Patterico's Pontifications

6/27/2018

Justice Kennedy Retiring

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:06 pm

Place your bets on the replacement.

207 Responses to “Justice Kennedy Retiring”

  1. But people voting for trump have no principles!! They should have sat home like meh!

    Pattericco 2018

    Hi (72bfde)

  2. Win; Edward Mansfield of Iowa, Supreme Court of Iowa.
    Place; Steven Colloton of Iowa, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
    Show; Maryanne Trump Barry of N.Y. -inactive Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

    Running fourth; Michael Cohen.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  3. Isn’t it time for our first illegal SC Justice? And no, Gorsuch doesn’t count.

    Pinandpuller (eda6bf)

  4. Any Tammy Bruce types among the contenders?

    urbanleftbehind (760d23)

  5. I vote for Bored Lawyer with Beldar as his clerk.

    BuDuh (5465e6)

  6. So this situation is a prime example of why smart constitutional conservatives voted for Donald Trump in the last election: the courts, and chiefly the Supreme Court. Donald Trump let it be known the type of person he would be nominating for the courts. We wouldn’t have Gorsuch on the Supreme Court if Hillary Clinton were elected. It’s a near certainty that all hope would be lost, that the fundamental change 0bama tried to steer the country into would have been a lock. Game over for years and years. That is why the Never Trumpers are so terribly irresponsible and they should be remembered for the lack of wisdom, the lack of judgement, the lack of effing common sense they displayed then and continue to exhibit.

    Having said that, I hope either Mike Lee or Ted Cruz get the nod.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  7. Well, if Hillary had won, it would be 6-3 whackjob.

    Kevin M (c09393)

  8. Other than the one about RBG getting scratched by a zombie to extend her undead life, I stopped making predictions after I said that Trump was toast when he said “some [Mexicans], I assume, are good people”.

    Paul Montagu (00b59c)

  9. Screwed for years and years, but… muh principles…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  10. On the prior post, when the comments turned to today’s news from Justice Kennedy, Anon Y. Mous linked this post from John Sexton at Hotair.com. He in turn is relying on a theory being pushed by “University of Miami political scientist Gregory Koger, a specialist in filibustering and legislative obstructionism,” on Vox.com, which I decline to link, but from which Koger is quoted thusly:

    Earlier this month, University of Miami political scientist Gregory Koger, a specialist in filibustering and legislative obstructionism, explained on Vox.com that, according to Article 1, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, “a majority… shall constitute a quorum to do business” in the Senate — meaning that Democrats can basically shut the place down by refusing to vote on anything.

    With only the barest 51-vote majority — and one of their own, Arizona Sen. John McCain, on extended leave in Arizona as he grapples with what is likely to be terminal brain cancer — Republicans would have difficultly mustering a quorum without at least some Democratic help. “In the month of June, there have been an average of 1.8 Republican absences across 18 roll call votes,” Koger wrote, “so even if McCain returned to the Senate, the majority would struggle to consistently provide a floor majority.” If McCain doesn’t return, and all 49 Democrats refuse to participate, the 50 Republican senators left in Washington would fall one short of a quorum. (The Senate precedents on quorums do not mention whether Vice President Mike Pence could contribute a 51st vote.)

    In that case, “the Senate can do nothing,” Koger concluded. “No bill can pass, no amendment can be decided on, no nominations can get approved.” The Senate would screech to a halt for lack of a quorum — and Democrats could conceivably delay a confirmation vote until a new Senate, perhaps with a narrow Democratic majority, is seated next January.

    Asked to confirm that Democrats could use the quorum rule to block Trump’s Supreme Court nominee indefinitely, Koger tells Yahoo News the answer is “technically yes,” assuming that the word “majority” in the Constitution means “51 votes, not 50” and that the vice president can’t “vote to make a majority.”

    Majority does mean 51, but there’s no precedent saying the VPOTUS can’t vote on a quorum call, so I think McCain’s presence isn’t essential to establish the quorum. The Senate sets and interprets its own rules, so if chair declares that the VPOTUS can vote, that’s effectively the end of that unless the chair is overruled by the chamber, which won’t include any Dems. (For form’s sake, the VPOTUS ought to let the Senate president pro tem, Orin Hatch, announce the ruling.) That, by the way, would be considered “non-justiciable” by the SCOTUS and the rest of the federal courts, since the Senate is responsible for setting its own rules.

    Note too that, a quorum having been confirmed, the Senate could take up by unanimous consent, for example, the House bill repealing Obamacare, or anything else it wanted, without fear of any filibuster. So this would be risky.

    There’s a history of quorum busting, but most of it has been at the state legislative level. Lincoln famously jumped out a window of the state legislature building in Springfield to destroy a quorum, temporarily, when he was a state legislator. And in 2003 and again in 2004, IIRC (and I blogged about it extensively at the time), Texas Democrats — desperate to preserve Martin Frost’s mid-1990s gerrymander that in turn preserved the Dems’ majority representation in the Texas congressional delegation, despite the fact that the Dems hadn’t won a statewide election in the preceding decade and had gone decidedly red with Dubya and then (former Dem) Perry — fled the state to destroy quorums. The House Dems went to Oklahoma, which was considered a poor choice; the Senate Dems chose Santa Fe or Albuquerque instead.

    They had to flee the state because the Sergeant at Arms of either chamber could enlist the Texas Rangers to, quite literally, arrest the absent legislators and return them, by force if necessary, to the Legislature. But they couldn’t cross state lines.

    The Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is under no such state-line restriction, and can enlist any federal law enforcement authorities to arrest and return fleeing members of Congress. It’s only been done once — by the Dems, in 1988, and you can read about that here, on the Senate’s own website.

    Do you think Trump would enjoy seeing Chuck Schumer or Kamala Harris being carried feet-first into the Senate chamber by the Capitol Police? Because that’s the precedent.

    Beldar (169151)

  11. Ah, mea culpa, it was 2002 and 2003. The 2003 quorum-busting in the Texas Senate ended when the dean of the Senate, John Whitmire (D-Houston), read the transcript of recent court hearings and realized that the Dems’ own redistricting lawyers had been lying to the Dem senators about what had been going on in court. Whitmire’s defection from his co-partisans and voluntary return to Austin reestablished the quota, and the GOP redistricting plan went through. More than a few of the Dems who’d fled the state either ended up resigning or being beaten in subsequent elections, strengthening the GOP hold on both chambers.

    Beldar (169151)

  12. I think any Dem senator running for relection this year in a red state will not cooperate in that quorum idea.

    kishnevi (378575)

  13. I’d say Senator Mike Lee, if I had to wing it and guess. There is also his brother Thomas Lee, who is Utah state supreme court judge. Also I’ve heard noise about appellate judge Amy Barrett. There is also judge Brett Kavanaugh of the DC appellate circuit. Since he helped draft the Ken Starr report and worked with Starr himself, he had quite a contentious hearing when Bush 43 nominated him. It’ll be interesting to see how this all ends up. One thing is for sure, this SCOTUS hearing is going be contentious and filled with fireworks. The Dems are going to put up a fight no matter who is nominated. Given that this is an election year, it will be interesting to see how Senators Manchin, Heitkamp, Tester, McCaskill, and other red state Democrat senators up for reelection this year will end up voting. Just my two cents here.

    Huddyboy (88f856)

  14. The left are literally going out of their minds:

    Matthew K.
    @mattiek17
    Literally in tears. Haven’t felt this hopeless in a long time. With Justice Kennedy leaving, we now have two options as Americans: get fitted for your Nazi uniform or report directly to your death camp. How do you fight the darkness without light? My spark is going out. #SCOTUS

    __ _

    Ryan Oshun
    @RyanOshun
    Replying to @mattiek17
    You’ve got to be kidding me. Such harsh comparisons to try and put fear in people’s eyes. Liberal idiocracy is strong on social media, and the media in general. You seriously think the world is going to end and quite frankly, it’s hilarious.

    __ _

    Kricket Dalais
    @ladyoutlander72
    He’s not kidding. He thinks anyone who aligns their principles with the constitution and the bill of rights is a Nazi.

    __ _

    Stephen
    @NewJerzeyBoy
    Replying to @mattiek17
    I don’t want to upset you any more but there is no wifi at the death camps.

    harkin (b63958)

  15. That the political world seemingly hinges on the selection of one judge is indicative of how screwed up things have become.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  16. Ted Cruz, by the way, will remember the Texas quorum busting very well, since he was the Texas Solicitor General at the time, and therefore was already conducting his (ultimately mostly successful) defense of the resulting Texas redistricting map that ended the Frost gerrymander.

    Beldar (169151)

  17. @ kish (#13): And just one Dem defector — or even one who failed to flee with enough alacrity and distance — would be all that’s required to reestablish the quorum.

    Beldar (169151)

  18. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/27/2018 @ 7:33 pm

    I am sure that will console you when a Democrat controlled Congress with a Democrat POTUS enlarge the court to 11 or 13 seats “to restore the Court to what it should have been without Trump’s illegitimate picks”.

    I heard this afternoon that Schumer has set the bar as being a pick who will agree not to overturn Roe v Wade.

    kishnevi (378575)

  19. We need not go back even that far, especially on the day Janus decision was announced. Remember in 2011 when Wisconsin Democrats fled to Illinois to try to defeat the Republican plan to change public sector collective bargaining.

    That same year, Democratic legislators in Indiana fled to try to defeat a right to work bill.

    pete (a65bac)

  20. First, the presiding officer could rule that any Senator present could be counted as such by the chair, and establish that 50-49. Then, were the Democrats to flee, the rest of the nuclear sequence could follow, along with the unanimous-consent approval of all pending nominations.

    Then, should the minority refuse to return,they could be expelled en masse by a unanimous vote. Then the impeachment trials of the 9th circuit could begin.

    Is this stupid? Possibly, but no more stupid than the original claim.

    Kevin M (c09393)

  21. Barrett hasn’t been on the Seventh Circuit for even a year yet, and before that was a law prof at Notre Dame Law School. She made some headlines during her confirmation hearings when attacked by Dems for being a Catholic. She does have going for her that she clerked for Scalia.

    If Trump were to pick Kavanaugh, he could say, “I’m replacing Kennedy with a guy who Kennedy taught everything he knows! How can I be accused of destroying the country with this pick, when he’s just like the guy he’s replacing?”

    (Of course, Kavanaugh has not looked like Kennedy on the D.C. Circuit, and likely would be substantially more reliable on the SCOTUS than Kennedy eventually became. And he’s only 53!)

    Beldar (169151)

  22. If it is true that Kennedy pushed DJT for Kavanaugh, I do not want Kavanaugh.

    I see where SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein is predicting the nominee will get 56 votes. I think that is probably close to the truth.

    I don’t see how Donnelly of Indiana survives a “No” vote. Same for Mnuchin. Unless, of course, Charlie Manson garner’s the nod.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  23. @ Huddyboy (#13): Your two cents is very welcome! And both Lee brothers have going for them that they’re sons of the late Rex E. Lee, the former Solicitor General under Reagan before becoming president of Brigham Young, who remains a hero to movement conservatives focused on the SCOTUS.

    Beldar (169151)

  24. I vote for Bored Lawyer with Beldar as his clerk.

    D – R – J!

    D – R – J!

    D – R – J!

    Dave (445e97)

  25. When the Wisconsin Dems wanted to prevent a quorum, they ran off to Illinois so as to leave the jurisdiction and escape capture. I guess the DC Dems could run off to Canada.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  26. @ Ed from SFV: Gorsuch also clerked for Kennedy. Do you doubt that someone on Trump’s vetting team checked with Kennedy, before Trump named Gorsuch? Kavenaugh and Gorsuch were both appointed to their respective circuit court benches by Dubya in 2006, and Kavenaugh’s docket has looked more like the SCOTUS’ than any other circuit’s docket.

    More than one pundit (including me) speculated that Gorsuch was chosen in part to reassure Kennedy about Trump, in hopes that Kennedy wouldn’t further delay his retirement.

    Beldar (169151)

  27. That the political world seemingly hinges on the selection of one judge is indicative of how screwed up things have become.

    random viking (6a54c2) — 6/27/2018 @ 7:55 pm

    Yep.

    Dave (445e97)

  28. Alert Seal Team Six! Schumer sighted at Niagra Falls!

    Beldar (169151)

  29. That Gorsuch, or anyone, clerked for AK is not disqualifying. That AK went out of his way for Kavanaugh is disqualifying to me, given the rest of the roster.

    I have serious misgivings about Barrett as well. Notre Dame Law has never been a bastion of conservative thought, despite the uber-brilliant, and stalwart Charlie Rice having been on faculty for decades. In fact, that joint is filled with relativists. I may be incorrect in this, but Barrett’s remarks in her hearing did not strike me as those a true believer would utter. They were….temperate.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  30. Think any of the short-listers are calling in favors to audition on a segment of Fox & Friends?

    LOL

    Dave (445e97)

  31. @ Hi (#1): You’re purporting to quote or at least paraphrase our host.

    I respectfully ask that you provide a link to support your quote or paraphrase, or that you admit you made it up out of thin air and that it’s actually inconsistent with what our host has written.

    Beldar (169151)

  32. @ Ed from SFV: I’m just speculating that Kennedy recommended Gorsuch last year or that he recommended Kavanaugh today. But I don’t agree at all that everyone Kennedy might recommend would therefore be worthy of suspicion, especially when we’re talking sitting circuit court judges with more than a decade’s track record.

    Beldar (169151)

  33. Alert Seal Team Seven! Rendition required, urgently! Kamala Harris has just climbed over Thomas Jefferson’s nose at Mount Rushmore and has escaped into Canada! (Cue the music from “North by Northwest”!)

    Beldar (169151)

  34. Alert Seal Team Seven! Cancel that last, the POTUS has decided that Kamala Harris can stay in Canada through year-end 2020.

    Beldar (169151)

  35. It’s all speculation. I am going off what was said on Fox that AK specifically asked DJT to give him strong consideration.

    I am so shell-shocked over decades of blown opportunity that I want slam-freaking-dunks and nothing but such. Laura Ingraham had a decent segment tonight worth seeing with a panel which included a former AK clerk, and Ed Whelan.

    No worries, Beldar. We want the same outcome. I admit to being super duper sensitive over it all.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  36. both Lee brothers have going for them that they’re sons of the late Rex E. Lee, the former Solicitor General under Reagan before becoming president of Brigham Young, who remains a hero to movement conservatives focused on the SCOTUS.

    Beldar (169151) — 6/27/2018 @ 8:04 pm

    Does he have a statue we can tear down?

    Pinandpuller (6fb842)

  37. Ezra Klein
    @ezraklein
    So surely, with 2018 being an election year, McConnell will follow the precedent he set and refuse to consider any nominees to replace Kennedy until the people have weighed in and the next Congress is seated.

    Right?

    __ _

    Gabriel Malor
    @gabrielmalor
    This isn’t the precedent McConnell set, and it’s sad Ezra’s readers will never know it.

    The Garland-Gorsuch precedent was that voters should choose who *nominates* the next justice in an election year.

    A midterm doesn’t resolve that question, so the precedent doesn’t apply.

    harkin (b63958)

  38. 19. Nothing you’ve mentioned in that comment, kishnevi, changes the obvious truth of what I’d written. I’d gamble on a guy like Trump doing the right thing 75 to 80% of the time before I’d ever consider making an asinine choice that would help virtually guarantee the inverse of that… which is what Never Trumpers pretty much did, although they wouldn’t have what’s required to recognize and admit to such a thing.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  39. Here’s a timely writing sample from D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 839 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016), holding that the CFPB is unconstitutional (citations omitted):

    The independent agencies collectively constitute, in effect, a headless fourth branch of the U.S. Government. They exercise enormous power over the economic and social life of the United States. Because of their massive power and the absence of Presidential supervision and direction, independent agencies pose a significant threat to individual liberty and to the constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances.

    To help mitigate the risk to individual liberty, the independent agencies, although not checked by the President, have historically been headed by multiple commissioners, directors, or board members who act as checks on one another. Each independent agency has traditionally been established, in the Supreme Court’s words, as a “body of experts appointed by law and informed by experience.” Humphrey’s Executor, 295 U.S. at 624, 55 S.Ct. 869 (internal quotation marks omitted). The multi-member structure reduces the risk of arbitrary decisionmaking and abuse of power, and thereby helps protect individual liberty.

    In other words, to help preserve individual liberty under Article II, the heads of executive agencies are accountable to and checked by the President, and the heads of independent agencies, although not accountable to or checked by the President, are at least accountable to and checked by their fellow commissioners or board members. No head of either an executive agency or an independent agency operates unilaterally without any check on his or her authority. Therefore, no independent agency exercising substantial executive authority has ever been headed by a single person.

    Until now.

    ….

    Because the CFPB is an independent agency headed by a single Director and not by a multi-member commission, the Director of the CFPB possesses more unilateral authority — that is, authority to take action on one’s own, subject to no check — than any single commissioner or board member in any other independent agency in the U.S. Government. Indeed, as we will explain, the Director enjoys more unilateral authority than any other officer in any of the three branches of the U.S. Government, other than the President.

    ….

    The CFPB’s concentration of enormous executive power in a single, unaccountable, unchecked Director not only departs from settled historical practice, but also poses a far greater risk of arbitrary decisionmaking and abuse of power, and a far greater threat to individual liberty, than does a multi-member independent agency. The overarching constitutional concern with independent agencies is that the agencies are unchecked by the President, the official who is accountable to the people and who is responsible under Article II for the exercise of executive power. Recognizing the broad and unaccountable power wielded by independent agencies, Congresses and Presidents of both political parties have therefore long endeavored to keep independent agencies in check through other statutory means. In particular, to check independent agencies, Congress has traditionally required multi-member bodies at the helm of every independent agency. In lieu of Presidential control, the multi-member structure of independent agencies acts as a critical substitute check on the excesses of any individual independent agency head — a check that helps to prevent arbitrary decisionmaking and thereby to protect individual liberty.

    This new agency, the CFPB, lacks that critical check and structural constitutional protection, yet wields vast power over the U.S. economy. So “this wolf comes as a wolf.” Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. at 699, 108 S.Ct. 2597 (Scalia, J., dissenting).

    In light of the consistent historical practice under which independent agencies have been headed by multiple commissioners or board members, and in light of the threat to individual liberty posed by a single-Director independent agency, we conclude that Humphrey’s Executor cannot be stretched to cover this novel agency structure. We therefore hold that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured.

    Stronger’n train smoke. Quotes Scalia! Breathe easy about this guy.

    Beldar (169151)

  40. Watching the left going absolutely bonkers and attacking Chuck Todd (not anti-Trump enough), Susan Sarandon (supported Jill Stein instead of HC), Bernie Sanders and Chuck Todd (preaching civility) is a wonder to behold.

    It would be funnier if it wasn’t making me nervous about where all this is headed. Some of these loons really do believe the Nazi comparisons.

    Has Chairman Zero weighed in to calm the waters or are he and Bill Ayers preparing popcorn?

    If all the living ex-presidents can get together for charitable causes you’d think they might actually speak up to get everyone to calm down and find common ground with civil order at stake.

    harkin (b63958)

  41. This isn’t the precedent McConnell set, and it’s sad Ezra’s readers will never know it.

    The precedent is that “elections have consequences”.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  42. My citation of the PHH Corp. case was incomplete, materially as it turns out: The full D.C. Circuit granted rehearing en banc, and ruled the other way, upholding the constitutionality of the CFPB, in January 2018. Orin Kerr wrote:

    Given the magnitude of the question at issue, one would think PHH Corporation v. CFPB is a good candidate for Supreme Court review, particularly since the Solicitor General could be expected to support any petition for certiorari. There is a catch, however. While the D.C. Circuit rejected PHH’s constitutional challenges to the CFPB, it upheld PHH’s statutory challenge to the CFPB enforcement actions that prompted the suit. As a consequence, PHH might be seen as a prevailing party, and (as a general rule) the Supreme Court does not grant petitions for certiorari from parties that prevailed below.

    And cross-checking both the D.C. Circuit’s website (which indicate that the mandate issued on Feb. 15, 2018, triggering a 90-day deadline for a cert petition) against the SCOTUS’ pending cert petitions, I can’t find an indication that PHH actually sought SCOTUS review.

    Nevertheless, Judge Kavenaugh’s dissent from the en banc opinion is yet another good writing sample!

    Beldar (169151)

  43. But people voting for trump have no principles!! They should have sat home like meh!

    Pattericco 2018

    You have no link and no quote because I never said such a thing. You pulled it straight out of your ass.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  44. Mike Lee told Shannon Bream tonight on her Fox News show that he is “honored to be on that list” and that he “certainly would not say no” if offered the appointment. That’s not at all what he said when asked about whether he’d be interested in being Scalia’s replacement.

    Beldar (169151)

  45. So this situation is a prime example of why smart constitutional conservatives voted for Donald Trump in the last election: the courts, and chiefly the Supreme Court. Donald Trump let it be known the type of person he would be nominating for the courts. We wouldn’t have Gorsuch on the Supreme Court if Hillary Clinton were elected. It’s a near certainty that all hope would be lost, that the fundamental change 0bama tried to steer the country into would have been a lock. Game over for years and years. That is why the Never Trumpers are so terribly irresponsible and they should be remembered for the lack of wisdom, the lack of judgement, the lack of effing common sense they displayed then and continue to exhibit.

    I don’t call myself a “NeverTrumper” but note well what is happening here.

    I not only never criticized people for voting Trump (and indeed said that he would be good on judges), I positively said many, many times that I understand someone making that tough decision. I don’t agree with it, but I respect it.

    Then douchebags like “Hi” come along, ignore my track record of respect for reluctant Trump voters, and dishonestly pretend that I said people who voted Trump have no principles.

    Meanwhile people like Haiku positively come out and say that NeverTrumpers have no principles. And even though I am not a NeverTrumper (I have always rejected the title) the insult is clearly directed at anyone like me who didn’t vote for Trump.

    It is the Trump voter (Haiku) who insults the other side here. Meanwhile the voter who refused to vote for Trump (me) insults only superfans who positively cheer bad behavior –but I consistently refuse to condemn people simply for voting Trump. And then people lie about me anyway and claim I did.

    Why do I bother when I get no credit for it? Because you do what’s right regardless of credit.

    Do you really think that there are never days when Trump does something imbecilic, when somebody who refused to vote for Trump could strut around and tsk tsk Trump voters? If I behaved on Trump’s bad days the way Haiku behaves on Trump’s good days, I could say: this omnibus bill is the result of the terribly irresponsible decision voters made in voting for Donald Trump, because Republicans spend like drunken sailors when a Republican is in the White House but resist spending when a Democrat is in the White House. If tariffs ruin our economy, do you think NeverTrumpers couldn’t spike the football then? So thank you very much, you unprincipled people running this country into the ground! Enjoy your Supreme Court decisions while the economy goes into the toilet and our children’s future is mortgaged!

    But, you see, I don’t behave that way. People lie and pretend I do. But I don’t.

    Facts matter. The truth matters.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  46. FWIW (which ain’t much): The current SCOTUS is either Catholic or Jewish. Barrett is Catholic, as are Kavanaugh and Pryor. Both Lee brothers are LDS. Dunno about any of the others.

    Amul Thapar, a Bush nominee to the Sixth Circuit in 2008, is Indian-American; from Kentucky, he’s reportedly a favorite of Mitch McConnell. I don’t know much about him, though.

    Beldar (169151)

  47. Note for late arrivals to this post, who may not have been following the immediately preceding post (about the SCOTUS’ public employee union dues ruling), almost all those comments beginning with #40 also pertain to the Kennedy resignation, and you might find those comments interesting too.

    Beldar (169151)

  48. This was the southern seat until Kennedy, if memory serves Powell, Harlan etc remind me if I’m wrong by that standard it would be Bill Pryor turn

    Narciso (d009d1)

  49. I’d choose Lee. We need someone that’s a guaranteed constitutionalist. Our best, Thomas, isn’t getting any younger.

    NJRob (b00189)

  50. Sorry Powell black van devanter (a rare westerner) and white almost a southern seat for a 100 years.

    Narciso (d009d1)

  51. True but opening up another Senate race in Utah, what is the McMullen advancement sociery.

    Narciso (d009d1)

  52. And even though I am not a NeverTrumper (I have always rejected the title) the insult is clearly directed at anyone like me who didn’t vote for Trump.
    Patterico (115b1f) — 6/27/2018 @ 9:50 pm

    There were those who said during the primary that they would never vote for Trump. It was intended as a warning/threat to the rest of the GOP primary voters not to make Trump the nominee because it would split the party. NeverTrumper is a plain descriptive. Not that it can’t be used as an insult; it can. But, it is not in and of itself an insult. Just an accurate descriptor of people who literally said they would never vote for Trump.

    It is something you said, so I am curious why you reject the label. My understanding of the word makes me think that it fits you to a ‘t’.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  53. I have never called myself a NeverTrumper but if someone applies the tag I won’t protest, I didn’t consider him fit for office and refused to give him my vote. I refrained however from telling anyone NOT to vote for him. I seriously thought that it was a turd sandwich/d-bag choice.

    As undisciplined, childish, wishy-washy and uncouth as he is, he so far appears to be amazingly uncorrupt. I admit I was wrong (so far anyways) that he would be a disaster.

    harkin (b63958)

  54. Hmmm. Something makes me think of the word “disingenuous”…

    Partisan hypocrite is a plain descriptive. Not that it can’t be used as an insult; it can. But, it is not in and of itself an insult. Just an accurate descriptor of people who literally said not voting for Trump was the same as voting for HRC.”

    Fixed that for you.

    Simon Jester (79a3c0)

  55. If all the living ex-presidents can get together for charitable causes you’d think they might actually speak up to get everyone to calm down and find common ground with civil order at stake.

    harkin (b63958) — 6/27/2018 @ 8:59 pm

    I do agree. Our leaders owe our society some leadership for a peaceful and orderly society.

    And let’s remember Trump’s conduct as regards civil order. He claimed our elections are rigged, and compromised faith in our democratic process. Trump claimed President Obama was not legitimate, lying about Obama being from Africa. Trump claimed Obama was born a Muslim, and explained to dumb people that this means Obama cannot have changed his religious views. Trump heavily implied Cruz’s dad murdered President Kennedy while bashing many other family members of his political opponents. I could go on all day showing how Trump sought to harm the civil order if it benefited Trump.

    but now Trump’s supporters are demanding Trump’s supporters ‘get together’ to ‘speak up’ so Trump’s critics ‘calm down.’

    Trump would never have won the presidency without the politics of anger and hatred. He stirred that pot, and supporting Trump was, for many, supporting those hateful actions (though many Trump voters do not support those actions and simply had no good choice). Perhaps the people pounding chests with rage that some Americans didn’t want to be where we are right now should consider the full breadth of what right now is.

    Personally, I just can’t bring myself to vote for a candidate who has corroded our civil order with his boldcaps tweets about how ugly someone’s wife is. I see things a little differently than others and think there’s a larger plan and purpose to our choices than just Team R vs Team D.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  56. The “My Pillow” guy was at Trump’s rally in Fargo, and Trump gave him a 30-second sales plug. But I’m glad to see Trump touting Heidi Heitcamp’s opponent.

    Beldar (169151)

  57. Many people said they would never vote for Trump in the GOP primaries, and didn’t, but nevertheless voted for him in the general election. Are they NeverTrumpers? They said “never.” But to what?

    Other people refused to vote for Trump in either the GOP primaries or the general election, but nevertheless have changed their minds about him since the election, and are actively considering voting for him if he runs for reelection. They said “never.” But to what?

    Other people refused to vote for Trump in either the GOP primaries or the general election, and will not vote for him in 2020 if he runs for reelection, but nevertheless support him when he does something with which they agree. They said “never.” But to what?

    I don’t find the “Never-Trump” label sufficiently precise to be useful as anything other than name-calling. I’ll never vote for Trump. Ever. Not at gunpoint, no matter who the Dems nominate. Am I nevertheless very excited about Trump having a chance to keep his word and make another pick exclusively from the list to which Ted Cruz got him publicly committed in September 2016? Yes, I am very excited — not for Trump, but for the United States, for my much desired grandchildren. If he sticks to the list, I’ll support him.

    There I stand. It’s not complicated, but neither is it something I’m content to see collapsed into a confused and confusing buzz-word.

    Beldar (169151)

  58. Hmmm. Something makes me think of the word “disingenuous”…

    Partisan hypocrite is a plain descriptive. Not that it can’t be used as an insult; it can. But, it is not in and of itself an insult. Just an accurate descriptor of people who literally said not voting for Trump was the same as voting for HRC.”

    Fixed that for you.
    Simon Jester (79a3c0) — 6/27/2018 @ 10:40 pm

    No, you didn’t. What you said isn’t even accurate. The meaning of the term “partisan hypocrite” is not the same as someone who “literally said not voting for Trump was the same as voting for HRC.” Those two things are not the same.

    BTW, if that bit of stupidity was directed at me, I never said that refusing to vote for Trump was the same as voting for Hillary. Contrary to those who claimed the election was a binary choice, I said it was a tertiary choice: Trump, Hillary, or refusing to decide. Many NeverTrumpers took the third choice.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  59. You missed my point entirely. Or did you?

    Simon Jester (79a3c0)

  60. “And let’s remember Trump’s conduct as regards civil order. He claimed our elections are rigged, and compromised faith in our democratic process. Trump claimed President Obama was not legitimate, lying about Obama being from Africa….”

    All true. And Obama sicc’d the IRS on conservatives. And he lied out his backside to get people to buy in on Obamacare, where just about everything is the reverse of what he claimed. And he gave billions in cash to a terrorist state while lying to everyone about it. And he ran guns to drug lords as a way to……..

    Get the picture?

    harkin (b63958)

  61. Many people said they would never vote for Trump in the GOP primaries, and didn’t, but nevertheless voted for him in the general election. Are they NeverTrumpers? They said “never.” But to what?
    Beldar (169151) — 6/27/2018 @ 10:56 pm

    The NeverTrump phrase was used to describe peopel who said during the primaries that the would never vote for Trump if he was the nominee. Not that they wouldn’t vote for him in the primary, though obviously, they wouldn’t. But, there is nothing notable about not supporting this candidate or that in the primary. What was notable was the threat to refuse to support the nominee if he were Trump. The one who issued the threat were saying they would never vote for Trump, so NeverTrumper.

    Many of those were bluffing. They wanted to affect who the nominee would be, but once it was Trump, they couldn’t bring themselves to just stand by as Hillary became President. So, they backed down and, however reluctantly, voted for Trump. Others, whether out of foolish pride or stubbornness or whatever, refused to back down; they were willing to sit on the sidelines and watch Hillary become President, or even vote for her. Of course, they were at the ready to say “I told you so” to all those who would not listen to them about nominating Trump.

    Of those that backed down and ended up voting for Trump, I would say they were not NeverTrumpers in the end. Former NeverTrumpers, I guess.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  62. Some people had no trouble deciding. I didn’t. I decided I’d never, ever vote for Hillary Clinton sometime in 1991, before the first Democratic primary in which Bubba ever competed, because I was aware of them as a couple going back to Bubba’s days as governor of Arkansas, and by that point in Bubba’s presidential campaign it was already clear that someday Hillary would run, too. I decided that Trump was a ridiculous and incompetent buffoon at least by 1986, after he blew up the USFL and lost its antitrust lawsuit against the NFL; it never occurred to me that he’d actually run for public office until maybe 2011 or so, but within about two seconds of considering that possibility, I resolved I’d never, ever vote for him for anything, either.

    That’s not indecisive. That’s deciding that someone won’t ever get my vote.

    That’s also a different thing than saying nothing they ever do will get my support.

    Beldar (169151)

  63. That’s also a different thing than saying nothing they ever do will get my support.
    Beldar (169151) — 6/27/2018 @ 11:19 pm

    That’s a pretty meaningless standard, isn’t it? I’m guessing that there’s things that Obama did that you supported. And that if Hillary were President, she might do something or other that you support. Or Bernie Sanders. Or Nancy Pelosi. Or Chuck Schumer. ETC. So what?

    That’s not what a NeverTrumper is, because then that would be a mythical creature. Hell, Bill Kristol supported Gorsuch.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  64. indecisive =/= refusing to decide.

    Different things.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  65. #57, Dustin, I knew it was you before I got half way through your initial paragraph.

    ropelight (7bb9e5)

  66. I decided. I was not indecisive. I did not refuse to decide. Either of those statements is false.

    Beldar (169151)

  67. I decided. I was not indecisive. I did not refuse to decide. Either of those statements is false.
    Beldar (169151) — 6/27/2018 @ 11:30 pm

    The nation had to decide whether Hillary or Trump would be President. Some made the choice of one or the other. Then there were those who refused to participate in the decision. They refused to decide. Or, if you prefer, they decided not to decide. Which, of course, is just another way of saying they refused to decide.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  68. All true. And Obama sicc’d the IRS on conservatives. And he lied out his backside to get people to buy in on Obamacare, where just about everything is the reverse of what he claimed. And he gave billions in cash to a terrorist state while lying to everyone about it. And he ran guns to drug lords as a way to……..

    Get the picture?

    harkin

    No I guess I don’t. Your previous comment was about how civil order is at stake, and therefore our nation’s leaders, such as Obama and Trump’s other critics, have a responsibility for calming down criticism of Trump.

    I pointed out many examples of Trump directly harming the civil order. He rose to power only because he attacked our nation’s civil order with smears on the families of his political opponents, lies about his political opponents, and promoting a toxic political environment. Indeed, this is the very heart of why so many Americans reject Trump even if they also reject democrats (And disagree with many of Obama’s actions in your list).

    At any rate, we agree on a lot here. We agree that your list is bad things. We agree that our leaders should promote our civil order. But I think you’re not really connecting some of the dots here. Trump can’t go from bashing his opponents as potential child molestors or the sons of JFK’s secret assassins with ugly wives and then whine that his critics need to turn down the heat. That would certainly make things a lot easier for Trump and his supporters, but it’s on them to turn down the heat, rise above the fray, be presidential. That’s what actually being the leadership entails.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  69. Almost the entire Democratic Party will oppose whatever Trump does, no matter what it is, because he’s Trump.

    Some people who were formerly Republican, or who still say they are, likewise will oppose whatever Trump does, no matter what it is, because he’s Trump.

    Some people who were formerly Republican, or who still say they are, went so far as to urge Republicans to vote for Hillary.

    My position puts me in a different category than any of those large groups of people. I maintain that supporting Trump when he does something that deserves my support is a meaningful distinction.

    Beldar (169151)

  70. Who was the potential child molester?

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  71. I am not the nation, and my vote is mine.

    Beldar (169151)

  72. #57, Dustin, I knew it was you before I got half way through your initial paragraph.

    ropelight

    Thanks!

    I think I’m consistent and straightforward in how I think, and you’re not the only person who can recognize my distinctive writing easily. I have heard this from quite a few people. If you meant something more, well I’m a little tired of the personal stuff. Politics doesn’t really matter.

    Hillary or Trump? I still just do not care that much. By all means feel free to be consumed by politics all day long and worry about this appointment. I’m sure it will lead to important decisions. But how important?

    Trump’s corrosion of our country is real, and to me, it’s the largest issue. The intense loyalty, the abandonment of reason, the naked corruption. Those dangerous changes in our government may not be undone. I sleep like a baby with respect to my rejection of Trump on election day. Several of Trump’s fans have brought this up, I suppose because SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENT is some kind of proof that everyone must support Dear Leader. Nope.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  73. I am not the nation, and my vote is mine.
    Beldar (169151) — 6/27/2018 @ 11:41 pm

    Yes, but collectively we have an election. It is through the electoral process that we, as a nation, decide who will be President. All of us with our individual votes make the decision. This last time it was either Hillary or Trump. Or, option 3 [write in, third party, no vote, etc]. All different ways of refusing to decide.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  74. If everyone was forced to decide in each election, it’s well accepted that the result would be dumber and more to the left. That’s why democrats want everyone to vote even if they don’t really know much about the issues.

    If many Americans don’t see Trump’s value over Hillary that’s his problem. If many Americans didn’t see Hillary’s value over Trump that’s her problem. I don’t owe you, your political party, or Dear Leader my vote. I can write in Judge Judy if I want.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  75. And yet, I decided. Write what you want, use whatever labels you want. The facts are as they are.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  76. Judge Jeanine Piro would be my choice. Watching her answer questions from those foolish sh!thole loving democrats would be delightful.

    mg (9e54f8)

  77. My bet 1856. dred scott type decision on roe v wade. the opposite for right to life for liberals is not right to choose ;but post natal aborton. communist just won n.y. 14 primary. voters their think communist will be able to “deal” with conservatives better then old white corporate establishment democrat. after drad scott came john brown/harpers ferry then fort sumter.

    wendell (b53b29)

  78. Facts matter. The truth matters.

    Only to some.

    Dave (445e97)

  79. Beldar wrote:

    Do you think Trump would enjoy seeing Chuck Schumer or Kamala Harris being carried feet-first into the Senate chamber by the Capitol Police? Because that’s the precedent.

    Actually, I’d guess that President Trump would enjoy more the sight of Chuck Schmumer or Kamala Harris being carried feet-first out of the Senate chamber.

    The wryly amused Dana (c28343)

  80. Hold the praise, teh approbation
    We are here to save teh nation
    All we ask is that you let us have it both ways…
    Daily shots that hit teh Trumper
    Aid teh rabble? That’s a stumper
    Acting like a motherhumper, have it both ways…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  81. Beldar wrote:

    Alert Seal Team Six! Schumer sighted at Niagra Falls!

    Solely for a recover the body mission, right? You don’t want to actually prevent him from jumping, do you?

    The somewhat amused Dana (c28343)

  82. Mr Mous wrote:

    Yes, but collectively we have an election. It is through the electoral process that we, as a nation, decide who will be President. All of us with our individual votes make the decision. This last time it was either Hillary or Trump. Or, option 3 [write in, third party, no vote, etc]. All different ways of refusing to decide.

    Sorry, wrong answer.

    There is an old saying: when you walk in [insert slang term for feces here], some of it sticks to your shoes. Recognizing that your vote has nothing to do with the result — kind of like voting for Donald Trump in California — means that it doesn’t matter how you vote, you are not participating in the decision.

    Because of the Electoral College system, I have not had my vote count in the presidential election since 1988. Your vote counts only if you vote for the winner, in a state carried by the winner! The votes Mr Trump received in California were effectively zero, just as the votes Mrs Clinton received in every state she won were effectively zero. The only votes which counted were those for Mr Trump in the thirty states Mr Trump carried, plus those in the second congressional district in Maine.

    The Dana no longer in Pennsylvania (c28343)

  83. Just a morning reminder… if Never Trump had had their way, Hillary Clinton would be nominating her second Supreme Court Justice now.

    Colonel Haiku (59ae41)

  84. It would be totally wrong of me to hope for the crash of a private plane carrying Justices Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan, so I shall not wish for that.

    The Catholic Dana (c28343)

  85. Kennedy has finally retired
    From service that most have admired
    Now we hope to see
    Justice Mike Lee
    And Ruth somehow possibly fired?

    The Limerick Avenger (c28343)

  86. Mr. Mous:

    60. Contrary to those who claimed the election was a binary choice, I said it was a tertiary choice: Trump, Hillary, or refusing to decide. Many NeverTrumpers took the third choice.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/27/2018 @ 11:01 pm

    69. The nation had to decide whether Hillary or Trump would be President. Some made the choice of one or the other. Then there were those who refused to participate in the decision. They refused to decide. Or, if you prefer, they decided not to decide. Which, of course, is just another way of saying they refused to decide.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/27/2018 @ 11:37 pmr

    It appears you did actually think it was a binary choice.

    DRJ (15874d)

  87. Have the real life equivalent of the fictional TV Mandelbaums schedule a personal training session with RBG.

    urbanleftbehind (d375c9)

  88. Haiku,

    More likely, Ginsburg would have been retiring, not Kennedy.

    DRJ (15874d)

  89. Trump likened Ben Carson’s temper to a child molester’s.

    DRJ (15874d)

  90. 90… DRJ, yes, that is the case. I feel confident Clinton would go Left in replacing Ginsburg.

    Colonel Haiku (59ae41)

  91. So another 25 to 30 years of a leftwing Justice, at the very least.

    Colonel Haiku (59ae41)

  92. @DRJ: It appears you did actually think it was a binary choice.

    No, he said “tertiary” and in each post listed people as making one of three choices consistently.

    “I said it was a tertiary choice”.

    “Tertiary”, three.

    “Trump, Hillary, or refusing to decide.” I count three choices there.

    “Some made the choice of one or the other. Then there were those who refused to participate in the decision. They refused to decide. ”

    Here he describes the same three choices he listed before which he characterized as three choices before.

    Nemo (64d4e1)

  93. He said Trump and Hillary were the choices. Other people refused to decide.

    The choice was binary to Mr. Mous.

    DRJ (15874d)

  94. Now that May 31 is in the rear-view mirror, John McCain can resign his Senate seat, and his replacement, appointed by Governor Doug Doucy, a Republican, would not face the voters before 2020. Senator McCain can insure that his constituents have a voice, and a vote, in the confirmation hearings for the next Supreme Court Justice.

    Regardless of what you think of His Maverickness, he is going to meet his maker, soon. Every day that he clings stubbornly to a Senate office, the duties of which he is no longer able to perform, is another day that he takes a vote away from the constituents who elected him.

    The politician Dana (c28343)

  95. John McCain’s not giving up his seat

    that would take class and courage

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  96. I think they are all choices. I think people should be able to vote or not vote as their consciences tell them.

    Saying people “refused to decide” doesn’t sound like a choice he understands and accepts, does it? It sounds like he thinks people sat out an important election for no good reason, and I think many Trump supporters felt that way. But some people chose not to vote for reasons that mattered to them, and not everyone voted for Trump and/or Hillary with the same enthusiasm.

    DRJ (15874d)

  97. Yesterday, Wednesday, was a very good day. The Janus Decision hitting the Dem political machine and Kennedy’s retirement… wow!

    Colonel Haiku (59ae41)

  98. No thats their problem Dustin the fbi setting at least seven entrapment schemes while bodies were dropping from Orlando to anchorage, they had time to pay millions of dollars to access agents like halper and greenberg

    Narciso (929b9e)

  99. Yeah that ain’t happening, senator queeg will take it to the end, but when it (redacted) mattered in 2008, he threw the match, and that tells me everything you need to know about him

    Narciso (929b9e)

  100. Yes the election was entirely legit:

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/27/fbi-lawyers-i

    Narciso (929b9e)

  101. Just a morning reminder… if Never Trump had had their way, Hillary Clinton would be nominating her second Supreme Court Justice now.

    And yet Trump signed the omnibus

    Patterico (31088f)

  102. If we could get Cruz or Mike Lee
    We’d jump for joy and with glee
    The left would be sad
    We’d say, “Too bad!
    Must suck to be you, so go flee!”

    The Limerick Avenger (c28343)

  103. People mocking the notion of principles are saying way more about themselves than anyone else.

    Leviticus (99cede)

  104. Stand for something, or fall for anything.

    Leviticus (99cede)

  105. People who operate on the basis of tribalism are the most upset when someone leaves the tribe.

    This is why Trump voters are fixated on criticizing non Trump voters, while non Trump voters are content to state their position and reasoning but are not fixated on slamming those who made a different decision.

    This isn’t universally true, of course, but it seems to be far more true than not. I suggest Messers. Mous, Haiku, and the like try a heaping helping of move on dot org. Nearly two years later, maybe it’s time to accept the fact that people can make a different decision than you made, and stand by it, as Dustin, Beldar, and I do.

    Patterico (31088f)

  106. Our honored host wrote:

    Just a morning reminder… if Never Trump had had their way, Hillary Clinton would be nominating her second Supreme Court Justice now.

    And yet Trump signed the omnibus

    And Mrs Clinton wouldn’t have, wouldn’t have insisted on something even worse?

    Mr Trump has hardly been a perfect President: I didn’t support the tax cut, the huge spending bill, and he might be about to screw up with tariffs. But he’s been right on immigration, good on judicial nominations, and great on foreign policy.

    We will never have a President that you believe is perfect; don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

    The coldly realistic Dana (c28343)

  107. Well in California it didn’t matter, probably not in Texas either, in a state like Pennsylvania or Florida it did tip the balance.

    Narciso (929b9e)

  108. I also find it puzzling and a little bit amusing that people who decry “virtue signaling” get so up in arms about other people’s votes. Voting is the biggest virtue signal of all time. You do realize your vote is never going to decide any election anywhere ever, right? It is mainly good for signaling your membership in the tribe, and not much else. You are going to be ruled the way the rulers want to rule you regardless of your puny insignificant individual vote.

    Patterico (31088f)

  109. This is why Trump voters are fixated on criticizing non Trump voters

    i love President Trump he’s made a measurable difference in my quality of life plus he’s saving America by imbuing the courts with commonsense conservatism

    my heart is swollen with love for this man

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  110. And Mrs Clinton wouldn’t have, wouldn’t have insisted on something even worse?

    That’s not the question. The question is whether the GOP would have happily supported the same levels of spending with her in the Oval.

    They would still spend, but not as much.

    Patterico (31088f)

  111. 108… people who have made plain they are proud Never Trumpers do sometimes tire of being reminded of past mistakes, I get that. Patterico, DRJ and some others have made it known they aren’t on that team. Others continue to aid and abet the Left’s War on America. Those folks need occasional reminders of the poor judgement, lack of wisdom.

    Colonel Haiku (59ae41)

  112. i love President Trump he’s made a measurable difference in my quality of life plus he’s saving America by imbuing the courts with commonsense conservatism

    my heart is swollen with love for this man

    You are not fixated with the need to criticize us, happy. You’re just fixated on confusing us as to whether each iteration of laughable toadiness from you is sincere insanity or brilliant but insanely obsessive parody.

    Patterico (31088f)

  113. 108. Ditto, Pat.

    111. My vote in 2016 was a protest vote, pure and simple. I didn’t vote for Trump. I didn’t vote for Hillary. But I did vote. And I’m under no illusion about the importance therein (or lack thereof). If voting mattered, the politicians would find a way to outlaw it.

    Gryph (08c844)

  114. Our esteemed host wrote:

    This is why Trump voters are fixated on criticizing non Trump voters, while non Trump voters are content to state their position and reasoning but are not fixated on slamming those who made a different decision.

    This isn’t universally true, of course, but it seems to be far more true than not.

    I’d suggest that it isn’t just not universally true, but more false than true. A case could be made that such is reasonably true on this site alone, but you are on Twitter; you have to have seen all of the personal attacks by the left on Trump voters. ‘Twas the lovely Mrs Clinton herself to told us that some women were “publicly disrespecting themselves” by supporting Donald Trump. This site is not immune to the noise from the rest of the world.

    The Dana who doesn't live in a vacuum (c28343)

  115. 115. I’m pretty sure happyfeet is a passive-aggressive douchebag. YMMV.

    Gryph (08c844)

  116. 111… that is laughably cynical. Okay then…😁

    Colonel Haiku (59ae41)

  117. Admittedly you were wrong on the immigration pause, you relied on the wrong source like bier,

    Narciso (929b9e)

  118. 119. It’s also true. Crying “cynical!” as politicians and pundits have been doing for decades, does absolutely nothing to address the truth of a statement.

    Gryph (08c844)

  119. here Mr. Patterico this has some bearing on the subject of compulsion and I think you will like it cause it’s a good one

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  120. And that’s not actually True, because McConnell gave Obama everything he wanted, the sequester was a Damocles sword of his devising, because he knew it would fall on defense.

    Narciso (929b9e)

  121. I also find it puzzling and a little bit amusing that people who decry “virtue signaling” get so up in arms about other people’s votes. Voting is the biggest virtue signal of all time. You do realize your vote is never going to decide any election anywhere ever, right?

    I think recycling is the biggest virtue signal of all time. You do realize that soda can is never going to determine whether the environment gets polluted. Just chuck it.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  122. Our distinguished host responded:

    And Mrs Clinton wouldn’t have, wouldn’t have insisted on something even worse?

    That’s not the question. The question is whether the GOP would have happily supported the same levels of spending with her in the Oval.

    They would still spend, but not as much.

    Really? Judging by what the GOP supported in spending from 2011-2016, when they had the majority in the House of Representatives, I don’t believe that your statement is supported by the evidence. About the only difference is that more would be spent on welfare, and less on defense.

    It’s probable that the deficit would be lower, because she would never have supported cutting taxes, for anyone, but not that spending would have been significantly lower.

    The economist Dana (c28343)

  123. 123. What? It’s not true that Republicans spend more when they have a Republican in the oval office to rubber stamp their agenda? I’m not sure exactly what you’re arguing here, but whatever it is, it’s not an argument in favor of Trump’s agenda. He hasn’t decreased federal spending at all yet.

    Gryph (08c844)

  124. actually soda cans are maybe one of the only things what actually merit recycles Mr. viking

    the rest of it’s pretty silly at best and destructive of capital at worst

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  125. People who operate on the basis of tribalism are the most upset when someone leaves the tribe.

    This is why Trump voters are fixated on criticizing non Trump voters, while non Trump voters are content to state their position and reasoning but are not fixated on slamming those who made a different decision.

    Patterico (31088f) — 6/28/2018 @ 7:00 am

    Don’t you spend every other post now throwing in shots at “trumpkins” even if it’s completey unrelated? Maybe you should look in the mirror.

    Hi (e88fce)

  126. 124… yes RV, sort of calls everything into question. Why concern yourself with politics? It won’t matter. Hell, why host a political blog?

    Colonel Haiku (59ae41)

  127. It was the cheap price of tin, rhat made bolivia relie on their other informal export, ahem.

    Narciso (929b9e)

  128. 126… shorter gryp: this porridge is too hot.

    Colonel Haiku (59ae41)

  129. Our host, hurrying to get to work this morning, wrote:

    I also find it puzzling and a little bit amusing that people who decry “virtue signaling” get so up in arms about other people’s votes. Voting is the biggest virtue signal of all time.

    If ‘virtue signal’ means “the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one’s good character or the moral correctness of one’s position on a particular issue,” then voting can be virtue signaling only if one discloses his vote to others.

    Not all of those who voted for President Trump were claiming that they were voting for someone or something good; many felt that they were just voting against something far worse.

    The voter Dana (c28343)

  130. Everyone chases their own windmill, now there’s some No name Pac trying to take down my own congressman running for gov.

    Narciso (929b9e)

  131. Really? Judging by what the GOP supported in spending from 2011-2016, when they had the majority in the House of Representatives, I don’t believe that your statement is supported by the evidence. About the only difference is that more would be spent on welfare, and less on defense.

    Sure it is. They’re spending more now, and they spent less under Clinton.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  132. Tbh I don’t care who any of you voted for…it was just weird hearing people who gave obama a “chance” even with his history of radicalism all of a sudden get vapors and act like Trump was the evilest of the evil (even tho at worst he would be considered a moderate democrat if the 90’s variety). They thought he was so “vile” they as republicans rather have had Hillary freaking Clinton…..think about that for a second….HILLARY?

    It always just boggled my mind. Like a Bernie voter saying in 2020 that he rather trump win because the democrat nominee tweeted mean things and he thought a democrat congress would do a better job of spending MORE money under Trump. Or something I don’t know it was really illogical to me.

    Hi (e88fce)

  133. Our Austrian economist host wrote:

    Really? Judging by what the GOP supported in spending from 2011-2016, when they had the majority in the House of Representatives, I don’t believe that your statement is supported by the evidence. About the only difference is that more would be spent on welfare, and less on defense.

    Sure it is. They’re spending more now, and they spent less under Clinton.

    Assuming that you actually meant under President Obama, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, total federal outlays were 20.68575% of GDP in 2016, and 20.53342% of GDP in 2017.

    If you did mean under President Clinton, that was last century, and an almost completely different set of Republicans and Democrats.

    The economist Dana (c28343)

  134. “Hi” said:

    Don’t you spend every other post now throwing in shots at “trumpkins” even if it’s completey unrelated?

    No.

    First: a search for the word “Trumpkins” in my posts reveals two posts from 2016, in March and May, during the primary. That alone answers your question as asked.

    A search for the word in its singular form (Trumpkin) reveals eight posts (this blog has published over 21,000 posts). Exactly one of those posts was published after Donald Trump was inaugurated — but only barely so, on January 27, 2017. And what was the context in which I used the word? A criticism of the New York Times in which I said “and nobody is accusing me of being a Trumpkin”:

    Nothing about Trump’s executive order was the “reverse” of Obama’s orders, but the reporter did not seem to understand this. To the extent the order could be interpreted as constitutionally objectionable, it would be because it could be read as providing authority to delay certain parts of the law — the very same thing Obama did, not the “reverse.” I have urged a “wait and see” attitude regarding those executive orders, because we don’t know exactly what they would do . . . and nobody is accusing me of being a Trumpkin.

    But while I have used other derisive terms to describe Trump superfans, that fact does not prove your point. Because I have always carefully distinguished between Trump superfans who cheer on his worst behavior (these are the Trump primary voters), and the reluctant Trump voters who chose what they believed to be the least worst evil. Those latter decisions I have always treated with respect. Always.

    Respect that is definitely not always reciprocated.

    So your premise was completely faulty, not that I am necessarily expecting you to acknowledge it or apologize, given the aggressive and baseless nature of your original comment. But you could always surprise me.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  135. “At any rate, we agree on a lot here. We agree that your list is bad things. We agree that our leaders should promote our civil order. But I think you’re not really connecting some of the dots here. “

    The feeling is mutual.

    Look at your list on Trump’s transgressions and look at mine on Obama’s. IMO it’s no contest as to which is more destructive to rule of law and honesty in representation, the foundations of civil order.

    And that list for Obama is a mere scratch of the surface.

    Trump is a coarse, delusional, childish speaker and tweeter.

    Obama is a smooth liar, con man and anti-constitutionalist, in short a traitor to the people.

    harkin (b63958)

  136. 138. Obama had his eight years. Trump will probably get his, as well. I voted for neither, and I have a perfectly clear conscience, thanks.

    Gryph (08c844)

  137. “Trump’s corrosion of our country is real, and to me, it’s the largest issue. The intense loyalty, the abandonment of reason, the naked corruption. Those dangerous changes in our government may not be undone.”

    To look at the fevered, unhinged wrath over losing an election (that should have been in the bag) coming from The Resistance of Democrats, career govt. liberals, the msm, academia, Hollywood etc. and blame it solely on Trump is truly to be blind.

    harkin (b63958)

  138. When it comes to discretionary spending, meaning spending minus interest on the debt, Social Security and Medicare, the 1977-2016 average is 11.9%, 2017 is at 11.3%, and, under current policies is projected to be 10.0% in 2027.

    The general spending picture changes substantially once one looks beyond[10] Social Security and Medicare. At 11.3 percent of GDP, program spending outside Social Security and Medicare is already below its 40-year average of 11.9 percent and is projected to fall to 10.0 percent of GDP in 2028. (See Table 1 and Figure 1.)

    This decline reflects a substantial drop in annually appropriated, or “discretionary,” programs. These programs encompass almost all of national defense and a wide variety of other federal activities, including most federal support for transportation, education, natural resources, veterans’ health care, law enforcement, general government, and international programs. Expenditures for these programs are expected to fall from 6.4 percent of GDP in 2018 to 5.1 percent in 2028. In 2020 these programs are slated to reach their lowest level on record as a percent of GDP, with data going back to 1962, and they will continue dropping each year thereafter.

    The economist Dana (c28343)

  139. Well you focus just on the word trumpkin, maybe I should just have said a general condescension comes across to trump and his supporters in a lot of posts, even when not warranted or on topic. I don’t look here much but my apologies if you have made clear that you draw a distinction between “trump super fans” and “those people that will call him bad names but voted for him”.

    Whatever the country is going to hell and half of it has embraced full on socialism. I doubt any of our bleating on blogs is going to change anything.

    Hi (e88fce)

  140. “Trump will probably get his, as well.”

    I wouldn’t even depend on the Repubs maintaining both houses. ANYTHING can happen, especially in a climate where Kennedy retiring equates to impending death camps to the Groupthink Gang.

    harkin (b63958)

  141. Quorum busting – I’m fine with Manchin, Heitkamp, Tester and McCaskill not showing up for a quorum and energizing the electorate in those states to vote against them.

    As for the never Trumpers….I understood the logic but not the behavior. I voted for Eugene McCarthy (yuck) in my youth in 1976, and some Libertarian guy in 1980, and concluded that my votes were wasted. At least McCarthy prevented me from having to be forever ashamed at voting for Carter, which I probably would have done in those days.

    But ultimately an election is for a desired outcome. It was easy to make a list of pros and cons for Trump and Hillary, and the pros for Trump were the things that would outlast his long, long list of flaws. As a New Yorker my vote was easy anyway – the state’s electoral votes were going for Hillary.

    But I’m very, very happy about my vote and the election outcome today, because we have a classless trolling boor as President who is making almost all the right decisions instead of 6-3 votes the other way on all the important cases this week, and probably a 7-2 vote forever more if Hillary had gotten to do Kennedy’s replacement too (and RBG leaving for whatever reason would only exacerbate all of this).

    lazlo toth (18c6f7)

  142. The fact trump is a “classless” troll to me is a plus. Don’t you guys get tired of being compared to Nazis and called racists every time you look at the tv? I know I am.

    Hi (e88fce)

  143. Well you focus just on the word trumpkin, maybe I should just have said a general condescension comes across to trump and his supporters in a lot of posts, even when not warranted or on topic. I don’t look here much but my apologies if you have made clear that you draw a distinction between “trump super fans” and “those people that will call him bad names but voted for him”.

    I do make a distinction constantly, although not quite in the way you put it. To escape my disdain, I don’t even require that people call him bad names — I ask only that they be honest about his shortcomings, as many are.

    Yes, a condescension towards his superfans who applaud bad behavior seems embedded in my DNA. I don’t think I’ll ever get over the impulse to criticize people who support bad behavior, lying, bullying, and the like — and I don’t really think I should even try.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  144. 108… people who have made plain they are proud Never Trumpers do sometimes tire of being reminded of past mistakes, I get that. Patterico, DRJ and some others have made it known they aren’t on that team. Others continue to aid and abet the Left’s War on America. Those folks need occasional reminders of the poor judgement, lack of wisdom.

    Well, as Anon Y. Mous notes, my behavior in the 2016 election in the voting booth was indistinguishable from that of people who do accept the NeverTrumper label, so any rebuke of their refusal to pull the level for the con man seems like a rebuke of me too. Or harkin, for that matter, who to my surprise revealed that he didn’t vote for Trump either.

    I guess the point is that there are endless opportunities for “rebuke” on both sides, but it’s a matter of how it’s phrased. When Trump behaves badly, my challenge is always: surely you don’t support this? It’s often taken as an implicit rebuke of people’s vote, which explains the “so you wanted Hillary instead?” type comments, but it’s not intended as such. It’s just a request for people to acknowledge that you can vote for (or against) a guy and still disapprove (or approve) of his actions. I’m asked often to approve of Trump’s good actions, and I do — not that I get credit for it. Isn’t it fair for me to ask people to disapprove of his bad actions? But at such times I’m often told that, no, we should ignore them. That seems wrong to me.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  145. The fact trump is a “classless” troll to me is a plus.

    This is the mentality I can’t wrap my head around. But a lot of people share it.

    See my latest post. All we have is conversation. How does being a classless troll promote conversation?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  146. Fair enough. I got a disdain for bandwagons, both the political and sports variety. Everyone has their own quirks. Shrug. I probably am one of those people that supports his “bad” behavior I think. If you mean his basic meanness toward his political opponents. Yeah he’s mean but he’s not calling the other party racist or saying voters are motivated by racism or bigotry when opposing his policies. (He probably will get there) that to me is worse than calling someone mean names.

    Hi (e88fce)

  147. But I’m very, very happy about my vote and the election outcome today, because we have a classless trolling boor as President who is making almost all the right decisions

    It’s that “almost” part that hurts. Signing the omnibus. Announcing ruinous tariffs. And, while primarily Congress’s fault, failing to push for genuine repeal of ObamaCare, to the point where he pretends the problem is now solved because the mandate (which during the election he said he liked!) is gone.

    Again: I can approve his good stuff. Can his supporters acknowledge the problems? It doesn’t mean Hillary would have been better overall (although in some ways, like tariffs and the way that the presidency affects the GOP’s spending behavior, she would have been better). It just means that Trump is faaaaaar from ideal. And so we should put pressure on him to approach ideal, even if nobody ever actually gets there, rather than simply accepting and even applauding his shortcomings.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  148. Oh didnt see your new last comment before I posted mine.

    For decades the other side smears “us” as racist and calls people like my parents bigots, xenophobes, blah blah blah. And they get away with it. They do it right there on my tv, on my computer. People who are despicable proven liars are haralded and clapped for on the view (Clinton). I am not going to apologize for being happy to see someone tell those people f you to their faces.

    Yes I know it’s a base emotion and I should be “above” that. I guess I’m not shrug

    Hi (e88fce)

  149. Ducking and weaving, now if they actually sought to protect us

    http://mobile.twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/10123

    Narciso (929b9e)

  150. No I’ll leave the 4,000 outlets from tmz to politico to chronicle his faults

    Narciso (929b9e)

  151. People who operate on the basis of tribalism are the most upset when someone leaves the tribe.

    At this other site I’m at, liberals outnumber conservatives by two or three to one, and you can tell the most tribal liberals by how PO’d they are that I protest-voted vote for Gary Johnson. The tribalism is on both sides, for sure.

    Paul Montagu (a30d17)

  152. 154. Ditto, Paul. 😉

    Gryph (08c844)

  153. Runous,tariffs that’s yet to be seen, were at a disadvantage because so much industry has offshored.

    Narciso (929b9e)

  154. 156. There’s absolutely no reason to believe that the Trump act of 2018 will be any different than Smoot-Hawley.

    Gryph (08c844)

  155. Bill Kristol has said that even though he would ideologically support a conservative justice to the Supreme Court, he doesn’t want one because it will make the left mad.

    How did anyone ever think this guy was a conservative?

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/27/bill-kristol-inclined-wish-kennedy-hadnt-retired/

    NJRob (b00189)

  156. 151. All my adult life, I’ve been hearing “we conservatives are better than that.” I guess everyone who fed me that line of bullhockey was wrong.

    Gryph (08c844)

  157. More like fordney macumber or the McKinley tariff of the late 19th century.

    Narciso (929b9e)

  158. I ask only that they be honest about his shortcomings, as many are.

    I would say it goes a decent stretch of road beyond asking people to merely “be honest.”

    The general approach is to repetitively ask people to reinforce the view that he has demonstrable shortcomings as identified by you, and then to shift over into “Trumpkin” land anyone who takes the position “We get it, enough. We don’t need to be bludgeoned with the FACT that he has shortcomings. On balance, given what he’s actually doing, we’ll live with them.”

    For those who doesn’t accept the characterization that “He’s doing some good things, but he’s still a vile piece of human excrement”, we seem to not be sufficiently “honest” about his shortcomings.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  159. 161.

    For those who doesn’t accept the characterization that “He’s doing some good things, but he’s still a vile piece of human excrement”, we seem to not be sufficiently “honest” about his shortcomings.

    Fine. Convince me that he’s not. GO!

    Gryph (08c844)

  160. Because there were precursor tariffs, back in the day it was even considered a source of revenue, not like the usury we’ve had since 1913.

    Narciso (929b9e)

  161. YOU DARE NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP???? spammers aren’t winning over any supporters for Trump.

    If anything, all they do on this blog is alienate supporters and cement opposition to Trump. I certainly do not trust that Trump’s fans have my best interests at heart. I’d never take their advice. They hate so many Americans, myself included, so why would I trust them?

    If someone is that upset about Trump that they are still moaning about who didn’t vote for him this far down the road, they have made themselves deeply unhappy. They should be delighted. Trump won their election, against all odds. He didn’t think he would win. Trump and his fans, many of the people in this very thread, were so upset that the election was going to be rigged in Hillary’s favor. But they did win. Now they get yet another Supreme Court justice, a huge huge victory. Better than that, look at the timing Trump was graced with. He got this retirement of the centrist justice before the midterms. He has plenty of time to appoint a replacement, and plenty of partisan support to get that replacement on the bench even if the midterms did turn into a disaster. Truly awesome luck.

    Why be unhappy that Trump didn’t have everyone’s support? Who cares? He’s a total bastard, and of course he didn’t have everyone’s support. Just relax and be happy that he got any votes at all, let alone won an election and is apparently the finest leader the United States has to offer.

    Better yet, just find a few other interests for your passions now that politics are truly screwed up and ugly. Everyone can have an interest in the events of the day, but getting invested in politics is a bad idea.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  162. Mr Montagu wrote:

    At this other site I’m at, liberals outnumber conservatives by two or three to one, and you can tell the most tribal liberals by how PO’d they are that I protest-voted vote for Gary Johnson. The tribalism is on both sides, for sure.

    What site would that be, sir?

    The inquisitive Dana (c28343)

  163. People who operate on the basis of tribalism are the most upset when someone leaves the tribe.

    Particularly when someone leaves to join a new one that is even more tribalist.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  164. For those who doesn’t accept the characterization that “He’s doing some good things, but he’s still a vile piece of human excrement”, we seem to not be sufficiently “honest” about his shortcomings.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/28/2018 @ 8:30 am

    And I think plenty of Trump’s supporters take this view, that he’s not a good person, not a good leader, but he’s the guy they had to resort to supporting. That is a position with tension that seems to push people to repeatedly rationalize it, even though we always settle.

    Personally, Trump was just too far for me. He’s a terrible guy and I just won’t vote for a man who tears our nation apart, smears people so easily, and corrodes our nation’s democracy. Even if he’s better than Hillary in the short term, I not only reject the idea Trump was better for our country, I have some lines I won’t cross. My support requires at least some personal character. I don’t vote for “vile pieces of human excrement” as you put it, just because they oppose a democrat. Every single democrat presidential candidate will be labeled the most insidious threat in American history so I don’t pay attention to that either.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  165. What site would that be, sir?

    I’ve tried to link it before and my comment never gets out of moderation. If Pat or someone who has the keys can fix, I’ll do it.

    Paul Montagu (e71320)

  166. If Schumer sets the bar at a judge who will not overturn Roe v. Wade, how would any judge be able to answer that–since they’re really forbidden from rendering advisory opinions–would they just have to say that they believe in the principle of stare decisis and leave it at that?

    Rochf (877dba)

  167. Must be a lonely foxhole you live in, Dustin.

    mg (9e54f8)

  168. Bill Kristol lamenting the “hyper-partisanship” is just LOL funny.

    He’s one of the mid-wives of hyper-partisanship going back to the defense of the Reagan Administration and the war on the Clinton Administration.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  169. Meanwhile, back on topic:

    “According to Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, the White House has narrowed down its list of potential Supreme Court nominees to a top five: Brett Kavanaugh, 53, of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; Amul Thapar, 49, of the 6th Circuit; Amy Barrett, 46, of the 7th Circuit; Thomas Hardiman, 52, of the 3rd Circuit; and Raymond Kethledge, 51, of the 6th Circuit.

    Ben Shapiro gives his views on the five:

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/32411/run-down-heres-what-you-need-know-about-trumps-top-ben-shapiro?amp&__twitter_impression=true

    Excerpt:

    Kavanaugh is, on the downside, a general believer in Chevron deference — the notion that administrative agencies ought to be granted deference by the judicial branch. Kavanaugh reportedly does not use textualist methods nearly as much as conservatives might wish. Worst, Kavanaugh upheld Obamacare in Sissel v. Department of Health and Human Services as well as in Seven-Sky v. Holder, in which he stated that the Obamacare penalties were actually “taxes.” Kavanaugh seems far more likely to be a second Roberts than a second Gorsuch.

    harkin (b63958)

  170. does chuck really think abortion’s gonna motivate vapid semi-literate facebook-addicted millennial chicks to go to the polls?

    lol

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  171. speaking of vapid millennial chicks i got my first email from one this week what had this in the sig:

    I use she/her/hers/herself

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  172. and ma Richards and lena guerrero were just fine, it’s lucky they only had one term.

    narciso (d1f714)

  173. Mr Montague: just type out the site name without hyperlinking it, perhaps separating out the .com or .org part.

    The very inquisitive Dana (c28343)

  174. My guess would be that it’ll be Amy Barrett.

    I think its going to be a woman, making it a 5-4 male/female ration, and adding a woman to the right side of the court.

    I think there will also be some effort to nudge Clarence Thomas to consider retirement next year. Kennedy went out after 30 years, and while Thomas isn’t quite there yet he’s closing in on 30 years.

    That would give you 3 very young conservatives, along with Alito and Roberts.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  175. Must be a lonely foxhole you live in, Dustin.

    mg (9e54f8) — 6/28/2018 @ 9:00 am

    There’s no foxhole. People who wake up and march over to the internet to resume the fight from yesterday are wasting their time and happiness.

    My friends cross a lot of the political lines you guys deem unacceptable. So while I’m not in a foxhole when it comes to politics, I am also not lonely. It’s interesting that so many commenters on politics blogs try to make these sorts of conversations personal and insulting, as though you’re psychoanalyzing Trump’s critics.

    I’ve actually dug foxholes. That’s miserable work. The GOP isn’t worth that even as a metaphor.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  176. theforvm dot org, which is temporarily down at the moment. It’s a small, low-traffic political blog. It used to be called Tacitus, ran by Josh Trevino, then he went on to co-found RedState and we renamed it and made it a blog collective.

    Paul Montagu (e71320)

  177. i agree it’ll be an womenfolk and Amy’s exciting cause she’s not ivy league trash

    advantage: Amy B!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  178. “…how PO’d they are that I protest-voted vote for Gary Johnson.”

    So… a clear-eyed vote for the guy who chases intoxicating blasts of stupefaction.

    Got it, Chief.

    Colonel Haiku (59ae41)

  179. I must admit I am starting to love President Trump. Reading Dustin and the like democrats responses on his attitude shows a their frustration, I look at it as pay-back to the media and the disastrous booosh years. LMMFAO.

    mg (9e54f8)

  180. https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270583/left-loses-judiciary-daniel-greenfield

    Time to follow the Constitution again. No more super legislature.

    NJRob (af6cf9)

  181. If stupefy is to be in state of little or no sensibility (as defined), then I can think of a 2016 candidate who was in that state a lot without taking a single toke. A protest vote is legitimate, and it doesn’t really matter who that 3rd party is but, to me, the choice was either to not vote (which I oppose in principle) or vote but throw it away. There’s no way in hell that I would choose between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich because, even if I agreed with Trump more on the issues, I won’t pull the lever for anyone with such low character, which includes serial-lying. I strategically voted for the Libertarian ticket because, had they hit 5% of the popular vote in the general, they would’ve been eligible for federal funding in future elections, and I acknowledge the dissonance of a small-government Libertarians getting money from Big Government. Anyway, Johnson only got 3.3%.

    Paul Montagu (e71320)

  182. “If anything, all they do on this blog is alienate supporters and cement opposition to Trump. I certainly do not trust that Trump’s fans have my best interests at heart. I’d never take their advice. They hate so many Americans, myself included, so why would I trust them?”

    No hatred for “them”, just recognition of the need for pushback against their ideas, which would prove to be disastrous for the country. As for you, there is no hatred.

    Many of us felt deeply for you, Dustin, when you and your wife lost your baby a year or so ago. We could hardly imagine how tough a disappointment like that would be to deal with. We’re just hopeful that you will come to your senses in respect to what is at stake here.

    Colonel Haiku (59ae41)

  183. 184… geeze, sorry for harshing yer mellow, dude!

    Colonel Haiku (59ae41)

  184. We’re just talkin’, CH.

    Paul Montagu (e71320)

  185. “No hatred for “them”, just recognition of the need for pushback against their ideas, which would prove to be disastrous for the country.

    People who project hatred onto others are sometimes the most hateful.

    All hate does is consume the hater, often with collateral damage.

    harkin (b63958)

  186. Just want to express how utterly disheartened and disgusted I am watching DJT and Walker praising Foxconn to the hilt.

    This is a literal sellout of our republic to China.

    I get that this is how our world “works.” This does not mean I have to like or respect it. It’s what we’ve come to. Tragically.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  187. @112. Mr, Trump says you better get some ICE on that, Mr. Feet.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  188. “I vote for Bored Lawyer with Beldar as his clerk.”

    I am flattered!

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  189. Seriously, here is someone who was on Trump’s list of 25: Allison Eid.

    Raised by a single mother, scholarship at Stanford, clerked for Thomas, Colorado Solicitor General, then Colorado Supreme Court, then Tenth Circuit (she took Gorsuch’s seat). Married to an Egyptian-American.

    This would make the lefties’ head explode.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  190. That would be an amazing pick, Bored Lawyer.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  191. Bloomberg saying it’s Mike Lee.

    Is that a kiss of death, or a scoop?

    Steve Malynn (c7ce8a)

  192. Is that a kiss of death, or a scoop?

    If they’ve made a decision after vetting him for one day, a disaster in the making is what it is…

    (Admittedly, they could have done extensive vetting and background checks on the whole crib-sheet full of potential nominees months in advance, but that kind of professionalism and preparation is unheard-of in TrumpWorld).

    Dave (445e97)

  193. The surprise is that this came from the occasionally funny and conventionally liberal Trevor Noah

    Paul Montagu (00b59c)

  194. “I’m not saying it was tantamount to an endorsement of Hillary, although hardcore NeverTrumpers did do that, and they’re currently rooting for Dems to take over Congress. But if you’ll indulge me for a few tweets, this is the thing about conservatives and 2016 that still bugs me.

    I’m all in favor of vigorously contested primaries. I didn’t vote for Trump myself, and he wasn’t in my top 3. I got some angry feedback when I wrote highly of other candidates. I’d have no inherent problem with people supporting a primary challenger to him in 2020.

    But at some point the primary is over, and the election absolutely does become a binary choice, with gigantic stakes given the size of government, power of SCOTUS, etc. I deeply wish the stakes were lower and elections were less important, but they’re not.

    When Trump secured the nomination, Republicans – especially politicians, writers, pundits – either decided the stakes were high enough to support him despite his flaws as the underdog in a tough and important election, or they decided opposing him was worth President Hillary.

    There is a fantasy about the “third option” of staying home that needs to be put to bed forever. That’s not how it works. You stay home and the Democrat gets half a step closer to winning.

    Now, if you thought the stakes were low enough that either actively helping Clinton win or passively allowing it were acceptable courses of action, then fair enough… but it’s disingenuous to change your mind now and say, “Wow, SCOTUS is really important.”

    We knew that in 2016, and it was pretty clear several SCOTUS nominations were on the table, one of them PROMINENTLY so. We knew what would happen if Clinton locked in a far-left SCOTUS for a generation.

    This is important because we’re talking about the judgment of prominent pundits and politicians, people who (at least in theory) hold significant sway over public opinion. They told us to trust them last time as they took a position that would have put Clinton in the White House.

    I’m glad if they’ve seen the light, but I’m sorry, I just can’t cut that much slack for seeing a light that should have been as obvious as the rising sun in 2016. The retirement of aging SCOTUS judges is not a black swan event.

    When it really mattered, when the chips were down and the Republican nominee needed all the help he could get to win the longest long-shot victory in recent memory, there are people who went AWOL or actively supported the Democrat.

    No, I don’t want to “dump” on them and I don’t spend time needling them. (The clowns who are still trying to give Congress to the Dems are another matter.) But a higher standard must be set for the political judgment of influential people.

    And for what it’s worth, I felt the same way about those who judged it preferable to toss 2008 to Obama instead of supporting squishy McCain, or bailed on Romney in 2012. How did that work out for you, guys? Still think giving Obama the White House was a small price to pay?

    The fact is that the stakes are so high, we’re so close to crossing so many lines, the Democrats are so aggressive about using power, that I don’t think any presidential or congressional term can be sacrificed even for sincere long-term plans to improve the GOP.

    I understood all of that in 2016. I’m pleased to see conservatives who didn’t coming around. I welcome them one and all. But if they’re prominent and influential, it still matters that they made different calculations in 2016, and will ask their audience to trust them again.”

    —- Steve Hayward

    This man nails it.

    Colonel Haiku (8c2b3a)

  195. Hey Haiku, is there anyone you wouldn’t vote for as long as they promised to nominate judges from the right list?

    Dave (445e97)

  196. Dave,

    are you going to apologize on the other thread for your hateful comments blaming Trump for today’s psycho?

    NJRob (b00189)

  197. are you going to apologize on the other thread for your hateful comments blaming Trump for today’s psycho?

    NJRob (b00189) — 6/28/2018 @ 10:19 pm

    It was more lawyers and journalists than Mr PDJT.

    Pinandpuller (1a03ca)

  198. are you going to apologize on the other thread for your hateful comments blaming Trump for today’s psycho?

    LOL. Are you going to apologize for falsely accusing me of something I didn’t do?

    What I actually said was the exact opposite (that I doubted a political motive was responsible):

    I dunno, I suppose a political motive is possible, but if you want to make a statement, why would you go for a small local newspaper when target-rich Washington, full of high-profile, Trump-approved “enemies of the people”, is only a half-hour drive away?

    I guess psychopathic mass murderers don’t always think things through…

    Referring to the news media as “enemies of the people” is a direct and accurate quote from Donald Trump. In fact, he has said it multiple times.

    Dave (445e97)

  199. Just for the name Allison, I’d approve.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  200. Stras if Male. Barrett if female.

    Mitch (d5ca11)

  201. Schumer suggests Merrick Garland.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  202. Q: How dumb does Schumer want us to think he thinks Trump is?

    A: Very, very dumb.

    Q: How dumb are the Schumer supporters who will be misled by Schumer into thinking he or Trump either one thought Schumer was serious?

    A: See answer above.

    Q: How serious was Obama in nominating Garland in the first place?

    A: Not at all. If Obama had thought there was even a remote possibility that anyone he nominated in 2016 would be confirmed that year, he would have picked someone much younger and without the long progressive track record that Garland has from the D.C. Circuit. Garland, though, already has life tenure, and is the 10th most important judge in America in his current job; moving him up to be the 9th most important judge was never a big priority from Obama’s point of view.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  203. Ted Frank provided this link to an interesting appellate decision by Sixth Circuit Judge Raymond Kethledge, in which then-EDKY District Judge Amul Kapar was sitting by designation on the same panel and provided the additional vote to put Kethledge’s position into the majority: In re Dry Max Pampers Litigation, 724 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2013). Diaper rash is discussed, solemnly. But also, fee-chasing consumer class-action lawyers lost some of their gravy train.

    Beldar (fa637a)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5320 secs.