July 3, 2017

"But it is unlikely that Kennedy will remain on the court for the full four years of the Trump presidency."

"While he long ago hired his law clerks for the coming term, he has not done so for the following term (beginning Oct. 2018), and has let applicants for those positions know he is considering retirement."

Writes Nina Totenberg in "Justice Neil Gorsuch Votes 100 Percent Of The Time With Most Conservative Colleague" (NPR).

ADDED: Count the assumptions in the quote in the post title. In the comments, Bad Lieutenant fixes the headline to: "But it is unlikely that Kennedy will remain on the court for the full four years of the Trump presidency's first term." I read that to Meade and he observes that there is a second assumption. Do you see what it is?
That Trump will serve the full 4 years of the term to which he was elected.

178 comments:

Bad Lieutenant said...

""But it is unlikely that Kennedy will remain on the court for the full four years of the Trump presidency's first term.""


FIFY, sugar tits.

Earnest Prole said...

Elections have consequences -- just ask Merrick Garland.

Todd said...

Indeed, he voted 100 percent of the time with the court's most conservative member, Clarence Thomas, according to SCOTUSblog.

Justice Gorsuch looks to be in find company! He could do a whole LOT worse than be associated with Justice Thomas.

Kevin said...

Though he was confirmed in time to hear only the final two weeks of the term's oral arguments, his votes and opinions in those cases — and others that the court has disposed of since he was sworn in — paint a vivid picture of a justice on the far right of the current Supreme Court bench.

Two weeks on the court? Time to start painting him as an out-of-touch ideologue! Trump might get another pick for the court soon and we can't have people believing his selections are anything but supremely unqualified.

Not only do they need to keep all the Democrat Senators on the plantation, they need to tie down a few Republicans who don't want to be metaphorically seated at the right hand of David Duke.

Todd said...

his votes and opinions in those cases — and others that the court has disposed of since he was sworn in — paint a vivid picture of a justice on the far right of the current Supreme Court bench

It is both sad (mostly sad) and funny how being "right" (as in correct) paints one as being to the "far right" of the current court.

Gahrie said...

Replacing Kennedy with a solid conservative/originalist is important. However the real prize is RBG's seat. If trump gets to replace her and Kennedy, the court will be solidly conservative/originalist for decades.

MadisonMan said...

I note that Totenberg describes a 'Far Right' part of the bench, but not a 'Far Left' part.

Kevin said...

Alternate meme: Gorsuch sides 100% with black colleague.

Henry said...

Sample sizes don't get much smaller than this.

There's also the rhetorical trick that is always used for Supreme Court polemics. "Most Conservative" or "Most Liberal" is constrained to this very small sample size of 9 people, none of whom could really compete for "most conservative" or "most liberal" in a broader sense.

Henry said...

@Kevin - Touche

gspencer said...

Frumpy Nina Totenberg is still around?

If you've ever considered, while contemplating a statute, sticking with the actual text of the Constitution, you're "far right" according to the frumpy one. But, on the other hand, if your contemplation brings you into emanations and penumbras, you're visionary.

traditionalguy said...

This Gorsuch Justice is good news that Trump deserves to
brag about. He did it perfectly, especially for President Trump being an insane child having a lucid interval.

IgnatzEsq said...

I do personally find it interesting that he's described as confident in his own views and not as Thomas' puppet. Even now that Scalia is gone Thomas gets no respect.

Quayle said...

How about leaving most decisions to the House of Representatives and the Senate?

Or is that too "far right" for these elitists who know in their brain-centered pseudo-hearts they are smarter than their fellow citizens, and don't believe in the concept of the will of the people?

Rene Saunce said...

The best best best most wonderful part of Trump's term is the Supreme court will not be packed with Hillary's cronies.

Bay Area Guy said...

Gorsuch 3, Totenberg 0

Swede said...

When Trump replaces RBG with one of the names on his already published list of SC candidates, the Left will collectively shit itself.

That may happen BEFORE Kennedy gets his ass into a well deserved retirement.

Popcorn at the ready...

Jim Gust said...

Funny how Totenberg never complains about how Sotomayor is in lockstep with Ginsberg. And Kagan is usually with them.

Freder Frederson said...

I note that Totenberg describes a 'Far Right' part of the bench, but not a 'Far Left' part.

Because while there is currently a "far right" of the court (Alito, Thomas, and possibly Gorsuch), there is no "far left" on the current court. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall could fairly be called "far left", but to say any of the current members are far left is ridiculous.

Dave from Minnesota said...

Freder, did you read Sotomayor's opinion on the Trinity Lutheran case?

Kevin said...

For comparison, here is Nina Totenberg's The Robe Seems To Suit New Justice Kagan:

"Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, the first judicial appointee in 40 years with no prior experience on the bench, seems to be settling into her new job with remarkable ease. Of course, she has not written any opinions that have yet seen the light of day. But Kagan already has big fans among her colleagues, from the conservative Justice Antonin Scalia to the liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Sitting at the far end of the Supreme Court bench in the junior justice's seat, Kagan looks chipper, cheerful, calm and content. That last word — content — is not one that her old friends would have used to describe her before. "She's always been on a path," observes one friend, "looking down the road, striving." And even though she loved being dean of Harvard Law School, said this friend, there was always a sense that "she was pursuing a longer-range goal."

No more. Elena Kagan is where she's always wanted to be, and she loves being there. As a friend told her after seeing the new justice just two months after she was sworn in, "Man, does life tenure suit you well."

Gahrie said...

but to say any of the current members are far left is ridiculous.

RBG has a solid claim as the most Leftist Justice ever on the Court.

Michael K said...

"to say any of the current members are far left is ridiculous."

Your POV depends on where you sit. I suspect there is no one this side of Stalin who is left of you.

Original Mike said...

"Because while there is currently a "far right" of the court (Alito, Thomas, and possibly Gorsuch) ..."

Well, if the Constitution is "far right" I suppose so.

Kate said...

Gorsuch, barely beginning, is already on the wrong side of history.

In "Postcards from the Edge" the Carrie Fisher character, played by Meryl Streep, is on shoot after rehab and is told, on her first day, that her "enjoyment levels" aren't up to snuff, or somesuch (quote from imdb):

Suzanne: I've been approached by hundreds of people who've felt the need to address the lack of relaxation in my work.

Simon Asquith: Really? Hundreds? Well, I'll have a chat with them.

Suzanne: In the future, I would prefer to receive direction solely from you. I mean we're talking about one day of work here. A day in which I was tied to a cactus and assaulted by snakes. Like I was a child. Maybe they should bring my mother on the set and she can make sure I'm relaxed!

Simon Asquith: That's it! That's her! That's the character! What you're doing right now!

Suzanne: But, Simon! This isn't relaxed! This is incredibly upset!

Humperdink said...

If Darth Vader Ginsberg was any further left she could make Guam tip over.

rcocean said...

The 4 Democrat appointees are all far left and vote like a bloc on almost every issue. Of course, Totenberg describes them as without politics, although she occasionally state they are "liberal centrists". She's a liberal Democrat herself. To her "Normal people" are liberals, everyone else is "extreme right winger" or some kind of "-ist"

As for Dram Queen Kennedy, it'd be just like him to continually drop hints that he MAY retire, so he can be the focus of attention. No doubt letter/emails are pouring in from his liberal fans begging him to not retire & telling the NYT will print some good more stories if stays as the "Bulwark of the Republic".

rcocean said...

I'm never going to forgive all those supposedly "Conservative" Southern senators for voting against Bork and giving us Kennedy. We've been paying for their treason for 30 years.

Original Mike said...

Nina Totenberg is one reason I stopped listening (and contributing) to NPR.

Rene Saunce said...

Radical leftwing progressives do not think of themselves as radical leftwing progressives.

Pianoman said...

The other assumption is that Trump will not be re-elected.

Todd said...

Freder Frederson said...
I note that Totenberg describes a 'Far Right' part of the bench, but not a 'Far Left' part.

Because while there is currently a "far right" of the court (Alito, Thomas, and possibly Gorsuch), there is no "far left" on the current court. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall could fairly be called "far left", but to say any of the current members are far left is ridiculous.

7/3/17, 8:18 AM


Sorry but LOL can not come close to expressing the hilarity of that statement! I am not creative enough with words to describe how utterly ridiculous and without a shred of honesty those words are! To understand that those words were typed without a micron of sarcasm and that they were and are heart-felt has to shake a sane, intelligent person to their core.

rcocean said...

I need to proof read my posts. When I type, I drop words or reverse them. I seem to be the only person with this problem. It doesn't happen when i write or speak.

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

Yes, NPR has given up on impeachment and even premature death. Trump of course is a bit older than Reagan was at the same point. Reagan was confirmed to be suffering from Alzheimer's after he left office; one can't help but wonder was going on during his last year or two in office. Does anyone want to discuss whether there is such a thing as too old? When I taught intro to American Gov in the U.S. years ago, I would ask the students if they thought Supreme Court justices should face mandatory retirement at some age--maybe 75. I never got any support for that, but then there was little interest in any constitutional amendment at all.

Tommy Duncan said...

I think Nina was trying to be generous by implying Trump might get a full four years without impeachment and removal from office. Bless her little heart...

William said...

Trump has an excellent chance of appointing three Justices and a fair chance of appointing four, and that's only in his first term. I don't know what the average number of Supreme Court appointees that fate gives to a president, but this seems high. Bismarck said that God looks after drunks and Americans.

wildswan said...

Justice Kennedy has decided that Trump will get two terms and hence there's no reason to cling to his seat waiting for Hillary to win in 2020.

But persist, Hillary, persist. Believe. Send more fundraising e-mails. Pretend the Unicorn is going to come back and do hard political work - saving pensions in Chicago, for example.

Pianoman said...

Shorter Freder: No True Scotsman ...

mockturtle said...

Totenberg has never been known for her objectivity.

Etienne said...

There's another assumption: that the Constitution will still exist in four years.

Oliver North revealed during Iran-Contra that policies were in place to suspend the Constitution. He was quickly stopped from further testimony, when the Chairman reminded him he was in Open Session, and that he couldn't talk about that.

Bill said...

I tend to mute the volume when Nina Totebag comes on.

Todd said...

to say any of the current members are far left is ridiculous.

Such a statement SHOULD be true just as there should not be any members "considered" far right. Unfortunately [it appears that] since Roe v Wade was "made up", any Justice that actually does their job which is to compare cases against the actual (versus some hoped for or dreamed of) Constitution, any Judge that doesn't "make sh*t up" is considered "far right" and any Justice that gets a thrill out of legislating from the bench by "making sh*t up" cause FEELZ is considered a good, progressive centralist Judge by all right thinking people in the proper, progressive areas of the country.

This is all instead of a set of 9 originalist Judges which is what the country should have.

gspencer said...

FF wrote, "but to say any of the current members are far left is ridiculous"

May I suggest that you don't do any driving just yet. Wait until it wears off. Keep away from lawn mowers and buzz saws too.

Ryan said...

No impeachment is the second assumption.

Achilles said...

Freder Frederson said...

"Because while there is currently a "far right" of the court (Alito, Thomas, and possibly Gorsuch), there is no "far left" on the current court. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall could fairly be called "far left", but to say any of the current members are far left is ridiculous."

This could almost replace the definition of bias.

It is definitely an object lesson.

Crimso said...

They suspiciously left out the assumption of no extinction-level asteroid strike over the next four years.

Crazy Jane said...

Anthony Kennedy is no doubt a good human being, but as the whip hand on the Supreme Court, he's had mixed results. For 30 years now, the court's right and left teams have twisted themselves and their logic into knots to get his support. The result has been a bunch of wishy-washy, split-the-baby incoherent decisions .

I'm not a legal scholar. For all I know, it always has been this way. Maybe Kennedy's tenure reflects or accommodates the fundamental schisms in modern American thought. He participated in Bollinger and the full suite of affirmative action opinions that tried to offend no one and resolved nothing. His was the swing vote that carried Kelo. He wrote the Obergefell majority opinion.

In short, a virtual cipher of a man is the most influential figure in our country. We are at least as confused about principles and laws as we were when he joined the court, possibly more so. He's either indispensable or the blind spot in our collective vision.

Steve Uhr said...

And I assume everyone is in agreement that if he leaves the court in the last year of Trump's presidency. that it would be inappropriate to consider a replacement until after the 2020 election?

Todd said...

Steve Uhr said...
And I assume everyone is in agreement that if he leaves the court in the last year of Trump's presidency. that it would be inappropriate to consider a replacement until after the 2020 election?

7/3/17, 9:47 AM


I could get behind that, yes.

That said, I also think that right now, Trump should select another two Justices and get them confirmed NOW! The number nine is not in stone...

MadisonMan said...

@Steve Uhr -- I would -- if Trump were not running for re-election. I think who Trump appoints in an election year would be a good way to help decide a vote.

Michael K said...

if he leaves the court in the last year of Trump's presidency. that it would be inappropriate to consider a replacement until after the 2020 election?

That'd be OK. More incentive for Trump voters.

You see how that works ?

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

And I assume everyone is in agreement that if he leaves the court in the last year of Trump's presidency. that it would be inappropriate to consider a replacement until after the 2020 election?

Like Obama, Trump will be free to name a replacement. The rest will be up to the senate. The rules are the same for both situations.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said... I read that to Meade and he observes that there is a second assumption. Do you see what it is?

There are 2. The one you probably want (I assume!) is "Trump serves 4 years of his first term/is not impeached & removed. The other is "Trump chooses to run again, for a second term."

I guess a hidden 3rd is "the Constitution is not altered or discarded so that Presidents are still allowed only 2 full terms of their own...but if we go that route we might as well toss in "we are not visited by the Sweet Meteor of Death" in the next few months, so all life on Earth continues to exist.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ooh!
"Trump does not decide to add additional Justices to the Court, bringing the total up to 11 or 13 or 15."
Hey, if he's willing to retweet a video of himself being violent to someone w/a CNN logo superimposed on their head, what ISN'T he willing to do, the absolute madman?!

Mark O said...

At least 8 years.

Media hysteria always elects a strong-man candidate.

There is hysteria.

WisRich said...

Steve Uhr said...
And I assume everyone is in agreement that if he leaves the court in the last year of Trump's presidency. that it would be inappropriate to consider a replacement until after the 2020 election?

7/3/17, 9:47 AM

Actually, for me, that would be a no. The Republicans made the 2016 election, an open race, a referendum on who would get to name the new justice. I think it was opportunism by the Rep's but what other option did they have? They did have the fig leaf of the "Biden Rule"

Trump, presumably, will be running for reelection so it's not an open race.

Livermoron said...

I seem to have missed Mr. Uhr's vocal support for waiting for the pending election before confirming a new SC justice these past 18 months.

So, clarify please Mr. Uhr.....would you support waiting if a similar situation should come up then?

Just want to see how situational your ethics are.

Daniel Jackson said...

The Nine members of the Supreme Court constitute a population. The rules governing the size of a sample are independent of the size of the population. This is why statisticians do not give percentages in small populations or groups less than 100.

We can Sample the Opinions of the Justices over time to look for consistency; but, we cannot take a sample of such a small and exclusive population.

Similarly, it is rather bone headed to talk of 55% of the Senate: that's 55 members and it too is a population. The House is something else and just may constitute a sample if we consider the electoral process a proper means of generating a biased sample.

It's pretty nifty how the founding "parents" worked Time and Sample selection processes into the Constitution, starting with the requirement that the electorate be counted every ten years.

rcocean said...

The "Biden rule" has been in effect for over 20 years. If - in the election year -the opposing party controls the Senate, you wait for the POTUS election results to vote on the new Justice.

The Biden rule obviously doesn't come into effect in mid-terms.

rcocean said...

We need term limits for SCOTUS judges. I think 25 years would be enough for anyone or if wish an age limit - make 80 the Mandatory retirement age. Its crazy that someone who graduated from college when Ike was President is making decisions in 2017.

PackerBronco said...

Steve Uhr said...
And I assume everyone is in agreement that if he leaves the court in the last year of Trump's presidency. that it would be inappropriate to consider a replacement until after the 2020 election?


I'd be fine with the Senate taking on its constitutional role of advising and consenting any nominee. Now if they choose not to approve a nominee, that's fine. If they approve of a nominee. That's fine. As a co-equal branch of government (and not a rubber stamp), they can do whatever the **** they want with the President's nominee.

The Senate didn't want Garland on the Supreme Court. Tough **** if that bothers you.

Chuck said...

Point One: "Crazy Jane" has the best post of the thread so far. In short, a virtual cipher of a man is the most influential figure in our country. We are at least as confused about principles and laws as we were when he joined the court, possibly more so. He's either indispensable or the blind spot in our collective vision. Crazy Jane may not be a legal scholar; but she nailed that one. The fifth and deciding vote for gun rights in Hellerand MacDonald. The fifth and deciding vote for free speech in Citizens United. But also the fifth and deciding vote against property rights in Kelo, and the personal author of a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy and homosexual marriage despite the state constitutions in a majority of states.

Point Two: Nina Totenberg isn't shy about her opinions on Court politics. Yes, she thinks there is a "far right" and says so frequently. And no, she doesn't think there is a "far left" at all. Which tells us nothing about the members of the Court, and everything about Nina Totenberg, NPR, and what Justice Scalia rightly called out as the "law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."

If we asked the members of the left-leaning Warren Court if they could ever imagine requiring all fifty states to accept the federalization of marriage laws requiring them to perform the marriage of homosexuals, they'd all have thought we were mad. Yes; that is an indication of the extremist left-wingers on the current Court.

Point Three: Everyone just seems to be counting the number of seats that Donald Trump is likely to fill, and presuming that they will all be Gorsuch-modeled conservatives. I hope that is the case, but if we Republicans fail to hold the Senate in 2018, it won't happen. Trump may make some nominations, but they will be nominees off of a list that is handed to him by Chuck Schumer. And so that is why we had better pay really close attention to exactly what Mitch McConnell, Deb Fischer, Bob Corker and the electoral strategists want. We can't afford to lose a single winnable Senate race.

Point Four: Apart from being the vessel through which the Gorsuch nomination passed, Trump gets little credit, right? The nomination was engineered by Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society, and executed by Mitch McConnell, Kelly Ayotte, John Cornyn and the rest of the Republican leadership in the Senate.


Achilles said...

We also need a rule that states "If a justice sites international law in a decision they will be stuffed with hamburgers until dead."

Pettifogger said...

Re the far right and left.

The terms are, at best, indirect measures of the underlying issue:

1. Should the constitution and statutes be interpreted according to some version of objective intent (putting aside for the moment the different ways of approaching that) or

2. Should a collection of black-robed geezers and biddies based in Washington rule over us based on their political predilections.

Leftists generally favor the latter, because they think they can generally control who gets on the court. Republican presidents coupled with Republican Senates mess that process up. Trump is an extreme case for them, in no small part because he challenges their belief they are inherently superior.

Invest in popcorn futures. The show will continue to be great.

PackerBronco said...

The funny thing about the Garland nomination is that if Hillary had won and Senate had flipped, the GOP senate would have tried to approve while at the same time Obama would've withdrawn the nomination figuring Hillary would nominate a more liberal jurist.

So Garland wasn't going to be on the court in ANY case.

Kevin said...

"Apart from being the vessel through which the Gorsuch nomination passed, Trump gets little credit, right? The nomination was engineered by Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society, and executed by Mitch McConnell, Kelly Ayotte, John Cornyn and the rest of the Republican leadership in the Senate."

Sure. Because Obama, for example, didn't have his people come up with a list that he simply interviewed and picked from, but read through all the Appellate Court rulings to work out exactly who should and should not be on the list.

As did GWB. As did Clinton. As did GHWB. As did Reagan.

Right. I see Trump is nothing but a big outlier there...

Kevin said...

The funny thing about the Garland nomination is that if Hillary had won and Senate had flipped, the GOP senate would have tried to approve while at the same time Obama would've withdrawn the nomination figuring Hillary would nominate a more liberal jurist.

The deal was that if Hillary won the Republican Senate would approve Garland, lest Hillary get a pick. And Obama would not withdraw Garland, lest he not get a pick at all.

Bruce Hayden said...

"Steve Uhr said...
And I assume everyone is in agreement that if he leaves the court in the last year of Trump's presidency. that it would be inappropriate to consider a replacement until after the 2020 election?"

Probably not. Wishful thinking on your part. The Biden Rule depends on which party holds the Senate and the Presidency. It is really only applicable when the Senate is controlled by one party, and the Presidency by the other party. And that will be highly unlikely in 2020, because electoral demographics are very highly against the Senate flipping next year. Just way too many Red/Trump state Dems running for reelection. As evidence of this, Jon Tester is already running reelection ads here in MT, a year and a half before the election.

Chuck said...

Kevin, remember the ballyhoo surrounding the publication of Trump's initial list of possible SCOTUS nominees? Trump's personal pride in it, and the blatant calculation that it would help Trump win over the Movement Conservatives who were becoming NeverTrumpers?

They forgot Gorsuch.

And it was a real oops moment. The List, to be sure, wasn't Trump's mistake. It was Leo/the Federalist Society/Heritage who forgot to place Gorsuch on there. So what did they do? They rolled out a second list. With the name of Gorsuch, and a dozen or so other decoys.

Obviously it is good that it was a Trump White House that was doing the nominating. And yes this process is overdue and much needed. The same process would have been used for President Kasich or President Rubio. President Cruz would have been a lot more personally involved, I expect.

But it's always about personal credit, and personal relationships and personal everything with Trump. With Gorsuch, Trump was handed the completed project. Completed by people who, I have no doubt, ridicule Trump behind his back.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Apart from being the vessel through which the Gorsuch nomination passed, Trump gets little credit, right?

Apart from winning the fucking election that made it possible for the Federalist Society's list to mean more than a fart in the wind, yeah, Trump doesn't deserve any credit.

I guess we've moved past the self-discrediting stage and are moving right into "saying truly stupid, pointless things to desperately try to work in a gratuitous jab at Trump," huh?
Pretty pathetic.

Bruce Hayden said...

Let me ad that the Biden Rule is a naked assertion of power (by the Senate majority) masquerading as comity. Nothing more. It was merely justification for the majority to deny a President a Supreme Ct confirmation on the chance that the Presidency will flip later that year. Little different from abolishing fake filibusters for most judicial nominations as Dingy Harry did. Or, really, fake filibusters in the first place (meaning filibusters where the Senate isn't really shut down for all business, but rather the offending nomination is just put indefinitely on a back burner, and the Senate continues to do its other business, which itself was a relatively recent innovation in the rules).

clint said...

Steve Uhr said...
"And I assume everyone is in agreement that if he leaves the court in the last year of Trump's presidency. that it would be inappropriate to consider a replacement until after the 2020 election?"

Speaking of implicit assumptions...

You mean the 2024 election, right? Because otherwise how would we know it's the last year of Trump's presidency?

Etienne said...

Trump could really drive everyone crazy by announcing that Garland has been nominated to replace the retiring Ginsburg.

Give her that final push.

Chuck said...

I guess we've moved past the self-discrediting stage and are moving right into "saying truly stupid, pointless things to desperately try to work in a gratuitous jab at Trump," huh?

I have a hard time imagining that any jabs at Trump count as "gratuitous." They are all good jabs, right?

clint said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
"Apart from winning the fucking election that made it possible for the Federalist Society's list to mean more than a fart in the wind, yeah, Trump doesn't deserve any credit.

I guess we've moved past the self-discrediting stage and are moving right into "saying truly stupid, pointless things to desperately try to work in a gratuitous jab at Trump," huh?
Pretty pathetic."

Take a breath. This is a really good sign. We're now moving from the "Trump's an incompetent failure and his administration is in chaos" phase (which followed the "Trump's a Nazi White Supremacist who will literally kill us all" phase) into a new phase in which they try to deny Trump credit for all his successes.

This is what winning looks like.

Yancey Ward said...

Yes, that is an additional assumption in a way, however, it is true also that even if Trump were removed, it would still be his electoral successor, Pence.

I didn't think Kennedy would retire this past month, but I think it likely he will retire after the coming term. His history on the court is still a conservative one, and I think he won't risk having the Republicans lose the Senate in 2018 and having his replacement be appointed by a potential Democrat after 2020. I also think there is a better than even chance that Thomas retires next year for the same reason. Replacing Ginsberg or Breyer would be icing on the cake.

Todd said...

Completed by people who, I have no doubt, ridicule Trump behind his back.

No doubt.

Its not like he was a community organizer or a College Professor of Constitutional Law.

He did win that contest on the cheap though [compared to his opponent] so there is that.

Bruce Hayden said...

I do credit Trump with the Gorsuch nomination, just as I do the recently reassertive American military and foreign policy. He knows how to delegate, and does. He is good at it. Had to be, to be as successful as he was in business. Romney would have been good too. No doubt, he listened to his federal judge sister a bit, but that is just part of being a good delegator. Part of good delegation is finding good people, then trusting them to do the job that you have entrusted them to do (and fire them if they screw it up). Part of why it is so noticeable with Trump is that his predecessor, having had essentially zero trading or experience in delegation, was so utterly incompetent at it.

Kevin said...

But it's always about personal credit, and personal relationships and personal everything with Trump.

Trump never said the list was his, only that he thought it a good one and he would stick to it. He never said he would pick from the initial list, but would choose judges in the mold of those on the list.

The worry was that Trump would not listen to others in the process, not that he would listen to them so faithfully that it would undermine the process.

As for the personal relationships, he interviewed several qualified people and chose one based on his personal interviews with them. As did Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan...

I don't know why you continue to say Trump is somehow "less than" other Presidents who do the same things. Gorsuch is "Trump's Pick", just as Garland and Kagan and Sotomayor were "Obama's Picks". Not because they made the list, but because they made the ultimate choice from it.

Todd said...

I also think there is a better than even chance that Thomas retires next year for the same reason.

NOOOOoooooooooo! Please NO! The court desperately needs his clear thinking and writing as well as his adherence to the actual Constitution for as long as is humanly possible!

Can we clone him a couple times and get them on the bench too?

Yancey Ward said...

Chuck continues to embarrass himself given the way Trump won the electoral college was by winning 3 states no Republican had carried since 1984 and/or 1988, and Iowa which has gone with the Democrats every election from 1988 except for 2004. It is difficult to imagine any other candidate that the Republicans put up winning WI, PA, or MI, and probably not even IA. It is possible that another candidate might have pulled out NV and NH, but would have had to win VA without those midwest states. I think one has to rationally conclude that it is probable only Trump could have won.

CJ said...

Why do the Leftist court members so often vote against their Black colleague? Is it racism?

Kevin said...

Romney would have been good too. No doubt, he listened to his federal judge sister a bit, but that is just part of being a good delegator.

Apparently Romney would have been called out by some on this board for asking his sister's opinion, making it her choice and not his own.

Fen said...

Steve: "And I assume that... inappropriate to name a replacement "

No. In hindsight we have decided that was a mistake. The Presidents term is four years not three. And he retains the right to appoint justices up to the final minute.

It was wrong for Congress to block Obama. Bad Congress! Bad! We shall slap you on the wrist and employ situational ethics until they are no longer convenient. Too bad about whatshisname.

... hehehe. Not fair? Welcome to our world. This is how the Left has been operating for decades. Cheap shots to our groin over and over, and the first time we try the same move, allofasudden it's declared out of bounds.

New rules are to play by your rules, so:

1) Trump's noms should be approved by Senate, even those nominated in the last week of his

2) McAuliffe's noms (or whoever suceeds Trump) should be blocked in the 4th year of his term, so that the Wil of the people can be respected.

You understand. I know, not fair. But you once had conservatives that were fair and had integrity. They refused to cheat even though your side was cheating. And your side slimed them as racist sexist homophobes and cracked their skulls open with bicycle locks.

You're going to really miss them in the coming years.

Kevin said...

I also think there is a better than even chance that Thomas retires next year for the same reason.

I do think Thomas will be strategic about his retirement. Liberals will demand the "black seat" (their term) on the Court be filled by another African American, and Thomas would like it to be another conservative.

You think they'll be up in arms about replacing RGB? They've been waiting to replace Thomas with a black liberal since the day he was appointed. If they miss their chance it will be another 30 years.

Michael K said...

" Completed by people who, I have no doubt, ridicule Trump behind his back."

Chuck has no doubt a lot of things that are probably living only in his head.

rcocean said...

"Let me ad that the Biden Rule is a naked assertion of power (by the Senate majority) masquerading as comity. Nothing more. It was merely justification for the majority to deny a President a Supreme Ct confirmation on the chance that the Presidency will flip later that year."

I agree with the Biden rule. Why shouldn't we wait a couple months to see who is going to make an appointment that will effect the USA for the next 30 years? If Hillary we won, we'd have gotten someone like Garland in January, in fact, I think the Republicans probably would've approved him during the lame duck session. But she didn't. And we dodged a bullet. No thanks to the Never trumpers.

I'm one of .000001 percent Americans who want to rein in judicial power. I don't like having 5 lawyers decide whether abortion is legal or what immigration laws can be enforced using some made-up BS. But evidently everyone else does. So if we're going to have 5 philosopher kings decide more or less anything they want to decide, we can wait a couple months and have a newly elected POTUS decide.

Bad Lieutenant said...

I have a hard time imagining

So, Chuck, now that you've admitted to your lack of mental powers, referring to it will not be an insult justiciable by/tattleable to Ann Althouse, correct? It's just something that we know about you now.

On the bright side, you have said something that is true, which is good for your credibility. Everyone here is perfectly prepared to believe that in fact you have a hard time imagining.

steve uhr said...

The argument against considering Garland was that the people should have a say and the people's will is best expressed through the result of the presidential election. So applies every four years regardless if the existing president is in first or second term.

But I have respect for those of you wiling to acknowledge your hippocracy. That's what politics is all about. The rules are always dependent on the expected outcome.

Dave in Tucson said...

> That Trump will serve the full 4 years of the term to which he was elected.

I think the real assumption is that 2020 will be the first opportunity the left has to put someone more acceptable to them in the Oval Office. Even if Trump should not finish his term (for whatever reason), it is virtually assured that Mike Pence or some other Republican would be president until then under such a scenario.

Fen said...

"applies every four years"

Nope. As explained upthread, that was a one off.

"admit your hypocrisy"

What hypocrisy. This is exactly what your side would have done and has done. We've simply decided to play by your rules.

At least have the decency to not whine.

You want and end to the cheating? We think that's a great idea. The country would be better served if both sides behaved with integrity and honor. But... you should go first.

Michael K said...

"2020 will be the first opportunity the left has to put someone more acceptable to them"

I thought Trump would want to retire in 2020. That's why I thought it was such a mistake for Cruz to go nuclear on him at the convention. I envisioned a Trump-Cruz united ticket but Cruz was having none of it.

Now, Trump is just combative enough to run for re-election even though he will be 74.

Pence will have to wait.

I also see Cruz as a USSC nominee.

The Democrats will have quite a scramble in 2020. Kamala Harris,. Hillary, Warren, Maybe Tom Hanks if he decides to risk it.

Maybe Oprah. It should be entertaining.

Fen said...

Besides, it was SO entertaining to listen to the people who did a hatchet job on Robert Bork clutch their pearls over whatshisname being blocked.

Like hearing Tony Soprano cry about getting mugged.

Thanks for that one.

St. George said...

Totenberg has life tenure at NPR. She's covered the Supreme Court for at least 30 years, according to Wikipedia. She's also a college dropout and was fired for plagarism from a job in 1972. She's about 73 years old.

I haven't listened to NPR since learning that Anne Garrels, its correspondent during the first Iraq War spoke no Arabic and habitually delivered her news broadcasts in the nude in the dark in her hotel room....

"She was reporting unprotected in a war zone, but she also had the habit of broadcasting literally naked from her hotel room at night, figuring it would give her an excuse to plead for time to get dressed (and to hide her outlawed satellite phone) if the authorities came knocking."


donald said...

Everybody get all giddy and all, but I think Thomas won't be there too much longer.

Trumpit said...

What do Clarence Thomas and a meat grinder have in common?

Every piece of information that lands in Clarence Thomas's brain comes out through his mouth as though it had been processed through a meat grinder known as his addled brain.

mockturtle said...

I also see Cruz as a USSC nominee.

Yes, I have wanted Cruz on the SCOTUS all along. The only problem might be confirmation by the Senate where, according to Boehner, everyone hates him.

Trumpit said...

@mockturtle,

Who cares what you want? You add nothing to the conversation, except nonsense.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Trumpit, you are not fit to clean the shoes of Clarence Thomas with your tongue.

I know that you're a batshit crazy ignoramus, and normally ignore everything you write, but Thomas is great man and will go down in history as such while vermin such as you who attack and smear him will be utterly forgotten.

exiledonmainstreet said...

And I look forward to Trump making more SCOTUS picks, just so Trumpit chokes to death on his own bile and makes room for more intelligent life forms, like potted plants for instance.

exiledonmainstreet said...

The only problem might be confirmation by the Senate where, according to Boehner, everyone hates him.

7/3/17, 1:19 PM

The upside for them is that putting Cruz on SCOTUS would get him out of the Senate.

Trumpit said...

@exiledonmainstreet,

You are a toady for Trump, and are utterly forgotten as I type. Except Trump has a lot more damage to do to the country before he's through. A nasty cretin like can only do so much harm unless you unload your guns on a crowd of people protesting Trump.

donald said...

I don't care about any "rules" here. Bushman pretty much nailed the mechanics here, it's really that simple. Political on that one big guy.

donald said...

Hey Trumpit, I get it, you're a fucking scumbag, your dishonest and you're dumb. When I consider who are good and honorable people, I'll remember Thomas's intellect and life's accomplishments and we'll, I won't be thinking about scumbags. Like you for instance.

mockturtle said...

Exiled reminds us: The upside for them is that putting Cruz on SCOTUS would get him out of the Senate.

Yes, I considered that angle, too. As I'm sure the Senate has. ;-)

Trumpit said...

@donald

Speaking of scumbags, go back to your childish, obnoxious tweeting, Donald, or is it Ronald McDonald? You will go down in history as the worst ever. That is unless you blow up the world, and history ends.

Joe said...

I'm 55 and ready to retire. I've long been burned out on the bureaucracy/corporate crap, but recently, I've felt burned out on the stuff I do when not dealing with the former.

Kennedy is 80! I really can't imagine sticking around that long, especially in Washington DC!

eric said...

You will go down in history as the worst ever. That is unless you blow up the world, and history ends.

I don't think this says what you think it says.

eric said...


Pence will have to wait.


I don't expect him to run. I think it'll be pence or Cruz. Maybe whoever #nevertrump puts up, like Kasich. And we will learn that Trump wasn't such a bad person, compared to THIS GUY!

exiledonmainstreet said...

"You are a toady for Trump, and are utterly forgotten as I type."

You forget about people as you are typing comments that reply to them? Now that's what I call short term memory loss. Is it due to age or alcoholism?

Poor confused little fella. That explains your comments. There is no reason to continue to reply to someone with brain damage so I won't.

Achilles said...

Blogger steve uhr said...

"But I have respect for those of you wiling to acknowledge your hippocracy. That's what politics is all about. The rules are always dependent on the expected outcome."

I have been saying for about 2 years now that leftists are going to be sad when we start treating you like you treat us.

Noboby cares about your witless whining. You people had decades to be decent human beings. Just be glad it is going as peacefully as it is. I would recommend you tell your leftist friends to stop being violent. Now.

Achilles said...

Trumpit is a moby trying to make leftists look stupid. Stop helping him clog up the thread.

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward said...
Chuck continues to embarrass himself given the way Trump won the electoral college was by winning 3 states no Republican had carried since 1984 and/or 1988, and Iowa which has gone with the Democrats every election from 1988 except for 2004. It is difficult to imagine any other candidate that the Republicans put up winning WI, PA, or MI, and probably not even IA. It is possible that another candidate might have pulled out NV and NH, but would have had to win VA without those midwest states. I think one has to rationally conclude that it is probable only Trump could have won.


You don't know that Trump was the only Republican who could have won the general. I think that any of the leading Republicans could have and would have won the general. Now you will say that I don't know, just as you don't know.

But it always seemed like a weird argument to come out of Trumpland; that Hillary and the Democrats were such a force that only Trump was capable of beating her.

Black Democrat votes were depressed throughout the Midwest, particularly in Michigan, down hundreds of thousands of votes from the record-setting 2008 and 2012 Obama love-fests. Hillary was the worst Democrat nominee in a couple lifetimes. I think any of the leading Republicans would have won, and I think that the after-election studies show just how terrible Hillary was. And not how exciting Trump was. Trump got millions of votes like mine; people who truly hated voting for him but who were determined to not have another four years of a Democrat in the White House, and two or three more liberals on the Supreme Court.

Trumpit said...

@Achilles

You are a heel!

Khesanh 0802 said...

@ Chuck: Yancey is correct that only Trump could have won, because only Trump won the Republican nomination. All other speculation is bullshit. Trump also campaigned for and won the electoral votes of the states Yancey mentioned. All other speculation is bullshit. Your final sentence, however, is probably the most rational and accurate analysis (except as noted)I have seen you write: "Trump got millions of votes like mine; people who truly hated (disliked would be more accurate) voting for him but who were determined to not have another four years of a Democrat in the White House, and two or three more liberals on the Supreme Court."

Bay Area Guy said...

Worse than Nina Totenberg was Linda Greenhouse of the NY Times - she was always trying to "interpret" SCOTUS decisions for us peons.

Gorsuch is great - and Trump gets credit for nominating him.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I agree with the Biden rule. Why shouldn't we wait a couple months to see who is going to make an appointment that will effect the USA for the next 30 years?

Me too. One of the very top reasons that I voted for Trump (besides the fact that he isn't Hillary) was the Supreme Court issue. The idea that Hillary would be able to pick one to THREE justices and that there is do doubt whatsoever that they would not be judging according to the Constitutionality of the issues, but rather would adhere to party lines and skew the county even further left....this was horrific to me.

I am more than pleased with Trump's first pick of Gorsuch. I think the future picks will be just as good.

The SC should be above political persuasions, above emotional responses, and stop finding permutations, umbras and colored easter eggs in the Constitution.

Achilles said...

"The SC should be above political persuasions, above emotional responses, and stop finding permutations, umbras and colored easter eggs in the Constitution."

The Supreme Court should be a court that reads and interprets the constitution and the laws. All decent people agree on that. But the last 30 years should have taught you something about our opponents by now.

Gahrie said...

Kennedy is 80! I really can't imagine sticking around that long, especially in Washington DC!

Are you kidding? Kennedy is living like a king, high on the hog! He's an elite among the elite. Everyone kisses his ass and sucks up to him, because they know his vote is the swing vote in some cases, and he is so inconsistent that everyone thinks they have a chance to influence him.

Once he leaves, he's nothing to nobody for the same reason.

Achilles said...

"Pence will have to wait."

Forever. Pence doesn't have what it takes to win the presidency as a republican. None of the "deep bench" has what it takes.

Gahrie said...

The Supreme Court should be a court that reads and interprets the constitution and the laws

Well they all do this....the key is how they do it.

One school of thought is that you should do it by analyzing the meanings of the words when they were written and the intent of the people who wrote them.

Another school of thought is that you should search for an emotional gestalt behind the words and remain true to that.

Yet another believes that you should absurdly twist the words to mean what they need to mean to allow them to bestow victory on any party the judge feels empathy with anyway.

Michael K said...

"You add nothing to the conversation, except nonsense."

Says the internet equivalent of a good bowel movement.

Michael K said...

"Forever. Pence doesn't have what it takes to win the presidency as a republican."

The left would go absolutely nuts about his religious fundamentalism.

I was very disappointed that he signed the RFRA, then chickened out when the lefties and gay nazis attacked him and threatened Indiana.

I don't think he is as tough as Trump and the next Republican to run will be lucky to survive.

Only Trump is tough enough to survive this. Maybe he will beat down the leftist underbrush enough to make it possible for a "nice guy" to run and get a fair shake. GOP women would get no more consideration that Sarah Palin did.

Fen said...

Need I remind our resident libtards that your current narrative is about civility and decorum? Petty insults and violent rhetoric are only allowed under Talking Points 5.0 which don't come out until this Friday.

Charlie Eldred said...

Totenberg is a partisan and would only say this for partisan purposes. How do we know she isn't just (ineptly) trying to create a Democratic Party talking point? I find that more likely than the idea that a clerk leaked AMK's words to her, of all people.

I say "ineptly" because I can see her thinking that "Kennedy is resigning" would rally the Democratic base. But in fact it would rally the Republcian base. She doesn't know that the Republcians have learned a lot since her nearly successful smearing of Thomas.

Bad Lieutenant said...


I don't think he is as tough as Trump and the next Republican to run will be lucky to survive

I've said this before, Mike. Who comes After Trump? Who the legacy? Another (real) maverick like Sarah Palin? Who I'd out there? Like to see who from '16 would or could run again. Maybe somebody who is tired of life will primary president Trump in 2020.



OT: Stupid voice to text. It doesn't capitalize the president in president Trump but I bet it does it for President Obama see? It capitalizes President Obama will it capitalize president Trump? No. Damn you Google!


...I think it may capitalize president Donald Trump president Donald Trump president president president Obama President Obama president Trump President Roosevelt president Washington President Washington president Washington I think it's waiting for president from President Wilson president Trump

Bob Loblaw said...

I think Nina was trying to be generous by implying Trump might get a full four years without impeachment and removal from office. Bless her little heart...

The Democrats will get as far with Trump's impeachment as they got with Cheney's - to have an impeachment you have to have a crime which warrants it. Since the Russia thing dried up and blew away, what would be the basis for impeachment? Trump was mean to Mika? He uses Twitter too much?

The left in this country needs to get on with their collective lives.

Fen said...

Lol. Some sore loser at Google won't capitalize President Trump. How lame. Let me try

president Trump president Trump president TrumpPresident Obama President Obama President Obama

Wow. Fuck these people. Honey, go get the shotgun.

mockturtle said...

I have noticed Google filters their searches more than they used to, too.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Right, so it's not just me! Sons of b******. I wonder if you can train the thing ...it took a long time for *typing* autocorrect to come up with Trump as a choice after typing President. I guess they got to take it slow. Hahaha

Drago said...

LLR Chuck, Trumpit and Steve Uhr all crying in their soup and seeking validation for their views.

What a perfect 4th.

Sebastian said...

"Who comes After Trump?" Nikki (with Condi). Against Oprah (with Cory).

Fen said...

"What a perfect 4th"

Trump just tweeted: America stands ready to help Charlie Gard.

...what is that feeling? Familiar. But so distant. Not since George W ...oh yeah

PRIDE

Jim at said...

"but to say any of the current members are far left is ridiculous."

What's sad is that you actually believe that horseshit.

mockturtle said...

Fen reports: Trump just tweeted: America stands ready to help Charlie Gard.


Per CNN:"Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, wanted the hospital to release Charlie into their custody so they can take him to the United States for an experimental treatment."

What??? The parents don't have right of custody of their own child? So the hospital gets to let the child die without further consideration? Wow.

Jim at said...

"Every piece of information that lands in Clarence Thomas's brain comes out through his mouth as though it had been processed through a meat grinder known as his addled brain."

Shorter: Black people are stupid.

How ... racist of you.

Kevin said...

I also see Cruz as a USSC nominee.

I am of the opinion Cruz's political career ended with his speech at the Convention. He gambled that Trump would lose and he would benefit from that loss as the "principled conservative" who didn't follow Trump to defeat. See also: Kasich, John, who didn't attend the Convention in his home state. He's done in the Republican Party at the national level.

Cruz is not eminently likable. He is not someone who can woo cross-over voters. And he lost a chunk of his party's support when he tried his "follow your conscience" routine in Cleveland.

He's a smart, talented guy who needs to find a more suitable job than US Senator. Unfortunately, his upward path is now limited. USSC, Governor of Texas, yes. Second term cabinet member, possibly. But President is out.

Kevin said...

What??? The parents don't have right of custody of their own child?

You've never admitted a child to a hospital of late. Your parental rights end at the Emergency Room door.

Kevin said...

The Supreme Court should be a court that reads and interprets the constitution and the laws

...as they see fit.

If you can just "progress" to adding four more words, you too can be a Liberal.

mockturtle said...

Kevin writes: You've never admitted a child to a hospital of late. Your parental rights end at the Emergency Room door.

This was in the UK. Are you saying the same thing could happen here?

Chuck said...

Well, we are off topic here, but it seems it's by general consent...

I learned about the Charlie Gard case from the conservatives at the National Review. I'd be interested to know how Trump learned about it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449159/vatican-charlie-gard-statement-catholic-church-family-life-euthanasia

Trump's Tweet on the subject looks vaguely like it was written by someone else, not Trump. It's too kind; too articulate and gentle for Trump:

If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881875263700783104?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2Fsections%2Fthetwo-way%2F2017%2F07%2F03%2F535381615%2Ftrump-offers-help-to-british-baby-after-court-rules-life-support-should-end

Interesting how the National Review calls out the Vatican's Euro-diplomats, while Trump glosses over that.

mockturtle said...

Chuck, are you TOTALLY INCAPABLE of posting about any topic without bashing Trump? It's more than an obsession. More insidious than a compulsion. You are unhinged.

Original Mike said...

"Chuck, are you TOTALLY INCAPABLE of posting about any topic without bashing Trump?"

No need to answer, Chuck. That's what we call a rhetorical question.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Trump's Tweet on the subject looks vaguely like it was written by someone else, not Trump. It's too kind; too articulate and gentle for Trump:

I think we can all agree America can stand to improve its mental health services: some people need help and they're clearly not getting it. Sad.

Sammy Finkelman said...

rcocean said... 7/3/17, 9:04 AM

I need to proof read my posts. When I type, I drop words or reverse them. I seem to be the only person with this problem.

I sometimes drop words.

It doesn't happen when i write or speak.

Speaking is different - you don't mentally put in words. Isn't this writing, or do you mean handwriting?

How is this not writing?

Kevin said...

This was in the UK. Are you saying the same thing could happen here?

It does every day. The minute you don't agree to what the doctors want to do, you are going "against medical advice" (AMA) and they must call Child Protective Services by law to begin an investigation.

Just one example: When my daughter was 3, she and my wife stayed in the hospital for an asthma attack over a three-day weekend while I attended to our newborn because the attending physician went off duty and would not clear her to leave. Other doctors examined her and said she was fine, but could not discharge her because she wasn't their patient. The attending, contacted by the hospital at home, would not release her and made it clear to me that if I tied to leave she would be duty bound to have the state open a case file on me.

The state knows better than you, and their representatives will make decisions for your child.

Kevin said...

It's not even nine people in robes. It's one person in a white coat.

Ray said...

Trump can be a gentleman in conduct when he wants to be, and Alinsky's with the best of them. I find it a very strange combination.

Trump is showing, right or wrong, how to survive a mauling by the press, democrats, Hollywood, and social media. And at worst, he's giving as good as he takes.

Will the next Republican nominee go back to the Romney / McCaine / Bush of turning the other cheek to those attacking them as Hitler, Stupid, Insane, Uncaring or go the so far successful route of Trump?

Politics is full of 2nd acts. We will see who comes after Trump on the Republican side. My guess is a governor with charisma that is willing to fight.

Cruz on the Supreme Court could be really good, or a loose canon. My guess is Trump after the success of his first nominee, won't see the need to risk Cruz.

Steven said...

Steve Uhr said . . .
The argument against considering Garland . . .

This is factually wrong. Garland was considered by the Senate leadership, and consent was so strongly denied the nomination didn't even get out of committee. There is nothing in the Constitution about what method or procedure the Senate must use to deny consent, nor anything that says overwhelmingly emphatic and immediate denial of consent through procedural means is somehow less legitimate than a floor vote.

After his nominee was rejected so hard that he didn't even make it out of committee (just like W's nomination of Harriet Miers), Obama refused to make a replacement nominee more acceptable to the Senate. That was Obama's free choice; nothing was stopping him from making a new one. Rather than trying to nominate a Kennedy-type as a compromise, moving the court moderately to the left from Scalia, Obama chose to gamble that the result of the presidential election would make it possible to force a far more radical shift leftward. Obama lost that gamble badly.

The lesson is simple enough; if you choose to gamble on an election rather than compromise with the Senate, you sometimes lose.

Drago said...

All the Democrats have to do to deny Trump a potential SC nominee in 2020 is take control of the Senate in 2018.

If they can't do that, screw 'em. The nation will have spoken.

Elections have consequences some articulate (without a trace of negro dialect) guy once said.

Chuck said...

The 2018 Senate electoral map doesn't look too bad for Republicans.

The 2020 map, by which time a serious health care reform will be kicking in, looks horrendous for Republicans. Lots and lots of vulnerable Republicans who were elected in the 2014 midterm "wave" election, pre-Trump.

Scary.

Michael K said...

"Who comes After Trump?" Nikki (with Condi). Against Oprah (with Cory)."

Interesting question., My guess is a woman with enough balls to take on the Democrat/media machine.

Who is that ? Haley is doing a good job at the UN and probably knows this is her chance to shine.

Who else ? Condi was kind of a squish at State.

Martinez from NM ?

Here's a wild one. How about Abbot ? Second president in a wheelchair.

Mockturtle, its not just children who are controlled. Adults are now, in some hospitals like the one I used to practice in, not admitted by their doctors.

The patient has to go to the ER and been screened by the salaried gauleiter doctor. A pulmonary doc I've known 35 years could not admit my wife when she had pneumonia a couple of years ago. He had to send her to the ER with all illegals.

Another reason we left California.



Achilles said...

Chuck said...
The 2018 Senate electoral map doesn't look too bad for Republicans.

It is going to be a wipeout. Republicans have 52 seats now and there are 10 democrats defending in states Trump carried.

The 2020 map, by which time a serious health care reform will be kicking in, looks horrendous for Republicans. Lots and lots of vulnerable Republicans who were elected in the 2014 midterm "wave" election, pre-Trump.

Scary.

In 2020:

The republicans are defending in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The democrats are defending in: Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hamshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon Rhode Island, Virginia.

contested: Republican Colorado and Maine. Losing Maine might actually be a boon...

Democrat Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Virginia.

Republicans will have ~60 seats at this time. Zero concerns the democrats come within 8 seats of a majority. I know that's not what the LLR wanted to hear.





Gahrie said...

This is factually wrong. Garland was considered by the Senate leadership, and consent was so strongly denied the nomination didn't even get out of committee. There is nothing in the Constitution about what method or procedure the Senate must use to deny consent, nor anything that says overwhelmingly emphatic and immediate denial of consent through procedural means is somehow less legitimate than a floor vote.

I once did some research on Supreme Court nominations. There are at least a half a dozen cases in the past where nominations received no action from the Senate. Often, but not always there was an election about to happen.

Bob Loblaw said...

This was in the UK. Are you saying the same thing could happen here?

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/2/28/boston-childrens-hospital-pioneers-parent-ectomy/

mockturtle said...

I could [maybe] understand such an intervention if the parents wanted to pull the plug and the hospital didn't [I've actually seen that happen--not pretty] but in this case the parents want to give the baby a chance. How can the hospital have the authority to essentially kill the infant against the parents' wishes? I assume the attending physician in this case is an employee of the hospital. I don't like the implications here.

mockturtle said...

Bob Loblaw, I just read your article. Shocking! Things have gotten much scarier than I realized.

Meade said...

"All the Democrats have to do to deny Trump a potential SC nominee in 2020 is take control of the Senate in 2018. If they can't do that, screw 'em. The nation will have spoken."

Very well put.

Khesanh 0802 said...

Boston Children's is affiliated with Harvard Medical School where they have some really doctors and many who know what's better for you and your family than you do. I am sure President Faust would be happy to explain why this should be considered top flight medical care. Harvard teaches a lot of things well, unfortunately humility and common sense are not among them.

Khesanh 0802 said...

As someone points out above Cruz, will be number 51 of Trump's top 50 picks for the SC and rightfully so. Maybe he would be 52 right behind James Comey.

rcocean said...

Speaking is different - you don't mentally put in words. Isn't this writing, or do you mean handwriting?

Yes, I mean handwriting. That strange craft of ye olden days, with something called "paper" and "pens or "pencils".

I know its hard to believe, but people used to use ink and paper to communicate at work and write each other something called "Letters".

rcocean said...

When she was younger, my daughter would sometimes watch old movies with me. Invariably, she asked questions like "why they just use their cellphone?" or "why can't they just text each other"?

90% of Hitchcock's thrillers depend on someone not having an I-pad.

Meade said...

The assumption that the Trump presidency will be one four-year term assumes no impeachment, no removal from office, and no reelection.

I'd be okay with that. He's an on-time-under-budget kind of guy. Get your work done, turn the job over to the next guy, and buy a farm in Iowa where you and Mrs. Trump can raise corn and rear your boy properly.

A modern day Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.

Meade said...

"Iowa, we love you."

Fen said...

"Are you saying the same could happen here?"

You already transfer custody rights when you drop your kids off at the public school. It's a bit complex, but essentially they become wards of the state.

Fen said...

Chuck: tweet is fraudulent. Too articulate and gentle for it to be Trump.

Wow what a piece of work you are. I'm really going to relish digging into you for the next 7+ years.

Fen said...

I agree Cruz screwed up. But he would make an excellent Justice on the Supreme Court. I hope President Trump appoints him.

mockturtle said...

Fen warns: You already transfer custody rights when you drop your kids off at the public school. It's a bit complex, but essentially they become wards of the state.

But a parent does have the right to withdraw them and send them to another [say, private] school. The parents in the UK are not, it would appear, allowed to transfer their baby to another facility.

mockturtle said...

Meade suggests: A modern day Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.

Well, let's not get carried away. ;-)

Gospace said...

Michael K said...
"Who comes After Trump?" Nikki (with Condi). Against Oprah (with Cory)."

Interesting question., My guess is a woman with enough balls to take on the Democrat/media machine.


Why not Sarah Palin?

mockturtle said...

To my knowledge we have no prominent women with the backbone of Margaret Thatcher or the sheer fortitude of Golda Meir. Until we do, men will have to take the reins. Assuming we can find some with the above qualities.

Trumpit said...

"To my knowledge we have no prominent women with the backbone of Margaret Thatcher or the sheer fortitude of Golda Meir. Until we do, men will have to take the reins. Assuming we can find some with the above qualities."

You live under a rock. You are anti-female. You project your gutlessness, and lack of accomplishments onto today's girls and women you know nothing about - because you live under a rock. You're stuck in the 50's, where girls could only be secretaries, housewives, librarians, nurses and teachers, and baby machines.

Your misogyny sickens. You deserve no respect. You are an anachronism. You are forgotten as I type.

mockturtle said...

Not that I owe you the least explanation, Trumpit, but I was the first woman in my department in a large research facility. I am certainly not a mysogynist but do concede that there are gender differences. Women who make good leaders are few and far between. Barbara Jordan would have made an excellent President. I can think of few others.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Not that you owe him (although Trumpie could be a she, with that feminine malice) any explanations, nor that they would help - pearls before swine.

Trumpie is a crazy person who needs help. In particular Trumpie is fixated on the death of his mother, who, he claims, the doctors killed.

If she was like Trumpie, small wonder.

Trumpit said...

@Bad Lieutenant, you are a hateful scumbag who trolls me on this blog because I outed you right here on Althouse as having made homicidal terroristic threats to kill communists and others that you hate. You are a no good dangerous fascist who belongs behind bars.

You ignorantly discount my mother's murder by morphine poisoning even though you are fully capable of murder by your own admission. You are not the only lying bully coward around here. Others have threatened me on this blog with bodily harm. Turn yourself into the police as the lowlife scum danger to society that you are. You are a big cowardly troll of no intrinsic worth.

mockturtle said...

You are, indeed, sick, Trumpit. Do get help. We care.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Trumpit, if you please:

Are you male or female?

Your age?

Region of the country?

Peter said...


Re: Nina Totenberg, compare & contrast?

""Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, the first judicial appointee in 40 years with no prior experience on the bench, seems to be settling into her new job with remarkable ease."


"He [Clarence Thomas] is the only justice willing to allow states to establish an official religion; the only justice who believes teenagers have no free speech rights at all; the only justice who believes that it's unconstitutional to require campaign funders to disclose their identity; he's the only justice who voted to strike down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act; and the only justice to say that the court should invalidate a wide range of laws regulating business conduct and working conditions."

-- So says Nina Totenberg, NPR News, from Washington.