This is why selfish senior citizens shouldn’t be allowed in government
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, told reporters that the 2016 delay on Supreme Court confirmations only applied to presidential election years. He noted that Justice Elena Kagan was confirmed in 2010, a midterm election year.
Maybe because McConnell hadn’t created his #McConnellStandard yet?
Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, a member of the Judiciary Committee, bluntly talked of the “blood sport” likely to be triggered by the nomination fight.
“Republicans ought to aim higher than nominating a highly partisan and polarizing figure,” he said.
Fixed.
FIFY.
“The president has been very clear over and over what his standards are,” Leo said.
Left unsaid is that those standards change with every new commercial.
I have not heard the old saw, “Republicans - Democrats - they’re both basically the same,” in a really long time. That does not mean the thought has died. Consider that in 2016, 42% of registered voters did not vote.
42-freaking-percent! Why? I have a few thoughts.
Previous party nominees too often trust in their consultant-approved scripts. This has the net effect of making anyone with either a D or an R after their name sound like cookie cutter candidates. Conventional candidates cultivate complacency.
This year welcomes a crop of progressive candidates who are among the best picks in generations. They are best because many, like gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams and congressional nominee Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, give people a reason to vote. Their campaign messaging could not be more clear.
If the parliamentary movements is blood sport then the elections during the next two years are momentous battles. If the Supreme Court shifts away from societal progress and established law, the next line of defense is the legislature. The Supreme Court will shift its ideology if the ground underneath it moves with the electorate.
Bottom line: we have to do better than attracting 58% of the electorate to the polls to put everything else in motion.
Republicans also have a chance to make judicial nominees a top campaign issue, which could help motivate conservatives and evangelicals to vote in November.
Yes. I have been very bullish about winning back the House in November–but if there is a vacant Supreme Court seat up for grabs, then it’s probably game over. Every anti-abortion conservative will be urged at church to turn out. You can forget about the big swing needed overcome the gerrymandered map. You can forget about winning the Senate–a distinct possibility at the moment. So the net result of deferring the matter until after November will almost certainly be (1) keeping everything in Trumpist control; (2) losing the Supreme Court battle in any case.
We have to give up this losing battle and focus on winning the House. The time for blood sport was during the Gorsuch nomination, using the big, understandable argument that Garland’s seat was stolen, and not now, ussing a weak technical argument that plays right into GOP fantasies of rallying their base before an election. The reality is that if the GOP wins the House or the Senate in November, Trump will claim it was a victorious referendum on Mueller and shut Mueller down, and the media will basically go along with it, and there’ll go what’s left of the rule of law. The FBI and CIA will be purged under GOP oversight, Democratic morale will be crushed, and then the GOP project to have a de facto illiberal one-party state will be almost complete.
So no. We’ve lost this one. Brutal but true. The bloodbath already happened. We need to get over it and get back into power.
[fingers in ears] la-la-la I can’t hear you! /sigh\ I fear you are correct.
Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, a member of the Judiciary Committee, bluntly talked of the “blood sport” likely to be triggered by the nomination fight.
“Americans ought to aim higher,” he said.
This from a guy from the party that refused to even consider Obama’s nominee. FUCK Ben Sasse
There will be no battle… Collins, Flake, Murkowski, McCain… will possibly make stern comment … but ultimately wilt & lack the courage to defend the very spirit of the nation against the greed of their party.
Oh … and - prediction - the nominee will in no way be a pleasant conciliatory surprise … it will be someone with as strident and abrasive a perspective a possible - because Trump wants the harsh optics of appearing to be able to shove it right up the moderates & liberals respective bums.
But while Republicans are aiming for speedy action, Democrats quickly argued that any decision should be put on hold until after midterm elections…
I strongly suggest that any decision should be put on hold until after Mueller has completed his investigation.
I agree that it is shameful that only 52% of eligible voters participate. But would 70% or 80% give us better results?
More than 40% of Americans thought that the Donald should be president. That’s appalling. It shows that they don’t really care, they aren’t paying attention (think the Brexit vote in the UK) or that a good portion of the 40% + are really horrible people who are okay with misogyny, mocking the disabled, bad economic policy, racism, etc., etc. They don’t deserve to vote.
I’m hoping that this might goose part of the process along. If there is anything actionable now, I hope they “go live” because we need to block another Trump appointee.
It hasn’t, was in a thread on FB about this last week.