Well, that's the perfect embodiment of what I mean by my tag "civility bullshit."
It's from E.J. Dionne Jr., "Don’t want a right-wing Supreme Court? Do everything you can to stop it" (WaPo). Everything?!
All the recent talk about civility should not stop opponents of a right-wing court from doing everything in their power to keep the judiciary from being packed with ideologues who behave as partisans.It seems to me Trump won the election and he has the appointment power. He made Supreme Court appointments an issue and was strikingly clear about who he would appoint. I understand the motivation to oppose and obstruct him, but I don't think opposing him or going down without a fight has anything to do with civility. If those who want Trump's nominee confirmed are talking about civility, then they are the one's doing civility bullshit, and Dionne is just calling them on it.
But Dionne is doing a little something more: "There is nothing civil about rushing... no rule of civility demands confirmation...." He's gesturing (weakly) at the idea that there is something uncivil about rushing and that there is a rule of civility that demands that the Senate wait. The thing gestured at is hard to defend, so why not dribble out statements about what is not and avoid the trouble of making the difficult point? I'll say that too is a kind of civility bullshit.
But most of Dionne's civility bullshit is out and proud: He doesn't care about civility when it holds his side back. Because the other side is so awful it doesn't deserve the niceties that developed in the mythical past when good people amicably jousted over differences.
पोस्ट्स
२५७ टिप्पण्या:
257 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Elections have consequences. Some famous politician said that.
Also: "I won." Somebody said that.
Can we say these comments are dog-whistles that only would-be assassins can hear?
The Democrats are working up to their Fort Sumpter moment.
The attempts to shut down ICE might be a flashpoint. The crazies are in charge apparently.
Dionne's problem should be with Reid...
I figured it out. Althouse drove to Fargo for the Trump rally.
Fess up, Ann!
By the way..does any rational person believe that the Democrats are actually going to swing control of either house this November? Especially if they make the Court an issue?
This is the measured way that refined people speak when they have seen the metaphoric hand of God in action and have determined that it is not moving in their direction.
Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin
This is surely a case where the extremism of an E.J. Dionne is prompted by the fact that his side has no options.
If he had the law, he'd pound the law. If he had the facts, he'd pound the facts. He's pounding the table.
The one interesting theory I heard last night was from MSNBS's Lawrence O'Donnell (btw, I think I misspelled Meade's first name yesterday and I apologize for that; I have spelled it correctly in the past and should have known better.)
O'Donnell's theory is that one cost to Trump for getting a nominee through the Senate Judiciary Committee and past a floor vote is a compromise with Jeff Flake. That Trump and McConnell will have to agree to a Senate vote on Congressional control of tariff policy, or else Flake will not support moving any Trump judicial nominees.
George Will and other Never Trumpers support Schumer and Pelosi.
Let that one sink in deep....
#StrongDemDefender Chuck: "The one interesting theory I heard last night was from MSNBS's Lawrence O'Donnell...."
LOL
Filed under "Things No Intelligent Person Would Ever Write For Any Reason Because Duh"
The Soros funded mobs want total culture clash over a mere Associate Justice. OK, Trump says when and where. The problem is Socialism has always been a 100% European tactic and we are the Great Again Americans.
Buying street mob riots to close down the Cities is 1848 Europe redux. It will be a useless bad joke.
The revenge of Robert Bork!
Before Bork, the Left said any qualified candidate should be confirmed.
Bork, a Yale Professor, ex-Marine, former Solicitor General, and Judge on the DC Circuit, Court of Appeals, was arguably the most qualified candidate ever for the Bench.
So, the left shifted, well, yes, he's qualified, but we don't like his opinions, and he looks weird.
Isn't this the time for a long ponderous essay about how we need Supreme Court term limits? Who will write it, I wonder.
From the Woodward book:
“I can go it alone but I want to come together. Look at the polls. The polls are pretty good for me right now. … Elections have consequences and Eric, I won.” -- President Barack Obama
LLR and #StrongDurbinFanBoy Chuck flacking for extraordinary lefty lunatic Lawrence O'Donnell who appears on the lefty sewer known as MSNBC.
Gee, I did not see that coming.....
LOL
I think it's interesting that they've treated Donald Trump disrespectfully (not my president) and now they need for him to be fair and decent and appoint someone moderate. Why not play nice and accept his authority from the jump? Knowing that he has the power to do something like changing the court for 'possibly' the next 30 years? Their vision is so limited, there's no long game with these people, only impulsivity.
My wife and I had a conversation several weeks ago about the chances of an American civil war (good, and odds increasing every day) and I mused that one of the triggers might be President Trump getting another SCOTUS appointment. Now the moment of truth.
Trump is an uncivil bullshitter. He must be tripped up as much as civilly possible with a dollop of incivility added for good measure. If you make him out to be a good & honorable person, you are sadly mistaken, and part of the problem. Tax cuts for the rich, and the shaft for everyone else says it all. Republicans have to be condemned vociferously nonstop. The GOP must be civilly destroyed at the ballot box until you can drown it in a bathtub.
A lot of people I know voted for Trump despite not liking him because they were afraid of what Hillary Clinton would do with the Supreme Court. Religious people felt threatened by the decisions and legal actions against Christians in the Obama era. Plus, even those who aren't Christians felt threatened by the push to let opposite genders use the same bathrooms in schools, with no consideration of how a sexual predator could use a law like that to his advantage.
Ann Althouse said...
Also: "I won." Somebody said that.
I am still smarting from Althouse's taunt after Obergefell; "You lost. Get over it."
Given the intensity of the dissents in that case and in the whole series beginning with Lawrence (not that Laurence) v Texas, I don't quite know how I'd celebrate on the Althouse blog if a Trump-majority on the Supreme Court reversed Obergefell.
I mused that one of the triggers might be President Trump getting another SCOTUS appointment.
RBG is 85 and Breyer is 82...he could easily get two more.
Drowning a ballot box in a bathtub is pretty old school.
I think Breyer is 79. Can he make it to 2025?
I'm not so sure about that, Chuck. There are senators from blue states won by Trump who can't tread those waters. Manchin from directional Virginia is a good example. I don't see Trump doing anything other than punking Flake for the rest of his term.
"LLR and #StrongDurbinFanBoy Chuck flacking for extraordinary lefty lunatic Lawrence O'Donnell who appears on the lefty sewer known as MSNBC"
Ah, the wisdom of Lawrence O'Donnell.
Yeah, Flake is asshole enough to vote against Trump's pick.
Balanced against him are the 5 Democrat Senators who are running for reelection in red states. As was noted in last night's thread, they are well and truly screwed. Voting against Trump's pick will motivate many voters in their states to get out to the polls and vote against them; voting for Trump's pick will anger the Dem base. I bet that at least a couple of them will vote for Trump's nominee.
For the record. I think we need 10-year terms or some such thing. Maybe 14. That puts it out of the bounds of a president's 2 terms and let's 2 senate terms go by between the same seat opening up. So I'm for the idea. I'm quite sure it's not going to happen.
Trumpit: "Trump is an uncivil bullshitter."
Trump has politely informed us that he will nominate another candidate from his list of 25 known jurists for the next seat on the SC.
You only WISH he was bulls***ting.
LOL
Get ready for a judicial freight train that LLR Chuck's lefty operational allies cannot stop and refuse to get on........which leaves only one remaining possible outcome: LLR Chuck's dem allies get run over...
And it will be glorious.
But only glorious.....(with a portion of "wonderful" thrown in....)
"Religious people felt threatened by the decisions and legal actions against Christians in the Obama era. Plus, even those who aren't Christians felt threatened by the push to let opposite genders use the same bathrooms in schools, with no consideration of how a sexual predator could use a law like that to his advantage."
This was my 1st reaction. Relief the Left wouldn't slide us further. But they protest so much -- Handmaid's Tale!11!1! -- that I start to wonder if we really can undermine some of their court-mandated social progress. They've given me ideas.
Trump replacing SCALIA with a conservative was controversial enough for Democrats to threaten a filibuster, which led to the nuclear option for Supreme Court appointments. Replacing Kennedy with someone to his right is going to cause massive emotional turmoil among the Democrats. They are totally unhinged.
Precedents are being set. If Democrats win the Senate, we could end up with a Supreme Court with only seven justices (no way they’ll let Trump replace RBG or Breyer with anyone to the right of Sotomayor/Kagan).
Trumpit said: "...a dollop of incivility added for good measure."
I'm curious - what are you willing to lose as a consequence of the incivility?
There is nothing civil about doing anything that I don't like.
I think Breyer is 79. Can he make it to 2025?
He turns 80 in August...my mistake it was Kennedy who is 82.
I think the flakes of Arizona are bent on inflicting maximum damage before they go out and neither should be trusted to stick with any "bargain."
There is nothing civil about rushing a nominee to replace Kennedy before the midterm elections.
But there’s something practical about having the new justice sworn in by the first Monday in October, which comes before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
“I think it's interesting that they've treated Donald Trump disrespectfully (not my president) and now they need for him to be fair and decent and appoint someone moderate.”
A great point that used to be understood in 20th Century American politics. Abandoning comity leaves you without a voice, and the Democrats couldn’t abandon it fast enough. Which is ironic because Donald Trump, of all the Presidents of my lifetime, would have been most susceptible to the flattery, schmoozing, and all the oily influence-mongering that makes up bipartisanship. But in their blind, self-righteous entitlement the dumb shits decided to put his back up. Reap the whirlwind, fools.
Fabi said...
I'm not so sure about that, Chuck. There are senators from blue states won by Trump who can't tread those waters. Manchin from directional Virginia is a good example. I don't see Trump doing anything other than punking Flake for the rest of his term.
But of course, what is Flake asking for? For an open vote, by a Republican Congress, on a subject that rightly rests within the subject matter purview of Congress. Trumpists could object, I suppose, but that only highlights the "cult of personality" aspect of Trumpism.
All of this discussion is unnecessary.
LLR Chuck's MSNBC heroes have already posited the end of our democracy and the obvious dictatorship that Trump has established.
Trump will just tell a couple of folks on his list to assume their new positions on the court starting tomorrow.
Right after Trump shuts down the media.
I mean, obviously....
You know, if you didn’t turn politics into something like a religion, your individual liberties into collective and group identities, your moral lights into oversimplified failed ideological constructs, this wouldn’t happen.
You’d already have beliefs outside of politics, a meaningful life, and deeper moral questions to work on (looking in the mirror isn’t a bad place to start).
Trump comes with costs, perhaps not yet seen, but generally keeping such true-believing, shallow and childish ideologues out of power in the meantime works for me.
They’ve got very bad and very dangerous ideas.
I see LLR Chuck has gone "all in" on keeping the unfair Trade Agreements that benefit our trading partners at the expense of our own nation that Jeffy Flakey has decided is worth going to the mattresses over.
Needless to say all the lefties at MSNBC are encouraging Flake to do just that.
And needless to say, if it's all the rage at MSNBC it's a given that LLR Chuck will be advancing it as well.
Sorry Chuckie.
Your lefty allies are going to take it in the shorts when Trump and McConnell get their nominee thru this fall and I will be here along with others to note your despair when that happens......but in a good way.....
trad guy is right. As one poli-sci prof. once commented as to why America never really had a true dyed-in-the-wool full-throated, stand-alone socialist party (even in the days of Eugene V. Debs) was "the ready availability and low price of beef-steak."
"Given the intensity of the dissents in that case and in the whole series beginning with Lawrence (not that Laurence) v Texas, I don't quite know how I'd celebrate on the Althouse blog if a Trump-majority on the Supreme Court reversed Obergefell."
It's not going to happen. You're wasting your time hoping for that.
What's most likely to change, in my view: Affirmative action (look out for that Asians at Harvard case) and partisan gerrymandering (which may become completely nonjusticiable and forget about the nonproblem of Democrats packing themselves into concentrated urban areas).
"But of course, what is Flake asking for? For an open vote, by a Republican Congress, on a subject that rightly rests within the subject matter purview of Congress."
Are you saying this issue hasn't been settled in the last 200+ years? Why is it an issue today, other than his animosity toward Trump?
"Conan, what is best in life?"
"..pen and a phone."
Listen hard for when the Dems mention the criteria of deference to the constitution...
Nah..outcome based jurisprudence all the way, baby.
Like Kagan on pub sector union dues "But the money!"
And the difference between Dionne, O'Donnell and their ilk and the black shirted, street fighting Fascists of the 20s and 30s is?
We need to start calling tbese huckleberries by their proper name:
Fascists
John Henry
Back in my early years I played a lot of Risk. (The board game) what’s happened is a lot like when one player is dominating and attempts to control every continent but in the end falls short, and then it’s your turn. And you turn in your risk for 50 fresh armies and certain victory.
It can cause very intense emotions, and it’s not uncommon for the game to end with an act of unsportsmanlike conduct.
We have over the last 2 years wittinessed the Democratic Party go from total elation over a seemingly total subjugation of all things conservative to abject depression over the prospect of 20 future years of judicial conservatism.
It’s not going to be a pretty picture, and I wish the secret service my best.
But of course, what is Flake asking for? For an open vote, by a Republican Congress, on a subject that rightly rests within the subject matter purview of Congress. Trumpists could object, I suppose, but that only highlights the "cult of personality" aspect of Trumpism.
When and how did Trump take control of Congress?
Because before Trump, anytime anyone wanted an open vote in Congress it was granted immediately.
There is nothing civil about rushing a nominee to replace Kennedy before the midterm elections.
But there’s something practical about having the new justice sworn in by the first Monday in October, which comes before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
That is so obvious that even a Democrat should see it.
Nonetheless, we will see a lot about the advantages of a 4-4 court until the nominee is sworn in.
The Portland ICE sit-in is a sign of things to come in the next year. I expect it to get worse before the election and f=during the confirmation hearings.
Democrats are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. One article of the Democrat faith is that civil conflict helps their side because it causes people to turn to big government for solutions ala Kloward-Piven. They also have to keep the radical Progressive base of the Party engaged and accepting of leadership from their septuagenarian elders. Yet Democrats desperately need to convince independents and non-radicalized Democrats that they are moderate and to be trusted if they regain control of the House and/or Senate. (The latter being highly unlikely and the former increasingly unlikely).
So the Democrat challenge is how to make it appear that the civic unrest is organic and out of their control while making Sophistic arguments for delaying the vote until after the election, which is most probably just delaying the inevitable. We lost on the Supreme Court but did all we could!
If they do not walk the fine line in advance of the election, they will only add to Republican voter motivation at The polls and increase their majority in the Senate.
I don’t envy the Democrats trying to win the hand with low cards. I better stop now to dry my tears.
Ann Althouse said...
Also: "I won." Somebody said that.
that seems to me like a a childish thing to say. why would one need to assert a victory that everyone already knows about, unless one were a bit insecure?
"All the recent talk about civility should not stop opponents of a right-wing court from doing everything in their power to keep the judiciary from being packed with ideologues who behave as partisans."
I think we should call this not civility but nonpartisanship bullshit, since obviously it is just used as a talking point, without ever acknowledging that the lefties on the court are far more likely to stick together and behave as partisans.
"But most of Dionne's civility bullshit is out and proud: He doesn't care about civility when it holds his side back. Because the other side is so awful it doesn't deserve the niceties that developed in the mythical past when good people amicably jousted over differences."
Right. But then, progs care only about power and more power. Anything that serves the cause, goes. So says my Universal Theory of Progressive Instrumentalism.
Breyer turns 80 in August.
It is Fort Sumter. No 'p' in the name.
One wonders what will happen to the coalition Trump is leading when the Court is no longer an issue. I think if Ginsburg or Breyer is replaced by a Trump appointee the reasons for a Trump presidency no longer exist as intensely. After all, a 6-3 or 7-2 Court removes appointments to the Court as a significant factor in the election.
Once the existential threat is removed, Donald Trump's (and America's) success might reverse the ascendancy of the conservative movement.
Althouse chimes in re the potential reversal of Obergfell:
It's not going to happen. You're wasting your time hoping for that.
You're right that it likely won't happen. But it should happen (as a matter of constitutional integrity). Abortion is way more important though than gay marriage. If someone offered a package deal, keep gay-marriage forever, while overturning Roe v. Wade, I'd accept that deal in a nanosecond.
What's most likely to change, in my view: Affirmative action (look out for that Asians at Harvard case) and partisan gerrymandering (which may become completely nonjusticiable and forget about the nonproblem of Democrats packing themselves into concentrated urban areas).
I think that's right too.
Hmmm. Maybe Democrats would do better to live in other places besides NY and CA. After all, the real reason there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth is because they have Senators running for reelection in Montana, Missouri, West Virginia, and North Dakota. Sad!
Ann Althouse said...
"Given the intensity of the dissents in that case and in the whole series beginning with Lawrence (not that Laurence) v Texas, I don't quite know how I'd celebrate on the Althouse blog if a Trump-majority on the Supreme Court reversed Obergefell."
It's not going to happen. You're wasting your time hoping for that.
What's most likely to change, in my view: Affirmative action (look out for that Asians at Harvard case) and partisan gerrymandering (which may become completely nonjusticiable and forget about the nonproblem of Democrats packing themselves into concentrated urban areas).
As usual, on the law, I find it more than difficult to argue with you.
However -- as you know -- the dissents on the homosexual rights cases (Lawrence, Windsor, Obergefell) were borderline vicious. There was Scalia's landmark dissent in Lawrence, and most importantly now, Roberts' dissent in Obergefell:
If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
I respectfully dissent.
The most forced "respectfully" in modern Court history. If the depth of the conservatives' ire meant anything, Obergefell would be in a class by itself leading the list of Kennedy cases to be summarily reversed.
As for Affirmative action; yes, you're right of course. As for redistricting, the purple states will go to the redistricting commissions as in Arizona and now Ohio. And the whole issue will be legally undercut.
I think Rowe v Wade will not be over turned directly but the Court will allow more and more restrictions. Not my ideal solution (I prefer a purely political solution) but it should take a lot of heat out of the question.
Democrats will finally get the US to be more like Europe. That's what they want. Right.
Republicans may regret the loss of the issue.
Dionne's hope is that sufficient incivility will lead to Dionne-status-enhancing insurrection. But what do Americans really think and feel when it is made plain to them that the left thinks they have no right to express their opinions? What do Americans really think about Twitter mobs? What do they really think about small abusive groups screaming out demands? How do they really feel when they sit by while someone on the right is harassed and abused? Do they really think "good!" as a women is shoved or a fellow student denounced by a professor? Or do they feel deeply shamed by their own cowardice since they disapproved of that way of doing things but stood by and said nothing? I think that Americans as a whole are developing a bad conscience about silence while fellow Americans on the right are openly harassed and, I think, as well, that Americans are becoming resentful of the implied orders to go along or suffer consequences. I think this is the real mood of the country. Plenty of people who opposed Trump now think he is doing better than they expected but they don't dare say so. This silence creates apparent support for the Dems and for people like Dionne. But resentful acquiescence precedes divorce, not victory at the polls or enthusiastic readers. So talk on, Mr. Dionne. Tell us what we better think or you'll set a mob on us. Talk on. and on. and on.
Liberals are used to being protected by authorities that are amenable towards them. That's why they don't understand that civility has to work both ways. Civility protects them from people showing up at their houses and scaring their kids and getting them kicked out of restaurants and so on. Its a way for people who disagree to get along and work with each other. If people on the left are going to jettison civility then the people on the right will have no choice but to do so as well.
McCain, Flake, Corker, Collins, and Murkowski.
Also a big impact on gun rights. The court will start stricking down these regulations.
If will be interesting contrast to abortion rights.
And speaking of partisan ideologues, what does Dionne think of Sotomayor?
It is Fort Sumter. No 'p' in the name.
I strongly encourage anyone to go visit Fort Sumter (South Carolina), and take your kids. Just being on that little island, helps explain the Civil War.
1. If you control that island, you control the Harbor into Charleston, the second biggest port city after New Orleans.
2. You control Charleston, you control the southern Atlantic seaboard.
3. If you let the Yankees control the southern Atlantic seaboard, you lose the war at the starting gate.
Sorry to digress
I don't think Flake, McCain and Corker will be a problem. They are all too prolife to interfere too much.
2. You control Charleston, you control the southern Atlantic seaboard.
I think Wilmington, North Carolina, would disagree.
Excellent Graphic: U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES BY AGE AND TENURE
While I can't point to a single application of the civility bullshit tag that I disagree with, I do disagree with the absolute nature of it. Lots of people support civility because they want to live in a society where people are civil to each other even when they disagree.
Let's be clear, what the Democrats have done in blocking Republican appointments and then abolishing the filibuster is signal a willingness to overturn all precedents, ignore all procedures that allowed the Senate to function in favor of raw partisanship in pursuit of power. There was nothing civil in Harry Reid's manner or his actions. They are flirting with a coup in encouraging the Mueller team to create an impeachment premise and their glee at violence and rudeness in the streets is not playing well with normal apolitical Americans (about 60% of our country).
Then there is the dishonest DNC-Media. Already all the major outlets (NYT, CNBC, MSNBC, WaPo) are calling for a delay and misreporting what happened in 2016. They pretend now they never heard of the Biden Rule from '92. Maggie H and Chuck T are all saying GOP is hypocritical if we don't defer to the midterm elections. What a crock!
And reality is that we will have MORE seats in the Senate after NOV than before so if Schumer and his DNC-Media pals have their way they will lose even more bigly.
Why did Kennedy resign and not Trump? No one is asking that question. There would be parades in the street if Trump resigned or was impeached. Our long national nightmare would finally be over.
I predict Trump nominate Putin.
"...to keep the judiciary from being packed with ideologues who behave as partisans."
So, E.J., how is this any different from the behavior of the Lockstep Liberal bloc on the Court?
E.J. Dionne knows that all Republican appointees are vicious bigots who would like to exchange their judicial for KKK robes, while the Wise Latina is a model of nonpartisan judicial moderation before whom justice is served.
I met him once. I thought he was a smug little twerp.
Trumpit, your intolerance for religious Americans is directly responsible for the election of Donald Trump. You did it, with your proud and loud disparagement of your fellow citizens. When people of faith see Obama suing nuns for not providing birth control, hear elected officials call the RFRA "institutionalized intolerance" and see gay marriage advocates cheer a ruling they think will lead to forcing Baptists to turn over their chapels to gays who want to marry, well, this is the result. Religious and civic-minded people turn out to give Trump the pick on the Supreme Court, in hopes he keeps his promise to appoint Scalia-like justices.
That was the main selling point for voting against Hillary. It's not my fault that HRC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNBC all thought promoting Trump in the primaries was in their best interest. Hell I wanted Ted Cruz. But YOUR SIDE gave $2B in free media to the big orange wrecking ball and now you are (in the words of H L Mencken) getting what "you want good and hard." Enjoy it.
There is nothing civil about rushing a nominee to replace Kennedy before the midterm elections.
LOL. This from the party of midnight votes for Obamacare. Rushing! Ha ha ha ha.
No problem. Take July off and we'll get together in August and confirm a nominee. No rush.
"Religious people felt threatened by the decisions and legal actions against Christians in the Obama era."
What decisions and legal actions were those?
Trump did a good job with nominating Gorsuch. I just hope that whoever he nominates this time will be able to survive the onslaught of digging for dirt (think Roy Moore in Alabama). Trump has made a few mistakes in people choices and in this instance, needs to be sure of due diligence; otherwise, something untoward will be found by the demos to sink Trump's candidate.
Who will do his due diligence? The FBI? That's a worry, big time.
Thanks for the link to Portland Occupy ICE Michael K.
I had not heard about that. Is the office really closed and not functioning.
This could be Trump's air traffic controller moment.
Cook - Forcing little old nuns to abort human fetuses.
“I can go it alone but I want to come together. Look at the polls. The polls are pretty good for me right now. … Elections have consequences and Eric, I won.” -- President Barack Obama.
If only Eric has had the stones to say, "Yes you did, Mr.President, as did every member of the House".
Jeez Cook I listed three. You want more examples?
Somehow, despite being a proud Sandlapper, I have never managed to get to Fort Sumter.
However, Charleston was hardly the only port in the South. Granted I don't know how improved the others were, but Georgetown was a port back to colonial times, and Savannah, and Fernandina where poor Sen Yulee finally got his cherished railroad off the ground just as the war broke out (Ft. Clinch there is worth seeing too).
Trump did a good job with nominating Gorsuch. I just hope that whoever he nominates this time will be able to survive the onslaught of digging for dirt
If he sticks to his list, all of the candidates have already had multiple background checks and have already survived other nomination battles.
OK - forcing every entity who provides healthcare to promote and deliver abortion services.
So the 15 minutes of fame those kids at the border had seem to be up.
Continuous outrage requires a constant stream of new outrageousness.
The opponent is not Trump, but apathy.
No religious exemption to the "contraceptive mandate"*
Suing the Little Sisters of the Poor
IRS denying tax exempt status to religious groups who support Israel
Obergfell
California law that required Pregnancy Crisis Centers (even ones run by churches) to refer pregnant women to abortion centers (overturned this week)
Official Democrat attacks on Chik Fil A simply because the owners are Christians who legally supported traditional marriage
Hobby Lobby (see above)
Mocking and disparaging Mitt Romney on the basis of his faith and Mormon traditions
The ongoing jihad against traditional American religious symbols in the public square
And that's as much as I'm willing to remember without resorting to Bing. If you were a person of faith you were very aware of the official hostility the Obama admin held you in -- except for Muslims of course. Obama loved him some Muslim religion!
*This was easily avoidable by making birth control over-the-counter, a move Republicans would have supported but is emblematic of the spite that drove Obama to try and get over on the "bitter clingers" he hated so much.
MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace asked Edwards on "Deadline White House" how she would advise her former colleagues in Congress to deal with the prospect of Trump nominating a replacement for Kennedy this year.
"It's time for Democrats to throw down, and what I mean by that is we've been playing by the rule book, and Donald Trump and Republicans have been playing by street rules," Edwards said. "We need to play by street rules."
"What does that look like?" Wallace asked.
Edwards pointed to putting public pressure on lawmakers like Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska) because of their more moderate social views. Democrats are worried Trump will appoint a strongly conservative justice to replace Kennedy, who was viewed as a swing vote on important issues.
"It also means having the street rise up against them in Maine, in Alaska, and of course in Washington, and I don't think it's time to be cute anymore," she said.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/cnn-msnbc-analysts-extreme-tactics-supreme-court-pick-raise-hell-time-democrats-throw-down/
Sounds like more Lefty antagonism of women is en route..
Unlike till now..it won't be cute.
Terence Fletcher: Were you rushing or were you dragging?
Andrew: I-I don't know.
Terence Fletcher: Start counting!
Andrew: Five, six...
Terence Fletcher: In four, dammit! Look at me!
Andrew: One, two, three, four.
[Fletcher slaps him the face]
Andrew: One, two, three, four.
[Fletcher slaps him again]
Andrew: One, two, three...
Terence Fletcher: Now, was I rushing or I was dragging?
Andrew: I don't know.
Terence Fletcher: Count again.
Andrew: One, two, three, four.
[slap in the face]
Andrew: One, two, three, four.
[another slap in the face]
Andrew: One, two, three, four...
Terence Fletcher: Rushing or dragging?
Andrew: Rushing.
Terence Fletcher: [yelling] So, you do know the difference!
Mike said..
"That was the main selling point for voting against Hillary. It's not my fault that HRC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNBC all thought promoting Trump in the primaries was in their best interest. Hell I wanted Ted Cruz. But YOUR SIDE gave $2B in free media to the big orange wrecking ball and now you are (in the words of H L Mencken) getting what "you want good and hard." Enjoy it. "
*worth a bold hearty repeat.
Count on the Dems to head straight for the Briar Patch on the way to the mid-terms. Past performance does not guarantee future results, but Bayesian statistics says the prior is a useful indicator.
Mike is on fire.
"But most of Dionne's civility bullshit is out and proud: He doesn't care about civility when it holds his side back. Because the other side is so awful it doesn't deserve the niceties that developed in the mythical past when good people amicably jousted over differences."
Precisely so.
The left has been trying to delegitimize other voices for a long time. They have become more blatant and their inherent fascism has come to there surface more since Trump was elected. The next step for Dionne (who poses as a liberal intellectual) is to call for hate speech laws. Hate = what the left does not endorse.
Dionne and his ilk are one dimensional leftists. They could shorten all their columns by simply stating:
1. We hate Trump
2. We don't want his SCOTUS pick to overturn Roe or Obergfell.
You could save so much ink, just referring to 1 or 2 or both.
Doesn't Dianne Feinstein always yap about Roe being a "superprecedent" to all the nominees?
"at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life," said Justice Kennedy. And the U.S. Constitution is all about liberty, isn't it? And therefore ....
With "legal reasoning" like this, does anyone wonder that control of the Court has become a battleground?
Practically everyone understands that the Supreme Court has become increasingly political and far less judicial, and that this inevitably creates a near state of no-holds-barred political war when vacancies occur. Yet with no real solution to this imperial-judicial overreach available, all that's left is to fight for the appointment of the next justice-emperor one prefers.
If this be war then let's make the most of it. What matters in warfare is how many effective divisions one can muster. Surely only a fool would think an aggressive enemy would be cowed by demands for "civility"?
Mike is on fire.
Never ever let the Left forget that they used all their energy, all their networks, all their personalities to PROMOTE Trump. THEY got him nominated. THEY wanted him. It's on tape. It was unanimous!
Sure Mike.
But they are discovering unintended consequences.
Damn those pesky unintended consequences!
"But most of Dionne's civility bullshit is out and proud: He doesn't care about civility when it holds his side back."
Out and proud incivility is not the same thing as civility bullshit.
I read somewhere itd make far more sense for the Dems to allow the nominee thru and take this off the table.
But they will not do so.
Inga's debating her next avatar..
It is Fort Sumter. No 'p' in the name.
One wonders what will happen to the coalition Trump is leading when the Court is no longer an issue. I think if Ginsburg or Breyer is replaced by a Trump appointee the reasons for a Trump presidency no longer exist as intensely. After all, a 6-3 or 7-2 Court removes appointments to the Court as a significant factor in the election.
Thanks, didn't look it up.
The real issue that elected Trump, aside from the Court, was the border and that will not stop now.
The Court was the chief reason for "Not Hillary."
Now, we have the border and no other Republican would do what has to be done.
The fury of the Democrats will only increase.
I'm not sure a bad defeat in November would end it.
Blogger damikesc said...
I read somewhere itd make far more sense for the Dems to allow the nominee thru and take this off the table.
But they will not do so.
All they had to do was not act crazy for six months and they can't even do that.
"Our constitutional system of “checks and balances” works only if those in a position to operate the levers of checking and balancing do their job. It is clear that a Republican Congress and Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have no taste for such work. For the moment, President Trump is mostly unchecked and unbalanced."
Do we have a wall with Mexico yet?
Did Trump's EO on immigration go to the Supreme Court?
Does the media hound Trump without mercy?
Is EJ Dionne a lying a$$?
The Supreme Court and the federal judiciary should have less power in our lives so these appointments would not be so momentous. For the past 70 years every group that has lost out on a policy decision in the democratic political process has run the courts to have the will of the people overturned in their favor. As a result, our entire elected federal government is nothing more than an extended Electoral College where the people elect officials who in turn elect other people who have real power. It is ludicrous that Justice Kennedy -as fine a jurist as he might be - has been the single most powerful man in the US for the last two decades.
"Inga's debating her next avatar.."
She gave up her Blue Wave avatar last month. I upgraded to a Red Wave avatar at about the same time. So much winning!
"It's time for Democrats to throw down, and what I mean by that is we've been playing by the rule book,
Who believes this nonsense? For decades the left has played by one rule: By any Means Necessary.
walter said...
Inga's debating her next avatar.."
That will require at least 4 hours of hard thought on her part.
"Ron Winkleheimer said...
"If people on the left are going to jettison civility then the people on the right will have no choice but to do so as well."
Except the people on the right haven't and won't. What's going on is asymmetrical warfare, using people's own decency against them.
If they hadn't blown so much firepower on Gorsuch, think what they'd have in reserve!
What's remarkable about Dionne's position? It's the opposition's job to resist, and to justify it with any plausible and half-plausible explanation -- see Senate Republicans' justifications for resisting Obama's nominee for reference.
"Which is ironic because Donald Trump, of all the Presidents of my lifetime, would have been most susceptible to the flattery, schmoozing, and all the oily influence-mongering that makes up bipartisanship."
-- Think of the triangulation he'd be open to!
Trump wanted to deal with the Left on the dreamers, and the Left walked away.
The only downside to the joyful clubbing of the Left this week is that, sigh, the political "ebb and flow" still suggests that: (1) Trump will screw something up down the road and (2) the Dems will regain power at some point.
The 12 years of Reagan-Bush (1980-1992) were great, culminating in the Fall of the Berlin Wall. But the Dems controlled Congress most of that time, sunk Bork, and shackled Reagan with the Iran-Contra nonsense.
Here, because of the "new rules" (thanks Dems!), the Left finds itself in a more precarious position, facing bigger obstacles. Obama drained all the party resources from the State legislatures, so they are minorities there. Their big dogs (Obama, HIllary, Bill Clinton) are either shackled or sidelined. So, there is a total absence of leadership, too.
You have huge swaths of broke, indebted millennials protesting and/or twittering to pollute the political environment.
My only point is, at some point, we will need to ratchet down the emotions and instability of this formless mass of leftwingers.
While I can't point to a single application of the civility bullshit tag that I disagree with, I do disagree with the absolute nature of it.
Althouse's position is that appeals to civility are always (her word) political and therefore bullshit. By Althouse's own standard it's bullshit to say Sarah Huckabee Sanders should be able to eat in peace at the Red Hen.
Just wait until Breyer hangs it up later this summer! JPG
Obama won an election also and the Republicans in the Senate blocked any movement toward confirming his nominee Merrick Garland. Trump won an election and Democrats in the Senate should do the same with whoever Trumps nominee will be. If the Democrats don’t resist there will be hell to pay with the base. McConnel will get back the civility he showed Obama.
Inga: "Trump won an election and Democrats in the Senate should do the same with whoever Trumps nominee will be."
The dems have no power to do the same.
As any 5 year old would know.
The democrats have unilaterally changed the rules every step of the way for the last 30 years and now they are in no position to lecture anyone effectively and have no tools remaining at their disposal.
Good.
August 28th will be peak rage.
By October the press will be saying “can’t we all just get along?”
A lot of people right now are plumping up retirement nests.
In countries without extradition treaties.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
To: The Resistance
From: Big Daddy Soros
Outrage status: Hair on fire!!1!!11!
Subject: Supreme Court
-----
Listen up, asswipes!
Fuck those little brown kids in cages from shithole countries! Nobody gives a fuck about them and nobody will remember them by this time next week! Get your asses back from the fucking border and generate some fake outrage about the Supreme Court! Get in the faces of those fucking flyover state rubes and force them to care about the sacrament of abortion! And for the love of evil, tell Gloria Alred to send a couple of hookers over to Kavanaugh's office -- stat!
Big Daddy
p.s. Tell that Mueller moron to meet me tonight in Fort Marcy Park. 8:30.
Justice Kagan was confirmed by the Senate in August of 2010. Let the left suck on that for a minute.
McConnel will get back the civility he showed Obama.
Civility changed from [not spitting on people while they're at the movies] to [do what I want politically] in just one iteration.
"Obama won an election also and the Republicans in the Senate blocked any movement toward confirming his nominee Merrick Garland."
-- The difference is in the timing. Garland wasn't in Obama's first term; he was late in the second after Obama had been checked twice by Congressional elections. Meaning, that the people *wanted* a check on Obama's appointments. This vacancy is still in Trump's first election, where he was also handed/maintained Congressional majorities.
The two situations aren't the same at all.
As Adam White of the Hoover Institute tweets, “When a single judge’s retirement turns the entire political world on its ear, we ought to consider that perhaps the Supreme Court has claimed too much power in our republic.”
All those protests with adults wearing pink-colored pussy hats has really influenced the political landscape, No? (/sarc off)
I did forget to post one more comment! With Kennedy's retirement in the news, the "poor" illegal immigrant children in internment camps meme is dead. LOL! Best laid plans......
Didn't we all drop the civility pretense in 2016. America chose between two candidates who have zero interest in civility.
"Oh no! We'll have to the live with the Constitution and the Laws as written and not how we want them to be?" That's the basic progressive issue. The judges Trump has identified are pretty much "here's what the law and the Constitution say" jurists.
This is going to be noisy. I expect a lot of histrionics. This, however, will be mild compared to what will happen if Ginsberg can no longer serve on the court, either from death or other permanent incapacitation. Trump had better be ready to send the Secret Service to any hospice she is supposedly in while not retiring to make sure she is still alive. I would not be surprised if the Dems tried a Weekend at Bernie's ploy to keep the seat open. Losing 5-3 is better than 6-3 if you can keep the seat open until a Dem wins the next election.
Birches said...
I don't think Flake, McCain and Corker will be a problem. They are all too prolife to interfere too much.
But their votes are completely, totally critical.
Think 'John McCain's healthcare vote.'
No; they are a potentially YUUUGE problem. But it is such an interesting problem. Does Jeff Flake want Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. My guess is, "abso-freaking-lutely." Corker too. And McCain.
It's just that they have this thing. And it is like gold. And they can use it. And I expect that they will use it.
Time for Trump to make a deal. A really great deal. Such a great deal, that it will make our heads spin. We'll all be saying, "These are such great deals; President Trump we can't take any more great deals! You are giving us too many great deals!"
Democrats know full well that Republicans will almost certainly have at least - bare minimum - 57 Senators after November, and more likely around 62. So their demanding that the vote not happen until after that is both tactically and strategically moronic.
I delightfully look forward to Trump saying "Sure, we can wait till after the election", and then after the results come in, the leftie freakout insisting that the appointment vote must happen before the newly elected supermajority Republican Senate gets seated.
Kennedy's retirement will make it difficult for Ginsburg if she is caught one more time nodding off in public.
An email from a 'friend' today [with whom I always avoided talking politics but knows where I stand] was filled with frenzy and vitriol about the horrors of the Trump administration. Her last comment was "I have zero tolerance towards anyone that continues to support him." This makes me genuinely sad. It also makes me wonder how these leftists can survive this kind of obsession and hatred. It's a sickness. It really is.
"It's just that they have this thing. And it is like gold. And they can use it. And I expect that they will use it.
Time for Trump to make a deal. A really great deal. Such a great deal, that it will make our heads spin. We'll all be saying, "These are such great deals; President Trump we can't take any more great deals! You are giving us too many great deals!"
That's the way I would expect those pussies to act, but Trump may not need the cuck vote. Keep that in mind, sweetie.
And if Trump DOES wait until the newly elected supermajority Republican Senate is seated, well, you know that'll just mean that he is Literally Hitler.
Mockturtle: Was the email you received a general one sent to a large list, or was your "friend" addressing you in particular?
I have not lost any friends over politics, but I am considered an oddity by many and politics is not discussed.
LLR Chuck continues on his MSNBC/Lawrence O'Donnell jihad in order to salvage something, anything, for his dem allies in the midst of all this republican #Winning.
LOL
Oh Chuck, things must really be bleak in Democrat/LLR Mudville these days.
LLR Chuck "Dick Durbin Mood Ring Color" Report: Dark
Very, very dark.
Even LLR Chucks Maddow blow up doll is weeping...
Drago -- was his wishcasting Flake deal a talking point from the O'Donnell show? It would make perfect sense!
This is how you get more Trump.
And while I haven't yet read the comments upstream, I'm sure that someone has probably already said this.
Trump Approval rises again per Harvard poll.
Republican chances in Nov election improve.
Supreme Court delivers massive conservative victories.
Fed reserve estimates for GDP growth increase.
...LLR Chuck enters weepy coma...
No; they are a potentially YUUUGE problem. But it is such an interesting problem. Does Jeff Flake want Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. My guess is, "abso-freaking-lutely." Corker too. And McCain.
It's just that they have this thing. And it is like gold. And they can use it. And I expect that they will use it.
Time for Trump to make a deal. A really great deal. Such a great deal, that it will make our heads spin. We'll all be saying, "These are such great deals; President Trump we can't take any more great deals! You are giving us too many great deals!"
Here is the deal. Talk to each one individually. Ask them how they will like having the IRS audit every friend and family member. If they would enjoy friends and family being investigated on trumped up charges. Threaten them. After all, Trump is a crook and a criminal, used to dealing with New ork mafia. That's what we have been told. Maybe send a couple of his mafia connections to make 'em an offer they can't refuse.
Am I the only one who noticed that after Jesse Jackson was caught on live mic dissing Obama, JJ Jr. ended up in prison and JJ sr is seldom heard from? Obama did that.
Fabi: "Drago -- was his wishcasting Flake deal a talking point from the O'Donnell show? It would make perfect sense!"
Of course it is!
Literally every narrative, meme, talking point and wishcast uttered by those lunatic lefties has been picked up by Chuckie and advanced with passion.
Because thats what "principled" "true conservatives" do.
Obviously.
Fabi said...
"It's just that they have this thing. And it is like gold. And they can use it. And I expect that they will use it.
"Time for Trump to make a deal. A really great deal. Such a great deal, that it will make our heads spin. We'll all be saying, 'These are such great deals; President Trump we can't take any more great deals! You are giving us too many great deals!'"
That's the way I would expect those pussies to act, but Trump may not need the cuck vote. Keep that in mind, sweetie.
For every Bob Corker/Jeff Flake/John McCain/Susan Collins lost vote on a Supreme Court nominee, Trump needs a Dem replacement vote. Every one, if he isn't at 50 votes. (So maybe a fudge factor of either 1 or 2 votes.)
I'm not talking about some grand amorphous appeal to some sort of voting bloc. I am talking about a whip count of the exact number of votes needed. And Flake is on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I really don't care about how you, or Trump, or anybody else, feels about Jeff Flake. Its numbers. Trump absolutely needs his vote. Flake should say, "Sure! I like your nominee for the Court! I'd like to vote for his confirmation! Now; what's it worth to you?"
And Flake isn't even asking Trump to withdraw from a conservative principle. Flake has nothing to apologize for, to his colleagues in the Republican Senate conference. Flake is just saying that he doesn't like the way that Trump has been conducting Executive Branch business, so Trump has to change. Back the fuck down.
Trump ought to understand that.
UPDATE:
I now see that Flake says that he won't block a SCOTUS nomination over his tariff dispute with the White House and Senate leadership.
Flake says that he has all the ammunition he needs, with Court of Appeals nominations.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/jeff-flake-says-he-wont-block-trumps-supreme-court-pick.html
Keep dreaming, Chuck. Flake has zero traction. He's a lame cuck senator.
They say they want civility but they really mean "Shut up, you!"
And, wow, Bannon's cluster-f**k in Alabama sure looks big now.
Flake folded! Flake folded! Flake folded! Lulz
Obama won an election also and the Republicans in the Senate blocked any movement toward confirming his nominee Merrick Garland."
The LightBringer was a lame duck and had no power. Trump is in a much different position. 10 Democrats are running for the Senate in states that went for Obama. Most of them pretend to be be centrist. If they vote against a Gorsuch-like judge, the voters will see their true colors.
It is going to be an interesting summer and fall. Whomever Trump nominates will be viciously savaged in order to give red state Dem senators an excuse to vote against confirmation. Murkowski and Collins are also targeted in that endeavor. Im going to call it "Bork: The Sequel."
Court of Appeals can be filled next year with an even bigger R Senate!
Down goes Chuck! Down goes Chuck! Lulz
Fabi said...
"Inga's debating her next avatar.."
She gave up her Blue Wave avatar last month. I upgraded to a Red Wave avatar at about the same time. So much winning!
Maybe she should go with a giant tampon or maxi-pad.
Johns asks: Mockturtle: Was the email you received a general one sent to a large list, or was your "friend" addressing you in particular?
It was personal. It began with her offering condolences for the recent death of my dear sweet dog. Then I asked her about her trip. She said she was still in Canada and wishes she could just stay there because of the 'horrors' in the US. Like a fool, I asked her 'what horrors?'. :-( While I wrote that I'd like to think we could still be friends, she answered, no we can't be friends. I should mention that she lived most of her life in Europe and has a very Euro worldview.
I have lost several friends and a few close relatives to TDS. While I am tolerant of their views, they can't tolerate mine--even if they don't hear them, just because I'm a known deplorable!
" ...in states that went for Obama ..."
Duh, that should be states that went for Trump.
LLR and #StrongDurbinDefender Chuck: "I now see that Flake says that he won't block a SCOTUS nomination over his tariff dispute with the White House and Senate leadership."
Uh, yeah.
No kidding.
Thanks for catching up to reality...for the moment.
Good old LLR Chuck, a real "finger on the pulse of events" kind of guy.
LLR Chuck: "For every Bob Corker/Jeff Flake/John McCain/Susan Collins lost vote on a Supreme Court nominee, Trump needs a Dem replacement vote. Every one, if he isn't at 50 votes. (So maybe a fudge factor of either 1 or 2 votes.)
I'm not talking about some grand amorphous appeal to some sort of voting bloc. I am talking about a whip count of the exact number of votes needed."
It's this kind of cutting edge analysis and astonishing political acumen that has led one candidate after another to beat a path to LLR Chuck's door for his deep, deep insight and advice.
Next up: Chuck explains that there is both a House of Representatives AND a Senate! Also, he provides a link to Schoolhouse Rock: "I'm Just a Bill"
Social progress including diversity or color judgments/discrimination, political congruence or selective exclusion, native American ritual rites (e.g. selective-child), and immigration reform to cover-up collateral damage from social justice adventures, depress labor, and compensate for Planned Parenthood? That social progress? Progress is an unqualified monotonic function or process.
Trump approval at 47% according to Harris -- up two percent from last month!
Worst week ever for Chuck and the left. #SadTromboneSymphony
Blogger Mike said...
"... and their glee at violence and rudeness in the streets is not playing well with normal apolitical Americans (about 60% of our country)."
The only thing with which I disagree is the 60%. I think it is closer to 90%. Consider: There are about 235 million eligible voter in the US; the audience for political TV is maybe 10 million, or less than 5%. There have been numerous studies over the years about what influences voter registration and voting proclivities. They all show that the major factors are family, extended family, friends, co-workers and social groups (including church) in that order. Media and political debate are almost irrelevant.
What it comes down to is, as Ronald Reagan put it, are you better off now than you were the last time you voted? And that is not just economics. It very much includes things like war and rioting in the streets.
This is well and good and as it should be. It is the way to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without have to kowtow to a remote sovereign for our daily bread.
Inga said...
Obama won an election also and the Republicans in the Senate blocked any movement toward confirming his nominee Merrick Garland. Trump won an election and Democrats in the Senate should do the same with whoever Trumps nominee will be. If the Democrats don’t resist there will be hell to pay with the base. McConnel will get back the civility he showed Obama.
Garland was nominated in a presidential election year, with the certainty of a new president in office the following January, and the possibility of a change of the party in power. Trump's nominee will be nominated in an off-year election, with the certainty of the same president being in office the following January, despite the fever dreams of swamp Democrats. Apples and oranges, Inga. Apples and oranges.
And while "if the Democrats don't resist there will be hell to pay with the base," if they do resist, there will be hell to pay with the rest of the country's voters, of which there are far more than your base. Resistance may feel good to you emotionally, but the more outrageously you behave, the more reasonable people will be repulsed by it and vote against your candidates to keep them out of office. So, go ahead, be my guest and resist to the utmost. See how it ends up. November is coming, indeed!
I didn't think today could have been any better than the previous two but Chuck's instantaneous Flake face plant is giving me a rush of delight, luxurious even. Bigly.
Mockturtle: Sounds like this friend is a goner, but she has been at a distance in Europe for a long time. I am trying to hold onto civility within my family, with my son and his wife very vocally supporting Trump, and my daughters horrified by him. For the daughters it's really all about abortion, so I am not looking forward to the coming SCOTUS debate.
The problem with the Garland example for lefties is that they didn’t win ENOUGH elections. Had they, Obama certainly would have gotten his nominee, and that nominee would have been far, far to the left of Garland.
I just love reading Dionne's pain, I really, really do.
As a side note- there are those on the Left now lamenting Schumer's decision to filibuster Gorsuch- the claim being that Schumer should have reserved the filibuster for exactly this moment, but that is total nonsense.
There is no chance the nominee will be voted down if it comes from the Appeals Court level- none.
Does anybody think that Manchin is going to vote against Trump’s nominee because the banshee left has made it a holy vote of obligation? The white left that is hi-jacking the Democrat party has a problem, in that they aren’t as overwhelmingly popular as they appear to each other after cutting off contact with any and all who disagree with them, or emotionally blackmailing them to shut up about politics in the presence of any liberals.
It leads to perception problems.
"What it comes down to is, as Ronald Reagan put it, are you better off now than you were the last time you voted? And that is not just economics. It very much includes things like war and rioting in the streets."
I agree. The left doesn't seem aware that their screams and protests keep their lunatic base satisfied but they eventually have to sell something positive to the crucial independent voters. They have nothing positive to sell at a time when normal America is seeing job creation and lower taxes. They lack a decent leader and a message.
Had the Democrats had 50 votes plus Biden, there would be a “wise [identity group moniker goes here]” sitting on the court right this minute.
"If the Democrats don’t resist there will be hell to pay with the base."
The Democrats, as of right now, have no "base". Mr Sanders saw to that. Its Trads vs Progs. Their only unifying message for the next few months, and it will be unbelievably unceasing: Roe v Wade.
Teller: "The Democrats, as of right now, have no "base". Mr Sanders saw to that. Its Trads vs Progs."
It's all Mensheviks vs Bolsheviks now....
@Mock,
I have lost several friends and a few close relatives to TDS. While I am tolerant of their views, they can't tolerate mine--even if they don't hear them, just because I'm a known deplorable!
I am doing a LOT of toe-tapping and tap-dancing on the same dynamic as you. I talked to a gay-married friend today, and he was a bit shellshocked, and dying to ask me, specifically, whether I liked Trump and was cool with a new right-wing SCOTUS.
I dodged and played nice-nice. It's worth it. I don't want to gloat too much, and he's a good fellow.
As purely a tactical matter, I would suggest vigorously engaging here, but vigorously not engaging with friends and family about Trump. Passions are running high.
Althouse, to her eternal credit, actually welcomes the free exchange of ideas, even silly and offbeat ideas, so there's no recriminations.
The real world is not as emotionally adjusted.
If they wait until some of these red state Democrats are either defeated, or safely six years from the next time they have to face voters...
Remember when the Democrat base used to be working class people that built stuff? One thing I have noticed is that the price of a lot of stuff made out of steel is going up. Today it was boat trailers. Who knew how much steel China was dumping onto US markets via our good friends in Canada and Mexico? This used to be a concern of Democrats, but now they want all of those jobs out of their back yard and performed by all but slave labor in China.
This could be the thing that forces Manchin to change parties. Imagine the levers that Schumer will use to try to force him to vote against the wishes of the people of West Virginia, and for the wishes of the people of urban New York.
Clyde said...Garland was nominated in a presidential election year, with the certainty of a new president in office the following January, and the possibility of a change of the party in power. Trump's nominee will be nominated in an off-year election
--
In the usual manipulation of language to suit their needs, the approach is to use only the term "election".
Bay Area Guy said... I talked to a gay-married friend today, and he was a bit shellshocked, and dying to ask me, specifically, whether I liked Trump and was cool with a new right-wing SCOTUS.
--
I'm impressed you were asked. All I ever encounter is the highly presumptive and usually out of the blue topic changes to TDS talking points in the workplace.
"There is nothing civil about rushing a nominee to replace Kennedy before the midterm elections."
There's nothing civil about shooting up a baseball field full of Republican congressmen, either.
So, kindly fuck off.
I haven't been paying close attention to CNN's reporting on this SC opening.
Have they interviewed Stormy Daniels and Michael Avenetti yet to get their take?
"All I ever encounter is the highly presumptive and usually out of the blue topic changes to TDS talking points in the workplace. "
-- When I was in college, back in the Bush/Obama days, someone said something, and said, "And even Matt agrees," I think it was some tax policy point. And I said not really, no. And that's when people found out I wore the Scarlet R. I still remember one lady saying, "But you're so... normal!"
The international socialists just won a huge victory in New York.
Against the National Socialists.
I believe Mitch McConnell set the bar here: we can block presidential nominations for any election excuse we want; Garland would have been a reasonable non-activest judge compared to what we may get.
Drago asked:
"Have they interviewed Stormy Daniels and Michael Avenetti yet to get their take?"
Probably not since Chuck would have told us by now.
"I believe Mitch McConnell set the bar here: we can block presidential nominations for any election excuse we want;"
-- Incorrect. McConnell was following the Biden Rule. The bar was set by him, not Mitch.
Bay Area Guy said: Bork, a Yale Professor, ex-Marine ...
There are no 'ex-Marines'.
Well, maybe Lee Harvey Oswald ...
Matthew Sablan said...that's when people found out I wore the Scarlet R.
--
Yeah..at least part of their approach likely is trying to draw out "enemies".
I spent most of my life living amongst people with politics the opposite of my own. I just avoided political discussions since it was always obvious that tolerance of my positions wasn't going to be offered.
Honestly, most of the people I still associate with are very tolerant of my political heresies. Which is why I still associate with them. The Internet is significantly more polarized than living, breathing face-to-face people.
Blogger tim in vermont said...
Remember when the Democrat base used to be working class people that built stuff?
I'm so old I remember Harry Truman on TV. I'm also so old that I remember when both parties were all about the most important, time consuming part of our lives - work. The Republicans were for management, the Democrats for labor. This worked because everybody recognized that "it takes two to tango" and "you can't have one without the other" (classical references).
This all started to fall apart in the mid 1960s when the Democrats went all civil rights and anti-war. Not judging, just observing.
r/v: "I believe Mitch McConnell set the bar here: we can block presidential nominations for any election excuse we want; Garland would have been a reasonable non-activest judge compared to what we may get"
Democrat hack politicians and their followers like you have lied and connived and changed the rules at your whims when you had the majority over the last 30 years and now you are complaining.
Tough.
Yeah, Garland would have been a "reasonable" judge: only voting with the left wing hacks 99% of the time as opposed to 100%.
You Harry Reid minions aren't fooling anyone and apparently, even Justice Kennedy himself got so sick your shenanigans that he resigned immediately at the worst possible time for the loony left.
It serves you right.
roesch/voltaire said...
I believe Mitch McConnell set the bar here: we can block presidential nominations for any election excuse we want; Garland would have been a reasonable non-activest judge compared to what we may get.
We told you you would hate it when we started treating you like you treated us.
I understand you want to avoid responsibility for your current situation.
You don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. You are acting like rabid animals. No matter what happens it is better than you deserve.
Obama won an election also and the Republicans in the Senate blocked any movement toward confirming his nominee Merrick Garland. Trump won an election and Democrats in the Senate should do the same with whoever Trumps nominee will be. - Inga
Stupidest thing you've written in quite some time.
For one, Ds don't have the majority ... so what they should or should not do doesn't mean jack shit to what actually gets done. Thank Harry Reid.
Two, by your 'logic' no President should ever get to appoint a member of SCOTUS until the Senate waits for the results of the next election.
Obama was a lame duck. It was the last year of his presidency. Trump is in the second year of his first term.
Pull your fucking head out and use it for a change.
Matthew Sablan said...
Honestly, most of the people I still associate with are very tolerant of my political heresies. Which is why I still associate with them. The Internet is significantly more polarized than living, breathing face-to-face people.
Just so long as you realize they tolerate you, but they also will not raise a finger if their more zealous ideological allies try to feed you to the ovens.
Leftists have committed mass murder dozens of times and they have never been stopped by other leftists.
Your "tolerant" friends will support the genocide because the first people into the ovens are the "tolerant" leftists that speak up.
Every single time.
we can block presidential nominations for any election excuse we want; - R/V
With 49 votes? That'll be a neat trick.
Show us how, Professor Numbers.
Bay Area Guy said: Bork, a Yale Professor, ex-Marine ...
There are no 'ex-Marines'.
Well, maybe Lee Harvey Oswald ..
I knew someone would say that. Former Marine? Retired Marine? Once a Marine, always a Marine!
Semper Fi!
BAG,
"My only point is, at some point, we will need to ratchet down the emotions and instability of this formless mass of leftwingers"
What mean "we"? This is something that the dishonorable left will have to do themselves--and let's hope that they do, because the only means for outsiders to do so are kinetic.
One more time for our lefty dullards: Kagan was confirmed by the senate in August of 2010 -- three months before a midterm election.
I wonder whether Stormy Daniels has any critiques of the Younger Abstention Doctrine?
I would try to abstain from staring at her breasts.
I think one of the fundamental differences I have with a lot of the more adamant conservatives is that I think someone can be left, left-leaning, "liberal," or what have you, and not be a constant threat. People can disagree without wanting to kill everyone else; the Internet just makes it seem like that's not possible.
I believe Mitch McConnell set the bar here: we can block presidential nominations for any election excuse we want
You may, yes.
But I don't think you can.
And come on people. There is no real "rule". We all know the Democrats, had the situation been reversed in 2016, would have done exactly the same thing. Just as Democrats now thing there is a price to pay with the Dem base if they "let" a new justice on the bench, the Right would have FREAKED OUT if Obama had gotten to appoint Scalia's replacement months before he was out of office and with a GOP Senate.
Do not look for consistency in politicians. It does not exist. The political parties play to win. All you can control is yourself and your own response and the way you treat other people.
Flake has nothing to apologize for, to his colleagues in the Republican Senate conference. Flake is just saying that he doesn't like the way that Trump has been conducting Executive Branch business, so Trump has to change. Back the fuck down.
What gives Flake the right? Flake is the junior senator from an inconsequential state and a lame duck. Flake needs to back the fuck down.
"Do not look for consistency in politicians."
-- Which is why McConnell and others used the fig leaf of the Biden Rule. For extra knife twisting.
tim in vermont said...
Does anybody think that Manchin is going to vote against Trump’s nominee because the banshee left has made it a holy vote of obligation? The white left that is hi-jacking the Democrat party has a problem, in that they aren’t as overwhelmingly popular as they appear to each other after cutting off contact with any and all who disagree with them, or emotionally blackmailing them to shut up about politics in the presence of any liberals.
Fair point, Tim!
There is a phenomenon in Congress wherein all sorts of divergent votes get cast, when the outcome is no longer in doubt. So when it is clear that a Judge Gorsuch is going to get confirmed, and Manchin's vote wasn't critical, Dem leadership can give Macnchin the go-ahead to vote for Gosruch because they all know that that's good for the Dems holding on to Manchin's seat.
But if Manchin had the deciding vote, Senate Dems would make it clear that he couldn't vote for a Trump nominee. Not in an election year for Manchin.
"I would try to abstain from staring at her breasts."
What would the point of staring at them be? They aren't real, are they???
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा