Patterico's Pontifications

9/24/2020

Schumer: Republicans Stole a Supreme Court Seat in 2016 and Are Stealing One Now. Huh?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



Can someone explain the logic to me? I don’t get it.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said the decision to consider a Trump pick ahead of this election means the Republican majority “will have stolen two Supreme Court seats four years apart using completely contradictory rationales.”

I’m at a loss as to how anyone could argue that they will have stolen both seats. If you agree with him, could you explain the logic?

If Republicans stole the seat in 2016, that’s because a president always has a right to a vote on his nominee, even in an election year, even when the Senate is held by the opposite party. How can anyone then say this seat will also have been stolen??

I understand the argument that Republicans are using different rationales. (Whether it’s true depends on the initial rationale they used. Lindsey Graham is using two different rationales because he is a hack. Sen. McConnell is using the same rationale: we do it because we can, and it’s the way it’s always been done.) But that’s a different argument from Schumer’s argument that both seats will have been “stolen.”

You can argue that the GOP Senators set up one standard and acted by it, and that they then set up another different standard years later and plan to act by that, and that it is all partisan and unprincipled and inconsistent and disgraceful. I totally understand the argument. For Graham, it’s right.

But how can you argue they will have stolen both seats? I genuinely don’t get it. Even if, as a Democrat, your own standard has shifted, don’t you have to acknowledge that the new standard you advocate was the right one in 2016 — especially since your new “always refuse confirmation in an election year” standard, if it applies now when the presidency and Senate are held by the same party, has to have applied with double force in 2016 when the Senate had an extra partisan reason to apply that standard?

I assume the simple answer is “Schumer is just being a hack” and I agree with that, but usually people have at least a theoretical argument behind their hackery. Here, I can’t even fathom what the theoretical argument is. I understand the Republicans’ shift: we do it because we can, and the Senate has generally behaved that way in the past. What’s the Democrats’ argument? “It’s a theft if the vote goes in a way we don’t like”??

158 Responses to “Schumer: Republicans Stole a Supreme Court Seat in 2016 and Are Stealing One Now. Huh?”

  1. Sure you do, Patterico. It is Narrative uber alles. That’s all. Playing to low information, reflexive, angry people. Sounds familiar…both sides have descended to this.

    Heck, I doubt Schumer knows what he believes. He just believes in power. His.

    Simon Jester (41c481)

  2. “I saw it first!” values.

    nk (1d9030)

  3. Hasnt mayer and abrams been dining out on their slander of clarence thomas for 25 years, preceded by anita hill who ahould be eating out of dumpsters. Has marcus beem shunned for repeating lies about kavanaugh.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  4. Mayer who went on to take pity on terrorists who would kill all of your families without a moments hesitation.

    What penalty has feinstein and harris suffered for their lies, why should they think they should get away with it

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  5. What’s the Democrats’ argument? “It’s a theft if the vote goes in a way we don’t like”??

    Welcome to the past four years.

    A Trump supporter is a conservative mugged by reality.

    beer ‘n pretzels (69efb6)

  6. Several Options

    1. He’s lying to inflame his base.
    2. He’s a dim witted partisan with a convoluted explanation on how both were wrong, a mirror image to the people who think both are right. I think it would go; If you change a norm you’re ‘stealing’ a seat. The GOP changed it 2016, and changed it back in 2020 so 2 thefts.
    3. He’s bad at the complicated math of counting to 2.

    My money is on #1.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  7. A Trump supporter is a conservative mugged by unaware of reality.

    beer ‘n pretzels (69efb6) — 9/24/2020 @ 9:16 am

    Time123 (c9382b)

  8. I think he is speaking from feelings and passion, but:

    1. The Scalia/Merrick Garland judgeship was stolen when the GOP Senate refused to vote on Obama’s nominee.

    2. A large part of the rationale for the GOP Senate’s refusal was that it would have changed a formerly conservative judgeship into a liberal one.

    3. The Ginsburg/? judgeship will be stolen by putting a conservative into a judgeship formerly held by a liberal.

    4. To liberals, this is more than hypocrisy. This is “stealing” a liberal judge seat by embracing logic that protects conservative seats but not liberal seats.

    5. I think the root of this result is having a GOP Senate in both cases, but it is easy to think something is unfair and stolen when your side loses both times.

    DRJ (aede82)

  9. why do you put the most charitable spin on it, remember his part in the leaking of michael steele’s fbi file, how about the campaign against miguel estrada,

    I pointed out thomas and kavanaugh (the latter doesn’t understand his duty to the plain letter of the law, gorsuch nearly so)

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  10. What’s the Democrats’ argument? “It’s a theft if the vote goes in a way we don’t like”??

    Yup. That’s their only argument.

    whembly (c30c83)

  11. IMO Schumer characterizes this as the GOP saying “Heads, I win; Tails, you lose” and that is why he calls it unfair, stolen, etc. He knows better because he is a Senator, but many people on both sides don’t see how control of the Senate is the reason for these results. Democrats think it is unfair to them but plenty of Republicans are applauding using any tactic to “win.” Cf, #9.

    DRJ (aede82)

  12. It’s more than hypocrisy. They believe that power is theirs, and anyone else taking power is stealing what’s theirs.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  13. Today’s Senators all have their moments in the media when there are big votes, and many (like Graham) can’t resist showing what great leaders they are. When they elaborate on this reason or that reason, they often muddy the waters about how the system works and open the door to.complaints like Schumer’s.

    DRJ (aede82)

  14. Well, you could “argue” that the pitch is less about the actual court seats themselves and more about the ‘character’ – or obvious lack there of- of the Republicans in lock-step w/Trump generally. It falls in line w/t “Trump-must-go-and-return-the-Congress-and WH-to-us-for the next 30 years” strategy.

    Schumer may be a kvetching old NYer but he’s not totally stupid. He knows the histrionics won’t stop this and if the situation was reversed, his party would do the same thing.

    Thing is, once these bureaucrats get appointed to a lifetime government gig w/t sweet bennies, they owe nothing to anybody and never fail to ‘disappoint’ the rabid ideologues who steer them into the gigs. Sure, there are a few exceptions, but for the most part, in the long run, at SCOTUS level, they’re a let down. Hence McConnell is filling every lower court seat he can as a bulwark.

    Schumer wants a WH and especially the Senate w/t House back in D hands for decades. That’s where the power sits for shaping nat’l policy. So fine, make noise and trade a few SCOTUS court seats- while aiming at long term control; they do eventually retire, or die– and can be replaced, by a D WH and confirmed by a D Senate. Then they can ‘disappoint’ the other side, too. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  15. They believe that power is theirs, and anyone else taking power is stealing what’s theirs.

    I think that is true for Supreme Court judgeships in both Parties.

    DRJ (aede82)

  16. @15

    Well, Obama appointed two liberal justices, and we did not see these histrionics from the Republicans. In fact, IIRC, they received substantial Republican votes in the Senate. Of course, at the time, the Senate was controlled by the Dems, so perhaps the Republicans realized the futility of protestin.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  17. because they foolishly abide by the rules, the feeling is not reciprocal,

    https://libertyunyielding.com/2020/09/24/pelosi-warns-about-filling-scotus-seat-republicans-are-coming-after-your-children/

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  18. i have my qualms about barrett, based on her all too willingness to support state power, but can the dems make a coherent argument, specially since they have been handmaids to such overreach,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  19. Good news from the Biden campaign this morning; Joe backs SCOTUS decision and agrees Nixon must turn over the tapes. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  20. @19

    Whoa, he is that up to date? I thought you would say he backs the Supreme Court and believes the federal government can tell you not to grow food on your own farm to feed your own family.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  21. @20. They didn’t farm; they coal-mined in Scranton, Pennsylvania– where he hasn’t lived in 67 years. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  22. 3. The Ginsburg/? judgeship will be stolen by putting a conservative into a judgeship formerly held by a liberal.

    I think you’re right DRJ. The irony there is that Justice Ginsburg took the seat of Justice Byron White, a man who can’t really be considered a firm liberal by any measure (he wrote dissenting opinions in Roe and in Miranda, for example). So the idea that various seats are reserved for certain ideologies is a brand-new invention by Democrats. Merrick Garland was hardly the conservative originalist that Antonin Scalia was, but Obama felt free to nominate him anyway.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  23. 16, there was more GOP opposition to Sotomayor than for any prior nominee so it wasn’t smooth sailing. Republican criticism of Kagan was also noticeable.

    DRJ (aede82)

  24. It’s worse. There have been almost 30 stolen seats over history!

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  25. @23

    Opposition and criticism are not histrionics. The Senate, and each Senator, is entitled to reject any nominee for any reason, and to criticize a potential nominee’s viewpoints and fitness for the bench. That is what “advise and consent” means.

    Big jump from that to saying, “you’re stealing a seat.”

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  26. Playing to low information, reflexive, angry people. Sounds familiar…both sides have descended to this.

    So true. But the media amplify Trump’s idiocy and misstatements, and manufacture a few more. They downplay, ignore and explain away those of his opponents. It’s hard to see just how far we have gone when the media is no longer part of the solution.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  27. From my last link, more than 77% of the GOP senators voted against Sotomayor:

    Republican opposition to the 21 Democratic presidential Supreme Court nominees who received a confirmation vote in the 20th Century therefore pales in comparison to the 77.5 percent of Republicans who voted against Sotomayor last week.

    In fact, there were more Republican caucus votes cast against Sotomayor than Republican votes cast against the last seven Democratic presidential nominees combined: Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Thurgood Marshall, Abe Fortas, Arthur Goldberg, Byron White, and Sherman Minton.

    Histtionics is defined as “exaggerated dramatic behavior designed to attract attention.” By GOP standards at the time, I’d say the GOP opposition was designed to attract attention.

    DRJ (aede82)

  28. If you change a norm you’re ‘stealing’ a seat. The GOP changed it 2016, and changed it back in 2020 so 2 thefts.

    But BOTH actions were normal. No party approves the other side’s appointments if foot-dragging will work. Both parties approve their own side’s appointments lickety-split. It’s been that way since the Founding.

    No president EVER has failed to make an appointment to the Court whenever there was a vacancy. It’s even been done (and confirmed!) in the last week before power was transferred.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  29. now you try to watch a youtube about movies, and you’re faced with shadow governor stacey abrams (who hasn’t won a thing) or martian schumer, staring at you, with their digital begging cup,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  30. But I agree that standards change; Comity was in short supply then and even less now; and Senators aren’t there to agree about things they disagree with.

    DRJ (aede82)

  31. DRJ (27):

    Not to disagree with your point about Sotomayor, who has not risen to my least expectations, but prior to 1955, it wasn’t the practice to grill nominees or engage in lengthy hearings. Only with Harlan Stone’s appointment shortly after Brown did the Senate become engaged (mostly because Southern Democrats insisted).

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  32. there weren’t any hearings until 1916, maybe it came alongside the progressive movements,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  33. Schumer and every Senator/Congressional critter is barking up the wrong tree.

    The issue here, is that SCOTUS has become powerful because Congress has abdicated much of the power to the courts (and executive).

    They’re upset that the courts won’t likely be there for them for the big, hot-topics of the day.

    whembly (c30c83)

  34. One person likely more displeased than Schumer with all this is Mr. Swing Vote John Roberts.

    beer ‘n pretzels (2a654e)

  35. A prediction: If a vacancy opens at any time during a Republican presidency and he Senate is controlled by the Democrats, no nominee will be considered until one of those two things change.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  36. The Democratic leaders (Sen Schumer, actually) were describing Sotomayor as philosophically similar to Justice Souter, who she was replacing. So even then that was an issue but even more today.

    DRJ (aede82)

  37. In 2016 President Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. The Senate decided not to act on the nomination.

    In 2020 the Democrats are saying that President Trump is not even allowed to nominate a person to the supreme court because of 2016.

    It’s not the same. It’s not precedent.

    We’ve had 29 nominations for Supreme Court in the last year of a president. 19 of those were when the president and senate were of the same party. Of those 19, 17 were approved. We’ve had 10 nominations were the president and the Senate were of different parties. I believe all of those 10 only two were approved.

    You may not like what the Senate did in 2016, but it is constitutional. If you don’t like it make an amendment to the constitution.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  38. One person likely more displeased than Schumer with all this is Mr. Swing Vote John Roberts.

    What bothers Roberts is not what bothers voters. He is concerned about the Court itself, and the threats to impeach members, or pack the Court, or otherwise destabilize HIS branch of government are what displease him.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  39. That is why the numbers about “the last seven Democratic presidential nominees combined” is revealing, Kevin M 31. All but one were nominated after questioning was common.

    DRJ (aede82)

  40. there weren’t any hearings until 1916, maybe it came alongside the progressive movements,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5) — 9/24/2020 @ 10:27 am

    It used to take a maximum of seven days to confirm a supreme court justice. In the early 1900s that changed because progressives saw the court as a way to change law instead of going through Congress.

    Can the President Nominate a Supreme Court Justice in an Election Season

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  41. All of this:
    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-time-to-fight/


    Yet who’s really trampling on our norms here? Which party is now threatening to use court packing as a political weapon? Which party scarcely bothered to veil their application of a religious test against Barrett? Which party threatened riots, arson, even civil war mere hours after Ginsburg had passed? Which party turned Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings into a sub-Oscar Wilde kangaroo court? And while we’re on the subject of norms, what in the world is “normal” about Roe v. Wade? Where is it inscribed that abortion is a constitutional right while things actually mentioned in the Constitution like hate speech and bearing arms are not? Who thinks a magical legal penumbra conjured up by the Court ought to be able to bulldoze countless state abortion laws? Who really believes that nine ex-lawyers should decide the contours of such a controversial and extraconstitutional issue, rather than the states and the people themselves?

    None of this is remotely “normal.” So while I too worry about a culture war so violent it cracks the institutions around it, there will be other times to register those concerns. On abortion, the pro-choicers fired first. Trump ought to join their fight, appoint Barrett, and fasten the bulkhead doors. And if Democrats threaten to pack the court, fine. Write that into every campaign commercial. Mention it on every doorstep.

    This is the most important fight of Trump’s presidency. Fortunately for once Republicans seem up to the challenge.

    whembly (c30c83)

  42. Of those 19, 17 were approved.

    The other two were:

    1) A Washington appointee who had voted to create the Court seat, and Article I, Section 6 said he had to wait until his term was completed before he could fill the seat. The name was withdrawn.

    2) Abe Fortas, whose elevation as Cheif was subjected to a bipartisan filibuster in 1968 for several reasons, some good (objections to him being LBJ’s stooge), some bad (Southern Democrat feelings about NY Jews). Fortas later resigned as an Associate Justice due to an ethics scandal.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  43. no he’s too concerned trying to be ‘on the right side of history’ whatever minitrue, determines that is at any one time,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  44. @27

    Histrionics is defined as “exaggerated dramatic behavior designed to attract attention.” By GOP standards at the time, I’d say the GOP opposition was designed to attract attention.

    Voting for or against a nominee is the duty of the Senators. That is not histrionics, by any definition.

    And notice you wrote “by GOP standards of the time.” This is why we got Trump — the insistence that the GOP have to act like gentlemen (and gentlewomen) while the other side does not.

    I am reminded for what Scalia wrote in RAV v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992):

    St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensbury Rules.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  45. The Ginsburg/? judgeship will be stolen by putting a conservative into a judgeship formerly held by a liberal.

    To echo former Senator Brown’s campaign to fill “Ted Kennedy’s seat”: It’s not Ginsberg’s seat, it’s the People’s seat.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  46. actually there was no such thing as hate speech, in the progressive era, we did have oliver wendell holmes say some speech is too enflamatory ‘shout fire in a crowded theatre’ and other such instrumentalities,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  47. schenck v. ohio, of course, the warren court in tinker, made actual speech, not a prerequisite, just whatever action, strikes your fancy,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  48. mind you in schenck, they didn’t touch on the constitutionality of the selective service act, just speech against it,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  49. No president EVER has failed to make an appointment to the Court whenever there was a vacancy. It’s even been done (and confirmed!) in the last week before power was transferred.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/24/2020 @ 10:19 am

    I agree it would be absurd to demand a president not make a supreme court appointment. There’s really no need to even compare this to Obama or any other president. The president is president until the end of his term, and he has the power to do this. It’s unusual because of this dynamic, because if a justice didn’t like one side, they would choose to retire when the other side’s in power. Ginsburg’s decisions don’t obligate her seat to the other party.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  50. Voting for or against a nominee is the duty of the Senators. That is not histrionics, by any definition.

    They knew she would be confirmed so the votes were for the effect, not the result. That would be expected now but that was not common then.

    DRJ (aede82)

  51. And Bork changed everything so I am not criticizing the GOP, only pointing out how drama had become part of the process.

    DRJ (aede82)

  52. if a dem puts up a nominee one is obligated to vote for him, to prove your humanity, now with social media, and every kind of ‘nudge’ it is more obligatory, marks like flake and murkowski were easy to manipulate, the latter is out, I don’t think synema could do worse, and even veruca salt has been read the riot act,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  53. Bork was not the first nominee to get that treatment, but others that happened to (e.g. Brandeis) were eventually confirmed.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  54. To echo former Senator Brown’s campaign to fill “Ted Kennedy’s seat”: It’s not Ginsberg’s seat, it’s the People’s seat.

    Kevin M

    This helps prove my point. Democrats view these offices from a partisan lens so it affects how they see the replacement process.

    DRJ (aede82)

  55. the dems strategy worked, after bork and even razzing doug ginsburg, they got their marshmallow in kennedy, I think it drove larry tribe out of his mind, (well it’s a short trip)

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  56. schenck v. ohio, of course, the warren court in tinker, made actual speech, not a prerequisite, just whatever action, strikes your fancy,

    One of those vehemently rejecting the “hate speech” argument was William O Douglas, pretty much a 1st Amendment absolutist.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  57. Well, yeah, Schumer saw Republicans trying to have it both ways, so of course Schumer says, “Me too!”

    Paul Montagu (39c87e)

  58. the lefts goal has to been to smash or transform every institution, that stands in their way, I’m sorry if that’s too john birchy, but that has been born out by history, welch had a primitive understanding of how non profits and educations shape that vision, every foundation that is not quintessentially conservative drifts left (that’s a combo of o’sullivans and conquests law)

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  59. he took an expansive view of speech, see tinker, one can further see the federal communication act, with it’s proscriptions and sinecures,

    re social media, the architects of the media landscape have made it clear, they never intended counterrevolutionaries to be able to utilize said media, they have taken steps to rectify that error,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  60. as churchill said in another text, ‘this isn’t the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning’

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  61. Trump’s first term has been “the phony war.”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  62. BTW, since the vogue now is to issue threats to prevent constitutional choices, how about Trump sends up an immigration overhaul and says “Pass it or I’ll round up ALL the illegals!”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  63. Boo-hoo. If the shoe were on the other foot, the Democrats would be doing the same thing. Heck, they are talking about expanding the SCOTUS in retaliation so it’s not a stretch to see them doing the same thing if they had the chance.

    Just remember that if you are a conservative who wants to vote for Biden. It’s not just Biden-vs-Trump. It’s the chances of Democrats expanding the SCOTUS to fulfill their ideological needs. It’s about expanding statehood to anyone anywhere to pack Congress with more Democrats.

    I shudder to think what our country will look like if Democrats control the White House, Congress, and SCOTUS after the election.

    Hoi Polloi (093fb9)

  64. This stems from the now-prevailing view by both sides of the aisle that, a vacant seat on the SC *belongs* to the party that put the justice on the Court. Their is not just a sense of entitlement, it ownership as well.

    Dana (20c070)

  65. Theirs

    Dana (20c070)

  66. could you explain the logic?

    I think it’s been 3 hours. I’m going with no. How long do you plan on waiting? Has anyone even tried?

    frosty (f27e97)

  67. This stems from the now-prevailing view by both sides of the aisle that, a vacant seat on the SC *belongs* to the party that put the justice on the Court. Their is not just a sense of entitlement, it ownership as well.

    Dana (20c070) — 9/24/2020 @ 11:27 am

    True. The seat belongs to the citizens. The president, whom the citizens elect, nominates the judge. The Senate – the “check” – confirms.

    Hoi Polloi (093fb9)

  68. BTW, since the vogue now is to issue threats to prevent constitutional choices, how about Trump sends up an immigration overhaul and says “Pass it or I’ll round up ALL the illegals!”

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/24/2020 @ 11:19 am

    He might say it, but he’s not going to do it.

    Time123 (b87ded)

  69. Patterico:

    I assume the simple answer is “Schumer is just being a hack” and I agree with that, but usually people have at least a theoretical argument behind their hackery. Here, I can’t even fathom what the theoretical argument is.

    6. time123 (c9382b) — 9/24/2020 @ 9:17 am

    My money is on #1.(He’s lying to inflame his base.)

    No, I like number 2:

    If you change a norm you’re ‘stealing’ a seat. The GOP changed it 2016, and changed it back in 2020 so 2 thefts.

    Number 1 is true too, but would mean, in terms of a answer to Patterico’s question, that there is no theoretical argument, and I think there is one.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  70. Barack Obama made a argument for not confirming a justice in this situation, but one that would apply only to Republicans!

    https://obama.medium.com/my-statement-on-the-passing-of-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-5a925b627457?gi=96c37d628495

    That disappears but I can copy from here for instance:

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/obama-filling-ginsburg-s-seat-apply-rules-consistency-n1240521

    “Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in,” Obama wrote.

    “A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment.

    “The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard,” Obama wrote.

    Now the thing is, maybe Mitch McConnell, back in 2016, qualified his standard by limiting it only to a situation where the President and the Senate majority are of different parties, and he didn’t say what some other Republicnns said, or say it as the it was widely reported..

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  71. You know, one interesting thing about Democrats’ present carping over the Merrick Garland nomination is that it is far different than how I remember them behaving at that time four years ago. When Cocaine Mitch decided to hold open the seat until after the election — i.e., not to give Garland a confirmation hearing — I recall Democrats and their progressive media allies chortling, “Just wait until Hillary wins the election and our party captures the Senate; she’s going to get revenge by nominating a staunch progressive to replace Scalia.” Because of course back then it seemed to them to be a cinch that Hillary would trounce Trump. It’s not as if they were really committed to having Merrick Garland in that seat; they just wanted the campaign issue of obstinate Republicans refusing to consider the nominee of the first (half-)black President.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  72. But how can you argue they will have stolen both seats? I genuinely don’t get it. Even if, as a Democrat, your own standard has shifted, don’t you have to acknowledge that the new standard you advocate was the right one in 2016 — especially since your new “always refuse confirmation in an election year” standard, if it applies now when the presidency and Senate are held by the same party, has to have applied with double force in 2016 when the Senate had an extra partisan reason to apply that standard?

    Schumer might believe that a seat vacated 9 months before an election should be filled, but one vacated 6 weeks before an election should not, I suppose.

    Given that confirmation normally takes much less than 9 months, but (typically, for recent nominees) more than 6 weeks, it seems like a colorable, if extremely convenient, position.

    Dave (1bb933)

  73. @72

    You know, one interesting thing about Democrats’ present carping over the Merrick Garland nomination is that it is far different than how I remember them behaving at that time four years ago. When Cocaine Mitch decided to hold open the seat until after the election — i.e., not to give Garland a confirmation hearing — I recall Democrats and their progressive media allies chortling, “Just wait until Hillary wins the election and our party captures the Senate; she’s going to get revenge by nominating a staunch progressive to replace Scalia.” Because of course back then it seemed to them to be a cinch that Hillary would trounce Trump. It’s not as if they were really committed to having Merrick Garland in that seat; they just wanted the campaign issue of obstinate Republicans refusing to consider the nominee of the first (half-)black President.

    JVW (ee64e4) — 9/24/2020 @ 12:03 pm

    All of this. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

    The Democrats who wagging their fingers at Republican and said Hillary would fill it with a RGB clone.

    whembly (c30c83)

  74. It’s not as if they were really committed to having Merrick Garland in that seat;

    LOL

    Dave (1bb933)

  75. If somebody mugs you at gunpoint, and as they’re getting away, you tell them “You’ll go to jail for this,” is that evidence that you’re “not really committed” to your wallet?

    Dave (1bb933)

  76. ASADB
    All Senators Are Duplicitous Bastards

    I was going to write *bleep* 50, but I believe most are redeemable once they leave politics

    steveg (43b7a5)

  77. This stems from the now-prevailing view by both sides of the aisle that, a vacant seat on the SC *belongs* to the party that put the justice on the Court. Their is not just a sense of entitlement, it ownership as well.

    No, they may be possessive of their “own” seats but they dispute the other side’s claims. In fact the correct view is “the seats are filled as those representatives the People have chosen decide.” As a matter of fact, I think the rules for that got written down.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  78. It’s not as if they were really committed to having Merrick Garland in that seat;

    If Hillary had been elected, that nomination would have been withdrawn, and the Senate would have approved any reasonable choice. But advice and consent is not a rubber stamp; the other party is not going to approve someone anathema to it or its base. Should the court be evenly divided on the topic, the Democrats are going to be concerned about abortion (witness Souter) and the GOP about RKBA (see Garland). Obama’s mistake was putting up such a rabid anti-gunner judge. The GOP could have tolerated much, but not that.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  79. The worst of all “outs”, and yes, prayers for him…
    http://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/trump-health-official-michael-caputo-190048090.html

    urbanleftbehind (5c4807)

  80. Reminder that Supreme Court Justices can be very important:

    MarketWatch
    @MarketWatch
    ·
    OPINION: We may need climate lockdowns to halt climate change, Mariana Mazzucato writes. That might mean governments limiting private vehicle use, banning consumption of red meat, etc. We must do capitalism differently to avoid that.

    __ _

    Remember, only forty-some days left.
    _

    harkin (fabd28)

  81. It’s not as if they were really committed to having Merrick Garland in that seat;

    Thatt was pretty clear.

    Mitch McConnell didn;t even want to move forward with hearings for Merrick Garland with the idea that they;d confirm him in ther lame duck session if Hillary Clinton was elected. (of course, Obama could have withdrawn that nomiation in that event, but there was a pretty good chance he wouldn’t want to do that to a man he’d offered the nomination to and who had accepted it in good faith. And what would they lose compared to doing nothing at all?)

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/us/ginsburg-vacancy-garland.html

    udge Garland had twice made it onto Mr. Obama’s short list, but the president chose Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan instead. He would keep Judge Garland in reserve as a sort of “break glass in case of emergency” candidate.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  82. Kevin M: Obama’s mistake was putting up such a rabid anti-gunner judge. The GOP could have tolerated much, but not that.

    I didn’t know he was an anti-gun (or right to regulate and prohibit and license gun ownership arbitrarily) judge.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  83. for two years, that doddering old man in a suit, and his chimp circus, investigated him every which way, and found nothing, I can see you are very sincere,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  84. If somebody mugs you at gunpoint, and as they’re getting away, you tell them “You’ll go to jail for this,” is that evidence that you’re “not really committed” to your wallet?

    Well, you weren’t willing to risk your life for it, right Dave? I’ll leave it up to you to determine the appropriate level of commitment.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  85. Or let me put it this way: If someone snatched your child and all you did was stand there shouting “You’ll go to jail for this,” would you be able to claim that you were truly committed to your children?

    JVW (ee64e4)

  86. @48. Fancy this:

    “Wait a minute… there might be legal precedent… Haley vs. United States. Haley 7, United States, nothing. You see, it can be done!” – Hedley Lamarr [Harvey Korman] ‘Blazing Saddles’ 1974

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  87. @61. But then Churchill was canned in 1945; no good deed goes unpunished.

    “You’re fired.” – Donald Trump ‘The Apprentice’ host, 14 seasons, NBC TV

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  88. “I promise, as a Republican,… [fill in the blank.]”- Lindsey Graham

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  89. I read the hacks at the cia and fbi took out insurance policies during the coup effort.
    Didn’t know one could purchase a comprehensive coup policy.

    mg (8cbc69)

  90. Unlike liberty mutual, ‘you pay more than what you need’

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  91. This might be classified as a catfight:

    https://news.yahoo.com/matt-gaetz-accuses-gop-kelly-165451283.html

    urbanleftbehind (5c4807)

  92. Shes done such a bang up job, hasnt she

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  93. Or let me put it this way: If someone snatched your child and all you did was stand there shouting “You’ll go to jail for this,” would you be able to claim that you were truly committed to your children?

    If there was absolutely no chance of rescuing the child yourself, and the police were your only hope for a happy ending, I don’t see why not.

    In Garland’s case there was literally nothing the Dems could do, other than trying to win the election, to achieve an outcome acceptable to their constituents. What more could they have done? McConnell’s position was non-negotiable.

    Dave (1bb933)

  94. For grins, here’s some Ginsberg satire from the Babylon Bee.

    Reading the article is optional.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  95. McConnell’s position was non-negotiable.

    The GOP rank-and-file’s position, from Romney to Trump to Cruz was non-negotiable. It was an eye-to-eye, shoulder-to-shoulder thing, if you’ll pardon the mixed metaphor.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  96. This might be classified as a catfight

    It’s silly, too. $50 million to bribe Trump? WAAAAY too much.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  97. Hedley Lamarr

    He had no luck suing Hedy, though.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  98. @97

    That was funny. I especially like the part about President Xi Jinping.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  99. The Babylon Bee has not been funny ha-ha in a while, either.

    nk (1d9030)

  100. Oh it nearly captures the absurdity of the era

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  101. Merrick Garland and guns:

    Although CATO thought that Garland was someone the GOP could settle for (not expecting a Trump victory), they said this about his 2nd Amendment views (which were fairly thin in the record):

    Libertarians and conservatives should be concerned about Garland’s position on gun rights, however. When the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller—in which the Supreme Court would eventually rule that the Second Amendment conveys an individual right to own a firearm—was before the D.C. Circuit, Garland voted to re‐​consider the three‐​judge panel’s decision that found an individual right to own a gun. Garland also once voted to uphold a Clinton‐​era practice of holding onto firearm background check files, essentially creating a gun registry, despite the fact that federal law prohibits the government from holding onto the files.

    https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/merrick-garland-best-conservatives-could-hope

    The NRA was more direct in its opposition. OF course they had a more narrow view than CATO, but they also held the pulse of much to the GOP base:

    Garland’s antigun ideology is clear from his record. While serving in his capacity as an appeals court judge, for example, Garland voted to give D.C.’s unconstitutional gun ban a second chance. He also cast a vote to uphold a Clinton-era policy of documenting and registering law-abiding gun buyers, despite federal statutes passed specifically to prevent this.

    National registration. The individual right protected by the Second Amendment. Gun bans. These are issues that cut to the heart of the right to keep and bear arms. And whenever he had the chance, Garland was on the wrong side of them…..

    Obama and his cronies know that the Supreme Court’s support for the individual right to keep and bear firearms under the Second Amendment is (at best for pro-gun advocates) evenly split. The next appointment will inevitably sway the court for or against upholding the promise of the landmark Heller and McDonald decisions.

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160426/merrick-garland-must-not-be-confirmed-to-the-us-supreme-court

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  102. I think it was the closeness of the Heller vote, no missing Scalia, plus allowing Clinton to do something “temporarily” that he was prohibited from doing at all. As we have seen, “temporary” can be a very long time.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  103. Unlike camelbert or the tedious oliver, yes they are hilarious.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  104. tedious oliver

    Yeah, it’s always funny to recite last week’s sophomoric ironies that have been cycling through all the woke blogs.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  105. Look for the death penalty to be abolished again, 7-2, Thomas and Alito dissenting, maybe as soon as the next term. Roe v. Wade will never be overturned under the present system — that is for as long as there is a Constitutions with a Ninth Amendment and a Supreme Court with stare decisis.

    nk (1d9030)

  106. Change is coming- especially of the D’s control everything by 2030. Expect Breyer, Alito, Long Dong Silver and ‘Bart’ to be gone in a decade; one passing of natural causes, two retirees and one in an alcohol-related incident.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  107. Plagiarist JoeyBee ‘put the lid’ on his press pool today at 9:30 AM in Wilmington.

    That’s 4:30 PM, Moscow ‘Early Bird Special’ time.

    … and Putin smiled.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  108. nk, i’m super curious why you think the court is likely to invalidate the death penalty again.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  109. i’m super curious why you think the court is likely to invalidate the death penalty again.

    Well. we know that ACB has real issues with it (and with abortion). Although for the life of me I don’t see 7 votes. Thomas and Alito are voting no, Roberts is not the guy to make waves, so he’s a no. So, you need either Kavanaugh or Gorsuch to even get to 5. Don’t see it.

    I think it’s easier to get to 5 for dialing back Casey, although the core 1st trimester abortion right will never, ever be overturned (and if it was, there would be an amendment or 5 more justices).

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  110. Or let me put it this way: If someone snatched your child and all you did was stand there shouting “You’ll go to jail for this,” would you be able to claim that you were truly committed to your children?

    Brethren, commitment to a child was addressed a long time ago:

    The Judgment of Solomon is a story from the Hebrew Bible in which King Solomon of Israel ruled between two women both claiming to be the mother of a child. Solomon revealed their true feelings and relationship to the child by suggesting to cut the baby in two, with each woman to receive half. With this strategy, he was able to discern the non-mother as the woman who entirely approved of this proposal, while the actual mother begged that the sword might be sheathed and the child committed to the care of her rival. Some consider this approach to justice an archetypal example of an impartial judge displaying wisdom in making a ruling.

    With wisdom, make your rulings likewise.

    felipe (023cc9)

  111. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/24/2020 @ 6:15 pm

    That was a great sight-gag. In another piece about an atheist being converted by a bumper sticker, was the suggestion of a fantastic bumper sticker; Do you follow Jesus this closely?

    Someone please make these!

    felipe (023cc9)

  112. Who would have thought that mail-in ballots would have been found in the trash in a battleground state? Who would have thought they were military ballots? Who would have thought the overwhelming majority would have voted for Trump?

    https://www.yahoo.com/gma/us-attorney-battleground-pennsylvania-investigating-023800972.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=2_15

    But hey…Trump is an idiot for thinking this election might have shenanigans. And liberals have told us time and again that stuff like this simply doesn’t happen.

    Hoi Polloi (dc4124)

  113. nk, i’m super curious why you think the court is likely to invalidate the death penalty again.

    Kavanaugh and Barrett on the visceral level, the same as the “liberal” justices, it rubs their sense of (evolving) standards of decency the wrong way. Roberts and Gorsuch pretty much for the plurality Furman view — that nationwide it is applied arbitrarily and chaotically and prosecutorial discretion the fly in the Gregg ointment in that handful of jurisdictions which apply it consistently.

    nk (1d9030)

  114. But hey…Trump is an idiot for thinking this election might have shenanigans. And liberals have told us time and again that stuff like this simply doesn’t happen.

    Maybe they voted twice, like Trump told them to.

    Dave (1bb933)

  115. did your test for the fake chineser virus turn out perfect like president donalds mr nk?

    otherwise can i have your stuff?

    Dave (1bb933)

  116. Shes vouched by noah feldman (that yutz)oona hathaway (shirley) and jennifer martinez (padillas atty)

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  117. Yes, it did, thank you, Dave.

    nk (1d9030)

  118. Who would have thought that mail-in ballots would have been found in the trash in a battleground state? Who would have thought they were military ballots?
    ….
    But hey…Trump is an idiot for thinking this election might have shenanigans. And liberals have told us time and again that stuff like this simply doesn’t happen.

    Fake. A frame. A put up job. Trump people (or Putin people but what’s the difference) in that local office “discarded” those ballots, then called Barr’s DOJ to hold a press conference even before the “investigation” had started in order to add to the f***ing with the election that we’ll be seeing a lot more of from the orange and his cohorts.

    nk (1d9030)

  119. Maybe they voted twice, like Trump told them to.
    Dave (1bb933) — 9/25/2020 @ 4:43 am

    How did those postal workers, who are not electoral officials, know that?

    Or maybe liberals are disenfranchising the military?

    Which is more believable?

    I know. It’s the liberals.

    Hoi Polloi (dc4124)

  120. So now that hunter was more likely the one with the hookers, yet the bureau pushed the claims of a suspected russian spy, egg on face.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  121. How did those postal workers, who are not electoral officials, know that?

    The ballots, if they were discarded, were discarded by the county elections office, not the post office.

    I note that the DOJ press release – worded intentionally to aggrieve Trump cultists – has been taken down.

    Dave (1bb933)

  122. You can actually vote three ways in Mr. President Donald Trump’s America, Mr. Dave. By mail, in person at an early voting location, or in person at a regular polling place on Election Day.

    And you know what else? If you spoil any of the three ballots, you can exchange it for a new, unspoiled one, but you have to give the spoiled one back so it can be “discarded”.

    And you know what else else? If you received a mail ballot, but changed your mind and decided to vote in person, you have to give it back so it can be “discarded” before they’ll give you and in-person ballot.

    But what the what else else elsest will be is Trump’s fat butt-gerbil DOJ creating fake voting fraud the way they created fake Russian collusion for Mr. General Flynn. That’s what the what else elsest will be if Barr wants to keep his job.

    nk (1d9030)

  123. So youve been talking out of your (redacted) the whole time

    https://mobile.twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1309465118795849730

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  124. #130 And what explosive documents in the Flynn Case is Mollie Hemingway talking about?

    Appalled (1a17de)

  125. She doesn’t link to anything. She just asserts.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  126. As opposed to the breathless ouvno that haberman ignatius and co have offered up for three years.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  127. Heres one
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1309363125544783875

    But you voted for the soviets mark obama. So youd fool easy

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  128. @132. It’s spelled “lies”

    Time123 (53ef45)

  129. Steele hired a suspected russian spy as hissubsource, and the bureau knew all thistime.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  130. @135 You may think she’s in the ‘pro-Trump’ faction, but the last 24hours of document releases largely substantiates her arguments of the last 2 years. You mean wanna rephrase that. 😉

    whembly (c30c83)

  131. Now wray has enabled this tripe since he had that meltdown over the terrorist surveillance, he still wasnt the worst camdidate congressman mike rogers was

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  132. Kennedy was their potted plant, then they switched for @dread pirate roberts, keeper of the fisa courts integrity lol

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  133. So obamacare gay marriage whats the last abomination he foisted on us?

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  134. #134 So, looking at the Chuck Ross thing (thanks for the link), I see that there was an FBI agent who disagreed with management, and who was not conducting the interview that generated the false statement charge.

    Not feeling the deep state conspiracy here — or any reason to reverse a plea based on actions Flynn admitted taking.

    I do look forward to our host opining in these matters…

    Appalled (1a17de)

  135. There was nothing to this case, in fact it wa driven by asuspected russian mole,

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  136. 129. nk (1d9030) — 9/25/2020 @ 5:48 am

    You can actually vote three ways in Mr. President Donald Trump’s America, Mr. Dave. By mail, in person at an early voting location, or in person at a regular polling place on Election Day.

    Early voting iis usually co-ordinated with Election Day voting, and there’s always at least one gap day (Moday) n between, so a persn canot both vote early and on Election Day.

    The problem with a voer being able to vote both absentee and in person using the same registration information is obvious and can be solved in a number of different ways.

    This tends to be ignored in the coverage

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5THPwpQYFg

    I mean thsis: https://www.betterknowaballot.com

    This goes state by state but doesn’t describe when and how you disqualify yourself from voting the other way, or f=if there is or is not a way to fool the system.

    I find in the Census that people do not want to be counted twice, and they are very careful about it. Now this is not the same thing. And even if only one out of 10 or so will do it, or cast the vote of a deceased family member, it could be a bit of a problem.

    The Republicans now seem to be gravitating toward a claim that when an absentee ballot is mailed without being requested, there is a much greater chance of people voting twice, or of a ballot being intercepted in the mail because many people remain registered at two different locations (often without knowing it)

    And you know what else? If you spoil any of the three ballots, you can exchange it for a new, unspoiled one, but you have to give the spoiled one back so it can be “discarded”.

    That’s when you vote in person,

    I returned half a ballot in the New York primary in June because it was split into two pages and one went into the scanner. The other one wouldn’t go through. By mistake, I had been handed an affidavit ballot for the presidential race. I had marked it for Andrew Yang, but on my second try I decided to be serious and cast a vote for Joe Biden (although none of it mattered) Biden was the best of the Democrats. I thought so too in 2008 but then he was out of the race so I voted for the second best, Obama, in the New York primary. (I later voted for McCain in the general election)

    And you know what else else? If you received a mail ballot, but changed your mind and decided to vote in person, you have to give it back so it can be “discarded” before they’ll give you and in-person ballot.

    The rules are different in every state as to when an absentee ballot disqualifies you from voting in person and if the rule is one particular way, absentee ballots can’t be logged in and counted till after Election Day. And they may not tell average voters the real rule.

    In New York, you have the right to vote in person through the tim when the polls close on Election Day. Only then are absentee ballots checked against the list of people who voted in person (and counted if they didn’t, and everything else is OK. If you vote by mail, there’s nobody at a table logging you in and telling you everything is OK, nor can you correct your ballot and get another if you mess it up, nor can you use a BMD (Ballot Marking Device) to actually mark your ballot.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  137. Maybe they voted twice, like Trump told them to.

    Military ballots are almost all mailed from elsewhere.

    But Dave, you seem just about as cavalier with military ballots as these election officials were.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  138. But then, see the PA Court ruling invalidating all ballots sent without that inner envelope.

    https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/pennsylvania-naked-ballots-supreme-court-philadelphia-20200921.html

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  139. But you voted for the soviets mark obama. So youd fool easy

    I’ve always wondered how Obama, caught on tape colluding with the Soviets Russians, got away with it.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  140. I’ve always wondered how Obama, caught on tape colluding with the Soviets Russians, got away with it.

    The evidence shows that he was conning them – asking them to wait for something he never delivered.

    After the election his missile defense policy hardened, and he made no concessions.

    Dave (1bb933)

  141. Dave (1bb933) — 9/25/2020 @ 10:14 am

    The evidence shows that he was conning them – asking them to wait for something he never delivered.

    That’s pretty much also what Mike Flynn did, in his conversation with the Russian Ambassador. Of course, he couldn’t anything else, since he hadn;t consuted Donald Trump inn advance. He didn’t consult the Trump people after the fact, either, until the FBI told the tale on him. But lied to them instead about not discussing sanctions at all.

    Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3)

  142. After the election his missile defense policy hardened, and he made no concessions.

    And Trump put NATO into Poland and the Baltic states bigly. But I guess that’s different.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  143. I’ve always wondered how Obama, caught on tape colluding with the Soviets Russians, got away with it.

    This is hilarious because, of course, he was responding to the Russians whining he wasn’t giving them what they wanted, and he didn’t give them what he wanted. He promised more flexibility down the road, but that’s normal statemanship.

    But by this standard of collusion, what is Trump begging Russia to hack Hillary’s server and leak her Secretary of State emails, to help him win election which we all recognize were sensitive? What is Trump asking Ukraine for a favor in announcing Biden is being investigated? What is Trump asking China for help with Biden in exchange for supporting their freaking concentration camps, and apparently Trump’s flip flop on COVID?

    It’s always amazing when the brick wall of ‘prove even more’ against Trump turns into ‘well it speaks for itself’ against Trump’s opponents.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  144. And Trump put NATO into Poland and the Baltic states bigly. But I guess that’s different.

    Year joined NATO:

    Poland-1999
    Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia-2004

    Trump had nothing to do with it.

    Rip Murdock (a5d859)

  145. The evidence shows that he was conning them – asking them to wait for something he never delivered.

    Or, you know, maybe he was actually embarrassed at what he was caught telling Medvedev, so he had to back down on his plans to deliver more concessions to Russia. But I suppose Obama fans (like fans of that other guy) would tell us that their man was playing eleven-dimensional chess and knew his words would be caught on the hot mic, so it was his way of making a bogus promise to Russia that he knew he wouldn’t have to deliver on. Genius!

    JVW (ee64e4)

  146. putin invaded the ukraine, and obamas’ response was to give them rations and medical supplies, the whole polish cabinet was decimated in smolensk and he got a much more cooperative administration,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  147. And Trump put NATO into Poland and the Baltic states bigly. But I guess that’s different.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 9/25/2020 @ 11:31 am

    It is different in that it doesn’t speak to whether Obama gave Russia what it asked for in this ‘collusion’.

    And it is different in that moving troops out of Germany, wasting a couple billion in US military infrastructure, and weakening NATO, is probably not something Putin’s upset about by any stretch. Obama wound up being very naive about Russia, but Trump seems to have a problem distinguishing his interests from the country’s. That’s why we had that emoulement’s clause, why we want to see his tax returns, why it’s ok to ask a gotcha question once in a while.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  148. Or, you know, maybe he was actually embarrassed at what he was caught telling Medvedev

    Good point.

    One thing Trump is not, is embarrassed by this sort of stuff, but the comparison is strained.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  149. “But Dave, you seem just about as cavalier with military ballots as these election officials were.”

    “Or maybe liberals are disenfranchising the military?
    Which is more believable?”

    It was explained to investigators the envelopes used for official overseas, military, absentee and mail-in ballot requests are so similar, that the staff believed that adhering to the protocol of preserving envelopes unopened would cause them to miss such ballot requests. Our interviews further revealed that this issue was a problem in the primary election–therefore a known issue–and that the problem has not been corrected.

    https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdpa/pr/letter-luzerne-county-bureau-elections

    Davethulhu (07bb18)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6620 secs.