July 8, 2018

"After more than a week of pitched speculation, Trump will go on prime-time television to reveal his choice to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy..."

"... selecting a conservative designed to rally Republican voters in a midterm election year. And with that, the optics-obsessed president will be in his comfort zone — taking center stage in a massive show.... 'Everything Trump does gets more sensational than with past presidents,' said Jeffrey McCaul, a communications professor at DePauw University. 'I'm sure he's hoping for a huge prime-time audience, and he'll probably get it.'"

That's how the Boston Herald puts it.

And Ross Douthat in the NYT has "The Supreme Court Show":
First, in the traditional establishment-front-runner role, you have the eminently qualified Brett Kavanaugh, darling of the legal-conservative community, bearing an Ivy League C.V., a long record of rigorous opinions and decades of Republican experience....

Then in the role of the social conservative insurgent, you have Amy Coney Barrett — newly appointed to the federal bench, famous for having her Catholic commitments crudely criticized by Dianne Feinstein, personally appealing because she’s managed to produce impressive legal scholarship while raising seven children (two adopted, one with special needs)....

Third, in the role of the populist dark horse, you have Raymond Kethledge — a hunting-and-fishing Michigander, a handsome central-casting judge who worked his way through law school and co-wrote a self-help book, a proud outside-the-Beltway type who apparently has the charm required to ace an interview with the president....
Here at Meadhouse, we think it will be Amy Coney Barrett. As Meade just said, "My thought is he's going to make the Democrats vote against the lady." And I said, "The men are too old. They're in their 50s. They're over the hill." Amy Coney Barrett is 46 (and Trump said he pictured the new Justice serving for 40 or more years).

From Douthat:
So who has the edge? A week ago I would have suggested Barrett, since we know she can survive a hostile Senate grilling and the politics of her appointment seem ideal for a White House that could use a liberal freakout over her fecundity and faith to encourage religious conservatives to show up for the 2018 polls.

But her interview with Trump apparently went quite badly...
I read that out loud and Meade said, "Oh, that's a smokescreen."

Douthat says, "I’m not exactly shocked that the Catholic mother-of-seven and the president didn’t hit it off." I wonder if Douthat can picture Trump "hitting it off" with any woman (short of a porn star).

ADDED: Kethledge has written a book on solitude, and he's said:
I talked [with my co-author Michael Erwin] about my barn office in northern Michigan, in a forested area overlooking Lake Huron. I have no internet connection, the HVAC is a wood stove, and my workspace is a simple pine desk. I told Mike that I get an extra 20 IQ points from being in that office.... After that conversation, we decided to try to write a book about the importance of solitude.
Much as I love the topic of solitude — click my solitude tag — this business about the disconnected barn in the north gives off a Souteresque vibe, and I believe the motto is "No more Souters."

162 comments:

rhhardin said...

Prime time is good. They won't interrupt the Limbaugh show like they do for everything these days. Hostile local affiliate news director.

Not that I'm lingering on Rush's every word but the house tradition is to produce a HD recording for the archive and I have to flail around to fix interruptions.

Sharc 65 said...

"[T]he optics-obsessed president will be in his comfort zone"

Compared to whom? Trump is no more optics-obsessed than most of his predecessors, certainly the ones in recent memory. He's just much better at it.

YoungHegelian said...

Trump will go on prime time television...And with that, the optics-obsessed president will be in his comfort zone — taking center stage in a massive show...

I do so hope that it involves the Rockettes, 'cause that would give it a bigly NYC flavor & would be truly memorable television.

rhhardin said...

I'd be against a social conservative. It's just the same problem with a different political preference.

Sebastian said...

"After more than a week of pitched speculation, Trump will go on prime-time television . . . the optics-obsessed president will be in his comfort zone — taking center stage in a massive show.... 'Everything Trump does gets more sensational than with past presidents''."

Missing the political point, two points actually: Trump will use the "show" to build support, making it harder for "moderate" Dems to vote no, and he's fighting back against prog end-of-the-world outrage, jiu-jitsuing them into beclowning themselves.

MikeR said...

You're hired! You're fired!

Bill Peschel said...

We'll find out if Orrin Hatch really did spill the beans by referring to the nominated justice in an op-ed as "her."

tim in vermont said...

Oh, the press will have no problem raking her over the coals, viz: Sarah Palin.

Hagar said...

I don't think Trump is the one most "obsessed" here.

gilbar said...

everything Trump does gets more sensational than with past presidents,' said Jeffrey McCaul,
I was going to say, remember back when Trump set out those Greek Columns and told the world that the Oceans would stop their rise; but now that I think about it, The Radio City Rockettes would be SO COOL!!!


If he picks the lady, will he remind the Dems, "That there is a Special Place In HELL"?

tim in vermont said...

Mickey Kaus is freaking out over Kethledge

http://www.kausfiles.com

BamaBadgOR said...

i agree with Meade. Has he ever been wrong?

Paco Wové said...

"taking center stage in a massive show..."

I'm envisioning some World Wrestling Federation-tinged spectacle – each contender comes out one at at time, wearing a dazzling colored robe, and mounts a separate, spotlighted podium, while their cheering partisans go wild. Then Trump enters, descending via a jetpack - no, maybe a replica of his Oval Office desk, lowered by a massive crane - and after a rambling, discursive oration, filled with feints and psych-outs, he reveals his pick! The stage erupts in fireworks and smoke! Thank you, America! You're the greatest! Thank you! Konnichiwa, bitchez!

Browndog said...

I've been hearing that Trump wants to save the woman (Barrett) to replace that other woman (Ginsburg), because that's how superficial, petty, and unserious this country has become.

rehajm said...

Lefties would have no problem with dehumanizing the lady much less vote against her. How would it hurt them when they did? seems like a miscalculation if that’s Trump’s plan.

He might still nominate her since she’s the youngun.

Narayanan said...

Before the Big Reveal the Supremes in robes should do a Supremes song of their choice in harmony or cacophony .... will be Much more enjoyable than Rockettes ... shockingly yuge.

Bob Boyd said...

I thought from the start it was likely he'd pick a woman.
But it would be typical Trump if he announced someone the press isn't even paying attention to, like Hardiman.

Michael K said...

you have Raymond Kethledge — a hunting-and-fishing Michigander,

Reminds me a bit of John D Voelker, who as "Robert Traver" wrote "Anatomy of a Murder and an excellent book on trout fishing.

Anatomy of a Murder is based on a real murder (and subsequent trial) that occurred in Big Bay in the early morning of July 31, 1952. Coleman A. Peterson, a lieutenant in the Army, was charged with murdering Maurice Chenoweth. The alleged motive was revenge for the rape of Peterson's wife by Chenoweth. Voelker successfully defended Peterson, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

During the making of the movie from the book, he became a close friend of Joseph N Welch who played the judge in the trial.

He was appointed of the Michigan Supreme Court but resigned to spend his time fishing after the book and movie made him rich.

I talked [with my co-author Michael Erwin] about my barn office in northern Michigan, in a forested area overlooking Lake Huron.

Kethledge also shares this trait with Seymour Cray who moved his company to rural Wisconsin to get away from distraction.

Cray avoided publicity, and there are a number of unusual tales about his life away from work (termed "Rollwagenisms", from then-CEO of Cray Research, John A. Rollwagen). He enjoyed skiing, windsurfing, tennis, and other sports. Another favorite pastime was digging a tunnel under his home; he attributed the secret of his success to "visits by elves" while he worked in the tunnel: "While I'm digging in the tunnel, the elves will often come to me with solutions to my problem."

Probably not many remember anymore that he was the genius who invented supercomputers.

tim in vermont said...

The big problem with a “reveal” is that it keeps political allies from vetting the pick. People who support Trump have their opinions, and by making the pick himself with no input, that is sort of arrogant.

rhhardin said...

You want to save the woman for replacing RBG, so we can argue that all we're doing is replacing a woman with a nicer looking one.

rhhardin said...

It's like rich guy marriages.

Narayanan said...

To me Trump is Ayn Randian hero ... I have always wondered how John Galt would take over the airwaves of America ... Trump is showing how. Thanks Donald J Trump.

tcrosse said...

Somewhere there's a painting of RBG where she looks even worse.

tim in vermont said...

Maybe it is time to go fishing. But I don’t expect to get anything from it like a brilliant idea, just maybe some fun with a lake trout, or if I am unusually lucky, an Atlantic Salmon, and dinner.

Ken B said...

I am hoping for Thapar. Humiliate the press, make the Dems vote him down.

Carol said...

Mickey Kaus is freaking out over Kethledge

In his remote barn office, Kethledge probably does't have a problem with immigration.

What, me worry?

Michael K said...


Blogger Narayanan Subramanian said...
To me Trump is Ayn Randian hero ... I have always wondered how John Galt would take over the airwaves of America ... Trump is showing how. Thanks Donald J Trump.


I agree. The only non-Libertarian feature is the border issue. I am not a "Big L" Libertatian because of the immigration issue.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The Trump Supreme Court Show!! Hell YEAH! we are tuning in. Get the popcorn ready y'all.

Wouldn't it be something amazing if all this persistent yaking and speculation based on what the media and pundits think are his top picks turns out to be wrong?

What if he nominates Amul Thapar instead? Heads would be exploding. Pre-prepared talking points by the Democrats will be blown to smithereens. Instead of sticking to expectations of the media and everyone else.....Trump pulls a big "SURPRISE!!!". (hear that in Gomer Pyle's voice)

So, if Amul Thapar, how would the Dems spin this as racist without looking racist themselves. Incompetent Indian. Oh wait. Um... um... uhhh. Anti woman! How dare he not nominate Amy, who we all hated just a few minutes ago.

The most entertaining President evah!

Narayanan said...

I think of Senate Confirmation as second and final round of interview process ... Hope Trump had the Gump-tion to ask his candidates how they viewed their chances and explored with them their navigating skills.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

But her interview with Trump apparently went quite badly...

How would he know? I want to know.

Narayanan said...

I am all for open borders when we have gold standard and no UN in NYC.

Trump presidency may lead to both if he gets his terms in temporal and political dimensions.

Narayanan said...

Are enough people woke to the Philosophy for living on Earth??!!

TerriW said...

When he announces, will he then have him/her come up on stage? If so, would the entire list be invited so as not to spoil the surprise?

Could they have an Oscars style split screen so you can see all their faces when the announcement is made?. Does the person he chose already know they have been chosen?

So much reality show drama to bring wrung from this. Rhhardin wept.

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

If so, would the entire list be invited so as not to spoil the surprise?

I’m picturing draft day- have the candidates, their familes and various hangers seated around tables in the green room.

The Apprentice-style, with Trump on the opposite side or the boardroom table...is so over.

The Price is Right-style would be glorious!

Lucien said...

Maybe Lebron can co-host.

Trumpit said...

Trump hates. Trump hates the Pope, Jews, Blacks, Mexicans & Catholics. And he views females, including his own daughter, Ivanka, as being put on Earth to meet his/men's sexual needs - "If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, I'd be dating her." He won't pick that beady-eyed, squeaky-voiced proud pro-lifer bathed in Catholic dogma. My karma ran over your dogma.

I pray that he doesn't pick Raymond Kethledge — "a hunting-and-fishing Michigander." More death and destruction of wildlife by the hands of man, we don't need. Remember, the old school old scold Scalia died in the obscene act of hunting. He was found dead with his pants down, the pervert. He was killed by an unconscionable plugging of a deer and a gay. His miserableness came back to bite him in the ass. Whoever Trump picks will face the same backlash. I hope it hurts him real bad in the butt, too, so he walks crooked for the rest of his miserable life.

Chuck said...


Blogger Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
“But her interview with Trump apparently went quite badly...”

How would he know? I want to know.

I read this comment (with the included quoted comment), and my first thought was that the “he” in “How would he know?” was Trump.


So I am one of those Republicans who think this is a great list of 3 or 4 prospective nominees. I wish that everyone would recall that this list would have been seen as impossibly far to the right in any prior Republican presidency. Not because Republicans at that time didn’t want conservatives in the federal judiciary; rather, because we still had the Senate filibuster and other related rules on “advise and consent” and confirmations. The rules have changed so profoundly it has changed not just the numerical calculations on confirmations; it changed the very nature of who may now be nominated in that environment.

Any one of the four names now in the mix would have been seen as a summertime Christmas gift in years past. And really, the Democrats who voted to change the rules for Obama’s DC Circuit Court-packing should be choking on the whole process.

That’s not a Trump position; back in 2013, Donald Trump was worried about where Obama’s birth certificate was. It was Mitch McConnell who was on the floor of the Senate telling the Democrats that they would regret that vote someday and he was right.

Ralph L said...

Clarence T got 52 votes, so the filibuster didn't work against him.

David Begley said...

It will be Thomas Hardiman.

Narayanan said...

Start of limerick ... To protest Amy ... Offered freely , no attribution needed.

Amy Coney wore no hat ...
on her twat

Wince said...

Time to close the barn door before Kethledge gets out?

Narayanan said...

Boomerang torpedo protest that is.

David Begley said...

Hardiman is married to a Democrat and she is from a family of prominent Dems. He drove cabs. Catholic. He volunteered at a legal aid clinic at Georgetown helping immigrants. Regular guy from Pittsburgh.

FullMoon said...

Who ever is picked will be subjecting their family to the type of hatred and potential violence favored by the left today. That might influence their outlook and decision making. Is a Mom with seven kids willing to subject her family to that?

Ann Althouse said...

"I've been hearing that Trump wants to save the woman (Barrett) to replace that other woman (Ginsburg), because that's how superficial, petty, and unserious this country has become."

Which is exactly why he should go with Barrett now so he doesn't have to respond to the loss of RBG in such an obvious way.

Ralph L said...

Will this one be more difficult than the next appointment?

Trumpit said...

"Who ever is picked will be subjecting their family to the type of hatred and potential violence favored by the left today. That might influence their outlook and decision making. Is a Mom with seven kids willing to subject her family to that?"

She should have thought of that possibility before have seven kids. Her husband didn't think about it either. How did she find time to hit the books when she was busy raising seven kids? She must be an expert in time management. I wouldn't knock her up for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_management

Michael K said...

chuck always had the cheap shot at Trump after a pretty good comment.

Too bad.

Coolidge knew how to keep his mouth shut.

Some people never learn. Of course, lawyers earn their living talking.

Tom said...

Can we seize Kethledge's barn through eminent domain and put in some condos or a casino?

Gahrie said...

"I've been hearing that Trump wants to save the woman (Barrett) to replace that other woman (Ginsburg), because that's how superficial, petty, and unserious this country has become."

Which is exactly why he should go with Barrett now so he doesn't have to respond to the loss of RBG in such an obvious way.


What are the chances that the Left won't demand a Leftwing woman to replace RBG no matter who he picks to replace Kennedy?

Mattman26 said...

The next appointment? Ralph, if he gets a third appointment . . . the "heads explode" metaphor will have to be replaced with something more intense, though I'm not sure what that would be.

Qwinn said...

"Which is exactly why he should go with Barrett now so he doesn't have to respond to the loss of RBG in such an obvious way."

This was my first thought too, Ann. And I still agree with it. But it occurred to me - if he picks Barrett now, do you really think the Dems won't STILL insist that RBG must be replaced by another woman? Really? These clowns? I seriously wouldn't put it past these cretins to insist that if Trump doesn't replace *every* pick from now on with a woman, whether replacing a man or not, he is a misogynist and Literally Hitler.

Qwinn said...

Damn, Gahrie beat me by seconds.

Tom said...

Notre Dame isn't as popular as it once was but that school still has a massive national following. And, it's a well organized, top notch alumni base that can be mobilized. I see Barrett as the top choice as well.

tcrosse said...

if Trump doesn't replace *every* pick from now on with a woman, whether replacing a man or not, he is a misogynist and Literally Hitler.

He could replace RBG with another 86-year-old Jewish woman. Fair is fair.

Danno said...

Nominating Barrett would be excellent since it would give the Democratic Senators another chance to demonstrate their bigotry against Catholic women only seven months or so after her confirmation to the 7th circuit, but with a much larger audience. Trump can push their noses into the poop on the carpet (via Twitter) just like a bad puppy deserves.

Wince said...

Heck, Trump should pick the woman now and a transgender judge to replace RBG.

If xhe were even center-left it'd still be an improvement over the status quo.

Qwinn said...

OMG. I clicked the link. I read the entire Boston Herald article.

I have never seen a fish so vile and putrified that I would wrap it in whatever that insanely partisan communist agitprop is printed on.

Seeing Red said...

the optics-obsessed president

So sez the screamers.

Bob Boyd said...

@ David Begley

I think Hardiman is a possibility. Trump's sister, a judge, endorses Hardiman. Hardiman was 2nd to Gorsuch last time and he's big on the 2nd Amendment. He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate for circuit judge.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The speculation about RBG : when she will croak, what we will do, the anticipation of the event and the hurry up already attitude is hilarious.

It all makes me think of this Monty Python clip. I'm not dead! (yet)

Monty Python. A clip for every event!

Bay Area Guy said...

All 3 (Kavanaugh, Kethledge, Barrett) are outstanding. They are well-qualified, and in a normal world, they would be confirmed by acclimation.

Think I'm crazy?

In 1986, Scalia was confirmed 98-0. He had no opposition the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Dems were sane back then -- they knew Scalia was an outstanding, fair-minded, well-qualified thinker, with excellent credentials (Law Professor, DC Circuit Judge, etc, etc).

Back then, you were not supposed to delve too far in case law, because the prospective judge might have to rule on these cases. The Senate mostly stuck to credentials and temperament.

They should return to this standard, and cease all this emphasis on the Roe v. Wade litmus test.

Michael K said...

What are the chances that the Left won't demand a Leftwing woman to replace RBG no matter who he picks to replace Kennedy?

Zero, next question.

Trumpit said...

https://writingexplained.org/acclimation-vs-acclamation-difference

Dust Bunny Queen said...

What are the chances that the Left won't demand a Leftwing woman to replace RBG no matter who he picks to replace Kennedy?

Michael K Zero, next question.

Oh. I dunno. The left are like giant toddlers who constantly throw tantrums to try and get their way. They probably WILL demand. Like a tantrum throwing toddler demanding ice cream instead of broccoli for dinner.

Treat them like the arrested development children that they are. Just ignore their demands. Don't explain why. Don't argue. NO. Then totally ignore the tantrum. If there is no response, no attention feedback loop, the toddler will 'eventually' give up.

Unfortunately, these adult toddlers can actually cause some significant damage in their tantrum throwing fits. SO..... perhaps MORE than just a time out is warranted. We may have to resort to corporal punishment.

Danno said...

Trumpit, that TDS is pretty severe today. Maybe we can find a straitjacket for you via Ann's Amazon link.

Achilles said...

The leftist democrats are just mad every time Trump takes on opportunity to go over their media filter straight to the people.

I expect to hear about how well things are going for a few minutes and how utterly deranged the leftists have become.

Howard said...

Sounds like the same sort of production when LeBron James announced he was leaving Cleveland and going to the Miami Heat. In this instance, the Dems play the role of jilted Cavalier fans.

Drago said...

LLR Chucks leftist operational allies are not exactly acquitted themselves very well in these court battles.

Chucks angst over their failure is a joy to behold.

William said...

If Trump chooses her, it will be because she's good looking and he's deeply superficial when it comes to looks. If he chooses one of the men, it's because he's implacably sexist. There's no way Trump can make the right choice. He's ontologically wrong about everything......I think she offers the oppprtunity to tie the Dems into the most knots. The Dems will try to paint her as some kind of weirdo extremist. Chelsea Manning will probably record ads against her.

Bay Area Guy said...

Trumo's first nomination (say, Kavanaugh) might actually be voted down. With the Alabama Senate seat going to the Dems (thanks Sessions!), and McCain's illness, it's only 50-49.

The Dems are loaded for bear, are feeling enormous pressure from the wacko left, are putting enormous pressure on 4 Red State Senators up for re-election (Manchin, Donnelly, McCaskill, Heitkamp), and are trying to pry away at least 2 weak GOP Senators (Collins and Murkowski).

Also, Rand Paul doesn't like Kavanaugh's service to the Bush family.

So, let's say, Trump nominates Kavanaugh. Here's how it might play out:

1. Paul objects, the Red State Senators vote No, the 2 GOP weaklings vote no, and Kavanaugh loses 47-52.

2. In November, 3 Red State Senators feel the pain of voting down Kavanagh, and lose their seats. Hopefully, McCain resigns, and new GOP senator is appointed. Now, the GOP has a 54-46 Senate majority.

3. Collins and Murkowski are taken to the woodshed, but Trump nominates Barrett, who sails through, due to the increased GOP Senate Majority.

I'm not predicting this, just noting a potential outcome.

Michael K said...

The leftist students already he/she is a racist

Must be telepathy.

Yancey Ward said...

The politically smart move here would be Barrett- I don't think the Democrats can prevent themselves from trying to tear her down and I don't think she can be defeated either in the Senate.

I still think it will be Kavanaugh and should be, but I could definitely see it being Kethledge or Barrett.

Kevin said...

chuck always had the cheap shot at Trump after a pretty good comment.

You've heard of avoiding the appearance of impropriety?

Chucks comments avoid the appearance of Trump approval.

It is quite disappointing that after he makes several good points, he must wait until sufficient Tourette's emerges from his keyboard that he feels safe to publish his comment.

Narayanan said...

I have left voicemail to Travis County Republican party ... Less than 24 hours to rent IMAX screen for the announcement.

We need to match showmanship for optics obsessed President.

Will I get invited to White House!!??

Kevin said...

The politically smart move here would be Barrett

Trump has surely calculated the pick with the maximum self-inflicted damage potential to the Democratic Party, and his prime time announcement will be all about laying carefully placed sticks of dynamite for the ensuing CNN panel to run around lighting with their flamethrower.

In usual fashion, the Dems couldn't wait one commercial break before they started telegraphing their move: that the next SJ Justice will overturn R v W and thus must be stopped "at any cost".

You think Trump's going to throw a man into that pit when he has Barrett? The optics are too good. If "all women agree" that this is to be protected at all costs, then she's no threat. And if she's a threat, then all women don't agree.

This is beside the fact we'll hear how her seven children are "too many", taking care of special needs kids "won't leave her sufficient time", and the only reason she can have seven children is because she's white and privileged.

This will roll right into the midterms, and by the time the Dems realize what happened, Trump may have an even stronger majority to work with in the Senate, allowing him to pass even more legislation on immigration and healthcare before 2020, which is what he really wants.

Kevin said...

Gorsuch was the pick when the filibuster was still in place. Barrett's the pick now that "Roe v. Wade" is the battle cry.

The best, youngest legal mind we could find will replace RGB, because a woman was already added this time.

The person who must be enjoying this most of all? Clarence Thomas.

Kevin said...

Imagine if Jeb! were picking... He'd be going all out to find someone palatable to Schumer and afterward he'd still get skewered.

Kevin said...

Or to put a finer point on it, what if Kasich were picking?

Kasich would have picked Merrick Garland Lite in a bid at bipartisanship to keep the filibuster intact and he'd be picking the most conservative Justice from the list Schumer handed him.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

The specter of Souter always haunts me. He comes from two towns over and we were worried he would be rejected for being a right-wing crazy. He had defended Mel Thompsons's decision to fly the flag at half-staff on Good Friday. He had John Sununu's blessing, and John's judgement was usually pretty good.

It's hard to tell who goes native in DC. Perhaps someone who has already had plenty of opportunity to go native but didn't is the reliable choice. I also think the "who will give the Democrats the most trouble opposing" predictions are fraught with peril. Astroturf, poisoning the well, and indefatigable deception are not just tactics for the professionals, they are the environment they have grown up in and thrive in. (I am writing this an an ex-liberal.)

Ann, you probably have checked, but could you see if Trumpit is actually a sock puppet? His persona as "Hate-consumed person complaining about hate" is just a little too neat and tidy to be real. There's a C S Lewis The Great Divorce quality about it.

Michael K said...

"We may have to resort to corporal punishment."

If I still lived in Chicago, I would be in favor of severe corporal punishment for the idiots blocking the Dan Ryan, the principle north south transit path for the city.

Maybe at 55 miles per hour.

Bob Boyd said...

If Kasich were were picking it'd be his nose.

Jim at said...

I don't think Trump is the one most "obsessed" here.

Yep.

Chuck said...

Kevin said...
Imagine if Jeb! were picking... He'd be going all out to find someone palatable to Schumer and afterward he'd still get skewered.


Why do I highlight this, as a comment of particularly noxious bullshit?

Because George H.W. Bush nominated Justice Thomas. And George W. Bush nominated Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts.

(Oh yes; Bush 41 whiffed on Souter. Just like Eisenhower whiffed on Earl Warren, and Brennan. And like Reagan whiffed a bit on O'Connor and Kennedy. But they were different times of course.)

Anyway; this business that Trump is the one great nominator of Republicans for the federal judiciary is very much like saying that Lance Armstrong was the greatest cyclist in history.

Chuck said...

Kevin said...
Gorsuch was the pick when the filibuster was still in place...


Gorsuch was the choice for nominee when the Circuit Court filibuster had been blown up, and Senate Judiciary relations were so totally toxic (post-Garland) that the SCOTUS filibuster was being taken off life support.

Gorsuch did not avoid, and would not have avoided, a filibuster if the rule had been left in place. The rule was blown up for SCOTUS nominations for Gorsuch.


glenn said...

I think EvilTrump should do the announcement like the Oscars. Have the candidates, in formal dress, seated in an audience of their peers.
Then EvilTrump could ask for the envelope ......... slap, slap, thanks, I needed that.

Kevin said...

As usual, you miss the point of my post, Chuck.

It's not that Trump is superhuman. He isn't. No one has said he is. And he doesn't have to be.

He is someone who brings out all the worst in his opponents, opening holes in the traditional two parties acting as one bipartisanship which has created most of the problems over the past decades.

All Trump did was say in the middle of his campaign that he'd pick from this list of 20 people that someone who knew more than he did handed to him. For that you give him absolutely zero credit.

But that's where you're wrong. Jeb! wouldn't have such a list. Kasich wouldn't have such a list. And because they wouldn't, they'd making it up as they went along and asking what the Dems in the Senate might think so they could get some Dem votes and not look too "partisan".

The Dems and the NeverTrumpers don't allow Trump to look partisan because they've made it all personal. The LLR's hate him just as much as the anarcho-communists. So Trump never has to worry about that. He does what he wants to do, what he thinks is good for the country, and what drives the opposition so nuts they forget there's an election coming up.

Trumpit said...

"The leftist students already he/she is a racist. Must be telepathy."

No, it is an educated guess based on his odious cabinet picks, and his complete failure as president. If is safe to say that nothing will change until he's replaced with a human being.

Darrell said...

I haven't met anyone who came out of Notre Dame since the 1980s that wasn't a raging Lefty. The Socialists did a good job taking over the Jesuits.

Kevin said...

Could his pick turn into Souter? Of course.

Is there less chance of that happening because he didn't suddenly have a vacancy, look around, and say, "Hey Harriet Miers, wanna take this job opening I have to fill?"

Kevin said...

PS - Bush 1 gets some credit for Thomas, but you have to ask yourself this: If it wasn't someone to replace Thurgood Marshall, do you think Thomas would have been the pick?

And do you think Bush would have stayed with him when the high-tech lynching started?

n.n said...

Gender and sex. Vote for the feminine female.

Kevin said...

Gorsuch was the pick when the filibuster was still in place...

Exactly as I said. When Gorsuch was picked, the filibuster was still in place, and it was used against him:

On April 3, the Senate Judiciary committee approved his nomination with a party-line 11–9 vote.[96] On April 6, 2017, Democrats filibustered (prevented cloture) the confirmation vote of Gorsuch, after which the Republicans invoked the "nuclear option", allowing a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee to be broken by a simple majority vote.

His pick was designed to be so utterly unimpeachable that the Dems could not filibuster without looking partisan, leaving McConnell the option to remove it and confirm him.

He was selected for that very situation.

Then three Dems voted yes once their no votes were futile.

Chuck said...


You didn't have a point, Kevin. What you had was garbage. Maybe you just hate Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney and two Presidents Bush; I don't know. If you do, maybe that's fair, because I hate Trump. Maybe you really want to hurt the Republican Party. I want to hurt the Trump Party.

The list that was drawn up by the Federalist Society and Heritage is the list that any of us could have drawn up in a week. For a guy like Leonard Leo, it has basically been his full time job to keep that list and keep it up and could have supplied it to the Trump campaign on about two days' notice.

And in that regard, you are 100% correct. Correct, at least, in your presumption about my view; Trump gets zero credit for the list. It was drawn up by Movement Conservatives, for Movement Conservatives. All of the people who had, and may still have, grave doubts about Trump's fitness for public office.

Jeb Bush would have had the very same list, kept in the very same place. That is, Leonard Leo's locked top desk drawer. Jeb would never have had to make the list public, because Jeb would never have had to sell himself to Movement Conservatives. Jeb would never have had to say something as stupid as what Trump has said about nominating judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. (Mind you, Jeb would be talking about, and nominating, the exact same judges; but Jeb wouldn't be feeding ammunition to the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee about abortion.)

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

I hear it will be trans-diverse, an albino who is genetically black and phenotypically white.

Michael K said...

chuck playing the fool again. Come on, chuck. You are smart guy. Don't sound foolish. Kevin was right.

Good column today by Andy McCarthy on the Coirt.

In any event, as moderate Republicans tremble at the studied media-Democrat hysteria over Roe, it is important to bear in mind that Casey — more than Roe — is the law. That means Roe’s core ruling is very likely to survive, no matter who is appointed to the Supreme Court, for two reasons.

Yancey Ward said...

Yeah, Kevin wins that hands down. No contest.

Darkisland said...

We need more diversity on the court. Not the bullshit racial/ethnic/gender diversity but diversity that matters. Intellectual diversity.

for the past 30-40 years all, or almost all, justices have been the products of either Yale or Harvard.

From the little I know of him, I am sure that Kavanaugh is a fine candidate and would do a good job as a Justice.

But he graduated from Yale. As did all the other current justices that did not go to Harvard.

I think that should disqualify him. Maybe later after President Trump has placed 4-5 more NH/NY justices on the court.

Amul Thapar (UC Berkley) would also be another good choice. Intellectual diversity and, for the people it matters to, ethnic/racial diversity. I also like that both his parents owned businesses which might give him some better insights. Also has a bachelor of Science degree, Can't find what but if it is an actual science (not bullshit like teaching or social work) degree, that would be another point in his favor.

This makes him sound pretty good.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/07/03/amul_thapar_trump_countrys_perfect_scotus_choice_137420.html

John Henry

Chuck said...

Kevin said...
"Gorsuch was the pick when the filibuster was still in place..."

Exactly as I said.



Uh, because I was quoting you. Good to know I got your quote right, you dipshit.

Yancey Ward said...

"Uh, because I was quoting you. Good to know I got your quote right, you dipshit."

And you still took issue with it?

Yancey Ward said...

Chuck,

You could have just quoted Kevin in that bit and agreed with it, right?

Chuck said...

Michael K; I agree with just about every word of that Andy McCarthy column. (I still remember Andy as one of the guys writing that Donald Trump was unfit to be President of the United States and that we had to avoid making him the Republican nominee for president.)

And of course, while Andy ridicules Susan Collins on legal grounds, and perhaps rightly so, Susan Collins has her own political calculus. She doesn't want to be part of overturning Roe v. Wade, and doesn't even want to appear as being close to such an enterprise.

Now again, Michael I say to you; I agree with Andy McCarthy. But you know who has made life most difficult for Senator Collins? It's Trump. Trump's ham-handed blathering about judicial nominations and an eventual reversal of Roe v. Wade. That is what has made life politically difficult for Senator Collins.

You and me and Andy McCarthy can all agree on what is likely to happen with the Roe decision, and we might all agree on what should happen with the old case law on abortion. But what I think that Andy McCarthy and I would agree on (though he'd probably hate to admit it publicly) is that Trump's own campaign trail blathering is what is largely putting Collins in a bind on a purely political level.

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward said...
Chuck,

You could have just quoted Kevin in that bit and agreed with it, right?


I didn't agree with Kevin. I quoted Kevin as a prelude to my comment, and Kevin tried to turn it into a concession on my part that I agreed with him. It was nonsensical on Kevin's part.

Yancey Ward said...

Chuck,

Then why the later comment? You really do make yourself out as a fool in ways that are just inexplicable.

M Jordan said...

I agree that we need more diversity on the court and that’s why I’m for Kid Rock. We have no rednecks on the court and they are the largest, most discriminated against group in the country.

Michael K said...

But you know who has made life most difficult for Senator Collins? It's Trump. Trump's ham-handed blathering about judicial nominations

If you read the column, and are as smart as you say you are, why not address his point (and that of Ann) that the real issue is Casey, why do you keep going on about Roe?

McCarthy made the point that Collins' rhetoric is just role playing for the press.

Can you ever post a comment that is not about your hate for Trump?

A lot of people were opposed to Trump but have come around to see that he is doing the right things.

You don't seem to be able to. That is not a sign of intelligence.

Michael K said...

Good point, John Henry.

Narayanan said...

Speaking of transitioning ... If Obama let's his genitalia and other bits be redesigned-configured ... Do we then have different person who can serve 2 terms ?!?!

Andrew said...

I agree with those who think Trump is playing a game, and that he'll surprise people, by nominating Thapar, Hardiman, or another name that people are ignoring.

Because of the nature of political reality tight now, I hope he chooses Barrett or Thapar, since each is qualified, and then plays the identity politics game to the max. It's all about the midterms.

narciso said...

if roe were reversed. it wouldn't happen like that, just an sufficiently tough regime like texas or Mississippi might be upheld, but you would revert to the states, with blue states being more lenient, and red ones less so, however one would wonder how long the blue states would hold out, if they were overflowing with emigres for this procedure,

Drago said...

"Anna Navarro republican" Chuck: "Jeb would never have had to make the list public, because Jeb would never have had to sell himself to Movement Conservatives."

LOL

Funniest thing written all day!

Ralph L said...

I doubt residency will be required. It wasn't for Gretna Green. The blue states will be happy for the abortourism money.

Chuck said...

Andrew said...
I agree with those who think Trump is playing a game, and that he'll surprise people, by nominating Thapar, Hardiman, or another name that people are ignoring.

Because of the nature of political reality tight now, I hope he chooses Barrett or Thapar, since each is qualified, and then plays the identity politics game to the max. It's all about the midterms.


Thinking that "[i]t's all about the midterms" is so short-sighted and dumb, that I believe it is the way that Trump might think.

We're talking about a Kennedy replacement on the Court, who will likely serve for 25 years or more. Do you remember what happened in the midterms of 1990, the first midterm election after Kennedy joined the Court? It was the midterm election after the Bush-Quayle election of 1988. Bush was in the White House, but Democrats held the House (as they had for almost 40 years) and the Senate (as they had for several recent years, and about 25 of the previous 30 years). What happened? Mostly nothing, in 1990. The Dems netted one seat in the Senate, and they netted about nine seats in the House. All in all, a better than usual showing for the party that had just won the presidency in a midterm.

Historically, we'll remember the influence of Kennedy more that the exact numbers in a midterm following his nomination.

Perhaps you are thinking about a possible impeachment of Trump, if the House and Senate majorities were to somehow flip in big numbers in 2018. (Unlikely, but...) So if you are thinking about how important it might be, to avoid Trump's impeachment, I guess you've got me on that one.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

Jeb Bush would have had the very same list, kept in the very same place. That is, Leonard Leo's locked top desk drawer. Jeb would never have had to make the list public, because Jeb would never have had to sell himself to Movement Conservatives. Jeb would never have had to say something as stupid as what Trump has said about nominating judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. (Mind you, Jeb would be talking about, and nominating, the exact same judges; but Jeb wouldn't be feeding ammunition to the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee about abortion.)


This is a truly stupid comment.

Jeb Bush spent millions of dollars for every electoral vote he got because everyone knew he was a globablist tool.

Republican voters knew Bush would screw them. That is why he got almost no votes in the primary.

After Romney blew it in 2012 by being nicer to Obama than he was to the other republican primary opponents it was over. The establishment republicans spend all of their time trashing other republicans. Because they are traitors.

That is why we are in charge now through Trump who is doing what we always wanted our presidents to do.

No real conservative would fail to support Trump at this point. It is just a bunch of globablist tools who are mad nobody listens to them anymore.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

Thinking that "[i]t's all about the midterms" is so short-sighted and dumb, that I believe it is the way that Trump might think.


Chuck wants republicans to stop thinking about those primaries.

So the democrats win and impeach Trump like he has wanted from the start.

Transparent though dishonest.

Just go full Will/Boot Chuck. Everyone will laugh at you but you will feel better.

Darkisland said...

Slightly off topic:

The economics blog Marginal Revolution just pointed me to a Twitter thread by Bansi Sharma on how many times various recent presidents have been overuled by the supreme court.

Former President Obama A Constitutional scholar!!!!(tm) is the winner. And not just by a little bit.

Won Lost Win Rate
Obama 79 96 45%
G.W. Bush 89 59 60%
Bill Clinton 148 87 63%
G.H.W. Bush 91 39 70%
Reagan 260 89 75%
Carter 139 65 68%

https://twitter.com/bansisharma/status/1012281473368580097

He also points out that "Obama had 44 unanimous losses. For comparison, George W. Bush suffered 30 unanimous losses, while Bill Clinton withstood 31. In other words, Obama lost unanimously 50 percent more than his two immediate predecessors."

Sharma's thinking is that more overrides indicates more shenanigans of trying to do unconstitutional stuff.

John Henry

Kevin said...

You didn't have a point, Kevin. What you had was garbage.

And in that regard, you are 100% correct.


So in a single post I had no point at all, and at least one which you found 100% correct...

Drago said...

LLR & #StrongDemDefender" Chuck: "Thinking that "[i]t's all about the midterms" is so short-sighted and dumb, that I believe it is the way that Trump might think."

LOL

Loser who can't get anything right insults a winner who is leading the greatest conservative-results movement in our lifetimes.

No wonder LLR Chuck spends most of his life channeling his "competent" hero Dick Durbin with continuous wailing and gnashing of teeth.

So very, very enjoyable!

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

Kevin: "So in a single post I had no point at all, and at least one which you found 100% correct..."

I can assure you that if you simply repost whatever drivel Maddow happens to be spewing you can increase the praise LLR Chuck offers to 100% of the time.

But only 100% of the time....

Kevin said...

Kevin said...
Gorsuch was the pick when the filibuster was still in place...


Chuck said...
Gorsuch was the choice for nominee when the Circuit Court filibuster had been blown up, and Senate Judiciary relations were so totally toxic (post-Garland) that the SCOTUS filibuster was being taken off life support.

Gorsuch did not avoid, and would not have avoided, a filibuster if the rule had been left in place. The rule was blown up for SCOTUS nominations for Gorsuch.


So just to be clear, Gorsuch was the pick when the filibuster was still in place...

Andrew said...

Chuck, now I understand why people here despise you. Make your points without being an a-hole.

Chuck said...

Achilles said...
...
...
...The establishment republicans spend all of their time trashing other republicans. Because they are traitors.


That's not true. You want to know who it is on "our" side who has been making a career out of trashing Republicans? It's Rush Limbaugh; it's Sean Hannity; it's the Savage/Levin vein of moonbats. And now it is the Trump fans on Althouse. There is scarcely a single politically-tinged page of Althouse comments where there aren't several of you attacking "the GOPe," etc.

And in the case of Trump/Hannity/Rush it is all about personal opportunism. To build their quasi-entertainment careers. As non-Republican renegades.

And why should Althouse care? She's not a Republican, and I don't expect that she has ever identified as a Republican.

Michael K said...

Andrew, I'm afraid you are right and chuck will momentarily prove why.

Michael K said...

So Limbaugh is trashing Republicans ?

Jesus, chuck. Can't you stay on track for five minutes ?

langford peel said...

Chuck is easy to understand when you realize he is a Bowel Movement Conservative.

He revels in taking shit from Democrats. He eats it up with a spoon.

Trump is in the process of driving them out like the vermin they are so they can take their rightful place as full fleldged globalist Democrats.

Good riddance.

langford peel said...

Our slogan should be "By George have the Wiil to give Max the Boot."

Drago said...

Rush Limbaugh has converted more democrats to the republican/conservative cause than any other on-air personality.

Which is why the entire left and LLR Chuck despise him.

He dares to fight back against LLR Chucks precious dem operational allies.

The beauty of 2018 is that Trump has exposed all of LLR Chucks "pretend" conservatives who now openly advocate for democrat victories.

#SoMuchWinning

Drago said...

Can you imagine the rage and bile that must build within LLR Chuck when Rush launches another extraordinary and effective rhetorical attack on the left and the dems and the dems enablers (like
Chuck)?

I have no doubt that is why LLR Chuck spends such incredible amounts of time absprbing the lefts talking points in the Usual Suspect Lefty Organs.

Chuckie needs to have his Quisling impulses validated....constantly.

Jim at said...

Chuck, now I understand why people here despise you. Make your points without being an a-hole.

It's not possible.

Drago said...

It is now quite clear that the rhetoric and tactics of Chuck, his pals in the fake conservative movement and the left/dems will continue to grow ever more unhinged as they encounter ever greater degrees of failure against Trump.

Their only hope is to flip the remaining squish republicans to the dems cause.

The Godfather said...

When Scalia died, and Obama nominated Garland to replace him, the Democrats' argument to the Republican-controlled Senate was, You better cofirm Garland, because when Hillary's elected, she'll nominate someone worse. I think Trump may try the same thing. He'll nominate Judge A and let the Democrats know that if A is rejected then after the election, when presumably there will be more Republicans in the Senate, he'll nominate Judge B, who the Dems will think is even worse.

Gahrie said...

Trump is in the process of driving them out like the vermin they are so they can take their rightful place as full fleldged globalist Democrats.

What's even more wonderful is that the loony Left is driving the Democratic normal away to replace them. #walkaway

Qwinn said...

"This will roll right into the midterms, and by the time the Dems realize what happened, Trump may have an even stronger majority to work with in the Senate,"

In the last several months, I predicted (here, repeatedly) a minimum of 57 GOP Senate seats coming out of the November election, and a better than 50% chance of 61 seats.

I've changed my mind. I'm now calling a minimum of 59 seats and probably 64.

Gahrie said...

There is scarcely a single politically-tinged page of Althouse comments where there aren't several of you attacking "the GOPe," etc.

Why shouldn't we? What exactly have they accomplished in the last twenty years? Trump by himself has done more for the conservative cause than all the Republicans elected since 1988.

Why wasn't there a budget ready on January 3, 2017?

Why wasn't here an Obamacare repeal/replacement bill ready on January 3, 2017?

They had two months to get ready knowing they would control both houses and the presidency..yet nothing was ready when the new session began.

Gahrie said...

I've changed my mind. I'm now calling a minimum of 59 seats and probably 64.

I started predicting a red wave instead of a blue wave a couple of weeks ago.

This could be historically ugly...

Gahrie said...

mp's ham-handed blathering about judicial nominations and an eventual reversal of Roe v. Wade. That is what has made life politically difficult for Senator Collins.

Wow...Chuckles defending a member of the GOP Establishment who betrays the Republican base and panders to Democrats????


Say it isn't so!

Bob Boyd said...

As far as I can tell, a "Movement Conservative" is somebody who reads The Weekly Standard or National Review while they're taking a shit.

readering said...

i'm just sorry I'm going to miss seeing Nina Totenberg in person since NPR is requiring her to remain in DC for the big reveal.

Chuck said...

Gahrie said...
"There is scarcely a single politically-tinged page of Althouse comments where there aren't several of you attacking 'the GOPe,' etc."

Why shouldn't we? What exactly have they accomplished in the last twenty years?

We've built historic majorities in state houses all across the country. With hard grassroots work and diligent and hard-nosed efforts on redistricting. We built the Federalist Society and Heritage, building a superlative farm team of legal scholars and lower-court judges. And we won majorities in both houses of Congress.

Trump by himself has done more for the conservative cause than all the Republicans elected since 1988.
Nonsense. He got Gorsuch nominated with the able leadership of the Federalist Society and Mitch McConnell. He got a tax bill passed, on a party line vote which no Republican president should have or even could have lost. The Trump Administration has done a wonderful job of cutting federal regulations; something for which Trump gets little credit, since he has such a low level of interest in such things. Trump has, I confess, set a record for presidential golf trips. I hope he does more of them, and stays away from his Twitter account.

Why wasn't there a budget ready on January 3, 2017?
Because it is hard work and requires a lot of complicated Congressional compromises. What did Trump do about it? He griped about the end result, saying that he'll never sign another budget as big as that, with so much federal spending. Great!!! Tell us what Trump is going to cut.
Why wasn't here an Obamacare repeal/replacement bill ready on January 3, 2017?
Yeah! Great question! Why not? Trump has been great at vandalizing Obamacare. I haven't seen him lift a finger on a replacement. Not even after all of his grand promises on the campaign trail about how he'd get everybody in a room and make some amazing deals and get everybody -- EVERYBODY, "because we have to cover everybody, we have to do it" -- better care at much lower cost. What happened to THAT "plan"? (Answer: It never existed.)
They had two months to get ready knowing they would control both houses and the presidency..yet nothing was ready when the new session began.

So did Trump. Months and months of making grand promises that people like Kasich said shouldn't be made and wouldn't be kept. Kasich was right.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

"And we won majorities in both houses of Congress."

And who gives a shit if they betray their base?

Achilles said...

It is going to be so much better in 2019 than it is now.

Quisling Paul Ryan will no longer be speaker of the house.

Republicans will be sitting around 240 Congressmen and 62 senators.

Every 2 years we will get rid of more globalist traitors in the cuck wing of the democrat party.

The democrats going open socialist/fascist are melting down before our eyes.

No more open borders. No more crony trade. Wages growing again. Capital flooding back to the US from overseas.


The only thing that could go wrong now is if the globalists kill Trump. That seems to be their only out at this point. Some Hodgkinson type of course.

They let the guy who shot Reagan out of prison not long ago.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

We've built historic majorities in state houses all across the country. With hard grassroots work and diligent and hard-nosed efforts on redistricting. We built the Federalist Society and Heritage, building a superlative farm team of legal scholars and lower-court judges. And we won majorities in both houses of Congress.


And Paul Ryan still found a way to pass Schumer and Pelosi's budget and corner Trump into signing it.

Because he is a traitor.

Like all the other cucks in the cuck wing of the democrat party.

Paul Ryan is gone next year. He can go live in his mansion that he built with his 30 pieces of globalist silver.

buwaya said...

The foolishness and unwisdom astounds me.
What a blinkered way of seeing.
The political prizes the GOP won are tacky plastic-chrome plate.
This is not, as we know perfectly well, any longer any sort of effective power.
This stuff has been shown to be near-irrelevant, fakery, a pretense. You have state governments run by Republicans? So what?
They are powerless, for instance, to reform the schools, and keep the teachers from pouring poison into your childrens heads. It makes no difference at all in the degree of actual official depravity whether your governments are Republican or Democrat.

No number of Republican politicians can make being an open conservative a survivable condition in high tech professions or Fortune 500 management. That is a mark of the gimcrack nature of your "conservative" politicians or judges.

Real power in this modern world is not in strutting politicians but in bureaucracies and the systems that feed them, in institutions that manage money, in the media and education. In all of these the conservatives and Republicans have been exterminated. This all should have been completely clear after 2010.

The "professionals", Heritage and the Federalist society can't keep college kids in their conservative societies, out of fear of being blackballed.

You won nothing.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

Why wasn't here an Obamacare repeal/replacement bill ready on January 3, 2017?

Yeah! Great question! Why not? Trump has been great at vandalizing Obamacare. I haven't seen him lift a finger on a replacement. Not even after all of his grand promises on the campaign trail about how he'd get everybody in a room and make some amazing deals and get everybody -- EVERYBODY, "because we have to cover everybody, we have to do it" -- better care at much lower cost. What happened to THAT "plan"? (Answer: It never existed.)

Without Flake and McCain, two more members of the cuck wing of the democrat party, we will have a much better chance of getting the market based system Trump ran on in 2016.

FullMoon said...

Just saw on the Dark Web. Trump nominates Dick Cheney. After two years, with America straightened out, Cheney resigns,along with Ginsburg. Trump replaces them with young Constitutionalists.

Achilles said...

buwaya said...

You won nothing.

Always the pessimist.

When the democrats, with their cuck friends, were within one election of cementing permanent power and electing Hillary there was an intervention.

I consider the Trump election in the miracle category.

In 15-20 years it wont matter what the education system does or who is elected.

Within our lifetimes groups of humans will start leaving our planet to colonize the universe. Like the Mayflower disparate groups will leave the home like the colonists left Europe. They will take freedom with them.

Just like Europe could not stand before the US in the long run new human establishments on the boundary will out compete the centrally planned fascist systems that have a strangle hold on our educational institutions and cultural powers.

Surely you can see the river of history is being guided.

Gahrie said...

h! Great question! Why not? Trump has been great at vandalizing Obamacare. I haven't seen him lift a finger on a replacement.

That's not his job...it's Ryan and McConnell's job.

Drago said...

"Dick Durbin Republican" Chuck: "Yeah! Great question! Why not? Trump has been great at vandalizing Obamacare."

LOL

Absolute pitch perfect alignment with far left talking points by our intrepid LLR.

As always.

As. Always.

The Godfather said...

I hope the Trumpistas' optimism here about the 2018 elections turns out to be correct. But as a wise man once said, Don't get cocky kid. At this point there is absolutely zero evidence, either way. We're 120 days away from election day, and the people who will make a difference, that is, those who won't relexively vote R or vote D, haven't even begun to think about the election. Between now and Election Day the folks here who are so sure there'll be a Red Wave should get out on the hustings to make it happen.

MaxedOutMama said...

I think Trump might be a bit reluctant on Barrett due to her short time on the bench. I suspect he is looking for more of a known quantity.

I somewhat doubt that the NYT knows much about how the interview went, but if Trump is not confident that Barrett will be a non-legislative judge ("no, we will not fix that for you, Congress!") in the Gorsuchian mold, I doubt that any possible political considerations would drive him to nominate her if he thinks he has a better choice.

Because what's the point? Trump knows perfectly well that any electoral pull he has to influence Congressional mid-terms has to do with the economy and jobs. If he effs up on this nomination, it will haunt him for the rest of the presidency, and only chance will give him a chance to redress the error - plus he may not have a free hand on another nomination. Trump is really focused on main points. He's had to be.

He'll pick the person he believes he knows.

Michael K said...

No number of Republican politicians can make being an open conservative a survivable condition in high tech professions or Fortune 500 management. That is a mark of the gimcrack nature of your "conservative" politicians or judges.

Oh, I agree but one of my favorite philosophers said, "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

I expect a financial crash will occur before the philistines are driven from the temple. Maybe a violent revolution.

Unknown said...

T is moving through all government jobs, demonstrating no experience needed. Only common sense and judgment. Calculators can provide the intellect. Brisk argument observed by all on twitter, ,loyal team players that look out for each other, MBO with performance bonuses are all that matters. No wonder T drives the establishment nuts. They probably hate great basketball coaches too. This is how he’ll get government to 1% of it’s current size as he staffs with millennials who won’t tolerate napping at their desks or make-work sexting. Military will shrink to Caesar size, effectiveness, efficiency and 100x the pay when “make money not war” solves all arguments and a few pennies to turn countries into Basalt. Nuke Russia over Crimea after sanctions fail? Shirley you jest? Every $B moved to above the line productive use will sum to 1T$. 1B$ being 100K jobs, Open the borders to those that play by the rules and party on, a golden age where twitter destroys all those of ill will. Bring back the duel and require all those who can enlist to carry, which will empty prisons and reduce Law enforcement to ticketing. Harm a policeman or invade home hang next noon. Like Britain Circa 1870.

Qwinn said...

The Godfather:

"At this point there is absolutely zero evidence, either way. "

My evidence is this: Last time I checked, Republicans currently have 52 seats, they are defending 8 seats, and Democrats are defending 25 seats. Ten of the 25 seats Democrats are defending are in states Trump won. At least 6 of the 8 seats Republicans are defending are considered completely safe seats.

That's a whole lot of evidence. Notice that I didn't say anything about the House. But that math on the November election means Red Wave in the Senate. It's practically unavoidable.

Qwinn said...

So when I say "minimum 59 seats", I'm assuming Democrats sweep every state they're defending that Hillary won, and only lose 3 of the 10 seats they're defending in states that Trump won. With the Left's orgy of Infinite Crazy, and #walkaway, and the economy going gangbusters, it would require one hell of an October Surprise for Republicans to *only* pick up 7 seats. I think 12 is more likely.

Qwinn said...

Er, sorry, I meant "and manage to hold on to 3 of the 10 seats they're defending in states that Trump won".

gadfly said...

The news today is that McConnell wants Trump to select Hardiman who finished behind Gorsuch last time while breezing through the Senate interviews. But our champion, Ann Coulter, says that George Soros subsidized Hardiman's charity work at AYUNDA.

But judges, in general, are too serious to flap their gums with The Donald. So Trump probably ran the meetings as if they were auditions for The Apprentice. Since they don't speak like three-year-old children, he is stuck with looks and all of the top five are attractive.

I first that that Barrett wins because she is attractive but I had forgotten about the touchy-feely display between Macron and Trump during the French president's latest visit.

So while Kavanaugh believes that presidents should be insulated from lawsuits, Trump's little mind will not connect and he will likely favor Kethledge who works out of his barn when not attending court, writes interesting observations online and apparently has a gabby-talk-show-host manner that easily passes the Trump audition.

Jual Vimax Obat Pembesar Penis said...

Obat Bius Chloroform Di Jakarta
Obat Bius Chlorophyll Di Jakarta
Obat Bius Trivam Di Jakarta
Obat Bius Liquid Sex Di Jakarta
Obat Tidur Sleeping Beauty Di Jakarta

Obat Bius Chloroform Di Bandung
Obat Bius Chlorophyll Di Bandung
Obat Bius Trivam Di Bandung
Obat Bius Liquid Sex Di Bandung
Obat Tidur Sleeping Beauty Di Bandung

gadfly said...

Chuck says "Kasich was right." No he is not. When Kasich was knocking down government spending for "the husband of our Ambassador to the Vatican", he was right. Since then he spends a whole lot more money on welfare. He adopted the Obamacare plan for Medicade which ignored the cost inefficiencies contained therein. He also pushed through a sale of the Ohio Turnpike which clobbered travelers when he should have asked Mitch Daniels how to do it right. And while Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin were adopting Right to Work laws, Kasich rolled over and played dead when the Ohio legislature tried to do the same.

Tina Trent said...

Souter accepted a responsibility then whined about it then shrugged the whole Supreme Court Justice thing off like an uncomfortable coat. If he was so precious, but also so competwnt and so intelligent, why did he take the job in the first place?