  Killing people ("willing to die" = "willing to kill people" in my book, like that guy in Oregon who pulled a gun on the feds) has no place in this sort of discussion.

At this point I think it's best to just completely ignore ferrari on these politics posts. It's clear that his particular combination of ignorance and vehemence is wildly out of place on this board.

Anyway, that's what I want, since the record of presidential systems like ours is abysmal and it was clearly not designed to function with parties, especially parties that are as partisan as ours currently are. Some sort of parliamentary system works better. But I'm not sure that's what we'd get. There are a lot of different paths our government could take from here, all that's clear is that, assuming current trends hold (which isn't a great assumption but it's what we've got) the President will continue to get stronger and the legislature will continue to get weaker. What's uncertain is whether those two trends tip us into an actual "imperial presidency", where the president is essentially a term-limited dictator, but still checked by our current institutions like the courts and federal bureaucracy. (I am ignoring the inane conservative chatter that Obama has already done this. He can't even appoint his own judges ffs.)

It's hard for me to imagine congress ever abdicating power of the purse (and if it happens you'll be long dead ferrari, don't worry), so I don't think we'll ever get there. But it would probably be better to have that than the hot mess we currently have, where there are dozens of brobdingnagian problems that everyone knows and admits are problems (things like our dismal infrastructure, the ludicrous corporate tax code, the immigration situation) but that no one wants to just man up and fix, either because they can't agree on how to do or just don't want to compromise. Is it really worth all that to be voting for four people at the federal level instead of one? I can't see why.

[stupac2]

What makes you think that? It's been done before (for instance, Earl Warren was a recess appointee before being confirmed)

These cases aren't similar at all. Warren was appointed when Eisenhower had three years left in his presidential term and the possibility of another term after that, so his appointment didn't face the prospect of being instantly overturned. And he didn't tip a 5-4 court in the opposite direction.

Sure, but there's nothing stopping it (well, besides the senate refusing to go into recess, which they will probably do). You made it sound like it's illegal or the rest of the court would refuse to seat the member, which is clearly not the case.

I don't think you understand, Ferrari.  What stupac2 is talking about is essentially a parliamentary system in which you vote for an entire government, with both executive and legislative power.  Then, when that government becomes unpopular, it gets voted out and replaced with a new one.

I'm all for this.  If you like democracy, you should be in favor of this, too, because these types of governments are much more responsive to the current mood of the people (for better or worse).

Also, can we please do away with the death and 2nd amendment talk?  Killing people ("willing to die" = "willing to kill people" in my book, like that guy in Oregon who pulled a gun on the feds) has no place in this sort of discussion.

At this point I think it's best to just completely ignore ferrari on these politics posts. It's clear that his particular combination of ignorance and vehemence is wildly out of place on this board.

Anyway, that's what I want, since the record of presidential systems like ours is abysmal and it was clearly not designed to function with parties, especially parties that are as partisan as ours currently are. Some sort of parliamentary system works better. But I'm not sure that's what we'd get. There are a lot of different paths our government could take from here, all that's clear is that, assuming current trends hold (which isn't a great assumption but it's what we've got) the President will continue to get stronger and the legislature will continue to get weaker. What's uncertain is whether those two trends tip us into an actual "imperial presidency", where the president is essentially a term-limited dictator, but still checked by our current institutions like the courts and federal bureaucracy. (I am ignoring the inane conservative chatter that Obama has already done this. He can't even appoint his own judges ffs.)

It's hard for me to imagine congress ever abdicating power of the purse (and if it happens you'll be long dead ferrari, don't worry), so I don't think we'll ever get there. But it would probably be better to have that than the hot mess we currently have, where there are dozens of brobdingnagian problems that everyone knows and admits are problems (things like our dismal infrastructure, the ludicrous corporate tax code, the immigration situation) but that no one wants to just man up and fix, either because they can't agree on how to do or just don't want to compromise. Is it really worth all that to be voting for four people at the federal level instead of one? I can't see why.