November 16, 2016
"Upworthy showed everyone that you get more pageviews with two-sentence headlines. What happened next will blow your mind."
From a Facebook discussion of the Slate article titled "Republicans Stole the Supreme Court/Democrats, don’t let them get away with it."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
66 comments:
Funny. It took me awhile not to fall for those "what happened next will blow your mind" clicks, especially those with an interesting photo accompanying it.
I notice Lithwick's screed doesn't mention the Biden Rule. For those playing at home, George HW Bush nominated John Roberts (and some others) to the federal courts of appeal in January 1992 and they didn't get hearings in the Judiciary Committee or floor votes because Joe Biden said nominations shouldn't be acted upon in an election year. Grassley and McConnell have long memories, unlike Lithwick. Obama plays politics very well and he appreciates what a well-played move it was to call it the Biden Rule and apply it to the Scalia vacancy.
Given what I can surmise about the typical person who I imagine would read articles on a site like Upworthy at all, I'm not surprised that they'd respond to obvious clickbaity tactics.
But for all that I have railed against destructive partisanship directed at fragile courts, I am persuaded now that the only way to answer nihilism is with nihilism of our own.
I'm always amused when someone claims last week's events caused them to embrace the tactics they've used for the last four decades.
I would like the Democrats in the Senate to filibuster Trump's Supreme Court nominee and then have the GOP nix the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations, just as the Dems did for court of appeals appointments, and call it the Reid Rule
"Stole"?
All your justice are belong to us.
I have my own photoblog, and a couple of years ago I joked that I should title every post "You Won't Believe What Happened When I Took This Photo" and then the text of the blog post would always be "Look at the photo. That's what happened."
Upworthy restored our faith in faith in humanity. What happens next will blow your mind.
The American Reader
Lithwick should write an article about how the New Jersey Democrats refused for years to hold hearings on any of Governor Chris Christie's nominations to the NJ Supreme Court.
I'm always amused when someone claims last week's events caused them to embrace the tactics they've used for the last four decades.
Indeed. "The only way to handle the racist bigots of the Republican Party is to finally point out that they are totally racist and totally bigoted"
I bet she'll love when the GOP kills the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees.
Slate: "The current Supreme Court vacancy is not Trump’s to fill. This was President Obama’s vacancy and President Obama’s nomination. Please don’t tacitly give up on it because it was stolen by unprecedented obstruction and contempt."
Someone want to start compiling the list of precedents?
"mccullough said...
I notice Lithwick's screed doesn't mention the Biden Rule..."
Thanks!
Slate: "His sister the judge or his daughter the clothing designer or white nationalist Steve Bannon or Peter Thiel."
Add another defendant to the libel suit.
And I'd really love to know what epithets and adjectives the author added in front of Peter Thiel before striking them all out and just leaving it self-evidently obvious that he'd be a ludicrous choice.
And wow: "But for all that I have railed against destructive partisanship directed at fragile courts, I am persuaded now that the only way to answer nihilism is with nihilism of our own."
Yeah. When you're calling your own proposals nihilism...
What if the Senate had held hearings on the Garland nomination for weeks, and then voted to reject him; and then voted to reject the next couple of nominees President Obama sent -- would that straightforward exercise of the Senate's power to advise and consent on such matters count as "stealing" the Court?
Upworthy showed everyone that you get more pageviews with two-sentence headlines. What happened next will blow your mind.
So, what happened next?!?
Lucien said...
What if the Senate had held hearings on the Garland nomination for weeks, and then voted to reject him...
I've always thought the senate should hold a vote and reject Garland, then tell President Obama that they won't confirm any left-wing radicals like a Garland or a Kennedy, but would be happy to confirm a moderate centrist like a Scalia or a Thomas.
The next article is titled "There is no such thing as a good Trump voter." They are having a tough time at Slate right now, and we have to be extra understanding.
Please be sympathetic as they spout their raving, hate-filled lunacy.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!
"mccullough said...
I would like the Democrats in the Senate to filibuster Trump's Supreme Court nominee and then have the GOP nix the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations, just as the Dems did for court of appeals appointments, and call it the Reid Rule"
Sadly (for a few reasons) but necessarily, I think this will occur.
"Politics isn't beanbag". Tip O'Neill
"Elections have consequences." B. Hussein Obama
"You lost." B. Hussein Obama
There are at least a dozen Supreme Court nominations that were never acted on.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
Upworthy showed everyone that you get more pageviews with two-sentence headlines. What happened next will blow your mind.
So, what happened next?!?
What happened next is that someone named "Ignorance is Bliss" asked "what happened next?".
Mind. Blown.
"Politics ain't beanbag".
Mr. Dooley (Peter Finley Dunne) was the source of the saying. I just remember O'Neill saying it.
I am very much of the opinion that Garland is not being brought up to a (down) vote is two-fold. First, it would create a circus that the Democratic Party media would use to bludgeon the Republicans, which would do no good for anyone but the Democrats. Who needs it? Second, there is always the risk that he would get approved when someone like McCain decides to vouch for him for the sake of comity, because apparently Lucy is not going to pull away the football this time.
Slate is more of a parody site than The Onion. Personally, I think it exists solely as an idiot detector for people who take it seriously.
I think Trump should leave the Court at 8. It forces them to come to an agreement.
[And in doing so, it also means decisions will be narrower, as you'll need a narrower band to get enough people to agree. You haven't fundamentally changed the # of people agreeing -- still 5. Just the scope of agreeing.]
Very Trumpian. Uses a 1-2. First a problem that America is screened up, then an action we will take.
Not screened but screwed up, or as his book says, crippled America.
Matthew Sablan said...
And in doing so, it also means decisions will be narrower, as you'll need a narrower band to get enough people to agree. You haven't fundamentally changed the # of people agreeing -- still 5
The problem is if you have a lack of agreement, then the lower court ruling stands, at least within that circuit. It would be irresponsible of Trump to let incorrect lower court rulings stand when he has the power to get them resolved.
I would like the Democrats in the Senate to filibuster Trump's Supreme Court nominee and then have the GOP nix the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations, just as the Dems did for court of appeals appointments, and call it the Reid Rule.
I’d rather that Senate Republicans simply make that the rule at the beginning of the session when they officially adopt the rules (requiring only a simple majority). It probably strikes a lot of independents (and some conservatives) as dirty pool to try to change the rules in the middle of the session to get a certain outcome. Doing it cleanly at the beginning of the session gives you the same result and you keep the moral high ground and makes Senate Democrats a lot less sympathetic.
You shouldn't be allowed to filibuster Presidential appointments to the SCOTUS or the Federal courts. If you don't have 51 votes against - too bad - maybe you should start winning elections.
I respect the fact that Reid did "the nuclear option". It makes me even more contemptuous of Trent Lott, who cried and wet himself over the mere thought of doing it. After, Trent didn't want to upset the Graft Train.
I think trump is planning to troll the Democrats on the supreme Court.
He will nominate Ted Cruz, knowing full well that they will reject him and use outlandish language to describe him. Eventually, theyll give up on the Ted Cruz nomination and nominate someone equally conservative. When the Dems pull out the same old playbook, the Republicans will nuke the filibuster and say, "Hey, we tried. Thy just arent reasonable."
You shouldn't be allowed to filibuster Presidential appointments to the SCOTUS or the Federal courts. If you don't have 51 votes against - too bad - maybe you should start winning elections.
I respect the fact that Reid did "the nuclear option". It makes me even more contemptuous of Trent Lott, who cried and wet himself over the mere thought of doing it. After, Trent didn't want to upset the Graft Train.
"It makes me even more contemptuous of Trent Lott...."
I think it was Mark Steyn who referred to him as Trent "Vacant" Lott.
heh
"I’d rather that Senate Republicans simply make that the rule at the beginning of the session when they officially adopt the rules (requiring only a simple majority)."
People don't generally know that the Senate rules have changed many times, and the current situation where the filibuster doesn't require someone to keep speaking (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) is pretty recent. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate]
I'd be in favor of going back to the pre-1975 rules.
David Souter stole a seat on the Supreme Court. The Republicans just left it up to the American People.
The problem is if you have a lack of agreement, then the lower court ruling stands, at least within that circuit. It would be irresponsible of Trump to let incorrect lower court rulings stand when he has the power to get them resolved.
Actually, this might not be the worst thing in the world if the courts were reorganized. We could have federalist courts where one circuit has their ruling and another circuit has their own. The Supreme Court only gets involved when the issue is clearly national or the circuit court is so out of line that it is violating the Constitution sufficiently to get the majority to correct them. Actually, let's get rid of the Supreme Court altogether and let the circuit panels act as the justices so the other circuits would have to override their peers. I would think this would also require the judges in the circuits to be local to that circuit as to reflect the local population and would probably require judges to either be elected and/or go through retaining votes.
I'm sure the system could be horribly corrupted, but the current system is already horribly corrupted, so why not?
I would love to see Ted Cruz as AG. Given that we actually know the name of the mole at Justice, we can be pretty sure he will be taken care of first day.
At least Lithwick has gone full partisan and the world should clearly understand that her coverage was, is, and always will be partisan.
She wants Dems to get angry. Maybe she can get some Soros money to support the angry mob protesting the next nominee.
Her logic is severely flawed, but she doesn't care. Compromise will be surrender, she says. Just reading her column makes me want Ted Cruz to join the court. Maybe they can burn Washington down in protest.
According to Wikipedia there have been fifteen unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court since the Civil War. Of these, only four of the nominations were by Democratic presidents. Of these four, two (by Grover Cleveland) were blocked by members of his own party (led by NY Senator David Hill). The other two were by Lyndon Johnson, and involved the failed nomination to elevate Abe Fortas from associate justice to chief justice, which is a bit different.
The other eleven blocked nominees were all Republican nominees. If any party has a history of obstructing Supreme Court nominees, it's the Democrats.
"...I am persuaded now that the only way to answer nihilism is with nihilism of our own."
We are all nihilists now.
I was trying to be clever, but it just occurred to me that maybe "nihilists" actually is a synonym for "socialists."
It is clear in the Constitution that the president shall nominate candidates to become justices on the Supreme Court and it is clear that the Senate must say yea or nay. What is not covered is the refusal by the Senate to act. A Democrat argument laying out the argument that Obama can now act since some 245 days have passed since his justice nomination was made; so therefore, inaction by the Senate is tantamount to the Senate forfeiting its approval rights; thus the President can simply make the appointment.
But the prevalent practice in Senate advise and consent actions shows that judgeship actions are routinely delayed in the Senate, regardless of the party in charge. So not even the Supremes could walk around this precedent.
Dingy Harry and the Dems excoriated the 2/3rd vote requirment to end filibusters on advice and consent actions, leaving majority rule alone to easily control appointments going forward.
I don't claim bait-click-victimhood. I clicked & enjoyed Dahlia's article immensely. These 'attack of the vapors' professional victims, channel energy & money into these tantrums, exposing their moon-battery and confirming the opinions of most sensible folks.
I encourage Slate & their writers to charge forward. Get after that Electoral College thing, too.
I think a better change would be for Trump and the Repubs to alter the structure of the Article III courts, and break up the DC Circuit, the 9th Circuit, and rearrange the entire federal court system.
As in "....and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Now is a good "time to time".
For example, why don't we make it necessary for suits in Texas to be appealed in California, and for suits in California to be appealed in Texas.
Kind of a "Let's start getting along, why don't we?" approach.
Y'know, if Trump happened to be a Black man, the Democrats would be calling for his lynching. Revert to type, you know. He'd be uppity, thinking he was capable of being president just like his betters. Can't have that, won't stand for it.
gadfly said...
It is clear in the Constitution that the president shall nominate candidates to become justices on the Supreme Court and it is clear that the Senate must say yea or nay. What is not covered is the refusal by the Senate to act.
Refusal to act is to act. Consider this example from everyday life. If I ask my wife if I can go out with the guys, and she doesn't answer----- that's an answer. Or do you think that somehow that becomes a "Yes"?
More Love Trumping Hate:
Man gunned down outside bar after he joked about voting for Trump
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
This seems like a small price to pay so chicken-resisters can pretend they're standing up to Hitler.
Lithwick is a lunatic.
It is clear in the Constitution that the president shall nominate candidates to become justices on the Supreme Court and it is clear that the Senate must say yea or nay.
No it's not.
1)Reuben Walworth, was nominated as an Associate Justice for the second time by President Tyler on June 17, 1844, but the Senate took no action on it. (In a period lasting a little over a year from January 1844 to February 1845, President Tyler nominated five men a total of nine times, and only one, Samuel Nelson, was confirmed.)
2)John M. Read, was nominated as an Associate Justice by President Tyler in February 1845. The senate took no action it. (Probably because a new administration was due to begin the next month)
3)Edward Bradford, was nominated as an Associate Justice by President Fillmore in August of 1852. The Senate never acted on the nomination.
4)William Micou, was nominated as an Associate Justice by President Fillmore in February 1853. The nomination was not acted on, probably because a new administration would take office a month later.
5)Henry Stanberry, was nominated as an Associate Justice by President Andrew Johnson in April 1866. The Senate never officially acted on the nomination. However they did eliminate the seat on the Supreme Court he was nominated for.
6)Thomas Stanley Matthews, was nominated as an Associate Justice by President Hayes in January 1881. The Senate took no action. He was renominated later that year by President Garfield and confirmed.
7)William Hornblower, was first nominated as an Associate Justice by President Cleveland in Sept. 1893. The Senate took no action.
8)Pierce Butler, was nominated as an Associate Justice by President Harding in November 1922. The Senate took no action. He was renominated a month later and confirmed.
9)John Marshall Harlan II, was nominated as an Associate Justice by President Eisenhower in November 1954. The Senate failed to act. He was renominated by President Eisenhower in January 1955 and confirmed.
10)Homer Thornberry, was nominated as an Associate Justice by President Lyndon Johnson in June 1968. The senate never acted, because the seat he was nominated for was not vacated by Associate Justice Fortas.
The Senate took no action on 11 (now 12) nominees. (two were later renominated and didn't serve, three were later renominated and served)
Democrats Are Piece Of Shit Lefties. Don't Let Then Anywhere Near The Throttle.
4 year filibuster!
go for it
"Democrats Are Piece Of Shit Lefties. Don't Let Then Anywhere Near The Throttle."
Too late, back-seat-driver. Have you been asleep for the last... forever?
Don't make me go back to the French Rev and recite history.
Oh, but Trump won. That changes everthang.
My bad.
https://cumulus.hillsdale.edu/Buckley/latelogin.jspx?recordsWithCatalogName=Buckley:8816&r=1479349004470#1479349007295_0
I ain't being a begin' offin, but whener I do I measely of there ya's mere's beg you to copy and paste the above link k.
https://cumulus.hillsdale.edu/Buckley/latelogin.jspx?recordsWithCatalogName=Buckley:8816&r=1479349004470#1479349007295_0
Trump, standing atop Trump Tower with a machine gun and in full Edward G Robinson mode: "Yeah, I stole the Supreme Court! I stole it all! Whaddya gonna do about it smart guy?! WHADDYA GONNA DO?!! Bwwwaaahhhhhaaaaahhaaa"
It would really mean a lot to me, like if people helped my mom or dad, if y'all could just read you some Buckley, damnit.
Link it if that is okay by your God: guarantee ya it is by mine and ours.
@Drago
Some of the forlorn at work get their kicks comparing Trump to Biff in the Back to the Future movies.
Wynn Duffey's bodyguard "Mikey" will emerge as the greatest American hero in the age "not old."
Ha. Told you. Ha.
Highly competent yet unable to spell competent without autofuckwordsandcu,ture
WHERE DA MONEY
I EARNEAD ALL OF IT, EVERYONE's last dimes.
To turn/make into dolphin food, cause you know them dolphins be suffering agin.
Like Marge in"Fargo" said: There's more to life than money, you know that right? And yet here you are. I mean, don't you know that?"
Can anyone recommend a hotline or a shrink or an understanding "escort" or anything?
I'm starting to click on Guild's links...
If this comment doesn't get through: VIRUS!!! RUN!!!
I chickened out.
But I'm right behind you if you go first. Write me.
Fair enough: off to Facebook and Slate. Returning: I struggle to understand what’s bugging Dahlia Lithwick and John Althouse Cohen. The Constitution directs the President to seek the Senate’s advice on the nominee it will consent to appoint to the Supreme Court. The Constitution also gives the Senate an absolute veto on the President's nomination should he fail to follow the Senate's advice. We still do not have a ninth Supreme Court justice, so we may only assume the President failed to follow the Senate’s advice; had the President followed the Senate’s advice, we certainly would now have a ninth justice. It’s a pity Mr. Obama didn’t spend more time studying up on the Constitution before becoming President.
My "Lithwick is a hack" heuristic seems to be holding accurate.
Two words: Bull, and that other one.
Post a Comment