January 3, 2017

"U.S. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court expired at noon Tuesday..."

"... clearing the way for President-elect Donald Trump to fill a vacancy Senate Republicans held open for months with an appointee championed by conservatives."
Judge Garland’s nomination languished for 293 days until it expired with the formal adjournment of the 114th Congress. Republicans said their inaction on the nomination was a way to permit voters to weigh in on the Supreme Court’s direction by electing the next president. Democrats accused Republicans of “stealing” a nomination that voters entrusted to President Barack Obama in his 2012 re-election.
No funny business of the type discussed here and here happened.

I wish Merrick Garland well in his continued service on the Court of Appeals, and I thank President Obama for not doing anything bizarre in the transition from the old to the new Congress today. I hope that's a sign of restraint that will prevail in the next 17 days until the new President arrives.

164 comments:

Nonapod said...

I hope that's a sign of restraint that will prevail in the next 17 days until the new President arrives.

Given his history, I'm still expect some appalling pardons at the very least.

PB said...

I'm glad to be wrong that Dems didn't pull a fast one.

PB said...

Let's see how long RBG holds on. I think they'll be carrying her out.

Ken B said...

Not a surprise. Obama's relative popularity is the only real asset the dems have left. I didn't see what he would get out of pissing it away.

CJinPA said...

I just hope Obama spends the next few years writing a few more autobiographies, and not undermining the new president. But I suspect he won't have the restraint. Then again, maybe Trump won't either when he leaves.

Wilbur said...

As the golfer Bobby Jones observed when he was praised for calling a penalty on himself, "You might as well praise someone for not robbing a bank".

Mike said...

We dodged one stupidity. That's all. Many more to come. Strap in.

Jay Elink said...

I too thank President Obama, for not being a petulant dick (for once).

Original Mike said...

"Republicans said their inaction on the nomination was a way to permit voters to weigh in on the Supreme Court’s direction by electing the next president."

It was a high risk strategy (given the probability of a Hillary! victory) but it paid off. Congratulations, Repubs.

mccullough said...

John Roberts nomination on Jan 27, 1992 to the DC Circuit languished even longer than Garland's Supreme Court nomination. Payback is a motherfucker. Well played by the GOP Senate.

Matthew Sablan said...

"It was a high risk strategy (given the probability of a Hillary! victory) but it paid off."

-- If Garland had been nominated, I wonder if Clinton would have won, since one of Trump's biggest selling points, justices, would have taken a hit.

Wilbur said...

"It was a high risk strategy (given the probability of a Hillary! victory ..."

I respectfully disagree. Garland would have been as reliable a liberal vote as RBG. A very low risk strategy with little to lose.

eric said...

There really wasn't much he could do.

Curious George said...

"I hope that's a sign of restraint that will prevail in the next 17 days until the new President arrives."

The fucker probably just overslept.

Larry J said...

Original Mike said...
"Republicans said their inaction on the nomination was a way to permit voters to weigh in on the Supreme Court’s direction by electing the next president."

It was a high risk strategy (given the probability of a Hillary! victory) but it paid off. Congratulations, Repubs.


Back around October, I saw some articles suggesting that if Hillary won (and especially if Democrats won control of the Senate), the Republicans would go ahead and confirm Garland during the lame duck period to prevent her from nominating someone even worse. I'm very glad this wasn't necessary and that Hillary will never be president.

PB said...
Let's see how long RBG holds on. I think they'll be carrying her out.


They'll carry her out and put her on permanent life support to deny Trump the chance to fill her seat.

Rick said...

I'm not sure it was "restraint" which implies a benefit foregone. Democrats realize the described maneuver would be immediately overturned costing them credibility with no benefit in return. This was always the children daydreaming.

Freder Frederson said...


I hope that's a sign of restraint that will prevail in the next 17 days until the new President arrives.


I'm hoping for some kind of restraint after the new President arrives but considering what the republicans did with ethics this morning I am afraid that is a vain hope.

Original Mike said...

"The fucker probably just overslept."

LOL

Original Mike said...

"I'm hoping for some kind of restraint after the new President arrives but considering what the republicans did with ethics this morning I am afraid that is a vain hope."

I'm reading Trump made them back down.

readering said...

I wonder how long Trump will take to make his Supreme Court appointment. No rush really, since it will take until March or April anyway for the confirmation vote and arguments on cases end in April. So the new Justice will only really get going with votes on cert petitions for next term.

Matthew Sablan said...

"I'm hoping for some kind of restraint after the new President arrives but considering what the republicans did with ethics this morning I am afraid that is a vain hope."

-- This statement is hard to parse, as Trump convinced Republicans to slow down on it. So... Trump IS the restraint on this unrelated thing (ethics), which is unrelated to this other thing (supreme court nominations.)

Slow down a bit. I get it: TRUMP BAD. But, maybe actually explain how you got from point A to point B.

Virgil Hilts said...

Don't forget Glenn Close in the bathtub.
I won't be comfortable until the Os have left the WH.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd521kE7f0A

Humperdink said...

FF said: "I'm hoping for some kind of restraint after the new President arrives but considering what the republicans did with ethics this morning I am afraid that is a vain hope."

Fake news, not happening.

Scott McGlasson said...

I just hope Obama spends the next few years writing a few more autobiographies, and not undermining the new president. But I suspect he won't have the restraint. Then again, maybe Trump won't either when he leaves.

That will be interesting. The Founders intended "rotation of office", if'n I 'member my learnin', where those that ran for high office came from the working citizenry (ie, not career politicians) and had to go back to their lives after their service.

tcrosse said...

Barack and Michelle would be perfect to host Good Morning America. Let John Kerry play Derward Kirby to his Garry Moore. "I'm not the President, but I played one on television".

traditionalguy said...

Twitterer-in-Chief has just taken over the House of Representatives. And the Media are going wild condemning Twitter use as Anti-American. Good Times.

Lucien said...

I don't know about "rotation of office", but I bet nobody really thought George Washington would go back to surveying after he left office. Of course, they didn't demand that he put Mount Vernon in a blind trust either.

traditionalguy said...

The coming Nominee for the Court won't be named Cruz. DJT wants no more foreign Cruzes imported from Canada or Mexico.

I bet he picks the Wisconsin Lady Judge to cement the Blue Wall is under a permanent new management.

Chuck said...

CJinPA said...
I just hope Obama spends the next few years writing a few more autobiographies, and not undermining the new president. But I suspect he won't have the restraint. Then again, maybe Trump won't either when he leaves.


Trump never had that kind of restraint when he was yakking about sending private investigators to Hawaii to look into Barack Obama's birth certificate, and claiming (falsely) that he (Trump) would soon be reporting on their findings. That was six years ago. When Trump was saying that he "absolutely" had sent his own investigators to Hawaii and "they cannot believe what they are finding."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/07/trump-sends-investigators-to-hawaii-to-look-into-obama/

Matthew Sablan said...

Maybe Trump needs to slow jam the news at Congress and the media will finally go back to approving the use of "new media" by the president.

traditionalguy said...

DJT's Tweets are unhittable pitches. But no curve balls. Just high heat.

Jack Wayne said...

Scott, you are completely wrong. Hamilton and Madison wrote at length about duration leading to stability. They directly rejected short terms and rotation as injurious to stability. In short, the vomitous career politicians we have are courtesy of The Federalists.

Gahrie said...

Wow...lifelong Republican Chuckles reacts to a post about the actions of a Democratic president by attacking the actions of a Republican president-elect.

Could you imagine the attacks he'd be making on Trump if he was an actual Democrat?

And if he really is a lifelong Republican....this is reason #1,876,458 that Trump exists.

Gahrie said...

Let's see how long RBG holds on.

She's going to try for at least four years..if she makes it to the next election and a Republican wins, she'll try for four more after that.

I think they'll be carrying her out.

Yep...unless she makes the next four years and then a Democrat is elected.

I expect Breyer and Kennedy to die or retire soon also.....

Gahrie said...

I'm hoping for some kind of restraint after the new President arrives but considering what the republicans did with ethics this morning I am afraid that is a vain hope.

God I hope so.

Personally, I'm hoping that the first 100 days are practically revolutionary.....If the Republicans in Congress and Trump coordinate, we could actually get some shit done, probably without having to break laws and Congressional rules like the Democrats did in 2008.

Gusty Winds said...

Can Trump nominate Don King?

I Callahan said...

Given his history, I'm still expect some appalling pardons at the very least.

Wonder what the over/under is on his pardoning Mumia?

David in Cal said...

I don't think Obama will be an important factor after he leaves office. He will be just one more yapping Democrat complaining about what Trump and the Republicans do. But, with or without Obama, the liberal media will be attacking all these Republican actions.

Steven Wilson said...

What Wilbur said. Was looking to see if someone else recalled that incident and posted on it.

JAORE said...

Weekend at RBG's.

Two clerks to drag her in and out. The same clerks to write her opinions.

Chuck said...

Gahrie said...
...
Personally, I'm hoping that the first 100 days are practically revolutionary.....If the Republicans in Congress and Trump coordinate, we could actually get some shit done, probably without having to break laws and Congressional rules like the Democrats did in 2008.

One difference -- significant to me, but perhaps not to you -- is that in 2008, the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate.

Republicans might be able to get to 60 votes, in 2018. But in order to do that, we Republicans will need the sort of party unity and broad appeal that the Democrats had at that time.

There was no "Democrat" Rush Limbaugh, harping about any party "establishment." The Democrats had no Sean Hannity, using prime time cable tv to attack their Speaker of the House.

Republicans will need to win Senate elections in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Indiana, Missouri and Virginia. Swing-, if not Blue-state country.

It is do-able. I predicted that Republicans could get close to 60, and perhaps hit the number, long before the 2016 election. (The reason for my prediction at that time was my confidence that Hillary Clinton would win the presidency, and would thereafter be facing an impeachment trial in the Senate, by 2019.)

But Republicans will absolutely need to come up with some very, very good candidates in all of those places. One of the strongest Republican candidates I can think of in Ohio, would be current governor (and anti-Trumper) John Kasich. One of the best Michigan Republicans for a primary would be anti-Trumper Rep. Justin Amash. Carly Fiorina might run for the Virginia seat.

Lem said...

It's bad when you have to say you hope the outgoing POTUS does the right thing.

Qwinn said...

Apparently, Republicans pulled back on the ethics committe thing due to a couple of critical tweets from Trump.

Unknowns mocking "drain the swamp" Trump hardest hit.

Matthew Sablan said...

I feel like putting Kasich up in Ohio might be good for Ohio, but I imagine there will be some bitter fighting about it -- as pretty much every non-Ohio/Kasich person has a bone to pick with him for either obstructing Trump or hobbling any effectiveness of the remaining viable Not Trumps during the primary.

He has a good shot in Ohio, but I don't see him being an effective Senator. But, you don't really NEED that if he just needs to rubber stamp policy/nomination votes.

Freder Frederson said...

Fake news, not happening.

It's not fake news. They did vote to destroy the power of the independent ethics panel. The backed off because of the backlash. And Trump's tweets on the issue hardly condemned the move, just said they should be concerned with other issues. He also called the ethics board "unfair".

Matthew Sablan said...

"He also called the ethics board "unfair"."

-- Is it? Has anyone analyzed their actions? Besides calling it an ethics panel, what do you know about it?

TWW said...

"...and I thank President Obama for not doing anything bizarre in the transition from the old to the new Congress today."

A low bar, indeed!

Freder Frederson said...

Is it?

I bet I know more about it than Trump.

Matthew Sablan said...

I always find it interesting that people who know so much can never answer yes/no questions.

Jack Wayne said...

Kasich and Amash are exactly the Republicans we need according to the life-long Republican moby. Thanks for the laugh.

Danno said...

Now for some real news, James Taranto has been promoted and will not continue his WSJ blog, Best-of-the-Web-Today.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I hope that's a sign of restraint that will prevail in the next 17 days until the new President arrives.

**cough**Allowing UN resolution against Israel to pass**cough**

**cough**Designating 1.6M acres of land as national monuments**cough**

If this is restraint...but yeah, definitely give Pres. Obama tons of credit for not making some stupid move that everyone knows would both fail and make him look personally foolish.
'Member when the Court ruled 9-0 against Obama's phony recess appointments back in 2012? I bet he does.

David said...

"I thank President Obama for not doing anything bizarre . . . "

It's come to this.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...But in order to do that, we Republicans will need the sort of party unity and broad appeal that the Democrats had at that time.

Party unity, sure--the Dems have it all over the Repubs in terms of party unity in the last few decades. (It helps to not have to worry about the Media giving air to dissenting voices--John McCain could always find a microphone but someone like Webb was usually laughed off stage.) In another context that kind of diversity of views in the Repub. ranks would be lauded--a sign of vigorous debate, etc, but there's no denying it makes some things more difficult to do, legislatively.

But "broad appeal?" I'm gonna need a citation on that one, Chuck, especially given what happened to those Dem Senate seats two years later, and then four years later...

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Danno said...Now for some real news, James Taranto has been promoted and will not continue his WSJ blog, Best-of-the-Web-Today.

Damn, I just read that. I guess the feature will return under someone else, but BOTW has been a daily stop of mine for several years now and it's hard to imagine anyone else putting together something as good as Taranto does. Good for him, but dang.

gspencer said...

"I hope that's a sign of restraint that will prevail in the next 17 days until the new President arrives."

Hasn't happened yet. Haven't you been reading of his shenanigans?

Drago said...

One of these days "lifelong republican" Chuck is going to inadvertently criticize a democrat.

alan markus said...

@ Traditional Guy: I bet he picks the Wisconsin Lady Judge

Who would that be?

Birkel said...

I am trying to keep score, so please help me if I am missing something.

Freder Frederson said something incorrect and now backs off his first incorrect thing by saying a second incorrect thing. Freder Frederson has earned no points.

Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton as any lifelong Republican would, has criticized Donald Trump. Again. Only this time the criticism is in a post that mentions Donald Trump nominating a Supreme Court Justice -- which Chuck has lied about being the main reason he voted for Trump in the first place. Chuck has earned no points.

Chuck stated his prediction that Republicans may get close to 60 Senate votes. Given Chuck's previous predictions which were uniformly wrong, Chuck earns zero points.

Ann Althouse has earned no points for her pre-missing of Obama. But she did earn one point for making nearly everybody who read the post do a spit take, if consuming liquids. Thanks for not doing something that had never been done in the history of the Republic? That is the softest bigotry of intolerable low expectations ever penned.

Everybody else has pointed and laughed at Freder Frederson and Chuck. Everybody else has earned a minimum of one point.

mccullough said...

Kasich is Strickland redux. Brown, like Portman, has excellent constituent services. They are better than the fire department.

Justin Amash is a kook. Like Ron Paul without a sense of humor.

Alex said...

Garland's views are outside the Overton window and the Senate GOP finally has some balls to do something about it.

You want to know how important a 5-4 SCOTUS majority is?

Imagine enough states pass the 'national popular vote' measure which awards EC votes based on the national popular vote. Of course this is a violation of:

Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."

Now imagine in 2019 or so this goes before SCOTUS and Garland had been approved to the court. A 5-4 majority rules that the 'national popular vote' does not violate the Constitution because.. REASONZZZ! Of course a 5-4 constructionist majority would tell these states to go get Congressional approval and it dies.

That's how important the SCOTUS is is you care about the future of the USA.

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

But "broad appeal?" I'm gonna need a citation on that one, Chuck, especially given what happened to those Dem Senate seats two years later, and then four years later...

He meant to say "appealing to the broads", because as a lifelong Republican, that is how he would refer to women, and he was clearly trying to make the point that the Obama administration's main preoccupation was with kowtowing to the women's vote, which is partially true.....

Mike said...

There was no "Democrat" Rush Limbaugh, harping about any party "establishment." The Democrats had no Sean Hannity, using prime time cable tv to attack their Speaker of the House.

Some of the stupidest words written in the style of news analysis. That our monoparty monoculture media values party loyalty above all does not occur to this writer. Only political parties with more than one good idea have differences to discuss.

Mike said...

Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Is it?

I bet I know more about it than Trump.

Really? Well how did we ever survive over 230 years as Republic without this "independent" over site?

Mike said...

Senate Budget Committee Chair Michael Enzi (R-WY) introduced a budget resolution Tuesday that includes “reconciliation instructions” that enable Congress to repeal Obamacare with a simple Senate majority. Passing a budget resolution that includes those instructions will mean that the legislation can pass through the budget reconciliation process, in which bills cannot be filibustered.

That means Republicans will only need 50 of their 52 members in the Senate, and a bare majority in the House, to pass legislation repealing the Affordable Care Act. According to the Wall Street Journal, the budget resolution could be passed by both houses as early as next week.


Tell me again why we need 60 Senators to get anything done. Ever heard of the "nuclear option" either?

Chuck said...

By "broad appeal," I meant an election (2008) which left Democrats with 365 electoral votes for president; 59 senate seats (following an 8-seat swing); and 257 house seats (following a 21-seat swing their way).

Better numbers, by far, than anything that can be claimed by self-proclaimed and self-congratulating Trumpists in 2016.

I voted Republican in 2008 as I always do; but it seems that a whole lot of people who voted for Trump in 2016 didn't bother with voting in 2008. Some of them (union workers, quite possibly) voted for Trump in 2008. Some of you Althouse commenters ought to be talking to those people about their voting histories; not me.

And I shall remind you all that I made the "broad appeal" of Democrats IN THE PAST TENSE. They blew it. Or, even more likely (or additionally likely) their mandate was a figment of the freakish, one-off phenomenon of Barack Obama. A child born of a black father, raised by a white family and treated to high-quality private schooling. Followed by an affirmative-action boost in life through the Harvard Law School. And then postgraduate work in Democrat machine politics by some of the party's best mentors on the South Side of Chicago.

His personal numbers -- turnout numbers, largely -- are staggering. He and his party dominated 2008 and 2012. (Again, have a conversation with ever voter you can find who will admit to voting for both Obama and Trump. It sure as hell won't include me.) He destroyed the opposition in '08 and '12, and his party's "broad appeal" (call them the longest coattails in American political history if you wish) melted away in 2010, 2012 and 2016.

You fuckeheads. You just cannot stand it, that I criticize Trump. You can't argue the merits with me, and you are left to call me a Democrat, or a stealth Democrat, or a Democrat "supporter."

And every time I demand one quotation form you crackpots in which I ever stated any support for any Democrat... crickets.

Quaestor said...

I hope that's a sign of restraint that will prevail in the next 17 days until the new President arrives.

I doubt it's restraint that's responsible for Obama's inaction today. It's despair. The paint is flaking off Obama's hobbyhorse of a legacy, revealing it to be worm-eaten pine underneath rather than solid oak. Obama has returned to the characteristic state of mind exemplified by his entire public career — apathy.

Chuck said...

Mike; the rules on needing 60 votes in the Senate are clearly breaking down. There is no arguing it. Nobody has done more, to break that down, than Democrats.

When Dems did it, Mitch McConnell told them to be very careful what they wished for. McConnell was right, and now Dems will regret it.

Likewise, I think you should be careful what you wish for.

It is a good point, to note that Republicans might only need "50 of their 52" members on some contentious reconciliation votes. Because they might have trouble even getting to 50.

Jack Wayne said...

Life-long republican moby says that he has never done what he will not do as a moby. I'm convinced.

Gahrie said...

You fuckeheads. You just cannot stand it, that I criticize Trump.

Yes it annoys us. For two reasons:

1) It is unfair to Trump. Not only are you not willing to give him a honeymoon after he takes office, you're giving him shit now. The polite thing for a true Republican to do at this point is SHUT THE FUCK UP.

2) Frankly we're tired of reading your constant attacks. How about commenting on the actual topic once in a while instead of using the thinnest of pretexts to launch yet another attack on Trump?


You can't argue the merits with me, and you are left to call me a Democrat, or a stealth Democrat, or a Democrat "supporter."

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck.......

And every time I demand one quotation form you crackpots in which I ever stated any support for any Democrat... crickets.

We don't think you're lying because you never attack Democrats, we think you are a liar because you only attack a Republican president-elect.

Quaestor said...

Chuck wrote: You fuckeheads... And every time I demand one quotation form you crackpots in which I ever stated any support for any Democrat... crickets.

"For the wages of trolldom is mokusatsu."
- The Gospel According to Quaestor, Chapter 1, verse 1

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Tell me again why we need 60 Senators to get anything done. Ever heard of the "nuclear option" either?

I think that the nuclear option should be used.....sparingly. Used for the most important issues that are crucial and to move things along so that the Dems can't create impassible log jams in order to get NOTHING done. Sparingly and with surgical precision.

Otherwise the Republicans should use actual diplomacy, persuasion to advance the agenda. I believe that you will find more Republicans willing to go along and possibly many Democrats as well if you use the tactics of making deals and listen to Machiavelli :-) After all most of the Congress Critters are more interested in getting re-elected and in order to do that they need to appease the folks at home.

Obviously you will never get the critters from the deep blue areas to cooperate because they have a lock on the minds and souls of their idiot voters. The Dems in the red-ish states will need to cooperate.

However, the nuclear option is always, always on the table. Thanks Harry :-D

Chuck said...

..."Republican" president-elect...

Fixed it for ya.

Here in Detroit, people are still laughing about Trump's Twitter-fuckup of the day, in which he wanted GM to quit making the Chevy Cruz in Mexico. Or face large taxes. Except that GM makes almost all of the U.S.-market Cruzes in Lordstown, Ohio and the Cruzes made in Mexico are hatchbacks which are nearly all sold in Mexico (and a lot of them are sold to other foreign countries, thanks to Mexico's free-trading with them). Few of the Mexican-assembled hatchbacks are sold in the U.S.

I Callahan said...

Like Ron Paul without a sense of humor.

Now THAT'S a stretch...

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

By "broad appeal," I meant an election (2008)

Which was brought to us by 8 years of "life long repubicans" in control.

The "life long Republican" candidate in 2008 signature accomplishments were trashing the 1st Amendment and trashing his fellow "life long republicans."

"Life long Republicans" just showed us their number one priority was to weaken ethics oversight.

If you want a republican party with broad appeal the first step is to get rid of "life long republicans."

Gahrie said...

Res ipsa loquitur

Drago said...

"lifelong Republican" Chuck: "Some of them (union workers, quite possibly) voted for Trump in 2008. Some of you Althouse commenters ought to be talking to those people about their voting histories; not me."

It took the republican candidate for the Presidency over 30 years to recapture the Reagan Democrats and "lifelong Republican" Chuck wants, as a first step moving forward, for Republicans to demand answers from these voters.

Lol

Yeah, that's a real winning and productive tactic!

Gee, it's almost as if "lifelong Republican" Chuck wants to immediately alienate these new Republican voters.

traditionalguy said...

@ Alan Markus... The Wisconsin lady Judge is Diane S. Sykes once on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and then appointed Federal first by Thompson and then Bush. But she is 59, which makes her the oldest on DJT's list. And her husband was recently a pro Bush anti-Trumper Talk Radio Star.

Quaestor said...

Everytime I read a Chuck comment (which is seldom and incresingly so) I get this mental image of the writer at work. And I do mean mental.

khesanh0802 said...

Chuck The Cruze may be a wash today, but Ford decided it really did not need to move all those jobs it swore it would move a month ago. Instead they are going to invest to create 700 jobs in the Detroit area. Let's give GM a month or so to change their Cruze plans before you laugh at what Trump's doing. So far that's 1200 US jobs that have't been moved South of the border and Trump hasn't been sworn in yet.

Drago said...

"lifelong Republican" Chuck: "Here in Detroit, people are still laughing about Trump's Twitter-fuckup of the day, in which he wanted GM to quit making the Chevy Cruz in Mexico."

That "lifelong Republican" Chuck really has his finger on the pulse of Michigan voters doesn't he? Maybe we should just write off Michigan for 2020 already.

Let me guess "lifelong Republican" Chuck, i'll bet you also have a link to the latest John Oliver rant which "totally destroys Trump", don't you.

You know, just as anyone would expect of a "lifelong Republican".

I Callahan said...

Otherwise the Republicans should use actual diplomacy, persuasion to advance the agenda.

This may work for the rank and file in the country (though exceedlingly less so), but for Dem politicians? No way on earth will the above work. If you really believe (as they do) that you're 100% right, and you have the media, unions and entertainment industry on your side telling you so, then for what possible reason would you open your mind and listen to the other side?

Trump did this very successfully during the election by going straight to the people. He'll have to do the same, and have those same constituents pressure any Dem legislators to get his agenda passed, or he'll have to bypass the Dem legislators completely and push his agenda with the GOP majorities he already has.

I Callahan said...

"Life long Republicans" just showed us their number one priority was to weaken ethics oversight.

In fairness, the RINO's were against weakening the ethics oversight during this particular row. But point taken otherwise...

Drago said...

If "lifelong Republican" Chuck had his way we would be watching Hillary working with a Dem controlled Senate on her pick for the SC, and "lifelong Republican" Chuck would be clamoring for a 2019 impeachment strategy.

That "lifelong Republican" Chuck is a political genius, unlike Trump and his staff.

I Callahan said...

Except that GM makes almost all of the U.S.-market Cruzes in Lordstown, Ohio and the Cruzes made in Mexico are hatchbacks which are nearly all sold in Mexico (and a lot of them are sold to other foreign countries, thanks to Mexico's free-trading with them). Few of the Mexican-assembled hatchbacks are sold in the U.S.

Which is STILL a dishonest point in attacking Trump, because GM has been marketing the hatchbacks quite heavily (I'm in Detroit also). GM is trying to sell more of these here in the U.S., and they will. So his point about making them here stands.

Quaestor said...

And her husband was recently a pro Bush anti-Trumper Talk Radio Star.

What did he call his show, "Living with Cognitive Dissonance with Charlie Sykes"?

FullMoon said...

Chuck said... [hush]​[hide comment]


Some stuff, and then:

"You fuckeheads. You just cannot stand it, that I criticize Trump. You can't argue the merits with me, and you are left to call me a Democrat, or a stealth Democrat, or a Democrat "supporter."

And every time I demand one quotation form you crackpots in which I ever stated any support for any Democrat... crickets."


Jeeze, Chuck, I was fixxin' to bring up your threat to manhandle Greta Van Sustern. Guess I will let it slide, you seem pretty emotional today.

Chuck said...

Ford CEO: Main reason for canceling Mexico plant was market demand, not Trump:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-ceo-main-reason-canceling-180717185.html

Drago said...

"lifelong Republican" Chuck is on the job and he will allow no criticism of dems nor praise of Trump to pass his lips.

Well played "lifelong Republican" Chuck, well played indeed.

Do you have another cool Jon Stewart link?

Chuck said...

Jeeze, Chuck, I was fixxin' to bring up your threat to manhandle Greta Van Sustern. Guess I will let it slide, you seem pretty emotional today.


I think that "threat" still stands. Only because I am confident that Greta wouldn't press charges. Since she ridiculed such a situation, on air. Would she pursue any legal action, after I grabbed her and then immediately pointed out to her that it was the exact same as Lewandowski's grabbing of Michelle Fields?

I have absolutely no idea when I might ever be in the same room with Great van Susteren.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So far that's 1200 US jobs that haven't been moved South of the border and Trump hasn't been sworn in yet.

And...for each job saved there are 3 to 6 ancillary jobs that may also be saved because those 1200 will be able to continue to spend, shop, do business in their areas. The clerks at the hardware store, grocery store, gas stations, small clothing stores, restaurants, waitresses, cooks, dishwashers, suppliers who deliver the goods to all the above mentioned. The money circulating in the area doesn't dry up and people continue to be able to live.

The magnifying effect of saving a few jobs is enormous....I might even say huuuuuge. This is why I get so irked when short sighted people say...."Well, it was just a few jobs that Trump saved." Every single job represents more than just that ONE job. Short sighted, partisan, economic ignoramuses.

Ann Althouse said...

Diane Sykes has been divorced from Charlie Sykes since 1999.

Chuck said...

Dust Bunny Queen:

I didn't say "it was just a few jobs that Trump saved..." I am saying it wasn't ANY jobs that Trump saved. Because that is essentially what the Ford and Carrier execs are saying. And if they ARE doing anything different with American jobs just because they are getting yelled at by Donald Trump on Twitter, they should be telling shareholders exactly what the company is getting out of the deal.

It is hilarious to me, to be debating foreign-manufactured goods, with Trump supporters. The guy whose "Donald J. Trump Signature Collection" is made in China. Trump's answer of course is the wrong one. Trump says that there are no more American clothing manufacturers. Which would be news to Brooks Brothers and Hickey Freeman, whose clothing lines are American made, albeit with foreign-sourced fabrics. Trump's crap is just all made in China.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/trumps-made-in-the-u-s-a-spin/

Fernandinande said...

Kelly Williams said...
Amazing Women Does Yoga At 96 Years Old


She's at least 98 by now.

11/09/2014"If you sometimes feel that you can't find the energy to look after yourself then have a look at this lady who is still teaching yoga at 96 years old, she'll make you feel that anything is possible."

Drago said...

"Lifelong Republican" Chuck: "It is hilarious to me, to be debating foreign-manufactured goods, with Trump supporters."

Lol

"Lifelong Republican" "Don Quixote" Chuck courageously takes on and defeats an army of strawmem, non sequiturs and red herrings!

Chuck said...

Drago, what about Trump's namesake/foreign-manufactured products is a "strawman"?

It is a glaring, overwhelming, unanswerable hypocrisy.

Trump could give the honest answer -- "They gave me the best deal, and the people who help me run a clothing brand advised me on doing it this way" -- but that isn't close to what Trump did.

Trump blamed "currency manipulation," in an otherwise incomprehensible gumbo of economic gibberish.

wildswan said...

Hillary and Co. haven't saved any jobs yet nor have they explained how they intend to do so. Because they don't intend to do so. They intend to work to ship more jobs to China. WTW

And The Dems talk about the Russians "hacking" John Podesta although the Dems also say the Russians never hacked the Secretary of State and her insecure server and never gathered information which they used against us. WTW

And then the Dems talk about the racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic people who live in the states of the rebel alliance and how the Dems will get all the racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic votes in 2018. I think the Dems should be too proud to ask for those vile voters' votes. They should ask voters to acknowledge whether or not they voted for Trump and if they did then just quietly explain they don't want them in to the Party of the Pure. Then stone them.

Jon Ericson said...


"Whale shaped chew toy"

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

Amazing Women Does Yoga At 96 Years Old

The secret of longevity.

alan markus said...

@ Chuck: Ford CEO: Main reason for canceling Mexico plant was market demand, not Trump.

That same CEO says this is in the article:

Fields also pointed out that the company could do well with a more positive U.S. manufacturing business environment under Trump. "We see the pro-growth policies that he's proposing. So, this is a vote of confidence in what we think the president-elect is going to pursue and it's right for our business," he said.

Outstanding! Keep this up, and Michigan becomes a red state.

Drago said...

Poor "lifelong Republican" Chuck. So many Democrat targets! It's hard work avoiding any and all criticism of them!

Not to worry. "Lifelong Republican" Chuck can always find time for criticism of Trump, the Tea Party, the conservative Republican base and now the newly re-established Reagan/Trump Democrat voters.

Gee, no wonder there is no time leftover for criticism of dems by "lifelong Republican" Chuck.

alan markus said...

@ traditionalguy, thanks. Thought maybe you knew something going on at the WI Supreme Court. Will be checking the wire on that - may be a significant development (or not) in that venue.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Drago said...
"lifelong Republican" Chuck: "Here in Detroit, people are still laughing about Trump's Twitter-fuckup of the day, in which he wanted GM to quit making the Chevy Cruz in Mexico."

That "lifelong Republican" Chuck really has his finger on the pulse of Michigan voters doesn't he? Maybe we should just write off Michigan for 2020 already.

Let me guess "lifelong Republican" Chuck, i'll bet you also have a link to the latest John Oliver rant which "totally destroys Trump", don't you.

You know, just as anyone would expect of a "lifelong Republican".

1/3/17, 3:51 PM

Like this lifelong faggot knows or ever knew any car or working people anywhere ever. Coddington T. Van Voorhees IV is more his mark than Joe the Plumber.

Drago said...

Alan Markus: "Outstanding! Keep this up, and Michigan becomes a red state."

No no NO! According to "lifelong Republican" Chuck there is no way we can make MI a red state.

That's why we must defer to those Republican who value capitulating to dems and being darlings of the MSM gang over all else.

Oh, and spend a great deal of time listening to celebrity critics of Trump and Republicans.

Yeah, that's the ticket, right "lifelong Republican" Chuck?

Oh, and Republicans have no mandate either.

alan markus said...

OK - WI Supreme Court elections - since the Walker/Act 10 blowups, we have had a lot of drama - several races at about $3 Million, a recount, one justice choking another, a palace coup where the Chief Justice was demoted, 5-2 conservative majority. Go to the search function and bring up the "Wisconsin Supreme Court" tags to see.

Today at 5:00 was the filing deadline to run against Annette Ziegler in April 2017. It seems as if no one has filed to run against her. It had been noted awhile ago that no one seemed to "shopping" for support - usually a viable candidate starts about a year before the election.

High court justice may avoid opponent

Maybe Jill Stein sucked up all the money that would have gone to fielding a liberal opponent.



Mike said...

All I "wished for" was a Trump win, and I got it! What are you wishing for? Trump failure? Republican infighting? What is it you want? You seem awful unhappy after voting for Trump. Maybe wait until he has a chance to DO something in office until you find another leftist angle from which to mount a Trump attack?

Nah. You're clueless.

Chuck said...

Mike said...
All I "wished for" was a Trump win, and I got it! What are you wishing for? Trump failure? Republican infighting? What is it you want? You seem awful unhappy after voting for Trump. Maybe wait until he has a chance to DO something in office until you find another leftist angle from which to mount a Trump attack?


Simple! I wished for a Bush/Rubio/Kasich win. Instead, I got a Trump win. Now, I am hoping that the Trump win will be largely indistinguishable, in long-term effect, from a Bush/Rubio/Kasich win. A hard working Republican majority in Congress, and a growing number of Federalist Society-vetted judicial nominees might get me there. I am hopeful.

Mike said...

Who wants to play the Democrat-Mediaswine game of spot the Republican hypocrisy?

Of course we have one lifelong Republican always willing to play Spot the Hypocrisy, as long as we're aiming ONLY at Republicans.

Have any of you other lifelong Republicans noticed that this game is NEVER played against the Democrats? Never. It's like homelessness, another "problem" conveniently ignored universally until a Republican is in the oval.

Chuck said...

Mike, if I was in a roomful of Democrats, I expect that I'd have a roomful of arguments.

What sort of routine criticism of Democrats do you want me to agree with? If you had a checklist, it might make it easier for me. I could check off all of the boxes. All the reasonable ones, at least. I won't be checking the "Obama was born in Kenya" box. But I'll have an easier time than Trump will, with that anti-Democrat checklist! Never donated to a Democrat? Check. Never supported the Assault Weapons Ban? Check. Always pro-life? Check. Always opposed to single-payer national healthcare? Check. Favoring entitlement reform? Yuuup! Never critical of Justice Scalia? Yessir! Strongly opposed to federal imposition of drug prices under Medicare/Medicaid? Yes.

I just don't get your criticism of my Republicanism. You just can't name a time, when I have been critical of Republicans, or supportive of Democrats. All that you know, is that I have been critical of Trump. That's it.


Drago said...

"lifelong Republican" Chuck: "Mike, if I was in a roomful of Democrats, I expect that I'd have a roomful of arguments.

In the end I am certain you would win the "who hates Trump the most?" Argument.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "What sort of routine criticism of Democrats do you want me to agree with?"

Lol

Poor "lifelong republican" Chuck, he simply can't identify any Democrat positions for which he can offer full throated and detailed criticism!

Darn it!

Chuck said...

Drago said...
"lifelong Republican" Chuck: "Mike, if I was in a roomful of Democrats, I expect that I'd have a roomful of arguments.
In the end I am certain you would win the "who hates Trump the most?" Argument.


I'd like to win all the arguments.


HT said...

That was a lot of hyperventilating

Mike said...

Some people have a monomaniacal need to criticize Trump, regardless of post topic. A need that must be addressed using every lefty criticism floating in the ether. Sometimes I play along and point out the folly of these type of comment patterns. But it never sinks in. They drag criticism of Trump into every topic. It gets old. We make of them, but they just lash out in anger and wonder why no one believes they want Trump to succeed. For why would someone hopeful of Trump success spend all their mental energy finding things to NOT like about the man and monomaniacally drawing attention to these supposed faults?

It is a puzzler. And if you pint out the obsessive behavior, you get called a Trumpist or it is said that we all want the kind of fuzzy communication and trouble that Trump foments. Almost every single Trump voter (who said so before hand) has indicated that voting NOT HILLARY was our primary goal. But this other guy seems to think that we wanted pussy grabbing and shady business deals and closed casinos. But then we patiently explain NO we just DIDN'T WANT HILLARY. Oh yeah, the guy says, that's why he voted for Trump too.

But then the next day here he comes invading a thread about soemthing GOOD with a supposed BAD thing Trump did or said or saw or allowed to happen. Who cares? It's the same shit different day, as boring and louche as Once with his "but you'll regret" and the Unknown who thinks Trump will be impeached. It's boring because it's always the same.

Ann brings up a good topic here but Trump once made me uncomfortable blah blah blah..."

Jon Ericson said...

Comedy Central's got nothing on Althouse comments.

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

I just don't get your criticism of my Republicanism. You just can't name a time, when I have been critical of Republicans, or supportive of Democrats. All that you know, is that I have been critical of Trump. That's it.

Earth to Chuckles:

TRUMP IS A REPUBLICAN

Whether you like it or not.

Constantly talking shit about Trump is being critical of Republicansand supportive of Democrats.

Big Mike said...

@Chuck, if you can point to where the Carrier and Ford execs are saying that no jobs were saved I'll be glad to read it. Right now I see

(1) Carrier cancelling plans to move manufacturing to Mexico

(2) Ford ditto

(3) A tweet from Trump causing House Republicans to avoid cutting their own throats by emasculating the ethics committee.

Not bad for a guy who's still 17 days from taking office.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "I'd like to win all the arguments."

Snort.

To win them all you'd have to engage in all the arguments.

But you don't because that would require you to violate your policy of never criticizing Democrats with any detail or depth.

Big Mike said...

@Gahrie, I'm not so sure Trump really is a Republican. I make him out to be a moderate to (fiscally) conservative Democrat who ran as a Republican because the Democrat party went way overboard to the far extreme left. Since I think of myself as a socially moderate fiscal conservative myself, I am hoping for the best.

Nanny Bloomberg taught him how to do it -- be a Democrat but win as a Republican.

HT said...

Trump ran as a Republican to get elected not because the Democrat party (sic) went way overboard to the far extreme left.

Gahrie said...

@Gahrie, I'm not so sure Trump really is a Republican

It is inarguable that Trump was a Democrat for most of his life. He is definitely leftwing when it comes to social issues. If he had claimed to be a Republican anytime in the last twenty years, I would have called him a RINO...but then he would have had a lot of company.

But it is also inarguable that Trump participated in the Republican presidential race and won it. He ran for president as a Republican, and won. Next to his name in the history books there is going to be an "(R)".

Like it or not, Trump is a Republican president, and the least he should expect from Republicans, especially lifelong Republicans, at this point is polite silence. No one is asking the Chuckles of the world for vocal support, just that they stop talking shit. The primary is over, the election is over, so just like the butthurt Democrats, it's time to shut up, get over it and give him a fair chance to show what he can do.

Unknown said...

Well done McConnell, well done.

Birkel said...

Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton: "Mike, if I was in a roomful of Democrats, I expect that I'd have a roomful of arguments."

The first argument you might have is with the subjunctive.

FullMoon said...

Chuck said... [hush]​[hide comment]

Jeeze, Chuck, I was fixxin' to bring up your threat to manhandle Greta Van Sustern. Guess I will let it slide, you seem pretty emotional today.


I think that "threat" still stands. Only because I am confident that Greta wouldn't press charges. Since she ridiculed such a situation, on air. Would she pursue any legal action, after I grabbed her and then immediately pointed out to her that it was the exact same as Lewandowski's grabbing of Michelle Fields?


Now, now, Chuck. Your intent was to let Greta see how serious and painful a grab like that would be. No doubt you would keep squeezing until you hurt her, even if you needed two hands to do it. I mean, if you could not hurt her, what would be the point?

Jack Wayne said...

Life-long republican moby said: "A hard working Republican majority in Congress, and a growing number of Federalist Society-vetted judicial nominees...". Moby, are you aware that the Federalists were and are the party of big government? C'mon, keep up with the moby directives. You are not allowed to talk about fight club.....

Unknown said...

"@Gahrie, I'm not so sure Trump really is a Republican. I make him out to be a moderate to (fiscally) conservative Democrat who ran as a Republican because the Democrat party went way overboard to the far extreme left. Since I think of myself as a socially moderate fiscal conservative myself, I am hoping for the best.

Nanny Bloomberg taught him how to do it -- be a Democrat but win as a Republican."

So trump ran like a democrat does? Claim to support the second amendment, support traditional marriage? Then do a 180 once in office? Heh

FullMoon said...

Risking slings and arrows of fellow commenters, I hafta say Chuck is not all that bad. Generally wrong, but he is a fighter and never gives up- just like Hillary

Jack Wayne said...

Fullmoon damns the life-long republican moby with faint praise! Delicately done.

mccullough said...

The federal government bailed out GM. Since they needed government welfare, they should be subject to federal welfare rules. If GM knew what they were doing, they wouldn't be the welfare queen they are. In a free market, they would have died.

mccullough said...

Trump is going to tell GM where to make their cars or put them out of business, which is what should have happened anyway. Spare us the free market bullshit, GM

Big Mike said...

@HT, one thing 2016 proved -- with the superdelegates, the collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaign, the collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, police instructed to stand by and do nothing while attendees atTrump campaign events are physically assaulted, etc. -- is that the Democrats are very far from being democratic.

Guildofcannonballs said...

"But it never sinks in."

Well devote more of your not so precious time responding to Chuck using facts and logic, after all you have no possible opportunity costs and Chuck can't possibly have ulterior motives to waste your time and shit all over the comments here.

Best to keep on keeping on. If you notice no progress, keep doing the same thing over and over.

Trust me, I'm on the internet and I would not have nor will ever lie to you.

Guildofcannonballs said...

My favorite troll of all time was when I asked Inga and edutcher to explain what they were saying a little more clearly, because I could see they both had excellent points but were talking past each other.

They repeated themselves 10 or 15 times each, completely oblivious to all the wisdom over the years about engaging devious assholes, which I was being.

I do find it sad after a certain period of time though. None so blind as those who won't listen and can't see for themselves.

Lucky for all y'all I'm here to protect you.

FullMoon said...

Guildofcannonballs said...

My favorite troll of all time was when I asked Inga and edutcher to explain what they were saying a little more clearly, because I could see they both had excellent points but were talking past each other.

They repeated themselves 10 or 15 times each, completely oblivious to all the wisdom over the years about engaging devious assholes, which I was being.


Gold. I'm gonna use it first opportunity. Already have progressive targets chosen. More sophisticated than my lazy favorite, using your/you're incorrectly.

Bruce Hayden said...

You want to know how important a 5-4 SCOTUS majority is?

Here is an example (that I have posted before). The Heller and McDonald decisions determined that the right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amdt was a fundamental, individual, right, and that increased scrutiny was required for legislation to survive attack based on that amendment. But, they didn't determine whether or not the required level of scrutiny was intermediate (like that used for sex or alienage discrimination) or strict (used for enumerated fundamental rights). The majority of Circuits have, based on this, determined that a sliding scale, between intermediate and strict scrutiny, should apply, depending on how close the law in question cuts to the core of the 2nd Amdt. But, there are a couple outliers, notably the 2nd (NY) and 3rd (NJ) which took "increased scrutiny" to mean just a smidgen above the rational basis level of scrutiny applied to laws that don't potentially infringe fundamental rights. And, the 9th (CA) seems headed that way. Meanwhile, Soros and his gun control groups have been busy in a number of 9th Circuit states, notably CA, NV, OR, and WA. Esp. egregious from a 2nd Amdt. point of view is CA, which has effectively essentially banned detachable magazines for most everything (including, arguably, handguns), and required background checks for ammunition purchases. You would think pretty egregious violation of the 2nd Amdt. under Heller and McDonald. Except that to the extent that the 9th Circuit (packed by Obama, and pretty liberal to start with) doesn't reject those laws, their decision won't be reversed by a 4-4 Supreme Court.

We have here what would normally be a classic circuit split in 2nd Amdt. cases, with the majority of circuits going one way (arguably following Heller and McDonald), and three Circuits going in the opposite direction, essentially straying from the intent of the decision, and basing their decisions on word play (essentially that "increased scrutiny" means anything more than rational basis scrutiny, which is an extremely deferential standard). If Scalia had not died, I suspect that they would have taken a case from one of the outlier circuits, and reversed it. But, with the 4-4 split, any 2nd Amdt. case that is accepted by the Supreme Court is going to have a 4-4 decision, which essentially affirms for that Circuit, but doesn't apply to any other Circuit. Which is essentially the situation if they had not taken the case in the first place (which is presumably why they haven't taken any such cases recently, despite the subject being ripe for further clarification). Which means that a 5-4 Court (either way) will get to further clarify and settle this part of the law.

Rhythm and Balls said...

If he thinks he's going to get a successful vote through Congress and its Democrats with a nominee as far off the deep end as Scalia or Thomas then he's wrong.

Democrats will stick to their guns and finally reap the rewards of sticking to the views that the vast majority of Americans agree with.

Birkel said...

In which "Rhythm and Balls" reveals his shallow legal analysis:

Conservatives or Republicans = Bad
Progressives or Democrats = Good

Democrats must stick to their guns and lose another 5-6 governors and senators.
Because people just love Democrats sticking to their gun (confiscation plans).

Michael K said...

"Wonder what the over/under is on his pardoning Mumia?"

I expect it and will be mildly surprised if he doesn't as it is a cause celeb with hard left blacks, his natural constituency,



Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Is it?

I bet I know more about it than Trump.


Freder, were you anywhere near Disney World Sunday ?

Man, 20, 'yells "f*** Trump", tries to choke himself and urinates on a state trooper' after being arrested for disorderly intoxication at Disney

Maybe it was R&B.


Rhythm and Balls said...

I never used the words "good" or "bad" - which would be obvious if you were able to read closely enough to avoid projecting your own issues onto my comment.

I did refer to how unpopular Republican ideas are and how "far off the deep end" Scalia and Thomas' opinions have always been, and I stand by that.

But if you still want to credit yourself with being "good" (whatever that means) despite being both crazy and interested in cramming unpopular ideas down Americans' throats, by all means. Be my guest.

Birkel said...

Unpopular has been defined to mean a significant level of approval - as counted during elections - at the state and federal level.

Popular has been defined to mean things that a majority of voters in Manhattan, San Francisco, LA and Chicago approve.

Do I have the "Rhythm and Balls"-approved definitions correct?

Rhythm and Balls said...

Unpopular has been defined to mean a significant level of approval - as counted during elections - at the state and federal level.

Popularity has to do with more than just elections. If it didn't, then Republicans wouldn't seek to restrict the franchise to those who are able to make it to polls during shortened hours, etc. And participation rates are low when people feel they don't have a real choice, which Republican activism against effective governance worsens.

Popular has been defined to mean things that a majority of voters in Manhattan, San Francisco, LA and Chicago approve.

It "has also been" used to define what a majority of Americans do or do not approve. You remember that word? Americans? It means you don't just exclude people who live in the major economic and cultural centers of America but count their opinions along with everyone else's. Of course, Republicans would have no purpose if they weren't able to divide Americans up.

Do I have the "Rhythm and Balls"-approved definitions correct?

You did the predictably childish thing of throwing out your own selective and narrow definitions in order to make a point that you alone thought was worth making.

Gahrie said...

Popularity has to do with more than just elections. If it didn't, then Republicans wouldn't seek to restrict the franchise to those who are able to make it to polls during shortened hours, etc

I'd be happy if we could start with restricting it to those who are citizens and still breathing.

Gahrie said...

Of course, Republicans would have no purpose if they weren't able to divide Americans up.

This is total bullshit. Republicans want to treat everyone as an individual. It is the Democrats who insist on dividing people into identity groups.

Gahrie said...

I did refer to how unpopular Republican ideas are and how "far off the deep end" Scalia and Thomas' opinions have always been, and I stand by that.

Wanting to interpret the Constitution through the meaning of the words and the intent of the authors is off the deep end. Creating penumbras and twisting the 14th Amendment to create birthright citizenship and a "right" to sexual privacy is mainstream......

Rick said...

FullMoon said...
Risking slings and arrows of fellow commenters, I hafta say Chuck is not all that bad.


One-trick ponies aren't necessarily bad but they are always boring.

Rhythm and Balls said...

This is total bullshit. Republicans want to treat everyone as an individual. It is the Democrats who insist on dividing people into identity groups.

Right. Like the "very poor" about whom Mittens Romney "wasn't concerned about."

Like the half of Americans whom Romney classified as mooches, takers, victims, etc.

Yep. That Mitt Romney. Stating what Republicans at large pretty much think.

Dividing up America into financial classes and deciding that only the very wealthy are worthy of having a voice that they'll listen to. That's Republicans for you. There are no ethnic groups, but everyone is an individual. And by individual they mean a very rich individual. The rest are unwashed masses who deserve nowhere near the attention from their government that they give to the rich.

But Trump said he would so now all Republicans probably believe that all's good. It was all about messaging, obviously. It's great that no one thinks they hate poor people any more. If only it was the truth.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Wanting to interpret the Constitution through the meaning of the words and the intent of the authors is off the deep end.

LOL. Sounds like Guthrie isn't as well-versed in Scalia's "originalism" as he thinks. It's all about specifically rejecting any interest in determining intent.

Creating penumbras and twisting the 14th Amendment to create birthright citizenship and a "right" to sexual privacy is mainstream......

RIght. That's why humanity has procreated since time immemorial through public orgies, just as they did at the Founding. There was no such thing as private sexuality. Intimacy was banned. People wore no clothes, and did their sex in public. Somehow it took a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to change all this. But beforehand all sex and sexual matters in America were performed in public. Guthrie really knows his stuff. But then, this is all obvious to everyone anyway. Thanks goodness that we have reactionary modern jurists to remind us of the public and governmental nature of sexual activity.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Democrats will stick to their guns and finally reap the rewards of sticking to the views that the vast majority of Americans agree with."

A very large number of Trump voters voted for him precisely because of the Supreme Court. I want another Scalia or two on the court.

" If it didn't, then Republicans wouldn't seek to restrict the franchise to those who are able to make it to polls during shortened hours, etc"

This nonsense again. Stop treating minorities like they are retarded babies who can't get to the polls, can't get IDs, can't do what those white blue collar people in PA and Michigan and NC were perfectly able to do. They managed to get out and vote for Obama. They didn't want to vote for Hillary so they didn't. No votes were "suppressed" by anybody.

Birkel said...

"Rhythm and Balls":
"Right. Like the "very poor" about whom Mittens Romney "wasn't concerned about."

Like the half of Americans whom Romney classified as mooches, takers, victims, etc.

Yep. That Mitt Romney. Stating what Republicans at large pretty much think.

Dividing up America into financial classes and deciding that only the very wealthy are worthy of having a voice that they'll listen to. That's Republicans for you.
"

As a Deplorable, I have no idea what you mean.

Birkel said...

"Rhythm and Balls": "...during shortened hours..."

The one way ratchet in action, folks.

Rhythm and Balls said...

A very large number of Trump voters voted for him precisely because of the Supreme Court. I want another Scalia or two on the court.

These were the same knuckleheads who would have voted for (insert name of any generic Republican here). They don't count. Didn't tip the election. They never do.

" If it didn't, then Republicans wouldn't seek to restrict the franchise to those who are able to make it to polls during shortened hours, etc"

This nonsense again. Stop treating minorities like they are retarded babies who can't get to the polls, can't get IDs, can't do what those white blue collar people in PA and Michigan and NC were perfectly able to do.


Like be unemployed and have infinite time to "take off" to vote? Like live in a state that didn't seek to restrict voting hours? You're so respectful of people to tell them Republicans are right to restrict their voting hours.

They managed to get out and vote for Obama. They didn't want to vote for Hillary so they didn't. No votes were "suppressed" by anybody.

You're right. Republicans are all about registering as many American citizens to vote as possible - especially between 2008 and now.

Nope. No political motivation at all in restricting access to the polls. That's why Republicans are so confident in the lack of resonance their policies have with the American people.

The problem with the Democratic party was largely one candidate and her family. The problem with the Republican party is every one of them except (conditionally) one candidate and his party. People have no problem voting against Hillary. Just like they have no problem voting against every Republican but Trump.

Enjoy those coattails. Seems like they might be shorter than his fingers, though.

The other party had an unpopular candidate! =/= We got a massive mandate!

Rhythm and Balls said...

As a Deplorable, I have no idea what you mean.

I'm used to you having trouble understanding things. So don't feel bad about your unresponsive answer.

Nice try there getting bigot to = "low socioeconomic status." Such failed sleight of hand has not been witnessed since Houdini died of a punch to the gut.

Gahrie said...

There was no such thing as private sexuality.

Sexual activity is one of the most regulated activities in every culture and society.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Sexual activity is one of the most regulated activities in every culture and society.

Ahhhh... the good old days! Clitoridectomies, mandatory burkas, ritualistic tattoos/scarring/piercing, etc.

We're talking about decent, Western, progressive (because Western Enlightenment asserts the continued progress of good things) societies, here. Not nekkid tribesmen or anti-Western Muzzies. But if you prefer to believe they have something to teach Americans about sex and morality, by all means make that case. Don't they also believe in having sex with monkeys?

You are a defender of taboo and superstition and nothing more.

Gahrie said...

We're talking about decent, Western, progressive (because Western Enlightenment asserts the continued progress of good things) societies,

Every modern western democracy has laws regulating prostitution, abortion (almost always much more restrictive than the US), consent, rape, bestiality, paternity, egg and sperm donation, surrogacy etc. Many nations still outlaw sodomy.

And Progressivism is not nearly the same thing as the Enlightenment.

Rhythm and Balls said...

None of the examples you cite (save prostitution) fail to respect consent as a primary motivator. Especially with the latter, more technologically advanced examples. The only rational case people make to uphold anti-prostitution statutes is the argument that women who do it are compelled to due to economic hardship. And this is why sex slavery/trafficking is outdoing it in international concern as a needed focus.

Establishing paternity is about obligation - nothing new. Gamete donation regulation and surrogacy is about safe use of new technologies. Abortion is about the potential or theoretical "consent" of lifeforms without personhood.

Face it. Consent is more important to an individual rights-respecting society than you would like. It will not be replaced by blind appeals to arbitrary tradition.

As regards progressivism generally, feel free to tell me about the conservative underpinnings and impulses of the enlightenment.

That should be interesting.

Alex said...

Honestly why can't we go back to the days when women had to wear chastity belts and you put a scarlet 'A' on an adulteress?

Gahrie said...

As regards progressivism generally, feel free to tell me about the conservative underpinnings and impulses of the enlightenment.

The Enlightenment, by today's definitions, is very conservative. Enlightenment thinkers believed that government was a necessary evil, private property was a positive good and that democracy was dangerous.

Progressives believe that property is a necessary evil, government is a positive good and that democracy is harmless.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Clearly you fear change and would seek to control people more than is compatible with any workable understanding of freedom.

As far as evil or necessary - tell me the specific issue and then I can have an opinion. I'm not as concerned with abstracts as you are. I prefer real life discussions when it comes to what's important to me.

damikesc said...

Ahhhh... the good old days! Clitoridectomies, mandatory burkas, ritualistic tattoos/scarring/piercing, etc.

R & B, some Progressives recent infatuation with "affirmative consent" laws are some of the most "government in the bedroom" laws one could possibly fathom.

They are also laws that offer nobody any protection as the same problems with current "rape" law exist with "affirmative consent" (namely, no way to PROVE consent was given)

Like be unemployed and have infinite time to "take off" to vote? Like live in a state that didn't seek to restrict voting hours? You're so respectful of people to tell them Republicans are right to restrict their voting hours.

NY and CA have those exact same "restrictive" laws on the books. Why are these "restrictive" laws OK for safe, Democrat states?

Is there any level of "restrictive" voting hours that is acceptable?

grackle said...

I'm hoping for some kind of restraint after the new President arrives but considering what the republicans did with ethics this morning I am afraid that is a vain hope.

Never equate Trump with the eGOP idiots in charge of Congress. When they’re not being easily duped by the Congressional Democrats and led around by their noses by the Media they spend their time doing stupid stuff. Ryan and the other “leaders” are NeverTrumpers to the core and would still jump at any chance to bring Trump down, even though they tried and failed miserably during Trump’s campaign. The rest of the time they sit around with their thumbs up their asses like the dumb shits they are.

Here’s what happened:

Ryan apparently knew the legislative abolishment of the ethics committee was a PR problem but being no real leader could not or would not prevent the vote. He of course kept his own skirts clean and voted against; covering his own much overrated ass seems to be about all he’s really good at.

But not to worry, as others have pointed out, it took only one little tweet from Trump to end the silliness. An adult is in charge now.

Here in Detroit, people are still laughing about Trump's Twitter-fuckup of the day, in which he wanted GM to quit making the Chevy Cruz in Mexico … GM makes almost all of the U.S … Few of the Mexican-assembled hatchbacks are sold in the U.S.

All Trump said was if ANY of the Mexican-manufactured autos are sold in the USA there’s going to be a tax at the border. I’m guessing that GM won’t be selling those “few” autos mentioned in the USA anymore. It’s also a message to other American corporations who are contemplating selling here after manufacturing their products elsewhere. Trump’s not even sworn in and he’s already got them jumping through hoops.

You seem awful unhappy after voting for Trump.

Chuck is a NeverTrumper, and he’s mad at Trump and Trump voters because Trump won after Chuck kept vehemently insisting all along that Trump had no chance. Now Chuck is trying to justify his bad judgement with Chuck’s fucked up interpretations of what Trump’s is doing(which is leading). I cannot believe that Chuck actually voted for Trump, considering the level of Chuck’s continual whining about all things Trump. I peg him as a write-in voter – maybe that cunt Kasich or the bedwetter Ryan – two of Chuck’s heroes.