Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 July 11

= July 11 =

Can American parents put kids up for adoption?
I was watching this video. It's about a happily married couple who considers divorce in order to pay for the disabled daughter's healthcare costs. First of all, how does one get money through a divorce? Where does the money come from? For a family in the same situation, having a mentally or physically handicapped child, can the parents put up the child for legal adoption, allowing the State to pay for the healthcare costs in the orphanage or foster home? Can the orphanage and foster home guardian ask the government for more money to supply the child's special medical needs? If the child is dumped inside a State-funded orphanage, then the child may receive medical care that way, and the parents may come visit the child, and because the child is disabled, it's less likely to be adopted out by another family. In regards to abortion and infanticide, how many States have legalized euthanasia for families with disabled children or have legalized abortion for families with expecting children with disabilities that may cripple the family financially? SSS (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The adoption laws will vary from state to state. Euthanasia of a child just because of the child's disability is unlikely to be lawful anywhere in the US. Abortion is lawful if it's done within the first trimester, per court rulings. See Roe v. Wade. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're been on Wikipedia long enough to know we have articles on Abortion in the United States and Euthanasia in the United States. You could also read the article you linked, where they spell out that their reasoning is that they would qualify for (or at least for more) Medicaid. It's really pretty well laid out: "The Texas couple say it's the only way their developmentally disabled daughter can qualify for Medicaid and get the health care she needs." Matt Deres (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

"First of all, how does one get money through a divorce?"

You do not get money for a divorce. You get $A for your child for medical treatment if you are married. You get $B for your child for medical treatment if you are single. $B is a greater amount than $A. 49.177.234.140 (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the same in Australia. Your wife gets $A from the government for Dementia treatment. She gets $B for Dementia treatment if she is not married. Guess what? $B is greater than $A. So you should divorce your wife as soon as she gets Dementia. 49.177.234.140 (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yep. This is actually super complicated, and varies from state to state. There are many state and federal programs that provide financial assistance for medical bills or other issues, and they all have their own idiosyncratic rules for calculating payouts. Marriage status is definitely a factor. Regarding the original question about adoption, eh. Many states will pursue the parents for child support though, even for children in state custody. Basically, losing your parental rights is a lot easier than losing your financial responsibilities. Though again this depends on the state and the source of costs. A state could totally have a different calculus for who pays if a kid is in state custody vs. with parents, and is healthy vs. sick. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Supreme Court nomination
When a judge (like Brett Kavanaugh) gets nominated to the U. S. Supreme Court, how many votes exactly does he need from the U. S. Senate to get confirmed? Does he need 50? Or 51? Or the majority of the number of voters present (for example, 45 or 46 out of 90)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 51. See Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did read that article before posting my question.  Where does it state that?  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I saw this: A simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee. And that made me ask my question about whether it is a majority of the full body of 100 Senators.  Or just a majority of those voting and present?  (For example, he would only need 46 votes out of 90 Senators present and voting, if only 90 attended.)  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This article says 51 is the number. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that's under the assumption that everyone will vote. For SCOTUS confirmations, that's usually a pretty safe assumption, though of course McCain's health could be a wild card. --Trovatore (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the linked WP article, "he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court...", and the latter wikilink states that "For appointments, a majority of Senators present are needed to pass a motion "to advise and consent"". So a 50-49 majority seems to be enough (which is quite likely with McCain unable to be present). I think I've read that even a tie with the VP deciding the outcome would be enough... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * So, the key number is a majority of those present and voting ... correct? So, if only 90 Senators are voting, the Supreme Court nominee needs only 46 votes?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No. It's a majority of the body, not the majority of a quorum. Otherwise, all kinds of shenanigans could arise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that is true. Ordinary procedure (excepting supermajority votes like constitutional amendments or conviction in impeachment trials) requires a majority of those voting (pretty sure it excludes even those who are present if they vote "present").  I have never heard of any exception for confirmations. --Trovatore (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * All the news sources I'm seeing say that McCain is effectively a "non-voting" member of the Senate - as if he had left office without a replacement. That makes 50-49 a valid majority. And even if McCain were to somehow make it to the Senate chamber and vote "No", Pence would cast the deciding vote. So whether 50 or 51, the nomination would go through. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * However, according to this, a simple majority of those present may be sufficient. So the news sources must be assuming that everyone will be there except McCain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I say 51. That's what Baseball Bugs says and he's about as smart as you can get! Limited Brain Cells (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If I'm as smart as anyone can get, then Goddess help us all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)#


 * Bugs' argument with himself above notwithstanding, the rules are quite clear. According to the Congressional Research Service,  Only a majority of Senators present and voting, a quorum being present, is required to approve a nomination. Yay for more reliable sources than Newsweek. HenryFlower 20:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * OK. So, (hypothetically) if 90 Senators show up and vote, he needs 46.  Is that correct?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, if we're just going by votes of senators. If the vote's a tie (in this case 45:45), the president of the Senate gets the tie-breaking vote and he still wins, though, given the identity of that president. HenryFlower 21:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Aside from McCain, anyone not showing up for this vote could be in political jeopardy. Hence the news sources talking about 51. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, Henry. According to article 5 of the US constitution, a quorum of senators is a majority of senators, so 51. I don't know if it has ever been debated whether a quorum is a majority of seats, a majority of sitting members, or a majority of voting members. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A quorum must be present. A 26–25 majority in a quorum of 51 present senators would be enough. But it would take extraordinary circumstances to have so few senators present. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * But I'm asking what a quorum is of. If there were only 99 senators because a seat is vacant, is a quorum now 50 senators, or is it still 51 because it's based on seats? I couldn't find the answer in the senate rules or the constitution. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To maybe answer my own question, during the Civil War the Senate still maintained a quroum based on number of seats rather than number of sitting senators. So not a law or even a rule, but possibly a tradition: . Someguy1221 (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The answer is in the Standing Rules, or more accessibly in our Quorum: A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. If a seat is vacant, that's one fewer duly chosen and sworn. (The document given as a reference on that page doesn't actually contain the information, but the Senate rules are available online: rule VI.) HenryFlower 08:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all. So, I have a related question that somewhat links back to an older question that I had posted a few weeks ago. (Here: Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 June 28.) In today's day and age – with technology, computers, telephones, the Internet, etc. – why would they not allow someone (let's say, for example, Senator McCain) to vote by some other method (telephone, Internet, computer, Skype, whatever), rather than requiring his physical presence in the voting chambers? What is the basic rationale behind this rule? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Tradition. Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "tradition" ... perhaps from 100 or 200 years ago ... a much simpler and technologically less sophisticated time. But, is there any rationale or reasoning as to why they still adhere to  this today?  It seems somewhat antiquated.  But – perhaps – the physical presence of the senator is some way to avoid shenanigans and impropriety?  I have no idea.   Hence, my question.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, each person may have different reasons for supporting the rule, so any discussion of the "basic rationale" is largely speculation. The main one mentioned in this article centering on proxy voting in committees is that it takes away the emphasis on the members actually meeting, talking to and listening to one another. That would seem reasonable, otherwise there'd be no reason for parliaments to meet at all; each member could sit on the sofa in his pants and phone in his vote. HenryFlower 21:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is of course the infamous example of the Tennessee congress. Most media reports focus on practices in the house but it sounds like it's the same in their Senate. Note though that despite the infamous images of voting sticks and people competing to vote for someone else, per this they can and do require, at least in the House, people to be present to vote ("under the rule") and that says it happens about half the time. So it's likely even with a congress like that, an important vote like this will require presence. (I don't know if they are additional procedures to allow a proxy vote even when "under the rule" if there is sufficiently good reason like having a major illness or injury preventing attendance and where specific instructions have been given. It is however perhaps also worth remembering that as sort of talked about in the earlier source, unless the voter is able to watch or listen to the debates including those which I assume are held right up to just before the vote and make the final decision at the end of this, their decision would not be made using the full picture which they're supposed to be relying upon to inform it. ) Nil Einne (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I can remember an occasion where there was an election for the chair of the board of governors of a college and the 'tradition' was to wander around the gardens beforehand and talk and then come in to the hall to vote. A bunch of left-wingers went straight in on the dot and voted who they wanted before the main body had come into the hall! ;-) So yeah shenanigans aren't totally unknown with quorums. Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

What female firebrand!
I recall many years ago reading a quote attributed to an American female socialist, anarchist or labor leader in the early twentieth century, calling for “the bosses” or business owners or millionaires to be shot on the streets, and if they hid in their homes to be burned out. I looked for something like this in the article about Mary Harris Jones, the original “Mother Jones,” but there was nothing so violent in her bio. Anyone familiar with such a female firebrand in the early 20th century in the US? Edison (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Emma Goldman? I don;t know of any such quote, but she certainly encourages taking on bosses (like Frick) violently. - Nunh-huh 20:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * ... or Lucy Parsons? The first quote at Wikiquote, a slightly longer version of which can be found here. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow... talk about “hate speech”.     Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)