I'm reading
"Joe Biden Philadelphia Speech Transcript Sept. 20: Accuses Trump & Republicans of Abuse of Power Over SCOTUS." Joe went to Philadelphia again to read from the teleprompter. I assume he goes to Philadelphia because it's so close to Wilmington, Delaware. Anyway... I was interested in his discussion of filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court:
This appointment isn’t about the past. It’s about the future, and the people of this nation, and the people of this nation are choosing their future right now, as they vote. To jam this nomination through the Senate is just an exercise in raw political power, and I don’t believe that the people of this nation will stand for it. President Trump has already made it clear, this is about power, pure and simple power.
Of course, it's about power — the appointment and the election... and the last election. Joe Biden wants that power — the power of the presidency, which he would like to include the power to appoint the successor to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But he can't get that power unless Donald Trump, for some reason, decides to abstain from the exercise of raw political power that is served up on a plate right there on his table.
Whether the voters should make it clear on this issue and so many others, the power in this nation resides with them, the American people, the voters....
It resided with them in 2016 and they exercised it. Now, it resides with the President until his term is up. That's the
raw power answer, and raw power is power.
The sushi is on the table. But maybe you can persuade the ravenous diner to pass up this meal. Maybe this power would be better cooked.
... and even if President Trump wants to put forward a name now, the Senate should not act until after the American people select their next president, their next Congress, their next Senate. If Donald Trump wins the election, then the Senate should move on his selection and weigh the nominee he chooses fairly. But if I win this election, President Trump’s nominee should be withdrawn....
But why?! If he loses the election, why would he take back what he's already done? If the Senate is about to be handed over to the Democrats in January, why wouldn't the GOP Senate majority feast on their last meal and confirm Trump's nominee? It's still raw power! Biden can only hope to convince them to walk away from the raw-power table and let things stew until late January.
... and as a new president I should be the one who nominates Justice Ginsburg’s successor....
I should be the one! That's what all seekers of power are always saying:
I should be the one!
पोस्ट्स
१०१ टिप्पण्या:
Biden’s speechwriter is assuming that Trump is part of the GOPe. Susan and Lisa certainly are. Biden also ignores the Kavanaugh debacle.
There will be hearings and Dem Senators will go whack. The RBG riots will start in DC and then move across the country. Trump will win 40 states. The Dems will riot on Installation Day.
The Left is never satisfied. They can’t accept defeat.
they conjured daca out of thin air, and then got the court to ratify it, chutzpah,
I'd expect that most high school students could produce more convincing arguments than the Biden campaign provides.
“The president has the constitutional duty to nominate; the Senate has the constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent,” Biden wrote in a New York Times op-ed in 2016. “It is written plainly in the Constitution that both presidents and senators swear an oath to uphold and defend.”
Let’s see, raw political power exercised by the duly elected president who ran, at least in part, on the need for conservative constitutionalist justices (and publicized a list from whom he’d pick nominees), or ....
Raw political power exercised by Joe’s dementia’d, “mostly peaceful” mob-backed, authoritarian, swamp-run Democrat party?
I’ll stick with what we’ve got. Especially since he’s been making their heads explode for the last 3.5 years.
This is one of the specific reasons why he was elected (and one of the specific reasons why Hillary lost). He should appoint and the Senate should take a vote. And then he should win the election and Joe can shuffle off to Shady Acres.
Didn’t the Dems exercise raw political power during the Kavanaugh hearings with the Blowsy Ford charade? Didn’t the Dems exercise raw political power when Feinstein grilled ACB for being Catholic? Something about the “Dogma living strong in her”?
No, Dems lost. You want to appoint the next justice? Win the election and you can appoint Breyer’s replacement. Elections have consequences, right?
It resided with them in 2016 and they exercised it.
It resided with them in 2018 and they exercised it again, adding to the Republican majority in the Senate.
Name the justice and get it done. The Left would do it in a heartbeat.
@Althouse, IMHO you’ve come a long way since 2008 in learning how to cut through the bull shit.
The Democrats have never accepted the results of the last election.
Yet suddenly elections are sacrosanct.
If Schumer was running the Senate in 2016 would Garland have been confirmed?
Q.E.D.
The funniest thing I see is Democrats/media/celebrities saying "Trump won't even grant a dying woman her wish!"
We have a POTUS, and a Senate, and a House. Just as the House impeached Trump because they could, the Senate will vote for a SCOTUS because they can.
You don't have a time when all the sudden their power expires because it's getting close to election time.
(I'm old enough to remember when people tried to argue Trump couldn't nominate judges because he was under investigation by Mueller)
Except Joe would not be the one and that is why the Biden team, whoever they are, will not announce any names.
"It's all about political power...I should be the one!"
I believe this is supposed to be an appeal to political norms. It's a perfectly valid appeal, other than (a) the appeal is obviously phony and (b) it would work better coming from a political party that has been overtly violating norms for decades and has already threatened to violate more norms no matter what Trump does. It's an appeal to both the base and to the rubes.
And, yes, he is in Philadelphia because that's the closest city that they can drive him. It says something about his campaign that "he's not in his basement" means that he is taking the matter seriously. Well, that, and some days he is literally doing nothing, presumably because they see no window of coherence to exploit, and apparently this is supposed to be okay somehow.
If the Senate is about to be handed over to the Democrats in January, why wouldn't the GOP Senate majority feast on their last meal and confirm Trump's nominee?
The GOP has a history of accommodation when it comes to the demands of the left. Can't blame Biden for trying...
Dangerous rhetoric from Castro's son's parliament
Raw power comes from the barrel of guns. Ergo: the Antifa/BLM cadres are going to shoot it out with the Forces loyal to the United States Presidency. Actium redux.
Too bad the Dems have been exposed as a foreign Empire’s hired Army that has slowly been trained and armed to destroy the Republic before Trump destroys them.
Black man sick as shit of the WHITE antifa LEFT burning down his hood'
Lets the WHITE ANTIFA LEFT have it.
I assume he goes to Philadelphia because it has the best basements in the nation!
Is Joe "Dr. Demento" Biden claiming that he has some right to subvert to Constitution?
For the good of The Republic, of course.
I remember Biden arguing in 2016 that the "Biden Rule" wasn't real, that he had never suggested any such thing, and that the Senate should consider Garland's nomination. Now he says there is a "Biden Rule" (even though he doesn't call it that).
We used to call this maneuver a "flip flop".
Also, David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman have an op-ed in the WSJ on Why the ‘Biden Rule’ Doesn’t Apply in 2020.
Give me a pony, Daddy, and I promise I won't ask for another thing as long as I live! I promise!! Cross my heart and hope to die!
And if you DON'T, I promise I will call Social Services and tell them you are abusing me. Then I will burn the the house down during the night while you and mummy and baby Timmy are sleeping. And frame you for it.
Is there anybody out there trying to make the case that if it were a Dem President with a Dem Senate, they wouldn't confirm a RBG replacement?
Is there anybody out there trying to make the case that if it were Trump with a Dem Senate, they wouldn't be refusing a confirmation vote?
Nobody can make those arguments, right?
Has anybody asked Merrick Garland if he is sad they didn't have time to turn him into a rapist before they voted him down?
If the Democrats win the Presidency and Senate and hold the House, the raw political power move would be to increase the size of the Supreme Court from 9 to 13. The 3 current Democrats on the Court plus 4 would be a majority. So the calculus for the Republican Party is whether it might be better to leave their majority on the Court at 5 to 3 and risk it being reduced to 5 to 4 to avoid that outcome. Trump will roll the dice, but will McConnell?
Thirteen is a nice prime number, a baker’s dozen, a jury of twelve plus one, the number of circuit courts.
Joe was not just reading from a teleprompter, he was speaking to an empty room. My understanding is that there were no civilians there at all. Just camera crew, secret service and staffers.
It was just a big empty room and it sounded like it.
John Henry
Oh! And!
Voters did not punish the GOP Senate for not confirming Obama's pick. Trump won the presidency, and the GOP won the Senate. So I would say voters approved of the choice the GOP made at the time.
L’état, c’est moi.
Seems like a red meat speech for his followers.
Who do the lefties think will be impressed by this argument? Some 40-ish Ohio mom? Will leftie voters grind their heels even deeper into the pavement as they march resolutely to the polling place while dragging an exhausted friend who would otherwise stay on the sofa and drink red wine? The village idiot who for whom this line of attack produces a moment of revelation?
Basically, it is simply very unhappy and perpetually aggrieved lefties whining because THEY WANT THEIR GODDAM WAY and are entitled to it.
- Krumhorn
So, Joe, even though you are elected to a 48 month term you should abrogate power over any significant decision-making 4 months prior to the end of your term?
If the republicans had just fought Garland off, this would be a non-issue. Instead they had to make bold pronouncements 10 months prior to the end of Obama's term that they now have to recant, showing hypocrisy. The reality is simply: You wield the power you were elected to wield.
My father, who dabbled in politics at the precinct committeman level, told me more than once in reference to local political matters "If you've got the horses, drive 'em". This meant that if you hold the reins of the horses, you better use them, because you won't be in there forever and your opponents won't hesitate when they get in.
Well done, please!
(Apologies to the blog chef but I could not resist)
John Henry
"But if I win this election, President Trump’s nominee should be withdrawn, and as a new president I should be the one who nominates Justice Ginsburg’s successor..."
Perhaps Joe should read the rules for selecting justices, as set forth in the Constitution:
"He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
I'm not seeing anything in there about the selection of judges being dependent on the results of upcoming elections. In fact, I don't see anything in there that includes any time constraints, except that any of those actions be done (obviously) while the president still holds the office. How about you?
All the condescending assurances of the talking heads notwithstanding, it appears that thing the Republicans invoked in 2016 really was the Biden Rule.
biden and democrats make up the rules as they go.
The ongoing threats to riot if the President nominates a successor to Ginsburg, and riot even worse if the Senate takes up the nomination, does not help make the case that the are a party that is fit to govern this nation.
If the Senate is about to be handed over to the Democrats in January, why wouldn't the GOP Senate majority feast on their last meal and confirm Trump's nominee?
For the same reason that Harry Reid should not have gotten rid of the filibuster.
Well done, Althouse. The fact that a majority of Americans are too brainwashed or apathetic to see the Dems' hypocrisy is sad. I blame the media corporations, mostly.
Couple days ago, Joe said by the time he finishes his speech, 200 million Americans will have died from Covid. I don't know if he expected it to take decades or not.
The constitution says the president shall nominate and the Senate shall confirm. Or reject. The president could decline, but that would be abandoning a constitutional duty. The Senate can reject by doing nothing, by holding hearings but not a vote, by holding a vote, or by holding both. The Senate can confirm by holding a vote, or both. It is up to the president and the majority party in the Senate. The presidency and Senate majority were held by different parties last time, the Senate majority rejected the president's nomination. In the most insulting way possible towards the president, but that is a political matter to be resolved by elections. The party that rejected was rewarded that time. Both parties this time hold both, why wouldn't they hold a vote?
Yet again we have a situation where the Democratic Party is demanding its opposing party extend it political courtesies that it would never extend to them, and wrapping this demand up in the cloak of obligatory principle.
There are no non-hypocrites in D.C. over this matter. Everything McConnell did in 2016 would have been done by Chuck Schumer were the shoes on the other feet. It was funny watching Klobuchar try to finesse her way around her own stance from 2016 on one of the clips someone posted here last night, and Biden doesn't even have to pretend to not remember the words he is on video reciting from the same year.
The simple principle Althouse is outlining here is the only real one- those in power get to make the decisions that come across their desks. McConnell and Obama both made those decisions in 2016, and Trump and McConnell will make them now. The Republicans will have to take a vote in the Senate, one way or another- to not do so at all will kill them in this or a future election because the voters will no longer believe the promise of confirming conservative justices.
Just my prediction- Trump will nominate either Lagoa or Barrett (I am guessing Lagoa right now, Barrett will replace Breyer or Thomas if Trump wins the election and the Republicans hold the Senate). McConnell will schedule the hearings ASAP, and might well schedule the vote before it, too. Let Romney, Collins, and Murkowski find a fourth colleague to scuttle the nomination by voting it down (abstention won't stop it).
Leave it to Joe Biden to cut through all of the procedural talk and flat out say that Donald Trump and the Republicans shouldn't do this because he and the Democrats would rather do it.
Such clarity!
“I should be the one”
100%. Our system of government exists entirely as a rebuttal to that kind of authoritarian impulse.
That’s why we were set up as a nation of laws, not men. And we are watching it slip from our grasp, day by day ...
The same argument was was made against the impeachment: Let the people decide in November. A better argument given that it is the people who elect the President. But they didn't wait -- they impeached him.
The left had the right to do it and they did. Now the right is the gander.
I should be the one
Maybe you will be the one. Maybe not. But you're not right now. And that's what matters.
All the points very clear and accurate. One minor point is that there's a special election in Arizona for a senator that will take office on November 30th. There's a very important reason now to have the nomination and confirmation before the election
If, as many Democrats believe, Trump will lose the election, then why should he not cram his nominee down their throats on his way out the door? They have certainly earned it.
[Power] resided with [voters] in 2016 and they exercised it.
Also, power resided with voters in 2018 and they exercised it, giving the GOP two more Senate seats.
Statists railing against power: priceless.
Power, Joe?
Try reading the document, Joe. The Framers state it expressly,
--- "All legislative power" (I)
--- "The executive power" (II)
--- "The judicial power" (III)
Trump surrogates should start talking about packing the court.
Joe Biden wants the American people to vote for him so he can choose RBG's replacement.
But he won't tell the American people who he would choose.
His words may be cloaked in the trappings of respect for the American people, but the substance is lacking.
Trump is THE President and will be until January 2021 at the very least. Maybe even longer :-D
He was elected by the voters to BE President and to accomplish what he promised. President for the WHOLE Damned term, not a partial President.
To NOT fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court would be a dereliction of his duties and breaking his promise. It is Constitutional to make this appointment. It is a designated power.
No matter what happens between now and January...TRUMP is the President.
Period.
I'm a little encouraged when politicians like Biden employ euphemisms like "right to choose" when they're talking about abortion. It's as if they're ashamed; and that's a good thing.
"I should be the one!"
Russ Feingold: "This game's not over until we win."
I wonder if Joe Biden would like his term to be 3 years, 8 months.
It's hypocritical to condemn the other party's actions if you'd do (and have done) the exact same thing if your party were in the same situation.
If you think Mitch McConnell is a terrible person (a perfectly fair point of view), you have to admit that Chuck Schumer is just as bad. You might as well be honest about it.
Both our parties suck. They seek to win elections -- we win, you lose -- and then start to work on their re-election campaigns. The hell with them both.
Why not demand that each party split in two: Team Bloomberg and Team Sanders, say, for the former Democrats; Team Trump and Team Ryan for the former Republicans. Or split in threes. Or stop letting them crowd emergent parties off state ballots to preserve their franchises. At least some of those parties might stand for something besides permanent sinecures for self-regarding gasbags.
If the Greens could have outsized influence in Europe and Likud can do so in Israel, why can't we have some outlier groups doing the same thing here?
"I don’t believe that the people of this nation will stand for it."
A subtle call for mayhem.
Remember during the transition when Obama got elected all of the yammering about how Bush should hand over his powers to the anointed one early? This is all political expediency guided by situational ethics.
The perfect symmetry in the hypocrisy is really a thing of beauty.
Cruz puts it best. If Trump wins, Democrats will provoke a Constitutional crisis, or worse. A 4-4 court cannot be depended upon to resolve that crisis. The only liberal justice with any conscience is Kagan and it is unlikely that she would hold fast in the face of the pressure that will be on the Court to ignore the will of the voters.
Regardless, it is incumbent upon the party in power to honor their voters by exercising that power. That is exactly what McConnell did when Obamessiah nominated Garland. Refusal to do so will be an act of cowardice or infamy that will define any apostate Senator’s legacy, just as pandering to the media and saving Obamacare define McCain’s legacy. For Mittens Romney, the impeachment Republican, he might redeem himself by leading the charge to confirm, but only if it is successful, otherwise a deal with other RINOs will be suspected.
Joe, you may think you should be the one, but you are not. You could have run last time, but now it's too late to be the CURRENT President.
I was too distracted by his wheezy, haggard and sickly appearance from taking a short walk to the podium. I'm not sure what they wrote for him to read off a teleprompter but it doesn't matter, as he doesn't understand what he is saying.
How much effort should we put into parsing the words of a dementia patient just mouthing words that have been written by others? Biden's inability to take questions after any of his "speeches" just proves his cognitive decline and his inability to defend or clarify what he is saying.
I'd like my political power "well done", thank you.
Trump was elected, is in office through January 2021, and so "is the one" that should, if not must, nominate someone for the open seat.
All the Democrat's arguments against Trump making this nomination, and the Senate confirming, are based on something other than the Constitution and the law. Self-serving clap trap, in other words.
It's deadly raw. You have to boil it three times and cook it with bacon grease.
There can be only one.
Epic sword fight to follow.
Bummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmer for Biden.
One day, there will be a special monument erected for Harry Reid.
A high quality steak is best eaten rare--just browned on the outside and still red in the middle. Mmmmm.
"this is about power, pure and simple power."
Says the politicians who jammed the ACA down our throats via budget reconciliation instead of an up or down vote and changed Senate rules to allow them more power.
"I like my power like I like my prunes, stewed" - Joe Biden
Elect Slow Joe and his unseen cabal and see true kakistocracy at work.
I think I'd rather not see that.
kevin, 8:32:
"If Schumer was running the Senate in 2016 would Garland have been confirmed?"
Are you kidding? Center-left white guy, almost 64 years old? He wouldn't even have been named.
Now, whichever forty-something left-liberal had been named, would most certainly have been confirmed by a Senate in which Schumer was majority leader, so I take your point.
I've said it before.
This is a childish tantrum by the left as they realize their stupidity.
The left has no one to blame but themselves for this particular outrage!
They know the rules-- in fact, in 2013 they changed the rules, and at the time, even fellow Democrats were warning them of the consequences.
When they had the Senate majority and President Obama, Justice Ginsburg refused to retire. Hubris or vanity- she wouldn't do the right thing for the party.
So now they're desperately trying to fool Americans that the rules don't apply to them.
They royally messed up.
And they're doing their best to blame conservatives for their mistake.
"Yet again we have a situation where the Democratic Party is demanding its opposing party extend it political courtesies that it would never extend to them, and wrapping this demand up in the cloak of obligatory principle."
It's Calvinball all the way down.
You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, 21 Nov 2013
Left Bank: "So the calculus for the Republican Party is whether it might be better to leave their majority on the Court at 5 to 3 and risk it being reduced to 5 to 4 to avoid that outcome. Trump will roll the dice, but will McConnell?"
tsk tsk tsk
The problem for you lefty morons is that you idiots starting saying you were going to do all these things (add states, add justices at the SC and hundreds more at the lower court levels, get rid of the filibuster for legislation, etc) during the Kavanaugh hearing and for every month since!
You buffoons can't keep your stupid marxist mouths shut long enough to pull off this late in the game handwringing threats thinking you can bargain your way out of it.
Even Senator Barrasso of Wyoming mentioned yesterday that you guys were going to pull all this stuff no matter what happened.
And now everyone knows it.
So that leverage is non-existent.
This is precisely similar to how all the democraticals and their LLR-lefty lap poodles were bragging about how they were going to get rid of the filibuster for SC nominees in the run up to the 2016 election that they thought was in the bag for Hillary.
And then why McConnell, going off Harry Reid's previous trashing of the filibuster for lower court appointments and the democraticals public promises to do the same at the SC level, had no problem corralling even the milquetoast RINO's to go along with getting rid of the SC filibuster.
Too funny.
No, the democraticals best hope is to use some sort of blackmail similar to what they must have on Roberts to get a few republican senators to join Murkowski and Collins.
"I wonder if Joe Biden would like his term to be 3 years, 8 months."
Joe, in a lucid moment: "I'll take that deal."
Wasn’t ramming impeachment through the house an exercise in raw political power?
Dems’ power was cooked in the Senate.
Trump will likely ram through his pick prior to the election ... and then add another four seats (on the theory that every circuit needs a supreme overseer as was originally done). Then the court will be 10-3 and there will be a solid principle dictating the number of needed justices.
Not raw, cooked al dente
If the republicans don't start doing what the democrats want the democrats are going to keep acting like democrats!
Democrats suddenly think SCOTUS is the Make-A-Wish Foundation.
"Damn the Constitution! what about Ruth's feeeeeeeeeelllllings?"
I like mine medium rare, please. Haven't sorted through all the analysis yet. Will Trump call on Kamala to resign either her Senate or VP candidate position? Obviously, with such an important election and nomination on the line, she can't do justice (snigger, um snicker) to both at the same time.
Left Bank wrote:
"So the calculus for the Republican Party is whether it might be better to leave their majority on the Court at 5 to 3 and risk it being reduced to 5 to 4 to avoid that outcome."
It might work on idiotic Republicans, so it is worth trying this argument I suppose. It worked with the "nuclear option" being discussed in 2005-2007- the Democrats managed to hold up a lot of appeals court appointments that they then filled after Obama took office, and then went nuclear once the Republicans had an effective filibuster number, and they did so without any apology for lying previously.
However, I think the Republicans have learned the lesson- don't make deals with Democrats that the Democrats won't keep. In other words, the calculus doesn't really make sense anymore- the Democrats have already promised to expand the court just to get rid of the 5-4 majority. I believe them, and I think McConnell does too. The Democrats will just have to win the presidency, the Senate, and keep the House, and then get rid of the filibuster in order to pack the court as you propose they will if they don't get their way now. Let's see you integrate that function.
"A high quality steak is best eaten rare--just browned on the outside and still red in the middle. Mmmmm."
😋
"It might work on idiotic Republicans, so it is worth trying this argument I suppose."
As neither an idiotic Republican nor idiotic Democrat, it's terrifying that the braintrusts that have given us Donald Trump versus Joe Biden are now playing high stakes chicken with the Bill of Rights.
I'll take it black and blue
It might work on idiotic Republicans, so it is worth trying this argument I suppose.
The name for them here is life-long Republicans.
Out of respect for the differently-abled, we keep the comments on their idiocy to what they post.
It will be fun to see democratic senators have to lie their asses off during the campaign season saying they don't support packing the court. That should be a nice campaign issue to beat up dem candidates in red-purplish states.
I don't think this polls well at all with normies and other folks who aren't spit flecking liberals furious their one party rule is slipping away. Its like my Mom told me "Don't say or do anything when you are mad. You will regret it later"
Blogger Lance said...
I remember Biden arguing in 2016 that the "Biden Rule" wasn't real, that he had never suggested any such thing, and that the Senate should consider Garland's nomination. Now he says there is a "Biden Rule" (even though he doesn't call it that).
We used to call this maneuver a "flip flop"
Just as they believe in a living constitution, they believe in a living Biden rule.
When it comes to the exercise of raw political power, you can't come close to the recent impeachment clusterf*ck. Paybacks is a mojo.
- Krumhorn
The trouble with cooked power is that it usually comes out of a crock pot.
As neither an idiotic Republican nor idiotic Democrat, it's terrifying that the braintrusts that have given us Donald Trump versus Joe Biden are now playing high stakes chicken with the Bill of Rights.
The only "braintrust" that gave us Trump was Trump and his family. Biden is obviously run by a "braintrust" of lefties and tech billionaires who think they can do better than the people. One problem with that is they have no idea how normal people live and what is important to us. Techies spent years in solo learning and are pretty vague about what else goes on in the world. The finance people similarly do not understand normal people. It is a bit like those 1930s' movies that were so popular showing how odd the rich were.
People are talking about the Senate voting on the SC nominee as though it were a vote for or against Trump, but after he names his nominee, and her record and personality become known, the vote is going to be for or against her, the person nominated. Our most recent experience is with Kavanaugh's nomination, where the Democrats tried to portray a Boy Scout as a serial rapist. If I were a Democrat running for election or re-election I wouldn't want to remind the electorate of that. If I were one of those Republican Senators who have said they want to wait until after the election, but McConnel makes me vote before the election, would I really want to vote against Barrett or Lagoa or Rushing, or whichever female jurist is nominated?
D.D. Driver said...
"It might work on idiotic Republicans, so it is worth trying this argument I suppose."
As neither an idiotic Republican nor idiotic Democrat, it's terrifying that the braintrusts that have given us Donald Trump versus Joe Biden are now playing high stakes chicken with the Bill of Rights
Unaware of any reason for you to look down on President Trump.
If I were one of those Republican Senators who have said they want to wait until after the election, but McConnel makes me vote before the election,
Per fox news chyron this am: apparently Romney has gotten his mind right and is ready to vote on SCOTUS. Like to be a fly on that wall!
"Unaware of any reason for you to look down on President Trump."
Massive budget deficit.
He is trying to place a nationwide moritorium on evictions by using the Centers for Disease Control. (Not even sure Obama would have had the audacity to try that one.)
Foxconn. Kodak. TikTok/Oracle. Solyndra (Just kidding to see if you are paying attention but you get my point). Trump has never met a boondoggle he hasn't wanted to grab by the p#ssy.
Just a couple reasons.
Those are reasons to question or disagree with some of his views and policies, but I haven't seen anything about you that entitles you to hold yourself above him, or anything about any politician of our times who would seek to let alone succeed in doing better. If you are some ideal perfect political philosopher or you have some ideal perfect political candidate in mind, produce.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा