Patterico's Pontifications

10/13/2020

Open Thread: Amy Coney Barrett Hearings

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:03 am



I don’t have much to say. I support her being confirmed; she will be confirmed; in the meantime there is a ton of hypocrisy being spouted and I am not wasting my time watching it.

I saw Ben Sasse had a lovely little lecture about how civics is different from politics and constitutes the stuff we should al agree on, like the proper role of each branch. It was well done, but I could not take it seriously coming from him. After all, one would think that basic civics would compel uniform opposition to a president leveraging critical foreign assistance to seek an announcement of a criminal investigation of his chief political rival. And yet, here we are, aren’t we, Senator Sasse?

It’s true nobody can get along in the country anymore. Far too many on both sides assume that the other side is evil and is actively out to destroy America, and each side has a trove of actual facts that they can both cite and exaggerate in service of their own pet narrative. This is the theme of David French’s latest book, which sees a danger of the country splitting apart due to our mutual hostility and suspicion. I’ll likely report on it before the election, but first I owe you posts on Woodward’s and Andrew Weissman’s books.

Anyway, if you have urgent thoughts on the kabuki theater that is a Supreme Court justice’s confirmation process, that’s why we have a comments section. Have at it!

UPDATE: I think this is notable:

359 Responses to “Open Thread: Amy Coney Barrett Hearings”

  1. and yet you are pushing an enabler of the fraud against kavanaugh, kamala harris,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  2. I like ACB. She seems like an OK judge.

    Time123 (7cca75)

  3. she’s very sharp, which shows the advantage of a non ivy nominee, like scalia counseled,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  4. funny how the same waterboy for kimberlin, cody shearer, was a party to the propagation of the steele dossier, something catherine herridge turned up,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  5. She said that only rights explicit in the constitution count.
    I no longer like her as much.
    I know this is a common POV, but I hate it.

    Time123 (7cca75)

  6. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Time123 (ea2b98)

  7. never trumper mansplaining
    brilliant

    mg (8cbc69)

  8. first I owe you posts on Woodward’s and Andrew Weissman’s books.“
    _

    lol
    _

    harkin (25433a)

  9. @5

    She said that only rights explicit in the constitution count.
    I no longer like her as much.
    I know this is a common POV, but I hate it.

    Time123 (7cca75) — 10/13/2020 @ 8:21 am

    um… she’s right budddy. Otherwise, the alternative is more legislating from the bench that seeks to undermine those spelled out rights.

    whembly (a23745)

  10. @9, disagree, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The rights spelled out in the constitution are not inclusive. Furthermore, the government only has the powers specifically given to it. The people retain all the rest.

    Time123 (ea2b98)

  11. you don’t get to make up rights, that’s the point,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  12. well said, Time123.

    While this is a bit artificial, it is the correct way to read the constitution. It’s not a list of what the government can’t do.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  13. UPDATE: I think this is notable:

    Patterico (115b1f)

  14. and yet you are pushing an enabler of the fraud against kavanaugh, kamala harris,

    That’s a lie.

    I am advocating voting for Biden despite her. When she was announced as the running mate I thought any chance I had of voting for the Biden ticket was done.

    Then Trump started encouraging people to cheat and refusing to commit to a peaceful transition. I have come to see him not only as a criminal but as a clear and present danger to stability in the country.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  15. “ first I owe you posts on Woodward’s and Andrew Weissman’s books.“
    _

    lol
    _

    I’m not sure what’s so funny.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  16. you don’t get to make up rights, that’s the point,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5) — 10/13/2020 @ 8:37 am

    I already have the rights. That’s the point. I don’t need to find a right on a list from the founding to prove I have it. YOU need to find where the constitution gives congress the power to take it away before you limit it.

    For example: I have the right to write software even though the word software doesn’t appear in the constitution. I can even sell that software.

    Unless the constitution specifically gives the government some power you don’t have the right to infringe on my rights.
    But, base on other parts of the document you could restrict my ability to sell that software to the Iranian government.

    Time123 (7cca75)

  17. MaxBlumenthal
    @maxblumenthal

    Sen. Dick Durbin grills Amy Barrett about her views on George Floyd and race, then chastises her for not being tough enough on “gangbangers and thugs” in Chicago. I almost lost track of who the Republican in the exchange was.
    __

    She certainly has some lefty heads spinning.
    _

    harkin (25433a)

  18. Less Sasse. More Weissmann.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  19. What about people who claim health care and climate free from change are rights?

    harkin (25433a)

  20. Less Sasse. More Weissmann”
    __

    Accidentally wiping 20 phones isn’t easy ya know.
    _

    harkin (25433a)

  21. “I already have the rights. That’s the point. I don’t need to find a right on a list from the founding to prove I have it. YOU need to find where the constitution gives congress the power to take it away before you limit it.”

    Gay marriage isn’t gonna ban itself.

    Davethulhu (1ebef9)

  22. I already have the rights. That’s the point. I don’t need to find a right on a list from the founding to prove I have it. YOU need to find where the constitution gives congress the power to take it away before you limit it.

    Do you have the right to health care, provided by the taxpayers?
    Do you have the right to abort a child up to the time of birth?
    Do you have the right to change your gender with the government paying for it?

    These are all “rights” that Democrats have claimed. Of course, maybe you can figure out why I quoted the term “right.”

    It does not mean what Democrats think it means.

    Hoi Polloi (92d467)

  23. We talked the Ninth Amendment to death, right here, during Roberts’ confirmation hearings. I personally think that it’s more than Bork’s “inkblot in the Bill of Rights” (yes, he said that), and also more than Roberts’ “suggestion of a general right to liberty”, but I also think that it’s not a smorgasbord from which activist liberal courts can pick and choose rights to “selectively incorporate” either.

    I see no reason to interpret Barrett’s comment as anything other than that, as a judge, she will do only what the law explicitly requires her to do and not just whimsically make up law (think symbolic speech and qualified immunity) because she likes it at the time. (Which, if you think about it, is a remarkable promise from a woman and a consummation devoutly to be wished.)

    nk (1d9030)

  24. Do you have the right to health care, provided by the taxpayers? I don’t think so.
    Do you have the right to abort a child up to the time of birth? I think so if it’s medically necessary for the health of the mother and /or the fetus is not viable. I also think it’s a tragedy every time it happens.
    Do you have the right to change your gender with the government paying for it? Changing your gender is none of my business. I don’t think you have the right for the public to pay for it.

    Time123 (7cca75)

  25. its not a right, the last is a manifestation of disturbed thinking, the previous has been an excuse for 55 million perhaps an entire generation wiped out,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  26. @10

    @9, disagree, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The rights spelled out in the constitution are not inclusive. Furthermore, the government only has the powers specifically given to it. The people retain all the rest.

    Time123 (ea2b98) — 10/13/2020 @ 8:32 am

    I think we’re arguing about different things or that we’re both fundamentally misunderstanding our points.

    As a judge, the explicit rights on the constitution matters. The “people retain all the rest” means that those are not rights, as the “people” can grant/restrict them. (ie, the basis of the 10th amendment).

    whembly (c30c83)

  27. ould al agree on, like the proper role of each branch. It was well done, but I could not take it seriously coming from him. After all, one would think that basic civics would compel uniform opposition to a president leveraging critical foreign assistance to seek an announcement of a criminal investigation of his chief political rival.

    Trump didn’t do that. The Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland did. On his own initiative perhaps in consultation with Mulvaney, And only in September. Because he thought that might cause Trump to lift his hold. When word of what Sondland was telling people like Senator Ron Johnson got back to him, Trump said he was not interested in any quid pro quo.

    Trump put on the hold because his mind was poisoned by Russian propaganda probably conveyed through Giuliani, who didn’t understand he was being fed distortions.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  28. Do you have a right to walk your dog past St. John’s Church even though the Secret Service says you can’t go there right now because the President is getting himself photographed holding up a Bible?

    nk (1d9030)

  29. I just gotta express my joy that we’re getting yet another great judge and Trump’s more likely to lose anyway. That has to make him mad. I hope as Ted Cruz scrapbooks his Presidential campaign bumper stickers in his attic this eases his sobs a little.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  30. I get what you’re saying. I agree, other parts of the constitution justify restrictions of rights for specific reasons.

    Saying I can’t swing my arms if I’m going to hit you is a proper restriction my rights.
    Saying I can’t swing my arms without a good reason in an improper restriction on my rights.

    I think that squares the difference.

    I want a SCJ to give a vocal defense if individual liberty. But that’s not going to happen. I’m either going to get a SCJ that says what they’ll do about abortion in coded language.

    Time123 (ea2b98)

  31. Some conservative talk radio people are expecting some kind of last minute attack on Amy Coney Barrett based on hat happened to Brett Kavanaugh. One of them thought maybe it could be an accusation that, 30 years ago, she made some anti-LGBT slurs.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  32. Not everything is spelled out in text or Constitution which is why the political leanings of a justice make a difference.

    I’d love one of the senators to ask her how she defines “marriage” for example.

    Or what the word “appropriate” means in Section 2 of the 15th Amendment:

    The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Victor (00af29)

  33. “I just gotta express my joy that we’re getting yet another great judge and Trump’s more likely to lose anyway.”
    _

    Expressing joy over ‘yet another’ result of a Trump victory while cheering for him to lose is so pure.
    _

    harkin (7fb4c9)

  34. I’d like a judge that defines

    The Congress shall have power

    as *only* the Congress shall have power, in all the Amendments with these enabling clauses. I’d also like a Ferrari with Scarlett Johansson in the passenger seat.

    nk (1d9030)

  35. @33, Why? Trump is terrible and has screwed up a lot of things. That’s not the same thing as being bad in all ways and circumstances. Many of us that don’t like Trump have formed that opinion for specific reasons. It’s not a universal condemnation of everything he has done or could do. Why is that so hard to grasp?

    Time123 (ea2b98)

  36. I don;t know if there’s ever been a case testing the meaning of the word “appropriate” unless the Supreme Court in the late 1800s practically nullified it.

    I would probably assume it is similar to “necessary and proper”

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  37. Blind hogs and acorns. Although this is more of a stopped clock being right twice a day. Trump surrendered judicial appointments to Don McGahn (and whoever his surrogate is now) from day one.

    nk (1d9030)

  38. “Why is that so hard to grasp?”
    _

    Try grasping what the pending SCOTUS would look like if Madame Corruption had won.
    _

    harkin (7fb4c9)

  39. . Although this is more of a stopped clock being right twice a day

    Judges are one. The other time he was right was about Regeneron being a cure for Covid.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  40. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    The words “invented”, “newly discovered” or “emergent” do not appear in that amendment.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  41. When Biden judges block and delay any conservative efforts by a Republican legislature or a Republican governor or a future Republican president, I’m sure the Biden supporters here will take credit.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  42. SCOTUS just ruled against the Democrat’s emolument case.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-strikes-down-democrats-emoluments-clause-suit-against-trump?via=twitter_page
    “Without comment, the Supreme Court justices upheld a previous U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that the matter was a political dispute not fit for the courts.”

    whembly (c30c83)

  43. BTW, is Whitehorse a conspiracy theorist? All these shadowy groups out to undermine our Democracy!

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  44. is the pope um, line

    https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/13/tom-cruise-and-hayley-atwell-handcuffed-together-as-they-film-intense-mission-impossible-7-sc

    no mediamatters and splc are doing gods work,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  45. “Why is that so hard to grasp?”
    _

    Try grasping what the pending SCOTUS would look like if Madame Corruption had won.
    _

    harkin (7fb4c9) — 10/13/2020 @ 9:56 am

    There wouldn’t be one. The GOP won’t vote on a nomination by a Democrat.

    Time123 (7cca75)

  46. Or, Whitehouse.

    He’s now going on about popular votes. What a fracking whackjob.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  47. The Declaration of Independence lists the complaints or accusations against the Crown.

    The Constitution forms a system of government contrary to a monarchy. Each article addressing a complaint in the Declaration. The two cannot be separated.

    The Bill of Rights, however, is reserved for the people.

    I think little of the Supreme Court, and I don’t care who’s on it. According to the Constitution, only one chief justice is required. But nine justices has been the tradition for like 150 years. Some might think that fair, because it allows for a split verdict, with decisions. However, the Supreme Court only hears the cases it chooses to hear. All the other cases are left to the lower courts.

    So I don’t care who’s on the Supreme Court. I care about who is the chief executive and attorney general of the United States. And in this election, I will be voting against everything Trump. I will be voting against every Republican who even remotely supported or excused Trump. Trumpism is a disease that must be excised.

    Don’t count me in with those Never Trumpers. Those guys are neo-conservatives, who don’t have a clue. I’m a libertarian. It’s about freedom (the absence of tyranny) and liberty (individual rights). It’s about nothing else.

    Trump is a total fraud. That’s why I didn’t vote for him in the first place, and that’s why I will not vote for any Republican who supports or excuses him.

    I will be voting for Democrats, for the first time in my life, because the Republicans have left me with no other choice. I could vote Libertarian, but as a protest vote that won’t make much of a difference. Jorgensen isn’t going to win. So it’s all about voting against Trump and everything he and his party stand for. Because he and the party he has taken over are total frauds.

    I don’t vote for fraud.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  48. You are voting for the dissolution of anerica, despite all your protestations

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  49. Gay marriage isn’t gonna ban itself.

    The gay marriage debate is (or was) not fundamentally about the personal relationship of two consenting adults. It was about what other people, and the state, are obliged to do by way of recognizing or endorsing a personal relationship — e.g. not just whether two people have a right to pledge commitment to each other, but whether another person should be required to perform the ceremony, decorate the cake, etc.

    Certainly some opponents of gay marriage are bigots, but the claim that all opponents want to prevent two people from “loving each other” is mostly a bad-faith argument, particularly when it comes from people who had hitherto disparaged what “a piece of paper” could possibly add to a loving relationship.

    Radegunda (bb2719)

  50. That’s a lie.

    I am advocating voting for Biden despite her.

    Good for you. When Joe gets in and is pushed aside by Harris, using the 25th Amendment and Nancy Pelosi’s assist, and then she takes us down the road to Marxist hell, then at least we can say you had good intentions in paving that road.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  51. The GOP won’t vote on a nomination by a Democrat.

    Sotomayor and Kagan, both post-Reid, would beg to differ. If Scalia had died 6 months earlier, Garland (or whatever nominee) would have gotten a vote. Garland probably would have squeaked through. Someone more liberal, such as another Breyer or RBG, might have been defeated but they woul;d have had a vote.

    But, when looking forward to the upcoming presidential election, where the Democrats had a weak candidate in a GOP year, they decided to hold it up. This could have backfired, as Garland was far better for the GOP than what Hillary might have sent up (just as RBG’s miscalculation led to today’s hearings).

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  52. they have corrupted too much through education, and media, and law, the last administration forced the sisters of the poors to betray their vow, or face bankruptcy, we have seen what thousand currents has wrought, putting a target on all law enforcement, making destroyed businesses have to bear a talisman of allegiance,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  53. they have corrupted too much through education, and media, and law, the last administration forced the sisters of the poors to betray their vow, or face bankruptcy, we have seen what thousand currents has wrought, putting a target on all law enforcement, making destroyed businesses have to bear a talisman of allegiance,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  54. When Joe gets in and is pushed aside by Harris, using the 25th Amendment and Nancy Pelosi’s assist, and then she takes us down the road to Marxist hell, then at least we can say you had good intentions in paving that road.

    This isn’t exactly an optimum-choice year. The current president is already leading us down the road to Hell. In D&D terms we have to choose between lawful-evil vs chaotic-neutral. We may prefer lawful-good, but that’s not a current option.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  55. Good for you. When Joe gets in and is pushed aside by Harris, using the 25th Amendment and Nancy Pelosi’s assist, and then she takes us down the road to Marxist hell, then at least we can say you had good intentions in paving that road.
    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec) — 10/13/2020 @ 10:20 am

    Yup. Many voting for Biden because they hate Trump forget it’s a package deal. I agree with you that there is a growing chance that Pelosi and Harris would gin up a way to push Biden aside if he didn’t do it himself.

    Hoi Polloi (92d467)

  56. they have corrupted too much through education, and media, and law, the last administration forced the sisters of the poors to betray their vow, or face bankruptcy, we have seen what thousand currents has wrought, putting a target on all law enforcement, making destroyed businesses have to bear a talisman of allegiance

    Democrats care more about free stuff than taking care of the elderly indigent, which is what the Little Sisters of the Poor do.

    I thought Democrats were the champion of the poor. Evidently not.

    Hoi Polloi (92d467)

  57. then she takes us down the road to Marxist hell

    I understand the fear.

    I think the democrats are unwise to ignore why Trump was electable in the first place. Part of that was how Obamacare was passed. But the democrats are about as unwise as the republicans so you never know.

    We are seeing a ‘what comes around goes around’ political system, so if Harris becomes our president in some unprecedented process and rams through all this stuff without a mandate, the consequences to her party would be stiff.

    We hear these kinds of things every election. Back in 2008, Obama was a secret Muslim and his wife was secretly a man and they were going to do this and that. Every election each party has to insist the other is about as bad as Trump actually is.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  58. Off-topic:

    Even though I moved some time ago, voted in NM in the 2018 general election, and CA was presumably notified that I had registered to vote in another state, I get this email this AM from the CA Secretary of State:

    Dear California Voter,

    County election offices have now sent vote-by-mail ballots to all active, registered California voters for the November 3, 2020 General Election. If you haven’t already received your ballot, you can expect it to arrive soon.

    You don’t need to wait to return your ballot. Your ballot includes a prepaid, first class postage return envelope that you can use to mail your ballot back to your county elections office. You can also click the button below to find ballot drop-off locations near you or visit: CAEarlyVoting.sos.ca.gov ….

    Voters who can return their ballots early will help ensure safe physical distancing at voting locations. Voting locations will be available in many counties before and on Election Day. Voting locations will offer voter registration, replacement ballots, accessible voting machines, and language assistance.

    If you have already returned your ballot, thank you for being a voter and helping keep your community safe!

    Yours sincerely,

    Alex Padilla California Secretary of State

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  59. I already have the rights. That’s the point. I don’t need to find a right on a list from the founding to prove I have it. YOU need to find where the constitution gives congress the power to take it away before you limit it.

    Well said, Time123.

    When we talk about rights, we often mean different things in different contexts, and this leads to confusion.

    It seems to me that individual (or natural) rights cannot refer to the government, since those rights are “prior” to government.

    In this context, saying you have a right for the government to provide you with some benefit (like health care, a job, income, sustenance) can’t be correct, since government comes after rights.

    This type of right is freedom; freedom over your own actions and freedom from the interference of others (including the government) in those actions. I think the 9th amendment primarily refers to these type of rights (but see below).

    On the other hand, there are legal (or civil) rights, like the right to a fair and speedy trial by jury, freedom from self-incrimination, unreasonable searches, etc. which presume the existence of a government.

    These type of rights are more like guarantees, or restrictions on the government. More broadly it includes “social contract” type rights first codified in the Magna Carta, like parliament’s power over taxation. It seems to me that the founders understood that equivalent of the 9th amendment for these type of rights is the common law, which is a long history of written and unwritten rules.

    Finally there are contractual or legislative “rights”, which are essentially negotiated and not fundamental in any way, like the “right” to deduct charitable contributions from taxable income, the “right” to certain government-provided benefits like unemployment compensation or food stamps, the “right” to get out of some contract under specified conditions, etc.

    Any attempt to apply the 9th amendment to this last category of “rights” is just sophistry.

    Dave (1bb933)

  60. Admittedly, they have not forwarded a ballot to me in NM, but I wonder if the new occupants of my CA house got our ballots.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  61. When Joe gets in and is pushed aside by Harris, using the 25th Amendment and Nancy Pelosi’s assist, and then she takes us down the road to Marxist hell,

    Who knew chimeras came in so many forms?

    In Medieval art, although the Chimera of antiquity was forgotten, chimerical figures appear as embodiments of the deceptive, even satanic forces of raw nature. Provided with a human face and a scaly tail, as in Dante’s vision of Geryon in Inferno xvii.7–17, 25–27, hybrid monsters, more akin to the Manticore of Pliny’s Natural History (viii.90), provided iconic representations of hypocrisy and fraud well into the seventeenth century, through an emblematic representation in Cesare Ripa’s Iconologia.[17]

    nk (1d9030)

  62. Guy Benson
    @guypbenson
    ·
    Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) just “questioned” Judge Amy Coney Barrett for approximately 30 minutes.

    ACB word count in the exchange: 0
    __ _

    ForAmerica
    @ForAmerica
    ·
    Sen. Cruz: “The top 20 super PAC donors contributed $422 million to Democrats and $189 million to Republicans. Those who give these impassioned speeches against dark money do not mention that their side is funded by dark money with a massive differential.”
    __ _

    MarkOne
    @MarkOneN0d
    ·
    Ted Cruz is casually debunking in 4 minutes what Whitehouse obviously spent a week to put in tens of boards for a photo opportunity

    _ _

    Related:

    “ I will be voting for Democrats, for the first time in my life, because the Republicans have left me with no other choice…….
    ……I don’t vote for fraud”

    __ _

    lol
    _

    harkin (7fb4c9)

  63. I already have the rights. That’s the point. I don’t need to find a right on a list from the founding to prove I have it. YOU need to find where the constitution gives congress the power to take it away before you limit it.

    So, you assert you have the right to loudly play polka music on your boom box in an airplane. You are told that federal law says otherwise. Interstate commerce clause, they say. 9th and 10th Amendments, you reply?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  64. More on point:

    Where does the US government, or any state, get the power to prevent polygamy or polyandry? Both were legal in places in 1787, and both are legal today in places. POint to something in the Constitution that allows Congress to rule on this.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  65. The look on Barrett’s face as all these Senators rant and rave (Ted Cruz now) is fascinating. She must be thinking “I can’t just nod off, there might be a question!”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  66. There are no rights, only laws.

    nk (1d9030)

  67. @64,

    1. I think my ticket contract covers following direction from flight attendants so once they tell me I have to turn off my boom box I don’t have a leg to stand on….

    But if your question is more broad; Yes, understand that the constitution gives congress the power to limit my rights in many many ways.

    Time123 (7cca75)

  68. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/13/2020 @ 10:15 am

    He’s now going on about popular votes. What a fracking whackjob.

    He wanted to say he won the popular vote in California so he claimed people vote there three times.

    https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/10/09/mega-maga-the-largest-radio-rally-in-history ….ou know, the people in California hate sanctuary cities. I don’t know where it gets its political stamina, the people in California, they see me all the time — I think we’ll do well in California. In theory you don’t win California because everybody likes to vote three times if you want to know the truth.

    RUSH: We’re gonna get into that later in the program.

    THE PRESIDENT: The whole thing is crazy, but the people want to vote, they vote numerous times, numerous times, and it’s disgraceful…. This accusation never gets repeated later although Trump has other complaints about voting procedures and boasts of wining court cases.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  69. I remember the Bork hearings — constantly informative and a great survey of Constitutional issues. But then, he was answering questions openly and honestly, and wasn’t confirmed as a result. This here is just dull.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  70. I used to think that there was one natural right, to re-enter the food chain, but then I considered Pompey (disturbing images).

    nk (1d9030)

  71. Where does the US government, or any state, get the power to prevent polygamy or polyandry?

    States have always possessed the authority to regulate marriage, and to set conditions for its validity.

    Demosthenes (1add15)

  72. You are voting for the dissolution of anerica, despite all your protestations

    Hyperbole. This country is more polarized than ever with Trump at the helm. His threat to not recognize certified election results is a threat to this democracy.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  73. There are no rights, only laws.

    I hope you’re not being serious. I realize the phrase I’m about to use is often tossed around in casual moral condemnation, but I want you to understand I mean it literally: what you said here was un-American.

    Demosthenes (1add15)

  74. 65. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/13/2020 @ 10:39 am

    Where does the US government, or any state, get the power to prevent polygamy or polyandry?

    It doesn;t and never claimed it. Only the right to make laws for aterritory (which is why it took so long for Utah to become a state) or the right to set whatever arbitrary cidnditions it wants to admit astate to the Union (because it has absolute discetion) and exclude such people from immigrating to the United States – but the latter isa power without fioundatiion because no where in the constitution is the Congress graned any power over immigration, The constitution speaks of naturalization only.

    Not only is there the 10th amendment but states admitting people is something specifically mentioned in the constitution. Article I Section 9 Clause 1.

    Whatever power the Congress has over immigration is derived from its power over foreign commerce and over national defense, which may include its borders.

    Were does Congress get the power to reach into state, grab someone and send him out of the country if the state that person is in wants to keep him?

    The first cases that dealt with this dealt with circumstances when a state wanted to STOP someone’s admission.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  75. All default powers of government – belong to the states.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  76. Where does the US government, or any state, get the power to prevent polygamy or polyandry?

    Under the constitution, I don’t think the US government does.

    States have always possessed the authority to regulate marriage, and to set conditions for its validity.

    True. And more importantly, unlike Obergefell, I don’t think there’s an equal protection angle here.

    Dave (1bb933)

  77. Klobuchar could be the most vapid idiotic Senator by a bunch. This says a great deal. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

    Bugg (ebf485)

  78. There are no rights, only laws.

    I hope that’s a joke. I’m kind of a partial to “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  79. Who knew chimeras came in so many forms?

    Take a trip to Seattle and Portland. That’s our future, buddy.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  80. Whitehouse’s presentation was impeccable.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  81. Under the constitution, I don’t think the US government does.

    I don’t see where they have the power, but I know they’ve done it before. There is at least one Supreme Court case, dating from the 1880s (I think), that defends the federal government’s right to outlaw, and act of outlawing, polygamist unions in all American territories. With that case was properly decided or not, I don’t know, but as far as I know, it is still considered a valid ruling. IANAL, though.

    Demosthenes (1add15)

  82. If being a pompous arrogant douchebag is impeccable, perhaps.

    Dicks Durbin and Bluemnthal are well-named.

    Bugg (ebf485)

  83. Vote Joe/HuH and let the public schools continue to f)ck up “The Children”.

    mg (8cbc69)

  84. States have always possessed the authority to regulate marriage, and to set conditions for its validity.

    Tell that to Deseret.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  85. ‘I am advocating voting for Biden despite her’

    Trump or [Harris] Biden; it’s a win/win!

    Glorious.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  86. “Take a trip to Seattle and Portland. That’s our future, buddy.”

    Seattle, according to Republicans: https://i.imgur.com/FEVgUqE.jpg

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  87. Tell that to Deseret.

    One can possess authority without possessing it exclusively.

    Demosthenes (1add15)

  88. Brushing her teeth, tying her shoes and managing to make a cup of coffee each AM must boggle the simple mind of Amy Klobuchar.

    Bugg (ebf485)

  89. Vote Joe/HuH and let the public schools continue to f)ck up “The Children”.

    I can’t see Trump saving us there.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  90. 83.If being a pompous arrogant douchebag is impeccable, perhaps.

    ‘Perhaps’ The Evil Cruz, peddling his book in the hearing, would know.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  91. Vote Joe/HuH and let the public schools continue to f)ck up “The Children”.

    I can’t see Trump saving us there.

    Trump will save us by standing back and letting people like Betsy DeVos do her job. That’s the point. Trump is a first-class schmuck, as my father used to say, but he (sometimes) allows others to do a decent job.

    The other side wants to “fundamentally transform” America, and has many talented people chomping at the bit to do that.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  92. 82. In territories!

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  93. @82 and 93

    I think what happened was that a condition of Utah being admitted to the Union was that it ban polygamy as a matter of state law.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  94. One can possess authority without possessing it exclusively.

    Well, you’ve pretty much nullified your original claim. If they can be overruled by federal authority, then asserting it’s a state right and not a federal one is difficult to follow.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  95. @89. Something Amy best bone up on as it’ll be part of her gig if/when she’s confirmed. Fresh brew, no instant for Roberts, dear.

    @2. She’s a bit of a prig. But Roberts should enjoy her bringing him his mocha java.

    Paybck’s a b-tch. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  96. I think what happened was that a condition of Utah being admitted to the Union was that it ban polygamy as a matter of state law.

    Yes, and neglecting how they got the power to do that, why couldn’t Utah reconsider?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  97. Something Amy best bone up on as it’ll be part of her gig if/when she’s confirmed. Fresh brew, no instant for Roberts, dear.

    Yeah, just like RBG did. Oh, wait … the new justice is just the chair of the food committee, not the serving wench.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  98. Judge Barrett is giving a lecture in response to open-ended questions from Sen Sasse. It is excellent.

    DRJ (aede82)

  99. @98. Time — and Roberts– will tell. Two sugars, dear. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  100. All Amy has to do is answer these questions:

    Do you believe the sun stood still in the sky? Yes or no?

    Do you believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale[ or big fish for the anal]? Yes or no?

    Do you believe an ark was built for animals, two by two, to survive a Great Flood? Yes or no?

    Do you ascribe to Divine Creation or Evolution? Choose.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  101. DCSA mistakes Protestant evangelical creationism for Catholic theology regarding creation. The Catholic view is more nuanced; it doesn’t view the entirety of the Old Testament as literal truth. But it won’t stop leftists from slagging ACB.

    Bugg (ebf485)

  102. Judge Barrett is giving a lecture in response to open-ended questions from Sen Sasse. It is excellent.

    And now Sasse is busy putting words in her mouth.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  103. Do you believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale[ or big fish for the anal]? Yes or no?

    I’m pretty sure the entry wasn’t anal.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  104. David French is irrelevant.

    Woodward is fast fading into history as well; dining out on half a century of Watergate was a good run.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  105. All Deezy-eska has to do is answer this question:

    Do you believe reposting the same witless, self-indulgent spam, verbatim, in every thread somehow makes it clever?

    Dave (1bb933)

  106. Drummond: “You believe that every word written in this book should be taken literally?”
    Brady: “Everything in the Bible should be accepted exactly as it is given there.”
    Drummond: “Now what about this part right here, where, uh, uh, it talks about, uh, Jonah being swallowed by the whale? You figure that really happened?”
    Brady: “The Bible does not say a whale. It says a big fish.”
    Drummond: “As a matter of fact, it says a ‘great’ fish. But I guess that’s – one’s pretty much the same as the other. What do you think about that business?”
    Brady: “I believe in a God who can make a whale and who can make a man, and make both do what he pleases.”

    — Inherit the Wind

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  107. @102. Projecting something that isn’t there: no cult nor religion is mentioned. Easy questions: yes, no– and choose.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  108. @106. Don’t weep Davey; it’s a win/win.

    Trump is you.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  109. @104. Well, we know how Kramer ended that ‘whales tail.’ 😉

    There’s no mention of ‘Bible’ or ‘Kora’ or ‘instructions for assembly’ in the Qs. It’s pretty straight forward: yes, no and choose.

    How you decide to color it is your ‘cross to bear.’ 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  110. ^’Koran” Sacred Scrolls’ etc.,

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  111. 103. ‘And now Sasse is busy putting words in her mouth.’

    Meh…

    ‘These proceedings take on all the look of a very bad Gallagher and Sheen.” -Senator Ray Clark [Edmond O’Brien] ‘Seven Days In May’ 1964

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  112. Expressing joy over ‘yet another’ result of a Trump victory while cheering for him to lose is so pure.
    _

    harkin (7fb4c9) — 10/13/2020 @ 9:43 am

    What can I say, Trump’s a loser. He made a dumb deal and I’m happy to get the better of him.

    You lied to quote me as saying that. Par for the course for the kind of Trump supporter who is already denying he ever was one.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  113. Trump is you.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/13/2020 @ 11:46 am

    Nah. You tried real hard to explain how Trump is Reagan, but your argument has never made any sense. Trump is like a very stupid and lazy version of Bill Clinton. They are of the same political family, supported eachother, encouraged eachother to run for office. The only difference is Bill did his homework and showed up to work, and had self-awareness.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  114. The other side wants to “fundamentally transform” America, and has many talented people chomping at the bit to do that.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec) — 10/13/2020 @ 11:15 am

    This is the best argument against Biden. The radicals on the left, and according to Fox News, Kamala, want to tear it all down and reorder society, and the reverse racism is not subtle at all, so the concern is honest and fair.

    It is not a satisfying counter that they won’t pull it off (even though I don’t think they will).

    But Trump’s conduct has made it impossible for me to vote on any other basis than trump’s conduct. Like a lot of us warned in 2016, all those times Trump fans said ‘this is how you get Trump’, the exact same reaction is going to work against Trump’s supporters.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  115. @115, if a majority of the democrat primary voters wanted that outcome why did they pick Biden and not Harris, Warren, or Sanders? They didn’t know who he would pick as a running mate. It could just as easily have been a older centrist democrat from PA or OH. Heck it could have been Kasich.

    Time123 (7cca75)

  116. That is a good point, Time123. Biden is obviously the moderate, roll back the clock candidate.

    My assumption is that many Republicans left the GOP and made the democratic party more conservative, and at the same time, a lot of democrats are infuriated.

    Had Biden not painted himself into a corner with his promise (That was then extended for him) to a black woman, Harris had no chance of being selected. Buttigieg would have been a much better attack dog.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  117. @114. Except it does.

    ‘Denial’ is a river in Egypt, Dustin. you’re too young to see it or have known it; and the thing is, he was inevitable; the GOP rabid-righties ‘Picture of Dorian Gray'; the ultimate manifestation of that Boesky/Milken fueled, junk-bonded, S&L collapsed, stock market crashed time; the monster spawned and nurtured in the gaudy cesspool of Reagan’s go-go ’80s. 35 years in the making; and Trump is the perfect end to it.

    Trump is a Reagan Creation, Dustin; he is the Dark Side of that glittery time; and if yu baed Reagan, Trump is you.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  118. @117, I think you’re right. I think there’s a chunk of Berie supporters that are upset that Biden won, and further upset by the lack of respect he’s shown them since he won. If the GOP had nominated someone other then Trump it’s likely they’d be staying home / voting 3rd party. See Liz Breunig for an example.

    Time123 (7cca75)

  119. You are voting for the dissolution of anerica, despite all your protestations

    “Anerica’s” Savior

    Dave (1bb933)

  120. klobutcher has never mov ed out of daddys basement

    mg (8cbc69)

  121. Had Biden not painted himself into a corner with his promise (That was then extended for him) to a black woman, Harris had no chance of being selected

    His candidacy was dead. He sold favors to Clyburn. Peddling favor has been his career pattern; from Hunter to MBNA to DuPont. He is a 47 year Swamp Creature and precisely why Trump was elected in the first place. He beat out the other GOP swamp weenies and the pants-suited fire plug to win.

    Which reminds me; Kamala… Amy wears dresses [and soon, a black robe.] She doesn’t have to dress like a man to project confidence and strength. Points to ACB.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  122. Well, you’ve pretty much nullified your original claim. If they can be overruled by federal authority, then asserting it’s a state right and not a federal one is difficult to follow.

    It is clearly a state right, because that’s where the bulk of the marriage laws originate from. Whether it is a federal right as well is up for debate. I think probably no, but the Supreme Court has said yes.

    Regardless, my original claim was in response to this, from you:

    Where does the US government, or any state, get the power to prevent polygamy or polyandry?

    Since every state has banned polygamy, and it’s been that way for quite some time, then I would say states pretty much uncontroversially have that power. And whether the federal government actually has it is moot at the present time, since they agree with the states.

    Demosthenes (1add15)

  123. If I were still drinking, I would have been well past the single malt stage watching team biden play senatorial suicide.

    mg (8cbc69)

  124. Let’s see how many Biden supporters here own his judge nominations the next four years.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  125. Since states no longer have the right to ban gay marriage, they also no longer have the right to ban polygamy. The precedent has been set.

    1DaveMac (b2b831)

  126. Let’s see how many Biden supporters here own his judge nominations the next four years.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67) — 10/13/2020 @ 12:46 pm

    Fair point.

    I’ll own everything Biden does as the price for getting rid of Trump. If it turns out to be a high price, so be it. I have always been annoyed with Trump’s fanatics disclaiming all he does while assigning the craziest explanations to ‘nevertrumpers’.

    I wonder how many Trump fans are going to take responsibility though. Already hundreds of thousands are gone, many of them would be alive if Trump weren’t president. And if the nation does see a blowout election, a massive shift to Team D, that’s only because Trump was so bad. That will prove the nevertrumpers right, once and for all.

    The price of Obamacare was Trump. The price of Trump remains to be fully understood.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  127. I support Trump in that he is President and I wish him what’s best for the country

    No, you offer the most intense and consistent worship of Trump of any commenter here. Just above you claimed I said Trump had yet another victory (which was a lie and doesn’t reflect anything I’ve ever said). That kind of fawning admiration, combined with copied and pasted ‘pwn the libs’ on twitter (from people I’ve never heard of), day in and day out…

    It is OK that you adore Trump, Harkin. But as a matter of integrity, you really do. Your position is not ‘I like Trump exactly the same as I liked Obama’. That’s just not honesty.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  128. Since states no longer have the right to ban gay marriage, they also no longer have the right to ban polygamy. The precedent has been set.

    Fine with me. There is really no reason polygamy between consenting adults shouldn’t be legal.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  129. If I adored and worshipped Trump I would vote for him and urge others to do so (and implied by your language I would also apparently be praying in front of a statue of him).

    Feel free to cut and paste anything I’ve said in the past five years urging people to vote Trump.
    _

    My quote referenced a ‘result of his victory’ (new justice).

    And my quote about Obama/Trump was about the presidency.

    That you couldn’t even glean those two meanings says a lot.

    Cheers – have fun finding me telling people who to vote for.

    harkin (7fb4c9)

  130. I disagree, Rip. I think polygamy is actually extremely bad for society. If you look at the Middle East, all these young men who have nothing to live for, are easily manipulated into extremism, and look at all the rich men with many wives, it’s pretty clear that part of the anger is sexual frustration and having no stake in peace (by having kids).

    If everyone on the planet had a nuclear family, there would be a lot less terrorism and war. It wouldn’t be utopia, but it would be a major improvement. If they banned polygamy in middle eastern countries it would create more men with a reason to work hard and provide, and they would be much happier men.

    I don’t know how far I want the government to engineer family arrangements, but I do want it to ban polygamy.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  131. I read that Kamala Harris did her questioning remotely – although from the same building – saying or trying to give people the idea that was what a prudent person would do because of Covid – but this wasn’t the only hearing that the Senate is doing this month!

    (and was she doing this for any other hearing or was any other Senator doing that?)

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kamala-harris-cbarrett-hearings-putting-lives-risk-participate-remotely

    Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris on Sunday slammed Senate Republicans for “endangering” people’s lives by moving forward with confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett after multiple senators have tested positive for the coronavirus.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  132. “I’ll own everything Biden does as the price for getting rid of Trump.“

    It’s Biden, Harris and every new thing they allow to be done by the Executive Branch.

    This shouldn’t need to be explained.
    _

    harkin (7fb4c9)

  133. If everyone on the planet had a nuclear family, there would be a lot less terrorism and war.

    I disagree. The bloodiest wars in past 80 years have been fought between societies with nuclear families. I don’t think the form of the family has much to do with how many adults constitute a family.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  134. Kyle Griffin
    @kylegriffin1

    “Sexual preference,” a term used by Justice Barrett, is offensive and outdated. The term implies sexuality is a choice. It is not. News organizations should not repeat Justice Barrett’s words without providing that important context.
    __ _

    Leslie Proll
    @LeslieProll
    ·
    She also just said “the mentally ill,” which is also offensive.

    _

    These people are just broken.
    _

    harkin (7fb4c9)

  135. I disagree. The bloodiest wars in past 80 years have been fought between societies with nuclear families. I don’t think the form of the family has much to do with how many adults constitute a family.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 10/13/2020 @ 1:14 pm

    Yeah I was thinking about this as a counterpoint so I’m not surprised you offered it. I’m really not talking about nations. The solution there is to create more democracies. Democracies do not go to war against democracies that often. It’s why Trump’s propping up of Xi, Putin, and Kim is so stupid for America’s long term safety.

    I’m talking about terrorism and I guess crime. And I don’t know if it’s really possible (or necessary) to compare them to capital W war.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  136. For some reason, well over a thousand years ago, they decided that Jonah was buried in Nineveh (or Mosul, which is across the river) They also decided that the whale was there, and in the 1920s something could be seen that was really from a swordfish. It gradually disappeared (people wanting relics maybe?) and later it was reputed that a tooth of the whale was there but nobody was allowed to see it.

    After the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein by the United States no whale tooth was found there, but in 2008, the U.S. Army donated a plastic replica of a whale tooth. (You can’t trade actual whale parts. Not that they can’t be killed. They were killed by some Inuit and also by Japan for research but apparently you couldn’t export or import a whale tooth, so they made one.)

    In 2014 ISIS blew up the mosque of the tomb of Jonah that contained the plastic whale tooth. After Mosul was liberated from ISIS they discovered that ISIS had dug tunnels looking for buried treasure, which they found (ancient artifacts)

    I am not sure if the United States has replaced the tooth a second time.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  137. CNN Politics
    @CNNPolitics

    Amy Coney Barrett says she owns a gun, but could fairly judge a case on gun rights https://cnn.it/3dl5LDQ__ _
    __ _

    Jay Caruso
    @JayCaruso
    ·
    She has a house as well. Pretty sure she could fairly judge a case about illegal search and seizure.

    __ _

    They truly are broken.
    _

    harkin (7fb4c9)

  138. All Amy has to do is answer this question:

    Do you believe the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633 was correct to prosecute and imprison Galileo for defying ‘originalist’ church dictum with his open support of heliocentrism, the astronomical model in which the Earth revolve around the Sun — in open defiance of the then ‘laws’ of church edict which dictated the Earth was the center of everything? Yes or no?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  139. In 2014 ISIS blew up the mosque of the tomb of Jonah that contained the plastic whale tooth. After Mosul was liberated from ISIS they discovered that ISIS had dug tunnels looking for buried treasure, which they found (ancient artifacts)

    I am not sure if the United States has replaced the tooth a second time.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7) — 10/13/2020 @ 1:20 pm

    That is truly sad. Looting their own heritage. This actually associates nicely with my notion that many of the men doing these things do not have a stake in future generations. They live in lands where women are much more scarce (not that the women have it better… they have it even worse).

    Dustin (4237e0)

  140. “ For some reason, well over a thousand years ago, they decided that Jonah was buried in Nineveh (or Mosul, which is across the river)”
    _

    Now do the Ark Of The Covenant and Aksum.
    _

    harkin (7fb4c9)

  141. And if the nation does see a blowout election, a massive shift to Team D, that’s only because Trump was so bad. That will prove the nevertrumpers right, once and for all.

    A 6-3 conservative majority on the SC proves the nevertrumpers wrong.

    We had a blowout election in 2008. I don’t recall anybody here saying that proved Bush and McCain supporters wrong.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  142. @129. Trump knows where he is and what office he is running for; Biden does not.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  143. All Amy has to do is answer this question:

    Actually she really doesn’t have to do much. Conservatives already won yet another justice. Now the only reason to support Trump is that Biden might pack the court, and the democrats are dumb enough to make this an issue.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  144. Trump knows where he is and what office he is running for; Biden does not.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/13/2020 @ 1:25 pm

    He doesn’t even know what country he should serve.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  145. A 6-3 conservative majority on the SC proves the nevertrumpers wrong.

    Yes, BNP, it really does. About that one promise, I definitely thought Trump would not be effective. I was wrong. On thousands of other things, I was right. Painfully right. In warning of massive failure in times of crisis, I wish you were right and I was wrong. But the judges are a big deal.

    We had a blowout election in 2008. I don’t recall anybody here saying that proved Bush and McCain supporters wrong.

    This isn’t a very good understanding of my point. It’s just another ‘got ’em!!!!’ that you might read on Twitter. Think about what I said.

    And you’re wrong on the facts. Plenty of people said Obama was a response to W’s presidency. Trump, in fact, who has never shut up about how Bush 43 was the worst president in our history (because Trump is basically a democrat).

    Dustin (4237e0)

  146. Given all the arguing about nominations and election years, what do you suppose would have happened in January 2017 had Trump won but the Senate had gone Democrat?

    A. The new Senate would have quickly confirmed Garland with rushed hearings in the 2 weeks before Trump took over.

    B. The same as A, but with a less centrist Obama nominee.

    C. They would have left the nomination to the incoming president.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  147. A 6-3 conservative majority on the SC proves the nevertrumpers wrong.

    Hardly. A different GOP president would perhaps have done better than Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, but in any event would have been picking from the same pool. After all, Trump got Cruz’s support at the end by promising to accept Federalist Society suggestions.

    Or do you really think that only Trump could beat Hillary? Pretty sure you’ll get some pushback on that idea.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  148. Great. I just found out that my 95-year old Uncle Charlie caught CV19 at an assisted living facility in Broadus, MT. My cousin Julie K has been Facebooking about the uptick in cases in MT (7-day average of 123/day in mid-September to 611 today) but we never thought a family member would be part of that statistic. He’s doing well so far.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  149. Plenty of people said Obama was a response to W’s presidency.

    W’s presidency was severely harmed by the fiscal crisis, and McCain was a boob on fiscal matters. Worse than Trump, actually. This was clear at the time and while Obama was no whiz there either, he wasn’t so obviously lost.

    Further, that 3rd term for a party is real hard to come by and requires people wanting to continue the outgoing President’s term. Which wasn’t the case for W, and Obama ran partly on that “I’m not one of them” message. Hillary had double-helpings of that with both Obama and Bill’s penumbrae to deal with.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  150. In warning of massive failure in times of crisis, I wish you were right and I was wrong.

    Once Biden takes the helm, I think you will be underwhelmed by his Covid response. My guess is that it will be pretty much a continuation of the Trump policy. It just won’t be the headlining story anymore, because the election is over and mission accomplished. Dead people aren’t political capital anymore. But, who knows, maybe he’ll go full authoritarian — keep your hopes up.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  151. Sarah Mimms
    @mimms

    Judge Amy Coney Barrett Won’t Say How She’d Rule On Abortion, Healthcare, Same-Sex Marriage, Or The Election https://buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-hearing-abortion-healthcare… via
    @zoetillman
    __ _

    David French
    @DavidAFrench

    Thereby doing exactly the right thing. It’s improper to pre-judge cases, which come to the court with different facts, different procedural postures, and different relevant (and sometimes competing) precedents. Pre-judging cases means recusing from cases.
    __ _

    CSPAN
    @cspan

    From 1993 confirmation hearing, Judge Ginsburg: “A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”
    __ _

    harkin (7fb4c9)

  152. Paul, best wishes for your uncle. MT is one of those places where people are so spread out that the danger isn’t as present to people as it is in, say, Manhattan. I know someone from L.A. who spent a month there with family to “get away” from the virus. Complacency can be deadly.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  153. Once Biden takes the helm, I think you will be underwhelmed by his Covid response.

    He’s announced his plan: mass inoculations! That stupid Trump never thought of it!

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  154. “A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

    Yes, but that isn’t the same as asking “Do you think the constitution offers protection against discrimination on the basis of sex?” or “Does the 2nd Amendment protect an individual right?” without prejudging any particular case, which may turn on many issues (e.g. standing, ripeness, statutory construction, etc).

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  155. @126. Meh. Many so-called ‘ideological conservatives’ have been flushed out by this– not unlike what Buckley did to the Birchers back in the day. It’s deadwood long overdue to be cleared out as they find themselves on the outs. Back in ’64 you didn’t see mass numbers of ‘Rockefeller Republicans’ bolt their party when events swopped ends on them any more than they did in ’76 or ’80 as the Reagan monster rose out of ‘Loch Mess.’ The bulk stayed loyal to the party; they didn’t whine and do ‘Lincoln Project’ tactics nor openly campaign for the other party’s nominee– and in this cycle, a clearly weak and senile one [where were these ‘conservatives for Biden’ in ’88 and ’08? 😉 ].

    They’re just sore losers. No longer ‘in control;’ shuffled to the bottom of the deck thanks to Trump–and there’s just not enough of them to start their own party. Their irrelevance grows: the Wills, Goldbergs, Frenchs etc., have been Buckley’d out and on to the beach.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  156. These people are just broken.
    _
    harkin (7fb4c9) — 10/13/2020 @ 1:15 pm

    They are mentally ill

    Hoi Polloi (92d467)

  157. @150

    Don’t despair. My brother-in-law’s father is 92, he is in a nursing home. He had COVID in the spring and fully recovered. Wishing your uncle a speedy and full recovery.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  158. He doesn’t even know what country he should serve.

    Whereas Plagiarist JoeyBee knows what’s served at Applebee’s Early Bird special; yet still puts other people’s words in his mouth.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  159. @150. OMG, in Montana? With, what– 4 people per square mile? Oh, that sucks, Paul. Have they traced it back to a source? Best wishes to him for a speedy recovery. Have the ALF staff, which surely were masked, call the WH for the ingredients to mix him up a Trump Covid Cocktail.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  160. Thanks, Kevin and BL.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  161. Wut?
    Sen. Mazie Hirono asks ACB “since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?”

    …I mean…I think I irrevocably lost some neurons just now.

    whembly (c30c83)

  162. I wish she would make a paper airplane out of that senatorial stationary and toss it at….
    take your pick

    mg (8cbc69)

  163. Back in ’64 you didn’t see mass numbers of ‘Rockefeller Republicans’ bolt their party when events swopped ends on them any more than they did in ’76 or ’80 as the Reagan monster rose out of ‘Loch Mess.’

    Rockefeller denounced Goldwater in a prime time Convention speech, broadcast nationally. Goldwater carried only 6 states, 4 of which Wallace carried in 1968. Further, Goldwater only carried ONE state that the GOP had carried in 1960 (his home state of AZ, which he won by only 1%).

    It is safe to say that Goldwater got much less GOP support than Nixon did in either 1960 or 1968. Reagan got solid support from Republicans despite a centrist Republican attracting Democrats who could not stomach Carter.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  164. Hope your uncle recovers quickly, Paul.
    Broadus Montana is beautiful country. Powder river valley, i think.

    mg (8cbc69)

  165. Broadus Montana is beautiful country. Powder river valley, i think.

    It is, mg, in kind of an austere way. My parents grew up on cattle ranches between Broadus and Miles City, but they didn’t actually meet until WWII in Seattle.
    The place has beautiful tree-covered buttes, harsh winters, long vistas, pastures, not far from the Black Hills and Custer Battlefield. Truly big sky country.
    Thanks all, for the sentiments.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  166. My take on Amy is there’s still a bit of the ‘youthful’ college professor ‘ivory tower’ lecturer still in her- -in not so many words she had to essentially apologize for criticizing Roberts but he’ll have her get him coffee as payback for a time. 😉 At least she’s not a historied drunkard; sober and serious.

    She knows her stuff, the office she’s up for and what city she is in. [Though somebody should ask her if she likes beer. 😉 ]

    Once she’s in the robes she’ll likely be a good justice and once she gets the lifetime gig w/bennies [and w/all those kids, she needs ’em]– and at her age, we can watch her mature over the years like a fine wine. A qualified person; good pick, Mr. Trump. And inevitably– will disappoint the interest groups championing her.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  167. @165. They didn’t ‘leave the party’ nor created ‘Lincoln Projects’ in open opposition to their own party nom. That’s the point. They’re sore losers, Kevin– and ‘rightly’ Buckley’d out.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  168. @164. Just be glad she’s a woman who is not afraid to wear a dress.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  169. Those buttes look like Mnts. to a boy from the plains!

    mg (8cbc69)

  170. Paul, wishing your uncle (and you) the best.

    Simon Jester (545ea7)

  171. Man…whatever you think of ACB, she’s a saint for not responding sarcastically to a lot of these idiotic questions.

    whembly (c30c83)

  172. @Paul Montagu, I echo wishing you and your uncle all the best as well. My God give strength in this time.

    whembly (c30c83)

  173. #172 – just be glad Sinemax or Tammy Baldwin weren’t the ones to ask that ridiculous question.

    urbanleftbehind (819f32)

  174. Hawai i- the state of cronyism and nepotism

    mg (8cbc69)

  175. Daily Caller
    @DailyCaller

    Speaker Pelosi to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer when he calls her out for refusing to make a deal on COVID-19 relief:

    “I don’t know why you’re always an apologist and many of your colleagues are apologists for the Republican position.”
    __ _

    Curtis Houck
    @CurtisHouck
    ·
    When even *CNN* and *Wolf Blitzer* are grilling Nancy Pelosi on why Democrats continue to reject any and all Republican stimulus offers, you know Dems might be playing politics. Watch as Pelosi snaps after failing to answer a basic question about why they won’t compromise.
    __ _

    Erica Werner
    @ericawerner
    ·
    Pelosi: “Thank you for your sensitivity to our constituents’ needs.”
    Wolf: “I am sensitive to them because I see them on the street begging for food, begging for money.”
    Pelosi: “Have you fed them? We feed them. We feed them.”
    (Interview ends)
    __ _

    Stephen L. Miller
    @redsteeze
    ·
    Nancy Pelosi’s attack on a free and fair press is chilling and is putting journalist’s lives in danger. They are an essential part of a free republic, tasked with holding truth to power. This is dangerous and it’s dangerous time to tell the truth in America. Democracy died a little.

    _

    CNN is too conservative.

    Getting rid of Trump and putting Biden/Harris in charge of the Executive will fix all this.
    _

    harkin (7fb4c9)

  176. @172

    To which I would have answered, “What do you have in mind, Senator?”

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  177. To which I would have answered, “What do you have in mind, Senator?”

    Or “No, but several of your male colleagues need to brush up on the rules.”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  178. Getting rid of Trump and putting Biden/Harris in charge of the Executive will fix all this.

    No, but at least the problems will be understandable. As I said before we have a choice between Chaotic-neutral (Trump) or lawful-evil (Harris). Which bothers you more, evil or chaos?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  179. I forgive Harry Reid for everything he concocted against mittens.
    Tis the christian in me

    mg (8cbc69)

  180. Kamala looks whiter than Amy again today. The lady is wearing a dress.

    Pants suit again today, Ms. Harris?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  181. 154. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/13/2020 @ 1:44 pm

    Paul, best wishes for your uncle. MT is one of those places where people are so spread out that the danger isn’t as present to people as it is in, say, Manhattan.

    Actually, it’s maybe worse. Fewer buildings per person, and the same few buildings, and people get Covid mostly by spending time inside buildings or other enclosed spaces.

    I herd tonight of a 24 year old man, sort of disabled mentally, (he used to have a chaperone or aide) who’s on a respirator in a hospital for a week. They knocked him out. His parents had Covid before him. Nobody can see him.

    I think maybe how serious a case someone gets may depend on how active you are. It helps to have spare breathing capacity.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  182. Prediction: Amy Coney Barrett will eventually become Chief Justice o/t United States.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  183. My best wishes for your uncle’s recovery, Paul.

    nk (1d9030)

  184. Hawai i- the state of cronyism and nepotism

    But people keep going there to get lei’d.

    nk (1d9030)

  185. Prayers to your family Paul . Glad your uncle is doing well right now.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  186. ‘Unmasking’ probe commissioned by Barr concludes without charges or any public report
    ……
    The revelation that U.S. Attorney John Bash, who left the department last week, had concluded his review without criminal charges or any public report will rankle President Trump at a moment when he is particularly upset at the Justice Department. The department has so far declined to release the results of Bash’s work, though people familiar with his findings say they would likely disappoint conservatives who have tried to paint the “unmasking” of names — a common practice in government to help understand classified documents — as a political conspiracy.
    ……
    Bash’s team was focused not just on unmasking, but also whether Obama-era officials provided information to reporters, according to people familiar with the probe, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive investigation. But the findings ultimately turned over to Barr fell short of what Trump and others might have hoped, and the attorney general’s office elected not to release them publicly, the people familiar with the matter said. The Washington Post was unable to review the full results of what Bash found.
    …….
    The end of Bash’s case is similar to that of another review conducted by John Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah who was asked in November 2017 by Sessions to look into concerns raised by Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton’s time as secretary of state. The Washington Post reported in January that the inquiry of had effectively ended with no tangible results. In the months that followed, Trump bemoaned the state of the inquiry on Twitter, asserting that Huber “did absolutely NOTHING.”
    ……

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  187. It looks like the evidence continues to pile up that there wasn’t criminal wrongdoing on the part of the people that investigated Russian interference in our election and Trump’s involvement in that. I wonder if this will change anyone’s mind.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  188. We have the IG report that found CH was properly predicated, found no evidence that it was politically motivated, and even faulted them for not keeping the DOJ leadership more in the loop. It did find fault with the way the FBI did business WRT to FISA and Wray has said he’s taking action on that.

    We have no indictments of McCabe, Comey, etc by the Barr DOJ

    We have no indictments anyone for how the Hillary investigation was handled.

    The Senate report indicated that there was a lot of reasonable suspicion about Trump and Russia.

    We have the Durham investigation which has been pushed off until after the election. We’d previously been told that it wasn’t targeted at high ranking political officials.

    Now we have the Unmasking probe that has found nothing to pursue and is not being used as a basis for any procedural reforms.

    There’s evidence that needs explanation. But every time someone motivated to hold people accountable goes looking for details we end up with nothing. At this point I don’t think evidence to support the ‘coup’ claim exists. But i remain open to being persuaded otherwise if new evidence emerges.

    Time123 (c9382b)

  189. 183
    Its fall, colors change

    mg (8cbc69)

  190. What I think is significant is that Trump lost his dirty tricks specialists and fixers who last time got him the nomination and possibly the election. Manafort in prison, Cohen ditto, Bannon sidelined and under indictment, Stone sidelined and convicted, Parscale out of favor and out of sight with the specter of criminal charges. I’ll take Kellyanne at her word for her reasons for leaving, and Lewandowski is no loss.

    nk (1d9030)

  191. and now Trmp has got this person Stepien running his campaign.

    https://www.nj.com/politics/2017/01/8_things_to_know_about_the_man_dumped_by_christie.html

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  192. Don’t confuse the Bash probe with the Durham one. The only thing in common is that they both get Trump angry. But then, what doesn’t?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  193. @194: Trump has his own ethical standards it seems.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  194. @192. LOL that leaves something to be desired. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  195. 52.

    The GOP won’t vote on a nomination by a Democrat.

    Sotomayor and Kagan, both post-Reid, would beg to differ. If Scalia had died 6 months earlier, Garland (or whatever nominee) would have gotten a vote. Garland probably would have squeaked through.

    The Senates that confirmed Sotomayor and Kagan were Democrat majority. The last Democrat President whose SCOTUS nominees were confirmed by a GOP majority Senate was Harry Truman. That was 71 yrs ago. Since then, Democrat Senates have confirmed eleven GOP SCOTUS nominees. That’s something you won’t hear on Fox News, just as you’ll only hear the lib-friendly part of the history from MSNBC.

    The escalating politicization of SCOTUS nominations, all legal and norm breaking, has been bipartisan. I doubt Biden will try to pack the Court. If he does I’ll oppose it, and if he succeeds I’ll condemn it. But Republicans have zero standing to complain if the Dems take the next step to an escalation the GOP can still stop if it wants to.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  196. Scott Morefield
    @SKMorefield
    ·
    CNN’s Chris Cuomo: ACB “does have an affiliation in a religious organization, which I think makes her different than most Catholics … her faith is by design more central to her value system and her behavior and thoughts than it would be for just an ordinary Catholic.”

    Huh?
    _

    Cuomo’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
    _

    harkin (7fb4c9)

  197. @199 Actually Cuomo is making perfect sense, although he is not stating it eloquently. If someone belongs to a specific “club” within or closely related to the Church (Opus Dei, Knights of Columbus, bleh*Operation Rescue*bleh etc) it can indicate someone who is more entwined with certain aspects of religious observation than a person who only attends Mass.

    Nic (896fdf)

  198. The escalating politicization of SCOTUS nominations, all legal and norm breaking, has been bipartisan.

    Nah. Ideological conservatism is in retreat. Been so for years and Trump has accelerated it. They’ve lost the grand battle of ideas and the SCOTUS has become their Alamo. The siege for seats is on– not for weeks, or months, but years. But we know how it will eventually end. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  199. @193. An all the drama quite entertaining, isn’t it. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  200. Nancy Pelosi’s attack on a free and fair press is chilling and is putting journalist’s lives in danger. They are an essential part of a free republic, tasked with holding truth to power. This is dangerous and it’s dangerous time to tell the truth in America. Democracy died a little.

    Stephen Miller is a contemptible lying pig, mocking freedom of the press.

    Dave (1bb933)

  201. The Senates that confirmed Sotomayor and Kagan were Democrat majority.

    Super-majority, in fact (60 and 59 seats). Only a handful of Republican senators voted for either of them (9/40 for Sotomayor, 5/41 for Kagan). Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska also voted against Kagan.

    Dave (1bb933)

  202. At this point I don’t think evidence to support the ‘coup’ claim exists. But i remain open to being persuaded otherwise if new evidence emerges.

    You’re treating indictments as evidence of wrongdoing. No indictments, therefore no wrongdoing. That’s not how it works. Ask Ted Stevens.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  203. The escalating politicization of SCOTUS nominations, all legal and norm breaking, has been bipartisan. I doubt Biden will try to pack the Court. If he does I’ll oppose it, and if he succeeds I’ll condemn it. But Republicans have zero standing to complain if the Dems take the next step to an escalation the GOP can still stop if it wants to.

    Oh, bs. You are postulating something that has never occurred based on the history that there was no Democrat nominee to the Court and a Republican Senate in any year between Truman and Garland.

    RBG was elected nearly unanimously, and was recommended to Clinton by a Republican senator.

    Kagan was clearly qualified and not considered a radical. Sotomayor would have been rejected had they been able to.

    There is no reason to assume that a nominee in 2015 would have been stalled. They might not have been confirmed, but the process would have happened. Only in March 2016, WELL after the election season had started, did the GOP have the barest excuse not to get on with it.

    Using this to justify retaliation is pretty much why this country is so broken. Breaking it further to “get even” is the way to Hell, and quickly.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  204. Super-majority, in fact (60 and 59 seats). Only a handful of Republican senators voted for either of them (9/40 for Sotomayor, 5/41 for Kagan).

    9 is not a handful.

    In contrast, only 3 Democrats voted for Gorsuch and 1 for Kavanaugh (with 1 Republican voting against). Biden and Harris, of course, voted against both.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  205. If Democrats actually studied how badly the GOP does on nominations, they’d not worry so much. Roe was decided by 5 Republican appointees, including the author of the decision. The court in Casey was 8-1 GOP appointees. From Nixon through Bush Sr, the GOP appointed 11 straight justices, and 15 of the last 19. And yet Roe stands.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  206. Stephen Miller is a contemptible lying pig, mocking freedom of the press.

    No, he’s mocking those who have mocked freedom of the press these past four years. Don’t take it personally.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  207. But Republicans have zero standing to complain if the Dems take the next step to an escalation the GOP can still stop if it wants to.

    Lurker,

    I want you to tell me with a straight face that the Democrats, had they gotten a few more Senate seats in 2016, would have refrained from jamming though a nominee in the 2 weeks before Trump took office.

    You will probably justify it by some past misdeed they would be getting even for, of course.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  208. @207: Duh. Just Harris voted against, of course. Biden would’ve too, had he been in the Senate — because, like Harris, he’s trying to fix what’s broken in DC.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  209. Stephen Miller is a contemptible lying pig

    There are an exceptional number of contemptible lying pigs in office in DC. Not all work for Trump.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  210. You will probably justify it by some past misdeed they would be getting even for, of course.

    They would have defended it as finally holding a vote wrongfully delayed (in their eyes) by 11 months, and defeating the GOP’s court-shrinking scheme.

    Dave (1bb933)

  211. @205 Indictments are good evidence of possibly provable wrongdoing. Barring that, being able to read the report would also be useful in our own ability to independently evaluate the evidence of wrong doing. There are no indictments and we can’t read the report. Right now what you have is a conspiracy theory that investigations of which have resulted in what appears to be little to no significant evidence of wrongdoing.

    Nic (896fdf)

  212. Oh, bs.

    Only in hyper-partisan world are facts BS.

    Using this to justify retaliation is pretty much why this country is so broken. Breaking it further to “get even” is the way to Hell, and quickly.

    Lol. And you say that with no apparent sense of irony, when the side you’re defending has been playing this mutual retaliation game for decades. I’m justifying nothing. I’ve said repeatedly, though you never seem to notice, that I oppose the next Dem escalation, just as I oppose the current GOP one. But then I don’t have a team, so there’s room in my heart for disgust at both sides. If you doubt the escalations have been bipartisan tit-for-tat, I suggest googling Jonathan Adler’s posts on the subject at Volokh Conspiracy going back at least a decade IIRC.

    BTW, Kevin, when was the last time a SCOTUS nominee was confirmed this close to a presidential election?

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  213. Only in hyper-partisan world are facts BS.

    That doesn’t read how I meant it, so let me clarify. What I said about the 70 yrs since Truman is accurate. Does that mean it justifies more escalation? Absolutely not, which was my point. I cited it to show that both sides have factual narratives which their minions eat up but which transparently fail to justify what they purport to. People can tell when they’re being lied to, and if you look at the polling, they know right now that the legalistically correct, about-face justifications for Garland-Barrett that they’re hearing from Cruz, Graham, McConnell, et al, are lies. It’s very Clintonian. If it comforts you to buy them, be my guest. Just don’t be surprised when the other side plays the same game; don’t think their acolytes are any less sincere in their rationalizations; and don’t kid yourself that anyone has a moral high ground. Now for reasons Dave has ably explained about where the Senate votes would have to come from, I don’t believe court packing has a future even if Biden wanted it to. But if it somehow manages to, just don’t, as the hippies used to say, get high on your own supply.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  214. The big headline today is that yesterday, Amy Coney Barrett refused to recuse herself from any 2020 election related case.

    Democrats are otherwise continuing with the theme that this is about the Affordable Care Act, and that a ruling the wrong way could have horrendous consequences.

    Yesterday Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) claimed to the press that Democrats were attacking ACB on religion, but could not come up with any examples. That happened a little bit with Dianne Feinstein the last time she was nominated fora federal judgeship.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  215. The best thing that could happen to the ACA is the current law struck down and Congress forced to fix it. There are terrible inequities. It is largely unaffordable for the middle class starting in their late 50’s as the premiums become outrageous in the absence of subsidies.

    The Act promises that no one will have to pay more than about 7% of pre-tax income on premiums, but is an abject lie. Couples with incomes over $70K get no subsidies and their premiums can approach 30% of pre-tax income. California actually imposes a surcharge on premiums to cover parts of the program Congress has refused to fund, and these surcharges are zeroed out for those with subsidies. For the rest, it’s more death-spiral.

    Tens of thousands of older couples and families that used to have medical coverage through private insurance at affordable rates have been forced to go without health inusrance by the “Affordable Care Act.” But then, being middle-class taxpayers, they were more likely to be Tea Partiers than Obama supporters, so to Hell with them.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  216. she’s slapping the tar out of durbin will velvet gloves, obamacare wasn’t supposed to work, it was supposed to lead to singlepayer,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  217. As if we need another reason to hold the UN in contempt

    Cuba, China and Russia on Tuesday were elected to the U.N. Human Rights Council — a move that the U.S. branded a “mockery” of the body’s intended purpose and as proof that Washington was right to leave the council in 2018.

    The three countries, all with a history of authoritarianism and human rights abuses, were elected by the U.N. General Assembly, along with countries including Bolivia, France, Mexico, Nepal, Pakistan, Senegal, Uzbekistan and the United Kingdom.

    Freedom House ranks Cuba-Russia-China as “not free”, to put it mildly.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  218. BTW, Kevin, when was the last time a SCOTUS nominee was confirmed this close to a presidential election?

    Probably 1916, when a Justice resigned to accept his nomination for the Presidency, and Wilson sent up a candidate who was confirmed 10 days later. Admittedly it was in July, but it was after the nominating Conventions which would put it well within the election cycle.

    A better question to ask would be: when was the last time that a vacancy occurred this close to a Presidential election? Because that is really the rate-determining step. No vacancy, no nominee.

    In 1956, Sherman Minton retired. The Senate was in recess (as was typical prior to recent years) and Eisenhower made a recess appointment the next day (William Brennan), which would have allowed him to serve until the end of 1958 even if Eisenhower lost. Ike won and Breenon was confirmed the next year.

    Note that the habit of Congress leaving town for the year in June or July is the main (possibly the only) reason that this type of confirmation is rare. Also justices tended to die or resign at better times.

    Probably the closest situations are inconclusive:

    CJ Taney died in October 1864, but the Senate was not in session and the new nomination was not sent up until December (after Lincoln was re-elected). There is no reason to believe that Lincoln would not have sent up a name even if he’d lost — it was a common practice as were confirmations by outgoing majorities.

    Robert Trimble died in August 1828 and JQ Adams sent up a name in December (and again Congress was not in session until then) but the Senate was hostile to the lame duck Adams and ignored it. The seat was filled by Jackson immediately upon taking office. To say that JQ Adams and Jackson were political enemies would be to understate the case.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  219. A better question would be: How many justices were nominated and confirmed AFTER an election that caused a transfer of power. Because that is the ultimate case of refusing to “let the People’s will be done.”

    The answer is 4 times.

    Jan 27, 1801: John Marshall (F to D)
    March 2, 1841: Peter Vivian Daniel (D to W)
    Feb 14, 1845: Samuel Nelson (W to D)
    Feb 18, 1893: Howell Edmunds Jackson (R to D)

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  220. BTW, Kevin, when was the last time a SCOTUS nominee was confirmed this close to a presidential election?

    lurker (d8c5bc) — 10/14/2020 @ 1:11 am

    There’s no question this is unusual. But that’s because justices have a long custom of retiring strategically to help shape the appointment of their replacement. Now that health care is much better, some justices simply aren’t retiring. Scalia and Ginsberg both left by dying, both created an unusual situation where they were replaced by a president who differed from them philosophically.

    But it’s not like Trump (or Obama) chose for these appointments to happen late in their terms. It’s just a plain fact that they have the power to do what they did.

    This all stems more from the Senate declining to vote on Garland, creating a sense on the left that they lost a very important fight. Other than the GOP lying and lying and lying about Garland’s vote, that there was some rule they would always respect, that they promptly disrespected, there isn’t really much legitimately to grip about with Trump appointing Coney.

    Before the GOP laughs about being so contemptable, they should really consider if they believe Lewendowsky, that they are cruising to a great election day. I think a lot of the liars are about to be fired.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  221. And, Dustin, had the Senate tiled D after the 2016 election, some Obama nominee would have been hastily confirmed between Jan 4 and Jan 20, 2017 even though Trump had won.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  222. *tilted

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  223. Steve Krakauer
    @SteveKrak
    ·
    As recently as last month, Webster’s Dictionary included a definition of “preference” as “orientation” or “sexual preference.” TODAY they changed it and added the word “offensive.”

    Insane – I just checked through Wayback Machine and it’s real.

    (via @ThorSvensonn & @chadfelixg)
    __ _

    Politics has broken so many people and institutions……
    __

    harkin (7fb4c9)

  224. As recently as last month, Webster’s Dictionary included a definition of “preference” as “orientation” or “sexual preference.” TODAY they changed it and added the word “offensive.”

    Is your grievance this time that it is not, in fact, offensive?

    If it is considered offensive, why is it a mistake to make the definition reflect that?

    In a random sample of a few online dictionaries, no others include the connotation of sexual orientation or preference in the definition. This omission might reflect their judgment that its use in that sense is offensive.

    Dave (1bb933)

  225. Amy admits to being an originalist.

    So tell the citizenry, Amy:

    Do you believe the sun stood still in the sky? Yes or no?

    Do you believe an ark was built for animals, two by two, to survive a Great Flood? Yes or no?

    Do you ascribe to Divine Creation or Evolution? Choose.

    __________

    Since Sasse prefers to make this a teaching moment to ‘the audience’ – and ooze platitudes over the FF wisdom ‘enshrined’ in the Constitution, Amy should be asked why the Articles of Confederation failed.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  226. “Joe Biden used the term “sexual preference” as recently as last May. Not only that, the sainted Justice Ginsburg, whom Hirono described as “our champion,” used it in 2017.”
    _

    You’re only a Nazi Handmaid if you said it this week.
    _

    harkin (7fb4c9)

  227. Rush Limbaugh played a few exchanges.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  228. ACB is interpreting the references to health insurance as an accusation that she cut a deal with Trump to rule one way in order to be on the court. I think the Democrats are trying to make her out to be an ideologue and are talking about this because it is their idea of a “pocketbook issue”

    They are claiming possible drastic effects on the lives of most Americans from a decision that went one way.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  229. This omission might reflect their judgment that its use in that sense is offensive.

    colored
    Negro
    black
    African-American
    Black

    Meanings should not be fads.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  230. Meanings should not be fads.

    Really??!

    ‘We’ll have a gay ol’ time.’ – ‘The Flintstones’, Hanna-Barbera, 1966

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  231. Meanings should not be fads.

    Militia. Second Amendment.

    Originalism.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  232. They are claiming possible drastic effects on the lives of most Americans from a decision that went one way.

    A number of people were drastically HARMED by the ACA taking effect. They lost policies, their networks were narrowed, their deductibles and premiums skyrocketed and they found themselves financially at risk due to the high cost of their insurance.

    Since the ACA only took effect after Roberts’ 5-4 opinion, one could just as reasonably say that his decision had drastic effects on the already-insured.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  233. @230. Stop the presses: Joe Biden awake; used a door knob this morning.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  234. The second amendment never changed its meaning, just that there were weasels who tried to lie about what it meant. It was always clear from the history.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  235. @236. FIFY: A number of people were drastically HARMED by Heller.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  236. @224

    This all stems more from the Senate declining to vote on Garland, creating a sense on the left that they lost a very important fight. Other than the GOP lying and lying and lying about Garland’s vote, that there was some rule they would always respect, that they promptly disrespected, there isn’t really much legitimately to grip about with Trump appointing Coney.
    Dustin (4237e0) — 10/14/2020 @ 9:19 am

    Dustin…that’s just it. The GOP didn’t lie about their rationale. The GOP and particularly McConnell were making that point that when the Senate and WH are held by different parties, this seats normally doesn’t get filled. Since. Day. One.

    whembly (c30c83)

  237. @238. Not to single-shot Brown Bess toting ‘Originalists.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  238. If Dave and DCSCA still want to wager, an additional prop bet should be that DC has to wear a Modern Musket // AR-15 shirt.

    urbanleftbehind (a36e46)

  239. @242. ULB- does your ramrod slip easily into the barrel of a AR-15? 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  240. Graham an McConnell are lousy to be sure- but memo to Hawaii: surely you can do better than Hirono.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  241. A number of people were drastically HARMED by Heller.

    Yes, D.C. burglars in particular.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  242. @245. Kommie Kev?! Burglars are merely enterprising free marketer at work; capitalists. 😉

    Death and taxes; thank you SCOTUS. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  243. Dustin…that’s just it. The GOP didn’t lie about their rationale.
    whembly (c30c83) — 10/14/2020 @ 12:28 pm

    They lied and lied and lied.

    I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, “Let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination”

    There are a ton of examples of the GOP insisting that the Senate won’t vote on a late appointment. That there’s some kind of rule or precedent that they are honoring and would always honor.

    That was a damn stupid lie.

    The truth was that they held the political power to not consent to Obama’s appointment. That’s a constitutional power. They probably should have voted the nominee down, but either way, they were exercising power in a way they knew wasn’t very popular, so they took the easy road and lied, pretending they weren’t making a choice, but were bound to this rule that was so profound they would do the same if it were a Republican appointment.

    And now, of course, that lie is exposed. The GOP is again exercising its power. The elections that filled those seats happened and the GOP has this power, and will face the consequences, mainly for acting like lying weasels.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  244. whembly (c30c83) — 10/14/2020 @ 12:28 pm

    The GOP didn’t lie about their rationale.

    You know that. I know that. It’s reasonable to think Dustin knows that given how often this has been explained.

    But strawmen are just so hard to give up.

    frosty (f27e97)

  245. “The GOP and particularly McConnell were making that point that when the Senate and WH are held by different parties, this seats normally doesn’t get filled. Since. Day. One.”

    “The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration,” McConnell said. “The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice.”

    Davethulhu (1ebef9)

  246. HI has an obvious replacement for Hirono that will have a lot of “barrels” on this site at the ready.

    urbanleftbehind (a36e46)

  247. If Hillary had won and the Senate remained Republican, I believe that we would have 3 unfilled Supreme Court seats right now.

    Davethulhu (1ebef9)

  248. And, Dustin, had the Senate tiled D after the 2016 election, some Obama nominee would have been hastily confirmed between Jan 4 and Jan 20, 2017 even though Trump had won.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/14/2020 @ 9:24 am

    Yes of course. It’s fine to have a problem with any of these things, but these terms of office were established and they mean what they mean. Trump can appoint a judge in the last hour of his term. That’s what it means to be in a term. The Senate can refuse or hastily confirm the appointments up to the last moment of their terms too.

    The GOP should have been honest: giving up Scalia’s seat was politically something they were obligated by their own elections to resist with the power they had. There was no grand rule they were observing. That was a lie to shield themselves from responsibility for something they perceived as unpopular.

    It’s a little more dramatic with Coney because the election is days away, but the power is completely solid to do what’s happening here.

    If the GOP hadn’t lied and lied and lied with Garland, they wouldn’t look so pathetic today when they cheerfully break their own word. It’s been a long four years of the country losing prestige and a sense of fairness that honestly was a bit of an illusion, but putting what Team D would have done (as much as they could), the fact is the Team R lying with Garland makes the Team R lying with Coney look awful. They are about to get their asses kicked because they are bad at politics, plain and simple.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  249. @246

    Dustin…that’s just it. The GOP didn’t lie about their rationale.
    whembly (c30c83) — 10/14/2020 @ 12:28 pm

    They lied and lied and lied.
    Dustin (4237e0) — 10/14/2020 @ 12:53 pm

    They literally did NOT.

    You’ve bought the Democrat’s spin…hook, line, sinker.

    I’m trying to help you Dustin… GOP, particularly McConnell were empathetic about what is the norms when Senate and WH were held by different parties.

    Stop being the water boy for this Democratic talking point.

    whembly (c30c83)

  250. It’s reasonable to think Dustin knows that given how often this has been explained.

    But strawmen are just so hard to give up.

    frosty (f27e97) — 10/14/2020 @ 12:53 pm

    I already quoted the lie. It is 100% a fact that the GOP senate lied. You just ignored the quote. and said ‘nuh uh.’ You never ‘explained’ it to me. You just ignored it and for some reason used the term ‘strawman’. Is that how this works? Just throw a random word in there and call it a partisan win?

    Dustin (4237e0)

  251. “They literally did NOT.”

    “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  252. They literally did NOT.

    Lied and lied and lied through their teeth and are now losing the election.

    I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, “Let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination”

    To you and Frosty, this was the truth. I mean, in all seriousness you both know it was a lie. You just don’t think lying matters. Maybe you’ve worked out some distinction a sophist would be proud of, but I think you guys just don’t think telling the truth matters.

    As a matter of the constitutional power, you are right. Senators can lie to us and you can tell me it wasn’t a lie. But it’s still lying and the voters are still going to punish Team R.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  253. Burglars are freelance bureaucrats.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  254. And now, of course, that lie is exposed. The GOP is again exercising its power.

    The moral: Don’t talk down to people when straight talk will serve you better.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  255. At this point what I see from the GOP is will to power. The Dems don’t have power so I don’t really know what they’ll do. I expect that they’ll repeat that pattern of using power how they want with less concern for norms about the rights of the minority. The cycle will continue and the government will get more and more powerful.

    Everyone who feel an affiliation with the GOP/DEMS will have an explanation about how their violation of norms is a reasonable response to some provocation, that doing anything else would represent capitulation to a ruthless foe that cares only about power, and that what they’re doing is necessary to save our very way of life.

    It will convince only the already convinced and the end result will be a worse government.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  256. giving up Scalia’s seat

    It was NOT “Scalia’s seat” anymore than it was “RGB’s seat.”

    This is the problem.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  257. Think how much easier Whembly and Frosty’s job would be if the GOP senators had told the truth. Instead of claiming ‘oh heavens we can’t vote this late, there’s an election’ they just said ‘we don’t want to confirm this one and we have the power. If we wanted to confirm we would, but we are making a decision.’ Then when they liked Coney, they could just say ‘as we said before, we confirm those we like and didn’t want to confirm before. Trump is the president, we are the senators, we are exercising our powers.’

    That’s actually much easier. Lying is much harder, long term, than telling the truth. A controversial decision would be easier, not harder, to explain, in the long term, if you tried honestly.

    Let that be a lesson to all of us in our lives, as we often make decisions that we know are not popular, and are tempted, like Team R was in 2016, to say was out of our hands.

    Even more importantly, remaining GOP Partisans: stop putting up with this. You’re being disrespected.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  258. My hope is that dems find a way to step back and break the cycle. I doubt they will. I doubt they’ll try.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  259. It was NOT “Scalia’s seat” anymore than it was “RGB’s seat.”

    This is the problem.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/14/2020 @ 1:08 pm

    You are right. I said that as a matter of convenience, to explain why it seemed like such a loss to Team R, to give a seat they considered Team R property to Team D. I should have been more careful and have had the same thought you just expressed.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  260. @257. No, you’re thinking of pickpockets, a subset of burglars. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  261. @263. Conveniences become habits. And habits are hard to break.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  262. @261, That’s where were at now…which will end with a larger supreme court. I wonder if we’ll enjoy 39 supreme court justices?

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  263. The point is not that the GOP was telling the truth, but that the result was what one should expect if you’re an adult. As is this one. And in situations where the Democrats had the edge on a nomination, I would expect them to use whatever power they had to get their way.

    Had there been a window for the Dems to confirm a nominee in January of 2017, I would also have expected the GOP to do what it could to run out the clock. But not to the point where they’re calling in bomb threats.

    I object when there is a threat to take the normal competition to a new arena, whether it is court-packing or Gingrich’s verkakte idea of eliminating circuits and indirectly removing judges. Or more direct action, which I fear is around the corner.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  264. The moral: Don’t talk down to people when straight talk will serve you better.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/14/2020 @ 1:07 pm

    Yup.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  265. My hope is that dems find a way to step back and break the cycle. I doubt they will. I doubt they’ll try.

    This would be a way for Biden to win the debate. Being more-Trump-than-Trump won’t work well. After all Trump is losing because many people who nominally agree with his policies cannot entrust their country to the man himself. Being fat angry and stupid is no way to go through life lead a country.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  266. @263. Conveniences become habits. And habits are hard to break.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/14/2020 @ 1:12 pm

    Such as dismissing Trump’s problems with references to plagiarism and Ronald Reagan?

    At any rate, thank you for the correction. RBG’s attempt to deed her seat to a political party was an embarrassing end to a brilliant career, and you are right to take me to task, though perhaps in error to view my comment out of the context (That to Team R, that was indeed their property).

    Dustin (4237e0)

  267. the court packing threat, did work they bent over backwards for fdr forevermore,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  268. I object when there is a threat to take the normal competition to a new arena, whether it is court-packing or Gingrich’s verkakte idea of eliminating circuits and indirectly removing judges. Or more direct action, which I fear is around the corner.

    I think the left feels like there is no longer ‘normal competition’ and the precedent their opponents have set is that anything legal is fine. I don’t think the center of the Dem party feels this way but it’s clear from reading what they write that this is their view.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  269. This would be a way for Biden to win the debate. Being more-Trump-than-Trump won’t work well. After all Trump is losing because many people who nominally agree with his policies cannot entrust their country to the man himself. Being fat angry and stupid is no way to go through life lead a country.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/14/2020 @ 1:17 pm

    Two problems. Biden just isn’t the great kind of leader to pull that off, to say he wants to build something much greater than the conditions that led to Trump, conditions that have dominated politics since Bush v Gore. I hope he is that guy, our nation depends on Biden’s success, but I know he isn’t.

    The other problem is that Biden cannot calculate that being about the country, not pushing the envelope for his party, will win the election. In fact, I wonder myself. If Biden had picked Romney or Kasich, promised to simmer the whole thing down, do what is right regardless of party, solve immigration and healthcare with compromise, I think the left wouldn’t have shown up to the polls.

    Biden, Trump, they are consequences of the problem, not the problem itself. The problem is education, media, stupid people.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  270. Meanings should not be fads.

    “out of the loop”

    In 1986, it meant outside the lines of authority, not ignorsnt, as Democrats made it mean in 1992.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  271. i remember when a lid was a 4 finger bag, now its a way to conceal biden in the basement.

    mg (8cbc69)

  272. Dustin @252.

    I believe you meant to say:

    but putting aside what Team D would have done

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  273. Time,

    I don’t understand why you feel that this is “unprecedented.” This particular situation has admittedly not occurred before. Not that it was avoided. Not that they decided to wait. But that, until maybe 1960, the Senate was not in session between July and the election. Both air travel and air conditioning changed things, and since that point this is the first opening that occurred shortly before an election.

    I think that the 4 instances I described of lame-duck confirmations are informative as they were done after the vote by defeated parties, clearly setting an historical precedent.

    Question: Suppose the GOP did not act on this nomination until after the election and then, no matter how that went, pushed the confirmation through in December? Would that sit better with you? Because that IS the precedent.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  274. @261 You still haven’t pointed out any lies.

    You didn’t like the arguments for what the GOP did with Garland, but those weren’t lies.

    whembly (c30c83)

  275. 270. Dustin (4237e0) — 10/14/2020 @ 1:17 pm

    RBG’s attempt to deed her seat to a political party was an embarrassing end to a brilliant career,

    She didn’t do that, or else she might have retired earlier, probably in 2015 (expecting an Obama nominee to get conformed.)

    Part of the reason is that she didn’t expect anyone to be the same as her.

    At the end of her life, she was hoping to last until the next presidential term.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  276. Biden just isn’t the great kind of leader to pull that off,

    I think that Biden has it in him to rise to the occasion. He has no future ambitions, and he probably isn’t going to run again. He may be concerned about what he leaves behind more than a younger man would be concerned about change.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  277. @262

    My hope is that dems find a way to step back and break the cycle. I doubt they will. I doubt they’ll try.

    Time123 (89dfb2) — 10/14/2020 @ 1:11 pm

    Especially since, much of the GOP’s own response to the escalation is in RESPONSE to Democrat’s norm breaking behaviors.

    The only way to stop them is to NOT elect them in the first place imo.

    whembly (c30c83)

  278. I believe you meant to say:
    but putting aside what Team D would have done
    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7) — 10/14/2020 @ 1:37 pm

    Touche’ Sammy, and a good criticism. I am indeed not taking seriously that Team D would have done what Team R did. For one, Team R was completely lawful in refusing to confirm Garland, and completely lawful to appoint Coney and confirm her. Team D didn’t do that stuff. They don’t owe an explanation for doing that stuff. Team R did it and lied about why, claiming some rule that that is 180 degrees from what they are doing. Team R disrespected me with those lies, her loyal defenders disrespect themselves by defending it. Just call it what it is.

    I also think on a larger point, I am accepting the bad things Biden will do as the price I’m willing to pay to get rid of a president who doesn’t even say he supports a peaceful transition of power, after sabotaging mail voting, betraying the Kurds, lovin on Putin. At a certain point, I guess Door number 2 must be the better deal.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  279. So Barron Trump tests positive. Oh, to be a fly on the wall as Melania discusses this with her husband.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  280. I think that Biden has it in him to rise to the occasion. He has no future ambitions, and he probably isn’t going to run again. He may be concerned about what he leaves behind more than a younger man would be concerned about change.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/14/2020 @ 1:41 pm

    Interesting and a great optimistic take. You’re right all Biden has now is a legacy to build. Let’s pray for that.

    But consider his VP decision.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  281. @272

    I object when there is a threat to take the normal competition to a new arena, whether it is court-packing or Gingrich’s verkakte idea of eliminating circuits and indirectly removing judges. Or more direct action, which I fear is around the corner.

    I think the left feels like there is no longer ‘normal competition’ and the precedent their opponents have set is that anything legal is fine. I don’t think the center of the Dem party feels this way but it’s clear from reading what they write that this is their view.

    Time123 (89dfb2) — 10/14/2020 @ 1:22 pm

    The problem is expecting the Courts to rule “your way” if you cannot push the agendas you’d want in Congress.

    That’s where the angst lies on this issue… in that most of the left view the judiciary as some backdoor supra-legislature to advance their goals, it’s the SCOTUS is looking to be out of reach for some time.

    The way to fix that…is to actually use democratic norms and CONVINCE your fellow man that your agenda is the right one.

    whembly (c30c83)

  282. She didn’t do that, or else she might have retired earlier, probably in 2015 (expecting an Obama nominee to get conformed.)

    But she did. She gave her last wish that her seat be inherited by the next president.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  283. It could be that all Doors are Zonks.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  284. But consider his VP decision.

    Maybe he thinks he’ll live forever.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  285. “the lid” is an old journalistic term – I first encountered it in a 1969 book:

    I think “The President’s Plane is Missing.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_President%27s_Plane_Is_Missing_(novel)

    Well OK it was published in 1967. But I read it in 1969. The paperback version.

    Maybe it was only used by reporters covering a president. It dates back to a time when there were afternoon newspapers (and radio, yes)

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  286. @287

    She didn’t do that, or else she might have retired earlier, probably in 2015 (expecting an Obama nominee to get conformed.)

    But she did. She gave her last wish that her seat be inherited by the next president.

    Dustin (4237e0) — 10/14/2020 @ 1:45 pm

    She allegedly said that. I think it’s bunk or she would’ve retired at any point during the Obama era.

    whembly (c30c83)

  287. Especially since, much of the GOP’s own response to the escalation is in RESPONSE to Democrat’s norm breaking behaviors.

    Every partisan is sure that their team’s escalation is a justified response to a ruthless violation of norms. You’re all wrong.

    The only way to stop them is to NOT elect them in the first place imo.

    Too bad Trump is so horrible and the current GOP leadership so bad and reining him in. Usually I’d agree with you.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  288. That’s where the angst lies on this issue… in that most of the left view the judiciary as some backdoor supra-legislature to advance their goals, it’s the SCOTUS is looking to be out of reach for some time.

    The way to fix that…is to actually use democratic norms and CONVINCE your fellow man that your agenda is the right one.

    This would be better. But would require congress to act.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  289. Dustin (4237e0) — 10/14/2020 @ 1:04 pm

    I mean, in all seriousness you both know it was a lie. You just don’t think lying matters. Maybe you’ve worked out some distinction a sophist would be proud of, but I think you guys just don’t think telling the truth matters.

    I’m impressed that you know what I know. That’s an uncommon skill. This seems like a personal attack based on what you think is in my head.

    Let’s try this, what am I thinking now?

    frosty (f27e97)

  290. 284.

    So Barron Trump tests positive. Oh, to be a fly on the wall as Melania discusses this with her husband.

    It;s very hard to isolate from family members.

    The levels of virus gradually accumulates.

    But maybe Donald Trump and Melania should have tried. Donald Trump probably did not wear a mask inside his residence.

    They should ave sent him away – or had the wit to ask that Barron be given a few antibodies – or rather their doctors should have had the wit.

    They should ave given it too to a lot of the people around the White House, and the White House correspondents and news crews. And secret Service.

    Much less is needed to prevent infection than to cure after a positive Covid test. The dosage Trump got may be ideal for 3 to 5 days after a positive test and the beginning of serious symptoms – after that larger and more frequent doses may be needed and they get the side effects of infection too.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  291. More evil than christine odonnell clearly.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  292. The situation was clearer in 2020. She thought she might work into her 90s. Also this might have been in response to a leading question.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  293. @292

    Especially since, much of the GOP’s own response to the escalation is in RESPONSE to Democrat’s norm breaking behaviors.

    Every partisan is sure that their team’s escalation is a justified response to a ruthless violation of norms. You’re all wrong.
    Time123 (53ef45) — 10/14/2020 @ 1:50 pm

    I would encourage you to read this guy’s breakdown of the tit-for-tat in the escalation battle:
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/04/04/unprecedented-make-senate-democrats-pay-for-their-toxic-partisanship-n2308081

    whembly (c30c83)

  294. The other problem is that Biden cannot calculate that being about the country, not pushing the envelope for his party, will win the election. In fact, I wonder myself. If Biden had picked Romney or Kasich, promised to simmer the whole thing down, do what is right regardless of party, solve immigration and healthcare with compromise, I think the left wouldn’t have shown up to the polls.

    You’re confusing being able to agree that Mitt Romney is a decent man who makes principled decision with agreeing on what those principles are.

    “Health care is a human right that should be provided by the state.” is a principled position.
    “Health care is a service that should be rationed by the market to maximize efficiency.” is also a principled position.

    I can see good and decent people believing either.

    But the two are in direct opposition. Biden believes weakly in the first and Romney believes weakly in the 2nd. Even though they both might agree the AG shouldn’t be pressured to investigate the president’s political enemies there’s a host of important issues where they’re going to strongly disagree. Absent a situation where there’s a wide area of left/right agreement a unity ticket isn’t going to work.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  295. Amy Coney Barrett vs. Kamala Harris.

    Amy wins.

    Harris’ demeanor demonstrates to viewers just how poorly she’d be as a president.

    Hillary in blackface.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  296. @298, 99% of everything you tell me to read is well worth the time. I’ll check it out.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  297. @270. Such as dismissing Trump’s problems with references to plagiarism and Ronald Reagan?

    Facts are stubborn things, Dustin.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  298. ACB just ate Kamala’s lunch.

    Glorious.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  299. Whembly, That was a good read i appreciate you taking the time to provide it.

    here’s the counter argument from the left. I like this one better because it uses charts. But I don’t have an opinion about if it’s morally correct.

    I have kids. When one pushes another it’s an endless discussion of why it was justified. If not by chronology then by intensity. This feels much the same to me.

    Time123 (89dfb2)

  300. Kennedy: “Do you support science?”

    ACB: “Yes…”

    Fine.

    Do you believe the sun stood still in the sky?

    Do you believe the Catholic Church was correct to imprison Galileo for defying the church dictum of his time?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  301. Time123 (89dfb2) — 10/14/2020 @ 1:59 pm

    Oddly enough until the 12th ammendment “unity” tickets were mandatory. I know, it wasn’t technically a unity “ticket” but this sort of thinking points to underlying flaws that have developed in our system.

    There shouldn’t be a need for unity a POTUS/VPOTUS except that we’ve allowed Congress to distribute it’s legislative role around the other branches and the other branches have been happy to oblige and we’ve expanded our expectations for what POTUS is actually supposed to do.

    frosty (f27e97)

  302. @304

    Whembly, That was a good read i appreciate you taking the time to provide it.

    here’s the counter argument from the left. I like this one better because it uses charts. But I don’t have an opinion about if it’s morally correct.

    I have kids. When one pushes another it’s an endless discussion of why it was justified. If not by chronology then by intensity. This feels much the same to me.

    Time123 (89dfb2) — 10/14/2020 @ 2:09 pm

    That Motherjones article simply ignores the Democrat’s own behaviors that you cannot articulate in any graphs. So, I implore you to really, REALLY read the history of this and I’m sure you’ll see what I see, in that by far, most of the norms breaking were initiated by Democrats and that the GOP’s “response” is either applying that same rules that Democrat’s deployed, or escalated to such to softly-punish past behaviors.

    whembly (c30c83)

  303. DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/14/2020 @ 2:12 pm

    Do you believe the sun stood still in the sky?

    There is a difference between originalism and literalism.

    frosty (f27e97)

  304. “escalated to such to softly-punish past behaviors.”

    look what you made me do

    Davethulhu (1ebef9)

  305. @309 Indeed. Unilateral disarmament is not an option against Democrats.

    whembly (c30c83)

  306. “Unilateral disarmament is not an option against Democrats.”

    Nor against Republicans.

    Davethulhu (1ebef9)

  307. The lying by Team R, the hostility from Trump to all moral purposes, it brings out the worst in others. Both in his frustrated critics who formed a majority of the voters in 2016 and were dismissed, some of whom are so angry they are doing terrible stuff, and in his defenders, who day in and day out, have to figure out an answer for all this, and usually say things they shouldn’t have.

    Tossing Trump out won’t mean Antifa burns your house down. It just means we go back a few years and try again. And you get Justice Coney either way. NeverTrumpers have needed good news and finally they have it.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  308. Facts are stubborn things, Dustin.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/14/2020 @ 2:04 pm

    OK well it is a fact Biden copied a lot of stuff, and is a shameless dishonest guy, particularly in the 1980s. I am amazed Trump failed to make good use of that, but he’s an idiot and that story isn’t about Trump so I guess it didn’t interest him enough.

    Your Reagan theory isn’t really a fact, and it’s not really a reasonable opinion. And dismissing a lot of conservative juice against the guy with ‘har har, y’all so screwed’ isn’t a fact either. If anything, Trump is going to tear down the party that stood as an obstacle.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  309. @308. No.

    Nice try- it’s not that hard– it’s a matter of a simple yes or no to both questions. Did the sun stand still in the sky and was the Catholic Church correct to imprison Galileo…

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  310. @313. Pence did in his debate to a global audience- hit Kamala right between the eyes with I.

    She was gob-smacked.

    Trump is a Reagan Creation. That’s not theory- it’s fact. Or did you sleep through this rise through Ronnies-1980s-junk-bonded-Boesky-Milken-Keating-S&L-collapse-’87-Wall-St.,-crash, too.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  311. Or did you sleep through this rise through Ronnies-1980s-junk-bonded-Boesky-Milken-Keating-S&L-collapse-’87-Wall-St.,-crash, too.

    I was watching Sesame Street. But I guess I’m watching a lot of it now too, still missing this terrible thing Reagan did cloning Trump or whatever, so I guess some things never change.

    I get your point, but you’re missing that corporate welfare and capitalism wasn’t Team R. It was and is Team D and R. And NYC real estate crooks cultivating relationships with the democrats… that wasn’t Reagan.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  312. I can see good and decent people believing either.

    But the two are in direct opposition. Biden believes weakly in the first and Romney believes weakly in the 2nd. Even though they both might agree the AG shouldn’t be pressured to investigate the president’s political enemies there’s a host of important issues where they’re going to strongly disagree. Absent a situation where there’s a wide area of left/right agreement a unity ticket isn’t going to work.

    Time123 (89dfb2) — 10/14/2020 @ 1:59 pm

    They wouldn’t need to agree if it weren’t pertinent to their jobs. That’s one area the conservatives are simply right. All these problems are a consequence of the vast power the left would like to impose on the rest of the world in many aspects of our lives. The fact that it’s just not the role of the president or the US Senate to do this is considered hateful. And over time, Team R has decided to do the same thing.

    If we agreed to let states work out a lot of issues and regs, Romney, Biden, Bush, Obama, Kasich, guys like that actually could work on the same ticket, just as you can work with your own colleagues while disagreeing about what’s the best BBQ. But the refusal to let that happen has been central to the growth of government for decades.

    In six months, people will be afraid to say ‘sexual preference’ because they might lose their future promotion. Just like that, the power is absurd.

    I’m actually eager to fight the good fight, but not for Trump, who is a pretender conservative, a pretender protector my rights let alone my country.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  313. @314 @308. No.

    No, literalism and originalism aren’t different things? You might want to check the dictionary on that.

    And no, neither of those questions are simple yes/no questions. It’s a nice framing game though.

    frosty (f27e97)

  314. I’m impressed that you know what I know.

    Don’t be. You’re a very smart person and I know you understand this stuff as well as I do. Let’s be real about the Lindsey Grahams and the hard cold fact they lie to us every damn day even if, as was the case with Garland, telling the truth would have been easier.

    They disrespected you and all republicans expecting you to justify or keep supporting this. Everything an officer holder does is in the name of the people.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  315. @319 They told the truth Dustin.

    The issue was centered about why wouldn’t the Senate conduct a hearing for Garland. A. BLOODY. HEARING.

    Why hold the hearing when they said that:
    a) It wasn’t the norm to fill this seat when Whitehouse and Senate are held by different parties.
    and
    b) Let the American people decide in 2016.

    The media, democrats and you focus exclusively on “b” and ignores the statements of “a”.

    Stop this disingenuous hackery. The Republicans were crystal clear here and they weren’t lying.

    whembly (c30c83)

  316. 253.

    They lied and lied and lied.
    Dustin (4237e0) — 10/14/2020 @ 12:53 pm

    They literally did NOT. You’ve bought the Democrat’s spin…hook, line, sinker.

    Let’s recap. As quoted above by Dustin and Davethulhu:

    “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”

    and

    “The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration,” McConnell said. “The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice.”

    Lest there was any ambiguity, McConnell doubled down:

    “The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let’s give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be.”

    Thom Tillis also weighed in:

    “It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our Republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots.”

    As did the redoubtable Ted Cruz:

    “For 80 years it has been the practice that the Senate has not confirmed any nomination made during an election year, and we shouldn’t make an exception now.”

    There’s more, but if that’s not enough, nothing will be. So tell me, which part of that was the Democrat spin?

    You’re exactly as blinded by tribalism as the people you oppose. And like them, you’re so deep in tribal waters you don’t even know you’re wet.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  317. no they didn’t, man

    Dustin (4237e0)

  318. Stop this disingenuous hackery. The Republicans were crystal clear here and they weren’t lying.

    whembly (c30c83) — 10/14/2020 @ 3:46 pm

    They were lying. They literally said things they did not believe were true, and that they promptly flip flopped very soon after, when their standard was tested the very first time.

    Calling my plain and honest analysis ‘hackery’ is projection. You know it. When you go that far, you’re disrespecting yourself.

    Team R isn’t worth it, but it brings the worst out of people because of how scared they make you of Team D. And Team D does the same crap. Rise above all that nonsense. Your team lied to you and you should leave your team.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  319. Amy Coney Barrett vs. Kamala Harris.

    Amy wins.

    Harris’ demeanor demonstrates to viewers just how poorly she’d be as a president.

    Hillary in blackface.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/14/2020 @ 2:02 pm

    Why did you even need that last line?

    I don’t see anything about Kamala that reminds me of Hillary. I guess they both went to a law school. Kamala’s husband is not the looming and everpresent source of her success or brand. I don’t support Harris, but her path and Hillary’s are totally different. Coasting to the Senate because you happened to be first lady, sucking at Senate, then Secretary of State, then running one of the worst presidential campaigns twice, that’s not Harris. Hillary always had just enough self-awareness to know she’s not that great, which she compensated for with bloviation. Harris thinks she’s great. She’s not bloviating. She thinks she’s making her case.

    I agree Harris looks pretty rotten next to the stoic and calm, seemingly old-school Coney, but if you don’t worry about the wardrobe, it’s clear Harris is her own brand of lame.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  320. She allegedly said that. I think it’s bunk or she would’ve retired at any point during the Obama era.

    Why? Hillary was a sure thing.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  321. Every partisan is sure that their team’s escalation is a justified response to a ruthless violation of norms. You’re all wrong.

    OK, I’ll bite. Tell me what Reid’s filibusters were in reaction to, if not just a tactical strike out of the blue.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  322. How do you know that the filibuster war was started by Democrats?

    GOP side: “Even after the ugliness and vitriol of Democrats’ treatment of Bork and Thomas, the GOP did not answer in kind. But when President George W. Bush took office in the early 2000’s, Senate Democrats decided to push the envelope again.”

    Democrat side: “No one has completely clean hands when it comes to filibusters in the Senate.”

    It’s pretty obvious who’s talking facts and who’s waving hands.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  323. look what you made me do

    After a while you run out of cheeks.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  324. @323

    Stop this disingenuous hackery. The Republicans were crystal clear here and they weren’t lying.

    whembly (c30c83) — 10/14/2020 @ 3:46 pm

    They were lying. They literally said things they did not believe were true, and that they promptly flip flopped very soon after, when their standard was tested the very first time.

    Calling my plain and honest analysis ‘hackery’ is projection. You know it. When you go that far, you’re disrespecting yourself.

    Team R isn’t worth it, but it brings the worst out of people because of how scared they make you of Team D. And Team D does the same crap. Rise above all that nonsense. Your team lied to you and you should leave your team.

    Dustin (4237e0) — 10/14/2020 @ 4:05 pm

    whembly (c30c83)

  325. @323 (oops)

    Stop this disingenuous hackery. The Republicans were crystal clear here and they weren’t lying.
    whembly (c30c83) — 10/14/2020 @ 3:46 pm

    They were lying. They literally said things they did not believe were true, and that they promptly flip flopped very soon after, when their standard was tested the very first time.

    Calling my plain and honest analysis ‘hackery’ is projection. You know it. When you go that far, you’re disrespecting yourself.

    Team R isn’t worth it, but it brings the worst out of people because of how scared they make you of Team D. And Team D does the same crap. Rise above all that nonsense. Your team lied to you and you should leave your team.

    Dustin (4237e0) — 10/14/2020 @ 4:05 pm

    You’ve yet to provide any substantiation that they lied.

    Zero.

    After numerous request for you to justify that statement.

    But, you’ve ignored it to make a boilerplate argument.

    That’s hackery Dustin.

    whembly (c30c83)

  326. whembly (c30c83) — 10/14/2020 @ 3:46 pm

    whembly has a point here: Just because the media picks certain things to relate does not mean that was all that was said.

    “I do know that the slickest way to lie is to tell the right amount of truth–then shut up.”
    — Jubal Harshaw, Stranger in a Strange Land

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  327. @324. If the pants suit fits- wear it.

    In other news–

    Hunter explodes. See the NY Post for details.

    Nancy implodes. See CNN for details.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  328. : Just because the media picks certain things to relate does not mean that was all that was said.

    Well sure. But I quoted the GOP claim as to their basis for their lack of confirmation of Garland, and it included a promise. The conditioned contained in that promise came to pass and what was claimed to be the rule is being broken right now.

    Whembly says I’m a hack, but I’m just pointing out the fact: the GOP lied in 2016. What they said they would do, and what they are actually doing, are 180 different. His claim I’m a hack is even more absurd because, of course, I keep saying what the GOP is doing right now, and what they did in 2016 were both lawful. A hack would not defend the GOP while proving they are a party of liars. In fact, Whembly is simply projecting out of a need so many political comments have to be hacks. It’s so common that a charge of ‘hack’ seems credible automatically.

    Doesn’t change how shameful it is to carry water for liars who lied a lot, even about lying.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  329. @324. If the pants suit fits- wear it.

    I don’t get it. Do you wish you could wear a dress everywhere? I don’t. It seems inconvenient. I don’t care about that.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  330. @321 lurker

    Feb. 22, 2016: McConnell reaffirms his stance: “Of course it’s within the president’s authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance — remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago — but we also know that Article II, Section II of the Constitution grants the Senate the right to withhold its consent, as it deems necessary.”

    And several permutations of this same argument.

    whembly (c30c83)

  331. Trump in Iowa-

    Biden in bunker; campaign in chaos; Joey got som ‘splain’ to do.

    Can’t hide from this anymore, Joe.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  332. @333

    Whembly says I’m a hack, but I’m just pointing out the fact: the GOP lied in 2016. What they said they would do, and what they are actually doing, are 180 different. His claim I’m a hack is even more absurd because, of course, I keep saying what the GOP is doing right now, and what they did in 2016 were both lawful. A hack would not defend the GOP while proving they are a party of liars. In fact, Whembly is simply projecting out of a need so many political comments have to be hacks. It’s so common that a charge of ‘hack’ seems credible automatically.

    Doesn’t change how shameful it is to carry water for liars who lied a lot, even about lying.

    Dustin (4237e0) — 10/14/2020 @ 4:38 pm

    Because you’re not making the case, via citations, that substantiate your arguments.

    The GOP, particularly McConnel, as stated over & over again their justifications. The media & critics didn’t like it because they wanted a HEARING. As if there’s an OBLIGATION for an HEARING.

    There’s ZERO obligation for a hearing in the US Constitution. That was argued ad nasaum.

    Again:
    https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=A3B740CE-F80C-4842-B656-11A1154B55D0

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor today regarding the Supreme Court’s vacancy:

    “I recently joined my good friend from Iowa, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in writing an opinion piece.

    “We expressed our joint view that the death of Justice Scalia represented a significant loss for our country and that, while finding the right person to take the seat he occupied will clearly be a monumental task, it’s one we think the American people are more than equipped to tackle.

    “Some disagree and would rather the Senate simply push through yet another lifetime appointment from a president who’s on his way out the door.

    “Of course it’s within the president’s authority to nominate a successor even in this very rare circumstance — remember that the Senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888, almost 130 years ago — but we also know that Article II, Section II of the Constitution grants the Senate the right to withhold its consent, as it deems necessary.

    “It’s clear that concern over confirming Supreme Court nominations made near the end of a presidential term is not new. Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I believe that it is today the American people who are best-positioned to help make this important decision — rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election.”

    There’s numerous, NUMEROUS permutations of this spiel throughout the process on Senate floor transcript and media appearances and interviews.

    It’s *you* carrying that the waters of the Democrats temper tantrum over this whole ordeal that EXPLODED when Trump won in 2016.

    So, if you don’t want to be a “hack” and spew boilerplate statements w/o justification… then back up your assertions as to WHY you believe GOP lied.

    whembly (c30c83)

  333. DCSCA, Is there some kind of unified field theory that makes sense of your apparent beliefs that Satan’s earthly incarnation, Ronald Reagan, apostle of the dark religion of conservatism, spawned generations of conservative antichrists including the current president of the United States, yet you hold that currently reigning antichrist in greater esteem than you do his milquetoast, anti-(conservative) evil opponent?

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  334. I don’t see anything about Kamala that reminds me of Hillary.

    You need glasses.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  335. You need glasses.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/14/2020 @ 4:48 pm

    Is this something I need to see, in your opinion? I’m doing OK as it is.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  336. And several permutations of this same argument.

    whembly (c30c83) — 10/14/2020 @ 4:40 pm

    LOL this is amazing. I almost wonder if this a bit.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  337. @338. Reaganomics.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  338. Showman Trump in Iowa. Great TeeVee.

    Where is Joe?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  339. whembly (c30c83) — 10/14/2020 @ 4:32 pm

    I’m not sure this is correct. Based on his comments Dustin interprets the comments made during the Garland nomination to mean that R’s would never confirm a SCOTUS during the 4th year of a first term POTUS. He doesn’t acknowledge that any distinction was made, either express or implied, about midterm elections, control of the Senate, or other conditions. In other words, under all circumstances no SCOTUS appointments during the 4th year.

    Under that definition he then asserts that they knew at the time that they would in fact confirm a SCOTUS during the 4th year of a first term POTUS under some circumstances and therefore they lied.

    frosty (f27e97)

  340. This “hack” thing isn’t productive. Or very interesting.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  341. Dustin (4237e0) — 10/14/2020 @ 4:38 pm

    I’m just pointing out the fact: the GOP lied in 2016. What they said they would do, and what they are actually doing, are 180 different.

    Before this one passes by; this isn’t describing a lie and that goes to whembly’s point. So far you’re describing a broken promise and you’re not supporting the argument that they lied in 2016.

    frosty (f27e97)

  342. Under that definition he then asserts that they knew at the time that they would in fact confirm a SCOTUS during the 4th year of a first term POTUS under some circumstances and therefore they lied.

    Well, of course they knew it. It’s been done 17 out of 19 times that the President and Senate were of the same party, and NOT done 7 of 8 times the opposite was true. And the Democrats knew what they would do on Jan 5th if they got control of the Senate.

    They are politicians. Their mouths are moving. Do the math. Not one person on Capitol Hill says anything except to further partisan advantage. The problem here is that the press doesn’t have the wit to laugh in their faces.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  343. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/14/2020 @ 5:11 pm

    This is why I said it was a broken promise at best. If you hear the comment it’s reasonable to make certain inferences. You can understand the context of differing parties or the senate changing at the midterm if you choose too. You can also game out different cases, i.e. more than one leaving the bench, planned or unplanned, etc. and realize this really isn’t a blanket unconditional statement. You can also consider that, with the exception of car and medical ads on tv, common English statements don’t include long lists of disclaimers and exceptions.

    Or you can decide that for one time in the history of all time and space it makes sense to take a political statement in the most literal and broadest sense possible.

    Calling it a broken promise just doesn’t give the same dopamine hit as lie though and you’ve got to catch that dragon.

    frosty (f27e97)

  344. If you can’t see through the legalistic parsing of the GOP nomination lies, you must also reject the Republican “spin” that Bill lied about Monica Lewinsky, right? I mean, as long as you stipulate that sexual relations means intercourse, he told the God’s honest truth that he “did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

    Did you wonder how the Ds who defended him with that nonsense could buy their own BS? Look in the mirror.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  345. If your argument is that a broken promise isn’t the same as a lie, then Obama didn’t lie about keeping your doctor. Get serious.

    There are broken promises that aren’t lies, and there are broken promises that are. Like “you can keep your doctor,” these were the latter, and the American people know it.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  346. lurker (d8c5bc) — 10/14/2020 @ 5:34 pm

    No. This is an issue of definitions. This is like saying stealing doesn’t include taking stuff if someone didn’t see you. You don’t get to make your own definition and then say you aren’t lying under that definition.

    lurker (d8c5bc) — 10/14/2020 @ 5:40 pm

    There are broken promises that aren’t lies, and there are broken promises that are.

    Yep. That was my point.

    frosty (f27e97)

  347. Yep. That was my point.

    frosty (f27e97) — 10/14/2020 @ 5:51 pm

    It’s not a sensible one if you read those statements. Of course they were lies. Just read them. They weren’t just saying ‘golly we’ll never do that thing’ they were saying ‘there is a really important rule’ that was not really a rule. Their lie was intended only to avoid responsibility for a decision they had every constitutional right to make, because it is a controversial thing for the Senate to decline a president’s appointment to the supreme court. They were cowards who didn’t have the kind of reason to reject Garland that would sell to the people, so they lied to the people.

    They lied and lied and lied.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  348. That Motherjones article simply ignores the Democrat’s own behaviors that you cannot articulate in any graphs. So, I implore you to really, REALLY read the history of this and I’m sure you’ll see what I see, in that by far, most of the norms breaking were initiated by Democrats and that the GOP’s “response” is either applying that same rules that Democrat’s deployed, or escalated to such to softly-punish past behaviors.

    whembly (c30c83) — 10/14/2020 @ 2:15 pm

    Right, I didn’t say “Here’s the correct answer”. I said Here’s the Dem response.

    Look every partisan thinks what their team did is justified. The NR piece did. It minimized any violation of the norms by the GOP as a gentle pushback. The MJ piece just looked at total volume and not who went first or if the situations were of equal importance.

    Bottom line I don’t think any of you care as much about my country as you do about beating the opposition party.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  349. Showman Trump in Iowa. Great TeeVee.

    Where is Joe?

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/14/2020 @ 4:52 pm

    He’s busy beating Trump in Georgia and Pennsylvania.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  350. Dustin (4237e0) — 10/14/2020 @ 5:53 pm

    It’s been a fun day. You’ve called me a liar, immoral, and now not sensible.

    Just read them.

    I did. I just didn’t interpret it as broadly and literally then, or now, as you.

    frosty (f27e97)

  351. @354

    Bottom line I don’t think any of you care as much about my country as you do about beating the opposition party.

    Time123 (53ef45) — 10/14/2020 @ 5:59 pm

    I resent that dude.

    Much of my opposition to the Democratic party *is* because I very much care about my country.

    whembly (c30c83)

  352. He’s busy beating Trump in Georgia and Pennsylvania.

    Ooh, if there’s anybody I want to see thrown out on their ear as much as Trump, it’s Kelly Loeffler. She’s what Trump would have been if Trump had ovaries and brains. She literally bought the appointment to Isaakson’s seat. For $3.2 million if you must know.

    nk (1d9030)

  353. O.o

    @MattWolking

    Politico: “Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi”

    whembly (c30c83)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8424 secs.