Althouse: 3 Daily Beast headlines.

July 2, 2018

3 Daily Beast headlines.

1. "Michelle Wolf Compares Ivanka Trump to Herpes: ‘You Always Show Up When We’re About to Get F*cked.'"

2. "Anthony Kennedy, You Are a Total Disgrace to America." "And now we learn that on top of everything else, Kennedy may just be corrupt. So his son Justin, if last week’s New York Times account is correct, in essence kept Donald Trump in business for the better part of a decade, overseeing $1 billion worth of loans to the Trump Organization via Deutsche Bank, where he worked. Justin and the Trump kids are buddies, it seems. Justin and Trump himself are palsy-walsy."

3. "John Oliver Is Devastated Over SCOTUS: ‘Everything Is Terrible Now.'" (Oliver was a lot better than the Beast's headline makes him seem. He was mocking the Donald Trump Jr. tweet that said, "OMG! Just when you thought this week couldn't get more lit... I give you Anthony Kennedy's retirement from #SCOTUS," which clearly deserves the mockery Oliver deftly delivered: "I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with Mister Junior on this, because I don’t think this is ‘lit’ at all. I mean, it’s obvs crayAF, no one is denying that fam, but I would argue that this week’s news was neither lit nor on fleek nor was it three fire emojis. Now, granted, I’m still a little shook jsyk, but I personally believe Kennedy’s retirement is super werpt. And I’m happy to announce that in saying that, all of the slang words I just used are now officially dead forever—and that includes ‘werpt,’ a term that doesn’t even exist for which I preemptively ruined just in case.")

153 comments:

David Begley said...: You forgot to use the Trump Derangement Syndrome tag.; 7/2/18, 7:06 AM
The Bergall said...: What the hell is wrong with these people?; 7/2/18, 7:06 AM
Matt Sablan said...: I'm sure he was just some guy in his neighborhood. No reason to read anything into it.; 7/2/18, 7:07 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Alex, for $1000, I'll take the category of Far Left Librul Media.

The answer is "What Khesan gets for complaining that Althouse gets too much of her material from the NYT and the WAPO".

I'll say "What is the Daily Beast?"; 7/2/18, 7:12 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: From the article about John Oliver:

The frantically scrambling Democrats, explained Oliver, have “appealed to Mitch McConnell’s sense of fairness and consistency, by pointing out that he refused to confirm Merrick Garland before a major election.

The Biden Rule is applied to the year before a PRESIDENTIAL election -- not to the year before a so-called major election.

I am pretty sure that this distinction is understood by Oliver and by all the other Democrats who are making this same bogus article about the Biden Rule.

The Biden Rule is named after Senator Joe Biden -- a life-long, leading Democrat -- who most recently served as the Vice President during the entire administration of President Barack Obama.

Joe Biden argued -- correctly, in my opinion -- that a Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled during the year before a PRESIDENTIAL election.; 7/2/18, 7:15 AM
Paco Wové said...: When Teenagers Ruled The Media; 7/2/18, 7:17 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: More from the article about John Oliver

Everything is terrible now,” said Oliver. “The only thing everyone can do now is vote.”

Oliver is showing that in addition to voting, people can lie about the Biden Rule.

That is two things -- not just one thing -- that people can do.; 7/2/18, 7:20 AM
rehajm said...: Applying a Burge Corollary, all three headlines are improved by the addition of the tail I think I'm going to kill myself.; 7/2/18, 7:20 AM
Chuck said...: Lulz.; 7/2/18, 7:21 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: Imagine that someone compared an Obama daughter to herpes.

CNN would denounce that person 24/7 for an entire month.; 7/2/18, 7:23 AM
mccullough said...: Some folks just have to rule themselves up; 7/2/18, 7:24 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: John Oliver could invite Joe Biden himself onto his talk show and ask him about the Biden Rule.

Oliver could ask Biden whether the Biden Rule applies to mid-term elections.; 7/2/18, 7:30 AM
Ann Althouse said...: @Mike Sylwester

John Oliver is a comedian. What you wrote is in a flat, pedantic style. Show how to make it funny or you don't have a viable criticism of Oliver, who found something completely apt and very funny to say.; 7/2/18, 7:31 AM
NCMoss said...: Are Democrats basically saying they can't win at the ballot box and that doubling down on meaningless and hostile gestures is the only path forward?; 7/2/18, 7:32 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: Show how to make it funny or you don't have a viable criticism of Oliver, who found something completely apt and very funny to say.

I don't think that John Oliver's lying about the Biden Rule is funny at all.

Why do you think it's funny?; 7/2/18, 7:33 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: From the article about John Oliver:

So instead of relying on the ethically-bereft Senate Majority Leader, the Dems have pivoted to plan B: arguing that, since President Trump is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation whose results may one day reach the Supreme Court, he should not be allowed to have one of his nominated justices be confirmed until that investigation is completed.

Who says that President Trump is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation by Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller?

Does Mueller say that?

Does Rod Rosenstein say that?

Does Jess Sessions say that?

Does even "Crazy Comey the Leaker" say that?; 7/2/18, 7:39 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: Does Christopher Wray say that?; 7/2/18, 7:40 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: John Oliver was funny? There really is a first time for everything.; 7/2/18, 7:42 AM
clint said...: In #2, I'm having trouble figuring out just what the corruption or wrongdoing is supposed to be.

@Mike-

The original Biden rule was even more specific than that. It was about a lame duck President -- one who will never again be facing the voters -- which makes an awful lot of sense, if you think about it.; 7/2/18, 7:42 AM
Sebastian said...: "Oliver, who found something completely apt and very funny to say."

Like, Griffin-level funny.; 7/2/18, 7:42 AM
rehajm said...: Show how to make it funny or you don't have a viable criticism of Oliver

This is stupid.; 7/2/18, 7:43 AM
Paco Wové said...: If you tell lies about people, make sure you specify that you're doing so as comedy.; 7/2/18, 7:46 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: Show how to make it funny or you don't have a viable criticism of Oliver

This is stupid.

Of course, it is, but I was too polite to say so.; 7/2/18, 7:46 AM
MadisonMan said...: Funny is in the ear of the beholder in this case. I thought Oliver stringing together a bunch of words so dated my kids don't use them anymore was kinda tired.; 7/2/18, 7:47 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: I say that John Oliver is lying about the Biden Rule, because I think that Oliver knows very well that the Biden Rule is not applied to midterm elections in President's first term.; 7/2/18, 7:48 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Joe Biden argued -- correctly, in my opinion -- that a Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled during the year before a PRESIDENTIAL election."

1. Why not?

2. Biden is a douche.; 7/2/18, 7:53 AM
Robert Cook said...: "John Oliver could invite Joe Biden himself onto his talk show and ask him about the Biden Rule.

"Oliver could ask Biden whether the Biden Rule applies to mid-term elections."

Who says this "Biden rule" has any force of law or custom? What difference does it make what Biden says about the matter?; 7/2/18, 7:55 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: The unifying theme of all humor is summed up in the immortal story of Abdul the Painless Camel Castrator.; 7/2/18, 7:56 AM
Gunner said...: Tomasky is the same guy who thought Mitt Romney speaking to the NAACP was just as racist as not speaking to them, so why would anyone care about how seriously he thinks Trump is a racist?; 7/2/18, 7:56 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: Robert Cook at 7:55 AM
What difference does it make what Biden says about the matter?

Joe Biden was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when he declared his Biden Rule in 1992.

You can watch Biden's own justification for his Biden Rule on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlzhULrJC0; 7/2/18, 7:59 AM
Leslie Graves said...: How likely is it that the New York Times only learned about Justin Kennedy in the 48-72 hours after the AK resignation announcement? Not very likely.

If the NYT has known about that for months (or longer) conservatives might imagine that they didn't disclose it because they didn't want to antagonize AK while he was still on the court.; 7/2/18, 7:59 AM
Fabi said...: Breyer and Kagan were both confirmed within four months of a midterm election. I learned that by searching on the Internet. It's a neat-o invention by Albert Gore, Jr., who is also a democrat.; 7/2/18, 7:59 AM
Sebastian said...: OK, so one day we get chided for consuming too much crazy-leftism red meat, seeing it everywhere, and what do we get the very next day?

More crazy-lefty red meat--Michele Wolfe, John Oliver, Lopez O.

Only of those three is a comedian. It's funny, isn't it, that he made people think socialism can succeed.

But what happens when he turns a whole country into the joke next door.?

Actually, of course, Marx was wrong. When it comes to socialism, history only repeats itself as tragedy.; 7/2/18, 8:01 AM
Henry said...: So his son Justin, if last week’s New York Times account is correct, in essence kept Donald Trump in business for the better part of a decade, overseeing $1 billion worth of loans to the Trump Organization via Deutsche Bank, where he worked

Yes, but did Deutsche Bank make back their money?; 7/2/18, 8:01 AM
Henry said...: What if we just stopped filling SCOTUS vacancies, ever?

Who would be the last justice standing? Can you imagine a decade of Neil Gorsuch making every decision, himself?; 7/2/18, 8:03 AM
rehajm said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/2/18, 8:04 AM
rehajm said...: NYT wants us to believe the reason Trump got loans from Deutsche Bank was because he was friends with Justin? We work with DB on behalf of clients on a regular basis and it is definitely not that easy.

We would have made friends with Justin a long time ago.; 7/2/18, 8:06 AM
Temujin said...: Every time these people write something or say something, dozens of people in the US #walkaway.; 7/2/18, 8:10 AM
FIDO said...: This needs to be approached two ways.

1). DTJ said 'isn't it cool that my dad gets a SCOTUS pick' in some modern slang.

This shall not stand in John Oliver's world. So his actual witty (not funny) response is 'no, Donald Trump Jr. You are not allowed to be cool. Because you are a Trump. And no, I HATE he is getting a SCOTUS pick because I am a Democrat tool.'

This is the intellectual heft of the comment Madam Althouse is defending.

2). Since she knows in her heart that this is not particularly defensible, she sets the rules ridiculously.

To have any merit to your argument, peasants, your face off with the court poet needs to ALSO be in flawless iambic pentameter.

This is called 'stacking the deck'.

She can like it. But defending a comment an 8th grade Mean Girl would make is a bit ridiculous.; 7/2/18, 8:10 AM
CWJ said...: Shorter Althouse. Clown nose on.; 7/2/18, 8:13 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I think the Justin Kennedy accusation has already been debunked by a another lefty.; 7/2/18, 8:20 AM
Henry said...: This adds some interesting details to that story; 7/2/18, 8:28 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: Even when they are panicked and desperate, Schumer and the Dems are still dishonest.

The reason they want a vote on SCOTUS after the election is because 3 red-state Dems already voted for Gorsuch (Manchin, Heitkamp and Donnelly) and, facing re-election, these folks are likely to priovide yea votes again.

If the moderate fly-over Dems negate the votes of Collins & Murkowski to confirm a right-wing, Federal Society 5th vote to chip away at Roe, well, the Ny-Cal power-broker Dems will become highly agitato.

That's why pimping out the Red State Dem Senators is so fun! These fools need to appear Conservative and reasonable to their constituents during each election season.

Oh well. Timing is everything!; 7/2/18, 8:38 AM
Big Mike said...: John Oliver is a comedian

@Althouse, you sure about that? I saw a few minutes of his show a while ago and it seemed to consist of a lot of mugging for the camera to cue the laugh track.

Anyway, I thought the Biden Rule was that if one is a sufficiently senior administration official one can touch little girls inappropriately on camera, and no one will do anything about it, not even their fathers. Also parade around naked in front of female Secret Service agents.; 7/2/18, 8:39 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: “Who says this "Biden rule" has any force of law or custom? What difference does it make what Biden says about the matter?”

Of course. Either party will do what they want to do when they have the power to do so. But that doesn’t mean the Republicans can’t throw the Democrat’s bullshit reasoning back in the Democrat’s faces.; 7/2/18, 8:42 AM
Ann Althouse said...: There's a question of interpretation about what the "Biden rule" is. If anyone purports to have an interpretation of it that isn't result oriented... sorry, I don't believe you (other than that it's possible you're deceiving yourself).

It's very easy to argue that it should/shouldn't be limited to a presidential election year, and it's also easy to argue that in this monumental case of affecting the swing position on the Court that the people should get a chance to weigh in and the election is so close. It's also very easy to argue that someone should be on the Court when it starts its new term in October.

Sorry, I'm a complete realist on this issue.; 7/2/18, 8:49 AM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: Paco for the win

"If you tell lies about people, make sure you specify that you're doing so as comedy."; 7/2/18, 8:57 AM
Sebastian said...: "If anyone purports to have an interpretation of it that isn't result oriented... sorry, I don't believe you."

I think most of us here only purport to enjoy holding progs to their own purported rules, Alinsky-like, with the temporary result of exposing their BS for what it is. Of course, we are realists. Though I think it is possible to nail down Biden's original meaning.

But the fringe benefit is to give RINO pseudo-sticklers for rules some CYA ammo: Susan and Lisa and John, you can vote for Tony's replacement in good conscience, because really we're not violating the Biden rule or the Garland precedent. This is different. (Wink, wink.); 7/2/18, 8:57 AM
Birkel said...: Many great comedians make us laugh at a shared characteristic of the human experience by observing it from an interesting or unusual perspective. Others told stories and presented characters that were recognizable in our common experiences. We laughed as much with the jokes as we did at ourselves.

The 'clapter' offered by John Oliver is only funny if you agree. The audience is not laughing. They are clapping on cue. The shared experience on which the 'jokes' depend is hating Republicans and Trump in particular.; 7/2/18, 8:59 AM
Michael K said...: Blogger Paco Wové said...
If you tell lies about people, make sure you specify that you're doing so as comedy.

Yes, what would Bill Maher do otherwise ?

National Geographic channel?; 7/2/18, 9:00 AM
Fernandinande said...: FIDO said...
1). DTJ said ... in some modern slang.
This shall not stand in John Oliver's world.
So his actual witty (not funny)

Your response was far wittier, since it had an idea behind it; Oliver's was just repetitive "8th grade Mean Girl" sarcasm which meant nothing more than "I don't like this person".

This is the intellectual heft of the comment Madam Althouse is defending.

Judging by excerpts in this blog, she seems to enjoy authors who write trivia in the style of a chatty gossip columnist.; 7/2/18, 9:03 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: Ann Althouse at 8:49 AM
It's very easy to argue that it [the Biden Rule] should/shouldn't be limited to a presidential election year

I listened again to Senator Joe Biden himself explaining the Biden Rule in 1992.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlzhULrJC0

In that particular speech, he as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee indicated that he would not allow any hearings on a Supreme Court nomination during an election campaign.

Senator Biden did not say explicitly in this particular speech that the Biden Rule applied only to Presidential elections. However, Biden said in his speech that the Biden Rule is based on ...

the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed

In particular, Senator Biden specified President Fillmore and President Johnson as the two previous violators of the Biden Rule.

Did Fillmore and Johnson violate the Biden Rule by nominating a justice before a midterm election -- or before a PRESIDENTIAL election? We all know the answer without doing any research.

Also, before the year 2018, did Senator Biden ever try to apply the Biden Rule before any midterm election? We all know the answer.

In any case, John Oliver can invite Biden onto his talk show to clarify how Biden himself defines his own Biden Rule.; 7/2/18, 9:08 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: When Senator Biden declared his Biden Rule in the year 1992, that was a PRESIDENTIAL election year, not a midterm election year.

Anyone who thinks that Biden intended his Biden Rule to apply to midterm elections, should provide at least one example when Biden advocated applying the Biden Rule before a midterm election.

It's possible that Althouse is deceiving herself about the Biden Rule.; 7/2/18, 9:16 AM
Henry said...: Joe Biden said something once.

Woo hoo.; 7/2/18, 9:21 AM
Martin said...: Donald Jr. really goes a long way to explain why Ivanka is Dad's favorite.; 7/2/18, 9:27 AM
MayBee said...: People need to start trying to be better. The being worse thing isn't great for the self or the country.; 7/2/18, 9:29 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: 3 hours of Michelle Wolf would be much tougher than 3 hours of Kathy Griffin.; 7/2/18, 9:29 AM
MayBee said...: Oliver, who found something completely apt and very funny to say

You should have included the very funny thing in the post!; 7/2/18, 9:30 AM
Leland said...: Sorry, I'm a complete realist on this issue.

What? You mean we shouldn't be surprised, nor upset, when the other side uses all the rhetorical means available to them?

I know the GOP stood against the Biden Rule until it became advantages to adopt it. However, it is Biden's rule, and he's still around to explain his intent. It's probably not a good idea for the GOP to even entertain a debate on the subject of intent. Better to simply argue, the President has the right to appoint and the Senate the right to approve or not. If Democrats want to employ the Biden Rule, then they need to work hard for a majority.; 7/2/18, 9:37 AM
Michael K said...: Maybe Biden should run for the Senate again and, if he could get himself appointed chair of Judiciary, he could do the "Rule" again.

Otherwise, no.; 7/2/18, 9:40 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: I would downgrade the "Biden Rule" to the "Biden Suggestion".

And then I would politely decline the Biden Suggestion, and focus on the "Advise and Consent Rule" (Article 2, US Constitution), which in practical terms means the "51-Senator Rule" and then I would thank ex-Democrat Sen Majority leader Harry Reid for abolishing the "60-Senator Rule", known as the "filibuster" or "cloture". for lower court judges, and then thank Dems for trying and failing to filibuster Gorsuch, which prompted current Sen Majority Leader to abolish the filibuster for Supreme Court justice nominees, reverting back to the "Advise and Consent Rule".

Darn. There are a lotta rules.; 7/2/18, 9:44 AM
Ray - SoCal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/2/18, 9:45 AM
walter said...: Joke went "viral"..kinda explains why Wolf is such an angry beeyotch.; 7/2/18, 9:48 AM
MacMacConnell said...: MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle, who worked for eight years at Deutsche Bank before joining the news network, cautioned about reaching conclusions because there are multiple parts of the bank that "can easily get confused and lumped together."

"While I know and it has been well-reported, Deutsche was a massive lender to Mr. Trump, I want to put a new context," she said. "A lot of this comes from multiple sides of the bank, specifically the private bank, and that was not where Mr. Kennedy worked."; 7/2/18, 9:50 AM
Ray - SoCal said...: And Roseanne got defenestrated for what?

Talk of double standards - Michelle Wolf comments.

Interesting the Overton window on perceived racist vs sexist comments, and victim is Democrat vs Republican.; 7/2/18, 9:55 AM
Darrell said...: Funny would be John Oliver demonstrating how to disarm a hand grenade by removing the pin.; 7/2/18, 9:59 AM
walter said...: We, they can argue any which way. True.
Maybe we should adhere to actual rules, not sentiments.
If context IS allowed into the pointless arguing, give commensurate consideration to the fact that SCOTUS appointments were front and center in 2016 election.; 7/2/18, 10:00 AM
Rusty said...: "John Oliver is a comedian"

OK. That's funny.; 7/2/18, 10:07 AM
bgates said...: The demand that no criticism of a comedian be made unless it is funny (which I suggest we call The Althouse Rule) is the most anti-feminist thing she's ever written.; 7/2/18, 10:10 AM
rcocean said...: You'd think the Republicans would get upset over Comedy Central and ABC/NBC/CBS more or less acting as unpaid arms of the DNC.

Put of course, shits like McConnell and Ryan only care about the Greenbacks.

As long as the "Entertainment Industry" throws them a few shekels, they stay bought.; 7/2/18, 10:11 AM
rcocean said...: "John Oliver is a comedian"?

My thought exactly. And what's up with his weird accent?

And why should I care what some Limey/South african or whatever the fuck he is, thinks about America?; 7/2/18, 10:12 AM
bgates said...: Imagine a "rule" named for a Republican because it was invented by a Republican to secure political advantage for Republicans, that anyone would suggest ought to constrain the Democrats a generation later.; 7/2/18, 10:13 AM
rcocean said...: Funny would be John Oliver drowning in a vat of Dog Vomit.; 7/2/18, 10:13 AM
rcocean said...: Regarding Anthony Kennedy.

If you remember, according to the "Daily Beast" Deutch Bank was supposedly laundering Russian money to Trump, Which means that Anthony Kennedy's son was colluding with Russia. Which means Justice Kennedy was.

Which means Mueller will now be investigating Justice Kennedy.; 7/2/18, 10:17 AM
Freder Frederson said...: Though I think it is possible to nail down Biden's original meaning.

Calling it the "Biden Rule" is bullshit. His idle ramblings about whether or not a Supreme Court position should be filled during an election year did not result in holding a nomination.

McConnell, by refusing to provide advice and consent on Garland, shirked his constitutional duty. He also left a bunch of lower court positions open which has allowed Trump to have an inordinate influence on the federal courts.

It is nothing like a naked power grab. The Republicans know that they are a minority party (two presidential elections in the last five have been won by the popular vote winner, Democrats in both the Senate and House where the Republicans hold majorities, received more votes than Republicans) and the demographics are against them. They are doing everything they can to ensure that the will of the majority is thwarted before they die off from old age.; 7/2/18, 10:37 AM
Freder Frederson said...: ABC/NBC/CBS more or less acting as unpaid arms of the DNC.

If they are, they are doing a pretty shitty job of it. Look at the Sunday morning shows, a lot more Republicans appear on them than Democrats. It's not Chuck Todd's fault if they lie during their appearances. He doesn't even call them out on their lies.; 7/2/18, 10:40 AM
FullMoon said...: Don Jr.'s comment was beyond groovy, it was far out. Far-Fucking_out Man!; 7/2/18, 10:46 AM
Birkel said...: Freder Frederson,

I think you will find that McConnell provided his advice. And the advice was that Garland would never be a Supreme Court Justice. Glad I could clear up your confusion.

As for consent, it was withheld.

Also, Hillary will never be president.; 7/2/18, 10:47 AM
FIDO said...: John Oliver's response was talented. It struck hard, which Mistress Althouse clearly liked.

But he is a professional entertainer. And he has a dozen people to help him write these things.

This takes a bit of the bloom off that rose.

So yes, it was witty. It was still just an assertion of 'I don't like you and won't allow you to be cool.'

In Short, John Oliver is a bitch.; 7/2/18, 10:52 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "Calling it the "Biden Rule" is bullshit."

-- Well, "The Rule Laid Out by Senator Biden When He Was In Charge" is a lot clunkier.

Sorry. Rules aren't selectively applied.; 7/2/18, 10:54 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: Freder Frederson at 10:37 AM
His idle ramblings about whether or not a Supreme Court position should be filled during an election year did not result in holding a nomination

You can watch a video of Senator Biden declaring his Biden Rule in the Senate in 1992.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlzhULrJC0

When Senator Biden declared his Biden Rule, he was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In his declaration, he indicated that he would not allow his Committee to conduct hearings about a nominee until after the November 1992 election.

I would not describe Biden's declaration of his Biden Rule as "idle ramblings".; 7/2/18, 10:54 AM
Freder Frederson said...: I think you will find that McConnell provided his advice. And the advice was that Garland would never be a Supreme Court Justice. Glad I could clear up your confusion.

McConnell is not the Senate, he is 1/100th of it. His individual advice is meaningless.

And that was not his advice anyway. His advice was that we should wait to see who was elected president before the Senate would give its advice and consent. For all you originalists, show me where that is in the Constitution.

And if you believe that he would have applied this new found rule if there were a Republican president, then you are just insane.; 7/2/18, 10:55 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: Calling it the "Biden Rule" is bullshit.

What's a better name for the Biden Rule?; 7/2/18, 10:57 AM
Freder Frederson said...: I would not describe Biden's declaration of his Biden Rule as "idle ramblings".

And who was the nominee who was held up? It slips my mind.; 7/2/18, 10:57 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Also, The Biden Rule was specifically stated BEFORE there was a vacancy to be used as a pre-emptive defense if one opened up. Because Democrats do that frequently; create a rule or precedent before it matters and then only hold the other side to it, knowing they'll never be expected to follow their own guidelines.

Well. Too bad. They suggested a rule, and McConnell said: "I like that rule, actually, and here's a time it is in play, so, well, let's use it. No take backs."

Yeah. The Senate rules are about as serious as playground marbles, but, hey, that's why you don't make rules you don't want to have to follow when it will be inconvenient for your team.; 7/2/18, 10:57 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "For all you originalists, show me where that is in the Constitution."

-- The Senate can withhold consent for any reason or no reason at all.; 7/2/18, 10:58 AM
Freder Frederson said...: What's a better name for the Biden Rule?

If I thought that McConnell has any intention of following his "rule" in the future with a Republican president, I would call it the McConnell Rule. But I bet that if there is an opening in 2020, the "rule" will be ignored.

Bookmark this post so I can say I told you so.; 7/2/18, 11:00 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: And who was the nominee who was held up?

After you tell me that you have watched the video of Senator Biden declaring his Biden Rule in the Senate in 1992, then I will tell you the nominee's name.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlzhULrJC0; 7/2/18, 11:01 AM
Gahrie said...: There is a long history of the Senate not acting on Supreme Court nominations.

The 44 failed nominations:

7 nominees declined. (one of them continued to serve as an Associate Justice, one had formerly served as chief Justice) The last time a nominee declined was in 1882.

11 nominees were withdrawn. ( two were later renominated and served, one was later renominated and didn't serve, one withdrew from Chief Justice, but continued to serve as an Associate Justice)

11 nominees were rejected by the Senate. (one served a single term as a recess appointment, one was later renominated)

3 nominees were postponed. (one was later renominated and served, one was later renominated and didn't serve)

The Senate took no action on 12 nominees. (two were later renominated and didn't serve, three were later renominated and served)

I wrote a long post about this back in 2007 where I looked in detail at all the failed nominations up to Miers.

https://gahrie.blogspot.com/2007/07/us-supreme-court-nominations.html; 7/2/18, 11:01 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "And who was the nominee who was held up? It slips my mind."

-- None, but if one of the justices had retired, you bet Biden would have insisted on following it then.; 7/2/18, 11:01 AM
Freder Frederson said...: The Senate can withhold consent for any reason or no reason at all.

This is true, but they didn't withhold consent, they didn't provide advice and consent at all. McConnell knew that if the hearings had been held, consent would have been granted.; 7/2/18, 11:01 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "This is true, but they didn't withhold consent, they didn't provide advice and consent at all."

-- If someone doesn't call you back about a job interview, learn to read between the lines about whether they want to hire you.; 7/2/18, 11:02 AM
Freder Frederson said...: you bet Biden would have insisted on following it then.

Betting on something that didn't happen is ridiculous.; 7/2/18, 11:02 AM
Freder Frederson said...: If someone doesn't call you back about a job interview, learn to read between the lines about whether they want to hire you.

If the full senate had been given the opportunity, Garland would have be on the Supreme Court today. Can't you get that through your thick skull?; 7/2/18, 11:04 AM
Matt Sablan said...: So, we're at the point where the Biden Rule is upsetting you because Biden's attempt at defense screwed over the wrong team.

Biden decided: "Hey, let's all play by this rule, because it could be to my team's benefit over the next few months if something happens?" The left then collectively gave a sigh of relief when no one retired and Clinton got elected.

Then, years later, McConnell realizes that rule everyone's been following finally applies to a live situation and says: "Oh, hey, remember that rule you wanted us to follow? Yeah. We're still following it. Sorry it bit you in the ass, not us."

Look, it isn't the right's fault Biden, as per normal, didn't think his rule through.; 7/2/18, 11:05 AM
wwww said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/2/18, 11:05 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "If the full senate had been given the opportunity, Garland would have be on the Supreme Court today. Can't you get that through your thick skull?"

-- "Betting on something that didn't happen is ridiculous."; 7/2/18, 11:05 AM
Gahrie said...: So..what happened to Garland has happened in more than 25% of failed nominations to the Supreme Court..it wasn't unusual at all.; 7/2/18, 11:06 AM
SeanF said...: Robert Cook: Who says this "Biden rule" has any force of law or custom?

John Oliver does. Actually, he's saying that his own little made-up "Biden rule" has the force of custom. Don't you find that objectionable?; 7/2/18, 11:08 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: If the full senate had been given the opportunity,

When Senator Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, declared his Biden Rule in the Senate in 1992, he indicated that he would not allow his Committee to conduct any hearings about a nominee until after the November 1992 election.

Watch the video of Biden's declaration of his Biden Rule and see for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlzhULrJC0; 7/2/18, 11:10 AM
wwww said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/2/18, 11:11 AM
walter said...: ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:

You know, for me, I'm a fighter. You know, I'm always one for a fight, especially when we see what the GOP has done. I feel like they're kind of gaslighting the country, where when they want to fight, when they want to bend and break the rules and stretch the Constitution to its limits, they'll do it. But when they're on the other side of the table, it's, ‘Whoa, decorum.’ Let’s, you know, let’s --

CHUCK TODD:

So do you want Democrats to borrow some of those tactics? I mean, because that's the tricky game here, right?

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:

Yeah. Yeah.

CHUCK TODD:

Which is, you know, do two wrongs make a right?

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:

And I do see the point that you're making, like, the consistency point. And I think from my point of view, I kind of look at it more like soccer. You know, what are our positions right now? And this Supreme Court seat is extremely serious. We have a president -- there is a federal investigation going on with direct implications to the presidency. And that presidency is talking about nominating a Supreme Court pick that is going to essentially hear this case out. This is a very unusual time in this country. When is the last time that a president has been in this position?

CHUCK TODD:

So what do you want Senate Democrats to do that you didn't hear from Senator Cantwell this morning?

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:

So I would like the Senate to delay, absolutely. We need to delay until after the midterm elections. That's my personal opinion. And I think that, at the very least, if we are going to -- if this appointment is going to happen, the very least we can do is delay the timeline in which women's health care is going to be taken away, delay the timeline in which our civil rights could potentially be further eroded.; 7/2/18, 11:14 AM
wwww said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/2/18, 11:14 AM
Birkel said...: wwww,

You win the non sequitur prize.
Good work.; 7/2/18, 11:18 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
there is a federal investigation going on with direct implications to the presidency. And that presidency is talking about nominating a Supreme Court pick that is going to essentially hear this case out. This is a very unusual time in this country. When is the last time that a president has been in this position?

Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller might continue his bogus "investigation" through all eight years of the Trump Presidency.

Has Mueller said publicly that Trump is being investigated? No.

One thing is known for sure. Mueller indeed has investigated George Papadopoulos for misstating the facts about when he met Josef Mifsud and about what Mifsud told him about Vladimir Putin's so-called "niece". Mueller has concluded that part of his investigation, without any doubt.; 7/2/18, 11:26 AM
walter said...: "a Supreme Court pick that is going to essentially hear this case out."
How does she arrive at that?; 7/2/18, 11:30 AM
Michael K said...: Democratic Senates have routinely affirmed Republican SCOTUS pics.

Robert Bork could not be reached for comment.

Neither could Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown be reached to comment on the filibusters that kept them from being considered for the first Latino and first black woman for the Court.

www up your game.; 7/2/18, 11:34 AM
Roughcoat said...: This is what I learned from Democrats: in American politics, when you have the power to further your agenda, use it.

The hell with the Biden Rule. The hell with niceties. Ram conservative SCOTUS nominees through now, while we have the power.; 7/2/18, 11:34 AM
MacMacConnell said...: I agree with wwww the SCOTUS situation is pure power politics by McConnell and well played. There is no Bidden Rule or McConnell Rule, it's fantasy. Democrats are unhinged because republicans don't give a shit anymore about what the discredited media says.; 7/2/18, 11:37 AM
BJM said...: Dear media/Dems,

Carry on. I am not tired of winning.; 7/2/18, 11:41 AM
Gahrie said...: It was unusual and new. Democratic Senates have routinely affirmed Republican SCOTUS pics.

Really?

Tell that to Bork and Thomas.; 7/2/18, 11:41 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: The Biden Rule is a good rule. I'm happy that it enjoys the bi-partisan support of Biden himself and of Senator Mitch McConnell.

It's my understanding that Biden intended his Biden Rule to be applied only during the year before a Presidential election.

However, if Biden actually intended his Biden Rule to be applied also during the year before a midterm election, then he should clarify that intention publicly.

Biden could make this clarification in an appearance on John Oliver's television show. On such an occasion, Biden could explain the historical precedents and political justification for his Biden Rule.; 7/2/18, 11:44 AM
Fabi said...: "This is true, but they didn't withhold consent, they didn't provide advice and consent at all. McConnell knew that if the hearings had been held, consent would have been granted."

I would be embarrassed to type something that fucking stupid onto the Internet. Lulz; 7/2/18, 11:46 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "I agree with wwww the SCOTUS situation is pure power politics by McConnell and well played. There is no Bidden Rule or McConnell Rule, it's fantasy. Democrats are unhinged because republicans don't give a shit anymore about what the discredited media says."

-- There shouldn't be a Biden Rule. But, alas, they made one. You don't get to make a rule, then say, "Eh... never mind," when your own rule bites you in the ass.

If they want to revisit said rule, well, ok. But, no sour grapes.; 7/2/18, 11:52 AM
wwww said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/2/18, 11:57 AM
Yancey Ward said...: "Rules" like the Biden "Rule" aren't really rules or even customs. They are convenient arguments for doing what those with the power to do they want and can do. So, Biden and the Democrats didn't have to give H. W. Bush a SCOTUS confirmation if it had come up (not tested in 92 anyway). This same argument was used successfully by McConnell and the Republicans in 2016. However, this argument is worthless to the Democrats this year since they don't have to power to actually implement it.; 7/2/18, 11:58 AM
Michael K said...: "McConnell changed the practice. Now it's pure power politics"

Are you really so dumb that you don't know that Harry Reid changed everything ?; 7/2/18, 11:59 AM
Matt Sablan said...: I wouldn't say he changed the practice; McConnell decided to adhere to Biden's rule, being the first time it had been tested.

Again: Republicans aren't to blame when a Democrat makes a stupid rule that bites the Democrats in the ass instead of Republicans.; 7/2/18, 12:01 PM
Birkel said...: Democrats controlled the Senate from the days of FDR until 1981. Senate control has regularly shifted since then.

So, sure, Democrats often confirmed Supreme Court nominees made by elected Republicans between 1932 and 1980. And we got wobbly Justices from Eisenhower and Nixon.

Earl Warren (liberal) from Eisenhower.
William Brennan (liberal) from Eisenhower.
Whitaker (swing vote and mental breakdown) from Eisenhower.
Potter Stewart (moderate) from Eisenhower.
Burger (squish) from Nixon.
Blackmun (liberal) from Nixon.
Powell, Jr (swing voter) from Nixon.

IOW, of course Democrats gave Republican presidents appointments of squishy, left-leaning Republican nominees.

Why the hell wouldn't they?

Eisenhower had five nominations and gave us the Warren and Burger Courts. With Republicans like that, who needs liberals?; 7/2/18, 12:01 PM
Fabi said...: "Future Senates will not hold votes for future Presidential SCOTUS Unless and Until they are of the same party as the President."

That's going to suck for your side for the foreseeable future. Lulz; 7/2/18, 12:02 PM
wwww said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/2/18, 12:03 PM
Fabi said...: wwww is unable to discern between an action and a reaction. Lulz; 7/2/18, 12:07 PM
Gahrie said...: This is the new practice.

No..it's not...it's been happening for years.

What do I mean by pure power? I mean if the Senate can block a vote they will.

The Democrats filibustered Gorsuch. The Democrats tried to filibuster Alito. The Democrats tried to lynch Thomas. Bork was savaged. The last 4 rejected nominations were all Republican nominations rejected by Democrats.; 7/2/18, 12:10 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "So did McConnell. Are you so dumb you can't see his strategic genius?"

-- Being able to do what you want, because your opponents demanded it be done that way?

Eh, it's kind of like a Saturday morning cartoon denouement where the good guys win because of the bad guys' "exact words," so I wouldn't really call it "genius."; 7/2/18, 12:10 PM
Birkel said...: wwww isn't stupid, just blinkered.
The arguments are made in good faith but are willfully ignorant of history.
Look at my list of seven Justices that did the Leviathan State's dirty work.

Do you even realistic?; 7/2/18, 12:11 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "The last 4 rejected nominations were all Republican nominations rejected by Democrats."

-- And that's ignoring lower court positions, like Estrada, that they rejected solely to protect form having to reject a nomination at the Supreme level.

Playing games with the Supreme Court is a time honored tradition.; 7/2/18, 12:11 PM
wwww said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/2/18, 12:12 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Being constrained by rules you agreed to but didn't foresee the consequences of has a very Gothic or even Merchant of Venice-y feel to it.; 7/2/18, 12:15 PM
wwww said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/2/18, 12:20 PM
Michael K said...: So did McConnell. Are you so dumb you can't see his strategic genius?

Projection is not nice. McConnell has been clumsy and not very helpful to the president thus far,

Tp you that is "genius" and I understand that. You seem to still not understand the reality of Reid's mistake in ending the filibuster to help Obama pack the DC Circuit.

Oh well, the left learns by bad experience but it is usually the wrong lesson.

Mexico, for example.; 7/2/18, 12:21 PM
wwww said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/2/18, 12:30 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "I'm stating that McConnell's strategy worked. Because it worked for McConnell, future Senate majority leaders will do the same."

-- He did nothing new; that's where your analysis is falling apart.; 7/2/18, 12:30 PM
Birkel said...: There has not been a substantive change by McConnell compared to what happened since a Republican was elected in 1952 (after a 24 year absence). Power politics was always the position.

Democrats extracted Leftist Justices from the Republican presidents whenever they could. Democrats blocked nominees whenever they could.

Republicans act the same as Democrats and Leftists like wwww pretend that all those choices by Democrats were somehow above power politics. And that is bull shit.; 7/2/18, 12:36 PM
wwww said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/2/18, 12:37 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "My point is that future SCOTUS pics will need the President and Senate Majority Leader to be of the same party."

-- Why do you think this, when nothing changed?; 7/2/18, 12:41 PM
wwww said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/2/18, 12:41 PM
Trumpit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/2/18, 12:42 PM
Yancey Ward said...: What McConnell did, wwww, really isn't new as far as judges are concerned. What was novel was that it finally worked its way up the the SCOTUS level. Appeals court level nominees have been held hostage for over a decade now by first filibusters then doing exactly what McConnell did against Garland- just refusing to have a hearing.

Yes, it will eventually become the case that a president and a senate of differing parties will likely not be able to agree on a nominee. I also think it entirely possible that 50 years from now the Supreme Court will have 25+ members as one party then the other packs it.; 7/2/18, 12:46 PM
rcocean said...: It'd be nice if Congress had unofficial rules/traditions that everyone followed because it was fair, or common sense, or good for the country.

But the Democrats have made it clear, they will play by the rules ONLY if the rules benefit them. When it looks like "playing by the rules" will hurt them too much, then they suddenly decide that "SITUATION X If too important to follow Tradition X or Rule Y.'

Of course, they REALLY believe in "the rules" - when it helps them.

For example, the so-called Biden rule, whereby the opposition party doesn't allow a SCOTUS nomination to be confirmed in the year of a POTUS election, makes sense. LBJ for example, tried to ram through a replacement for Warren before the '68 election, and he was stopped (By the D's though).

Given these appointments are for 20-30 years, why not wait a couple months and have the people decide which Presidential candidate should fill the slot?

But then, in the real world, what does this kind of analysis mean? Nothing. The D's will abide by the "Biden Rule" when it helps them, and trash it when it doesn't. So why even talk about it, or have it? Its all BS.; 7/2/18, 1:05 PM
Michael K said...: My point is that future SCOTUS pics will need the President and Senate Majority Leader to be of the same party

I do agree about that, at least until a sane party is organized to replace the Democrats which are destroying themselves.

THis article in Slate, for example, shows the suicide impulse.

The capitulation of two branches of government to a terrifying third, elected by a minority, is not how our government was envisioned. That is frightening. It is also, depending on the America you want to live in, painful.

They don't understand the electoral college.

I tend to agree with this.

All of us have moments of self-sabotage, but what we are witnessing with the Democratic Party now is a massive expression of this, approaching self-destruction. Trump hatred has released something far deeper than anger at one person. The rage is projected outward at a supposedly unjust country, but also equally at themselves, mocking or inverting everything they previously stood for. The party, as Eddie Scarry writes in the Washington Examiner, is in deep crisis. Who knows what will come out the other end or if it will?

At this point, they don't know what they want, only what they want to destroy.

I think the Democrats are about to get the way of the Whigs.

The Whigs could not deal with abolition as they were divided geographically.

The 1860 Democrats had two nominees for the presidency in 1860. Lincoln was elected by a minority.

In 10 years, I think there will be a small Socialist Party and another successor party to the Democrats. Maybe they will become Libertarians.

I just don't know.

Maybe the Republicans will split into a globalist and an American party.; 7/2/18, 1:08 PM
Jim at said...: The Republicans know that they are a minority party - Freder frothing at the mouth

Might want to take a look at the color-coded map of the last election, champ.
Oh, and another gander at the make-up of state Legislatures and gubernatorial offices.; 7/2/18, 1:15 PM
Trumpit said...: My Dear Justice Kennedy,

I remember President Kennedy, and you're no Jack Kennedy. I've seen you "call 'em as you see 'em" and you're no Leo Durocher either. But you took to heart his famous, "How you play the game is for college ball. When you're playing for money, winning is the only thing that matters." There's a water park in Guantanamo, Cuba where you can vacation in your retirement. Their most fun ride is called the Water Board. I haven't tried it myself, but I heard good things about it. Just in case, did you and your son, Justin, collude with Deutsch Bank to illegally help Trump acquire illicit funding to support his junk food habit including his penchant for Diet Coke, and the "most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you've ever seen" ? I thought you'd say no. We must get to the bottom of this German-chocolate-cake scandal that makes Watergate look like the circus that was the Clarence Thomas hearings. Clarence Thomas has a penchant for saying, "Who put this pubic hair on my Coke can?" He did say to me personally that vanilla cake is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who prefer chocolate fudge.; 7/2/18, 1:17 PM
Jim at said...: The hell with the Biden Rule. The hell with niceties. Ram conservative SCOTUS nominees through now, while we have the power.

Exactly.

If they don't like it? Win more elections. Apparently, they have consequences.; 7/2/18, 1:25 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: www at 12:30 PM
These are my 2 points: .... 2) Future SCOTUS picks will require the Senate Majority Leader to be the same party as the President. Won't get a vote, otherwise.

No.

In the future, the Senate will follow the Biden Rule, which is a good rule.

During the year before a Presidential election, the Senate will not conduct any hearings to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

That is the Biden Rule, established by Senator Joe Biden and confirmed by Senator Mitch McConnell.; 7/2/18, 1:37 PM
Jim at said...: And I just love how people like Freder are still bitching about the Biden Rule.

As if we all just knew Hillary was going to lose.; 7/2/18, 1:37 PM
MayBee said...: Would people rather have the "Biden Rule" or the "Bork Rule"? Would Merrick Garland rather not be voted on, or would he rather have been destroyed for no reason?; 7/2/18, 1:44 PM
Michael K said...: More trumpit insanity.

Oh well, blogs have to have trolls, I guess.; 7/2/18, 1:49 PM
Trumpit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/2/18, 2:08 PM
Darrell said...: Trumpit,

KYA; 7/2/18, 2:33 PM
Bilwick said...: John Oliver will always be unhappy until he and his fellow State-shtuppers turn the US into Venezuela del Norte. You know, because Venezuela del Sud worked out so well.; 7/2/18, 3:25 PM
cubanbob said...: 1-John Oliver: the only thing funny about him is his face. Its a face that makes one want to punch it on sight.
2-Freder here is a clue: the Senate isn't changing control in November. No point is wasting time now. Please ponder why the Democrats lost the Congress in 2010 and have yet to regain it.
3-Trumpit: please seek medical help immediately.; 7/2/18, 4:19 PM
Michael K said...: 3-Trumpit: please seek medical help immediately.

I just hope we don't hear about him on the 6 o'clock news.

The Senate is safe but the House could see some D gains. I don't think enough to flip it but don't get cocky.

It will require that they stop acting crazy, like trumpit.

Can they?; 7/2/18, 7:30 PM
veni vidi vici said...: These headlines demonstrate starkly how the media left has committed the cardinal sin:

They've become painfully boring.; 7/5/18, 2:31 PM