"But in today’s scorched-earth political environment, I’m not sure that ambitious GOP senators will be able to restrain themselves, especially if the party’s — scratch that, I mean the cult’s — unhinged leader, Trump, eggs them into fighting a battle they cannot win.That, of course, would only outrage and further motivate the Democratic Party’s base.... Momentum matters in politics, and so does enthusiasm. For no good reason, Democrats have sunk into a sour, defeatist mood. The chance to name Breyer’s successor on the Supreme Court is an opportunity to change the narrative...."
Eugene Robinson — in "Breyer’s retirement is an opportunity for Democrats to rally. They shouldn’t squander it" (WaPo) — offers Republicans advice. He doesn't want to help them though, obviously, so is it presumptively bad advice.
So what's the good advice?
Posts
106 comments:
"Pay no attention to concern trolls."
Democrats would be wise not to start taking victory laps….
Fait Accompli it is not…
I remember it like it was yesterday. I was a young man, in my prime, 210lbs and 5% BMI...carved out of frickin' wood. The ladies loved it, but Ketanji Brown Jackson was obsessed with me, all the fine sistas were.
It's hard for me to talk about it, how she raped me. It happened in my buddy's basement, no one was around or saw anything, and the ptsd makes it difficult to remember my buddy's name or where that house even was, but the assault and its trauma are indelible in the hippocampus, like it was yesterday.
Her name popping up has caused a flood of these bad memories to afflict me once more, the only solution being I must see that justice is done. I must confront her at last, but I hate DC and I'm afraid of flying.
unhinged leader, Trump, eggs them into fighting a battle they cannot win.
Oliver Herford, once-famous author, when asked if there was anything he'd always wanted to do, probably for a thoughtful magazine piece, said he'd always wanted to throw an egg into an electric fan.
Do you think Robinson remembers the Kavanaugh 'hearings'? Did Robinson question the liberals' 'scorched earth' at the time?
"He doesn't want to help them though, obviously, so is it presumptively bad advice."
Good, catch. Which begs the question: who is his audience for that? Who does he think is dumb enough to believe he is earnestly offering help?
For an answer, ask yourself who is the audience of WaPo. Moving on...
"So what's the good advice?"
Good question. No doubt the correct answer will carry some risk of backfiring, so whoever makes a suggestion takes a risk of appearing to be wrong in hindsight.
But, deep down, everyone who recognizes the generalized harm of the Dems' tactics in handling Repub appointments, and their sheer relentlessness of using personal destruction as a tactic, understands that unilateral disarmament is not going to solve the bigger problem.
Yeah. Don't do what DEMOCRATS have done to all the nominees that Republicans nominate. Be kind, lay low and STFU. What a world Eugene must live in, where he is always right and anybody who disagrees is a RACIST.
Best to wait and see who the nominee is.
Female nominees are not treated harshly. Barrett’s nomination and confirmation process was close to the election and Dems wisely did not attack her. A woman who is a mother of several children. She is attractive and likeable. The Dems tried somewhat to paint her as an judicial extremist but didn’t get very far. They needed white suburban female votes so going after Barrett with hammer and tongs would have been dumb.
Ted Cruz can take some pot shots at Biden’s nominee but it would likely be poor strategy for the Senate GOP as a whole to after Biden’s female nominee.
First they should assess whether they can realistically block the nomination, either because the nominee is too extreme for moderate Democrats, or is flagrantly unqualified. If so, they might as well play for that, both on substance and politics. Biden pulling a Harriet Miers here will reinforce the narrative of total incompetence, but also, while it might superficially benefit Republicans to have a total hack represent 1/3 (or 2/3, depending on your view of Sotomayor) of the liberal rump, that's not good for the court or the country. I would caveat here that they shouldn't resort to the weird procedural trickery I am seeing bruited about in some articles. Only knock the nomination down if you can do so with a majority.
Second, if they can't block the nomination, then use the hearings to extract some oral commitment to judging impartially on the basis of the text of the law and the Constitution, etc. etc. and play this up as a significant concession, an explicit repudiation of the kind of biased judging Hirono called for, etc. And let moderate Republicans vote for the nominee on that basis.
This is bad advice.
If Biden nominates a radical leftist, as opposed to merely a left-wing liberal, there should be pointed questioning in the Senate of her past radical statements.
The Democrats can probably get whomever they want confirmed. If it's a radical, it needs to cost the Democrats in November. If it's a mainstream liberal, then fair, but pointed questioning will satisfy the Republican base. If Republican Senators wave-through a radical without much fight, this will cost Republicans in the Fall.
Whomever the nominee is, the media establishment is going to claim that any opposition is racist and sexist, etc. It is an obvious trap that Republicans won't be able to avoid, because the media will promote this narrative regardless of what they actually say or do.
This is an interesting procedural tactic the GOP could exploit to deny moving a nominee forward.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/28/how-this-senate-rule-could-stop-democrats-from-confirming-bidens-scotus-nominee/
I'm not sure the GOP has the balls to do something like this, however.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread ...
"For no good reason, Democrats have sunk into a sour, defeatist mood. "
The fact that the country, by any objective measure (economy, violence, race relations, covid, foreign affairs), is struggling under their policies is not a good reason?
Republicans will not be reflexively hypercritical - only the Demos do that.
Good Advice?
They should be diligent in their research. Find all of her writings, all of her opinions. Where she has strayed from the law, or precedent, she should be questioned extensively. They should be unrelenting and unforgiving. Keep on topic and focused on her record.
Then vote unanimously for her confirmation.
"…said he'd always wanted to throw an egg into an electric fan."
Damn you, hardin.
Good opportunity for Republicans to very publicly handle this differently than the Democrats have done
So what's the good advice?
Do the right thing. Always. Regardless of Robinson's crass appeals to partisanship.
If the nominee is a crazy lefty, oppose her.
If its Kamala, just get it done, for the sake of the country. Otherwise, if it's an actually qualified appointee (e.g., Krug or Jackson) love bomb them in hearings: it will drive the Left nuts, thinking Joe made a huge mistake.
"Eugene Robinson...offers Republicans advice. He doesn't want to help them though, obviously, so is it presumptively bad advice."
Ha!
It's actually not bad advice. Sometimes, pundits offer good advice to a party they oppose, hoping or knowing they won't take it anyway.
I could sincerely, in good faith, offer President Biden all kinds of advice – advice I believe would actually benefit his presidency and his party – knowing he wouldn't take it even if it somehow reached him. Because following such advice would require Biden not to be Biden, and his, um, advisers to be very different people than they are.
Lie low????
Ah, yes, the old plan of being the decent fellows who lose every single time.
Get stuffed with that. To hell with losing at all, and to hell with the left.
Since the USSC nominee will provide nothing in the way of a solution for supply chain problems, inflation problems, Ukraine problems, rampant crime in the city streets problems, continuing pandemic and its fall-out problems, it's laughable to think it will be a rally point for any but the most fervent Democrat party activists.
But here's an idea, Kim Kardashian recently passed the baby bar in CA. Maybe she could be the nominee. That would make for riveting TV, yes? Distract us all from all those problems I listed above, maybe. She's not black but she was married to a black man and has black children so that should be close enough.
Take advice from a political “Beltway Lambchop”?
Meh.
Show some class and give him this one. Assuming reasonably qualified.
IIRC Trump got the Gorsuch appointment fairly easily.
The smart advice would be for the Republican senators on the Judiciary committee to read verbatim what was said by Democrats about Janice Rogers Brown during her hearings, and ask the nominee if she thinks that that was an appropriate way to evaluate a nominee, especially one that was black and female.
Then do what then-Sen. Biden said about Justice Thomas.
Then ask if she remembers her date with RideSpaceMontain. I wasn't there, but I remember him talking about it right after she turned him loose. He was hysterical, obviously traumatized. I remember it like it was yesterday- it's seared into my memory.
"For no good reason, Democrats have sunk into a sour, defeatist mood."
That's funny!
"So what's the good advice?"
Question 1 to the candidate: does it bother you that you were picked for your race and gender rather than your qualifications?
Question 2: which past cases do you think were correctly decided even though the result strongly violates your own political views?
Republicans will not be reflexively hypercritical - only the Demos do that.
Really?! Did you see what McConnell said: "The president must not outsource this important decision to the radical left."
This, after he pushed through a bunch of nominees who had been outsourced to the Federalist Society.
Republicans would do well not to allow confirmation of Breyer's replacement until he actually, you know, retires. Suppose they confirm a replacement and then he reneges on retirement?
The left controls the optics. If the Republicans give this new candidate anything less than the greased skids they gave RBG, then the low information moderates and the Democrat base will be energized. There is no good scenario for the Reps to pull a stunt like the Dems do. The Dems hurt themselves with Kavanaugh, the Reps should avoid that level of own-goal. Obviously the court has become just another political game, so play the right politics. The Reps won't be able to change the court. Even a supposedly moderate judge will probably be a reliable left vote, so having a known radical will vote the same, but having that bogy(wo)man on the court will actually energize the Rep vote in the future. SS and RGB were great for energizing the Right to vote. Give the left their reliable lefty, show civility and then tell your base to stop voting for people who will nominate these kinds of judges. Now, if you can use procedural shenanigans to prevent the judge from even being voted on until 2025, then go for it, but barring that, let them have whatever they want because it won't change a single SCOTUS vote whoever they get across the line and you will not have wasted any capital on a windmill tilt.
"...republicans would be wise to lay low."
They certainly have had enough practice. I'd rather they actually do something productive and show some original and brave thinking instead. You know: Lead.
"Advise and Consent" does NOT mean be a rubber stamp. It does NOT mean that a president is entitled to appoint whomever he wants.
The party in the minority (or in the majority) has a duty to conscientiously scrutinize a nominee and vote on the merits for or against. You have to EARN IT, not be handed to you on a platter.
Biden said that he would ask for advice BEFORE deciding. Fine. The Republicans should send up some acceptable names.
Republicans be wise, keep your mouth shut and don’t ever tie the big guy.
I think that Jonathan Turley said it most succinctly:
"
…”Jen Psaki just reaffirmed that the President will only consider a black woman for the next nomination -- a threshold gender and race condition that the Court itself has found unconstitutional for schools and unlawful for private businesses.”
Peak irony, or at least a peak so far.
"This, after he pushed through a bunch of nominees who had been outsourced to the Federalist Society."
You mean the people who think we should adhere to the Constitution?
Republican senators have been successful getting some of the more extreme Biden nominees to remove themselves from consideration by presenting some of the nominees’ past extreme writings in open hearings and asking what they meant by what they wrote. That’s probably about the best that can be done is to prevent the Biden administration from putting someone too extreme on the Court.
To paraphrase a former president, never underestimate Joe’s ability to mess things up.
We don't need another "Wise Latina".
Comments like that are a real window into the mind of the speaker. I-have-an-axe-to-grind, and you're going to LIKE IT!!!
janice rogers brown, miguel estrada, judge lucas in detroit, at every instance going back 30 years or more the Dems smash and they don't apologize, in fact Schumer Biden Obama et al, all advance upon the crushed reputations and deem it virtue,
Momentum matters in politics, and so does enthusiasm. For no good reason, Democrats have sunk into a sour, defeatist mood.
It must be nice to live in such a protected bubble. And I am sure that living in this bubble, a little corruption is expected, and as Doonesbury once pointed out, nobody in power trusts anybody who doesn't "dip his beak" once in a while. Sure the Bidens have made kind of a fetish of it, but nonetheless, this is not the concern of the Democrat rank and file.
I always look forward to Eugene Robinson's advice to Republicans.
It's "wise Latinx" please! We don't want to offend!
"So what's the good advice?"
Stonewall. No Senate confirmation unless candidate has demonstrated belief that powers delegated by the People to the Federal Government are those limited to those powers enumerated in the Constitution (as amended).
If the Associated Press is to believed, the current President has declared himself to be an avowed racist; that his nominee will be chosen by race.
Re:Carol:
IIRC Trump got the Gorsuch appointment fairly easily.
Not really. Democrats filibustered, and Republicans eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in response.
Harris doesn't get a vote on Advise and Consent issues, according to Democrat constitutional experts, or at least that was their position when Pence was VP. So there's that.
Talk about Biden's (and the Democrat's) opposition to Janice Rogers Brown.
A. Lot.
No need for anybody to swap costumes and rerun the Kavanaugh circus. In fact, my bet is that Robinson's 'lay low' advice is largely based on a desire to keep Republicans from pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of the Biden's promise to make this pick an affirmative action hire.
Take a knee, voluntarily, because your competing interest always... never does, and is infamous for speaking truth through projection (e.g. handmade tale).
A better option than arguing about the VP tie breaker is bottle the nomination up in the Judicial Committee by not seating a quorom.
Democracy... demos-cracy is aborted in darkness... the twilight fringe.
Show some class and give him this one. Assuming reasonably qualified.
That isn’t a show of class, that’s something else…
interesting sideways attack on Clarence Thomas from one flank ...
“Ginni Thomas is an advisory board member of an organization that has taken a very specific position on a case in front of her husband. That will make it hard for the public to be confident that he’s going to be totally unbiased.”
Bookbinder said that in the circumstances “the better course of action would be for him to recuse or for her to cease her involvement in that organization.”
-----
can they make it a pincer attack? he could then be called CLEARANCE / good riddance in future
What’s good advice for the GOP? Encourage the Democrats to nominate another Sotomayer, i.e., a justice who is long on emotion, short on reasoning, and a weak writer. And don’t prevent her confirmation. Who would you rather have on the Court? A leftist Scalia, or a weak sister? Of course, I’m looking at the long run and not at temporary political advantage. I don’t really care about that.
Temujin said...
I always look forward to Eugene Robinson's advice to Republicans.
Unfortunately there appear to a number of Republicans who do too. They don't call them the Party of Stupid for nothing.
The R's need to put pressure on the D's to vote for Biden's radical choice. Let Joe Manchin and Siema go on the record, without R's giving them cover.
Of course, they won't do that. The whole R support for "Conservative Judges" has been a fake for 50 years. The D's and "Moderate" R's refuse to confirm true conservative judges. Or the Republican Presidents just don't want to fight and nomninate liberals.
Meanwhile, the R's confirm every D POTUS leftwing pick no matter how radical. Or they put up a fake fight, when they know they have zero chance of winning. when they controlled the Senate, the R's confirmed Clinton's picks. When they were a minority, the fought against Obamas.
"So what's the good advice?"
Republicans should pounce®.
McConnell LOVES Lisa Murky. He backed her in 2010 and is backing her in 2022. She voted against ACB and Kavanaugh. Romney will vote against Biden's pick just as a fake out, since he knows it means nothing. Collins will vote for the D nominee.
We have to pull teeth just to get the R's to confirm a wimp like Kavanugh. They'll do nothing to keep a "black Sotomayor" off the SCOTUS.
It's kind of hard to believe, but Scalia was confirmed 98 to 0.
First Italian-American Justice! That cracks me up. Reagan's all, "I got the first woman and the first Italian. Beat that, liberals."
Gee, what a different world it would be if he had nominated Mary Ann Glendon instead of Sandra Day O'Connor. Almost like it matters which woman you nominate or something.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 96 to 3. These are really lopsided votes! I wonder if any of the Senators are embarrassed by their votes.
I doubt whether Republicans would be sleazy enough - check that - I hope they're not sleazy enough to dig up a black female candidate's high school calendar to see if anything she wrote or did will help demean and destroy her adult character.
The Republicans' choices:
Oppose the nominee and energize the Democrats' base.
Approve the nominee and de-energize the Republican base.
Mitch is no doubt searching hard for a middle way.
Please dont throw me in the briar patch.
I think what is best is to respectfully question the nominee on legal issues and their case history, and highlight any examples of clear personal bias she may have exhibited. Perhaps bring up some past troublesome confirmations and ask their thoughts on them. and try to get all Republicans to vote no. Very dignified.
Leadership can question if Kamala can break the tie (this would be exaggerated into "insurrection" by the Democrats, which would enthuse the Republican base. I suspect some Repubs would vote yes though.
"let them have whatever they want because it won't change a single SCOTUS vote whoever they get across the line and you will not have wasted any capital on a windmill tilt"
It's a good argument. However, it still depends on who he nominates and what ammunition comes along with him/her.
But even if the Repubs don't do something drastic, they still can pretty easily put a stain on the nominee solely on the basis of Joe's promise to make race and gender the two primary qualifications for the nomination, which might be useful in the future and doesn't seem to be too dangerous.
It should be noted that, while the Dems didn't really attack ACB (not on personality, character, or integrity, anyway) they all (plus Susan Collins) voted against her confirmation. By contrast, Republican senators in large numbers voted to confirm RBG back in 1993, based on the traditional deference shown to a president in seating justices who share the president's ideologically leanings. So that deference has gone out the window; it's accepted now that senators can oppose a nominee based solely on ideology.
That said, I think the Republicans should see who the nominee is, press her at the hearings to defend her qualifications and judicial philosophy, and aggressively bring to light anything in her past that casts doubt on her suitability to serve on the court. In other words, deal with her on the merits and don't vote in favor of her simply to be agreeable. Again, that ship has sailed.
The big question is whether the WH can find a nominee who doesn't in fact have some skeleton in the closet to cause even a single Dem senator to oppose her. With the Senate likely to turn Republican after the midterms, Biden doesn't have unlimited time to get this done.
(D): Hey, hey! Put down that stick. Sure I hit you with it a few times, but we need to strive for comity.
(R): OK. *Puts down stick*
(D): *Picks up stick* Whack, whack, whack. Take THAT you Nazi!
My guess is that the Rs will make the obligatory noises about the "radical" nature of the nominee, but will avoid the scorched earth approach since no matter who is nominated they are only going to fill Breyer's vaunt "liberal' spot. I agree with those who say there will be little electoral advantage to either side if there is a big dirty fight. But with the Rs penchant for self-immolation one never knows.
It needs to be Kamala.
McConnell needs to go to Biden and tell him "We will approve Kamala if you will let us pick the replacement VP."
Kamala is so incompetent that she will likely just be ignored by the rest. She is a reliable progressive/fascist vote but so will any Biden pick be.
I would really rather not see her on the court but the alternative, she succeeds Biden, is much much worse.
I think McConnell should pick our President Emeritus to be the next VP but others may disagree.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
If Biden nominates a radical leftist, as opposed to merely a left-wing liberal, there should be pointed questioning in the Senate of her past radical statements.
I agree with this. A couple of the potential nominees have stated extreme views and those should be made public.
Whoever it is will be confirmed by Romney, Murk and Collins.
I would find it wildy amusing is the GOP used the direct quotes from Dems, when they issued statements regarding who/whom/what type of nominee Pres Biden should choose. THEN, should he pick someone from the hard-left, foist them on their own petard (don't know if I used that right or not), but use their own words against them. Maybe I'm the only one who would, the other pleasure from that would be the MSM having to report that "Sen McConnell (sic) read from Sen Schumer's statement from xx/xx prior to the nomination by Pres Trump of X". Yeah, I'm easily amused.
Blogger tim in vermont said...
It's "wise Latinx" please! We don't want to offend!
Stop this racist shit, Tim. You certainly should know better.
Ann, Meade, please delete this comment. Racism has no place on your blog.
You, quite properly, won't allow anyone to use the N-word. This is just as offensive.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
This Person said...
"He doesn't want to help them though, obviously, so is it presumptively bad advice."
Good, catch. Which begs the question: who is his audience for that? Who does he think is dumb enough to believe he is earnestly offering help?
The Oligarchs need their drones to ignore the contrast between how Kavanaugh will be treated and how the Biden appointee will be treated.
The advice Tucker Carlson is taking, perhaps just from the voices in his own head, is to paint the eventual nominee as George Floyd’s sister. I wouldn’t have thought that “all black women look alike” would be a great strategy for him, but that sort of thing has gotten him pretty far so far.
Michael K said...
" If Biden nominates a radical leftist, as opposed to merely a left-wing liberal, there should be pointed questioning in the Senate of her past radical statements."
I agree with this. A couple of the potential nominees have stated extreme views and those should be made public.
Whoever it is will be confirmed by Romney, Murk and Collins.
I personally disagree.
The confirmation will be extended and drug out by democrats because they need something to divert attention from current events.
The Republicans should not participate in the kabuki theater in any way. They should all shut their mouths and vote no and move on letting the nomination go. The nomination will not be stopped and any questioning of the nominee will be ignored by most people.
I know that a bunch of grand standers and Oligarch tools like Ted Cruz will do what you say though.
They will raise a big stink and make a lot of noise and not do anything.
They will give the democrats the theater they need and you all will suck it up like good drones.
You will all post clips of how adroit his questioning was and how the GOPe cucks owned the libs.
And the nominee will be confirmed.
And Roberts and Kavanuagh and Comey will keep the State ratchet on our freedoms always tightening in one direction.
For a little while anyways. But it all ends soon.
@ God of the Sea People said...
But Paul’s strategy has shown that it can work, as long as Senate Republicans hold together. They simply have to choose to do it.
-----
for Justice nominations >>> is that all 50 R senators or 100% R senators on Judiciary Committee only?
can they even have hearings then ?
Treat the nominee as a person, not a symbol and focus on whether she will rule on the law instead of her political positions. Vote for her if yes, vote against if no and don't make a ridiculous fuss if she's qualified. I thought Clymer's choice, Michelle Childs, seemed good to me because she's not another Ivy League graduate.
Left Bank of the Charles: "The advice Tucker Carlson is taking, perhaps just from the voices in his own head, is to paint the eventual nominee as George Floyd’s sister. I wouldn’t have thought that “all black women look alike” would be a great strategy for him, but that sort of thing has gotten him pretty far so far."
I can see now that its the lies you tell yourself that leads to your hallucinatory illusions.
Anyone can pull up the show and see for themselves just how Rupar-ed you are, which, I must say, seems to be accelerating.
Worse, that you believe this is an effective tactic to take on a blog where others have demonstrated vastly greater knowledge and common sense is par for the course.
Dunning Kruger on steroids.
Sebastian said...
"So what's the good advice?"
Question 1 to the candidate: does it bother you that you were picked for your race and gender rather than your qualifications?
--------
more like Q1 : did you akse President if he picked your for race and gender rather than quals? do you believe ?
BTW, and you knew it was coming because, how could it not(?), there are now an army of Left Bank of the Charles' running about declaring Joe Rogan the brand spankenest new Hitler!
Remember the "everyone gets 15 minutes of fame" thing?
Well, with our lefties, every single person in the world who isn't a lefty/establishment sell out gets to be Hitler for at least 15 minutes.
As you can see from Left Bank's latest moron missive, it really is the only play remaining in the playbook.
The only one.
How far can that lie take them in 2022? I guess we are going to find out, but it doesn't look good.
Admission: one of my favorite new "dems claim (insert whatever it is now here) is racist!" is the diet industry.
Just perfect.
The politics are being over-thought. The electorate almost always focuses primarily on their perception of the economic issues -- the ones most directly impacting the voter, like inflation or financial insecurity being top of the list -- as well as a more general sense of whether things are headed in the right direction. Dems are heavily underwater on both metrics today; very hard to see that turning around in the 9 months before the midterms. So the focus on the impact of the nomination of a black woman to SCOTUS, and possible objections to that nomination, in terms of political impact in the midterms, starts off asking about the significance of a peripheral issue. Perhaps it will have some impact on the margins, but whether the net impact is helpful or harmful to either side seems quite doubtful. It's the kind of issue that has a significant appeal mostly to the voter who is already committed to one party of the other, rather than an issue that will motivate an undecided voter to pick one of the two contending parties. And it's a given that the Dems will claim that a Rep candidate is a crypto-racist in a supposedly black/white world, and that the Rep candidate will claim that the Dem is a wokey-racist in today's broader Asian/Hispanic/white world, whether they use those terms or not. I doubt that the voters up for grabs in an American election are interested in that dreary and tiresome stuff.
It would be great if the Republican senators could treat the eventual nominee the way Senator Joe Biden treated Janice Rogers Brown. Stall the appointment for two years, forcing Breyer to postpone his retirement, and perhaps Biden won’t be President and probably there will be a Republican majority in the Senate. But I don’t see which Republican senator would be slimy enough to play the Joe Biden role.
Is there any argument to be made that going hard in confirmation hearings against a Biden nominee (through harsh, disrespectful questioning and/or inflammatory extremist accusations) when there will still be a "conservative majority" will cause members of that conservative majority to skew leftward once the nominee is confirmed? For example, would someone like Barret or Roberts, in an effort to "save" the Court's credibility or in disgust for the way Senators acted, would become less reliable "conservative" votes on cases?
I don't know, but I wouldn't rule it out. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Richard Dolan said...
So the focus on the impact of the nomination of a black woman to SCOTUS, and possible objections to that nomination, in terms of political impact in the midterms, starts off asking about the significance of a peripheral issue... I doubt that the voters up for grabs in an American election are interested in that dreary and tiresome stuff.
This represents the safe approach, particularly if your biggest concern is the 2022 midterms.
On the other hand, this might be one of the best opportunities to make hay on the ugliness of racial and sex preferences. I understand that the anti-CRT in schools movement gets most of its oxygen not strictly from the unfairness of racial preferences, but rather from parents' objection to the infliction of destructive politics on their children. Nevertheless, that's anything but a peripheral issue at the moment. And it seem fairly easy to tie Biden's nomination promise to parents' objections to CRT in schools.
"Can you understand how parents across the country might see it as very unfair to those of their kids who are not black and are not female for the President to promise not to consider any candidates other than black females. Shouldn't the best candidate, no matter their race or sex, be selected based on their individual merits."
It doesn't have to be nasty or personal against the candidate. Instead the strength of the impact could come through repetition.
Eugene Robinson may feel that whoever Biden nominates, since she is a black woman, Republican Senators will not oppose her very strongly, for fear of being called racists. Two years ago, he would have been right. He may not be right now.
"Is there any argument to be made that going hard in confirmation hearings against a Biden nominee (through harsh, disrespectful questioning and/or inflammatory extremist accusations) when there will still be a "conservative majority" will cause members of that conservative majority to skew leftward once the nominee is confirmed? For example, would someone like Barret or Roberts, in an effort to "save" the Court's credibility or in disgust for the way Senators acted, would become less reliable "conservative" votes on cases?"
I don't know whether that's a very likely risk. But it does bring to mind a similar consideration, which is that the repeated accusations of bias made by Ds against R nominees may have caused that particular justice to prove their accusers wrong by showing that they're not conservative ideologues. Alas, I don't think most leftists, judges included, have much capacity for feeling shame about being extreme.
Advice? Get a hold of all High School Yearbooks of any potential nominee before the left has them destroyed. Start making phone calls.
Those who are urging the GOP to go full nuclear against whomever Biden nominates are exactly the same as the progressives demanding that the Democrats keep pushing BBB and voting rights, no matter that they don't have the votes to prevail. If the GOP had a realistic prospect of getting all 50 GOP Senators to vote against the nominee, that might be an appealing strategy, since the better legal view is that the Vice President can't cast a tie-breaking vote on nominations and that strategy might result in Biden never being able to fill Breyer's seat, assuming the GOP gains control of the Senate in 2024. But the fact is that one or more of Romney, Collins, Graham and Murkowski will vote to confirm, and the candidate will be confirmed, and the hotheads will look as ridiculous and weak as the progressives, notwithstanding all their "RINO" hysterics.
"The chance to name Breyer’s successor on the Supreme Court is an opportunity to change the narrative...." Eugene Robinson...offers Republicans advice. He doesn't want to help them though, obviously, so is it presumptively bad advice. So what's the good advice?
Republicans should ask the nominee if she knows what a "person" is. They should ask the nominee if any human being can be defined as a "non-person" and placed outside the law. And if so, who?
This is the fatal flaw in Roe v. Wade, of course. But you don't mention Roe v. Wade. You say nothing about Roe v. Wade. All you're doing is talking about the equal protection clause. That clause that we fought a Civil War to put into the Constitution.
What does this word "person" mean, and can some human beings be denied the equal protection of the laws?
Hopefully the nominee will say that every human being is a person. That's the only appropriate response. If she says some human beings can be classified as non-people, you pounce like a motherfucker. If she wants to digress into robots or corporations or chimps or some damn thing, you explain that you don't give a damn about all the "honorary" persons. Your concern is some human beings have been defined as non-people, sub-human, property. Is that okay?
Fight the fight within the legal framework of a confirmation hearing. It's a jurisprudential fight. Fight that fight. You don't need to do the political horseshit.
Even in a best-case scenario where the Democrat base is fired up over the Supreme Court nomination, the rest of the electorate will be looking at what the economy looks like as Election Day 2022 approaches. Absent a major change of course by the current regime, it will look a lot like it does now, with most people concerned about high inflation. When most people are asked "Are you better off now than you were two years ago?" the answer will be No. And it will take a hell of a lot of Democrats swooning over their new black female Justice to offset the rest of the people who are pissed off at the Democrats for fouling things up.
I look forward to watching Senator Suck Chumer (D) ply his considerable talents for mendacity during the process.
The Rs have to question the nominee as they would any other D nominee. To do otherwise feeds into the sad reality of any AA pick. These nominees have to show they’re worthy of the appt on their merits and that requires robust questioning.
going back to bob bork, they even tried against rehnquist, the dems have brooked no quarter,
so romney and murkowski have inflicted grave injuries upon our body politic voting for garland austin and co, so whats
Ah. Eugene Robison gives advice.
Comedy ensues.
Elected Reps who want to get most the 74 million voters who voted for Trump to vote for them had better fight.
Fight hard.
Fight with words, humor, slippery slope arguments, exaggerated possibilities, plausible insults wherever possible.
If elite Dems want "civility", they should start showing it to those who disagree with them.
Especially about the killing of unborn babies because the mother prefers killing rather than birthing and giving the child away for adoption.
since Breyer has said resignation will be effective only after successor is confirmed why not push him to stay on for rest of Biden term/another season of play?
--------
if Senate flips no SC nominations for Biden!
Those who are urging the GOP to go full nuclear against whomever Biden nominates are exactly the same as the progressives demanding that the Democrats keep pushing BBB and voting rights, no matter that they don't have the votes to prevail.
Yes. I agree with that point, but not with your prediction about Republican votes for the AA nominee.
The following will vote for her:
Romney
Sasse
Collins
Graham
Murkowski
Rubio
and possibly Lankford, Scott, Burr and Toomey.
Eugene Robinson is wrong. If it’s racist or unacceptable to criticize Joe Biden's crappy nominee because "they" is black – then "they" should not be a Supreme Court justice.
Note. Joe Biden used the "they" pronoun to describe his nominee yesterday. I really hope Joe Biden's use of pronouns is signalling that his nominee will be nonbinary or even a man that identifies as a woman. That would be awesome!
Leftists “good advice” to conservatives is always “Lie back and try to enjoy it since we are going to rape you one way or the other. If you struggle you will make us have to hurt you. Why do you always force us do these things to you?”.
>>"So what's the good advice?"
Burn your yearbooks, high school and college.
Delete your social media accounts.
Tell all of your friends to say they don't remember you at all in high school or college.
What's the good advice? It depends on who Biden nominates. Biden being Biden, he is very likely to nominate someone who will damage not only the United States but also Biden.
Personally, I think he should nominate Sunny Hostin. The Ladies of the View and their ilk are running things anyway.
Remember, Clarence Thomas was confirmed with 11 Democrat votes.
I would have voted to confirm Breyer, Ginsberg, and Kagan. I would not have voted for Harriet Meiers or Sotomayor.
First Republicans need to determine if they can stand as one.
If they can, then take the advice of Laurence Tribe that VP harris cannot break a tie.
Then fight like hell to get the candidate most likely to follow the Constitution.
Republicans would be wise to ask the nominee what she thought of Democrats like Schumer and Biden filibustering Janice Rodgers Brown because she is a black female
Republicans would be wise to ask her whether she things the Constitution is a written document, or a "living" one.
And if she says "living", push her for details
"Dunning Kruger on steroids."
***********
He's not known here as "Left Behind on the Charles" for nothing.
RichAndSceptical: "First Republicans need to determine if they can stand as one."
Republicans can usually stand together.
Unfortunately, the democratical republicans, who comprise about 50% of the elected republicans, will never stand with the republicans.
M: "Leftists “good advice” to conservatives is always “Lie back and try to enjoy it since we are going to rape you one way or the other."
Leftists/LLR's/NeverTrumpers “good advice” to conservatives is always “Lie back and try to enjoy it since we are going to rape you one way or the other.
FIFY
Accept it that the women commonly mentioned so far are brilliant and, as a result, trickiness in challenging them will merely showcase their ability to handle tricky questions. So be polite and straightforward. Accept it that whatever the nominees say now, they will vote with the extreme left every time once on the Court. (The "more conservative" one was elevated to the judiciary by Jerry Brown and approved by Eric Holder and comes from California and went to Yale Law.) Avoid questions that suggest the nominee has predetermined positions on black issues because of her skin color. Instead try to show her red soul-choices Try to show that approving the nominee means Court decisions that will result in the rest of us being pushed around even more often by lefties and Karens; that the nominee is going to accept more masking, more vaccine mandates, more school closings, less school choice, more speech codes at universities, more vaccine passports, more Soros DA's choosing which laws to enforce, more defund the police, more trans athletes; that she is a squish on whether teachers or parents are in charge of children's education; that the nominee's judicial philosophy is just "follow the present socialist Dem party line like the other Dem Justices." Ted Cruz is the guy to lead on this because he would know how to ask questions the nominee would have to answer. Otherwise she'll just evade very well.
Standard "liberal" advice to those of us not part of The Hive: Lie down, be quiet, roll over, play dead. In short: submit.
Thanks, JAORE:
"(D): Hey, hey! Put down that stick. Sure I hit you with it a few times, but we need to strive for comity.
(R): OK. *Puts down stick*
(D): *Picks up stick* Whack, whack, whack. Take THAT you Nazi!"
So very true. Sad, but true.
Post a Comment