Lesson 4 Supreme Court Procedures And Decisions Answers: Fill & Download for Free

Court observers at both the NY Times and the Washington Post think it’s likely that no new Supreme Court justices will be confirmed for the forseeable future, regardless of who wins the Presidency, regardless of which party has a Senate majority.Here’s why:Neither party has a real chance to gain a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate.Both parties will mount a determined filibuster of any nominee of the other party, regardless of whether the nominee is a moderate or an ideologue. They’ll just roll the dice and wait for another Justice to croak. There are more old Democrat-appointed justices than Republican, so the odds favor the Republicans.Proof that this is what the Republicans will do is their refusal to even meet with Judge Garland, much less hold hearings, much less put his nomination to a vote—even though there are currently enough Republican Senators to reject his nomination in a straight up or down vote—if they all vote “No.”But that’s a little iffy. The Republican leadership has leverage over its Senators, but that doesn’t matter if they lose the next election—and a lot are up for reelection this time around, just as a lot of Democrats were up for reelection last time around.Republican senators up for reelection senators come in two flavors: those in Blue/Purple states facing threats from their left, and those in deep Red states facing threats from their right. The latter group doesn’t dare vote for any Democrat-nominated justice, because they all remember what happened to Bob Bennett, a very conservative Senator who made the mistake of not opposing every single thing any Democrat ever proposes, who then got primaried and lost to a Tea Party wackadoodle.These Senators have also read the Pew poll showing that Republican voters expect their politicians to never compromise with Democrats, whatever the cost to the nation.The same poll found that Democrats did expect their politicians to compromise—a fundamental difference from Republicans. Studies of the psychology of members of both parties have found that Republicans tend to be more fearful and angry in general, so a no-compromise stance comports with this psychological profile.Which brings us to the dilemma facing those Republican Senators in Blue/Purple states. If they’re intransigent they lose the votes of the moderate Democrats and Independents they must depend on.Hence the Republican leadership refusing to bring Justice Garland’s nomination through hearings, thence to a vote. They don’t dare, because it puts those threatened-from-their-left Republican senators in a lose-lose situation, while the threatened-from-the-even-farther-right senators can say they’d have voted No.The Republicans offered a litany of bogus excuses for refusing to vote on judge Garland—you can see their pitch in Matt Howell’s answer here. But they’re mostly lies.PolitiFact went through the main claim and came to that conclusion.“Our ruling“Reid said Senate Democrats "have never held up a Supreme Court nomination."“Reid steps a little too far in saying Democrats "have never held up" a nomination. They were chiefly responsible for Bork’s failed nomination, a turning point in the political nature of Supreme Court nominations, and they at least symbolically attempted to hold up Alito’s confirmation in 2005.“However, we can't find a time when a Democratic Senate refused to hear a Republican president's nominee. Even if they were opposed, they allowed the nominee to come to a comfirmation vote.“We rate the statement Mostly True.”NoneThe last time the Senate refused to “advise and consent” on a presidential nomination was in 1881, in a president’s election year. But nominees have been discussed and approved half a dozen times in such years—one of them even during the president’s actual lame-duck period (that is, after another President had been elected but not inaugurated). So over the last 135 years there is no precedent for what the Republicans are now doing.That said, most conservatives believe the Democrats started all this Supreme Court nomination argy-bargy by Borking Bork. But that depends on whether you think the Senate should confirm whoever the President nominates unless he’s grossly unfit and unqualified (Harriett Maiers comes to mind, who was opposed by both liberal and conservative senators), or whether you think that since the Constitution says nothing about what the Senate should take into account when “advising and consenting” to a nominee, the Senate is entitled to use whatever standards it wishes to.Bork was qualified by experience, intelligence and credentials. However, among litigants in his D.C. court, the verb “to ‘get borked’ was in common use—meaning “to receive a conservative judicial decision with no justification in the law, reflecting their perception, later documented in the Cardozo Law Review, of Judge Bork's tendency to decide cases solely according to his ideology.” (from the Wikipedia entry on Bork).This is reflected by the fact that when the American Bar Association rated him, as it always does for SCOTUS nominees, 4 members of the ABA panel rated him “Not Qualified.”A majority of the panel rated him “Well Qualified” but the dissent was highly unusual.In contrast, the top rating of the four Democratic nominees—Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan—was unanimous. As was, to be fair, the ABA’s rating of Roberts and Alito.So the Democrats’ rejection of Bork was for cause—not just because he was a Republican nominee.Same goes for Justice Thomas. He was not qualified to be a Supreme Court justice—the only such a one, liberal or conservative, in many decades. He was the only nominee since Bork who didn’t receive the ABA’s unanimous top rating. Instead he only got a “damning with faint praiser” middling rating from all but three of the ABA panel—and that only after a no holds barred campaign by the Republicans to wring at least a middling rating out of the ABA panel. Despite that campaign, two members voted him “Not Qualified” and one other abstained.It has also been pretty much proven that he sexually harassed Anita Hill, which would be enough to disqualify him by itself, but the Republicans overcame this with a vicious campaign to assassinate Hill’s character combined with Thomas playing the race card, thus intimidating Democrats from voting against him for fear of being called racist.His subsequent behavior on the Court, from never asking questions of litigators on the bench to his total rejection of stare decisis to his adoption of “Originalism,” an idiosyncratic doctrine well outside the judicial mainstream, to his wife’s political activism without him ever recusing himself on related cases, show that the ABA’s concerns were amply justified. Thomas is at best a mediocre Justice.And his refusal to recuse himself on a raft of issues about which his household has received millions of dollars in exchange for promoting or opposing them, is grossly unethical—far more than Scalia’s frequent all expenses paid outings with prominent businessmen.President George H.W. Bush, generally considered to have been a competent President, should be deeply ashamed of having nominated Thomas.On the other hand. by the small-c conservative stardards of what a SCOTUS justice should be as set out by Chief Justice Roberts during his confirmation hearings, Justice Garland would be perfect. Which is why he was confirmed overwhelmingly with many Republican votes when he was appointed to his current apellate court gig.Chief Justice Roberts—no liberal by any measure—has praised Garland as exemplifying what he has said a justice should be: modest, not trying to usurp the other branches, considering all aspects of cases like an umpire in a baseball game—and preferring a narrowly construed 9–0 decision to a sweeping 5/4 one, even if the five was from his side. That’s Garland.It isn’t remotely Scalia, Thomas, or Alito. Sometimes it’s Roberts and Kennedy, but often not (look at all the controversial 5–4 decisions the Roberts Court has made). Sandra Day O’Connor is probably the Gold Standard regarding judicial temperament, except for her joining the Republican majority in appointing Bush II President of the United States.Until or unless the Democrat-appointed justices comprise a majority, we can only guess how they’d rule. It’s like with us civilians—you find out a lot about what a man is made of when he’s in a position of power.Republicans like Matt Howell (on this reply thread) claim that “The Republicans have not opposed a Democrat nominee prior to Judge Garland since the Johnson Administration. And then it was for significant ethical issues. Indeed, the current stance was originally Joe Biden’s idea.”Both parties have ultimately consented to the other side’s SCOTUS nominations if the nominee was properly qualified—which Bork and Thomas were not. There was a symbolic filibuster against archconservative Alito, but he was seated. Biden proposed exactly what the Republicans are now doing (which, despite his denials now, he did, admittedly), but when a Republican President sent Biden a nominee, Biden duly held hearings and put the nominee’s name up to a vote—and the nominee won. Meaning that Biden was opining; McConnell is doing. Words and actions are different.Moreover, the Republican/Dixiecrat campaign against Abe Fortas for “significant ethical issues” was for speaker’s fees that are dwarfed by the monies and things-of-value that Scalia and the Thomas family have received. What was really happening was that the Republicans and Dixiecrats were seething about the liberal decisions of the Burger Court, and Fortas’ nomination for Chief Justice gave them their first chance to directly attack the Court. And he was a Jew, which may seem like a nohingburger today (at least to a Democrat living in Silicon Valley, as is true for me), but then and there, it was still a big deal to bigots.The odds against Republicans allowing a President Clinton to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice are shown not just by their blocking Judge Garland’s nomination, but by their having tried to block every single Federal court nomination by President Obama since the day he took office. They discarded the centuries-long tradition of deference to the senators of a state the judge was being nominated for. They raised procedural delay after delay, even before they took the Senate. Now they just won’t approve them.So 67 much-needed Federal judge position are languishing. The Republicans have set a historic record for judicial appointment obstructionism. It’s unprecedented. And Justice Roberts and other Republican judges have spoken out against it.As usual the Republicans justify their obstructionism by saying “well the Democrats do this too.” And that’s true to the extent that they subject Republican nominees to extra scrutiny. But nothing like this. The Washington Post has examined past records of appointments by presidents of one party with a Senate of the other, and the current Republican Senate takes the cake.Waiting for next president, confirmations of federal trial judges stallI conclude that the Senate Republicans will block judges and justices during the next term if it’s Clinton. They’ll use different arguments, but they’ll block them. Right now you can see some of them claiming that Judge Garland is practically a Com-yew-nist. Despite him being a good personal friend of Chief Justice Roberts.As for Democrats blocking Trump nominees—I suspect they’ve learned their lesson with Thomas, who they passed out of deference, and. as I said, for fear of being called racist. And though the other justices were qualified by ABA standards, their Citizens United decision was to liberals what Roe V. Wade was to conservatives—a call to arms.So most likely a President Trump would have great difficulty getting a nominee past even a Republican majority Senate.Lastly, you can see how much longer this entry is compared to Matt Howell’s Republican apologia. That’s because it takes far more to refute a falsehood than it does to say one, unless you want to just say it’s a falsehood. But that makes it a “he said, she said” situation that gives observers to reason to believe one side is telling truth and the other not.I don’t know what it will take to get the Republican Party to become a small-c conservative party again, but I miss the days when it was. Now it isn’t much more than a tribal organization representing working class Southern whites and like-minded folks in the Heartland and Western states.

There are number of factors which led to TDP downfall in Andhra Pradesh:FarmersBefore coming to elections, TDP told farmers not to pay anything to the banks and promised full loan waiver if they come to power which is about Rs. 87,000 croresFinally, after they come to power, they constituted a committee and finally declared that they will clear only Rs. 24,000 crore worth of loans and that too in 5 phases. Farmers, who were regular in repayment of loans didn’t pay anything to banks because they were hoping for a waiver.TDP government issued some bonds, tried in various ways to convince the banks to keep the loans on hold but banks simply followed their procedure and said they have to follow RBI norms. They simply declared farmers as defaulters. They added interest, penalties, penalties on interest etc.Finally, TDP has cleared Rs. 15,000 crore worth of loans in the last 5 years and that too in 3 phases.Finally, if you calculate interest part for Rs. 87,000 crores for 5 years, let us consider 4% interest rate per annum (note that 4% is subsidized interest rate not normal interest rate). Total comes to around Rs. 3,500 crores PER YEAR. Calculate it for 5 years - This would come to around Rs. 15,000 crores.This is the minimum interest rate which I calculated BUT if you consider normal interest rate, calculation would come down to Rs. 30,000 crores.In other words, even as per TDP claims, they just waived off interest part (if loans are borrowed at 4% interest rate). If the interest rate is more than that, total loan waived off does not even cover the interest part.Now comes the worst part, many farmers become defaulters in banks. Hence, they are no longer eligible to borrow any loans. Many of them borrowed loans using gold and mortgaged their lands as collateral.Since they have defaulted, farmers started receiving notices from banks. Because of this, they no longer have any security to borrow further loans. Their security got stuck in banks. If they want any additional funds, they have to look for private lenders who charge very high interest rates and harass farmers if they don’t pay. This pushed farmers into more debt.Farmers have defaulted, their securities got stuck, they cannot borrow extra loans, banks keep adding interest and penalties etc. its a debt trap.2. DWACRASame as farmers3. YouthCBN promised jobs for youth. Even though this is a promise made in manifesto, we can forgive TDP because unemployment is not an issue limited to just TDP or Andhra.Even Trump, Modi, KCR and many leaders across the world are trying their best to resolve the issue. So, nothing wrong even if CBN or TDP failed in this regard.The issue however comes with the promise of unemployment allowance to the youth. This is another blunder committed by TDP. They promised that If youth do not get jobs, they would get MONTHLY allowance of up to 2000 rupees (depending on education and qualification). This is a such a big blunder committed by TDP in desperation to come to power.This made youth very angry. If you look at Telangana state elections or Indian general elections, both KCR and Modi came back with thumping majority. Even KCR and Modi promised lot of jobs for youth in 2014. However, problem came with TDP because they neither gave jobs nor fulfilled the promise of allowance completely. TDP did give some allowance to some youth just 1 year before the election but again this was seen more as a stunt than fulfillment of election promise and most youth didn’t get the allowance as promised.4. AmaravatiTDP made tall claims on Amaravati development. In reality what happened was lot of people purchased or invested heavily into Amaravati lands and made real estate. Many farmers lost their lands (many of them were made to forcefully handover their lands). People who purchased lands for dirt cheap prices from poor farmers had sold these lands for crores of rupees which angered local farmers who felt cheated.In Amaravati region, lot of people work in the farms. Many land owners either lease their land or allow others to farm on their land temporarily in exchange for money. As farm land owners lost their land, all these people lost employment and suddenly, they had to work for coolies in real estate/constructions under someone. Also, because of the hype created, all prices in and around Amaravati increased a lot. For example, if a driver has to take a room for rent, the rent were increased by 25 to 50% over last 5 years due to hype while their salaries remained same. Cost of living has drastically increased as well. because of this, many people who live with small means suffered a lot.The same thing happened in Hyderabad in early 2000s as well. People were completely repelled by Hyderabad development especially farmers, poor people and common men. This is the reason why TDP has been losing elections from 2004, 2009, 2014 and 2018 (and TDP decided not to contest Loksabha elections in 2019! in Telangana region) even though Chandrababu Naidu claimed so many times that he developed Hyderabad and Hyderabad was his brain child. In 2014, TDP won little better because of Andhra-settler sentiment but not because of development.People who got benefited from Amaravati Development were mostly real estate developers, politicians and big farmers who are already wealthy enough. On the contrary, small farmers & common men suffered so much.To add salt to the wounds, people from Rayalaseema and Uttarandhra felt neglected and felt that Chandrababu is doing same mistake what he did earlier i.e. focus on centralized development only in one particular region.In other words, Amaravati had created negative impact (This is clearly visible in election results of Krishna and Guntur districts where Amaravati region lies. Even Nara Lokesh lost the election against Alla Ramakrishna Reddy).To make matters even worse, TDP kept on campaigning saying that they are the masterminds behind development of Amaravati. Even their ads related to Amaravati development felt extremely offensive to people. (Video below)This ad still shows the illusion under which TDP is living - i.e. Hyderabad or Amaravati would bring votes. The reality is exact opposite. TDP lost mainly because of Hyderabad and Amaravati.5. PattiseemaThis is another blunder by TDP and CBN.Krishna delta came into existence during Bristish time in 1880s. Krishna delta should originally get 140–150 tmc of water as per rules. Total Krishna Delta related lands are approximately about 13 lakh acres and spread across Krishna, Guntur, West Godavari and Prakasam Districts.Everything was working well until Almatti dam was built and Krishna Delta become drier. Until that point of time, krishna delta land produced 2–3 crops per year for farmers and because of this move, krishna delta lands got reduced to only 1 crop per year.You know an amazing fact?? When Almatti dam was built, Chandrababu was the convener of National Front when Dev Gowda was PM. That’s right. He is the reason why Krishna Delta farmers suffered in Andhra.Now, TDP claimed pattiseema made Krishna Delta great. How Ironic! Another interesting fact is that the canals used by Pattiseema project were constructed during YSR time it self.Now, come a very very interesting question, if Pattiseema project helped krishna delta farmers, why was TDP defeated very badly in all regions related to pattiseema project ??Most areas like Avanigadda, Nagaiahlanka which are tail-end areas couldn’t get water even for 1 crop properly.In reality, all the farmers of west godavari and krishna district suffered a lot due to PATTISEEMA which is why YSRCP (despite saying they won’t give kapu reservation) clean sweep there. They also clean sweep Krishna district.Why did TDP take such catastrophic decision??What Chandrababu Naidu thought was completing Pattiseema would actually allow him to divert Krishna water from Srisailam (originally meant for prakasam barrage) to Rayalaseema and Pattiseema can be divert water from godavari river and will be given to Krishna Delta.During YSR time, he envisioned it bit differently. He also wanted to divert Krishna Water to Rayalaseema. However, he felt that only Polavaram project could sufficiently give water to Krishna Delta. This is where CBN committed big blunder. Instead of waiting for Polavaram, he constructed pattiseema project which is temporary in nature (if polavaram is there) and this project has totally failed CBN’s vision. This is the reason why YSR envisioned Polavaram (not Pattiseema) even though he completed left canal (which was used for pattiseema project).Pattiseema also has one more problem. Krishna delta only has rights over krishna water but not godavari water. So, this can create lot of disputes with other states.This is the reason why KCR started to divert water from Sri sailam.7. Kia MotorsTDP’s claim: It is the largest FDI in India. It will create 75,000 jobs for Indians/Andhra people (as per agreement signed between Andhra Government and Kia Motors).Reality: Only 550–700 jobs were created. Many employees of Kia Motors are tamilians. Koreans have opened many restaurants and they are heavily discriminating Indians. Indians are not even allowed to enter into those restaurants. Andhra government also spent so many crores to bring water supply for KIA motors.Here also, TDP leaders brought lands very cheaply from farmers and sold them off at high prices. They became very richFarmers who gave hundreds of acres worth of lands are now big victims and felt cheated.8. Handri NivaTDP’s Claims: Handri Niva is completed. Water will now come to Anatapuram and farmers will be thrilledReality: Anantapuram is officially declared as drought area by Andhra Pradesh Government. Enough Said.9. CBN - I am the senior most politician in India. I have 40 years experience (claimed it many times during last 5 years)Reality: CBN become become CM in 1995.Naveen Patnaik is CM for 17 years. Karunanidhi was CM five times, elected as MLA 13 times and never lost an election in his 61 years career!Mulayam Singh, Kalyan Singh, Farooq Abdulla, Anthony, Sarath Pawar become CM much before Chandrababu Naidu become CM.Coming to general seniority. Even within TDP party, Buchaiah Chowdary & Ashok Gajapati Raju are senior to Chandrababu Naidu.CBN become MLA in 1978. Even if you consider within Andhra Pradesh region. Even KE Krishna Murthy and Ashok Gajapatiraju from his own party also become MLAs in 1978.10. Cements Roads in villages:TDP’s claim: We have done everythingReality: These are funds from Central Government11. Housing Scheme:TDP’s claim: we gave lot of houses for poorReality: There gave houses in three categories:category 1 - 300 sq ft - Rs. 5.62 lakhscategory 2 - 365 sq ft - 6.74 lakhscategory 3 - 430 sq ft - 7.71 lakhsState Government would spend Rs. 1.5 lakhs and Central Government would spend Rs. 1.5 lakhs = total Rs. 3 lakh subsidy will be given.AP government is charging > Rs. 2,000 per sq ft. while Telangana Govt. is charging only half of it.If we look at actual cost in Telangana (after subsidy), the poor would literally get houses with little or no debt.If we look at actual cost in Andhra: (after subsidy)category 1 - 300 sq ft -> 5.62 - 3 = 2.62 lakhscategory 2 - 365 sq ft -> 6.74 - 3 = 3.74 lakhscategory 3 - 430 sq ft -> 7.71 - 3 = 4.71 lakhsThe poor person has to take loan and pay EMI for 10-20 years in order to own a house pushing them into debt.12. Kapus Reservation and BC VotesThis is one more blunder by TDP.During 2014 election campaign, Naidu has promised reservations for Kapu community. However, by the time he took his oath, a supreme court judgement has come which capped reservations at 50%.As soon as TDP came to power, what it should have done is it should have asked people to forgive them and that reservation is not possible due to Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement. That would have cool down the issue in 2014 itself and by the time 2019 came, people would have forgiven TDP.Instead, they done the opposite. They kept on postponing the issue. They tried to suppressed kapu leaders like mudragada padmanabham. They tried to skip the issue instead of giving some clarity.Finally after 3 years, they passed a resolution in AP Assembly and said it requires central government approval. Once again issue got into heat. On the contrary, Jagan Mohan Reddy said Kapus reservations are not possible. On that day I remember, YCP leaders didn’t even come to TV debates as they couldn’t face media or public.Finally, Pawan Kalyan decided to contest the elections. This actually shifted Kapus votes to Janasena.Finally TDP said that Kapus would be given ctaegory F status among BC community, all the BC communities got angry because their reservation would get reduced if Kapus get the 5% reservation.Finally, TDP lost faith of both Kapus and BCs13. Anti-incumbencyNaidu thought Janasena would split anti-incumbency vote. However it didn’t happen because of two reasons:Anti-government votes would come to janasena only if people believe that janasena would come to power. 99% of Andhra people knew that Janasena would come as 3rd party or it would become a king maker. Andhra people saw what happened in Karnataka. They learnt a lesson. So, they decided not to vote for Janasena and voted for YCP so that Jagan will come with full majority stable government.YCP was extremely successful in making people believe that Janasena and TDP has a secret understanding. He criticized YSRCP more than TDP. He criticized about Jagan not attending assembly but never questioned TDP about 23 MLAs poached from YSRCP. TDP stopped criticizing Pawan Kalyan all of a sudden. In some places, cadre of Janasena and TDP colluded (even videos of it surfaced online). In last 5 years, he comes and makes public appearance and disappears for months together. Timing of his appearance matches whenever TDP is in crisis most of the times. He always questioned about Jagan’s CBI cases but never questioned about Sujana Chowdary’s cases. Jagan’s cases are worth only Rs. 1500 crore (as per JD Laxmi Narayana himself) while Sujana Chowdary’s cases are worth Rs. 6000 crores.Pawan Kalyan also criticized KCR and Telangana leaders around the same time when Chandrababu Naidu was dead against TRS and KCR. This also back fired because Andhra-Telangana sentiment only works in Telangana because telangana has seen andhra leaders rule but andhra region never saw telangana leaders rule (as rightly said by KTR in an interview). This also felt as if TDP-Janasena got into some secret pact.This once again became advantage to YCP14. Lokesh FactorYCP did something else as well. They heavily marketed that Nara Lokesh will be made as AP CM if TDP wins this time. They projected that as Chandrababu Naidu is nearing the age of 70, he will be handing over his reigns to his son.15. Janmabhoomi CommittesI think this issue can be read in every newspaper and news channel. Very popular one.16. Women VotesDWCRA situation same as farmers. Apart from this, TDP promised belt shops and alcohol ban in 2014 manifesto. However, they didn’t implement the promise. However, Jagan promised it. He also campaigned across the state in padayatra reminding village women of DWCRA loans and achohol ban.Also, ASHA workers were unhappy. Anganwadi workers were also unhappy.17. Old age pensionsOnce again Janmabhoomi Committees ruined this.18. EmployeesChandrababu took the decision of suddenly shifting from Hyderabad to Amaravati overnight. This actually created hardship for lot of government employee couples who had different jobs. They constantly had to travel between Amaravati and Hyderabad for various reasons.Government Employees salaries couldn’t be paid just before elections. Almost 3 months of their salaries got into pending. Chandrababu had utilized all funds for Annadata Sukhibhava and Pasupu Kumkuma schemes.19. Special Status/U-turnsChandrababu Naidu has taken so many U-turns on this. He should have stuck with BJP, he should have maintained friendly relations with KCR. He should have stuck to special package.Not only on Special status, he took U turns on BJP. One time he said Modi is best PM and other time he said Modi should not get elected again.Poaching 23 MLAs from YCP on hand and protesting that TRS took 20 MLAs from TDP on other hand.20. PolavaramLot of failed deadlines. First TDP promised giving water by 2018, then 2019 and finally they changed their stand saying that polavaram will be completed only if TDP comes to power.21. Anti-BJP and Pro-Congress Stand.Chandrababu Naidu spent majority of his 2014 election campaign to curse Congress party for bifurcating the state. This made lot of sense even politically because Congress party was extremely strong in Andhra at that time. Criticizing congress can shift the vote bank to TDP.However, taking anti-BJP stance would never work because BJP hasrdly has vote bank in Andhra. Even hardcore BJP voters many times vote for regional parties in assembly elections because they know BJP wouldn’t come to power (like how it happened in Telangana. BJP won 1 seat in assembly elections but got 4 MP seats).In other words, anti-BJP stance would work in getting MP seats but not assembly seats. In 2014 BJP won some seats because TDP and BJP were in alliance with each other. BJP supporters voted for BJP in 2014 because TDP is part of NDA. When BJP contests alone, even hardcore BJP supporters wouldn’t vote because they feel their vote would better be utilized for regional parties. (Same as Janasena anti-incumbency logic)On the other hand, biggest blunder committed by Naidu is taking pro-congress stand. This is something even hardcore TDP supporters didn’t like at all. Because Naidu spent 35+ years criticizing every possible congress leader and him suddenly taking pro-congress felt purely like political move. Even though leaders took time to settle, the party cadre at booth levels couldn’t work together because they had long bitter rivalries. This damaged both congress and TDP.One more logic which nobody understood was that TDP took pro-congress stand but they say they are not part of UPA. They contest elections together in Telangana but again they contest separately in Andhra.22. Totally Negative PRNaidu giving negative statements on SC/STs.His MLAs beating MRO/Government officers/common men and Naidu totally being silent about it as if nothing happened.Over publicity about everything.Another big factor is that TDP has selected really really bad spokespersons. Most of the spokespersons come to debates or media without having proper knowledge. To make it even worse, Naidu taking U-turns made the situation of spokespersons even worse because they completely failed to defend TDP in many situations.23. CorruptionSand Mining, Janmabhoomi Committees, Local leaders threatening and demanding commissions etc.Thanks for reading until this pointIn ConclusionPeople voted for TDP because they wanted to see the old style ruling of Chandrababu Naidu i.e. before 2004. However, the CBN which people saw after 2014 is totally different one. I am sure that Chandrababu Naidu wouldn’t be so blind had he known that TDP would lose the elections so badly.I have nothing against any political party. Being a political observer, I request someone to please send all these answers to TDP because in recent TDP meeting, Chandrababu Naidu said that he couldn’t understand why he lost elections. At least reading all these answers would open his eyes!No voter has any personal vendetta against any politician. The same people who voted for TDP in 1999 voted for Congress in 2004. Same people who voted for Congress in 2009 voted for TDP and TRS in 2014.I hope TDP would learn from these mistakes and everyone wants to see the old CBN (before 2004).

Sometimes, there re surprises. Now in this matter, the defense by Nirmala Sitharaman may be the surprise which may topple the apple cart as underThere is a news item supposed to have been said by Nirmala Sitaraman (NS) as "The price of the basic aircraft cannot be compared with price of weaponised aircraft". If this statement is true, in my opinion, NS has herself spun a web and net around her on quite a few counts.(1) The "weapons" should have been specified in the tender call and contract and break-up prices solemnized and frozen. In any competitive procurement, once a tender is decided based on an invited number of items, terms and scope, variation of the numbers to be procured or the terms of supply or the scope are prohibited after awarding the contract. This is the most elementary canons of justice in tender based procurement. This is all the more when the price goes up to nearly 300 %. The weaponised version should have been called for in the tenders to start with and decision taken on the competitive prices.(2) If it was not a tender and instead a direct purchase, then also this weaponized version should have been procured initially itself.(3) Worst case, the cost of both basic version and weaponised version should have been called for initially itself and prices of both versions negotiated and concluded and the right to choose any of the two versions at any time at the same price should have been enshrined in the contract(4) The price variation clause should have been enshrined in the original contract itself by which the prices at any time after the award can be paid without controversy.(5) If any weapons were found needed subsequently but were not specified originally, then the procurement should have been a separate tender call or separate negotiation on two parts, (a) the purchase by open competitive system from weapon manufacturers and (b) a separate contract for their fitment in the aircraft, which is a "labour contract" directly with Rafael and which should have been a justifiable time & motion contract(6) If the price variation clause has not been specified in the original contract, the alternative would have been to use the Reserve Bank of India wholesale price index which reads for “all commodities” as 100 for 2004-2005 and 174 for February 2016 or which justifies an increase to 174 % as in webpage https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_ViewBulletin.aspx?Id=16191 and surely does not justify an increase to 300 % as in observation (1) above. The argument of NS about exchange rate variation is to be seen as USD rate to Indian Rupee in 2006 was about 44 and the rate in 2016 was about 68 which is an increase to 154 6 % which means the compounded justification can be 174*1.546=268% which is close to the said 300 %. Thus ironically the 300 % increase may be mathematically justifiable, but then it is the variation to 174 % which is eternally debatable because this is only a crude indication of the “all commodities” and not specific to aircraft and not fully acceptable in this case and also the activity of production is in another country and not India and the cost might have actually come down also as driven by the demand Vs supply equation as dictated by world wars which were not there in that period.(7) The moot question is what the price variation clause is in the original contract and whether these were followed in 2016 and whether a new procedure was followed(8) The correct thing would have been to ask for time and lay bare before the Lok Sabha the papers on pricing from end to end and do not say a word. That alone-if all were fair and just- would have won the 2019 elections hands down for the BJP. In this background, whatever NS would advocate now may not be convincing at all because of the simple logic that it will all be “after thought”.(9) And here is the lesson of the art of being a “mouni” and buying time.I recall a piece of quotation. When a Minister was vehemently asked by a starred question whether there was a corruption in a work to the extent of something like say 356.28 %, the Minister took his days and came up with an answer “No” to everybody’s horror because by then the corruption was well known in all media. When the Minister was grilled about this, he replies as “make it another starred supplementary question”. When asked informally he said it was something like 336.26 and not 356.28 and hence his answer was correct. By that time, it all lost its force and some actions were being taken(10) Picking the loopholes in an accusation and deflecting the attention-that too correctly and justifiably, is an art. Violent emotional dialogue is good for the person who asks and who is not in the Government seat but it is surely not so for the person who replies and who is in the seat. This is where Mr Manhonan Singh and Mr Narasimha Rao have left indelible marks in the Lok Sabha on many occasions. A highly charged emotional speech of defense is good when playing upon the emotions of the people but not so when debating facts and figures.This way Mr Modi’s defense in the Jan 1st interview on this subject citing the Supreme court clearance and not saying anything else at that time was a piece of political art-at least for that moment.I am not saying NS has made this dialogue by herself. Most possibly, she depended on her office and may be whoever drafter the defense was not aware of the above boomerangsThis is why seasoned politicians in ruling seat may not instantaneously retort when facts and figures are contested by the opposition.