January 31, 2017

WaPo editorial: "Democrats shouldn’t go scorched-earth on Trump’s Supreme Court nominee."

Why?
We say this not because it is contrary to the Democrats’ own best interests, though that is probably true, too: Filling the former Scalia seat won’t tip the court’s ideological balance, yet provoking Republicans to resort to the filibuster-abolishing “nuclear option” would leave Democrats disarmed of that weapon against a second Trump pick should another vacancy arise during his presidency.

Our objection is rooted, rather, in our belief that the Supreme Court confirmation process needs to be protected from partisan politics to the greatest extent possible and that a scorched-earth Democratic response to any nominee, regardless of the individual merits, would simply deepen that harmful politicization.....
The test of whether their objection is really rooted where they say it is rooted will come when/if Trump gets an opportunity to replace a liberal Justice.

But I see the loophole the WaPo editors have left for themselves:

The Supreme Court confirmation process needs to be protected from partisan politics to the greatest extent possible but we surpass that "greatest extent" if Trump is replacing a liberal Justice with anyone who's a solid conservative.

There's even an alternative path to a loophole: The core value is protecting the Supreme Court from partisan politics, nominating a solid conservative to replace a liberal threatens that value, so strong opposition to this nominee is no longer politicizing the Court but saving the Court from harmful politicization.

92 comments:

AlbertAnonymous said...

Absolute garbage!

rehajm said...

RBG must not be looking too well.

Bob Boyd said...

I wonder if they'd have had the same standards if Hillary had won and nominated raving Progressives.
Just kidding. I don't wonder that.

Achilles said...

Complete garbage. This is a rear guard CYA. The left never chooses anyone other than hardcore leftists and the Republicans never fight the nomination. What is more before the election when democrats thought they were going to win they explicitly said they were going to go nuclear and eliminate the filibuster.

Trump won he election in large part because most of the legal voters in this country want the Supreme Court to stop pushing a leftist agenda on us. The left never stops pushing and is always attacking and moving towards socialism.

It is time to start treating them like they treat us.

AlbertAnonymous said...

And now there's talk of democrats "boycotting" votes on Trump's cabinet nominees.

Dems will look terrible.

It's starting to look like Wisconsin's democrat legislators leaving the state to disrupt the majority's actions.

TWW said...

The WAPO is living in an Alternative Universe where alternative facts are low hanging fruit.

Bob Boyd said...

The Washington Post is all too ready to normalize Trump.

Chris Breisch said...

Ruth Bader Ginsberg was confirmed 96-3.

I don't want to hear one word about not being able to confirm a jurist who is outside the mainstream.

James Kahn said...

"strong opposition to this nominee is no longer politicizing the Court but saving the Court from harmful politicization."

It's as if there are two different languages:

Democrats
Dissent = patriotic
Stonewalling on nominees = principled objection

Republicans
Dissent = racism, white supremacy
Stonewalling on nominees = obstructionism, racism, white supremacy

Tony Sinclair said...

"Republicans never fight the nomination."

Are you living in an alternate universe where Scalia was replaced during the Obama administration?

Mike said...

Part of Trump's master plan is to move on so many issues so quickly that RBG is overcome with exhaustion and retires. It's a good plan.

SayAahh said...

Of course the WaPo is an authority on political polarization.

Greg Hlatky said...

Instead of running the risk of another Souter/O'Connor/Kennedy squish, Trump should name Cletus McKnuckledragger, the counterpart of every recent Dem nominee to the SC: predictable, ideological, extreme.

SayAahh said...

@Mike: "Part of Trump's master plan is to move on so many issues so quickly that RBG is overcome with exhaustion and retires. It's a good plan."

And that is exactly why the overwhelmed and exhausted Schumer pulled a Boehner.

buwaya puti said...

Well, that's a good example of an argument chasing it's own tail.

traditionalguy said...

A better WaPo angle would be don't waste time putting on a TV show off among the Dems vying for leadership by showing who is the more Radical Revolutionary. That just lifts Trump up and up.

Instead, wait until the floods of docile refugee voters, automatically registered with Drivers Licenses and encouraged to vote by local Dems, overwhelms the old time American voters who will die over time, anyway.

What do you bet the next retirement or death vacancy comes this year?

Darrell said...

Turn the WaPo building into a refugee center.

cubanbob said...

I give the Democrats a 70% probability of just being dumb enough to provoke the "nuclear" option for confirming Supreme Court justices. If anything it is more likely that McCain and Graham would probably vote against any of Trump's nominees.

Sebastian said...

"our belief that the Supreme Court confirmation process needs to be protected from partisan politics to the greatest extent possible and that a scorched-earth Democratic response to any nominee, regardless of the individual merits, would simply deepen that harmful politicization." Funny stuff. Tell it to Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. And to, what's his name, Barry something, who opposed the most qualified nominee in recent history.

As AA noted, this contains enough weasel words to defend the Dems as needed, because of course an "extreme" candidate might require some forceful response, which wouldn't be "scorched-earth" but would in fact be based on the deplorable lack of "individual merits" and therefore be constructive, indeed patriotic, "politicization." Prog weasels will do their prog thing when the time comes.

readering said...

Sounds like standard political analysis. Politics is give and take. I've been saying all along I think the Dems should just slow walk the nominee, not try to stop him or her.

The problem is dealing with their base like the folks hold a what the fuck chuck rally in The Minority Leader's home neighborhood today.

readering said...

Meanwhile, folks still moaning about Robert Bork? DJT has changed political affiliation a dozen times since then.

Todd said...

Trump needs to nominate 3, not just 1. I think a photo of 11 justices would look so much better than a photo of just 9...

James Kahn said...

"Are you living in an alternate universe where Scalia was replaced during the Obama administration?"

The last time the Senate confirmed someone for SCOTUS who was nominated in an election year was 1940. (Anthony Kennedy was nominated in 1987, and that was only after Bork was Borked.)

Every nominee in the last 100 years to be rejected by the Senate was nominated by a Republican.

AprilApple said...

Democrats should join ISIS.

buwaya puti said...

Robert Bork was, like the original sin in Genesis, a rather foundational case.

M Jordan said...

The left is mad. After Trump snapped his fingers and broke the Obama trance, they went mad, stark raving mad. They stared into the abyss in the Obama years because Obama said, "Stare into the abyss and worship me." Now The abyss is staring into them and they, like Nietzche, have descended into madness.

It makes me smile.

eric said...

I still hope he picks Ann Coulter.

I think we find out tonight.

Balfegor said...

Re: readering:

Sounds like standard political analysis. Politics is give and take. I've been saying all along I think the Dems should just slow walk the nominee, not try to stop him or her.

How? I don't know the procedural rules of the Senate, so this is actually a real question, not just rhetorical. They lost the Senate in 2014 (a year after abolishing the filibuster: genius move there), so I don't think they can control when the nominees are brought forward for a vote. I guess they can filibuster the nominee, but if they do that longer than a day or two, Republicans would be entirely reasonable to abolish the filibuster, given that Democrats immediately before the election signalled credibly that once they regain power, that's exactly what they're going to do. It would take a lot of work to rebuild the trust necessary for it to make sense for Republicans to step away from the nuclear button, and Schumer (and Trump) have actively been working to destroy any remaining shreds of trust.

Incidentally, Trump seems kind of like he's making the same dumb mistakes Obama did after he was first elected, by promptly moving to alienate the opposition party. Really, did he have to make fun of Schumer's crocodile tears? (In fairness, this is probably worse than Obama, but it's a matter of degree, since the same signal is being sent.)

Like Obama, I can kind of understand the thinking that underlies it. You just won an election, you're on a high, crowds love you, you're over the moon, la-di-dah . . . And hey, here's someone who dares to disagree with you, so screw him! But, ah, Obama did not exactly have a successful Presidency, and Trump should know that better than anyone seeing how much of Obama's "legacy" he's dismantled with a handful of executive orders one week after his accession. Is that really the model he wants to follow here?

Curious George said...

"Mike said...
Part of Trump's master plan is to move on so many issues so quickly that RBG is overcome with exhaustion and retires. It's a good plan."

It's not his plan nor is it a good plan. Ginsburg short of death or serious illness will not retire.

Gusty Winds said...

Nope. Go Nuclear while there is a chance. The GOP should not kid itself that Senate Democrats would have used the 51 vote option if Hillary had won and had a chance to re-balance the court.

The GOP should stop being such pussies. People in states Trump won want things to change. Play hardball and they can pick up seats in 2018.

It's going to get a lot uglier. The GOP holds the conch shell at the moment. Use it.

damikesc said...

And now there's talk of democrats "boycotting" votes on Trump's cabinet nominees.

Dems will look terrible.

It's starting to look like Wisconsin's democrat legislators leaving the state to disrupt the majority's actions.


They're also threatening to boycott his non-SOTU speech.

Note: The GOP didn't do this to Obama, ever.

Just fill in their seats with Trump supporters.

Are you living in an alternate universe where Scalia was replaced during the Obama administration?

You're aware that Garland would have lost if voted on, right?

Meanwhile, folks still moaning about Robert Bork?

When bemoaning the politicization of SCOTUS nominations, it's important to point to WHAT STARTED IT.

I'd kill for a Cruz nomination, but to replace one of the progs.

Yancey Ward said...

Ann, you need a "Non-Partisan Bullshit" tag.

Bay Area Guy said...


"Our objection is rooted, rather, in our belief that the Supreme Court confirmation process needs to be protected from partisan politics to the greatest extent possible..."

Cough, cough, Robert Bork 1987,cough......

Qwinn said...

I hope for Miguel Estrada. And not "because he is Latino.".

Static Ping said...

The thing with the nuclear option is that you have to believe that the opposition is not willing to go there. If you think they will use the nuclear option upon first opportunity, then there is absolutely no reason to hold back. You cannot lose something that is already lost.

The Democrats have already proven that they will go to the nuclear option.

Qwinn said...

Anyone remember that, btw? When leaked Democrat memos revealed that "the Groups" controlled how the Dems voted on nominations, and they opposed Miguel Estrada "because he is Latino"?

Yeah, the media had only one concern when that happened: "Who's the bastard who leaked this highly sensitive information?!?!?!?!" The content of the leak barely got a mention.

Richard Dolan said...

"The core value is protecting the Supreme Court from partisan politics, nominating a solid conservative to replace a liberal threatens that value, so strong opposition to this nominee is no longer politicizing the Court but saving the Court from harmful politicization."

Alas, you cannot protect the Supreme Court from partisan politics if you believe, as everyone apparently does, that the justices are partisan operatives engaged in political decision making dressed up (barely) as something else. To say that nominating "a solid conservative to replace a liberal threatens that value" shows, by the very terms in which the issue is framed, that there is not much "value" to protect. Put another way, we have moved very far from the notion that neutral principles independent of political values determine the judicial application of broadly phrased constitutional provisions. It's obvious that no one involved in the nomination and approval process thinks of filling a Supreme Court vacancy as anything other than getting a committed partisan positioned to exercise power in a partisan way for a very long time.

It's not so much that the process is broken as it is that the idea of the Supreme Court as a non-partisan institution is a fiction no one seems inclined to indulge any more.

rehajm said...

...provoking Republicans to resort to the filibuster-abolishing “nuclear option” would leave Democrats disarmed of that weapon against a second Trump pick should another vacancy arise during his presidency

I keep reading this but can't understand what it means?

Richard Dolan said...

"The core value is protecting the Supreme Court from partisan politics, nominating a solid conservative to replace a liberal threatens that value, so strong opposition to this nominee is no longer politicizing the Court but saving the Court from harmful politicization."

Alas, you cannot protect the Supreme Court from partisan politics if you believe, as everyone apparently does, that the justices are partisan operatives engaged in political decision making dressed up (barely) as something else. To say that nominating "a solid conservative to replace a liberal threatens that value" shows, by the very terms in which the issue is framed, that there is not much "value" to protect. Put another way, we have moved very far from the notion that neutral principles independent of political values determine the judicial application of broadly phrased constitutional provisions. It's obvious that no one involved in the nomination and approval process thinks of filling a Supreme Court vacancy as anything other than getting a committed partisan positioned to exercise power in a partisan way for a very long time.

It's not so much that the process is broken as it is that the idea of the Supreme Court as a non-partisan institution is a fiction no one seems inclined to indulge any more.

Guildofcannonballs said...

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/15/ted-cruz-calls-donald-trumps-sister-a-judge-an-extremist/?_r=0

No worries proggies, Trump will nominate his sis to get revenge on Ted Cruz. Trump is crazy, insane, and Hitler, and his revenge on Cruz will include both urine and millions of dead Jews.

You heard it here first my little pretties.

n.n said...

Liberals are Pro-Choice. So are Progressives. Their principles are pulled from the twilight's fringe.

Yancey Ward said...

rehajm wrote:

"'...provoking Republicans to resort to the filibuster-abolishing “nuclear option” would leave Democrats disarmed of that weapon against a second Trump pick should another vacancy arise during his presidency'

I keep reading this but can't understand what it means?"


Logically, the WaPo quote does make no sense when parsed- filibustering now or later will provoke the nuclear option if it does at all. This is why I think the Democrats should filibuster right from the start- it is completely plausible to me that there are 2 or 3 Republicans in the Senate who can be found to vote against going nuclear. I think what WaPo is doing, however, is trying to speak to those handful of Republicans with this OpEd- it is about the only argument they can make now to forestall it since Democrats have already laid the groundwork for doing so.

Curious George said...

"Balfegor said...
Really, did he have to make fun of Schumer's crocodile tears?"

Yes.

Darrell said...

I still hope he picks Ann Coulter.

So shall it be Tweeted, so shall it be done.

readering said...

Kahn: Google Supreme Court 1968. The reason the Court has been Republican since 1970.

Balfegor: Lots of procedural stuff they can try, like the schedule for hearings, additional witnesses, follow-up questions, refusals for unanimous consent. It doesn't matter much since oral arguments for the current term end in April, but it will appease the base and infuriate the easily infuriated president.

Jack Wayne said...

I'd like to see a deadpool poll on Gorsuch, Harriman or someone else. I'm betting on pick number three because Trump's inner circle doesn't talk. These rumors are just that - rumors floated by lefty media.

Matthew Sablan said...

The left will, some day, realize Reid and Pelosi were terrible for them.

rehajm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gk1 said...

A little fucking late isn't it to fret about "scorched earth tactics"? Trump is in the drivers seat and has the initiative to go nuclear if he wants to.

rehajm said...

I think what WaPo is doing, however, is trying to speak to those handful of Republicans with this OpEd- it is about the only argument they can make now to forestall it since Democrats have already laid the groundwork for doing so.

Thank you. That's all the leverage the Democrats have left, really. That or more go scorched Earth fight tooth and nail cliches.

Curious George said...

"Matthew Sablan said...
The left will, some day, realize Reid and Pelosi were terrible for them."

Not as terrible as Obama, and dream on. For hard core lefties, that day will never happen.

Jess said...

The warning reminds me a "wet paint" sign.

Larry J said...

Our objection is rooted, rather, in our belief that the Supreme Court confirmation process needs to be protected from partisan politics to the greatest extent possible and that a scorched-earth Democratic response to any nominee, regardless of the individual merits, would simply deepen that harmful politicization....

Robert Bork is sadly unavailable for comment.

Fabi said...

"...the Court has been Republican since 1970."

You ain't seen nothing yet!

OGWiseman said...

So true. The court should never be politicized. I wonder what Merrick Garland is doing these days?

mockturtle said...

Robert Bork is sadly unavailable for comment.

Exactly. Talk about a lynching!

David said...

The Justices should have thought of politicization when they decided Roe v. Wade. They didn't. By failing to do so, they caused tremendous damage to the political climate of the country. I support abortion rights, but there are some things that should not be decided by the courts. This was one of them.

David said...

I do not like that trump is bringing the two finalists to DC. They can't say no, but this isn't Miss America. Bad move.

readering said...

David you are complaining about a decision by a Republican Court.

Todd said...

Richard Dolan said...

It's obvious that no one involved in the nomination and approval process thinks of filling a Supreme Court vacancy as anything other than getting a committed partisan positioned to exercise power in a partisan way for a very long time.

It's not so much that the process is broken as it is that the idea of the Supreme Court as a non-partisan institution is a fiction no one seems inclined to indulge any more.

1/31/17, 11:42 AM


It is so sad that "just rule as to whether X is something that the constitution says and allows" is considered a partisan position. That is what the left has done to the court...

Jon Ericson said...

OGW:
Bitching about Slo Joe Biden?

Matthew Sablan said...

"'...provoking Republicans to resort to the filibuster-abolishing “nuclear option” would leave Democrats disarmed of that weapon against a second Trump pick should another vacancy arise during his presidency'

I keep reading this but can't understand what it means?"

--> I think it means that the Democrats can defeat some Republican choices; but to go all-in early on one that isn't offensive will mean that if a later, worse (for them) option comes up, then Republicans are more likely to go nuclear. It's saying to keep their powder dry or else they may make Republicans feel forced to go nuclear.

I think.

eric said...

Blogger David said...
I do not like that trump is bringing the two finalists to DC. They can't say no, but this isn't Miss America. Bad move.


He makes terrible moves like this all the time. It's why he has zero chance of winning the Republican primary and less than zero chance of winning the presidency.

Matthew Sablan said...

"He makes terrible moves like this all the time. It's why he has zero chance of winning the Republican primary and less than zero chance of winning the presidency."

-- He'll probably back out once he's got a book deal or a new show lined up.

James Kahn said...

"Google Supreme Court 1968"

??? Fortas was already on the SC, and only his elevation to Chief Justice was filibustered. He remained on the SC until eventually resigning due to scandal. (And, of course '68 was an election year.)

Darrell said...

Google Supreme Court 1968

Nice try, though.
That's garage-mahal-level dishonesty.

clint said...

"Matthew Sablan said...
"He makes terrible moves like this all the time. It's why he has zero chance of winning the Republican primary and less than zero chance of winning the presidency."

-- He'll probably back out once he's got a book deal or a new show lined up."

All his attacks on the media show his real endgame. He's planning to start a media empire -- cable news channels, talk radio, magazine -- to serve the underserved conservative news market.

My name goes here. said...

I am confident there is some sort of rule against this, but it would be sheer awesomeness if Trump nominated three people, and told the senate, pick the one you want.

There is no way the democrats could deny all three without just about everyone learning the lesson that they do not wish to govern.

Larvell said...

"They can't say no, but this isn't Miss America."

If someone who already has a lifetime-tenured job that he can't be fired from can't say no, then no one can say no. I guarantee you, they could say no. "Mr. President, I'm happy to serve if you want to appoint me, but I'm not going to come to Washington to see if you give me the rose."

Todd said...

My name goes here. said...
I am confident there is some sort of rule against this, but it would be sheer awesomeness if Trump nominated three people, and told the senate, pick the one you want.

There is no way the democrats could deny all three without just about everyone learning the lesson that they do not wish to govern.

1/31/17, 1:37 PM


I would prefer he said "and approve all three".

"The eleven Supreme Court Justices will hear oral arguments on..." has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

roesch/voltaire said...

How much more partisan could the Dems to top the Republicans who wouldn't even give a hearing for Merrick Garland?

Matthew Sablan said...

"How much more partisan could the Dems to top the Republicans who wouldn't even give a hearing for Merrick Garland?"

-- How is it partisan to follow the Biden rule?

Gahrie said...

Google Supreme Court 1968

In 1968 LBJ nominated seating Associate Justice Fortas as the Chief Justice. This nomination was immediately in trouble, and Fortas accused of improper financial dealings having to do with speeches and honorariums. He was filibustered by a Senate in which the Democrats had 64 votes. It quickly became clear that his nomination would not succeed, but in order to help him maintain his Associate Justice seat, Fortas and LBJ wanted a cloture vote in which Fortas would get a majority of the votes even if it didn't reach the 60 needed. Because there was only 45 Democratic Senators willing to vote yes, the white House had to convince around 20 Democratic senators not to vote at all, and Fortas won 45 - 43 but the nomination failed anyway.

The Democrats sustained the filibuster against Fortas, not the Republicans.

Larvell said...

"How much more partisan could the Dems to top the Republicans who wouldn't even give a hearing for Merrick Garland?"

They wouldn't do that -- they assured me that their only complaint was that the Constitution required the Senate to "do its job" and vote on the nominee. Are you trying to suggest that they were being disingenuous, and simply wanted their own guy confirmed instead of someone else?

Gahrie said...

"How much more partisan could the Dems to top the Republicans who wouldn't even give a hearing for Merrick Garland?"

There is a long history of the Senate failing to take any action on a Supreme Court nomination. It has happened at least a dozen times before.

Gahrie said...

"The eleven Supreme Court Justices will hear oral arguments on..." has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

Not really....I would have opposed FDR's court packing scheme and I would oppose one today.

Drago said...

Larvell: "If someone who already has a lifetime-tenured job that he can't be fired from can't say no, then no one can say no. I guarantee you, they could say no. "Mr. President, I'm happy to serve if you want to appoint me, but I'm not going to come to Washington to see if you give me the rose."

It's quite possible that Trump has told both of these candidates that they are his 1st and 2nd choice for the SC as seats open up.

That just might be sufficient motivation for both to show up knowing that the runner up is on deck for the next opening.

Achilles said...

readering said...
Kahn: Google Supreme Court 1968. The reason the Court has been Republican since 1970.

78, 80, 83.

During the next 8 years that will be 86, 88, and 91 just to help the leftists here out. That's just counting those left of center btw. Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter are all going to be replaced by judges from DJT's list who are most all in their 50's. That means 7 solid constitutional jurists all in their 50's and 60's.

Looking forward to a glorious generation.

Achilles said...

roesch/voltaire said...
How much more partisan could the Dems to top the Republicans who wouldn't even give a hearing for Merrick Garland?

If you were decent people who acted in any sort of decent way I would love to listen to you all and give you respect.

But you aren't any of that. So now we are going to treat you like you have been treating us. Barrack Obama made the historic declaration to the nation when asked about bipartisanship in 2009: "I Won" He also said "Elections have consequences."

6 solid conservative justices all in their 50's and 60's by the end of Trump's presidency plus Justice Thomas and a permanent Senate majority. Have fun out there in the wilderness.

Mike said...

roesch/voltaire: How much more partisan could the Dems [be] to top the Republicans who followed the Biden rule?

There. FIFY. Now it makes sense. It was very bipartisan of the republicans to follow slow joe's lead. One might say extremely bipartisan.

readering said...

We'll see how long the Clinton appointees last. Stevens retired at 90, after I had been critical of him for not retiring at 80.

damikesc said...

So true. The court should never be politicized. I wonder what Merrick Garland is doing these days?

You're aware REPUBLICANS were the majority? He would've lost.

True, they could've lynched him like Biden did to Thomas, but why go there?

It's time for Republicans to stop being nice to Democrat nominees. The fucking idiotic Kagan got a lot of votes and she eats crayons during oral arguments.

Achilles said...

readering said...
We'll see how long the Clinton appointees last. Stevens retired at 90, after I had been critical of him for not retiring at 80.

Are you assuming the democrat party has reinvented itself in some useful and meaningful way by the end of Trump's presidency? Right now it looks like they will be wearing pussy hats for the foreseeable future.

Personally I think DJT should let the democrats filibuster the SC nominee/s until the 2018 elections when the republicans have a better than even chance of coming out with 60 seats in the senate. The constant hypocrisy and immaturity would make many wonderful campaign adds.

readering said...

Latest Gallup daily Trump approval-disapproval: 43-51.

mockturtle said...

Right now it looks like they will be wearing pussy hats for the foreseeable future.

Yes, they have become the Pussy-hat Party. A parody, really, on their own clueless hysteria.

Yancey Ward said...

"The eleven Supreme Court Justices will hear oral arguments on..." has a nice ring to it, don't you think?"

I quote this NYTimes article I found on my Google Future app:

June 30th, 2065: Today the Supreme Court issued its latest ruling in the long running battle over abortion when a closely divided court ruled for Planned Parenthood. The majority opinion was written by Justice Ruth Bader Gingberg's cyborg-clone. She was joined in the opinion by 43 other justices, but Anthony Kennedy's ghost chose to write a separate, but concurring opinion supporting the decision.

The head of Chief Justice John Roberts dictated his scathing dissent from the inside of his liquid nitrogen cooled container at Alcor-Johnson & Johnson Inc. located in Scottsdale, Arizona. Roberts was joined in the dissent by 37 other justices including the urn of Clarence Thomas.

President Trump, serving his 7th non-consecutive term as President denounced the decision via his Oink account.

James Kahn said...

"Latest Gallup daily Trump approval-disapproval: 43-51."

Gallup.... name rings a bell. That's that fella that on Nov 8th had Trump at -27 favorability vs HIllary at -17?

I hope Trump's approval ratings stay below 60%. If he's doing the right things he's going to tee off a lot of people.

Todd said...

Gahrie said...
"The eleven Supreme Court Justices will hear oral arguments on..." has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

Not really....I would have opposed FDR's court packing scheme and I would oppose one today.

1/31/17, 1:55 PM


As I commented elsewhere (in slightly different form) since when is trying to seat justices that actually weight the merits of cases and laws before them against the Constitution partisan or packing? When did trying to be true to the intent of the court and not be social engineers become such a partisan idea?

n.n said...

A scorched-Earth policy would release carbon into the environment, which would accelerate Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, and probably hasten national climate change, too.

mockturtle said...

James Kahn says: I hope Trump's approval ratings stay below 60%. If he's doing the right things he's going to tee off a lot of people.

Heavens, yes! Once he starts pleasing the Pussy-hats we're in trouble.

ganderson said...

Our objection is rooted, rather, in our belief that the Supreme Court confirmation process needs to be protected from partisan politics to the greatest extent possible

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!

Gretchen said...

It's only politicized when liberals are losing. They are losing bigly lately.