January 15, 2017

Trump has interviewed 11th Circuit Judge William Pryor — one of the candidates on the list for Supreme Court nominees.

David Lat reports and explains why Pryor's chances are so good:
First, Sessions is a major Pryor proponent — and now that Sessions is definitely going to be AG, having killed it at his hearings, his Trumpworld stock is way up and his views enjoy greater sway within the administration. Sessions and Pryor are close friends and have known each for more than 20 years....

Second, the success of Sessions shows that what gets liberals all hot and bothered isn’t necessarily enough to stop a nominee — and this might encourage the Trump Administration to “go bold,” swing for the fences, and put up Pryor. Judge Pryor, more than any other potential Trump nominee, triggers strong opposition from liberal interest groups — civil rights groups, LGBT groups, and especially pro-abortion groups, who loathe his comments about Roe v. Wade (“worst abomination in the history of constitutional law”)....

Judge Pryor is very conservative and very outspoken — but he’s also very smart and a stickler for preparation, and he would likely perform well at confirmation hearings....

100 comments:

Livermoron said...

Time to be bold, President Trump.

This should make Chuck happy...given how he loves conservatives.

cubanbob said...

Trump has nothing to lose by going bold. The conservatives will support him and the not so conservative Trumpers will either ignore it or be OK with the nomination. The Left will go ballistic but the then again no matter who Trumps picks they will go ballistic so might as well get real value for the drama.

traditionalguy said...

Just in time to replace the Ringling Bros Barnum and Bailey Circus. Pryor Confirmation riots.

I see DJT using the retired Elephants and Tigers as crowd control. So what a few get stepped on and eaten. Soros has Workers Comp Insurance.

readering said...

My money has been with Pryor from early on.

rehajm said...

...the success of Sessions shows that what gets liberals all hot and bothered isn’t necessarily enough to stop a nominee — and this might encourage the Trump Administration to “go bold,”...

As if the Trump Administration was tempering ambitions for the sake of liberal feelings.

Jersey Fled said...

It's clear that the Democrats have declared full out war on Trump. Time to punch back twice as hard - including the nuclear (Reid) option if necessary.

Original Mike said...

Maybe a good opening offer. They do need 60 votes.

chickelit said...

cubanbob said...The Left will go ballistic but the then again no matter who Trumps picks they will go ballistic so might as well get real value for the drama.

Let's just hope they don't go for ballistics. But who knows? Maybe Bill Ayers will revert.

stever said...

This is why I voted for him, get this out front and he will give assurance to people like me.

Gahrie said...

civil rights groups, LGBT groups, and especially pro-abortion groups, who loathe his comments about Roe v. Wade (“worst abomination in the history of constitutional law”)....

One of the things the Left needs to do is come to grips with the fact that what Pryor said is demonstrably true. While it may not be the absolute worst decision (I still maintain the worst ever is Dred Scott, but there are a lot of contenders), it's absurd reasoning easily makes it the worst abomination. (Dred, as bad as it was, did not rely upon emanations (abstracts) from a penumbra (the outer regions of a shadow).

Guildofcannonballs said...

Duh Trump would NEVER nominate someone on his list, he is a dummy and loud mouth lying poopy head who will nominate his sister, and you can take that to the bank.

QED.

In fact, QED time two.

Ha.

Bay Area Guy said...

Pryor would not only be a home run, but a Grand Slam.

exiledonmainstreet said...

YES!

Jon Ericson said...

In before the whiners.

Gahrie said...

I'm willing to accept the Pryor nomination as long as Cruz is on the shortlist to replace RBG.....

The Drill SGT said...

Gahrie said...
I'm willing to accept the Pryor nomination as long as Cruz is on the shortlist to replace RBG.....


Cruz is still reaching for the Gold Ring. He wants to be President.

readering said...

Politico reported that Cruz told the Trump team he has no interest in sitting on the Supreme Court.

Gahrie said...

Cruz is still reaching for the Gold Ring. He wants to be President.

Never going to happen. The Democrats, the MSM (I repeat myself) and the Republican Establishment all fear and hate Cruz more than Trump, which is why Trump was the nominee and not Cruz..............

Chuck said...

Livermoron:

Pryor is my dream candidate.

I am tempted to say, that he will never get 61 votes. Sorta like I said Trump could never win Michigan, and that he'd lose in an electoral landslide.

But let's remember that Kagan was confirmed with 63 votes (5 Republicans supported her). Sotomayor was confirmed with 68 votes, with 9 Republicans in that majority. Alito was confirmed with 58 votes, 4 Dems in his majority.

It isn't so much that Bill Pryor needs 61 votes. Schumer needs 41 filibuster votes. A slightly different dynamic.

Now, let's remember that as ugly as Democrat partisanship can be (yeah, you, Rep. Lewis) what brings out the absolute worst in them is Supreme Court nominations. I'd like to say that it will be the fight to end all fights in the Trump era. But it will be the fight that begins all fights in the Trump era.

The Drill SGT said...

Never going to happen. The Democrats, the MSM (I repeat myself) and the Republican Establishment all fear and hate Cruz more than Trump, which is why Trump was the nominee and not Cruz...

You know that, and I know that, but apparently Cruz doesn't

Fabi said...

I love it when I agree with Chuck! Pryor is a stellar jurist.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Why can't the Republicans just end the filibuster for SCOTUS right now? It seems obvious.

Pryor strikes me as good, though really I was holding out for Volokh :-)

Curious George said...

“worst abomination in the history of constitutional law”

Nuff said.

Unknown said...

Ultra-right wing Supreme Court Justices won't make any difference to the Liberal/Progessive States as they are already ring-fencing themselves legally against Federal rules.

NotMyPresident country is moving on as usual by being the economic engine. It will disregard Trumpland and compete with the rest of the world. Automation technology from those nasty elitist liberals on the Coasts is going to wipe-out most of the jobs in Trumpland within a generation if not sooner. In the meantime, Trumpland can continue to stick with Religon, Guns and Fox News.

Virgil Hilts said...

Good article. Too bad David Lat had to add the snark about the Woman voting for Trump piece in the NY Times. "If you think American voters hold a more sophisticated understanding of government, just read these. . "
I liked the women quoted and thought it took a lot of guts to appear in that article. David Lat is typical of the "smug attitude" that got Trump elected. Good to see that despite his sophistication he has not learned anything. Keep up the smugness and sow what you reap.

buwaya said...

Just as long as he is reliably conservative.
Its not terribly important how he does it.
As far as I can tell, the how of this is part of the ritual that is important to many of you Americans, but not to the rest.
I realize the process is part of your civic religion, a very complex and expensive one, with whole libraries and academic departments in dozens of universities, but I dont get it, like I dont understand why some ancient Roman priests had to wear weird woolen hats.
Its a box with two slots, you put a question in one slot and you get an answer out the other one. You can tell what the answer will be, quite reliably, by who the judges are.

buwaya said...

California gun control laws are definitely going to be challenged as unconstitutional, among many other things, and there is no ring fencing possible here.

And California Catholic schools and universities are likely to have a great deal less to worry about. No ring fence.

EDH said...

Trump to send his regrets to liberals due to a Pryor commitment?

PB said...

Pryor is 54. He could be there a long time.

Yancey Ward said...

Trump may as well nominate Pryor since any nominee on his list can't get the 60 votes necessary to overcome the filibuster. The most endangered Democrats up for reelection in 2018 will probably be given permission to vote for a nominee, but that number isn't going to 8, more like 2 or 3.

The real battle is going to be on the Republican side of the aisle in pushing this through via Reid's Nuclear Option. If the Democrats are smart (not guaranteed), they will not filibuster any of the cabinet level offices and will make the Supreme Court confirmation the first filibuster. I can easily see McCain, Graham, and Collins voting to stop the nuclear option- in fact I put it at even money as long as the Democrats haven't been indiscriminate in using the filibuster to stop cabinet appointments.

YoungHegelian said...

and especially pro-abortion groups, who loathe his comments about Roe v. Wade (“worst abomination in the history of constitutional law”)....

A view that Judge Pryor shared with The New Republic in the 20-odd years I subscribed to it. At least once a year there was a "What a piece of shit ruling Roe v Wade is" article. TNR was pro-abortion for sure, but they were "lawyer-ly" & critical enough thinkers to know a stinker when they saw one.

YoungHegelian said...

@Unknown,

Ultra-right wing Supreme Court Justices won't make any difference to the Liberal/Progessive States as they are already ring-fencing themselves legally against Federal rules.

You mean, like the Confederacy did? That sort of nullification of federal authority?

I'm so glad to see that you're all on board with "states rights" now, Unknown. I imagine we're going to hear that term out of so many lefty pie-holes in the next four years that it would've driven Orval Faubus & George Wallace round the bend.

tim maguire said...

I've never come across a legal scholar who thought Roe v. Wade was rightly decided, regardless of their personal views on abortion. And its effects on our society have been almost uniformly harmful, regardless of your personal views on abortion. The position of my Con Law professor in 2003 was that Roe v. Wade has already been repealed, but the justices lack the courage to admit it.

It would be nice to hear a public person say something true about this decision in public.

rehajm said...

Why can't the Republicans just end the filibuster for SCOTUS right now? It seems obvious.

Someone explain to me and Michelle why the nuclear option is suddenly off the table?

Last I heard it was yet another arrow in the GOP quiver...

campy said...

I can easily see McCain, Graham, and Collins voting to stop the nuclear option- in fact I put it at even money as long as the Democrats haven't been indiscriminate in using the filibuster to stop cabinet appointments.

The dems can filibuster the whole cabinet and McCain will still block the Reid option if it gets him a favorable mention in the NYT.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Happy face.

campy said...

Someone explain to me and Michelle why the nuclear option is suddenly off the table?

Repubs are too nice to play dirty the way dems do.

Chuck said...

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) will be an interesting vote if Bill Pryor gets the nomination.

Pryor was confirmed to the Eleventh Circuit in a very tight vote, after a debilitating Bush-era fight over several Court of Appeals nominations, including Pryor's, plus Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Rick Griffin and David McKeague. And, it was when the Republicans controlled the Senate. (It was the heyday of Democratic judicial filibusters.)

Pryor was confirmed on a near-perfect party-line vote. 53-45. Ken Salazar (D-CO) crossed over to vote with the Republicans, in favor of Pryor's confirmation. So too did Ben Nelson of Nebraska. They are both gone from the Senate.

Susan Collins of Maine voted against Pryor. So did her Maine/Republican colleague, Olympia Snowe. As did former (good riddance) Republican Lincoln Chaffee. Chaffee is long gone from the Senate. Snowe has retired. Only Collins remains.

Sometimes, in deepy contentious votes, a whip will do a count, and "release" certain members to vote against the party when they know they will win anyway. That might have happened in the case of the Pryor confirmation, but this is troubling. Because it is the reverse of what so often happens; a lower court judge is confirmed unanimously or nearly so, but then a Supreme Court nomination gets contentious.

Collins is 64, and she will face re-election in 2020, the next presidential year.

Gahrie said...

Ultra-right wing Supreme Court Justices won't make any difference to the Liberal/Progessive States as they are already ring-fencing themselves legally against Federal rules.

Yeaaah, about that...how 'd it work out for you guys the last time you tried that during the Civil Rights era........

YoungHegelian said...

@Gahrie,

Yeaaah, about that...how 'd it work out for you guys the last time you tried that during the Civil Rights era........

Oh, Gahrie, hush yo' mouth! You know that the good people of the Northern states never had any problems with the Civil Rights movement or the laws that came out of it.

That brick that landed right on MLK's kisser during that march outside of Chicago? All those riots in Boston over busing? What was all that? Nada, I tells ya, nada.

Jim at said...

"Automation technology from those nasty elitist liberals on the Coasts is going to wipe-out most of the jobs in Trumpland within a generation if not sooner."

Yeah. Because it's those schmucks in Trumpland who are going to feel the brunt of automation ... and not the sniveling bitches pushing for a 15-buck minimum wage.

Gawd, you're a stupid one.

n.n said...

Restoring the human and civil rights of the "Posterity" party to The Constitution would be positive progress. Overcoming the denial of human evolution and amorality of deeming life unworthy under the State-established Pro-Choice Church would be positive progress. Avoiding the pitfalls of progressive constitutions that establish institutional racism, sexism, etc. (i.e. [class] diversity) as the highest law of the land, that deny individual dignity, and legally treat human life as colorful clumps of cells, would also be positive progress.

Avoiding social justice adventures and a dysfunctional convergence in a catastrophic anthropogenic climate change with nuclear powers would undeniably be positive progress.

Addressing the progressive costs, and government sanctioned monopolies and practices (i.e. anti-capitalist), driving unaffordable health care would be a memorable legacy.

That said, the pursuit of Revitalization, Rehabilitation, Reconciliation in order to promote the general Welfare is notably frightening to many entrenched special and peculiar interests. Democratic privilege is at stake. Bipartisan interests are at stake. Don't fear change.

tcrosse said...

Why can't the Republicans just end the filibuster for SCOTUS right now? It seems obvious.
Because you never know when the shoe will be on the other foot. I'm looking at you, Harry Reid.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Ultra-right wing Supreme Court Justices won't make any difference to the Liberal/Progessive States as they are already ring-fencing themselves legally against Federal rules.

So Liberal/Progressive states are fine with conservative states banning abortion so long as they don't have to do so themselves? We seem to have been fighting about nothing all these years.

Chuck said...

The rule on filibusters is a Senate rule that can be changed on a simple majority vote.

When the Democrats went nuclear, to ram through nominations (significantly, to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals), they did it with a simple majority. A one-vote majority, in fact.

A couple of Senate institutionalists on the Dem side wouldn't go along with Harry Reid on that one. Carl Levin (D-MI) voted against it, and spoke harshly about it at the time.

If it were to be attempted again, for a SCOTUS nominee, there would be a lot of pushback within the Republican conference. I think McCain would rebel. I think he'd have Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins and possibly Rob Portman with him.

Trumpit said...

I hope Trump goes with his never-failed-him-yet instincts and nominates Ivanka to the Supreme Court. She would bring much needed style and fashion to the drab Supreme Court. Is there a nepotism rule that forbids a daughter? Next choice is his wife Melania. She was born in Slovenia; that minor detail is no debarment to the job. The disbarment only happens after she is impeached. She can peak over Justice Ginsberg's shoulder and copy her opinions; Justice Ginsberg will be flattered.

A third possibility is Harriet Miers who was obnoxiously forced to withdraw her nomination by George W. Bush. People made fun of her legal writing ability, and her qualifications - most unfairly I believe. So to undo that wrong, Trump can renominate her. Surely, her writing ability has improved since the first time she was nominated. At 71, she is still a decade younger than most of the old farts on the bench. Give her a chance! Give Trump a chance to do the right thing, you rotten left-wing doubters. Trump won; get over it already. Elections have consequences.

You can read about the Harriet Miers' fiasco here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

tim maguire,

I've never come across a legal scholar who thought Roe v. Wade was rightly decided, regardless of their personal views on abortion.

It isn't exactly that; it's that no one can agree on the grounds of the decision, though everyone does agree that they can't be the actual grounds on which it was decided. Everyone thinks it was rightly decided (well, everyone except the majority of Europe, whose laws are far more restrictive, and those of us who have the temerity to prefer such laws -- or, worse, are "anti-choice.") But no one agrees on the rationale, except that it can't be the emanations 'n' penumbras stuff of the opinion. I've by now heard everything. Pregnancy is "involuntary servitude," so, 13th A. Pregnancy is sex-discriminatory, so, 14th A. Pregnancy just isn't something our laws are equipped to deal with, so 9th and 10th A. If someone hasn't already proposed that a fetus has illegally searched and seized a woman's womb, I offer that up as a freebie.

mccullough said...

Pryor is getting the Romney treatment. He's the squirrel

Saint Croix said...

Put me down for Sykes!

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Yancey Ward said...
If the Democrats are smart (not guaranteed), they will not filibuster any of the cabinet level offices and will make the Supreme Court confirmation the first filibuster.

Didn't Reid do away with filibuster for cabinet picks? Or did the stupid party reinstate the filibuster?

n.n said...

Michelle Dulak Thomson:

Eighth Amendment, specifically: "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted".

Gaia is a cruel Mother that obviously hates Her daughters, and is not particularly fond of Her sons, both of whom are aborted and cannibalized every one hundred years or so.

Yeah, that's it. They should plead the Eighth.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ooh, that's a new one. Thanks!

We are running out of the Bill of Rights here. Could the fetus be styled a "soldier," "quartered" in the privacy of the womb? We do have to work the Third in here somehow.

Chuck said...

Correction: the "nuclear option" vote led by Senator Harry Reid did not pass by a single vote. It passed 52-48 on November 21,2013, with three Senate Democrats joining every Republican in voting no.

Bay Area Guy said...

If Pryor gets filibustered, Sykes or Janice Rogers Brown would be outstanding.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

"Second, the success of Sessions shows that what gets liberals all hot and bothered isn’t necessarily enough to stop a nominee — and this might encourage the Trump Administration to “go bold,” swing for the fences,"


No, no, no, no, nope. This dope obviously doesn't read Althouse.

Ya see when libs disapprove of what DJT does, DJT does what libs disapprove of even more, and the American people (i.e. Althouse) decide that they definitely want what the libs disapprove of precisely because the libs disapprove of DJT doing it.

This is a classic chicken-egg misunderstanding. Bottom line, DJT is just trying to MAGA*, and libs are helping him MAGA, because they make Althouse "feel" for DJT.


*MAGA = ultra conservative governance, which is only being strongly opposed by libs because libs are unfair to DJT, if Romney did the same stuff DJT has done (from pussy grabbing on) the libs (and majority of the population that voted for the other gal) would be cool w/ it, and Althosue wouldn't get those "feelings."

Anywho, Comey and Russia are cool w/ DJT, so Althouse/DJT have allies there.

Carry on.


Fabi said...

What are the chances of any Democrat voting for a simple majority for Supreme Court confirmation, Chuck? I'd guess about zero, but I don't know if they're getting any waffling on that side of the aisle.

sean said...

Hmm, I wonder what Prof. Althouse and her friends think about John Ely. He said that Roe v. Wade was not just bad Constitutional law, it wasn't even trying to be Constitutional law.

Unknown said...

When your opposition has neutered themselves by acting like complete and utter partisan lunatics. And their democrat media keeps befouling themselves by letting their complete partisanship finally show, it is time to go big.

Who would believe any democrat or any democrat media on anything anymore. Only the nevertrumpers would be a problem.

Owen said...

Virgil Hilts @ 3:23: "...Keep up the smugness and sow what you reap." Agree with the sentiment but isn't the phrase "reap what you sow"?

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

"Agree with the sentiment but isn't the phrase "reap what you sow"?"

STFU, this is the DJT era.

Put a lid on your elitist snobbery.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

Owen is full of lies, a loser, accomplished nothing! Sad!

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

Or, is that < < Owen > >?

DJT's loyalists are on to you.

eric said...

Blogger Bay Area Guy said...
If Pryor gets filibustered, Sykes or Janice Rogers Brown would be outstanding.


I have a feeling the Republicans are going to let the first one get filibustered.

But if Trump is true to his word, the next one will be just as conservative. Which means, the second one the Republican can say, "Oh cmon! You just said that about Pryor!"

And then they'll use that for justification to go nuclear.

Unknown said...

Not going nuclear would be a big, very, very big mistake. After watching the democrats and their media during this transition, the filibuster is history. A democrat party that is willing to commit violence will not allow their politicians to be stopped by a filibuster.

The republicans had best wake up and play very hard ball, because when the opposing party literally think you are hitler, if they could kill you, they would.

Saint Croix said...

Judge Pryor is very conservative and very outspoken — but he’s also very smart and a stickler for preparation, and he would likely perform well at confirmation hearings....

The Nominee Who Won't Back Down

Pryor is Catholic (I think) and seems to associate his pro-life views with his religious views. But there's a strong legal argument that an unborn baby is a person with a right to life!

Bizarre to me how so many lawyers and law professors are oblivious to our death statutes, or think they are irrelevant to the infanticide question. Instead of stating your opinion so loudly and vocally, why not make legal arguments that the homicide of an innocent person is in fact forbidden by our Constitution?

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

"And then they'll use that for justification to go nuclear."

Really, y'all should have the first (throwaway) pick be insanely conservative. Then you go back to Pryor as the reasonable pick.

Even going nuke, ya need to keep hold of a RINO or two. So, the plan is to justify the nuke, and to pressure the RINOs.

We've got to get back to the Constitution so gals stop murdering their kids and libs stop being uppity about their so-called rights and corporation/job crushing limitations. MAGA.

James Kahn said...

I thought the nuclear option is already in place for everything but SCOTUS appointments. The usual argument against Republicans invoking it for SCOTUS is that they will regret it when the Dems get the upper hand again, just as the Dems may regret it now for cabinet appointments and lower court judges. Still, I think it's worth it given the number of appointments Trump may have if he's in for eight years.
The way the Democrats are behaving and talking now, I fully expect them to filibuster any SCOTUS nominee who's to the right of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, especially one who's been as outspoken as Pryor.

madAsHell said...

Wow!

If this was summer, then I'd say that Althouse just hung out the bug zapper, and every bug in the territory just came to be zapped.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

"The way the Democrats are behaving and talking now, I fully expect them to filibuster any SCOTUS nominee who's to the right of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, especially one who's been as outspoken as Pryor."

That's the right thinking, don't forget that even though district drawing is good for Rs, popularity (and votes cast) re the entire population at all fed offices (incl. DJT's almost 3 million vote deficit) is well behind the numbers of seats held. Waiting and hoping for better numbers (e.g. getting to 60 in the Senate) is not wise. Jam it all down quick. Jam it hard. And, if the libs fuss, Althouse will call them out as mean and unprecedented.

It's jam o'clock.

Mark said...

Actually, for Blackmun, it was about doctor's rights in dealing with his patients as much as if not more than anything to do with women. And most people would, in fact, agree that Roe was nothing but "an exercise in raw judicial power," with its justifications grounded in whole cloth. Post Casey, whatever justifications people may have been able to conjure up are irrelevant -- now abortion "rights" are self-justifying and Roe stands because the Court said so, period, and the nation now has an obligation to bow down to the brilliance of the likes of Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

That's right Mark,

Roe is an excuse for homicidal mothers who are into infanticide re their own kids.

readering said...

I predict that the Senate Democrats will slow walk the nomination but not filibuster. The vacancy does not need to be filled until October. The last day of oral arguments this term is April 26. McConnell can be patient. Things will go nuclear if one of the four Democratic appointees leaves the bench. I don't think that will happen before the 2018 midterm elections. Scalia kept his surprising ill health hidden. I don't think Breyer and Ginsburg have that kind of surprise.

Mark said...

Post Casey, Roe must stand because "Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt," and, of course, because "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Scalia was right to mock these constitutional boobs, particularly the one who we should all hope will be the next to leave the Court.

Mark said...

Meanwhile, ask Roe about what she thinks of Roe. That is, ask Norma McCorvey her view of the Court's ruling and how she was treated in bringing it about.

readering said...

SNL had a funny skit last night with Susan McKinnon as the ghost of Susan B Anthony at the Susan B Anthony House being visited by the other female cast members. They are briefly worshipful before turning blasé and dismissive of her hoary old views on women's rights, until she blurts out "Abortion is murder." "Whaaat?" Cut.

Jon Ericson said...

Hands on hips!

Lewis Wetzel said...

As far as I can tell, the goals of a modern feminist woman are to:
A) Have sex with women.
B) Not have children.
C) Grow facial hair.
Which means that the goals of a modern feminist woman are identical to the goals of an immature fifteen year old boy.

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...

"Meanwhile, ask Roe about what she thinks of Roe."

She knows the gals who do this are homicidal baby killers, who murder their own kids.

Jon Ericson said...

Case in point.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Hands on hips!

Bring your knees in tight!

Jon Ericson said...

Let your backbone slip?

Gahrie said...

If Black lives really mattered to the Left...they would be marching on Planned Parenthood rather than the cops.......Sanger's dream has been realized....

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Michelle Dulak Thomson:

You're right, it would be easy to force the Third to conform. According to female chauvinists, the baby... I mean, fetus, is man's projection of power over a woman, a soldier in the service of manhood, the war against women.

In times of peace, the Mother, as legal owner of her womb, may choose to quarter the soldier (i.e. Pro-Choice/abortion or selective-child). In times of war, the government prescribes the accommodation (e.g. one-child).

I would like to thank Pelosi for inspiring this legal argument, and for female chauvinists who pit women against men in the battle for political progress. I thought babies were merely unwitting casualties of the war, but now I see that they are the foot soldiers of the patriarchy in its lifelong passion to oppress women.

I only laugh because this conjuring is so surreal. Welcome to the twilight zone, I suppose.

Ambrose said...

There could be all sorts of good jokes like "The Pryor opinion overturns the prior holding."

Original Mike said...

"because when the opposing party literally think you are hitler, if they could kill you, they would."

The logic would seem unescapable.

David said...

It's not the Democrats that matter in the confirmation vote. It's whether any Republicans can be dislodged from voting in favor. It only takes two.

readering said...

It takes three since Pence breaks a tie.

Birkel said...

In which readering pushes the common knowledge that no Democrat will betray the Collective. It is as if "the party of science" cannot allow free thinking.

One wonders how the election of 2018 will weigh on the minds of vulnerable Democrats. Just kidding!

They would rather lose elections than betray the Collective.

Martin said...

If Trump is as smart as I think he is, he will nominate someone pretty hard-right, but who will command unanimous support among Republican Senators, and the Dems will either accept it or filibuster--probably the latter b/c of their donors.

So, the first one likely goes down with a filibuster fight.

Then, nominate someone slightly more acceptable to the Dems, but still pretty conservative and who also commands unanimous GOP support. The Dems console themselves and their donors that they fought the tough fight against the horrible Mr/Ms X, and now got someone better, but they can't keep filibustering forever. So they graciously and magnanimously let it through, showing their wonderfulness. imho this path gets you teh most conservative possible Assoc. Justice.

Trump may not go for this b/c he might see any loss as damaging his "brand," but then he will have to nominate a real centrist.

sane_voter said...

Nominate Pryor, and if he gets filibustered, then nominate Sykes. If she gets filibustered, then go nuclear and she gets confirmed. Then, if another vacancy occurs, nominate Pryor again and he gets confirmed.

Birkel said...

Martin:
Consider that Trump might think winning is the answer and go to war on his first nominee.

How well did you predict Trump's behavior up till now?

Eric Landgraf said...

Ann,
Given Trump's penchant for unpredictable moves it is possible that he goes for a grand slam by not only nominating Pryor, but also expanding the court from 9 to 17 justices. Thereby incurring the undying wrath.

He could float the idea of appointing conservative, non-White justices who hail from schools other than the Ivies. Maybe judges that have actual career paths that differ from the Breyer, Kagan, Kennedy and Alito. Women and men who represent different life experiences.

Breaking the monopoly of the Ivies might benefit our nation while also opening new career paths for American lawyers who are not blessed with Ivy credentials.

Steven said...

1) Trump can fill Supreme Court seats (temporarily, but with full Justice powers) with a recess appointment.

2) All Trump needs to get a recess is a majority in either the House or Senate to do so (since when they disagree, the President gets to adjourn them" to such time as he shall think proper").

3) There'll likely be a Republican majority in the Senate until at least the end of his term. Even if the Democrats defend all their Senate seats and manage to take both R seats in states that didn't go Trump by a double-digit margin in 2018, the Republicans still have a majority of 50 Rs plus the VP.

So, what happens if the Democrats manage to successfully unite to filibuster his nominees for four years straight, and enough Republicans over the same period of time refuse to go nuclear, and the Democrats have the maximum plausible gains in the 2018 Congressional elections? Trump goes ahead and puts anyone he damn well pleases into the Supreme Court anyway, and keeps them in, until at least January 2021.

You can make a lot of Constitutional law in four years. How much of it do the Democrats want to be made by people they're pissing off by filibustering?

Mark said...

Yeah Martin, it is your "smart" strategy that has led to us being fucked in the ass the first ten times it was followed. This is how you do it -- you nominate the best and rock solid person and you ram him or her through. And if any worm Republicans pussy out and the nomination fails, you nominate someone even more rock solid and less acceptable to Dems, not more. If we get another Souter or O'Connor or Stevens or Kennedy, you can kiss Republican majorities goodbye in the Senate, the House, the White House and the party itself is dead.

Saint Croix said...

Pryor has expressed several emotional reactions to Roe v. Wade. His language is very emotional. He's telling us how he feels about Roe v. Wade. He hates it! And he's also saying that he knows how to control his emotions.

This is all very good, in my opinion. I much prefer a jurist who feels deeply as opposed to the Breyer/Posner robots who have no emotions to repress. When people read Stenberg v. Carhart and they feel nothing, I wonder what the hell is the matter with them. I won't diagnose them as sociopaths since I have no medical training and it's probably just name-calling anyway. But I think lack of emotion is a far greater problem at the Supreme Court level than too much emotion.

Still, I would hope that the judge will turn this depth of feeling into legal analysis. Is an unborn baby a person? What does the law say about when life begins, or when people die? That's the sort of discussion we need to have, not venting about how evil an opinion is.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Lyin'PB_Ombudsman said...It's jam o'clock.

There you go, LPBO, that's funny; good work.

Themistocles said...

I don't get the case for Pryor. Pryor gets us a 3rd reliable vote. It takes 5. That 5th vote is, in the short-term, Kennedy and, in the long-term, either Roberts (if Trump gets a 2nd pick) or Kagan (if Kennedy/Ginsburg/Breyer hold out and a D replaces them). This pick should be aimed at solidifying Roberts. Roberts is an institutionalist and a minimalist. He's careful and he doesn't like fireworks. Bringing him back, instead of further alienating him, is going to be tricky. It calls more for a conservative Brennan- a coalition-builder- than a firebrand. I like Gorsuch or Sykes or even maybe Kethledge, who's sent more of his clerks to Roberts than to anyone else. Pryor will just turn Roberts into a full O'Connor and we'll have f'ed up again.

JAORE said...

"The republicans had best wake up and play very hard ball, because when the opposing party literally think you are hitler, if they could kill you, they would."

"...you..."?