Patterico's Pontifications

1/18/2018

Hey Leftists: Stop Trying to Make Hillary Happen!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:30 am

My eye-rolling muscles got a workout recently when I read an article at the Federalist by Mollie Hemingway titled Treat ‘Mental Health’ Talk Against Trump Like The Coup Attempt It Is. (I’ll save you a click by summarizing the article for you: it’s a coup attempt because something something hey you remember that show “24” that nobody has watched in years OK that’s why.) But while talk of a “coup” seems to most normals like a hobby horse of the paranoid right, it’s worth remembering that Serious Legal Scholars are still spinning fantasies in Newsweek about vaulting the pantsuited witch into the Oval Office — not legitimately, in a duly held presidential election in 2020, but now:

Nearly a year after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, a Harvard University professor says 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton could still become commander in chief.

Lawrence Lessig, the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, penned an essay for Medium in October outlining a series of hypothetical scenarios that could take place should the ongoing probe find that the Trump campaign actually conspired with Russia to influence the results of the election.

If Trump did conspire with Russia, the president “should resign, or, if he doesn’t, he should be impeached,” Lessig wrote in his essay. Vice President Mike Pence would also have to either resign or get impeached, which would make Speaker Paul Ryan the president of the United States, Lessig wrote at the time.

On Wednesday, Lessig told Newsweek this scenario was still a possibility.

The remarkable thing about this is not the idea, which is (as the article acknowledges) older than the election. It’s that Newsweek is still trying to garner clicks and eyeballs by reanimating this patent nonsense. Even Lessig seems embarrassed by it, saying that his description of how it could happen (chryon: it couldn’t) is “very different from saying I think it will happen, or should happen, or [that] the evidence is there for it to happen.” But the dream lives on, in the fever swamps of the left. And the hypocrisy is stunning indeed.

I know memories are short these days, but it was not that long ago that Election 2016 was around the corner and it became more and more “obvious” that Hillary Clinton was going to win. And do you remember how Serious Pundits Everywhere took Donald Trump to task for not pre-accepting the election results? In case you forgot, here’s a Reuters story from October 20, 2016 that appears on Newsweek.com — the same site running the “Hillary could be president!” fantasy over a year after the election. What were our friends on the left telling us then about accepting election results?

Several prominent Republicans on Thursday denounced Donald Trump’s refusal to commit to accepting the result of the presidential election, and some worried his stance might make it more difficult for his party to hold onto control of Congress. Trump’s refusal, which Democratic rival Hillary Clinton called “horrifying,” was the standout remark of their third and final debate on Wednesday night.

. . . .

Asked on Wednesday night by moderator Chris Wallace if he would commit to a peaceful transition of power, the businessman-turned-politician replied: “What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense. OK?” Trump’s statement, the most controversial in a debate that at times descended into insults by both candidates, made banner headlines across the country and raised questions about whether he was committed to a peaceful transition of power, a cornerstone of American democracy.

That “cornerstone” doesn’t seem so important when the Republican wins, though, does it?

How about that!

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

295 Responses to “Hey Leftists: Stop Trying to Make Hillary Happen!”

  1. Several prominent Republicans on Thursday denounced Donald Trump’s refusal to commit to accepting the result of the presidential election

    ooh look cowardpig war hero john mccain was a denouncey denouncer

    whoda thunk

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  2. Good grief, doesn’t he know the redqueen campaign, ridiculed him in the emails or he doesn’t care

    narciso (d1f714)

  3. Best responses to the Newsweek twitter praising this op-ed of delusion:

    Tyler Ryan Thibeaux
    @Maganetism
    Replying to @Newsweek
    Over a year later… she can still win guys! we promise! Donate more!

    The left makes better jokes of themselves than the right ever could.

    —-
    Andy Mitchell
    @AndyMitchell04
    Replying to @Newsweek
    Do the results give her a time machine to go back in time and campaign in Wisconsin?

    —-
    Lesley Carhart
    @hacks4pancakes
    Replying to @Newsweek
    You even interviewed an expert who said it was astronomically improbable… what are you doing??? You might as well posit a scenario where aliens invade.

    —-
    MonsterDome
    @Monster_Dome
    Replying to @Newsweek
    There is precedent for this e.g. when Nixon resigned and George McGovern became president.

    —-
    Joec87
    @southwm87
    Replying to @Newsweek
    Holy sh$t! Newsweek is still in existence??!!

    harkin (8d01aa)

  4. Will Trump accept his eviction from the WH?

    Enquirer minds want to explode

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (e96021)

  5. Who wrote this post?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  6. From the Politico

    Richard Painter, who served as chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, tweeted on Tuesday of the president’s comments about North Korea, “This Tweet alone is grounds for removal from office under the 25th Amendment. This man should not have nukes.”

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (e96021)

  7. The Battle for the Trump Brain will be harrowing..

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (e96021)

  8. “This Tweet alone is grounds for removal from office under the 25th Amendment.”

    This comment alone is grounds for spending $19.99 at the Newsweek Store.

    https://www.informationliberation.com/files/UDg2lGe22.jpg

    harkin (8d01aa)

  9. Another “cornerstone of American democracy” is that you don’t have the intelligence services of hostile foreign governments working for your campaign.

    Dave (445e97)

  10. Trumpkins talking about “coups” are utterly ridiculous and I have no patience with them at all.

    Like “treason,” the phrase “coup d’état” has a specific meaning and specific requirements to distinguish it from lesser things. See, e.g., Reynolds, G.H., Of Coups and the Constitution, 48 Colum. Human Rights L. Rev. 1, 3 (2016):

    What makes a coup a coup is the concept of political action by a small group using force of arms.

    So until the Resistance and the Deep State use force of arms, they may be doing a lot of bad things, but they are not engaged in a coup d’état. Period.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  11. It’s been very sad to see The Federalist in general and Molly Hemmingway in particular go full Trumpkin. She’s now at Corey Lewandowski levels of lick-spittledom, having surrendered not only her entire intellect but her entire free will.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  12. Using illegimate authority even employing legal toolsto depose a legally executive is a coup

    narciso (d1f714)

  13. I re-read the post twice looking to see if I’d overlooked the cheap shots and insults usually so ubiquitously present in a Patterico post touching on matters Trump.

    There aren’t any! Hoorey!

    ropelight (34faf8)

  14. The sad thing is that the fantasy can still only find Hillary as the alternative to Trump.

    Kishnevi (4d78f4)

  15. Lessig, another so called scholar from Camelot High.
    Elitest dick.

    mg (8cbc69)

  16. Sadly, Beldar can’t keep up.

    ropelight (34faf8)

  17. Another “cornerstone of American democracy” is that you don’t have the intelligence services of hostile foreign governments working for the FBI.”

    Fyp

    harkin (8d01aa)

  18. I mock academicians at every opportunity, and academic lawyers most of all, and this is one reason why.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. Hence the source of the fisa warrant which in turn was derived from dubious measures pursued during the campaign, which only a few samizdat are following up, instead of utterly fraudulent statements which have occupied the better part of a week speculation

    narciso (d1f714)

  20. lessig went to the same harvardtrash law school smarmy constitution-fetishist Ted Cruz went to

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  21. I would have to say that any definition of coup which states “small group” and “force of arms” is woefully outdated for today. I think a coup today could b accomplished by turning off the power grid for one day. Or telling Hawaii there’s a missile headed toward it and sticking with the story. It may be the official definition but I don’t believe it to be the definitive one. It is odd that lawyers who spend their career trying to twist and turn other people’s words suddenly require a strict adherence to cherry-picked definitions.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  22. oops no he just teaches there he never actually attendered

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  23. i agree Mr. Reverend

    a phony ginned-up pretext for impeachment, especially assisted by failmnerica’s corrupt gestapo fbi

    is same same as a coup

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  24. oopers *failmerica’s* corrupt gestapo fbi

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  25. These a-holes continue to do the same things that got Trump elected. Thank you leftists, you really are the useful idiots Stalin said you are.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  26. Well, they’d have to settle for counting coup with Trump because he doesn’t have a decent scalp to take.

    nk (dbc370)

  27. The amusing thing is there are a good half dozen folks at my club who did not vote for Trump that now can’t wait to. They are so disgusted with the leftist elite especially the media they became Trump supporters.

    I myself only was for Trump as I said because he was the anti Hillary and at least wouldn’t take us farther left. He’s turned out to be the most conservative since Reagan. Now you can call me a Trumper. At least until he pulls a Bush and “goes all wobbly on us”. Watching him make total a$$es out of all the leftists is just icing on the cake. I love watching them piss blood every time he speaks. BTW, I notice Haiti is still a sh!tholes.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  28. 27… Isn’t that racial appropriation from our indian brothers?

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  29. “To Dream, the Impossible Dream . . .”

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  30. We forgot the blame affair again, the collaboration of serving officials like grenier and Co, working with fmr operatives the vips and the Arab lobby, freeman scowcroft and Wilson) along with the likes of fits and comey

    narciso (d1f714)

  31. 28… Hoagie, this just in… “sh!thole countries” no longer to be used… now described as “turd-world nation’s”…

    Colonel Haiku (3f1823)

  32. First it was the Electoral College delegates, then this, then that.

    The Pantsuited Pantload will NEVER be POTUS!!!!!!!!

    Colonel Haiku (3f1823)

  33. OT, but since Rev. Hoagie is prominent in this thread, I could think of a few reasons the Philadelphia faithful should be more fearful of visiting Minneapolis: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/minnesota-travel-ticket-agencies-be-warned-of-eagles-fans-who-are-like-gangs/

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  34. Plame, and you had drumheller and Murray who used sid vicious as their mouthpieces (he’s also tied to the dossier) as guccifer know thanks to Ryan dealey, revealed the stove pipe to red queen.

    narciso (21eb6d)

  35. To the shores of Gitchy Goombah
    To the wigwams of the Loon Tribe
    To the place where they kill women
    Came the Eagle clan from Philly
    With their tomahawks well polished
    And their scalping knives all well honed
    And did sound their war hoops
    And the Loons did wet their pants
    At the sounds never uttered
    In the frozen fjords of Norway
    The far place, Norway
    Where the nights are six months long
    And their fathers ate raw fish
    The far place of Norway
    Where the Loon Tribe came from.

    nk (dbc370)

  36. Being reported now:

    More than a dozen police showed up this morning at the office that serves as the shared headquarters for Newsweek magazine and IBT Media, which rebranded in 2017 as Newsweek Group, according to multiple sources who were present.

    The reason for the visit was not clear, but one employee said police were taking photos of the company’s servers.

    Employees said the police appeared to be from the NYPD, not the FBI. NYPD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Dana (023079)

  37. “So until the Resistance and the Deep State use force of arms, they may be doing a lot of bad things, but they are not engaged in a coup d’état. Period.”

    Beldar (fa637a) — 1/18/2018 @ 9:23 am

    I consider the tactics/methods being used to be “arms”. In fact, the weaponization of the FBI/DOJ using lawfare and other means, should it be proven , is more insidious than the use of standard weapons such as small arms. Lawfare is designed to obfuscate how an end is achieved and is rarely punished if it fails – just ask Greg Abbot or Scott Walker.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  38. 37 – they’re under suspicion of impersonating a news organization.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  39. You open the door to abuse when you redefine words to mean something else. Bill Clinton abused the system by redefining “is” and redefining “coup” can also lead to abuse. For instance, calling speculation about Trump’s mental health a “coup” suggests the perpetrators are acting illegally. Do we really want criticism or speculation about our leaders to be a basis to call people criminals, or worse?

    The GOP won’t be in power forever. I assume folks here would like to speculate about Democrats if they get control.

    DRJ (15874d)

  40. I defer to delmore Schwartz 10 years ago would we have thought fast and furious was paranoid, (even shows,like taken have noted, as did Dallas and ncis) how about the war on the teA party, the closure of gop supporting auto deAlerships.

    narciso (21eb6d)

  41. I’m off to another damn doctor appointment. 16 months on the transplant list and counting. I’ll die of old age before I get some lungs.

    I just wanted to leave you guys with this: Philly fans are Phantics, hence the name. I do not condone their behavior however I also am not a sports fan so I only see them on the news when they riot or throw D batteries at Santa Clause. Real class they are.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  42. Yes because of the manner used I would use echo chamber for now, but you still insist this inquisition was legitimately derived?

    narciso (21eb6d)

  43. it’s not just speculation

    the coup issue is that the corrupt gestapo FBI and the CNN Jake Tapper propaganda sluts want to use the 25th amendment to remove an extraordinary and duly elected president from office, President Donald Trump

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  44. Since Newsweek has become nothing more than an Onion solely dedicated to Trump-bashing, why not adopt a more martial tone and become the Trunnion.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  45. They booed santa once didn’t they?

    Consider how begich and Franken took their seats. Let’s review how comey and Mueller and goldsmith of lawfare fame derailed stellar wind.

    narciso (21eb6d)

  46. @45

    It’s not going to happen, but using a means provided for in the constitution is, by definition, not a coup.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  47. 3, 2, 1, retrofire.

    But oops, a miscalculation and Witch One burned up in the prevailing atmosphere a year ago. Witch Two is in work w/a planned launch date around 2020- if weather permits. They say it’s called Project Oprah. New Hampshire’s even ahead of schedule: ‘Winfrey Or Die.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  48. 38 – Lenny

    Guns were employed in the John Doe fiasco in WI aimed at removing a sitting governor.

    “National Review attorney David French has been investigating the use of these laws and what he found should terrify people. Political opponents have been subject to SWAT teams and other law enforcement coming to their homes with battering rams and guns drawn. The teams have torn apart homes and never once gave the victim the benefit of their constitutional rights.

    Innocent people with the “wrong” political views were subjected to the same treatment drug dealers receive. Then they were warned not to tell anyone, not even family and to not call a lawyer. It kept the communist-like tyranny a secret from the general public.

    Supporters of Governor Walker who were newbies to the political process became the subjects of “multi-year secretive criminal investigations, slanderous and selective leaks to sympathetic media, and intrusive electronic snooping.”

    http://www.independentsentinel.com/wisconsin-tyranny-leftists-use-force-to-silence-political-opponents-like-scott-walker/

    harkin (8d01aa)

  49. Speculation isn’t a coup, DRJ. A coordinated effort by the FBI, NSA, DoJ all pushed by the Fake News media and repeated as nausea by Hollywood and academia to recall/remove/impeach/imprison/ institutionalize or otherwise throw out the lawfully elected president because they are too fragile to wait for the next election also may not meet your definition. Right up till it’s too late.

    The lefts inability to cope with losing an election has resulted in a year long hissy fit. I say F’em. We had to put up with their commie moslem for eight years they can STFU for our turn. The good news is they create new Trumpers daily. They are doing exactly the same thing they did to get Trump elected and they’re too stooopid to realize it.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  50. Would have to strongly disagree with Beldar at 11 and 12.

    Cout d’etat might have a specific meaning in French, but the manner in which it has been adopted as a descriptor in English does not require “force of arms”.

    The literal French translation would be stroke concerning the state. In use its defined by Dictionary.com to mean “a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.” “Illegally” or “by force” are presented in the alternative.

    It has historically been used in conjunction with military overthrows of civilian governments, hence the “force” aspect has commonly been an element. But it is not required. If it was then the phrase “military coup d’etat” would be duplicative.

    As for the Federalist, I would defend what has taken place there as a reflection of my POV — what I initially envisioned as a likely short-term spasm in the media and political establishments of both parties to the reality of Trump’s surprise victory, has not coalesced into an “opposition” whose goal is to drive a legitimately elected President from office, with out regard to truth or consequence.

    Doing so would disenfranchise over 60 million voters, and would likely stain forever the process of the “peaceful transition of power”. I fear the latter may have already taken place. The all-out efforts by the Press and the Dem Party — aided by the Never-Trumpers outside those two groups — to destabilize the government by obstructing Trump’s legitimate exercise of Presidential authority at every junction, has essentially condoned such tactics for every election to come.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  51. The all-out efforts by the Press and the Dem Party — aided by the Never-Trumpers outside those two groups — to destabilize the government by obstructing Trump’s legitimate exercise of Presidential authority at every junction, has essentially condoned such tactics for every election to come.

    This, except it was Republicans during Obama’s administration. If you want to further the “coup” analogy, add birtherism to the mix.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  52. Newsweek has much in common w/t modern conservative movement of late: both marginal and increasingly irrelevant.

    “The Times They Are A Changin'” – Bob Dylan 1964 [Nobel Prize recipient for literature, no less, 2017]

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  53. There was no support in the apparat for the tea party for instance previous little in media, the law was at best inadequate to bring administration officials to account, take holder for instance. By contrast the sdministration targeted walpin McCullough et al they went after general mccrystal on spurious grounds, leaked an pentagon investigation re Petraeus st al

    narciso (21eb6d)

  54. Did I forget lawfare against d’souza, walker et al no I did not. The ndas which allowed the cover-up re benghazi which was a symbol of the maladministration re the middle east And North Africa generally.

    narciso (21eb6d)

  55. I’m confused because the four paragraphs quoted outlined a scenario in which *Paul Ryan* becomes President.

    The article then goes on to posit that Ryan would be under a moral obligation to name Hillary as VP and then resign in her favor.

    This is utter nonsense, of course. But it’s not particularly *leftist*. The leftists were opposed to Hillary because she was too centrist and too corporate for them.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  56. “*They* behaved badly so, as a result, *we* are justified in behaving even worse” seems to be the clarion call of partisans on both side of the political divide right now, and everyone saying that is hastening the demise of the Republic.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  57. Lessig entertains an extraordinary level of delusion (something in the water in cambridge?) He’s an expert on intellectual property so called, but there is,little evidence of that.

    narciso (21eb6d)

  58. Beldar: when the military of Honduras ousted the sitting President in response to his decision to hold a referendum on abolishing presiential term limits, did you consider the military’s actions to be a coup? Did you consider the President’s actions in attempting to abolish term limits to be a coup attempt?

    aphrael (3f0569)

  59. Don’t forget manic mensch and her Marshall of the supreme court, and president hatch.

    narciso (21eb6d)

  60. The point is Obama did, and he used all the machinery of state to try to restore zelaya.
    Including subsequently the castaway subsidiary of fast and furious.

    narciso (21eb6d)

  61. 53 — what did the GOP do to obstruct Obama’s legitimate exercise of Presidential authority? If anything, it was the opposite. The GOP was cowed by Obama’s personal popularity, and a fawning press corp.

    Did the GOP minority in the Senate insist on 30 hours of debate for every administration official requiring Senate confirmation.

    Do you realize that with 1100 positions that require Senate confirmation, and with Senate rules allowing the clock to run on only one matter at a time, it would take 11 years for the Senate to confirm every nominee if 30 hours of debate were to be insisted upon by the minority?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  62. 58, in that scenario, they would be banking on 1. “evidence of diminished mental capacity” much as they are with Trump – or just an outright drop dead like on 9/11/16 scenario; and also 2. a far more palatable VP than Tim Kaine (although he satisfies the liberation theology wing of left-dom, not so much the domestic BernieBro/Antifa brand).

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  63. What strzok and page and ohr (The latter may testify next month) closer to the definition

    narciso (21eb6d)

  64. > what did the GOP do to obstruct Obama’s legitimate exercise of Presidential authority?

    Rather than hold hearings on a nominee to the Supreme Court and voting the nominee down, they instead refused to consider *any nomination whatsoever* presented by the President, something which had never before been done in the history of the Republic.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  65. Slim was also very pro cair, his son does a passable amy carter inpression.

    narciso (21eb6d)

  66. Rather than hold hearings on a nominee to the Supreme Court and voting the nominee down, they instead refused to consider *any nomination whatsoever* presented by the President, something which had never before been done in the history of the Republic.

    I didn’t know the “Biden” in the Biden Rule was a Republican.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  67. Now,if justice deferred is justice denied, consider the part of weissman, rosenstein et al, in deepsixing the further investigations into uranium one, and their subsequent role along with zebley and Yates and furthering an illegitimate investigation

    narciso (21eb6d)

  68. Fara filings are often considered perfunctory but they were observed all of a sudden in the case of general Flynn and manafort, whereas podesta and Weber, much like a certain controversy in a. Florida

    narciso (21eb6d)

  69. It’s so stupid the way they buy in to their own fantasy. Like with Ben.

    He actually believes there’s some magic formulation of conservative media that’s the proximate reason his ragtag collection of villians and scum lose elections.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  70. Random viking – can you point me to an instance where the Democrats refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee? Biden suggested that that was the course of action which *should* be followed in the case of a *hypothetical* vacancy, but the Senate never actually did it.

    Is saying that “we should do [x] if the opportunity arises” the same thing as *doing* [x], in your book? And is one person saying it, or a group of people saying it, the same thing as a *larger* group doing it?

    aphrael (3f0569)

  71. I re-read the post twice looking to see if I’d overlooked the cheap shots and insults usually so ubiquitously present in a Patterico post touching on matters Trump.

    There aren’t any! Hoorey!

    ropelight (34faf8) — 1/18/2018 @ 9:35 am

    Sorry, it was an oversight. Donald Trump would have cried like a little girl and made up conspiracies for years if he had lost.

    Patterico (e7189f)

  72. “*They* behaved badly so, as a result, *we* are justified in behaving even worse” seems to be the clarion call of partisans on both side of the political divide right now, and everyone saying that is hastening the demise of the Republic

    This is true. I stand with aphrael in opposing this mindset.

    Patterico (e7189f)

  73. Speaking of conspiracies.
    Is there a Fox News program they passed over with their affirmative action hires screaming outlandish #metoo accusations at the talent?

    Liberal operatives tried to lob the head off what they mistook for conservative media, in the run up to the election.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  74. Patterico, at 74: if the latest tell-all book is to be believed, that’s also what he did when he won. Maybe it’s an inherent characteristic? 😛

    aphrael (3f0569)

  75. There is no conservative media.

    The Trump 300 [YouTube] backlash is what they earned for their presumption.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  76. Random viking – can you point me to an instance where the Democrats refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee?

    No, I can’t, but only because a vacancy didn’t actual come to be when Biden proposed it. The intent to follow through was clear, and to deny they wouldn’t have runs counter to everything we know about the Left.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  77. So my point remains: McConnell did something which nobody had ever done before, and which permanently changed the nature of executive-legislative relations, and has probably poisoned the atmosphere surrounding judicial nominations for at least a decade — but in your mind, it’s the fault of the Democrats, because *some of them* said they were going to do something and the opportunity never came up to put their threat to the test.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  78. Tell me more about how the GOP…

    refused to consider any nomination by that guy. [jpg]

    papertiger (c8116c)

  79. I didn’t know the “Biden” in the Biden Rule was a Republican.

    I didn’t know that the Democrats blocked a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court in 1992.

    One senator’s speech isn’t the same as an entire party’s actions.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  80. McConnell did something which nobody had ever done before, and which permanently changed the nature of executive-legislative relations, and has probably poisoned the atmosphere surrounding judicial nominations for at least a decade

    Oh please. You’re forgetting non-Supreme Court judicial nominations, which have become equally contentious over the decades and, yes, I put the blame entirely on the Dems. The well was poisoned long ago, or did that history really just start in 2016? You tell me.

    But, please do everything the “right” way, regardless of what the other side does. (BTW, is the Biden Rule unconstitutional? No. No more than doing away with the filibuster.) When you see that 18 wheeler barreling down the road, go ahead and step into the crosswalk, as you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing you were dead right.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  81. > But, please do everything the “right” way, regardless of what the other side does.

    So when Democrats retake the Senate and refuse to confirm any Trump nominations to the Supreme Court, you won’t complain?

    > The well was poisoned long ago, or did that history really just start in 2016? You tell me.

    Both sides have been repeatedly poisoning the well and blaming the other side, claiming that the other side’s misbehavior makes their side righteous and gives them no choice but to engage in bad behavior of their own, for as long as I’ve been paying attention to the politics of the judiciary.

    McConnell ratched it up a few notches, and I’m pissed at him for that.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  82. Don’t they have to clear it with Putin first? I heard he picks our President.

    crazy (d99a88)

  83. Aphrael: “*They* behaved badly so, as a result, *we* are justified in behaving even worse” seems to be the clarion call of partisans on both side of the political divide right now, and everyone saying that is hastening the demise of the Republic

    Patterico: This is true. I stand with aphrael in opposing this mindset.

    #MeToo

    Dave (445e97)

  84. So when Democrats retake the Senate and refuse to confirm any Trump nominations to the Supreme Court, you won’t complain?

    Is that supposed to be a hypothetical? lol

    I know. Let’s ask Alberto Gonzales what he thinks of dirty underhanded dealings by Democrat Senators as a block refusing a Republican nominee?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  85. #MeToo

    As does every MeToo Republican.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  86. Behaving badly is only contentious when, 1, republicans do it and , 2, it turns out to be effective.
    If dems do it, …..look, a squirrel!

    Richard Aubrey (10ef71)

  87. So when Democrats retake the Senate and refuse to confirm any Trump nominations to the Supreme Court, you won’t complain?

    If done in the last year of Trump’s term? Not at all. If done in 2019, meaning under different circumstances, will you blame the Dems? Surprise me.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  88. Such a friendly read.
    Nice.

    mg (8cbc69)

  89. While the loony left continue to fantasize about Trumps impeachment and removable from office, I’ll continue to hope for Hillary’s arrest and incarceration.

    I think I have a better shot than they.

    Remember Chinagate? Well, there have been some interesting things happening that might have bearing.

    Add in a a few more names in the news recently, like Jerry Chun Shing Lee, Ng Lap Seng, and Jeffrey Sterling, and listen intently, you might hear the gurgling sound of a swamp draining.

    TheBas (f00165)

  90. Papertiger: Gonzales was never nominated to the Supreme Court. Instead, President Bush chose to nominate Harriet Meiers, who came under heavy fire from both the left and the right, and who withdrew her nomination *while the Judiciary Committee was organizing the confirmation hearings*.

    So I don’t see the comparison between that and refusing point blank to hold hearings on *any* nominee put forward.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  91. Random viking, at 90: I have been arguing with Democrats intermittently for most of the last year, trying to convince them that their preferred course of action (refusing to hold hearings on any Trump SCOTUS nominee unless that nominee is Merrick Garland) is harmful to the republic. I will continue to do so — and at the same time, I know that I won’t convince them, because the universal response I get back is “if we don’t, then we’re telling the Republicans they can do it to us and we won’t retaliate, which means that forever it will be the case that Democratic presidents can only get confirmation with a Democratic Senate while Republican presidents can get confirmation no matter who controls the Senate”, and I have no answer that allows me to demonstrate that they’re wrong.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  92. One of the amazing and sad things to me about this conversation is the reaction I am describing in #94 is basically the *same reaction* as the reaction you stated in #83: “we’ll get run over if we do the right thing and the other guy doesn’t”.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  93. In “ethical discourse,” reciprocity is conceived of as the willingness to give the other person the benefit of the doubt. It is necessary to establish the legitimacy of consensus.

    In American discourse, not so much.

    Of course, reflexivity (critical self-examination) is a precursor to ethical discourse, and white Americans are constitutionally disinclined to reflexivity by virtue of their unwillingness to admit that they have benefited from this country’s past history and racist present.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  94. *racist history

    Leviticus (efada1)

  95. @ narciso, who wrote (#13):

    Using illegimate authority even employing legal toolsto depose a legally executive is a coup

    No, it’s just not. You’re entitled to your views about what authority is and isn’t legitimate, and I’d probably agree with at least some of those views. But for example, when the threat of impeachment actually did force a POTUS to leave office, that was not a coup d’état: No force of arms was involved, nor even the threat of force of arms.

    This is sloppy thinking and sloppy language. It is the hallmark of the political left. I reject it, and I criticize those on the right who use it. It’s the linguistic and intellectual equivalent of the people who claim that by repealing Obamacare, Congress would be killing millions of Americans.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  96. In other words, it’s wild and irresponsible hyperbole that destroys the credibility of the person uttering it.

    Do you want to be credible? Then reserve the phrase “coup d’état” for the real thing.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  97. It is odd that lawyers who spend their career trying to twist and turn other people’s words suddenly require a strict adherence to cherry-picked definitions.

    Did you spend your career trying to poison people or feed them?

    Enough with the schoolyard insults.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  98. At Lenny (#38), who wrote:

    I consider the tactics/methods being used to be “arms”.

    But they aren’t. And if you think they literally are, then you’re literally delusional.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  99. @ aphrael: I don’t consider any change in government which doesn’t involve the use, or imminently threatened use, of arms to be something other than a coup d’état. There are lots of differing degrees of political legitimacy, morality, adherence to the Rule of Law, etc., in changes of government, and they’re worthy of careful scrutiny and debate. But calling them what they aren’t doesn’t advance that process, it just reduces the discussion to some sort of vague touchy-feely crap like that being spouted by the commenters here who insist that someone’s engaged in a coup d’état against Donald Trump.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  100. Bah. Got my double negatives out of sync. Trying again:

    *I consider any change in government which doesn’t involve the use, or imminently threatened use, of arms to be something other than a coup d’état.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  101. @ aphrael, who wrote:

    Rather than hold hearings on a nominee to the Supreme Court and voting the nominee down, they instead refused to consider *any nomination whatsoever* presented by the President, something which had never before been done in the history of the Republic.

    Obama’s constitutional role is to submit nominees. He was in no way prevented from doing that. There is no corresponding obligation on the part of the Senate to give each nominee a hearing or a vote. There may be political consequences from that, but not constitutional ones, and it’s not an “illegitimate use” of the authority given the Senate in the Constitution.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  102. aphrael, your position sounds very virtuous and moral, but but totally outside of reality. It’s like saying “killing another human being is wrong”, which is the virtuous and moral position to take…until you are attacked by someone trying to kill you.

    We are at war with a political machine that wants to fundamentally transform our country from a free capitalistic nation into a socialist country stripped of civil liberties. If this were a fight in a ring, with 10 oz. gloves, and a referee enforcing the Marcus of Queensbury rules, I would agree with you.

    But we aren’t. This is a street fight where the opponent is remorseless, relentless, and will eye gouge, fish hook, punch below the belt, and produce brass knuckles in a pinch.

    Sorry buddy, I for one am tired of lectures on fair play while being beat to death(literally in the sense of preserving our nation).

    War is immoral, but in this world sometimes ya gotta release the hounds to keep evil from winning. If you don’t get that, you aren’t on the side of righteousness, all moral preening aside.

    TheBas (f00165)

  103. Beldar, I’ll accept your position on what a coup is, but, say Nixon had been impeached and forced from office through a conspiracy between the democrat party and the MSM on false, trumped up* charges, how would you characterize that?

    *pardon the pun

    TheBas (f00165)

  104. War is immoral, but in this world sometimes ya gotta release the hounds to keep evil from winning. If you don’t get that, you aren’t on the side of righteousness, all moral preening aside.

    I agree with you, except you’re on the evil side and I’m on the good side.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  105. coup d’ ville = an automobile with an external driver’s position and an enclosed compartment for passengers. \\

    papertiger (c8116c)

  106. > We are at war with a political machine that wants to fundamentally transform our country from a free capitalistic nation into a socialist country stripped of civil liberties. If this were a fight in a ring, with 10 oz. gloves, and a referee enforcing the Marcus of Queensbury rules, I would agree with you.

    I hear that here. And then I go talk to my liberal friends, who are convinced that they are at war with a political machine that wants to fundamentally transform our country from one in which people are protected by a social safety net and everyone is expected to be treated equally regardless of their skin color, gender, or sexual orientation into one where there is no social safety net whatsoever, workers have no legal rights vis-a-vis their employers, consumers have no legal rights vis-a-vis vendors, and the system is rigged at every level to favor people of a particular race, gender, and sexual orientation.

    ANY CLAIM YOU CAN MAKE about the perfidy of your enemy is matched by the claims they can make about you.

    From my perspective, you’re both overreacting and reading the worst possible intent behind the actions of the other, rather than granting the other the charity of assuming good intentions, and then reacting based on misinterpretation rather than reality.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  107. Paper tiger should change his bongwater before attempting analysis..

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (e96021)

  108. 101 – Beldar (fa637a) —1/18/2018 @ 3:14 pm

    Which is why I put “quotes” around “arms”, yet you still missed my point by about a mile. Did you have a bad day at the office?

    Lenny (5ea732)

  109. Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of opposition research firm Fusion GPS, told Congress in November that the Russian government appeared to “purge” people after his firm’s research on President Donald Trump’s alleged Kremlin connections became public.

    It’s one of a host of concerns Simpson shared late last year with members of the House intelligence committee in a closed-door hearing. The committee voted this morning to release the transcript of Simpson’s testimony. One of Simpson’s central arguments was that Trump and his associates appeared to be involved in money-laundering on behalf of Russian oligarchs and organized crime figures.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/fusion-gps-kremlin-purge-followed-dossier-release

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (e96021)

  110. @ TheBas (#106): If the POTUS is forced out at gunpoint, that’s a coup d’état. If not, it’s something else. It’s entirely possible that a change in government forced by political circumstances, like a very credibly threatened impeachment, could be politically illegitimate, worthy of objection and protest, maybe worthy of demonstrating in the streets. But that wouldn’t make it a coup d’état.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  111. Tweeter-Dumb Be Tweeter-D; House Freedom Caucus caves on shutdown vote.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  112. Admiral Damn Dirty Democrat should change his bongwater before attempting ellipsis…

    papertiger (c8116c)

  113. @ Lenny: I didn’t interpret your quote marks to be an indication of metaphor, but of quotation. Sorry. If you meant that you think it’s a useful metaphor to compare some bureacrat’s resistance to shooting a head of state, then with that clarification, I’d simply say that I disagree with your assessment as to whether it’s useful.

    I did have a bad day, I confess. But even on my best day, I have zero sympathy for a POTUS who whines, or his sympathizers who whine on his behalf, that he’s being subjected to a coup d’état when he’s not. The fact that he has the constitutional authority to fire anyone in the executive branch of government who’s engaged in this activity makes me … what, negatively sympathetic? Scornful? Yeah, that.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  114. Beldar – I think it’s anytime you overthrow a government by whatever means outside the color of law.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  115. And as usual Simpson stalking out of his hat, unless he can prove wrovikin was murdered and he was indeed the source

    Meanwhile the fisa report is being declassified so we’ll found out how illegimate certain practices have been.

    narciso (d1f714)

  116. Cool it Paper Tiger…(I hope that doesn’t sound Gay)

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (e96021)


  117. . But that wouldn’t make it a coup d’état.


    Then what would it make it? If you’re gonna stick to that rigid definition you gotta understand you’re working for the coup. They will be on the Fake News perpetuating the notion it’s not a coup and you’ll be supporting their assertion.

    Regardless of the antiquated definition I believe most people would consider any overthrow of a legitimately elected government a coup.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  118. 67 — That was at the beginning of his 8th year in office, and there was an upcoming Presidential election when the nomination was made. The Senate did now “owe” Obama a hearing on his nominee. It was not done as part of a campaign to hamstring his administration and run him out of office.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  119. We all need to count our blessings, Beldar. We won the lottery just being born and living in the USA

    Colonel Haiku (3f1823)

  120. You could do it with bow and arrow. Masked ninja in Japan did it with throwing knives.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  121. Furthermore, any casualties happened after Simpson shopped the dossier around like seinfelds pilot.

    narciso (d1f714)

  122. You mean like Ollie North shopped his book?

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (e96021)


  123. ….or his sympathizers who whine on his behalf, that he’s being subjected to a coup d’état when he’s not.


    I don’t think anybody is whing at this point he is being subjected to a coup. Targeted by the commies on the left but as of yet not subjected. I also object to your use of the term “sympathizers” like he’s some African war lord. Like it or not Trump is POTUS and he has “supporters” not sympathizers. The #resistance, antifa, BLM have sympathizers. Or co-conspirators if you will.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  124. For some reason I have a faith in the rest of you that if Chuck Shumer kicked in the door of the White House, flanked by a p***y hat brigade, we would rise up as a people and dispatch that metamucil chugging usurper forthwith.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  125. In other words, Steve Bannon has flipped on Donald Trump. Bannon’s attorney is already coordinating with Robert Mueller to make sure that the House Intel Committee, whose Republican leaders are Trump puppets, couldn’t get a preview of what Bannon is going to tell Mueller. If Bannon has flipped, then by definition, so have Reince Priebus and Don McGahn. This is remarkable, considering that McGahn is still working in Trump’s White House.

    http://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/bannon-priebus-deal/7441/

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (e96021)

  126. Adjust your blockers…

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Ellipsis Burner/Abuser (e96021)

  127. Admiral – how did you come by that rank? Are you playing pirate? Impersonating an officer could be a crime, but I think you need a fake Navy for it to rise above cosplay.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  128. Why do you consider Palmer Report reliable? *puzzled look*

    aphrael (3f0569)

  129. @ Hoagie: Perhaps you’re a Trump supporter who isn’t sympathetic to him? I don’t know, don’t want to project any views onto you if they don’t fit. Trump certainly has sympathizers as well as supporters. I have some sympathy for his supporters, none for his sympathizers. I’ll support Trump when he’s right, but not otherwise, and I haven’t an ounce of sympathy for him or those who make excuses for him as if he’s some sort of victim.

    @ aphrael: I don’t know what you mean when you wrote that “McConnell ratched it up a few notches,” and I’m curious. Are you referring to his refusal to schedule hearings or a vote on Judge Garland? Or to his and his fellow GOP senators’ nuking what remained of the rule permitting filibustering of presidential appointees? Or something else?

    It was the Democratic senators who killed comity in the Senate. It is the Republican senators who are currently fooling themselves if they believe the Dems will ever again, when in majority control, permit the GOP to filibuster anyone or anything, including regular-order legislation. I condemn the hyperpartisanship of the former and lament the foolishness of the latter. I reject any idea that there’s an “equivalency” here, or that the GOP is equally responsible with the Dems for the end of comity in the United States Senate.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  130. Oh — and Hoagie: Perhaps you aren’t claiming there’s a coup in progress against Trump. But Mollie Hemmingway is, in the headline of her piece quoted above. Thus my criticism in the first place.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  131. My rank was awarded on the same basis as Colonel Haiku-ka-choob. Ask him about it.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Ellipsis Burner/Abuser (e96021)

  132. puzzled look explain yourself.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Ellipsis Burner/Abuser (e96021)

  133. Awarded by alliteration?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  134. He excited his superior, like alt universe Jim Kirk.

    You were casting doubt of Dr. Jackson’s excellent presentation, whereas you don’t find any doubt apparently with this trash dossier

    Yes trump can fire anyone but as we discovered after comrys dusmjssal. The odds that where will nit be retaliation directed by a swamp denizen is exactly 0

    As explained ad infinitum neither I nor the rev originally voted for trump i
    I

    narciso (d1f714)

  135. @131. He was drafted.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  136. Beldar: i’m referring to Garland, specifically.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Ellipsis Burner/Abuser: Palmer Report overreacts to everything, predicts highly unrealistic outcomes to things based on limited understanding of the underlying law and policy, and generally serves to whip up his ideological allies into a frenzy that isn’t supported by actual analysis. He’s the liberal equivalent of those sites that used to predict the *imminent* fall of the Obama administration over IRSGate and BenGhazi.

    He’s not a reliable source for analysis, and anything he says about the future is myth conjured up out of a combination of wishful thinking and misunderstanding of legal process.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  137. The epistemic closure is in the fact that Laurence tribe apparently dies read it, as do several high ranking democratic staffers. But its two mensch deviations from MSNBC.

    narciso (d1f714)

  138. He’s not a reliable source for analysis,

    Nor is anyone else in a vacuum. Palmer has the context. Why don’t you address that?

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Ellipsis Burner/Abuser (e96021)

  139. Even Alex Jones finds a truffle every once in a while, but conservatives are so pure in their intake.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Ellipsis Burner/Abuser (e96021)

  140. *In context*, Palmer is not a reliable source for analysis.

    I’m not a conservative, and I’d certainly never claim that conservative sources for analysis are pure; I actually directly compared Palmer to certain conservative analysts, in fact.

    I’m a liberal. I voted for Clinton. And Palmer is the most prominent example of “fake news” I can see on the left.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  141. Then you’re a liberal with conservative (closed- loop) nerve pathways, constricted bloodflow conducive to narrow thinking, sorry to say.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Ellipsis Burner/Abuser (e96021)

  142. Beldar, you didn’t answer my question (asked in good faith, really!).

    I’ll update it; supposing the Democrats and the MSM are in a conspiracy to oust a duly elected president by fabricating bogus charges against him, and succeed, what would you call that, if not a coup. “Something else” doesn’t really work when I’m looking for a handle to hang on what is happening (take that as a hypothetical if you don’t agree that is what is happening).

    TheBas (f00165)

  143. It’s going to take several burley types to oust the Endomorph and his massive gut.

    We’re gonna have to offer disability pay.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Ellipsis Burner/Abuser (e96021)

  144. Here’s your proof that the entire Garland nomination, and the entire argument about him being denied a hearing and a vote, is a made-up farse orchestrated by Barack Obama and his partisans:

    During the same timeframe that Senate comity has disappeared (dating roughly back to the Bork nomination), Presidents of both political parties have increasingly tended to avoid older nominees to the federal courts, and to the SCOTUS bench in particular. For overtly partisan and ideological reasons, they want to get the longest-lasting life-tenure effect from each such selection. Credit our second POTUS, John Adams, for starting this trend when he made his end-of-term nomination of John Marshall — then aged forty-five, but already the leading national opponent to his fellow Virginian and POTUS-elect Thomas Jefferson. This predated the filibuster, and the lame-duck Federalists who still held a majority in the Senate promptly confirmed him. “My gift of John Marshall to the people of the United States was the proudest act of my life,” wrote Adams. Marshall was Chief Justice until

    Thus: Justice Gorsuch (dob 8-29-1967), when nominated on January 31, 2017, had achieved only the tender age of forty-nine. Justice Kagan (dob 4-28-60), when nominated on May 10, 2010, had just turned fifty. Justice Sotomayor (dob 6-25-1954), when nominated on May 26, 2009, was fifty-four. Justice Alito (4-1-1950), when nominated on October 31, 2005, was fifty-five. Chief Justice Roberts (1-27-1955), when nominated to his current position on September 5, 2005, was age fifty. Indeed, of the currently living SCOTUS Justices (including those on senior status, Stevens, O’Connor & Souter), Justice Ginsberg was the oldest when nominated — a mere sixty.

    By very obvious contrast: Merrick Garland celebrated his sixty-fifth birthday on November 13, 2017 — a year and a week after Election Day 2016. On the day he was nominated, March 16, 2016, Judge Garland was already aged sixty-three.

    He was never a serious nominee. He was, however, probably the best available candidate around whom to build this whole “constitutional victimhood” notion that’s untethered to the actual Constitution.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  145. Ack — left out Marshall’s tenure end. He was Chief until 1835.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  146. @ TheBas (#146), who asked:

    Democrats and the MSM are in a conspiracy to oust a duly elected president by fabricating bogus charges against him, and succeed, what would you call that, if not a coup.

    I would not call it a coup if no force of arms was threatened or used. What else I might call it would depend on how they succeed in effecting his removal. We’ve had two POTUSes impeached, none convicted in the Senate, and both of the two who were impeached served the remainder of their terms. The only POTUS to resign did so under threat of impeachment, a threat that became compelling when congressional Republicans in both chambers conveyed their intent to impeach and convict Nixon. I believe that the threat to impeach and convict Nixon and Clinton were both politically legitimate; I don’t think that of Johnson’s impeachment. Regardless, none of these things were coups.

    So what’s the rest of the scenario you want me to give you a name for? People say such bad things about Trump that he quits? That’s not a coup. People threaten to impeach him over factually false charges? That’s politically illegitimate, but not a coup. Career bureaucrats (whom he has the power to fire) slow-walking or ignoring his directives? How does that force him from office, much less constitute a coup?

    You tell me and then perhaps I can tell you.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  147. Beldar – I think it’s anytime you overthrow a government by whatever means outside the color of law.

    So what means, “outside the color of law” are being advocated to “overthrow” President Snowflake?

    Yes, there have been a few lunatic fringe extremists who have talked about assassination, just as for every president. And presumably the Secret Service is dealing with them, just as for every president. CNN and the Washington Post are not calling for assassination.

    what does that leave? He could die by some kind of accident, of natural causes, or by his own hand. By definition, nobody else can make any of those things happen.

    All that’s left is impeachment and the 25th amendment, both of which are constitutional as long as the stipulated procedures are followed, or a resignation in the face of the same, ala Nixon.

    The 25th Amendment says nothing about what is or is not a valid grounds (i.e. it doesn’t say the president has to fail a Montreal Cognitive Exam, or be in a vegetative state); it only requires that certain officials reach the same conclusion and do specific things.

    Likewise impeachment is a political process, and the Constitution leaves ample scope for any president who lacks sufficient congressional support to be removed, for basically any reason. Andrew Johnson (unfortunately) missed being thrown out by one vote, in a totally contrived power-play by radicals in Congress.

    What, exactly, do you think is being advocated by the MSM or democrats or nevertrumpers that doesn’t comport with the letter of the law?

    Dave (445e97)

  148. Aphrael, the opposition wants to “fundamentally transform” the nation, and has largely been successful by using the Rules For Radicals playbook while we have been throwing ourselves on our own sword trying to show what nice guys we are. Guess what, the sixth commandment includes suicide. It does not include self defence.

    Your moral equivalence is BS.

    @107- my side is trying to preserve the nation as founded in particular, and western civilization (as founded on Christianity) in general. The other side are Godless, tyrannical, socialists (to be kind) trying to turn us into Venezuela. Call me what you want, it won’t change truth.

    TheBas (f00165)

  149. If JFK had been riding in the back seat of a Cadillac and not a Lincoln on that fateful day in November 1963, could that have been described as a coup deVille?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  150. Let me slightly revise #148, aphrael: I wrote that he was never a serious nominee, and that’s not fair to him. He’s a serious man, a good man, a smart and accomplished man, and still the tenth most powerful federal judge in the nation as Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit.

    What I meant was: Obama never entertained any serious expectation that he’d be confirmed. Nor, surely, did Judge Garland. Not in the then-existing political atmosphere. The entire nomination was political theater from the day it was announced. If Obama thought there was even a 1% chance that a GOP-majority Senate would confirm a successor named by Obama for Scalia’s seat, he’d have picked someone much, much younger.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  151. Kernel popcorn

    Paper Tiger wants to know how you got to colonel..

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Ellipsis Burner/Abuser (e96021)

  152. What a joke. Garland was ok with the esteemed Senator from Utah and Obama couldn’t get Herpes from the House much less a Supreme. Just shut up.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Ellipsis Burner/Abuser (e96021)

  153. Aphrael, never mind, I just saw you are a liberal that voted for Clinton. Did not know I was dealing with a concern troll…

    TheBas (f00165)

  154. Obstruction is Thy name. May you receive the same.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Ellipsis Burner/Abuser (e96021)

  155. Better take a bleachbath TheBas. You just tubbed elbows with a liberal..lol.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Ellipsis Burner/Abuser (e96021)

  156. His not, his a conscientious fellow who happens to be mistaken, where as the admiral is a jackalope who throws scat of the puffington variety.

    narciso (d1f714)

  157. He’s mistaken?

    Lol narco. That was good unintentional humor.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Ellipsis Burner/Abuser (e96021)

  158. This is much the same garbage as the October surprise gambit, the nutroots just concocted it faster this time.

    narciso (d1f714)

  159. For people who might have trouble blocking Bun Burn’s new handle: Simply replace the front slash / between Burner and Abuser with a space leaving out the front slash. Type Admiral Ben Bunsen Ellipsis Burner Abuser NOT Admiral Ben Bunsen Ellipsis Burner/Abuser, in your blocking script.

    nk (dbc370)

  160. So, Trump supporters, is the goal to get even?

    Are you sick of how things work and not going to take them anymore, and Trump is the delivery man?

    DRJ (15874d)

  161. He was never a serious nominee. He was, however, probably the best available candidate around whom to build this whole “constitutional victimhood” notion that’s untethered to the actual Constitution.

    This seems to me to overstate the case. McConnell announced that no nominee would be considered before Scalia’s body was even cold. Sure, Garland was probably not the nominee Obama would have sent up with a democratic majority in the senate. Why was he the best candidate around whom to build a victimhood narrative? He’s a white male.

    I think Obama held out some hope that GOP unity would crack under the pressure of public opinion. If there was even a small chance of getting his guy confirmed, it would have been dumb not to try, and nominating somebody (relatively) moderate and unthreatening was the only way that could happen.

    Dave (445e97)

  162. That is quite a moniker for teh Rear Admiral. One way to evade the authorities…

    Fast typin’, butt wipin’, dull-witted No-Hair Sam.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  163. ConDave often pines for Obama’s Reign of Error… didja ever notice that?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  164. So, Trump supporters, is the goal to get even?

    Good Lord. Why are you asking, as if you are interested? Is your goal to navel gaze why the other side enacts their agenda?

    random viking (6a54c2)

  165. nk (dbc370) — 1/18/2018 @ 5:35 pm

    Forget that, nk. Just type admiral.

    felipe (023cc9)

  166. ConDave often pines for Obama’s Reign of Error… didja ever notice that?

    LOL

    Dave (445e97)

  167. 164… I suspect there’s some of that, but it’s outweighed by the need to see improvement in several areas and an actual, detectable pushback against the leftard tsunami…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  168. I don’t know if he actually did it on purpose, but he would be the kind of sophomoric sh!thead who would think he reinvented the wheel by using a front slash to confuse the code. As though there wouldn’t be people here miles ahead of him.

    nk (dbc370)

  169. I’m reading the comments and profound anger is what I see. Don’t you want someone to listen, or is this just trolling?

    DRJ (15874d)

  170. sophomoric sh!thead

    No, senator, I do not recall nk using that term, specifically.

    Dave (445e97)

  171. Haiku answered. Thank you. I’m trying to understand but it still sounds like getting even. What’s the difference, Haiku? Anger, desperation?

    DRJ (15874d)

  172. We’re either using different scripts or different platforms, felipe. This is what works for me with Beldar’s script on Chrome in Windows 10, which I can edit in place on my Bookmarks bar.

    nk (dbc370)

  173. We have the same script. I only have admiral in my script. It filters out all his comments no matter what he adds to it.

    felipe (023cc9)

  174. Well, give it a try and let me know if it fails.

    felipe (023cc9)

  175. Try To Remember. Hillary parody on YouTube. WARNING: Hillary’s face!

    nk (dbc370)

  176. Do you think most people who read time or any paper that uses the ap feed, which local broadcasters think there is something untoward in their presentation, of course not they goes to buzzceed the same thing if they are stuck at the airport they are tortured by CNN, at the dentists office by msnbc. This site is blocked in many educational institutions. Ne

    narciso (21eb6d)

  177. So what are the odds that the achievemtd of this administration are represented and not the chaff we have been dealing with for a week.

    narciso (21eb6d)

  178. Ouch! It’s more like, try to forget.

    felipe (023cc9)

  179. It works, felipe. Thank you. I wonder what I was doing wrong the first time.

    nk (dbc370)

  180. You are most welcome!

    felipe (023cc9)

  181. Hear that folks? Go with felipe. admiral blocks Bun in all its variants.

    But it’s still funny if he thought we wouldn’t know what a front slash does.

    nk (dbc370)

  182. He’s like a bug on klendathu, so how many times do people know the various outlets were fooled about scaramucci, Flynn, Kushner, doesn’t matter how many reporters they dismiss they churn out the same story, they just

    narciso (21eb6d)

  183. There is anger at the way the country has slipped and fallen in so many areas. When the media and popular culture preach same sex marriage, abortion rights, etc., and hammer away at religious freedom and brand people who disagree as bigots and can act to make individuals suffer for holding beliefs and values that run counter to that, yes, people have had quite enough, thank you. And there is a desperation – certainly not quiet – a determination to try and “right the ship”. The rate of change has increased and the resulting displacement and uncertainty of what the future holds for people in various areas of what the elites openly refer to as “flyover country” is a factor.

    They see Trump as a real agent of the kind of change they want to see.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  184. That last one was for DRJ…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  185. Then we have this clown, or is he legit and Stephen Miller png

    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristin
    e-marsh/2018/01/18/cnns-acosta-it-will-take-dead-journalists-highway-shake-trump

    narciso (21eb6d)

  186. Glad to see some republicans demanding the FISA documents be distributed to the deplorables for viewing. Hope they vote on it tonight.

    mg (8cbc69)

  187. And they accept his narcissism, buffoonery and peccadilloes as entertainment and they welcome it.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  188. 186… he’s more familiar with the back slash, nk.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  189. Newsweek has much in common w/t modern conservative movement if you ignore that it spouts liberal/socialist/SJW bile 24/7.”

    Fyp

    harkin (8d01aa)


  190. 192.And they accept his narcissism, buffoonery and peccadilloes as entertainment and they welcome it.


    That’s because that’s all it is. Only leftists get crazy over buffoonery and peccadillos. That’s the icing. Watching their effete, condescending heads explode.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  191. Pretty much dead on description of Newsweek by someone inside:

    https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/RELATED.png

    harkin (8d01aa)

  192. It’s instructive how CNN and buzzceed were so eager to release the dossier without foundation, yet they apparently won’t touch operation Cassandra the awan bros or this thing with a 10 ft cattleprod.

    narciso (21eb6d)

  193. 194…Wasn’t Newsweek the one who just a few years ago declared “We are all socialists now”? Yeah, real common w/t modern conservative movement.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  194. #Rlease the documents!

    ropelight (34faf8)

  195. Great news, harkin.

    mg (8cbc69)

  196. Rosenstein will not weather well behind bars.

    mg (8cbc69)

  197. “*They* behaved badly so, as a result, *we* are justified in behaving even worse” seems to be the clarion call of partisans on both side of the political divide right now, and everyone saying that is hastening the demise of the Republic.

    aphrael (3f0569) — 1/18/2018 @ 12:19 pm

    No, that is not what is really going on. In general, most Democrats and most Republicans attack one another using quite different tactics. Forgetting extremists on both sides, I’ve observed most center to right people use a dialectic approach, while most center to left prefer rhetoric. The former have as its hallmark reason, evidence, and history. The latter use emotion, political correctness, and sense of fair play.

    The institutions in our lives have the most influence as to our needs (think Maslow), such as security in one’s job and place in the community. The simple fact is that people take a public position in the workplace and community on any given issue that will enhance their social position, regardless of their true beliefs. The recent news about James Damore and Google is an excellent example of the consequences one faces if one doesn’t toe the line on standard liberal – or even extreme – orthodoxy. You’ll lose your job and place amongst your peers.

    Now along comes Trump and he doesn’t play by the rules of engagement we’ve come to expect from Republicans, who historically end every skirmish with Democrats with a big L on their forehead. Simply put, most people to the right of center would NEVER dream of acting as Trump would, but are privately pleased that someone – using the winning tactics of the Left – is standing up and fighting on their turf using their rules, that someone is doing what they themselves cannot without grave consequences.

    I hear the pundits grumbling about the demise of the Republic due to the ratcheting of attacks. Or that our free press is at stake. Bullsh!t. The attacks from the left (and right) will continue, as they always have, but Trump will continue to lower the status of journalists so that they are stripped of their power as arbiters of what citizens should think and do.

    The media forfeited their moral authority and they have to earn it back. They can do that by writing honestly and allowing the reader to make up his or her own mind.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  198. Hey, check out the House select committee on Intelligence twitter feed: @HPSCI

    Kevin M (752a26)

  199. Wrong account, but the Twitter mob would probably try to avoid any microagressions.

    narciso (21eb6d)

  200. 198 – Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 1/18/2018 @ 6:20 pm

    I wonder why Sara Carter is getting this story for her site ahead of anyone else. What about her working relationship with Fox? I keep reading this stuff from Lee Smith at Tablet, Sara Carter, McCarthy at NRO, but nothing seems to come of it, kind of like Gowdy. I’m metaphorically from Missouri, they’re going to have to show me.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  201. @194. See, class, fossils do tell a story; written in stone.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  202. 205 – Kevin, it’s suspended. What did it say?

    Lenny (5ea732)

  203. Because they are almost all fed from the fusion lunch wagon, fusions mo was keeping stories off the front page whether in caracas Moscow or washington.

    narciso (21eb6d)

  204. The account hasn’t updated since December 14th

    narciso (21eb6d)

  205. This story doesn’t get any traction, can you explain that

    Because it is old news, the chief perpetrator is in jail awaiting trial, and the Trump Administration incompetently allowed his accomplice to flee the country?

    Dave (445e97)

  206. Lenny, the link at 198 uses almost nothing but anonymous sources. Isn’t that the defining characteristic of “fake news”?

    I disagree with your suggestion that Left and Right use different methods and styles of argument. Some people on the Right in fact use nothing but rhetoric.

    Kishnevi (c338bc)

  207. 213 – Kishnevi (c338bc) — 1/18/2018 @ 7:02 pm

    I agree, that is why I qualified it by saying “In general” and “Forgetting extremists on both sides”.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  208. The visa warrant on a presidential campaign was based on what newspaper clippings from 2013, whereas when we have actual proof of wrongdoing they call it a matter, that was beside the times the investigators were having phone text.

    narciso (21eb6d)

  209. aphrael is no troll, and although we fundamentally and sincerely disagree upon a great deal, I prefer conversation with him to that of a great many other people who’ve forfeited my respect by their lickspittle attitudes toward Trump.

    People who disagree with me, but can do so with civility, are increasingly valuable in my estimation.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  210. The former have as its hallmark reason, evidence, and history.

    Yeah, you’re right.

    I can’t think of three better words to characterize Donald Trump’s oratory.

    He’s like an orange-tinted reincarnation of Daniel Webster, Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams, all rolled into one.

    Dave (445e97)

  211. People who purport to be “conservatives” and tell me I should be ashamed of myself — I have an anatomically impossible instruction for them which also involves the horse they rode in on.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  212. California’s Democrat rulers are now threatening to arrest employers that assist federal ICE agents.

    Tell me again how republicans in general and Trump supporters in particular are sinking to democrat lows.

    Again, any moral equivalence is BS.

    TheBas (f00165)

  213. using the winning tactics of the Left

    The winning tactics that lost them 13 seats in the Senate and 138 seats in the House before Trump ever pretended to be a Republican?

    Dave (445e97)

  214. 217 – Dave (445e97) — 1/18/2018 @ 7:13 pm

    You have a reading comprehension problem.

    Lenny (5ea732)

  215. What we assured by all the right people and what turns out to be true is something different:

    http://www.captainsjournal.com/2018/01/16/armed-antifa-involved-in-charlottesville-death-of-heather-heyer

    Now we may be moving toward clashes we thought only occurred in Europe and the third world

    narciso (d1f714)

  216. People who purport to be “conservatives” and tell me I should be ashamed of myself —

    —have already contorted themselves so much that the posture you suggest is not impossible.

    But on behalf of the poor horse, I object. It’s not the horse’s fault it is owned by Roy Moore.

    Kishnevi (159f9c)

  217. *14 seats in the Senate (forgot Scott Brown…)

    Dave (445e97)

  218. *69 seats in the House…forgot to divide by two!

    Dave (445e97)

  219. 222. I saw that the first time you posted it. I will only note that no one in their right mind could be afraid of the twit who appears in that photo.

    Kishnevi (159f9c)

  220. He wasnt taught with phonics,

    Who is the arbiter of who is and isn’t conservative now?

    Is it Ben sasse and flake (fnem)

    narciso (d1f714)

  221. @220- yep, elected them desperately hoping they would do something about open borders, Obamacare, over regulation, high taxes, trillion dollar deficits, and a host of other concerns.

    They did nothing.

    That’s how you got Trump.

    TheBas (f00165)

  222. Who is the arbiter of who is and isn’t conservative now?

    Donald J. Trump.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  223. Haiku 188,

    I identify with those feelings, although not as much with Trump as the person who will change things. But I can see how some might. Thank you.

    DRJ (15874d)

  224. We speak of the way the plurality for obamacare waa built with phone studies from warren, with bogus indictments and voter fraud, and it wee passed with bribes in three states, also the frmumious cbo, which is like Mikey from the life cereal commercial.

    narciso (d1f714)

  225. Yes, Trump is the head conservative now.

    DRJ (15874d)

  226. If he puts the right people in place, and they enact the right policies, maybe more attention should be given to that than say something Durbin belched to a reporter

    narciso (d1f714)

  227. Trump is the head Republican now, I doubt anyone, including him, would call him a conservative.

    Which makes it astounding that he’s implemented more conservative policy than anyone else in 30 years.

    TheBas (f00165)

  228. Or some tall tales told to Michael wolf, who seems to understand nothing of policy, shocker.

    narciso (d1f714)

  229. hoping they would do something about open borders, Obamacare, over regulation, high taxes, trillion dollar deficits, and a host of other concerns.

    …apparently forgetting that no bill could become law without Obama’s signature.

    They did nothing.

    Wrong.

    Government spending dropped from 24.4% of GDP in 2009 to 20.9% of GDP in 2016. That wasn’t what Obama wanted.

    In 2016, non-defense discretionary spending was a smaller fraction of GDP than in FY2000, the last year the government ran a surplus.

    The GOP Congress also stopped Obama from passing gun control, giving amnesty to over 3 million illegal immigrants, and replacing Scalia with a liberal justice on the Supreme Court.

    Dave (445e97)

  230. @ kish: Thank you for a very welcome chuckle tonight.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  231. “Government spending dropped from 24.4% of GDP in 2009 to 20.9% of GDP in 2016.”

    Not exactly. Start one quarter before 2009, and the number is less than every quarter until the third quarter of 2017.

    Go Trump!

    TheBas (f00165)

  232. 207… Who knows, Lenny, as my wife repeatedly tells me… she’ll believe these people are to be held accountable when she sees it.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  233. 230… you are most welcome, DRJ.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  234. Just when you think the political maelstrom can’t get any weirder…

    …it’s The Gorilla Channel, but underwater!

    According to Trump’s porn star friend, he made her watch “Shark Week” with him for three hours.

    She says he also made her spank him with an issue of Forbes magazine.

    Oh, and the issue had his picture on the cover…

    Dave (445e97)

  235. Not exactly.

    Yes, exactly.

    The numbers are taken from official statistics on the Trump White House website.

    Dave (445e97)

  236. Also, it’s a pretty poor metric when not losing more than they did is considered doing something, re. Gun control and amnesty.

    I’ll give you the Scalia thing. Was the only backbone the republican congress demonstrated in a very long time.

    TheBas (f00165)

  237. Ah Jan winner. (hows that suit by the uva fraternity going) to think in touch is indicative of anything, I do recall when Woodward pointed out that Obama had come up with the sequester, there was a rush to declare Woodward a doddering old man, not before 2013, or afterword.

    narciso (d1f714)

  238. Also, it’s a pretty poor metric when not losing more than they did is considered doing something, re. Gun control and amnesty.

    Which elements of Obama’s agenda became law after the GOP took control of the House in 2010?

    (Hint: none)

    Dave (445e97)

  239. Dave, I gave you a link to a handy chart broke down by quarter for every year going back to 2005. Read it and weep.

    TheBas (f00165)

  240. New start treaty and the consumer protection bureau right off the back, the Russian shockingly did not abide by the first, the second became a sinecure for Dem activists and a piggy bank for left wing causes. Then you have the justice departments community relations board, like Fahrenheit fireman, they set cities ablaze rather than put them out.

    narciso (d1f714)

  241. “Which elements of Obama’s agenda became law after the GOP took control of the House in 2010?”

    Laws? We don’t need no stinking laws.

    TheBas (f00165)

  242. Read it and weep.

    To the extent it is accurate (no need to check, but it claims to use the same sources), it is irrelevant.

    You falsely claimed the GOP congress did nothing; the data I cited proves otherwise.

    Nothing you’ve said refutes that data.

    Government spending dropped from 24.4% of GDP in 2009 to 20.9% of GDP in 2016.

    In 2016, non-defense discretionary spending was a smaller fraction of GDP than in FY2000, the last year the government ran a surplus.

    Dave (445e97)

  243. Laws? We don’t need no stinking laws.

    So you concede my point.

    How, exactly, is the GOP congress to blame for Obama’s regulations?

    (I fully expect yet another “Look! A squirrel!” response…)

    Dave (445e97)

  244. You want to start in 2009 because that includes the bailouts from the housing crash. The last quarter of 2008 was 21.77%. For the entire time between 2013 to the end of 2016, it was bouncing around between 22.85 and 22.18. The first quarter of 2017 was 22.26%. Only after that (I wonder why?) Did it drop below 22%.

    Go Trump!

    TheBas (f00165)

  245. Are you saying congress is powerless against over regulation?

    TheBas (f00165)

  246. They are even farther behind than I thought:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/houseintelcomm

    narciso (d1f714)

  247. “So you concede my point.”

    Hardly. I was expanding my own point.

    Congress passed something like 300 pieces of legislation in 2013 alone. I have neither the time nor inclination to go through a thousand or two laws to find “Which elements of Obama’s agenda became law after the GOP took control of the House in 2010?”.

    TheBas (f00165)

  248. Speaking of squirrels…

    TheBas (f00165)

  249. the important thing is to not let the sleazy CNN Jake Tapper fake news propaganda sluts and the corrupt gestapo FBI do a coup on President Trump!

    vigilance shall be our watchword yes yes

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  250. *laugh* concern troll? really? if you can look at my fifteen years of commenting here and come across with that assessment of me, then I suppose that’s your prerogative, AND I think you’re greatly mistaken.

    i’m not a concern troll. what i am is a liberal who has made a point for more than twenty years of talking to both liberals and conservatives because i believe both have something interesting and useful to say, and because i believe it is possible for lbierals and conservatives to find common ground on shared concerns and values, and because I believe that we all have to live with each other and that that’s just going to go much better if we sit down and *understand* where each other is coming from — not the faux understanding of hostile rejection based on straw men, but the real understanding that brings compassion and empathy even in the face of disagreement.

    In that context, what I’m saying to you is that both liberals and conservatives are furious with one another. Both have *perfectly legitimate grievances* about how the other has behaved, and both are reacting to the other’s behavior by becoming more partisan and more tribal and more likely to engage in behavior that creates grievances among the other, and that is deepening the sense of tribalism and grievance on both sides.

    It reminds me a lot of the emotional charge during the worst days before my seperation, before my husband and I stepped back and let the pain and the hurt and the nursed grievances recede a bit. The rhetoric of mutual hostility and the sense of compounding mutual grievances is very much like that present in a marriage that is falling apart.

    You want to talk about who the original cause was. So do a lot of my liberal friends. You each have different theories that look very much like mirror images of each other.

    I don’t *care* who the original cause was. I want to stop it, and I don’t think it’s possible to do so if we’re focused on the original cause. I want everyone, in both sides, to step back and say “yeah, my side fucked up, and so did your side, and let’s stop squabbling about it and figure out how to work together to rebuild and heal the damage we’ve done to the country.”

    I’m an optimist. I believe that eventually we’ll get there. But we’re not going to get there without people trying to make it happen.

    I’ve spent close to a third of my time engaged in political discussion in the last year trying to convince liberals that believing that every Trump supporter is a racist homophobe is *wrong* — wrong on a moral level because it’s making uncharitable assumptions about people based on wildly insufficient evidence, wrong on a pragmatic level because it drives Trump supporters to be more partisan and more hostile and less willing to listen to legitimate criticisms of Trump or of the Congressional Republicans. Not because I’m a “concern troll”, as you label me, but because I genuinely believe these things, and because I genuinely want to heal the tribal divide.

    What’s the end game of this divide? One side stomping the other side into submission? A civil war followed by either breaking the Union apart or by a modern reconstruction where one side destroys the system the other side favors?

    aphrael (3f0569)

  251. Happy feet, ixnay on the C word! It has a very exacting definition involving guns.

    How does usurpation grab you?

    TheBas (f00165)

  252. You want to start in 2009 because that includes the bailouts from the housing crash.

    No, I want to start in 2009 because that’s when Obama and the Democrat congress went on a spending spree – a spending spree that would have continued indefinitely without GOP control of the House that began after 2010.

    In fact spending stayed roughly unchanged, in constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars. The decline is because the GOP congress prevented spending from increasing as the economy grew. All those continuing resolutions that future cultists were screaming “betrayal!” about were actually major victories that added up to the government spending a LOT less of what people produced and earned.

    And since it doesn’t fit the narrative of the InfoWars brigade, you don’t hear that non-defense discretionary spending is actually lower now than it was in 2000, when the government ran a surplus.

    Defense spending is a bit (0.3% of GDP) higher, but entitlements (which Donald Trump promised not to touch) are the reason we have huge deficits now (4.2% of GDP MORE than in 2000).

    But, if you are a deficit hawk, you must be very angry at Donald Trump for breaking his promise to completely pay off the $20T national debt in 8 years.

    Dave (445e97)

  253. I have neither the time nor inclination to go through a thousand or two laws to find “Which elements of Obama’s agenda became law after the GOP took control of the House in 2010?”.

    So you concede my point.

    Dave (445e97)

  254. Haiku, at 188: one of the things that has frustrated me a lot over the last year is just how badly most on the left seem to misunderstand why we lost in 2016, and how it relates to a wave of populist victories throughout the west in recent years. You call out “flyover country” in a way that to me betokens bitterness, and I think rightly so: the liberal *cultural* elite has been massively derogatory to and dismissive of Americans from other walks of life for decades, and it’s only natural that this would produce a backlash.

    I *understand* some of that derision. I’m a gay man; I know people who have been disowned by family because of their sexuality, and it’s really hard not to be derisive of *that* decision. But a derision which may have been appropriate when addressed to individuals was unfairly broadened to a large class of people, and *continues to be to this day* despite the obvious fact that doing so has (rightly) seriously offended them and contributed mightily to the toxicity of the Democratic label in much of the country.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  255. My impression is that the court very rarely allows cases to jump directly from the district court to the supreme court. THAT SAID, given the injury the Administration is alleging here, it makes sense for them to ask for it: they’re basically saying “this totally ridiculous lawsuit that shouldn’t even have been brought at all is chewing up lots of our time and resources, can you please take the case and resolve it already?”

    I take no position on the ridiculousness of the lawsuit, as I really can’t be bothered to read the district court decision or the briefs in the appeals court case and don’t want to comment on the ridiculousness or lack thereof of a legal issue that I haven’t done my due diligence on, AND the request to jump over the ninth circuit strikes me as being reasonable if the allegation is true.

    I still think it’s extraordinarily unlikely the Supreme Court will grant it. This is outside the realm of things traditionally considered urgent enough to justify that.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  256. It is a pattern replicated in the UK with the midlands vs London, small towns re large cities in france, the east vs west Germany. Flemush Antwerp vs walloon

    narciso (d1f714)

  257. Beldar, at 216: thank you for those kind words. :) I have a great deal of respect for you, and shipwreckedcrew, and DRJ, and a bunch of others who have been here for a long time (and I wonder sometimes what happened to some of them. Where is AngryClam? or Interociter?).

    As for Garland:

    [a] I agree there is no constitutional *obligation* to hold a hearing. But a hearing has traditionally been held; this was a break with a tradition as old as the Republic. And I think there is an ethical obligation to at least give the President’s nominees a hearing. As a matter of process: hold the hearing, vote him down if you don’t approve, but give him a chance.

    But, as someone else pointed out, this isn’t entirely about reason or procedural philosophy. My sense, from the people on the left that I talk to, is that this is a fundamental outrage that they are reacting to with about the level of vehemence that conservatives hold for the treatment of Bork. They *will not* let it go, and they believe that if they *do* let it go, they are setting themselves up for a situation in which Republican presidents can nominate and have Democratic Senates confirm but in which Democratic presidents cannot nominate and have Republican Senates confirm. Absent some well-founded reason to believe this isn’t the case, this issue will remain an open wound and a cause celebre indefinitely, among that part of the left that cares about judicial nominations.

    Judging entirely by the vehemence of the reaction, this was a major increase in hostility and contention, and it was something that could have been avoided if McConnell had simply allowed normal procedure on the nomination. Or, hell, if McConnell had simply waited until a nominee had been named and then said “THAT NOMINEE IS TOO EXTREME” and refused to allow normal procedure — declaring it in advance, regardless of who the nominee was, was a real problem.

    As for the seriousness of the nomination:

    McConnell publically refused to consider *any* nomination prior to Obama nominating anyone. So of course Obama nominated a comparatively elderly moderate — because that’s *precisely* the kind of nomination that ought to be approvable even in times of mixed control of government. Yeah, it was a political move, designed to make McConnell’s refusal to consider the nomination look ridiculous, and yes, it was totally clear that if Hillary had won, she wouldn’t have renominated Garland.

    But it was a reasonable pick under the circumstances, and I think it was serious in the sense that it was the best play Obama had to get someone confirmed, given that McConnell had *already* refused to contemplate *any* nominee.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  258. Are you saying congress is powerless against over regulation?

    The opportunity to enact significant new rules and regulations generally comes from laws that have already been passed. Congress can’t repeal or amend existing laws without the president’s agreement.

    New legislation that interferes with something the president wants to do is unlikely to be signed into law.

    Oversight hearings can embarrass the executive branch, but have no coercive power of their own.

    In some cases, for instance when Congress and the states successfully sued to stop Obama from giving amnesty to over 3 million illegal immigrants, the courts may decide the executive branch has over-stepped its bounds. But the courts are often reluctant to intervene in political disputes between the executive and legislative branches.

    So in general the answer is yes, congress is pretty powerless against over-regulation if the president won’t sign legislation they pass.

    Dave (445e97)

  259. It was a surprise, appalled I fully expected Mcdonnell to give, he has the backbone of an eclair. He sold out Ted Cruz out over a bridge, dole did much the same to newt nearly 20 years earlier.

    Now of course there is the Biden rule a marker that was put out in 92, even when there want a nominee likely to come up, then there waa Obama and schemer and Hillary’s own records on the subject from full filibuster to graduated opposition, how much of this is known to your friends and coworkers. Of course before that we had the bork hearings: which is around the time the podestas were apprenticing their search and destroy tactics, and then the Thomas hearings, without which Mayer and abramsons career path would have been shorter.

    narciso (d1f714)

  260. @ aphrael, re this:

    They *will not* let it go, and they believe that if they *do* let it go, they are setting themselves up for a situation in which Republican presidents can nominate and have Democratic Senates confirm but in which Democratic presidents cannot nominate and have Republican Senates confirm.

    I don’t doubt at all that some on the left so believe. But Sotomayor and Kagan were not filibustered by the GOP, and Gorsuch would have been by the Dems.

    In the future, I hink that when the WH and the Senate are controlled by opposite parties, we’re going to have no SCOTUS justices confirmed, and very likely no circuit and district judges either. And yes, that’s an awful prospect, which is why I lament the fact that the Dems ever started filibustering appointments. But there we are. Tell it to Harry Reid. He bears the blame, as do all the Dem senators who voted with him during Dubya’s presidency. I heard almost no GOP senators speak a bad word of Chief Judge Garland, and I’m glad for that. But shall I catalog for you the calumnies heaped upon Judge Gorsuch, an equally mainstream (but right-oriented) jurist, by Democratic Senators?

    The people who won’t let this go are being continually inflamed about it by your party’s leaders. I’d appreciate it if they’d show the intellectual honesty you just did by acknowledging the obvious — that Garland was never going to be confirmed by a GOP-majority Senate. If someone’s honest enough to admit that, it’s pretty obvious as well that all the Democrats were denied was a really good opportunity to grandstand. But to hear Democratic senators characterize that loss, you’d think that McConnell had burned the Senate to the ground.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  261. Sotomayor and Kagan were not filibustered

    It helps when you control 60, and 59, Senate seats, respectively…

    Dave (445e97)

  262. Yes Ted Steven and norn coleman were aware of that.

    narciso (d1f714)

  263. Mr. TheBas nobody should do upursations on President Trump and that includes the corrupt gestapo FBI and the CNN Jake tapper fake news propaganda sluts

    this is america hello

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  264. Somehow they came up with a composite expression from all those who believed the Newsweek article:

    https://i1.wp.com/www.independentsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/KRUGMAN.jpg?w=599

    harkin (8d01aa)

  265. Its a similar tactic, they tried in 2000, a poorly designed ballot, a ballot scrub list inadequately applies a cohort of illiterate voters anti affirmative action referendum all collided into the perfect storm. Which the dems exaggerated through a well heeled PR campaign commissioned by bob wexler, this is where Jake stopper became a star (and the nation waa introduced to shepherd Smith and rich Sanchez) I Apologize unreservedly.

    narciso (d1f714)

  266. Rather than the present “Wild West”, maybe there should be laws spelling out procedures (like confirmation of judges and justices) that are essential to the Republic.

    Amending the Constitution in the present climate is a non-starter (although depending on the size of the Democratic wave this November, it may not remain that way), but Congress has passed laws that restrict what they can and can’t do in the past. Those laws can be repealed like any other law, but the problems with the judiciary occur during periods of divided government when changing a statute requires bi-partisan agreement.

    This is in contrast with the current tradition that the majority party makes the rules. In that system, acting in good faith while you are in the majority carries with it the danger that the other side will not reciprocate when they are in the majority.

    Could you not make a law mandating that certain nominees (to include judges and justices) MUST receive an up-or-down vote within a specified period of time? With, say, a four-month deadline, there would be a period near the end of a congressional term where the senate would not be obligated to (but could still voluntarily) vote on a nominee. Basically during that end-of-session window, the present rules would be in effect.

    Dave (445e97)

  267. It helps when you control 60, and 59, Senate seats, respectively…

    Even after Bork, and even after Clarence Thomas’ shameful treatment, the Senate voted 96-3 for RBG and 87-6 for Breyer. Later, the Democrats fought Alito and Gorsuch tooth and nail.

    Of all sitting justices, only one GOP appointee (Roberts) got more than 60 votes. No Dem appointee received fewer than 60 votes. Garland doe3sn’t count because Obama no one could have appointed was going to get a vote, due to the Democrats’ own rule.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  268. Garland’s treatment was not unique. John Tyler had TWO seats he could not get a vote on for several years, despite sending several candidates up for each. Why? The Senate didn’t like John Tyler.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  269. Speaking as a leftist reader:

    I promise I am in no way whatsoever trying to make Hillary happen any more.

    LYT (57a3fe)

  270. It’s been very sad to see The Federalist in general and Molly Hemmingway in particular go full Trumpkin. She’s now at Corey Lewandowski levels of lick-spittledom, having surrendered not only her entire intellect but her entire free will.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 1/18/2018 @ 9:27 am

    I hope she doesn’t think about walking into a propeller.

    Pinandpuller (faee32)

  271. Suppose that Trump is impeached. Can Mike Pence name him Vice President and resign?

    Pinandpuller (faee32)

  272. Random viking – can you point me to an instance where the Democrats refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee?

    aphrael (3f0569) — 1/18/2018 @ 12:48 pm

    What, and deny themselves the opportunity to call the nominee a racist, sexist etc to their face?

    Pinandpuller (faee32)

  273. Did you spend your career trying to poison people or feed them?

    Enough with the schoolyard insults.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 1/18/2018 @ 3:13 pm

    Depends on the ever changing definition of good nutrition.

    Nina Teicholz The Big Fat Surprise:

    Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet

    Pinandpuller (faee32)

  274. No Trumpers would rather have a boosh in office eating sh!t sandwiches served up by the commie left. President Trump would shove those same sh!t sandwiches down the commie lefts throats.

    mg (8cbc69)

  275. But we aren’t. This is a street fight where the opponent is remorseless, relentless, and will eye gouge, fish hook, punch below the belt, and produce brass knuckles in a pinch.

    TheBas (f00165) — 1/18/2018 @ 3:28 pm

    I consider myself more of a French Drain fighter.

    Pinandpuller (faee32)

  276. coup d’ ville = an automobile with an external driver’s position and an enclosed compartment for passengers. \\

    papertiger (c8116c) — 1/18/2018 @ 3:48 pm

    Three French words every black man knows.

    Pinandpuller (faee32)

  277. He was never a serious nominee. He was, however, probably the best available candidate around whom to build this whole “constitutional victimhood” notion that’s untethered to the actual Constitution.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 1/18/2018 @ 5:07 pm

    Who was more delusional in The Rose Garden: Merrick Garland or Bo Bergdahl’s dad?

    Pinandpuller (faee32)

  278. @ Dave, who asked (#275):

    Could you not make a law mandating that certain nominees (to include judges and justices) MUST receive an up-or-down vote within a specified period of time? With, say, a four-month deadline, there would be a period near the end of a congressional term where the senate would not be obligated to (but could still voluntarily) vote on a nominee. Basically during that end-of-session window, the present rules would be in effect.

    Congress could pass such a bill and the POTUS could sign it into law, yes. That would oblige the Senate, in its concurrence in the bill, to amend its own internal rules as part of the passage, since under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

    But no Congress can bind a future Congress (short of amending the Constitution and getting the requisite number of states to ratify that). So any future Congress+POTUS (or Congress with 2/3rds override majorities in each chamber) could repeal such legislation. And arguably, notwithstanding such legislation, a new Senate might later rewrite its rules in a contrary way, effectively withdrawing its consent to the compulsion imposed by the statute on the Senate’s “Rules of Proceeding.”

    Moreover, the Senate and its membership is very aware of its advice & consent function, and jealous of it, and would be quite unlikely to ever agree, even temporarily, to any outside compulsion. That might be one of the few things that McConnell and Schumer could agree upon, in fact.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  279. offended them and contributed mightily to the toxicity of the Democratic label in much of the…

    Or the gelded progressives with the soft touch. And they talk to you with veiled contempt.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Ellipsis Burner/Abuser (e96021)

  280. Admiral Ben Bunsen Ellipses Burner/Abuser: I don’t understand #288 at all. Can you please explain?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  281. Suppose that Trump is impeached. Can Mike Pence name him Vice President and resign?

    No. The relevant clause says:

    Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

    The articles of impeachment against Slick Willie concluded with the following paragraph:

    Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

    Presumably Trump’s articles of impeachment will include the same language.

    As a more practical matter, the senate (by a 2/3’s vote) would have to agree to remove Trump from office, and would also (by a majority vote) have to approve whoever Pence nominates to become the new VP. Why would they vote to remove Dirty Donnie, and then vote to confirm him
    as VP?

    Dave (445e97)

  282. This is utterly impractical as a political matter, and it’s really interesting to me as a legal matter: the 22d amendment would not prohibit the appointment of *George W Bush* as vice-President, followed by a resignation that would allow him to become President again. It prohibits the *election* of someone who has served more than two terms, and it prohibits the *election* of someone who has served a full term after election and more than two years after some sort of presidency-by-inheritance, but it does not prohibit the appointment of a VP, and subsequent assumption of the Presidency, by someone who is ineligible to be elected.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  283. Kevin M — I’ll assume for the purposes of argument that what you say about Tyler is true, but if the most recent example you can come up with is an antebellum President who was roundly disliked by both parties, you are grasping at one hundred seventy year old straws, and while it means that you’re right that the treatment of Garland wasn’t *unique*, it also means that i’m right that it isn’t customary and hasn’t been for longer than any person in the world has been alive.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  284. but it does not prohibit the appointment of a VP, and subsequent assumption of the Presidency, by someone who is ineligible to be elected.

    Not so sure about that Aphrael:

    “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

    (last sentence of the 12th Amendment)

    Dave (445e97)

  285. It’s not clear that someone who is constitutionally ineligible for *election* is constitutionally ineligible for the *office*.

    Imagine that Trump appointed GWB as SecState, and somehow Trump, Pence, Ryan, and (whoever the President Pro Tem of the Senate is) died suddenly on the same day. Would GWB become President under the law that makes the SecState the next in line?

    I think he would — he’s not ineligible to hold the office because he meets all of the qualifications defined in Article II, and the 22d amendment doesn’t change those qualifications ors ay anything about eligibility to the *office*.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  286. I think he would — he’s not ineligible to hold the office because he meets all of the qualifications defined in Article II, and the 22d amendment doesn’t change those qualifications ors ay anything about eligibility to the *office*.

    Not so sure. I think if you cannot be elected to the office, you are by definition ineligible, because election is the normal, unexceptional method of filling the office.

    Dave (445e97)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7517 secs.