December 26, 2016

Trump will have 103 federal court vacancies to fill. Obama only had 54 when he became President in 2008.

WaPo attributes the high number to the GOP Senate's "unprecedented level of obstruction."
State gun control laws, abortion restrictions, voter laws, anti-discrimination measures and immigrant issues are all matters that are increasingly heard by federal judges and will be influenced by the new composition of the courts. Trump has vowed to choose ideologues in the mold of the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon — a prospect that has activists on the right giddy.
Trump has "vowed to choose ideologues"? Can we get a quote for that? I comb through many paragraphs and finally arrive at this:
Trump spoke frequently about his intentions to put forward a more conservative Supreme Court nominee as a way to galvanize the right.

“The replacement of our beloved Justice Scalia will be a person of similar views, principles and judicial philosophies,” Trump said in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. “Very important. This will be one of the most important issues decided by this election.”
The disturbing word is "views." And I'll add, from my blog posts on the subject, that Trump has said "The judges will be pro-life" and "they’re going to be very pro-Second Amendment." So he's specified particular outcomes he's looking for.

Hillary Clinton did the same thing. She said: "[W]e need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United...." And: "And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people. Not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy."

Both candidates threatened to appoint ideologues. I didn't hear much criticism of the attitude they took toward filling those vacancies. With an empty Supreme Court seat, there was particular reason to focus on judicial appointments. The people elected Trump and they kept a GOP Senate, and we will get what we deserve.

142 comments:

MayBee said...

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It surprises me how much what the Democrats/Obama do is seen and discussed as the baseline, and what Republicans want to do is seen and discussed as the extreme deviation.

David Begley said...

Typical from WaPo. Anyone who departs from the liberal orthodoxy is an extremist or ideologue.

Obama's judicial appointment legacy is Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. of Nebraska; a non-political Republican. 90-0. He's a real judge.

rhhardin said...

New rights of the LGBT community against the existing rights of everybody.

Rights for the newly favored interest groups, in other words, are the question. There's not a symmetry.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim maguire said...

From a lawyer, "views" would be a troubling word. But Trump isn't a lawyer. The kind of parsing that is appropriate, even necessary for most politicians, will far less enlightening with Trump. Assuming "to be enlightened" is the goal.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

"Obama has used his nominations to systematically diversify the federal courts to look more like the fast-changing country. He appointed far more female and minority judges than any other president in history, and he has paid particular attention to sexual orientation."

Why would Obama use gender, race and sexual orientation to select judicial appointments?

Obama believes discriminating in this way, using these criteria will give him the court decisions he wants.

tim maguire said...

What's really funny, MayBee, is how often the Democratic baseline and the Republican extreme are the exact same act or opinion and otherwise intelligent people spout complete nonsense without any recognition that it is nonsense.

It's tempting to talk about the lies and hypocrisies of Democrats and liberals, but it's not that simple. It's more like mass delusion. They are often honest people, sensible and accomplished in other areas, and yet completely blind to what they say and do when the subject turns to politics.

Tommy Duncan said...

Trump's sin is in being open and transparent.

Gahrie said...

Both candidates threatened to appoint ideologues. I didn't hear much criticism of the attitude they took toward filling those vacancies.

Of course they did. The Supreme Court is too important today not too. When the meaning of the 14th Amendment, designed to overturn Dred Scott and confirm the citizenship of Black people and deal with some minor Reconstruction issues can be twisted to grant birthright citizenship to illegals and tourists, or to invent a right to privacy or abortion based on five votes...you need to control fives votes.

Gahrie said...

Once appointed, these nominee guys cannot be fired.

Sure they can...they can be impeached.

Goldenpause said...

Leftists weaponized the federal judiciary. It seems to never have crossed their minds that conservatives would ever get their hands on what they created. Beyond stupid. I hope they thoroughly enjoy the fruits of what they created

iowan2 said...

"Obama has used his nominations to systematically diversify the federal courts to look more like the fast-changing country."

This strikes me as blatantly 180 degrees out of sync. A judge has zero ability to divine if, or how the country is changing.
This is why the homosexual marriage judicial rulings are so atrocious. The law, and the constitution(s) have not been changed, Judges, going against their own legal educations, have been divining the the peoples mores. When is reality they are just short circuiting our republican form of government.

campy said...

Both candidates threatened to appoint ideologues.
*
Unpossible. There's no such thing as a liberal ideologue. Only conservatives are *ever* described as ideologues.

Lauderdale Vet said...

"As of November 1, 2016, the total number of Obama Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate is 329, including two justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 55 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to the United States district courts, and four judges to the United States Court of International Trade.[2] The number of nominations currently awaiting Senate action is 56.[3] There is currently 1 vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States, 13 vacancies on the United States Courts of Appeals, 80 vacancies on the United States district courts, two vacancies on the United States Court of International Trade[3] and 7 announced federal judicial vacancies that will occur before the end of Obama's second term.[4] Obama has not made any recess appointments to the federal courts.

In terms of Article I courts, Obama has made 8 appointments and 2 pending nominations to the United States Tax Court, 3 appointments and 5 pending nominations to the United States Court of Federal Claims, 3 appointments to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, 2 appointments to the United States Court of Military Commission Review, and 2 appointments to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. He has also elevated two chief judges of the Court of Federal Claims.

On the Article IV territorial courts, he has made two appointments and one pending nomination and has elevated one judge to the position of chief judge."

Unknown said...

"The people elected Trump and they kept a GOP Senate, and we will get what we deserve."

Yes indeed you folks will, however the rest of us don't deserve what could happen.

boycat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

You'll get your country back....way back.

damikesc said...

Yes indeed you folks will, however the rest of us don't deserve what could happen.

Such concerns were ignored in 2008.

Weaponizing the government was probably a bad idea.

And, perhaps, all of these requests for information from Trump that the agencies are refusing to provide could be used to terminate the employment of numerous federal employees.

Roughcoat said...

If you're going to politicize the judicial branch and use it to make law instead of merely to interpret law, then, yes ... we deserve ideological judges who will be pro-life and protect our 2nd Amendment Rights and etc. I've given up on the old idea of what the judicial branch should be: the Democrats killed that with, among other things, the Bork and Clarence Thomas hearings. Give it to them both barrels same as they gave it to us, that's what I say: war to the knife.

Roughcoat said...

Yes indeed you folks will, however the rest of us don't deserve what could happen.

Yes ... yes, you do. Especially the "rest" of you.

Freder Frederson said...

The people didn't elect Trump (he lost the popular vote), the Electoral College elected Trump. Democrats overall also received more votes in the Senate. And as the article stated, there are so many vacancies because the Senate blocked many of Obama's appointees for no good reason other than hoping for a Republican president to replace him. They also made up a new rule that a president didn't have the right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in their final year in office (I hope that rule still applies if a vacancy occurs in early 2020).

The Republicans, through gerrymandering, voter suppression, withholding advise and consent, and legislative coups (e.g., North Carolina) are subverting democracy.

Michael K said...

Leftists weaponized the federal judiciary. It seems to never have crossed their minds that conservatives would ever get their hands on what they created.

This is going to be a big deal. Obama spent a lot of time playing golf when he could have been working. Not all those vacancies are because of obstructionism.

Just like his UN action has probably killed the UN, his decisions on the EPA and the IRS will have severe consequences for those agencies.

I think the Democrats are starting to understand that but, like a flock of turkeys seeing a hawk, they will stampede and destroy themselves. I don't see any signs of learning.

Michael K said...

Exhibit #1

The people didn't elect Trump (he lost the popular vote), the Electoral College elected Trump.

Freder Frederson said...

New rights of the LGBT community against the existing rights of everybody.

Not new rights the same one. If a photographer or baker refused to service a mixed race wedding because of religious objection, that person would be found in violation of civil rights law, no matter how deeply held the belief.

Crazy Jane said...

"Trump has vowed to choose ideologues in the mold of the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon — a prospect that has activists on the right giddy."

Describing a politician as an "ideologue" or a group of adult as "giddy" in a straight news article used to be a great big no-no in serious journalism. It would be stricken out on the first read by a news editor and cause the reporter to be given a warning by the political editor. If it made it into a newspaper, an apology would be considered. A reporter who did this several times would be encouraged to seek work shilling for his favorite politician, or, more likely, fired.

Among certain people now, having the correct political views is a religion; these people sanctify themselves by condemning the apostates. This sort of thing worked for Savanarola, at least for a while. But it didn't make him holy.

bgates said...

The disturbing word is "views."

Gee, I hope Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsberg didn't hear that speech - I'd hate for them to be exposed to the concept that a Supreme Court Justice can have "views".

Ah, what am I worried about - they're so scrupulously apolitical they probably don't even know there was an election this year.

Freder Frederson said...


The people didn't elect Trump (he lost the popular vote), the Electoral College elected Trump.

Tell me what is incorrect about this statement. To claim that the people elected Trump is simply an incorrect statement and denies the fact that Clinton won the popular vote by a comfortable margin. Just because Republicans are ruthless about gaining and holding onto power does not mean they are a majority in this country.

You warn against the tyranny of the majority, but what we have created is a tyranny of the minority.

mikee said...

Freder, the election had rules. The rules state that the winner of the majority of electoral votes wins. Trump won the election for president. For Senate votes, each state gets two. Republicans won more state Senate races than Democrats, for the subsets of Senate positions in contention over the past several elections, leading to a majority Republican Senate.

I get that your side does not understand, or apparently appreciate, that there are ways we do things in this country and those ways are codified in law, and that those laws are well defined for everyone participating in elections. But your side has no divine right to rule, nor ability to change the rules of elections ex post facto.

Get over yourselves, convince the rest of the country outside California and New York that your side should win, and maybe you will be happier as a person and less idiotic as a commenter.

bgates said...

They also made up a new rule that a president didn't have the right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in their final year in office

It's not a new rule, and they routinely provide attribution to its originator, which is ironic given the original author is the plagiarism-prone Joe Biden.

Drago said...

bgates: "It's not a new rule, and they routinely provide attribution to its originator, which is ironic given the original author is the plagiarism-prone Joe Biden"

As with most subjects, Freder has no idea what is going on presently or what has occurred in the past, and he/she/xe is not about to start boning up on the facts now!

chickelit said...

"Trump will have 103 federal court vacancies to fill"

Wow! Those are 103 chances that Hillary blew, all by hating on the Midwest and pandering to the wrong coastal people. I wonder if she regrets it yet.

Michael K said...

Freder knows the rules but doesn't want to admit it.

Hillary was elected president of California. The rest of the country, by popular and electoral vote rejected her.

Maybe she should succeed Jerry Brown instead on Gavin Newsom. It would give her something to do.

Drago said...

Freder the Hopeless: "Tell me what is incorrect about this statement."

The People voted, by state, and the states electors then voted in the electoral college representing the majorities or pluralities of those states.

Freder the Hopeless: "To claim that the people elected Trump is simply an incorrect statement and denies the fact that Clinton won the popular vote by a comfortable margin."

To claim that the Denver Broncos won Super Bowl 50 is simply an incorrect statement and denies the fact that the Carolina Panthers won the "most yardage/most first downs" contest by a comfortable margin.

Freder the Hopeless: "Just because Republicans are ruthless about gaining and holding onto power does not mean they are a majority in this country."

The GOP now controls 68 out of 98 partisan state legislative chambers -- the highest number in the history of the party. Republicans currently hold the governorship and both houses of the legislature in 23 states (24 if Sean Parnell wins re-election in Alaska), while Democrats have that level of control in only seven.

It is not our fault that Freder was not taught that we live in a constitutional republic. Sorry about that Freder.

MadisonMan said...

I wouldn't say we'll get what we deserve, but we'll certainly get what was told to us during the election.

Francisco D said...

Freder,

I am disappointed with the lack of maturity, intellectual honesty and depth that leftist trolls have been showing lately. Can you do something about that?

For some reason, it gets worse every time a Republican gets elected POTUS. Coincidence?

It seems like an autoimmune disorder wherein the body attacks itself at times of stress. In other words, the childish and myopic stupidity of liberals always lurks beneath the surface. It just takes a stressful event to bring out the desire to destroy their own country.

donald said...

Poor bitches like Freder sure are butt hurt that their 1000 year Reich didn't happen huh?

My cockles are still warm right this moment.

Hey Skipper said...

[Freder:] To claim that the people elected Trump is simply an incorrect statement and denies the fact that Clinton won the popular vote by a comfortable margin.

Hillary! won a game no one was playing, yet you seem to think that the popular vote would have been the same had Hillary! and Trump been playing that game, instead.

Worse, you appear to be happy with a means of selecting a president for the entire country that would rely only upon the votes of a small portion thereof. (NB: Trump won something like 90% of the counties in the US.)

And even worse than that, you seem completely unaware that the electoral college is viewpoint independent. Nothing about it favors one party over another. Hillary! could easily have won the EC had she not been such a horrible candidate, and had she understood what game was being played. (See point one.)

damikesc said...

Trump won many, many more square miles than Hillary did.

Freder thinks it's OK for small pockets of blue in a country that is primarily red is an OK system to determine President.

Sure, the election isn't won by who wins the most square miles, but it is won by that every inch as much as it is won by who won the most popular votes (in one state, mind you, with a deep hatred of removing illegals and exceptionally forgiving rules on non-citizens voting)

ddh said...

In the minds of progressives, only conservatives can be ideologues, and ideologues are bad because their ways of thinking about the world are rigid. Progressives see themselves, however, as only using facts to do what works--reality itself is progressive.

Progressivism is in tune with reality.
Conservatism is against progressivism.
Therefore, conservatism is in conflict with reality.

Progressivism does what works.
What works can only work if it is in tune with reality.
Therefore, progressivism is good.

Being out of touch with reality is insane.
As previously shown, conservatism is in conflict with reality.
Therefore, conservatism is insane.

Reality makes up the universe and is good.
As previously shown, conservatism is in conflict with reality.
Therefore, conservatism is evil.

Of course, if your premises are false, your reasoning will go off the rails. Ecce trainwreck!

Freder Frederson said...

Hillary was elected president of California.

Last time I checked California was part of the United States. In fact it is the most populous state.

To claim that the Denver Broncos won Super Bowl 50 is simply an incorrect statement and denies the fact that the Carolina Panthers won the "most yardage/most first downs" contest by a comfortable margin.

I said that Clinton won the popular vote, not that she won the presidency.

chickelit said...

I said that Clinton won the popular vote, not that she won the presidency.

California could have manufactured 5 million more votes for Clinton and the result would have been the same. It is high time the D's changed their official policy of hating on the Midwest..

iowan2 said...

Feder you ignorance, bordering on stupidity is legion.

The people have NEVER elected the President. Our Constitution, scrupulously protected the federal govt from swaying to public opinion. The founders, ratified by the states, hated the notion of a federal government, and designed a system ensuring the sovereign states ultimate authority to control the federal govt.

As far as the Senate, using their constitutional power to reject Obama's nominee, that's what happens when the President refuses to accept the advice of the Senate.

While some are upset, the punishment is meted out at the ballot box. Your concerns lacked standing with the people, who, in this case do have the power concerning elections, but again that is a state wide election. Iowans, who twice voted for Obama, re-elected the Chairman of the Judiciary committee, because of his principled stand.

MadisonMan said...

To claim that the people elected Trump is simply an incorrect statement

I don't mean to pile on, but Trump has been elected, and people voted for him.

To claim otherwise is foolishness. If not people, then what? Dogs? Robots?

Unknown said...

Well done republicans, well done. And of course if the Wash-post had not provided so much cover for the leftist "ideologues" the push-back from republicans might have been not so effective.

Chuck said...

The Democrats are always dumb, and always looking for result-oriented politicians when they talk about judicial selection.

We Republicans are right to criticize them for that.

The Trump problem (for principled Republicans) is that he's been doing the same thing in reverse. Althouse has rightly characterized it. And further; when Dems have done it, it has been seen as progressive, in all the syrupy positive meanings of that term. And if a conservative, or in this case Trump, does it, it becomes dark and foreboding and threatening.

It's okay; Trump couldn't articulate originalism if you paid him 4.5 billion dollars.

Drago said...

MadisonMan: "I don't mean to pile on, but Trump has been elected, and people voted for him.

To claim otherwise is foolishness."

You can stop there when it comes to Freder the Hopeless.

Bruce Hayden said...

... And as the article stated, there are so many vacancies because the Senate blocked many of Obama's appointees for no good reason other than hoping for a Republican president to replace him. They also made up a new rule that a president didn't have the right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in their final year in office (I hope that rule still applies if a vacancy occurs in early 2020).

Not sure why refusing to confirm left wing ideologues is "no good reason". Remember, the Senate's job is advise and consent. Obama didn't ask for advise, and the Republican Senate didn't consent to his nominations. And, no, he wasn't deprived of this, as you otherwise assert. Consent means agreement, and the Republican Senate did not agree to his picks. End of discussion there.

Presidents only have the right and power to nominate Justices (and other federal judges). They have never had the power to "fill a Supreme Court vacancy". That is done by the Senate, in its "consent" role. The two work together, which Obama was want to do - his SCOTUS pick was thrown over the wall, without any meaningful discussion with the majority Republicans in the Senate. Then, they were apparently supposed to just rubber stamp the nomination because of Obama's inherent wonderfulness. Or, something like that. They were cut out of their "advice" role, and, therefore, didn't bother with their "consent". And, notably, the Dems really started this by redefining the "advice" role with their Borking of Robert Bork, followed by the attempted Borking of Clarence Thomas.

The Republicans, through gerrymandering, voter suppression, withholding advise and consent, and legislative coups (e.g., North Carolina) are subverting democracy.


Two things about "gerrymandering". First, you typically need control of the state legislature and governorship to pull that off. This is where the Democrats' rapid loss over the Obama years of state level control is so important. And, secondly, in a lot of states, the reapportionment disadvantages white Dems simply because Black in particular, but also now Hispanic, Dems often work with Republicans to create safe minority majority districts for their minority politicians. Which, of course, is part of why so many Dem politicians don't run well state wide, and esp. not nationally.

"Voter suppression" is typically code for requiring a photo id for voting. Which, of course, is opposed by Dems because it reduces their ability to generate illegal votes. Fewer double voting, dead voting, illegals voting, etc. The absurdity is that the same demographic that supposedly cannot get photo ids, needs them to cash their welfare, etc. checks. Needless to say, there is really no evidence that more than a handful, if that, have ever really been inconvenienced by a photo ID requirement for voting. Rather, this is all Dem party smoke and mirrors, in order to maintain their power through illicit means.

AprilApple said...

"..that will stand up and say no to Citizens United....

Leftwing Fascist Code for:

'No one will be allowed to criticize Hillary Clinton. It will be illegal and condemned as "dark money & fake news." '


Drago said...

Freder the Hopeless: "I said that Clinton won the popular vote, not that she won the presidency"

Why don't we just get this out of the way now:

Freder, please list all the metrics, other than electoral votes, you would like considered when discussing who actually wins the Presidency of these United STATES (take note of "STATES", as the structure of our system is sort of built on that).

You should look into that.

Unknown said...

" Blogger Freder Frederson said...

The people didn't elect Trump (he lost the popular vote), the Electoral College elected Trump. Democrats overall also received more votes in the Senate. And as the article stated, there are so many vacancies because the Senate blocked many of Obama's appointees for no good reason other than hoping for a Republican president to replace him. They also made up a new rule that a president didn't have the right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in their final year in office (I hope that rule still applies if a vacancy occurs in early 2020).

The Republicans, through gerrymandering, voter suppression, withholding advise and consent, and legislative coups (e.g., North Carolina) are subverting democracy."

It must stink to be a democrat, getting beaten so bad by those evil republicans. McConnell and the republicans did a GREAT job blocking so many of Obama's nominees, now WE get to nominate and pass them because...oh you ALSO abolished the filibuster.

So. Much. Losing.

MadisonMan said...

btw -- Is the number of vacancies to fill when becoming President a meaningful metric? What's typical, what's the normal range?

How many judge-ships have actually been filled during the past 8 years anyway? How does that compare to other 8-year spans?

I don't care to give the WaPa clicks by reading the article that Althouse links to -- but if the questions above are ignored, my inclination is to throw this article onto the heap of similarly biased WaPo articles that I have come to expect.

AprilApple said...

Hillary:
"And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people. Not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy."

Except for the big money from these same powerful corporate interests that flows into the Clinton Global Slush Fund for favors down the road.

Hillary Clinton will forever remain the biggest money-grubbing hypocrite on planet earth.

AprilApple said...

California elected Hillary. (and New York City and corrupt Chicago)

She can be the corrupt queen of all that.

Drago said...

Freder has yet to explain how it is exactly that Trump and the republicans gerrymandered the state votes for President.

And there is nothing funnier than having to listen to a lecture by a lefty complaining about republicans wanting and doing anything to gain power, in particular after the election of 1960 and Franken alone should make any lefty embarrassed to even raise the subject.

madAsHell said...

We dodged a YUGE bullet when we kicked Hillary "Stella Mudd" Clinton to the sidelines!!

Freder Frederson said...

Freder has yet to explain how it is exactly that Trump and the republicans gerrymandered the state votes for President.

Never said they did. The Constitution gives more weight to the votes of those in less populous states than those in more populous states.

Chuck said...

I watched Jerry Falwell Jr yesterday on Fox News Sunday, interviewed by Chris Wallace, who asked most of the right questions about why evangelical Christians voted for Trump.

Falwell said, in large part, it was the Supreme Court (he really should have said all of the Article III courts). And Falwell repeated the notion that evangelicals didn't think that they were electing a pastor, they were electing a president. And that evangelicals had many more interests, than simple social conservatism.

But about four different times in the interview, Falwell Junior mentioned presidential "appointments" to the Supreme Court.

And that's a significant error. The President does not "appoint." He nominates. And, as for now, it takes 60 Senate votes to overcome cloture on a nomination to the Supreme Court. All of the clever Althouse readers will recall that it used to require the same vote for all federal judicial nominees, and other executive branch nominations. But Harry Reid led his bare majority of Democrats to change the rule, largely so that Obama could pack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. (The Circuit that hears many of the most important federal/legislative appeals.) And at the time of the rule change, Mitch McConnell scolded the Democrats on the floor of the Senate, telling them that they'd regret that vote, and maybe sooner rather than later. Mitch McConnell, as usual, was right.

So now, Trumpkins; you gonna knock down the cloture rule for SCOTUS nominees? Might you regret that someday? Sooner, rather than later?



Charlie Currie said...

Freder: Democratic senators received more votes than Republican senators, blah, blah, blah...

Well not shit. In California there were no Republicans running for the senate, just two Democrats - CA rules now only allow the two candidates who got the most votes in the primary to run for the seat, regardless of party. So two Ds got the most votes and ran against each other. No Republican votes for Senate in CA.

So it's CA that gave the Democratic senators their higher vote count, just like it did Hillary. Without the one party state of CA, you are nothing.

Freder Frederson said...

"Voter suppression" is typically code for requiring a photo id for voting.

Voter suppression is a lot more than requiring photo id. North Carolina's voter suppression law covered a lot more than photo id and was specifically designed to make it more difficult for minorities to vote.

Bruce Hayden said...

I am fairly hopeful here, esp. as to the 2nd Amdt. We are currently in a classic "Circuit Split" situation where several Circuits (2nd, 3rd, and maybe 9th) have taken a contrary view as to the standard of review for laws and regulations that might infringe the 2nd Amdt. The distinct majority has mostly adopted a sliding Intermediate/Strict Scrutiny view, depending on how close the potential deprivation of rights comes to the core of the 2nd Amdt (thus, possibly requiring Strict Scrutiny for banning MSRs (Modern Sporting Rifles, such as AR-15s), but maybe Intermediate Scrutiny for limiting the siting of gun ranges). The minority have seemingly taken the Heller Court's requirement for "increased scrutiny" to mean just a smidgen above "Rational Basis", which comes with significant deference to the state (and, esp. its legislature). The Supreme Court would normally take some of these cases just to settle the Circuit split, but doesn't bother right now, because a 4-4 decision would just affirm the decisions of the Circuit Courts, but that affirmance would just be applicable to that single Circuit. In short, 4-4 decisions affirming Circuit Court decisions wouldn't change the status quo one bit, and, thus, would be a big waste of time for the Supreme Court.

My expectation is that a Trump SCOTUS pick, once confirmed, would result in a 5-4 majority that would take some of these 2nd Amdt. cases (esp. from the 2nd, 3rd, and 9th Circuits) and clarify that "Increased Scrutiny" means essentially what was implied by Heller (and McDonald - which essentially applied both Strict and Intermediate scrutiny, and the laws failed under both), something between Intermediate and Strict Scrutiny, and not essentially Rational Basis analysis, deferring to fact free spin and hype from heavily Dem majority state legislatures.

Freder Frederson said...

The people have NEVER elected the President.

Your bile is misdirected. Althouse is the one who claimed the people elected Trump, not me.

Bruce Hayden said...

Freder has yet to explain how it is exactly that Trump and the republicans gerrymandered the state votes for President.

That is a good point. Gerrymandering is at the state level, and, except for a couple states, the vote is "winner take all". That means that state level redistricting is irrelevant. And, those few states (Kansas and Maine?) wouldn't have changed the ultimate result, even if they had been "winner take all", like the rest of the country has been for our entire lifetimes (and throughout much of the history of this country).

damikesc said...

Never said they did. The Constitution gives more weight to the votes of those in less populous states than those in more populous states.

Otherwise, those small states that provide a lot of the food you eat and who can cause significant issues with the water CA so desperately needs might be way less accommodating.

It's why I HOPE CA decides to secede. Good luck making it when we cut off the water.

So now, Trumpkins; you gonna knock down the cloture rule for SCOTUS nominees? Might you regret that someday? Sooner, rather than later?

The Democrats openly said they'd kill the filibuster for SCOTUS if Hillary won. There is zero risk in Republicans doing it.

Voter suppression is a lot more than requiring photo id. North Carolina's voter suppression law covered a lot more than photo id and was specifically designed to make it more difficult for minorities to vote.

Explain how...PRECISELY.

Unknown said...

I think Freder should note that Hillary in her infinite wisdom, took money out of Wisconsin and Michigan and dumped it into Chicago and New Orleans in an attempt to "win the popular vote."

Well, she got what she campaigned for, didn't she? She ran a campaign to get the popular vote, and Trump ran a campaign to get the electoral vote.

Which one, class, do we think was the proper strategy?

--Vance

Paul said...

Well no doubt Hillary was wanting to fill those 103 federal court vacancies. Didn't kind of work out that way, bummer. But stupid/crooked is as stupid/crooked does.

Maybe another SCOTUS judge will retire, croke, or just plain go senile, on the bench and Trump will have two of 'em to fill.

Never know, we do have lots of geezers up there.

Michael K said...

"Althouse is the one who claimed the people elected Trump, not me."

The people voted for him and elected him through the Constitutional process we've had for 225 years.

There are a few states that are dominated by the votes of urban islands, like LA, Chicago and NYC. In each case, the state is harmed by the narrow interests of the city voters. Illinois is going bankrupt. NY State is poor and has little hope but fracking would restore the prosperity of upstate NY. Meanwhile Pennsylvania is drilling wells into the NY shale formations and extracting wealth that could be New York's except for the lunatic policies of NYC. California is dominated by the illegals in LA. It is also being wrecked by the lunatic left and Jerry's obsession with choo choos.

khesanh0802 said...

I was focused on the Supreme Court appointment, but this is a great christmas present. Every day in every way we see the importance of Trump's victory reaffirmed!

JAORE said...

" I didn't hear much criticism of the attitude they took toward filling those vacancies. "

Of course not (MSM) assumed Hillary would win. And they agreed with the requirements for judges posited by Hillary.

Wait until the first official nominee of Trump appears. You'll hear criticism aplenty.

YoungHegelian said...

The federal court vacancies gets added to the list of the ways the Democrats are so screwed by by this last election.

The November election was so important in so many ways, it makes it hard to believe in retrospect that the Democrats put all their eggs in such a rickety basket as Hillary. Was there no one who could get her to stand down for the good of party & country after she was under FBI investigation? Seemingly not. The Democratic Party, if not the country too, will be paying for her hubris for a long time to come.

Achilles said...

Fortunately the country is not held hostage by states like California that allow illegals to openly vote in our elections.

Drago said...

Freder the Hopeless is simply another of the Dem Talking Points Windup toys.

He/she has no idea that the dems openly bragged about their extension of the nuclear option for below SC nominees to Supreme Court nominees.

That Freder the Hopeless is blissfully unaware of this.

And remains so, by choice.

khesanh0802 said...

@MadisonMan 0917 Great points. Just underscores how poor journalism has gotten. You and I can quickly conjure up questions that would give depth and meaning to the reportage, but neither the reporters nor editors have enough smarts or experience to do the same. It's what makes Ann's and some other's blogs so rewarding. The authors are intelligent and experienced enough to give meaning to what they write.

Drago said...

Freder the Hopeless: "So now, Trumpkins; you gonna knock down the cloture rule for SCOTUS nominees? Might you regret that someday? Sooner, rather than later?"

We will follow the example set by corrupt Harry Reid and his dem cronies in the Senate.

And that's whats bothering you, isn't it Freder? That you will now get a little back of what you've been dishing out.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of fascists.

Big Mike said...

Well, liberals, when your candidate Hillary Clinton -- your candidate, let me remind your -- talks about nominating justices to the Supreme Court who will ignore stare decisis and overturn Citizens United and Heller and doubtlessly a host of other precedents that liberals find irksome, then you have no leg to stand on when the election goes the other way. None.

Rance Fasoldt said...

The President is elected by the states, which is why the position is President of the United States. Popular vote would result in President of America, President of the Americans or President of the Most Populous States of America. Q.E.D.

Chuck said...

Freder Frederson said...
...
Voter suppression is a lot more than requiring photo id. North Carolina's voter suppression law covered a lot more than photo id and was specifically designed to make it more difficult for minorities to vote.


Bullshit. What you are talking about is scaling back "early voting" hours. And so North Carolina was a racist backwater, for merely reducing some of the early voting hours.

Meanwhile, the historic racist backwaters of Michigan, Delaware, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Rhode Island all have NO early voting. And never had. Nothing to scale back on, because they never had ANY.

Francisco D said...

Chuck,

You are too clever by half. I was not a Trump fan until the election neared, but your unrelenting antagonism towards him reminds me of David Brock, the one-time conservative who debunked Anita Hill. Is he a friend of yours?

The POTUS APPOINTS a nominee to the SCOTUS, who is confirmed or not by the senate, as you well know. Your word games are similar to those of a high school sophomore debator, and carry the same amount of weight. In that sense you are a pseudo intellectual master (de)bator. (old joke that needed the right time and place).

On a different note, Trump is not a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar. He will HIRE people to explain original intent. It's not the only thing on his plate.

Chuck said...

"Early voting" occurs in tough, important swing states whenever Democrats seize sufficient control of the levers of state government. For purely partisan reasons. It happened in Ohio, and they tried to scale it back and got sued. It happened in North Carolina, and they tried to scale it back and got sued.

This will be government for the next four years.

Republicans, passing legislation and Democrats suing them in federal court and relying on Obama/Clinton Democrats to foil the legislative will.

damikesc said...

Meanwhile, the historic racist backwaters of Michigan, Delaware, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Rhode Island all have NO early voting. And never had. Nothing to scale back on, because they never had ANY.

Does NY?

Non-competitive Progressive states don't tend to have the "necessary" rules that battleground states have.

Republicans, passing legislation and Democrats suing them in federal court and relying on Obama/Clinton Democrats to foil the legislative will.

What I don't get is how limiting voting to one day for 12 hours would run afoul of any possible law.

Chuck said...

Francisco D said...
...
On a different note, Trump is not a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar. He will HIRE people to explain original intent. It's not the only thing on his plate.

Trump won't need to hire anybody. They already exist, and they work as majority staff counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. And they have professional acquaintances at The Federalist Society and at AEI, and at Heritage.

In other words, I sort of agree with you. Good, establishment, Movement Conservatives will instruct The Trumpkus who it is that he should nominate for the Surpeme Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeal. And then the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee will handle them. I really cannot complain about that, and I don't expect that I will.

But I don't really expect Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer to get rolled. I think they will go to Trump and say, "Hey, we might just help you build The Wall, as long as you don't nominate Bill Pryor to the Supreme Court." Or some such thing.

Chuck said...

damikesc:

New York has same-day absentee voting, by application. So that is a sort of virtual "same day voting." But you are right, it doesn't really work the same way, wherein the states with early voting set it up for open hours on Sunday afternoon, so that busloads of people from urban churches can be ushered into polling places.

And the way that activist groups sue for expansion of early voting is per the Voting Rights Act; wherein the ratchet works just one way. Democrats expand the hours, and then it is presumptively racist if anybody tries to go back to previous rules.

damikesc said...

We need some good SCOTUS nominees. There is no good excuse for early voting. I'd rather make election day a forced holiday over having voting occur over a long stretch of time.

hombre said...

Thanks for the insight, Professor, but I don't think "pro-life" and "pro-Second Amendment" ought necessarily to be characterized as "ideologies" in the strictest sense.

I'm old enough to remember a time when the judicial oath to "impartially discharge" duties "under the Constitution and laws of the United States" was clearly understood to mean the Constitution and laws as written, not as judges wished they were written to achieve some political goal.

It was virtually universally understood at its time, for example, that Roe v. Wade was not called forth by the Constitution. Similarly, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was read as the straightforward prohibition it is. It does not say no reasonable limitation is possible under the Second, but Hillary has suggested that it does not even create an "individual right."

If reading the Constitution and laws as written is now considered ideological, it is only in the context of judicial overreaching and moral relativism. Outside that context it would simply be abiding by the oath of office.

khesanh0802 said...

I just hope that Trump minimizes his choices from Harvard and Yale law. We need some real people on the courts not the pampered Liberals of those two schools.

Francisco D said...

Chuck,

It's important to view the next SCOTUS nominee in light of the battle over cabinet confirmation hearings. Schemer (interesting autocorrect) and Durbin will beat up Sessions, Tillerson and DeVos, but go all out on Scott Pruitt and Dr. Tom Price. If the RINOs attack and deny some cabinet appointments, the SCOTUS nominee hearings will be held in light of an obstructionist Congress.

In that case, Pryor stands a good chance of making it with 60 votes. Trump the Showman holds the advantage in that case.

MaxedOutMama said...

I was very surprised to find from the exit polls
http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president

that the Supreme Court nomination was the most important issue in the race for 21% of voters, and of those voters, 56% went for Trump, and only 41% for Clinton.

Clinton won only marginally (49/46%) among the 48% who listed it as an important factor. So Trump's tactic of publicizing the list may have been very important in this election, and Obama's (not Clinton's) tactic of going after church/religious institutions, orders and hospitals may have backfired badly.

The other interpretation is that this was the "Heller" (it's about toddlers!) vote, and I have to think that was a large part of it. However Catholics went for Trump this time, and that probably was the fault of the Obama administration.

I thought Hillary Clinton made a terrible error in the debate with that Heller comment.

Chuck said...

khesanh0802 said...
I just hope that Trump minimizes his choices from Harvard and Yale law. We need some real people on the courts not the pampered Liberals of those two schools.


You mean like Scalia (Harvard Law), Thomas (Yale Law), or Alito (Princeton/Yale Law)? Personally, I'd add Chief Justice John Roberts (Harvard/Harvard Law), but I realize that there are lots of Tea Party types who don't know about all of Roberts' conservative opinions and judge him only on the two ObamaCare decisions.

Read Roberts' wonderful dissent in Obergefell, for example.


Chuck said...

Francisco D;
Trump is going to have to play reeeeeaaaly nice with Senate Republicans. I can't think of too many of his nominees whom I'd reject, if I were a Senate Republican, but it will only take about three of them to flip in a tough case.

And Senate Republicans are going to have to take a lot of abuse, if they go nuclear on a SCOTUS nomination.

mikee said...

Dear tim maguire: Since there is no difference between Dems and Repubs, why are the Dems so loudly decrying the election of Trump? Both you and everyone else cannot be correct over this. Either there are differences, and you are minimizing them for some reason, or every other Dem is crazy & stupid and you are correct.

I would like to conclude by noting that all other Dems being crazy & stupid, and you being wrong about this, is not excluded from being possible in any other policy issue.

Earnest Prole said...

I'm shocked, shocked, to find ideology in our courts.

eric said...

Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Freder has yet to explain how it is exactly that Trump and the republicans gerrymandered the state votes for President.

Never said they did. The Constitution gives more weight to the votes of those in less populous states than those in more populous states.


I've got a crazy idea. Instead of spending all their time partying with Hollywood stars in California and Wall Street bankers in New York next election, maybe Democrats should spend a little more time in those states where the individual vote counts for more.

Just a thought.

Fabi said...

What's the prize for winning the popular vote in a Presidential Election? Nothing. Congratulations!

Fabi said...

Because Roberts' two ObamaCare decisions aren't important! Lulz

damikesc said...

You mean like Scalia (Harvard Law), Thomas (Yale Law), or Alito (Princeton/Yale Law)? Personally, I'd add Chief Justice John Roberts (Harvard/Harvard Law), but I realize that there are lots of Tea Party types who don't know about all of Roberts' conservative opinions and judge him only on the two ObamaCare decisions.

But, Chuck, do you not agree that a Court with more, uh, varied experiences in life might be best? If all come from one or two schools, I don't see that being a positive. Why not have a non-judge? Even though Earl Warren was the shits, a Governor or somebody who has to deal with the implementation of a verdict might be beneficial.

And Senate Republicans are going to have to take a lot of abuse, if they go nuclear on a SCOTUS nomination.

I doubt it. The seal on the threat has already been broken. Sure, some in the press will bitch, but they can point to Democrats openly saying that they would do it --- plus the reality that they DID do it.

You, after all, can only lose your virginity once.

damikesc said...

What's the prize for winning the popular vote in a Presidential Election? Nothing. Congratulations!

It does belie the belief that Hillary was a genius.

She wanted to showboat and got smacked down because of it. This is the first time I've seen a showboat getting their come-uppance booed.

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
Because Roberts' two ObamaCare decisions aren't important! Lulz


Who said they weren't important?

The standing allegation against Roberts -- presumably, as a Harvard College/Harvard Law product -- was that he was a "pampered liberal." And h just isn't. Obergefell would have gotten him tarred and feathered in the Pampered Liberal Clubhouse. Not to mention his majority/deciding votes in Heller and MacDonald.

If you want to argue that Roberts' history is complex, in light of Burwell v King and NFIB v Sebelius, that's fine. If you want to categorically make Chief Justice Roberts a "pampered liberal," then you don't know what a pampered liberal is, apart from anybody who isn't in your local Tea Party.




Chuck said...

damikesc-

I like consistency. Mitch McConnell was right, when he told Senate Democrats that they'd regret their votes on the nuclear option for Executive branch nominations.

Now, they are going to regret it. It's going to hurt. I hope it hurts.

And I desperately want a William Pryor on the Supreme Court. I really do, more than you know.

But I also know that what goes around comes around and nowhere is that more true than in the U.S. Senate. I would not want to see a day where a 52-seat Dem majority could confirm a Lani Guinier or a Goodwin Liu to the Supreme Court, during a Dem presidency.

Note; I might change my mind on this issue. But not right now. Get back to me in two months.


eric said...

Blogger Chuck said...
damikesc-

I like consistency. Mitch McConnell was right, when he told Senate Democrats that they'd regret their votes on the nuclear option for Executive branch nominations.

Now, they are going to regret it. It's going to hurt. I hope it hurts.

And I desperately want a William Pryor on the Supreme Court. I really do, more than you know.

But I also know that what goes around comes around and nowhere is that more true than in the U.S. Senate. I would not want to see a day where a 52-seat Dem majority could confirm a Lani Guinier or a Goodwin Liu to the Supreme Court, during a Dem presidency.

Note; I might change my mind on this issue. But not right now. Get back to me in two months.


I'm not sure what your point here is.

No matter what happens in a Republican Senate or a Republican Presidential Administration, the next time the Democrats hold 52 seats in the Senate and the Presidency, they are going to do whatever they like with judicial appointments. It'll have zero to do with what happens during a Trump administration or what Republicans do.

The Democrats showed their true colors over the past eight years.

FullMoon said...

iowan2 said... [hush]​[hide comment]

"Obama has used his nominations to systematically diversify the federal courts to look more like the fast-changing country."

This strikes me as blatantly 180 degrees out of sync. A judge has zero ability to divine if, or how the country is changing.
This is why the homosexual marriage judicial rulings are so atrocious. The law, and the constitution(s) have not been changed, Judges, going against their own legal educations, have been divining the the peoples mores. When is reality they are just short circuiting our republican form of government.

Bright blue California overwhelmingly voted in favor of traditional marriage, is spite of constant and rigorous opposition, including publishing information of supporters in L.A. Times and others. Overturned by gay judge.

Fabi said...

I meant his two ObamaCare decisions have more exposure and impact for most people's everyday lives than a flowery dissent, Chuck.

I'm with you on Pryor -- a solid jurist.

Birkel said...

Pro-Second Amendment cannot be a "particular outcome" unless there is another political group that is Anti-Second Amendment.

Will Althouse please let her readers know which group represents that Anti-Second Amendment position?

Would announcing that judges should be Pro-First Amendment represent a "particular outcome", Althouse?

Chuck said...

eric said...
...
No matter what happens in a Republican Senate or a Republican Presidential Administration, the next time the Democrats hold 52 seats in the Senate and the Presidency, they are going to do whatever they like with judicial appointments. It'll have zero to do with what happens during a Trump administration or what Republicans do.
The Democrats showed their true colors over the past eight years.

And so, in that regrettable circumstance, I'd side with you and I'd probably go with the nuclear option. The Senate will then be a much less powerful institution. The Presidency will be more powerful, which is the last thing we need after two ultra-artisan campaign freaks like Obama and Trump.

Chuck said...

"ultra-partisan"

Interesting, to think who we might call an "ultra-artisan." Maybe Newt Gingrich or Rudy Giuliani could be "ultra-artisans."

hombre said...

If the nuclear option requires a vote, McCain, Graham and other RINO turds they can round up may derail it.

Despite his occasional outbursts on Twitter, Trump has not shown himself to be vindictive. Regardless, he should sit down with Priebus and Sessions to decide how to screw Republicrats who interfere with confirmation of his appointees, particularly judges.

McCain is a jerk who does not represent his constituents. If his opponent in the Senate election had not been a diehard moonbat, most of us Trump voters in Arizona would have abstained in his race.

Chuck said...

hombre said...
If the nuclear option requires a vote, McCain, Graham and other RINO turds they can round up may derail it.


This is a really great point, for just about none of the reasons you suggest.

Trump doesn't care about the Senate, which will be there long after he's gone. But Trump does have to deal with the Senate. And especially the Senate majority.

Remember that there were a few very notable Democrats (three, I think) -- moderates, Senate institutionalists -- who voted against the nuclear option*. Carl Levin of Michigan, who wouldn't even run for another term, was one.

*Some might say that if Levin's vote was needed, they would have gotten it out of him, but once they had the whip count right, Levin's seniority earned him the right to back out of his caucus. I don't know about any of this for sure. It would not surprise me if true.

But yes; in order to go nuclear (or even to confirm a lot of the controversial nominees!) Trump will need to "make deals" with McCain, Graham, Cruz, and every other RINONeverTrumper. LOL. Let's make some deals. And make Armerica great again.



damikesc said...

But I also know that what goes around comes around and nowhere is that more true than in the U.S. Senate. I would not want to see a day where a 52-seat Dem majority could confirm a Lani Guinier or a Goodwin Liu to the Supreme Court, during a Dem presidency.

Note; I might change my mind on this issue. But not right now. Get back to me in two months.


I also don't WANT that.

But I'm also quite aware that not wanting it won't prevent it. We'll get it. No matter what. If the GOP keeps the filibuster and allows the Dems to stop a nominee, I give the odds of being about 0 that should the situation be reversed, Dems will do the same.

The GOP bent over backwards under Bush to not use the "nuclear option". The Dems didn't have similar issues.

The Senate will then be a much less powerful institution.

That was the case when they put Senators up for direct popular votes instead of having states name them.

Earnest Prole said...

The ends justify my means but not yours.

Chuck said...

hombre said...
...
McCain is a jerk who does not represent his constituents. If his opponent in the Senate election had not been a diehard moonbat, most of us Trump voters in Arizona would have abstained in his race.


Wow, I know that feeling!

;-)

But now Senator McCain is elected, to a fresh six-year term, sure to be his last in the Senate. He's got nothing to worry about anymore; nothing but the Legacy of John McCain. So Trump has to deal.

lol.

mccullough said...

Congress needs to get rid of senior status for federal judges. Stay, retire, or die.

mccullough said...

McCain can do what he wants but Flake is up for re-election in 2018.

Birkel said...

Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton, wants Republicans to unilaterally disarm after Democrats declared total war.

Also, Chuck likes the Vichy Republicans like John McCain while spouting "No True Republican" bromides.

Nothing makes my cockles warmer than Chuck's wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Drago said...

Chuck: "nothing but the Legacy of John McCain"

McCain's legacy is already chiseled into granite.

The next 6 years will simply be an extension of that legacy.

Drago said...

Chuck: "Let's make some deals. And make Armerica great again."

Previous Democrat appointees: Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayer, Ginsburg. All reliable and consistent leftists on the court.

Previous "deal" appointees made by Republican Presidents: O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Souter, Alito & Roberts.

Roberts, naturally, broke with the conservatives and cast the deciding vote to uphold the largest expansion of federal power in decades (not to mention letting the dems play whatever games they wanted with the healthcare of the entire nation).

Dems: 4 for 4.

Republicans: Not even half are reliable conservative votes.

Such has been the McCain style "deal" making of which Chuck is so enamored.

Of course, if Chuck had his way we would have Hillary making the appointments.

Birkel said...

As for Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton, and his argument that the Ivy League is a fine place to find out next SCOTUS Justice: I say rubbish them both. Not only should it not be an Ivy League graduate, it shouldn't be a lawyer.

The predictable response "But how will a non-lawyer be able to understand the nuances and complexities..." is bull shit. If the law is too complicated to be understood by a reasonable actor, then the laws are written to hide their true effects. We can only be governed with our own consent and we cannot consent to what cannot be reasonably understood.

khesanh0802 said...

@Chuck My point was that there are more than enough Harvard and Yale Law Justices on the court and it is time to appoint some with different experience. I am well aware of where the Justices went to Law school: they ALL went to Harvard or Yale- though Ginsburg got her degree from Columbia.

khesanh0802 said...

@ Chuck My comment also applies to the lower courts. If you check I imagine you will find a heavy weighting toward Harvard and Yale. Time for a change in the farm system.

Birkel said...

khesanh0802:

Different experience is what separates Thomas from the rest. His early life demonstrates the greatness of America. His humble upbringing is heartening and inspiring.

If anything encapsulates the MAGA ethos, it is the difference between the hopefulness of a Baby Boomer [who spoke English as a second language (Gullah-Geechee was the first) and overcame obstacles to become a SCOTUS judge] as compared to the hopelessness and sclerosis of present-day America. The status quo cannot hold.

n.n said...

Human rights and self-defense. Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. Frightening.

Abortion rites, selective exclusion/inclusion, and penumbric override of free speech. Perhaps progressive wars and immigration "reform", too. We narrowly dodged a scalpel.

narciso said...

Even scalia noted they needed more non blue chip ivy leagues, more midwestern and southern evangelical

Chuck said...

mccullough said...
McCain can do what he wants but Flake is up for re-election in 2018.


And Flake can toe the Trump line; that's okay. But the Senate is so close, Trump needs virtually all of the Republicans. McCain is just the start. He'll need Rubio; he'll need Lindsey Graham; he'll need Ted Cruz. All of the guys he spent last year insulting.


Harold said...

I'm going to say this about the nationwide popular vote for POTUS in 2016.

Trump didn't lose the popular vote, with or without California. Clinton didn't win the popular vote with or without California. This is true, absolutely, because the vote in 2016 wasn't a vote to see who got the most votes, it was to see who got the most electoral votes. Therefore who got the most popular votes is absolutely immaterial. A nationwide popular vote campaign would be run in an entirely different manner then the campaigns that were run. Clinton neglected her safe states. She screwed up. They weren't safe after all. Too bad, so sad. Let's face it. Horrible candidates run horrible losing campaigns.

Harold said...

Freder Frederson said...
"Voter suppression" is typically code for requiring a photo id for voting.

Voter suppression is a lot more than requiring photo id. North Carolina's voter suppression law covered a lot more than photo id and was specifically designed to make it more difficult for minorities to vote.


Freder Frederson, just give it up and admit you're nothing but a racist. You're stating outright that only whites are intelligent enough and civic minded enough to know how to vote and take the necessary steps to do so without their betters like you taking them by the hand, dragging them to the poll, and telling them how to vote. I'm tired of you liberal racists telling me minorities are inferior and unable to function like white people. Where did you learn that? At the feet of your father? Or maybe from Democrat KKKers like Robert Byrd? Or maybe Democrat SC judge and KKK member Hugo Black? Or perhaps you got your racial views from LBJ, liberal hero.

eric said...

Blogger Chuck said...
mccullough said...
McCain can do what he wants but Flake is up for re-election in 2018.


And Flake can toe the Trump line; that's okay. But the Senate is so close, Trump needs virtually all of the Republicans. McCain is just the start. He'll need Rubio; he'll need Lindsey Graham; he'll need Ted Cruz. All of the guys he spent last year insulting.


What's he going to need them for? To pass conservative nominees? Or to pass conservative legislation?

Or are you saying to pass a liberal agenda? If that's what you mean, then he won't get Ted Cruz and many others. And he shouldn't.

But if you mean in order to push through conservative nominees and legislation, then why does he need them? They should already be on board.

roesch/voltaire said...

Using pro-life as a litmus test for judges strikes me a different from hoping a Judge will vote to over-turn Citizen United. Maybe a religious test vs one based solely on law?

Gahrie said...

McCain is just the start. He'll need Rubio; he'll need Lindsey Graham; he'll need Ted Cruz. All of the guys he spent last year insulting.

Rubio and Cruz are used to being insulted by Republicans....

Sebastian said...

"Hillary Clinton did the same thing. She said: "[W]e need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United...." And: "And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people. Not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy." Both candidates threatened to appoint ideologues."

This is false. By imposing political litmus tests, Hill promised ideologues. By calling for people in the mold of Scalia, DJT promised judges with particular judicial philosophies. Of course, while we are playing this game, we might as well go meta: once progs turn judging into yet another political arena, opposing their ideological posturing becomes another ideology. They leave nothing untainted.

Largo said...

Freder Frederson: "people didn't elect Trump (he lost the popular vote), the Electoral College elected Trump."

People never elect presidents. Electoral College elects presidents. Right Freddy?

Chuck said...

eric, I should think that every Republican would have no problem, in voting for the confirmation of a William Pryor to the Supreme Court.

Others might have problems, if for instance it turns out that in confirmation hearings, a Rex Tillerson has some squirrely problems that might make it hard for, say, a Jeff Flake to win reelection in 2018. But in that case, there won't even be a Rex Tillerson nomination. He'll withdraw, if and when Mitch McConnell calls Kellyanne Conway and says that the votes aren't there.

Don't get me wrong; I am not expecting Senate Republicans to do anything that they wouldn't do for a President Jeb Bush, or a President Rubio or a President Kasich. All Trump has to do, is to follow that line.

narciso said...

Fideloflakr is a nevertrumper, who can be counted on to be a jackalope.

narciso said...

I. All him that bevausr his close personal relationship with the castro
bros, his stance on amnesty

narciso said...

His stance on Syria going back to 2013, when he wanted to strike asdad.

Birkel said...

Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton, is giddy with excitement that a Trump nominee might be torpedoed by Republicans.

narciso said...

Sorry about the typos, but you dint need a weatherman to see which way flake will turn,

Michael K said...

"hoping a Judge will vote to over-turn Citizen United. "

Do you understand what that was about ? Hillary is no longer a candidate. Maybe we can even see "The Path to 9/11/"

Citizens United was a first amendment case. You are against the first amendment ?

Fabi said...

Thankfully we'll never have a President Jeb Bush or a President Kasich. We may have a President Rubio one day if he doesn't immediately revert to his GOPe ways.

Qwinn said...

Some liberal positions, while I disagree with them, I can imagine that the person pushing them genuinely believes it and is arguing in good faith.

Others, though, are so utterly indefensible, so obviously fraudulent, that I'm glad when they're advanced so that I can permanently dismiss the person pushing it as having no credibility and arguing in bad faith.

Opposing voter ID is one. Opposing Citizens United is another.

hombre said...

Chuck: "But yes; in order to go nuclear (or even to confirm a lot of the controversial nominees!) Trump will need to "make deals" with McCain, Graham, Cruz, and every other RINONeverTrumper. LOL. Let's make some deals. And make Armerica great again."

Spoken like a "business as usual RINO," Chuck. You still dont get it. If Trump makes the usual deals with these pussies, there will be no second term. Hillary lost and so did the cuckservatives.

Chuck said...

hombre said...
... Hillary lost and so did the cuckservatives.


I know what an ignorant piece of shit you are, when you toss out a portmanteau like "cuckservatives."

Rubio won a new 6-year term, beating a Trumpist primary opponent. So did McCain. So did Paul Ryan. I can't think of any "cuckservatives" in Congress who lost. Not one. The "cuckservatives" in the critical state houses (Kasich, Snyder, Walker, etc.) are all beyond the reach of the Trumpkins.

There were the Republican primary candidates for president, of course. (Sigh.) But I have the Republican congress, where the only guy in the Senate who liked Donald Trump (Jeff Sessions) is leaving that body.


Birkel said...

Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton, is excited about business as usual. Those trillion dollar plus increases to the debt and slow GDP growth be damned.

Because Chuck still has McCain, Rubio and Paul Ryan...

Chuck said...

Birkel said...
Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton, is excited about business as usual. Those trillion dollar plus increases to the debt and slow GDP growth be damned.


Say goodbye to those days!

We no longer have a president who will veto those spending bills. So Republicans now have to take responsibility. They will write the bills. Senate Democrats will have to threaten government shutdowns with filibuster threats. The question will be what will Trump do, when Paul Ryan and House Republicans write a bill to reform Social Security and Medicare?

Trump promised he wouldn't touch them.

Birkel said...

Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton, thinks all the problems will be Trump's. No problems for his big government Republicans and Democrats.

Party on, Chuck.

Jon Ericson said...

'Chuck Think'