I'm linking to that to give you a place to talk about it. I don't see the need to talk right now, but the media are doing Trump's bidding, making something that works well for his political purposes the center of attention all day today. I'll pay attention when he makes the announcement.
Such theater! But that's what Trump does. He's the showman, and the haters can't help amplifying him and making the show ever bigger.
And they know they're doing that. They just have to do it anyway, because it works for them too.
Which is what makes Trump's showmanship particularly great. And he frequently brags about this: The media are doing well for themselves with their anti-Trumpism.
It's the best kind of deal, when self-interest for everyone is mutually reinforcing and everyone, even natural antagonists, end up working earnestly and diligently in the same direction.
Such theater! But that's what Trump does. He's the showman, and the haters can't help amplifying him and making the show ever bigger.
And they know they're doing that. They just have to do it anyway, because it works for them too.
Which is what makes Trump's showmanship particularly great. And he frequently brags about this: The media are doing well for themselves with their anti-Trumpism.
It's the best kind of deal, when self-interest for everyone is mutually reinforcing and everyone, even natural antagonists, end up working earnestly and diligently in the same direction.
पोस्ट्स
३०२ टिप्पण्या:
302 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Joan Larsen
This will allow Trump to set the introduction for his nominee. I think it is a great strategy. Rather than a press conference, he'll unveil the pick to the entire country who won't have it filtered through the media.
It's the best kind of deal, when self-interest for everyone is mutually reinforcing and everyone, even natural antagonists, end up working earnestly and diligently in the same direction.
See, this is why we have to smash capitalism and remove the profit motive.
I do not understand how the selected nominee could possibly be camera ready by 9 pm tonight when as of this morning the chosen one is supposedly still unchosen. Especially the women involved— wardrobe, hair, make-up takes time!
Ann, can you put a poll up for your readers to vote for their preference of the shortlist?
Better get this done before the big World Cup match tomorrow...
Who will be the new king?
I'm waiting for the pre-announcement reveal that all 3 (or 4) of the "front-runners" will be in attendance for the big selection ....
one winner picked as Supreme Court Justice nominee, the others summarily executed.
Like something out of Hunger Games.
Because Trump is literally Hitler or something.
Especially the women involved— wardrobe, hair, make-up takes time!
[Expletive deleted], then something about the 19th amendment.
The big mystery will be solved by figuring out who is in DC this evening.
The frenzy that has gone on since 2016 is just more evidence that the country, at least 30% is crazy.
“...for everyone....”
Everyone except those who care about a unified citizenry and social harmony.
Althouse I had a similar thought, as I heard that segment live this morning. It was in the moment that Leahy said, "I am concerned that he's making it like a game show...I am thinking about this person. I am thinking of that person, but I will announce it on prime-time TV at the White House..."
It was the first time that I had heard anyone verbalize criticism of Trump's "show."
There is almost nothing to like or admire about Leahy's own involvement in Republican nominations to the federal judiciary. Leahy has been one of the biggest contributors to the partisan freak show that we see with modern SCOTUS nomination. He's been a hateful presence when it comes to Republican nominees.
But since Leahy admittedly had nothing to say about an as-yet-unnamed nominee, I did think it worthwhile that he commented on the one thing that we do know about, which is Trump's prime-time announcement, and the reality TV show aspect to it.
Althouse thinks it is great showmanship and messaging; and maybe it is. For me, it only calls attention to the fact that Trump is so far removed from actual legal theory and the serious matters of the federal judiciary (more so than any president in modern history save perhaps Carter) and that for Trump a Supreme Court nomination is something like Miss Universe.
It was the first time that I had heard anyone verbalize criticism of Trump's "show."
Good grief, Chuck.
The finalists will have to do a turn in a swimsuit and answer a current affairs question in formal evening wear. Trump will then open an envelope and start by announcing the 3rd runner up.
Game show?
"And, behind door #3, is..."
One thing Trump will never say: "verbalize criticism."
I can only hope he will appoint a Justice who likewise will never verbalize criticism.
The collective left are poised for extreme hate, vilification and MSNBC lies.
I hope he doesn’t pull a Steve Harvey and announce the wrong person as winner. They’d have to take the robe off and pass it to the real winner.
While Trump has energized the leftist media, their newfound energy is that of a deranged psychotic, misguided and possibly dangerous.
Everyone from Antifa's violent parades, to journolistic bullhorn braying, to politicians stoking division, revels in the progress of disharmony and dysfunction.
Barrett is kind of cute. Maybe she would inspire other cute girls to go into law. The Supreme Court--not just for nerds anymore........Apparently she and Trump didn't hit it off. I can believe that. Trump has a trophy wife and fools around with porn stars and Playmates. This is not the kind of man an upstanding Catholic woman has been raised to find common ground with. Perhaps her antipathy towards Trump will help her with the feminists. Not bloody likely, but it could happen.
It was good for Trump, liberal media, was it good for you? Not long term but it was good for our country, I think.
Henry said...
"It was the first time that I had heard anyone verbalize criticism of Trump's 'show.'"
Good grief, Chuck.
What? What's the matter? I've heard much discussion of "the list," of the presumed finalists, of Kennedy's varied legacy on the Court. I've heard of all kinds of stuff in connection with the nomination, and the process, etc.
I haven't heard very much about Trump's doing this on prime time tv. Which is what he did with the Gorsuch nomination, right? And which no other president has ever done. Right?
Have we ever had live prime-time televised "mystery" announcements of Supreme Court nominees? I cannot think of one. My recollection of the Kagan announcement by Obama is that the announcement was not a surprise, and the official announcement was on a normal day in the White House. Obama and Kagan appeared, and it was televised, but by then hadn't the Wall Street Journal already run its front page with the phot of Kagan playing softball? (Trump-level trolling, lol.)
Have others criticized Trump's announcement showmanship? I'm not omniscient; if it is out there, I haven't seen it and it is interesting coming from Leahy.
Click here!
Whoever he nominates, I'd suggest they don't go out to dinner to celebrate.
Armstrong and Getty are filling out a ten minute segment on Trump's ability to ad-lib and talk off the top of his head.
leftist media, their newfound energy is that of a deranged psychotic, misguided and possibly dangerous
The NYT reports, Antifa stages violent parades, occupations, and violates civil rights.
WaPo claims, lone Democrat attempts to abort congressman and his party, and others commit assault with informed prejudice.
Close associations and political myths have been good to journolists. They may be psychotic and otherwise deranged, and they are reaching their target audience.
I'd suggest they don't go out to dinner to celebrate.
Or to the theater.
The Constitution doesn't need interpreting, since the language is concise. A new Supreme Court justice that helps strike down lower court opinions by activist judges is what's needed.
Of course, any pick by Trump will cause the Democratic/Socialist party members to foam at the mouth. Maybe their heads will explode.
It used to be that the President nominated someone they thought were qualified (via legal expertise or potlitical acumen) and the Senate said, barring wholesale malfeasance, Ok he's qualified you got your guy.
And everyone agreed that is how it worked, and the body politic influenced the Supreme Court by electing Presidents.
Then on 01 JUL 1987 Reagan nominated Bork. Homicidal Lion of the Senate Ted Kennedy quickly went to the floor of that chamber to malign Bork. The committee did not have the hearings on Bork until October.
From July to October the Democrats made a spectacle of their temper tantrum.
Trump knows this is the new reality. No person that claims Trump is making this a game show has any credibility with me, not on this issue. The Democrats started this, and Trump, as much of a doofus, braggart, and loud mouth as he is, is beating them like a drum.
If you want civility, if you want staid, boring, judicial SCOTUS nominations tell the democrats to put that horse back in the barn. All they have to do is say "any reasonably qualified candidate will get 65-95 votes from the chamber" and this whole thing winds down to a minimal news event.
Until then I hope Trump tweets hourly a countdown to the unveiling. I hope he has Jeff Probst from Survivor there.
Leahy says it has the feel of a game show. I first thought it was a bit like American Idol. But it's closest to LeBron James' The Decision in 2010 when he went to Miami.
Don't be news, make news. The last president who could make news like this was Kennedy, and it was a different dynamic all together.
I'm still on the fence about whether all this long term passionate disagreement is a net good or a net bad for this country. Unlike many people, I'm not convinced there will be some kind of violent outcome or civil war. I think things would have to get much, much worse before people would be willing to actually risk their own comfort. There's a pretty big difference between throwing tantrums and fomenting violent insurection.
At the very least people seem to be becoming more skeptical of the media, which is always a good thing.
Chuck, you swallowed the lead:
"I am concerned that he's making it like a game show," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told NPR's Morning Edition. "I am thinking about this person. I am thinking of that person, but I will announce it on prime-time TV at the White House. Whoever is nominated, whoever he or she is, they're going to be there for a long time."
Leahy's focus is right there at the end. My emphasis.
I haven’t seen it and it is interesting coming from Leahy.
I get fund raising emails from Leahy and they are pretty much exclusively ginned up and sensational scare mongering about whatever Republican he thinks will scare the most money out of his followers. I should cut and paste a few here, but I know that nothing will ever change your mind about anything Chuck.
Nonapod said...
I'm still on the fence about whether all this long term passionate disagreement is a net good or a net bad for this country. Unlike many people, I'm not convinced there will be some kind of violent outcome or civil war. I think things would have to get much, much worse before people would be willing to actually risk their own comfort. There's a pretty big difference between throwing tantrums and fomenting violent insurection.
At the very least people seem to be becoming more skeptical of the media, which is always a good thing.
FNC's Greg Gutfeld occasionally says some clever things. On Sunday, I heard him say words to the effect of, "Better to have two political sides in a society, battling over their views, than to have just one side." True dat.
But I think that it is very much of a net harm to the Supreme Court, and then a harm to all courts by implication, when the process is this politically-charged.
Of course, liberals bear most of the blame. They have done the most, to politicize the process, and they have placed the most reliance on federal courts acting as super-legislatures to impose social policy.
tim in vermont said...
"I haven’t seen it and it is interesting coming from Leahy."
I get fund raising emails from Leahy and they are pretty much exclusively ginned up and sensational scare mongering about whatever Republican he thinks will scare the most money out of his followers. I should cut and paste a few here, but I know that nothing will ever change your mind about anything Chuck.
Exactly how would you like to change my mind about Leahy? Do you know what my mind is, about Leahy? Do you suppose I am a Leahy supporter/friend? I am a Leahy o-p-p-o-n-e-n-t. I have repeatedly posted about my opposition to practically everything that the Biden/Leahy/Kennedy/Durbin/Schumer cabal did while they served on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The criticism of Trump's announcement technique is implicit in all the reporting. Just from Althouse links:
...the optics-obsessed president will be in his comfort zone — taking center stage in a massive show... Boston Herald
But as the philosopher Will Munny once noted, deserve’s got nothing to do with it, and the reality-TV battle that’s probably happening in the president’s mind may be the only one that matters. Ross Douthat
The Greatest Dragon Energy Show On Earth drags the crowds in. And that is news. Who wants to watch Mueller's dour Inquisitor's face pretending he can start a coup d'etat?
Mean while Sessions adds to his Sealed Federal indictments ( ca. 46,000) that is about blow up in the totally corrupt Dems and Rinos faces.
Besides there is the dead air problem TV has for two more weeks until football comes back.
I think things would have to get much, much worse before people would be willing to actually risk their own comfort.
Oh, dear no no. What is supposed to happen is some other people do the work for us. Say, college students, the black underclass or released convicts. They got the riot fu!
How come no one is talking about Hardiman?
He's calling attention to it..that is certain.
Perhaps making it a prime time announcement engages the populace.
For shame..
Music to await the announcement.
I bet DJT names the Catholic Judge. His political consultants say the Dems would go insane in public to block her. But that is exactly why he will nominate her.
And Trump laughs. His 51 vote majority button works.
It doesn't matter. The reaction to the nomination, that is. Trump could nominate Vladimir Putin or an American judge-the reaction would be similar.
The same goes for the next republican President not named Trump--
Worse than Hitler!!
Did you know that immediately upon the swearing in of Republican-appointed Supreme Justice, the Roe v Wade opinion is automatically reversed?
Nixon - Blackmun
Ford - Stevens
Reagan - O'Connor & Kennedy
Bush 1 - Souter
Wait, perhaps I've been misinformed.....,
It was the first time that I had heard anyone verbalize criticism of Trump's "show."
You really don't pay much attention to current events do you. Google "Reality Show President" and it'll break the Internet Dude. It's been the hot take since about middle of June 2015.
And Trump laughs. His 51 vote majority button works.
It might not work but would be a boon for the election. I don't know if she would be willing to go through that.
I'd still like to see him nominate Janice Rogers Brown. She could retire at 70 to give him another pick while in office.
Besides there is the dead air problem TV has for two more weeks until football comes back.
My wife is filling that time with soccer.
Doesn't work for me., Unless one of my grandkids is playing.
There's a clip going around where the interviewer asks people what they think of Trump's SCOTUS pick, even though it hasn't been announced yet!
You will not be surprised to learn that almost all of those shown say his "pick" is a white supremacist and extreme right wing radical.
Verdict first.
The Red Queen smiles.
When dumpster Trump announces his odious pick, some brave journalist should sacrifice his shoes to express his revulsion. Bush said at the time the brave Iraqi journalist threw his shoes in sequins, "If you want the facts it's a size 10 shoe that he threw." Notice how he rhymed "shoe" with "threw." Nice touch, Mr. President. Unfortunately, this is a country of cowards and scaredy cats no less so so-called journalists. Who says that journalists don't make the news, they report it? Maybe, that's part of the problem. We all, as citizens, have to hold this scumbag accountable. The Rethuglicans tote their guns because at heart they are a bunch of chickenshits. The number one chickenshit is Trump himself; there's no sugarcoating his wretchedness.
May his Supreme Court nominee have a literal skull in his closet, and go down in flames.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxNprnas7i8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequin
"I'd still like to see him nominate Janice Rogers Brown. She could retire at 70 to give him another pick while in office."
That's good, as he'll have a larger majority in the Senate next year.
I have it on good authority that a government Leer is picking up Althouse and Meade at the airport at noon.
What will Ann wear? Will Meade wear a suit? Drama!
It's like the old P. T. Barnum show--where the rubes got excited about all the exhibits and animals on display--then rushed through the door marked "egress" thinking they were going to see an even rarer animal. The Donald knows how to put out the bait, set the hook, then shove the media through the door marked "egress".
Trump knows this is the new reality. No person that claims Trump is making this a game show has any credibility with me, not on this issue. The Democrats started this, and Trump, as much of a doofus, braggart, and loud mouth as he is, is beating them like a drum.
I hope he goes on and on and on trashing the left while on prime time tv. Pointing out specific lies. Showing news clips of antifa and leftist violence. Professional propaganda vid of Waters stupidity, Pelosi brain freeze and stuttering., Hillary loaded horizontally into the van. Graphs of Russian money to Clintons. Bernies million dollar home. Warrens fake affirmative action enrollment. Email from FBI lovers. Evidence of witch-hunt.
This is why many voted for Trump. Tonight validates their decision.
Scalia had nine kids. Trump should nominate Scalia’s widow or one of his kids. LeBron would go apeshit
Exactly how would you like to change my mind about Leahy?
You said that Leahy had an “interesting” take on Trump’s appointment, or that it was “interesting, coming from Leahy” and I am here to tell you that Leahy is utterly predictable, and that the fact that Leahy would criticize Trump on any grounds, is about as “interesting” as, well, you fill in the analogy, maybe “interesting as empty beer cans in a drainage ditch,” In other words, it’s exactly what you would expect to find.
Chuck said: Liberals "have done the most, to politicize the process, and they have placed the most reliance on federal courts acting as super-legislatures to impose social policy."
The #1 reason - more than border control and 'not Hillary' - why Trump is President.
Mike said...
"It was the first time that I had heard anyone verbalize criticism of Trump's 'show.'"
You really don't pay much attention to current events do you. Google "Reality Show President" and it'll break the Internet Dude. It's been the hot take since about middle of June 2015.
My reference to "Trump's show" was to tonight's Supreme Court announcement.
If you had some question about that, you could have asked me.
All could be feints to keep the reveal mystery going.
Did Trump meet anyone while his plane was waiting on the tarmac in last week jaunts to the middle of the country?
Henry said...
How come no one is talking about Hardiman?
I think it is because the clear front-runner is Kavanaugh, but there is some pushback against Kavanaugh because he is seen as very much of a Bush/Roberts kind of conservative. And I think that some factions within TrumpWorld really want anybody who is "newer" and "not Bush, not Roberts." And that would be Amy Coney Barrett. It was Trump, who put Prof. Barrett onto the 7th Circuit some months ago. And I think that there is a big part of TrumpWorld that is focused on people and personalities, and hot-button issues and especially pushback on hot-button personal aspects. Never ever forget how important it is in TrumpWorld, to be flipping somebody off at all times.
Hardiman was praised by both Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell over the weekend. That ought to kill Hardiman with Trump-era "Republicans." (Hardiman was widely thought to be the runner-up to Gorsuch.)
Presidents in my lifetime have always asked for air time prime time for major announcements. Obama got away from it a bit since he liked to piss off everybody by showing up court side or during the Super Bowl pre game.
The Price is Right had an occasional prime time show.
Judge ______, come on down!!!
From article:
"In his dozen years on the court, Kavanaugh has been involved in some 286 opinions. In a recent case involving abortion and immigration, he wrote a decision that temporarily barred a pregnant teenager in immigration custody from obtaining an abortion. The opinion, written for a three-judge panel, was eventually overturned by the full court."
"Surprisingly", these breezy summaries NPR peddles seem a bit suspect.
Hardiman was praised by both Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell over the weekend. That ought to kill Hardiman with Trump-era "Republicans." (Hardiman was widely thought to be the runner-up to Gorsuch.)
chuck just being chuck.
I am glad that Chuck is here to comment on the SCOTUS choice. He will edify us as we watch the process unfold.
It's always fun to hear from fake pseudo-intellectual lawyers and Sgt. Schultz RINOs.
The only problem is that you are so predictable. No matter how wonderful the choice is, Trump still screwed it up somehow.
Wasn't Gorsuch found out in part because it was an AM announcement? Even if he wasn't a night time reveal makes it easier to conceal who it is without showing up in a local hotel the night before. Some doosh from FAA or Acela could still squeal, but still...
@Dr. Michael K, Chuck (upper case ‘C’) is not the same commentator as chuck (lower case ‘c’). IMHO you owe the latter an apology.
Hardiman was praised by both Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell over the weekend.
But what does George Will and Max Boot think?
Trump has known who the choice is from the moment Kennedy retired. I'll bet that Kennedy knows who the nominee is and went ahead and retired when he became aware that the nominee is going to be...... the guy who finished 2nd to Gorsuch the last time around. JPG
rehajm said...
Presidents in my lifetime have always asked for air time prime time for major announcements. Obama got away from it a bit since he liked to piss off everybody by showing up court side or during the Super Bowl pre game.
Yes; for executive branch stuff. To address a crisis, to announce a proposal, etc.
But this Trump showmanship is another bit of the ratcheting of the whole Supreme Court nominating process toward the end of the spectrum that is "rank political." The Democrats started it, and have done the most to advance it. Republicans have done some things on their own part to respond in kind, making it yet worse. (I don't think that the Republicans had much choice most of the time.)
So, Democrats gave us "Borking," and the debacle that was the Miguel Estrada nomination. The Dems did their high-tech lynching of Justice Thomas. And they held out on votes and employed blue-slipping procedures that gave us a big confirmation tie-up during the last year of Bush I and then did some of the same during Bush II.
Republicans in turn held up a lot of Dem nominees when they got the Senate in the 1990's and again in this new century, and especially held out on the far-left ideologues that Obama wanted placed on the DC Circuit to rubber-stamp federal legislation. Republicans really did set some new records for filibustering Obama nominees And, Republicans denied a vote on Merrick Garland altogether.
I think that Atlhouse is mostly right; this is what Trump does and he seems to be good at it, from a retail perspective. Polticial showmanship. I don't think it helps the federal judiciary in the long run. I think it helps the Donald Trump brand.
I bet DJT names the Catholic Judge. His political consultants say the Dems would go insane in public to block her. But that is exactly why he will nominate her. And Trump laughs.
Yes. My pick is also the female. It’s too good of an opportunity to pass up. She’s not Ivy League, she’s pro-Life, she’s relatively young and she’s female. The inevitable sexist reaction from the usual suspects will be another blow to their phony feminist charade – and another WIN for Trump!
And, Republicans denied a vote on Merrick Garland altogether.
25% of failed Supreme Court nominations failed because the Senate did not act on them. What happened to Garland was neither novel or unusual.
The odds haven't changed much for this game,
July 9, 2018
Who will be Donald Trump's next Supreme Court nominee?
Brett Kavanaugh +150
Amy Coney Barrett +150
Thomas Hardiman +200
Raymond Kethledge +750
Amul Thapar +10000
William Pryor +10000
Mike Lee +10000
Joan Larsen +10000
Britt Grant +10000
Don Willett +10000
Paul Clement +10000
Diane Sykes +10000
As soon as the Hack-D press realized the big lie about Trump and Milo as the cause of the newspaper rage shooting, the hack-D press dropped it all.
Merrick Garland fell squarely under the Biden rule.
traditionalguy said...
I bet DJT names the Catholic Judge...
Judge Kavanaugh is Catholic; Barrett isn't the only Roman Catholic under consideration.
The collective left are poised for extreme hate, vilification and MSNBC lies.
Heck. They are already doing it without Trump even announcing.
There is a recent video of a guy interviewing college students (yeah the smartest people evah) about Trump's pick. With only one exception they all started in on how racist and extreme that pick was. They didn't know WHO it was....hint....it wasn't anyone yet.
The only exception was a person who pointed out that Trump hadn't picked anyone yet. That part doesn't matter to the left. He could pick Ghandi and it would be a racist extremist end of the world choice.
So predictable.
Mid-terms need to be all about Hillary Clinton, her corruption, her unresolved payment in prison for that corruption, and the Clinton's refusal to exit stage left.
Got fatigue? You ain't seen nothing yet.
Gahrie said...
"And, Republicans denied a vote on Merrick Garland altogether."
25% of failed Supreme Court nominations failed because the Senate did not act on them. What happened to Garland was neither novel or unusual.
That's a weird stat. I've not heard that before. What is the total sample size, of "failed Supreme Court nominations, and then what is the total number, in all of American history, who never got a vote. I'm just guessing, but I am thinking that your stat includes nominees whose candidacies blew up before anybody even put them to a vote. Is Harriet Meirs one of your stat-examples? Was Abe Fortas (although he got a vote, didn't he?); is Judge Bork one of these cases?
Are you suggesting that what Republicans did to Garland was cool because it is what the Dems did to Bork? Did I just clarify your post?!?
OK, Chuck. Try the young attractive Catholic with " her" as the pronoun.
" I don't think it helps the federal judiciary in the long run. "
So, Hawaii judges blocking national issues are what helps "the federal judiciary in the long run?
Come on, chuck. That was too easy.
traditionalguy said...
OK, Chuck. Try the young attractive Catholic with " her" as the pronoun.
I knew you were talking about Coney Barrett. I don't think that you knew that Kavanugh was also Catholic.
That's a weird stat. I've not heard that before. What is the total sample size, of "failed Supreme Court nominations, and then what is the total number, in all of American history, who never got a vote.
I did the research back in 2007 and wrote a blog post about it:
https://gahrie.blogspot.com/2007/07/us-supreme-court-nominations.html
In summary at the time:
"So, of the 43 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 11 nominees. (two were later renominated and didn't serve, three were later renominated and served)
So 43 failed nominations, 11 that the Senate never acted on. Today that is 44 and 12.
Are you suggesting that what Republicans did to Garland was cool because it is what the Dems did to Bork? Did I just clarify your post?!?
No what I am saying is that what happened to Garland was neither novel or unusual, and the only reason people think it was is because they are ignorant of history and the media failed to educate them.
Are you suggesting that what Republicans did to Garland was cool because it is what the Dems did to Bork?
See LLR is all butthurt Garland didn't get approved.
The Repubs we're much nicer to Garland. The Dems viciously and falsely attacked Bork as a judge and a human being.
The Repubs just followed the rule announced by the sitting VP. No vote on a Supreme Court judge during a presidential year of a lame duck President.
Let the people decide. Sounds like a good rule.
Michael K said...
" I don't think it helps the federal judiciary in the long run. "
So, Hawaii judges blocking national issues are what helps "the federal judiciary in the long run?
Come on, chuck. That was too easy.
That was easy for you because you fucked it up so badly.
It wasn't a "Hawaii judge." It was a U.S. District Court Judge, with federal jurisdiction. Sitting in the U.S. District for Hawaii.
Now, in fact I disagreed with that district court decision. And I like the ultimate ruling in the recent decision of Trump v Hawaii. And I especially liked the Thomas concurrence, in which he questioned the growing trend of universal/nationwide injunctions issued by district courts.
So as far as I am concerned, you failed on all counts with that comment.
Wow, Chuckles- Leahy criticizing the way Trump is doing this announcement is as interesting as the fact that ice is cold.
"The Dems viciously and falsely attacked Bork as a judge and a human being."
Borks own words did him in. From Wikipedia, "Opposition to Bork centered on his stated desire to roll back the civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts and his role in the Saturday Night Massacre." Clarence Thomas is an ignoramus, and a joke on the Supreme Court. He perjured himself over and over again during confirmation hearing. Anita Hill bravely spoke truth to power. Apparently, the "lynching" wasn't high tech enough.
https://www.amazon.com/Speaking-Truth-Power-Anita-Hill/dp/0385476272
More crazy from you-know-who.
Allahpundit has some speculation on the USSC.
Chuck,
Just to flex your MO a bit..
Who would you suggest for this pick and why?
Whoops, bad link.
Try this one.
Yancey Ward said...
Wow, Chuckles- Leahy criticizing the way Trump is doing this announcement is as interesting as the fact that ice is cold.
I didn't say, "surprising." It isn't surprising, that Leahy would speak critically of Trump's selection.
I wrote that it was "interesting." It is interesting, not because I would ever expect one nice thing to be said about a Trump nominee by Leahy; rather it is interesting because Leahy is a person of consequence in this process, and his voice is bound to get an audience. And what he said -- the particularized criticism of Trump's "reality show" process today/tonight -- was new. I had not heard anyone else of consequence talking about tonight's announcement on live television as a Trump reality show.
I wasn't in any way supporting Leahy. I imagine that many Althouse commenters might think that I was supporting, because so many of you are such stupid one-dimensional losers. But I wasn't siding with Leahy on anything and in fact I said that Leahy may have been reduced to talking about this one thing because there wasn't a real live nominee to talk about.
"It wasn't a "Hawaii judge." It was a U.S. District Court Judge, with federal jurisdiction. Sitting in the U.S. District for Hawaii.
Thanks Chuck.
We continue to await your corrections. We are not worthy, but we are so happy for you to enlighten us with your superior knowledge and insight. Guide us oh master of legal knowledge and logic.
And, try to do it without being such a petty little asshole.
It'll be interesting to find out who won't be able to dine out undisturbed for the foreseeable future.
"Unlike many people, I'm not convinced there will be some kind of violent outcome or civil war."
-- Seeing as a Senator has been assaulted and a Representative shot, along with various clashes by protesting groups and protesting groups, protestors and regular people, protestors and cops, etc.: The violent outcomes have ALREADY happened. We're just figuring out the scale.
Ha! Talk about "one-dimensional".
Where Leahy ends, Chuck picks it up and runs with it entirely precictably:
"Althouse thinks it is great showmanship and messaging; and maybe it is. For me, it only calls attention to the fact that Trump is so far removed from actual legal theory and the serious matters of the federal judiciary (more so than any president in modern history save perhaps Carter) and that for Trump a Supreme Court nomination is something like Miss Universe."
But hey..experience tells us it's much smarter to go about things meekly, allowing the MSM to completely control that messaging.
walter said...
Chuck,
Just to flex your MO a bit..
Who would you suggest for this pick and why?
First, a straight answer: Brett Kavanaugh. He's the dream pick. He's the 2002-era Tom Brady. The absolute best, most reliable record of conservatism. He's been a dream pick for SCOTUS for ten years.
Second, as I have written before, all four of the supposed finalists are great additions. I try hard not to hate Kennedy, after he gave us Citizens United. But then I remember Kennedy's voice quaking as he read his outlandish argle bargle majority opinion from the bench in Lawrence v Texas and I say good riddance. Welcome, new justice _______.
Third, you wanna know who I would've picked from off of the list that Trump was using? It's Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He's 57; maybe that's strategically too old for long-term political influence on the Court. But he'd have been on my list at a minimum. If we were grading on a kind of "percentage of conservative reliability," I'd give Brett Kavanaugh a reliability rating of 98%. Jeffrey Sutton 90%. And Joan Larsen (also at the 6th Cir.) 75%.
"Yes; for executive branch stuff. To address a crisis, "...
You must not watch the news. This nomination is the most crisisy crisis EVER!!!!!
"But this Trump showmanship is another bit of the ratcheting of the whole Supreme Court nominating process...."
See above, we're already at Defcon/Roe eleventy.
But, yeah, it's all Trump.
Ok Chuck,
Thanks for that.
I take it that supposedly damning bit about Kavanaugh is not quite as presented:
"temporarily barred a pregnant teenager in immigration custody from obtaining an abortion. The opinion, written for a three-judge panel, was eventually overturned by the full court."
That summary offers no context, not even age of the "teenager"
And I didn't write "surprising" either, Chuckles. It wasn't interesting despite your attempt to make it seem so. Leahy wasn't the first person to express this opinion about the way Trump is going about this nomination- that started the day Trump announced the prime time revelation. I am going to explain this to you in words you probably won't be able to understand:
Leahy doesn't like this process because it makes it harder for Leahy and the Democrats to set the narrative on the nominee. Trump is ensuring he gets in the first words with the biggest audience this process will have during its entire length until the confirmation vote. Most people will form their opinions of the nominee based on what Trump and the nominee say tonight- that narrative will be difficult to undo. While I would select Kavanaugh, I think Trump might well go with Barrett since this process works better with a female nominee.
Michael K I gave your Allahpundit link a quick read. I saw this:
"Barrett is very clearly the choice that’ll make his base happiest and galvanize them for a big chair-throwing culture-war brawl with the left..."
I get the feeling that that is a true statement; but why? What does TrumpWorld know about Amy Coney Barrett that makes them feel that way? Anybody?
And then there was this:
"She’s [Barrett] far less of a known quantity as a judge than Kavanaugh or Kethledge are and might well disappoint conservatives in all sorts of ways over the next 40 years on the Court. (Although, crucially, probably not on abortion.) It’d be wiser to give her five years on the bench and then see where things stand.
That seems right to me; so why is she getting the push that she is getting?
I can think of one good reason to nominate her; she's the absolute nightmare nominee for Senator Joe Donnelly (D-IN). An attractive Notre Dame professor; and an Indiana senator would vote against her? If they got Donnelly to crack, and vote for her confirmation, and that in turn sealed a one-vote majority (even if, say, Donnelly traded his "Yes" vote for Collins' "No" vote, and they thereby guaranteed a "Yes" outcome for both whips, it might then allow some other Dems to switch sides given that it was a lost cause. So Joe Manchin could vote "Yes," as long as Schumer and Durbin knew that it was already a lost cause and they wouldn't have to threaten some punishment. We'd end up with a vote like Gorsuch's confirmation vote.
"What does TrumpWorld know about Amy Coney Barrett that makes them feel that way? Anybody?"
-- This is just my speculation, as I have no particular dog in the Supreme Court fight, but by picking a qualified woman, it is a deliberate bait to cause the Palin/Christine O'Donnell reaction from Democrats.
All I know is this: Whoever Trump chooses better have been thoroughly vetted so that there aren't any personal skeletons in the closets. Any male he chooses is going to have every woman who ever worked for him tracked down and interrogated; ex-lovers will be questioned, etc., etc.
Trump's team... rarely does their homework, so I think there's a lot of relying on the other groups that provided recommendations to have done that. Whoever it is that gets nominated needs to be prepared for the death threats, both the dramatic and real. They should have security planned for them and their family, and they better be damn careful of public appearances. We've heard that Trump officials shouldn't be able to go about "unscathed," so whoever the recommended nominee is better be damn ready to make it to the hearing unscathed.
Matthew Sablan said...
"What does TrumpWorld know about Amy Coney Barrett that makes them feel that way? Anybody?"
-- This is just my speculation, as I have no particular dog in the Supreme Court fight, but by picking a qualified woman, it is a deliberate bait to cause the Palin/Christine O'Donnell reaction from Democrats.
You may be right. Is that what Trumpism is all about? Trolling the opposition? Does "trolling the opposition" extend to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States? What about "the very best nominee?"
I do not understand how the selected nominee could possibly be camera ready by 9 pm tonight when as of this morning the chosen one is supposedly still unchosen.
All the finalists could be on stage sitting on stools like in the Dating Game. We could then see the reactions of the losers as well as the winner. Cool.
Eh, she's qualified. Part of the judgment call of who to pick is also, sadly, in part: "Who can I actually get through the Senate?" And a woman who immediately defuses a lot of the standard "white man who wants to end abortion and can't understand what it is like to be a woman, and is probably a sexist," is... a really powerful tool to help you get through the Senate. The trolling the opposition is just icing on the cake.
But, like I said, I don't really have much of an opinion on who gets picked. Pretty much all four of the big names still in contention seem fine by me; I'm just not sure which of the four will make it through the nomination process the easiest. There's some argument that being a woman is a plus, but then again, given the Palin Effect, we could also see her called an un-woman. It is playing with fire either way.
Palin and O'Donnel weren't within the "year of the woman"/"metoo era".
Although..doesn't seem to matter to the unhinged harassing Sanders and other Trump admin folk.
Matthew Sablan at 12:21 pm:
Agreed. I think I can tie this back to the comment you made before, too- by nominating a woman, Trump can avoid the MeToo attacks that are sure to come if it is a male nominee. Gorsuch got nominated and confirmed before this became a hashtag. A nominee today won't.
Sal said...
"I do not understand how the selected nominee could possibly be camera ready by 9 pm tonight when as of this morning the chosen one is supposedly still unchosen."
All the finalists could be on stage sitting on stools like in the Dating Game. We could then see the reactions of the losers as well as the winner. Cool.
Will we ever know what that arrangement was? Or have they all signed NDA's with the Trump Organization? Is Trump still "David Dennison"? Will Amy Coney Barrett be "Peggy Peterson"?
Of the 4 listed candidates, I think Barrett IS "the very best nominee" from a conservative perspective. The fact that the reaction to her pick will once again show the Democrats for the raging hypocrites that they are is just icing on the beautiful, beautiful cake.
You may be right. Is that what Trumpism is all about? Trolling the opposition?
No..trolling by the Left and their GOP Establishment allies is what caused Trump. Remember bitterclingers and deplorables?
Does "trolling the opposition" extend to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States?
When it can be done cost free..why not? Personally I am in the "hold Barrett for the RBG seat" camp in part because it would be more of a shot in the face to the Left.
What about "the very best nominee?"
Yeah..get back to me when Trump nominates a Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, Blackmun, or Brennan.
I prefer Kavanaugh for one simple reason- he is a known quantity to an extent the others are not- in other words, there is almost zero percent chance he is a David Souter sequel. All the others said to be in contention aren't quite as certain in my mind, though I would be willing to take the chance on any of them, too, if for some reason Kavanaugh can't be confirmed.
I'm really getting tired of all this "pre-porting" the MSM is doing. Even Limbaugh mentioned it, in his Show today.
Ever notice how little "Adult news" we get out of the MSM? I have to read an intelligent, balanced analysis of either Trump's Trade moves or his immigration proposals. Instead it all just "Babies at the border!!" and "OMG, its a trade war".
And when its not that, its "Nazis in Charlottsville" or "OMG, did you hear what Trump Said?!"
We have the least competent, biased, childish press on the entire Planet.
"very best nominee" obviously varies according to the extent it dovetails with political calculations of political animals casting votes.
If you could assure votes strictly on qualifications, then you'd be right.
Whoever Trump nominates will be subject to the standard MSM Borking with Democrats like Nina Totenberg poring through the nominees trash cans, and past trying to find some deep dark secret or comment that will disqualify them.
Then we'll get the hearing with the usual evasive testimony and the D Senators making speeches and trying to show what great constitutional scholars they are. Fortunately, we won't have to listen to "Slow Joe" Biden - making an ass out of himself.
I wish Chuck would use an avatar. Like Ritmo.
Makes it much easier to scroll.
Part of the judgment call of who to pick is also, sadly, in part: "Who can I actually get through the Senate?" ... with the Senate as constituted at the time of the nomination.
?who has skin in the game? and ?backbone? and ?moral character?
Qwinn said...
Of the 4 listed candidates, I think Barrett IS "the very best nominee" from a conservative perspective. The fact that the reaction to her pick will once again show the Democrats for the raging hypocrites that they are is just icing on the beautiful, beautiful cake.
You have every right to that opinion, and you may be right. I'm just wondering how you can be so sure.
The second of your two sentences seems to go back to something along the lines of, "She's great because the Democrats will hate her."
Or perhaps is a variant of, "She's great, because we get to use the Democrats' identity politics (women, in this case) against them..."?
For my part, I am so sick of identity politics. Sick and tired of the Democrats using it; tired of the Republicans' playing it in reverse.
I am still holding out hope for Amul Thakar, if only because that's an appointment that really would make heads explode. It's not impossible; he was one of the six interviewed.
Incidentally, whence cometh this idea that Trump's selection process is unprecedentedly "untransparent"? (I think it was Linda Greenhouse in the NYT who actually used that word, but the sentiment is all over.) Trump's process is exceedingly transparent. Every President has used others to screen and vet his picks; Trump is just the first to name the screeners and vetters, and this is an affront to "transparency"?
...Nina Totenberg poring through the nominees trash cans,
if you want thin paper trail then newby is the way to go - Thapar or Barrett
Trump could have held all the interviews on live television, Michelle, and Greenhouse and the left would still claim it was "untransparent". You are right- this particular nomination is the most transparent process ever done for a SCOTUS pick- no other one comes close.
Reading 'conservative' social media, every front runner has been picked apart, and no matter who he picks some 'conservatives' will point to his nomination as proof Trump is really a liberal.
Further, this pick does not 'fundamentally change the Court'. A Republican President is replacing the Justice from another Republican President.
No matter who he picks I hope it sends liberals running headlong off a 300' cliff while screeching at the sky.
What if it is Barrett, and the plan is for the D's to go ballistic and spend all of their energy attacking her?
Afterwards, Trump nominates his real first choice. If the D's somehow manage to vote down TWO nominees in a row, the R base might be energized enough to swing some close races, and give the Senate a clear R majority?
Even if that fails, are the D's really brave enough to vote down THREE nominees in row?
Sheesh--if the pick is a woman, commenter Martha (nee Stewart?) says the nominee can't be ready by 9 pm EDT tonight because "wardrobe, hair, makeup takes time."
Now I'm married, so I sympathize with the thought--but Martha have you looked at Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sandra Sotomayor? Those three never would have made the prelims at a Miss USA contest. Let's just say that the level of pulchitrude competition on the female side of the Supreme Court is not high. And that's just fine. What's important in a Supreme Court justice is their intellectual ability, not their looks.
"No matter who he picks I hope it sends liberals running headlong off a 300' cliff while screeching at the sky."
I'm pretty sure that is going to happen unless he picks someone to the left of RBG and The Wise Latina.
Anyone remember the Souter hearings? Molly Yard (NOW Pres.) made a very emotional speech fearing for the lives of women with that nomination. LOL!
If you can't see the connotation of 'surprise' in the word 'interesting' I don't think that we are speaking the same language, Chuck.
I thoroughly dislike the “fundamentally changes the court meme”. It will most likely move it slightly to the right, but this is not Thomas replacing Marshall, or should either Ginsburg or Breyer get replaced by Trump.
But why would the Left or the MSM (but I repeat myself) let reality get in the way of a good group hate.
So, at what time is the sky scheduled to fall ?
If RBG dies with Trump in office and the Republicans holding the Senate, the Democrats will explode in violence. Tonight's selection won't change the court very much at all- Kennedy was mostly a reliable conservative pick in the cases that truly mattered in my opinion
Chuck, FFS. If I'm rooting for her because I think she's the best nominee regardless, I'm not playing 'identity politics in reverse'. Did you just ignore the 'icing on the cake' part? The Dems will play IP no matter who we choose, its who they are, it's what they do. The fact that she will have natural defenses against it that the other ones don't makes her likelier to pass, which is an obvious advantage. But in your telling, I have to NOT choose the candidate I consider best AND likeliest to win because she's a woman, and if I pick her, I get Chuck's contempt for playing "identity politics in reverse". In case you weren't aware, this is the sort of thing that makes everyone hate you.
The most I can hope for is that whoever wins the SCOTUS prize is not sworn in saying "So help me God"!
As for why I think she's best, it's because the other candidates have crappy history re: immigration and ACA rulings. If they're squishy even before getting to SCOTUS, they're guaranteed to turn into Souters or worse. I'll take the one who hasn't already proven themselves to put policy preferences over the Constitution, thanks.
"Chuck said...
For my part, I am so sick of identity politics. Sick and tired of the Democrats using it; tired of the Republicans' playing it in reverse."
Well, the Dems are not going to stop Chuckles, and although we know that you are in the GOPe camp that just bends over and grabs their ankles, not all of use are, nor is Trump.
@traditionalguy said...
The Greatest Dragon Energy Show On Earth drags the crowds in. And that is news. Who wants to watch Mueller's dour Inquisitor's face pretending he can start a coup d'etat?
This Dragon Energy Show is sponsored by Puff himself - all smoke and no fire. And somehow we can detect a movement toward the Fox News Channel's view that Robert Mueller was appointed by Republicans to overthrow Trump via a coup where Republicans are weaponizing and twisting their congressional investigations to make federal law enforcement agencies into bad guys because they find potential illegalities in Trump's obstructionist interference and evidence of direct Trump team interactions with the Russian government.
I frankly did not think that the Republican Party would ever accede to deliberate lying. They wouldn't lie for Nixon.
"I frankly did not think"
FIFY gaddie.
No matter who he picks I hope it sends liberals running headlong off a 300' cliff while screeching at the sky.
And I hope CNN covers every minute.
Blogger jimbino said...
The most I can hope for is that whoever wins the SCOTUS prize is not sworn in saying "So help me God"!]If only Hillary had won then the Justices she appointed could be sworn in saying "So help me Satan." Is that better ?
The most I can hope for is that whoever wins the SCOTUS prize is not sworn in saying "So help me God"! - jimbino
Yep. That pretty much is the most you can hope for.
Enjoy the wilderness.
"What if it is Barrett, and the plan is for the D's to go ballistic and spend all of their energy attacking her?" If Barrett fails, it will be because the Democrats voted against on a party line vote. That will hurt their chances of taking the Senate.
#StrongDurbinBlumenthalDefender Chuck: "You have every right to that opinion, and you may be right. I'm just wondering how you can be so sure."
LOL
Yeah, LLR Chuck, our noted mindreader, just wrote that.
Too funny.
My favorite part of this entire nomination exercise?
The utter beclowning of both dem fanboy LLR Chuck's dem heroes, "US Troops are gestapo" Durbin and Stolen Valor Blumenthal!
What a great couple of weeks its been, and what a great week this one will be as well.
It would be fun to watch a "pro-choice" person call out Barett for being "anti-choice" using the "You folks don't care once they're born" argument.
That..and she's "raaacist!!"
"Wait..she did what?"
LLR Chuck is very, very, very upset that Trump continues to expose the dems for the insane morons that they are.
LOL
#SoMuchWinning
MikeR: "If Barrett fails, it will be because the Democrats voted against on a party line vote. That will hurt their chances of taking the Senate."
Careful.
Any mention of dems not achieving their political goals is quite triggering to LLR Chuck.
"They [Republicans] wouldn't lie for Nixon."
-- Unfortunately, a lot of the new blood in Republican circles vaguely remembers that, but quite distinctly remembers being told "everyone lies about sex" and that "it isn't a crime to lie about sex" and all sorts of excuses for Clinton's lying. And so, well, goose-gander.
It is one of the things I wish didn't happen, but hey, the left voted for the guy who lied about not taking private money for the election over the guy who stood by the principles of limiting money in government. A true left that *cared* about honesty would've given us a 1-term President McCain by sitting out voting for Obama. They didn't, and that further solidified the more reactionary/Trumpian Republicans into thinking: "Why, exactly, are we fighting fair again?"
Qwinn said...
If I'm rooting for her because I think she's the best nominee regardless, I'm not playing 'identity politics in reverse'. Did you just ignore the 'icing on the cake' part? The Dems will play IP no matter who we choose, its who they are, it's what they do. The fact that she will have natural defenses against it that the other ones don't makes her likelier to pass, which is an obvious advantage.
A Barrett appointment is not "identity politics in reverse", it is an attack on identity politics because it forces Dems to reveal they don't support underlying principles.
#StrongDemDefender Chuck: "For my part, I am so sick of identity politics. Sick and tired of the Democrats using it; tired of the Republicans' playing it in reverse."
LOL
Notice how LLR Chuck attempts to create a moral equivalence to what the dems do every second of every day with the republican side.
Hey, sure, Al Capone was bad and all, but that kid over there is running a lemonade stand without a license!!!!
Nice try Chuckie, but your pathetic effort at advancing lefty narratives and creating equivalence (to the conservatives/republicans disadvantage) is not working...nor will it...ever!
I noticed that "The Poor Man's LLR Chuck" gadfly popped in to provide additional incoherent and zero logic posts.
I've found that if you simply remove every 3rd word from any random LLR Chuck post you get the equivalent of a gadfly post.
tcrosse said...
So, at what time is the sky scheduled to fall ?
Pre-game 8 p.m.
9 p.m. Starting line-up announced
9:10 Libs take a knee.
If any of you think that LLR Chuck is going to let Trump get away with appointing a qualified conservative to the SC AND embarrassing the lunatic dems while doing it without a fight from Chuckie and his pals, well, you've got another thing coming!
>>No matter who he picks I hope it sends liberals running headlong off a 300' cliff while screeching at the sky.
Again, I think that might very well be the plan. Send them off the cliff, and then roll out the real first choice, and see if they will head off the cliff again!
Anticipation is making me wait.
OMG Drago,
Give it a rest
walter, lots of time to kill between now and 9pm ET
"What's important in a Supreme Court justice is their intellectual ability, not their looks. "
They should not look slovenly either.
"Again, I think that might very well be the plan. Send them off the cliff, and then roll out the real first choice, and see if they will head off the cliff again!"
-- Eh, he gave Gorsuch on the first go. I think any "trolling libs" will be incidental to picking the person he wants. A fun incidental he will revel in, but incidental all the same.
Quite frankly, what is happening with Merkel and her immigration comeuppance/surrender along with the pending Brexit doom clouds now swirling around Theresa May is more interesting and will continue to be starting at approximately 9:15pm ET tonight.
However, this SC fight, given the weakness and "shot in own foot award" quality of the dems hilarious talking points and narratives, makes this event so much more fun.
Not only will Trump nominate the best jurists possible, they will also be the most attractive.
I'm really liking this Trump Presidency thing....
I don't understand the excitement about who he picks. They will all decide cases mostly the same way and one of them will be definitely be confirmed. None of this can be a surprise in any way. The only real anticipation is which Democrats will self-immolate.
Still hope Trump does a head-fake and nominates Amul Thapar.
Our friend Chuck affirmatively like the candidates for SCOTUS, and will support and laud the pick tonight - but he doesn't give any credit to Trump for making said pick.
That's the nub of it.
As a general rule, the President should get credit or discredit for the picks he make (in my book). True for Obama re Sotomayor, true for Trump re Gorsuch, true for next pick.
And NOW, #OneInFour is a thing..
"Enjoy the wilderness."
Visit your National Parks today!
Trump should tell Manchin, McCaskell, Donnellly, Collins and Murkowsky that if they vote down this pick, the next one will be Judge William Pryor. If he goes down, next up is Judge Roy Moore. If Moore goes down we will exhume the corpse of Judge Roy Bean.
Blogger walter said...
And NOW, #OneInFour is a thing..
I had to look it up-
1 in 4 women will have a abortion.
Example:
#oneinfour women in the US has had an abortion - that's a lot of people to lock up if SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade. This from the same admin trying to block WHO from advocating breast milk!
Trump produced a list of names for the Supreme Court while campaigning for President. Tonight from that list he will announce his nomination to replace Kennedy. How shocking! The man is keeping a campaign promise. Chuck, a question for you: which of candidates on Trump's list do you object to on Conservative principles?
We know for a fact that if Trump's choice was awful, Chuck would hold Trump personally and entirely responsible.
But if Trump's pick is good, Chuck has already said Trump gets zero credit for that.
The utter and complete logical inconsistency of this, never mind the utter lack of fair play or intellectual honesty in it, is apparently completely lost on him. Or it's not lost on him, and he just doesn't give a fuck about fair play or intellectual honesty as long as it helps bring Trump down. And then he wonders why we consider him a de facto lefty.
By now the usual suspects are going to need dental work.
British government implodes over Brexit ahead of the Trump visit.
At least they'll have a baby Trump balloon to fly over London to remind the subjects of what is important.
Browndog,
I think I want to see how that ratio was arrived at.
For instance, if Chelsea Handler has a dozen, how that is accounted for..
If Trump TRULY were a Showman. He'd write the same name on dozens of pieces of paper, and put them into a MAGA hat. Then, on live TV, he'd pull one out, without telling us that secretly, they all had his choice printed on there. Then, once he revealed the name, he'd cast the other slips of paper into a fire behind him so his secret was never revealed. Then, he'd sign the MAGA hat and invite the teenager who was robbed to come up and receive his hat.
If, you know, he wanted to be OVER THE TOP.
Or Wheel of Fortune with Melania working the letters...
The President has a list of great conservative jurists which he has made utterly fascinating. Might have a larger audience than the revamped Miss America show. That show will feature overweight 57's [57 gender members] in horn-rimmed glasses who have organized marches by bulimic "57's" in horn-rimmed glasses protesting the arrests of MS 13 women [wise Latina, you better believe it] - defecating on San Franflithsco streets. The president's show will feature a smiling President, an intelligent principled judge and the clown circle, MSM's news-fakies trying to say the ugliest thing possible, trying to incite riots, trying to think of a new insult to half the country. The large audience will comprise liberals watching liberals interviewing liberals about how "everyone" [liberal] feels and liberals urging everyone [liberal] to snark and scream at the sky and cry big tears, juicy with virtue; while the Trump half revels in the spectacle the TDSers are making of themselves.
#oneinfour women in the US has had an abortion
I call bullshit. I know lots and lots of women - binders full of them, even - of all political stripes.
Not one has had an abortion. Not a single one.
I mean, it's not like they would announce it or anything, but there's just no way.
So, bullshit on this one-in-four crap.
#OneInFour...a bit different approach from the "Safe, legal and rare" vibe.
I'm betting Walter is right, that they're counting women who've had multiple abortions as distinct women having one each. That's how they get their misleading "50% of marriages end in divorce" statistic, presenting that as if half the population who has married wound up divorced. No.
"I'm betting Walter is right, that they're counting women who've had multiple abortions as distinct women having one each."
-- I was about to say "I bet it is like the divorce statistic" too. Getting divorced is not an anomaly, but it is not common. Getting divorced *twice* though, if you're in the universe of "been divorced once," on the other hand...
Jim at said...
#oneinfour women in the US has had an abortion
I call bullshit. I know lots and lots of women - binders full of them, even - of all political stripes.
Not one has had an abortion. Not a single one.
I mean, it's not like they would announce it or anything, but there's just no way.
So, bullshit on this one-in-four crap.
Prolly the same 1-in-4 who got raped on campus.
No wonder Lena feels left out..
Qwinn said...
We know for a fact that if Trump's choice was awful, Chuck would hold Trump personally and entirely responsible.
But if Trump's pick is good, Chuck has already said Trump gets zero credit for that.
The utter and complete logical inconsistency of this, never mind the utter lack of fair play or intellectual honesty in it, is apparently completely lost on him. Or it's not lost on him, and he just doesn't give a fuck about fair play or intellectual honesty as long as it helps bring Trump down. And then he wonders why we consider him a de facto lefty.
Here's what you should know, "for a fact," because I have written it all here many times:
I'm an adoring fan of the late Justice Scalia. I'm a great admirer, of Justice Thomas, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. I said I was "thrilled" by the nomination of Justice Gorsuch.
I gave much of the credit in the Gorsuch nomination process to three people; Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society; Mitch McConnell; and former Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who was Gorsuch's senatorial "Sherpa." I criticized Trump, for his role in complicating the kerfuffle with Sen. Blumenthal.
And now, I have agreed with almost every Republican in the Senate in saying that any one of the four of the current "names" would be a fantastic addition to the Court.
Trump's entire list was quite good, and by all accounts, it was a list drawn up through the expertise of the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. By almost every account that I know of, that is how the list came about, and the entire political point of the list was to reconcile people exactly like me with Trump.
What other questions are there? What more could I say?
Qwinn said... BLAH BLAH BLAH
Blogger Chuck said... YADA YADA YADA
What more could I say?
Impossible, the more you wright, the less you say
What more could I say?
You'll figure out something.
I believe it used to be called the bully pulpit. Only the technology has changed. Trump is just adding a bit of PT Barnum to it. It sets better with me than taking the hipster cool dude approach. But that's just me. But love him or hate him there's no denying it is the Greatest Show on Earth.
That Trump hawked that list during the campaign is also an argument to ignore Biden's so-called (presidential election) rule this early in a presidential term.
cubanbob said...
Trump produced a list of names for the Supreme Court while campaigning for President. Tonight from that list he will announce his nomination to replace Kennedy. How shocking! The man is keeping a campaign promise. Chuck, a question for you: which of candidates on Trump's list do you object to on Conservative principles?
I haven't thought of it. I did think (and I so wrote in several comments) that my knowledge of some people on the list were probably not serious candidates. Because I knew them, I focused on the Michigan judges.
Former Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Young was put on the list because he is a black conservative. Bob is actually a great guy; I wish that he had not retired from the Michigan Supreme Court. He actively attends our Federalist Society meetings. But he was never, ever going to be picked for the Supreme Court; he is 67.
Former Michigan Supreme Court Justice and current (Trump-nominated) Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Joan Larsen is an interesting name. She's got the good history of having a Scalia clerkship and experience in the Bush DoJ/OLC. She is reputed to be conservative, but in her really new, short judicial career, she doesn't have much of a track record. At 49, she's the right age, but I just don't know how anybody is so certain of her conservative bona fides.
And then there is Ray Kethledge. Who has been discussed at length.
I'm sure it is a good list; and part of what made it a good list was the representation of women and minorities on it because that is what we all have to do these days. I know that some of the listed names were no serious, but I don't think I had any objection to any of them "on conservative principles."
Anti-cipation Of Anti-Trump. Or Aunty Trump.
NPR... Anticipation, constipation, can we discern the difference?
hat tip: NYT, close association, regulatory relief.
Judge Amy Barrett just landed in D.C. wearing hooded red cloak/ cape / white bonnet / red crossover bag.
LLR Chuck: "Here's what you should know, "for a fact," because I have written it all here many times:.."
LOL
By your own admission, you are here to smear Trump.
Nothing more, nothing less.
You could regale us with your intimate knowledge of Trump’s Michigan electoral chances because that one is still quite funny. Part of your greatest hits, but without the racism or psycho-sexual abuse of old ladies to which you are prone, I say.
Or quit being a condescending, racist know-it-all, fopdoodle extraordinaire.
Peter Baker NYTimes just tweeted:
Buzz at the US courthouse in DC: Brett Kavanaugh spotted leaving in a black sedan accompanied by four black SUVs with security agents presumed to be Secret Service, per source.
If Judge Barrett is there with all of her kids will the Democrats smear them the way they did Sarah Palin?
I understand that she adopted two of them and they are disabled.
Or will the press just concentrate on celebrating Chelsea Handler's abortions?
Wait. It is her own child that is disabled. Not the ones she adopted from Haiti.
So is Andrew Sullivan gonna look up her uterus?
Trump's team... rarely does their homework, so I think there's a lot of relying on the other groups that provided recommendations to have done that.
I don't think you've been paying attention. As far as Trump is concerned- the group that provided him with a list of names is part of Trump's team. As is anyone who helps him.
The Democrats are already up in arms and we don't even know the nominee yet? There is something seriously wrong with the Democratic Party!
Trump will likely have a chance to make the court a 6 - 3 split[conservative] during his term. However, the Democrats will insure that Trump will get through the most conservative nominees. Rather than work with Trump and hopefully get a more moderate through the process the Democrats, due to Harry Reid, are snake-bitten and will lose this fight. The spectacle will not help the Democrats come November, 2018 elections.
Googling for abortion rates, leads on t to find the Guttmacher Institute which in turn references:
Population Group Abortion Rates and Lifetime Incidence of Abortion: United States, 2008–2014
found here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678377/
Which lists methodology.
It states
"In 2008, it was estimated that 30% of women aged 15 to 44 years would have an abortion by age 45 years if the prevailing rate continued,4 and this figure is often used to demonstrate the commonality of abortion.2,5 However, the abortion rate has declined substantially since that time—14% between 2011 and 2014 alone3—and it is likely that the estimate of the lifetime incidence of abortion has also declined."
And
"If the 2014 age-specific abortion rates prevail, 24% of women aged 15 to 44 years in that year will have an abortion by age 45 years."
So the 24% is a projection, which is 20% lower (30% in 2008 vs. 24% in 2014) than the same projection in 2008.
Further, I did a quick excel spreadsheet and recreated their TABLE 2 and ran the numbers. Assuming my math is correct instead of 24% having a first abortion by age 45 I came up with 21.2% closer to one in five.
Barrett and her family got on a plane a couple of hours ago.
For DC. If Twitter is a credible source.
I came up with 21.2% closer to one in five.
Thank you for doing that. I still call bullshit.
Does she keep the adopted kids in cages wrapped in foil ....
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा