Humanities desk
< October 28	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 29

SCOTUS vacancy

Suppose H. Clinton wins the presidency and the Republicans in Congress refuse to approve any nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court (as they've said). Is there any way to fill that position? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article,[1] the answer is no. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the Senate goes into recess, the President could make a recess appointment, but that would expire at the end of the next session of Congress. John M Baker (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to cover such a possibility. It is technically possible; one Supreme Court Justice, William J. Brennan Jr., was a recess appointment. However, he was confirmed by a near unanimous vote once the Senate came back into session. It seems unlikely that ANY Obama or Clinton nominee would enjoy such an easy confirmation. Also, the ability of the Senate to dodge recess appointments by simply refusing to go into recess indefinitely is a likely possibility, so even if technically possible, it may not be practically possible. --Jayron 32 13:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but wouldn't the point of a Recess Appointment be to force congress into actually voting on the candidate, at least, to stop them using their current tactic of simply refusing to even give the candidate a hearing? Of course, if they continued their current tactic, the appointment would expire next time congress went into recess, whereby the process could be repeated? Of course, this wouldn't stop them voting down the candidate, but it might force them to actually hold hearings.

Also, according to my previous question at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2016_October_15#Hillary_Clinton_and_the_Merrick_Garland_supreme_court_nomination, congress must adjourn, necessarily before noon January 3 (In practice, it will probably do so in December. Why must they adjourn? To allow the new senators to take their places?). So wouldn't this be an opportunity to pounce and make a Recess Appointment? Also, at what other times must congress adjourn? After every Congressional election, right? So they can't simply refuse to go into recess indefinitely, can they? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may, but as I noted, that's entirely beside the point. The Senate would actually have to call a recess, and as noted in the article I cited, and supported by Supreme Court decisions, the Senate cannot be forced into recess. They can literally hold pro forma sessions indefinitely and never actually have to have a recess. Thus the catch-22 here: The Senate needs 60 votes to break a filibuster, and even though the Democratic Party could possibly get at most 50-52 seats (and thus reach a simple majority), the Republicans can indefinitely block any nominee coming to the floor for a vote. A recess appointment would eliminate the filibuster option, all but requiring the Senate to hold a a vote. However, you can't have a recess appointment without a recess. And the Senate, if it were to retain a Republican majority, never actually has to hold a recess. According to the Supreme Court ruling, a recess must be at least 3 days long to hold a recess appointment. If they adjourn for only a few hours, that doesn't qualify. --Jayron 32 15:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, congress must adjourn in either December or early January, to allow new senators to take their seats. Are you saying that an "adjournment" (one lasting over 3 days) and a "recess" are different things? What will happen in practice when congress takes its late December adjournment? Will they in practice continue to schedule pro forma sessions at which no senators actually turn up? What's happened in the past in these situations (mandated adjournments)? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate only has to adjourn for a few seconds (and thus establish a recess of only a few seconds) in order to allow old members to leave and new members to take their seats. This is according to the article I already cited (which itself cites a recent Supreme Court decision on the matter). I won't quote the article for you in its entirety, because it deals EXACTLY with the scenario you present, so please read it again yourself before asking the question again. It HAS been answered. --Jayron 32 16:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry for pestering you, I've just read the article (should've done it before posting my reply, my apologies). Just one omission - it talks about what the Senate could do (the scope of its powers to refuse to adjourn), not at all what it will likely actually in fact do. Is there any precedent on this point? What has the Senate done in the past? What's the longest time (months / years, whatever) the senate has ever gone without formally adjourning for at least 3 days? Before you get cranky, the article you linked to says nothing about that. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will likely actually in fact do is a contradiction in terms. "Will likely" means it hasn't happened. "Actually in fact" means it did happen. If you can't ask a question without introducing ridiculous time paradoxes, I don't really feel anyone should be forced to answer such impossibilities. --Jayron 32 23:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An adjournment is different from a recess. When newly elected Senators are seated, it is a new Senate. Each Senate makes its own rules, by simple majority. Supermajority filibuster rules may or may not be included. So a simple majority after an election is enough to end any stand-off. In fact Senate simple majorities can change the (supermajority, filibuster) rules during a session, rather than beginning one, though that is not usual practice.John Z (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is speculation, a question rather than an answer, but supposing Clinton wins and the Republicans maintain a majority of the Senate (thus also the power to avoid recesses), what would happen if she simply forced the issue? Write up the same form she'd usually use if the Senate had confirmed an appointment, write that the Senate had its chance to advise and consent but didn't, so she deems the appointment complete? Technically it would be a constitutional crisis, though since Garland would have to recuse anyway and this would doubtless rise to the top of the agenda this would only be nominal. And technically, if you can't guarantee the Supreme Court continues, isn't it already a constitutional crisis, and a more severe one?

Then the court would have to decide; they might hear a motion from her that the 9-justice court has reached the level of being more than tradition and is an actual "compelling government interest" or something, and hence the right of the Senate to play games can be limited. (Maybe) And that if they didn't hold the 9-member court was anything important, then to avoid future shortages she would be appointing enough to bring it up to 12 or 13 if and when she lined up enough senators.

It's hard for me to picture any line of play that would give a confident ruling for the Senate to simply never hear a confirmation, without leaving open the possibility of an out and out FDR style court packing depending on the election. Is there one? Wnt (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary could ask the high court for some advice on what to do. That doesn't mean she would get a satisfactory answer. But it would be worth a try, if it comes to that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, it all comes down to what Anthony Kennedy will decide? Count Iblis (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about taking it to the Supreme Court to decide, but what if they are split 4-4? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue won't come to a head until the number of Supreme Court justices drops below the level set by Congress as a quorum, which is six. At that point, the Supreme Court is likely to get involved, rather than just close down, as that would violate the spirit of the separation of powers set out in the Constitution. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the Republicans get tired of losing cases due to the 4-4 ties, they might decide to hold some hearings on nominees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very simple way that "President Hillary" could avoid having a Republican dominated Senate block all her nominees for SCOTUS... all she would have to do is consult with the Republican leadership first... ask for a list of 100 jurists they would find acceptable... and nominate one of the people on that list.

It is sad that in our polarized political environment, everyone focuses on the consent part of "advice and consent" ... and ignores the advice part. asking for (and listening to) advice can resolve many issues. Blueboar (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the current political climate it is virtually certain that all 100 names would be hard-line right wingers in the mold of Thomas or Scalia. Hillary knows the Republicans would make political hay out of this -- "see, we gave her a list of 100 names and she didn't consider even one of them!" -- so it's unlikely it will happen. A good idea in principle, but... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for a president to issue an executive order requiring the senate to formally confirm or reject a nomination within $timeframe of a nomination (with or without hearings)? Obviously if so there would need to be some defined thing that happened if the senate failed to do this, the most obvious (to me) being the nominated person being appointed until after the next elections to the senate (at which point the new senate must confirm or reject (with or without hearings) within $timeframe, if they don't they stay appointed until after the following elections, and so on). Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that isn't possible. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, on the contrary - congress can overturn an Executive order, but an Executive order cannot boss congress around. To quote from our article:

Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).

The Executive order you propose falls into neither category a far as I can see, and would be quickly either overturned by congress, or struck down by the courts. The power granted to the Executive by the Constitution in this case (appointing Supreme Court judges) explicitly requires the "advice and consent" of the Senate, and no Executive order can order the Senate around, unless there was some legislative provision to give the President that power, which obviously there isn't, and will likely never be. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Grumpy Cat really the world's most valuable animal?

Apparently, Grumpy Cat, during her prime popularity years, brought in $50 million a year (I have no idea what the figure is now). Assuming this figure is true (owner Tabatha Bundesen calls it "completely exaggerated", but won't say what the true figure is according to her), does this mean, bizarre as it sounds, that during this time, Grumpy Cat was the world's most valuable animal - worth far more than even the most elite racehorse? It does strike me as bizarre, but would this in fact be the case? And regardless or not as to whether she was the one, which would be the world's most valuable animals, and where would she rank?

I told the staff at Healesville Sanctuary to make sure their critically endangered Orange-bellied parrots were well-guarded - a breeding pair might well be worth a small fortune to a collector. There's a good reason the CITES convention was created, partly as collectors of exotic species were in some cases a significant force in reducing numbers in the wild. But I still can't see them coming anywhere near grumpy cat. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tapit is worth approximately $30 million per year - see this article. Tevildo (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on how you define 'value'. According to this (admittedly not entirely reliable source) list of richest animals, there's a dog out there named Gunther who's got a cool $127 million in the bank. Is he as valuable as Grumpy Cat? Tough to say; he doesn't earn anything apart from interest. Some more perspective here, where they attempt to break down where Tardar's money came from, but they don't apply dollar figures to any of it. Matt Deres (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted for inflation, Lassie Come Home took about $63 million, suggesting that Pal the dog was worth roughly Grumpy Cat-levels of money. Rin Tin Tin probably was too - although I can't find much solid data that far back, the dog was called "the mortgage lifter" by studios for a reason. Smurrayinchester 09:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Using Box Office Mojo's ticket inflation numbers, Lassie Come Home took even more - nearly $135 million - but that's arguably comparing apples with oranges.) Smurrayinchester 09:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. Particularly as both these dogs had real talents. Grumpy Cat just has her dwarfism to thank - and a bunch of facebook-hooked humans who just adore their memes. Just wondering, are there any current film animals in Hollywood which show elite acting trainability skills and command millions to appear in a film? Koko was something of an elite canine actor, but given that he appeared in a relatively niche film, I doubt he earned much. In any case, he's no longer alive. 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pudsey was at one point worth millions (although not Grumpy Cat-levels), but Pudsey the Dog: The Movie flopped and now he appears in panto. Not sure how accurate this article is, but it suggests Keiko the orca from Free Willy is the only other animal from recent times to command a multi-million fee (and he died in 2003). Smurrayinchester 15:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(For a slightly different angle, the best-selling film about a real animal is, I think, Hachi: A Dog's Tale, about Hachikō. So you could argue that Hachikō earned the film studio $46 million.) Smurrayinchester 16:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(OP here - needed to log in due to semi-protection) According to The New Yorker Rin Tin Tin was being paid $2,000 a week by Warner Bros, not adjusted for inflation, and was still considered a bargain, practically single-handedly giving the studio its survival. This is in addition from the income he earned from endorsement deals for dog food and other products. So yes, he definitely provides genuine competition to Grumpy Cat in the "highest earning animals" category. Eliyohub (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Children of unwed mothers in 1830s France

Watching Les Misérables, it struck me: Cosette was born an illegitimate daughter to an unwed mother - a mother who at one point had worked as a prostitute, to boot. Yet Marius Pontmercy does not seem the least bit bothered by this fact when he declares his undying love for her, and eventually marries her.

Now of course, people do fall in love, even with those far lower on the social status ladder than themselves. This is hardly uncommon. But my question is, back in 1830s France, would a young woman with Cosette's background expect to easily find herself a husband? Or would she find herself widely shunned by potential suitors and their parents, on account of her origins? I mean, it was only a few decades ago that even here in the western world, unmarried girls who fell pregnant were hidden away until they gave birth, and practically forced into relinquishing their babies forever at birth. A travesty, but it happened, and on quite a wide scale. So how likely would it be in general in 1830s France for the daughter of an unmarried prostitute to find herself a husband? 110.140.69.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe social class had huge importance here. Being illegit would be a massive burden in the upper classes, but in the lower classes it would be common, so not as big of a deal. In the lower classes, a "common-law marriage" was common, meaning they just shack up and have kids. StuRat (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The popularity of common-law marriage amongst the lower classes - was that due to the cost of marriage (holding a wedding and all that), or was it due to the cost of divorce if things didn't work out between them (No-fault divorce was more than a century away, and divorce was an expensive and torturous process, from what I understand?). What deterred the lower classes from holding proper marriages?

Also, where would students such as Marius themselves fit in the social class hierarchy? Would attending a university convey a degree of social status, as I assume only the upper classes could afford to give their children a university education? (In those days, were the lower classes still illiterate?)

(I do note that regardless of how they fit into the social class structure, they claimed to care deeply about the poor starving masses - the "beggars at your feet" as the musical puts it - , in whose name they launched their revolution, and whom they expected to rise and fight by their side - people most of the upper class probably wouldn't give a damn about, other than perhaps throwing them the occasional coin to quiet their conscience). 110.140.69.137 (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If StuRat's guesses are good enough for you, so be it. However, if you're interested in what scholars or historians have to say, the book The Family on Trial in Revolutionary France by Suzanne Desan seems like it would have some insight (excerpt here). Likewise Poor and Pregnant in Paris: Strategies for Survival in the Nineteenth Century by Rachel Ginnis Fuchs (excerpts here). We also have an article about Women in the French Revolution which has some background. Matt Deres (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the biggest reason for marriage was so your children would legally inherit your estate, and poor people had no estate to pass on. What few possessions they did have could just be divided up by the children without legal intervention. StuRat (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are all forgetting that the OP's question is firmly placed in post-revolutionary France, where even terms like 'upper class' need to be redefined.

Which you have not. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As much as revolutionaries like to claim they have wiped out the upper class for all times, it never happens. If they do manage to wipe out the old upper class, they just replace it with a new one. France was no exception. StuRat (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)^{[citation needed]}[reply]

Take a look at Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, who managed to prosper under any form of government. StuRat (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you disputing that Les Misérables was set in 19th century Paris? Matt Deres (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, there were definitely both rich and poor people in post-revolutionary France, obviously. Perhaps there might be less formal or official class division, but there were still vast differences in wealth. The musical portrays hordes of beggars and prostitutes (poor harvests and cholera had decimated the poor areas, though the latter did not always spare the rich - Jean Maximilien Lamarque succumbing to it). In any case, no one has answered my question about the students - where did they stand in the pecking order? Was university education generally confined to the rich? Were the students truly passionate about the starving masses? Were the masses of that era generally illiterate, or was there some form of public education? 110.140.69.137 (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prince, of Washington

Who is "Prince, of Washington"? He was a photographer active in Washington, DC during the 1890s.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 1895 DC city directory (which I'm seeing via a pay site) lists George Prince, photographer, 1015 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, home 1827 R Street Northwest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Library of Congress' collection of his work, if that helps. Tevildo (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]