The NYT reports.
Speaking of "gangster-like" approach, I was just reading this editorial in the NYT, "Democrats: Do Not Surrender the Judiciary":
Barring some unforeseen development, the president will lock in a 5-to-4 conservative majority, shifting the court solidly to the right for a generation. This is all the more reason for Democrats and progressives to take a page from “The Godfather” and go to the mattresses on this issue....So... gangster good or gangster bad? Which is it?
By the way, I thought "go to the mattresses" was a mistake and the expression was "go to the mat." But both expressions exist. "Go to the mat" comes from wrestling, but "go to the mattresses" is in "The Godfather."
From the book, page 250:
...
Posts
51 comments:
If the Democrats didn't want the court to lock in a 5-4 conservative majority, then why didn't they put up a better candidate instead of one with such a political tin ear that she boasted about shutting down coal mines in West Virginia?
From another commenter on this editorial: "The Times really doesn’t seem to understand that the federal judiciary is not supposed to play a “crucial role in shaping this nation,” or to “tak[e] an ever-greater hand in policy areas….” That is the Democrats’ vision of the role of the judiciary"
Kim could end up with a horse's head in his bed sheets.
NK playing its part in the China tarriff wars.
They will be good boys again when Xi is happy.
Nothing is isolated.
It is going to be fascinating to watch these "negotiations" proceed. I think there is something to them since Xi and China is publicly involved, but the North Koreans are going to try every trick and delaying tactic in the book - and their book is a thick one - to gain something - anything - for as little as possible or nothing at all.
I hope Mr Pompeo is a patient man and keeps smiling benevolently while telling them: No, we are not going to play that game again.
Trump loves the negotiation.
Obama preferred to shit his pants!
As I recall, the last democrat to go to the mattresses was Bill Clinton.
Given the meaning of "going to the mattresses" and the NYT's abhorrence of violence I can only conclude they've never watched or read "The Godfather".
-sw
Blogger buwaya said...
NK playing its part in the China tarriff wars.
They will be good boys again when Xi is happy.
Nothing is isolated.
Oh yes but Maxine will have hysterics. She never negotiated anything since she retired from the street,
The NY Times wants war with the 300 millions guns that are owned by their opposition.
Even Chamberlain knew better than that.
All grand standing...........don't read much into it.
Expected behavior..........
The NORKS are used to pussies like ClintonBushObama so their playbook is a little out of date. I think it’s important that they have given up American war dead. The NYT may expect Trump to solve the NORK problem overnight. But they are neither smart nor reasonable.
OTOH, being Democrats they are in favor of Civil War. "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose".
Rocket Man is playing as if he can reverse his surrender if he doesn't get his way. That is smoke and mirrors talk. The surrender to Trump has passed the point where it can be reversed. And everybody knows that.
When the Dems go to the mat on the new Justice, they will be pinned in10 seconds of the First Round.
The only problem is boredom with Trump wins. The media needs some WWF hype to break the boredom.
Expect huge wins the rest of the month with NATO and with Putin. Ho, hum...boredom.
Trump was played.
“Negotiation”...lol.
The North Koreans see the adversarial relationship Trump has with the Press and they are attempting to use it to their advantage. However, KJU signed a four-point agreement that the Press was making fun of and the first point was absolute and total denuclearization. Sucks when you can't fall back on an agreement the thickness of the NYC Yellow Pages.
Trump was played how?
Did we send them a nuclear power plant like Clinton did? Or pallets of cash like the Barium Barry sent Iran?
North Korea wants assurances of a deterrent to Chinese encroachment, and Kim Jung-un wants personal assurance that he and his government will not be changed through trial by sodomy and abortion a la democratic progress in Egypt, social justice in Libya, international terrorism in Syria, and collusion with a post-coup Kiev.
Trump is gonna have to call North Korea's bluff and push more sanctions.
Come down hard on them. Joint exercises, overflights, Naval Blockade. Totally cut off any kind of trade with any country that deals with North Korea.
Do it in increments but do do it!
As for the Democrats... they would rather reign in hell than serve in heaven.
"From another commenter on this editorial: "The Times really doesn’t seem to understand that the federal judiciary is not supposed to play a “crucial role in shaping this nation,” or to “tak[e] an ever-greater hand in policy areas….” That is the Democrats’ vision of the role of the judiciary""
What's really obtuse is that the NYT thinks that voters would respond to the message from the Democratic Party. Most voters — like, apparently, you — maintain conventional ideas about what the judiciary is "supposed" to do.
Those ideas might be changeable, but the NYT isn't taking seriously the difficulty of the task. Coming right out and arguing that the judiciary should be activist and the Democrats will work on making it activist would backfire, because most people think that's quite wrong. Yet the NYT sounds as though it thinks that all the Dems would need to do. That's the real failure of understanding here.
Didn't the Democrats in Wisconsin go to the mattresses a few years ago? Worked out great for them, didn't it?
The Democrats know everything until they're in charge. The NYT always knows everything. But when the Democrats are in charge, they only have to print the Democrat Press releases unaltered.
The Democrats are going to the Mattress girl.
Identity politics, #Metoo, reverse the tax cut and a homo in every Boy Scout tent.
Good luck with that you worthless sacks of socialist shit.
Weaklings--like the various op ed writers for the NYT and its reporters who are terrified by the "terrible kick" and noise of an AR-15 like to talk "butch". It makes them feel big and important.
Come on out to the schoolyard boys and girls on the Times. In the real world we'll kick your fannies and steal your lunch money. You can't back the "talk".
The standard issue liberal morality about the Supreme Court has been to view them as the back door to enact the hard stuff that Congress avoids. There has been a tacit agreement to allow that Judicial Activism. But Trump's America wants a Congress to do what the want..Now Dammit. No more fake Congress, which also means the Court had better stop making up New Law.
Democracy Gone Wild.
The fool thinks that she knows anything about negotiations of big issues.
Negotiating with a bedpan is a little different.
The Gangster State
http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=14318
So they want to go to the mattresses. Instapundit noted this and embedded the Godfather scene in the toll booths where Sonny was gunned down. "Rather comically, IMHO, from the clip)
Yet they want to take our guns away.
Who is it that is promoting violence again?
Who is is that is streetfighting?
How does the progressivism of the Democrat Party differ from the Fascism of Mussolini's party?
They sound desperate and that makes them scary. Not scary in any existential way, just scary in that they are probably going to kill or try to kill some non-fascist politicians. I suspect it will get messy.
John Henry
Several silly old ~1530 stories about Italian mattresses -
The phrase [Go to the mattresses] wasn't well known outside of the USA and Italy prior to the Godfather movies.
...
Ordinarily we would want to verify such stories before publishing them here as part of a phrase derivation. In this case though it isn't really important. The meaning of the phrase turns on the association in Italian folk-memory of mattresses with safety in wartime.
"maintain conventional ideas about what the judiciary is "supposed" to do."
Yes, we are deplorable that way.
"Those ideas might be changeable,"
And even if not, overlords like Tony have told us they don't give a damn. Our "ideas" don't matter. If progs can derive SSM from substantive due process from a nineteenth-century amendment, or base the "right" to abortion on women thinking about morality, anything goes. Trump has a chance to put up a little barricade to the onslaught.
"but the NYT isn't taking seriously the difficulty of the task. Coming right out and arguing that the judiciary should be activist and the Democrats will work on making it activist would backfire, because most people think that's quite wrong."
So far. They are counting on degrading the culture and bringing in new voters quickly enough.
"Yet the NYT sounds as though it thinks that all the Dems would need to do."
Not just that: they are calling for the equivalent of gang warfare!
"That's the real failure of understanding here."
They are not into persuasion. As their own metaphors show, they think of themselves as thugs pursuing power. I agree that in the short run, their tactics may backfire. But only in the short run.
Democracy dies with judicial fiat and journolistic directives.
Democrats think Trump is so omnipotent that he can almost instantly reverse 65 years of rabid hostility from the worst dictatorship on Earth. Needless to say, some Democrats aren’t terribly bright.
I can't read the NYT so tell me, what does the NYT say the Dems should do? Did they layout a plan on how to obstruct the nomination? Did they talk to the red state Dem senators up for election this year?
Or was this just another scream at the sky moment for the leftists.
In the movie is that the scene where Clemenza cooks spaghetti?
you never know, you might have to cook for 20 guys sometimes.
They want gangsters? That's a mistake - it is one of the things we do well.
The rumor amongst my friends from Russia is that Putin has passed on the pee pee tapes or some other compromising information on Trump to Kim which will make the deal more difficult.
R/V has a direct line to Putin. I'm asking the FBI to investigate. Extreme rendition may be warranted.
Henry asked,"is that the scene where Clemenza cooks spaghetti?"
Not yet. The correct order is cannoli, sauce, veal, then mattresses.
So, the Democrats should not "surrender" the judiciary. I didn't know a political party was supposed to own the judiciary.
Ok. I cheated and read the opinion. Just as I suspected it was another instance of screaming at the sky.
There was no analysis. There was no plan. There was no attempt to deal with the red state Democrats.
Our "elites" are not very smart.
Trump, in Montana two days ago re North Korea:
"But we signed a wonderful paper saying they're going to denuclearize their whole thing. It's going to all happen."
Chamberlain redux?
Lydia said...
Trump, in Montana two days ago re North Korea:
"But we signed a wonderful paper saying they're going to denuclearize their whole thing. It's going to all happen."
Chamberlain redux?
Obama will be lucky to be remembered in the same breath and Chamberlin.
The red line was incredibly stupid. Turning Libya into a complete shit hole and opening the slave trade there again was top 10.
North Korea is like an ossified, Communist, dinosaur fossil from the Cold War. They are vassal state of China - a worthless, unproductive one. They will do what China tells them to do, a mere bargaining chip in the bigger Trump trade war with China.
No need to worry - just let it play out.
As for the NYT on the judiciary? Hopeless, hapless, and clueless. They keep yapping about Merrick Garland. Nobody gives a flying fuck about Merrick Garland. One could argue that the American spoke on Nov 6, 2016 and validated Trump's pledge to appoint Scalia-like judges to SCOTUS.
If the Dems want their own judges appointed, the need to: (1) win the presidency and (2) win a majority in the Senate to confirm or not confirm said appointee.
We're waiting.
I'm not exactly sure what The Times editorial staff means when they advocate "going to the mattresses". From what I can see there just isn't anything Democrats can do. I read that editorial very carefully, and it's pretty short on anything other than "make this an issue in the election", which is sort of a given.
If they're looking for someone to blame, I have a candidate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qduJjDJnQfo
As the next few months went by, other things became obvious. The most important was that the Corleone Family had overmatched itself.
Funny how people forget the end of that paragraph.
There's a surprising number of people on the internet who will claim that The Godfather is not a well written novel.
I think the excerpts here are a good illustration of its strengths. You have a strong and well defined character expressing himself vividly and memorably, to the extent that a phrase nobody had used before became a cliche. The exposition is crisp and to the point, and doesn't hold up the pacing of the novel or break the continuity of the scene. And then those two short sentences establish that it was all a terrible mistake.
I believe everyone can agree that politics with Trump as President is no longer boring!
I was surprised at how little fuss there was over Pruitt being replaced.
The only frustrating part is the Press only seems to be able to handle one big idea at a time. I thought it was the Supreme Court, but I guess till Trump announces they have to find something else, so NK is accusing Trump of X, is the current big idea to destroy Trump's reputation. I guess that shows their excellent messaging discipline.
What can dems do?
"By the way, I thought "go to the mattresses" was a mistake and the expression was "go to the mat.""
-- Going to the mattresses was a mistake; it was meant to show Sonny would be a bad Don. He was too short tempered and short sighted, and ultimately the thing that kicks off the entire tragedy is his unwillingness to realize that sometimes you shouldn't fight. <-- What I thought before I finished reading the sentence.
Granted, they were all mobsters, and the only reason we root for the Corleones over the others is because they're the least bad of the bad options (note: in the books this is... a less 100% true statement, given Luca Brasi's background), but they're still not saints.
"There's a surprising number of people on the internet who will claim that The Godfather is not a well written novel."
-- I've read it; without the movie, I doubt it would have become much. It wasn't terrible. It was workmanlike and serviceable. But... there was a lot of filler. The pacing is all over the place. Individual set pieces are good, but linking them together was awkward. I don't think it was terrible (like a lot of people), but I honestly don't think it would even still be remembered much without the movie.
but I honestly don’t think it would even still be remembered much without the movie.
Last of the Mohicans was a great movie, but don’t bother to read the novel. I read The Godfather as a young man, and only remember the fact that I read it. Creating a good movie from a book is about finding a reader in a script writer/producer who can see the best in a story and leave the rest behind.
Althouse's wrote:
Those ideas might be changeable, but the NYT isn't taking seriously the difficulty of the task. Coming right out and arguing that the judiciary should be activist and the Democrats will work on making it activist would backfire, because most people think that's quite wrong. Yet the NYT sounds as though it thinks that all the Dems would need to do. That's the real failure of understanding here.
That' tone deafness is typical of today's Democratic Party and progressive MSM.
Andrew McCarthy has a great column riffing on the reaction of progressives to the idea of ending judicial activism. Excerpts:
It is a sign of our wayward times that a “conservative” judge is one committed to construing the law as it is written, in accordance with what it was commonly understood to mean when adopted. You might think that’s simply what a judge is. But progressives rely on robed legislators to block the elected officials who beat them at the polls, and to impose on the nation what they cannot enact democratically. These are known as judges with “empathy.”
Post a Comment