SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

[z0sa]

If this keeps up, btw, I think we could very well end up with a President Bloomberg.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Bloomberg.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Bloomberg.htm)

Zero chance. And Bernie pays for all his proposals, btw. Fighting for them wih congress is one thing, but calling it misrepresented just because of the wealthy special interests blocking it thru their paid off politicians when clearly that is what Bernie keeps saying the whole problem is, means you are actually the one misrepresenting Bernie and the reality of this country. Donald Trump and Bernie are not even comparable in that regard. I mean, ones talking about taxing the rich pre 60s levels and another one is talking about making Mexico build an 8 billion dollar wall for free. Lol Trump.

[Will Hunting]

He could actually try to pull this off with a Hispanic... lots of pros for Dems to do this:
1) Latinos are now 17% of the US population (way more than black/asian voters), even outpacing whites in some areas
2) They could see this a door for some form of paving the way to immigration amnesty/reform, which would really get their asses in gear to go vote
3) Plays well against the Trump latino hate

Just don't know if there's any candidate they have at hand... Maybe that faggot Julian Castro... he's in his early 40s.... hmmm

I think the GOP's view on immigration is going to be enough for a decent latino vote turnout that votes overwhelmingly Democrat. With blacks, they don't show up to the polls unless they have a reason to (the reason usually has to be superficial since blacks generally don't pay attention to actual policy but rather shit like "muh homie Bill Clinton likes dem thick white girls!") and so far they don't have one.

[101A]

On that score, gotta hand it to Bernie.

I guess so.

Of course nearly 4 decades in and no track record of getting anything done. Maybe he's learned statecraft, but the record suggests otherwise. Trump's just Trump.

[101A]

Zero chance. And Bernie pays for all his proposals, btw. Fighting for them wih congress is one thing, but calling it misrepresented just because of the wealthy special interests blocking it thru their paid off politicians when clearly that is what Bernie keeps saying the whole problem is, means you are actually the one misrepresenting Bernie and the reality of this country. Donald Trump and Bernie are not even comparable in that regard. I mean, ones talking about taxing the rich pre 60s levels and another one is talking about making Mexico build an 8 billion dollar wall for free. Lol Trump.

Did you even bother to look at all of the links I posted from liberal sources questioning his math?

[rmt]

Zero chance. And Bernie pays for all his proposals, btw. Fighting for them wih congress is one thing, but calling it misrepresented just because of the wealthy special interests blocking it thru their paid off politicians when clearly that is what Bernie keeps saying the whole problem is, means you are actually the one misrepresenting Bernie and the reality of this country. Donald Trump and Bernie are not even comparable in that regard. I mean, ones talking about taxing the rich pre 60s levels and another one is talking about making Mexico build an 8 billion dollar wall for free. Lol Trump.

I don't understand why some think that rich people are just gonna take being taxed at such high levels. This is not the 60s. We live in the age of the internet, Concords, etc. Rich people can live anywhere and still be connected. Do we not see all these companies leaving the US in order to pay less taxes? Monte Carlo and other countries will be welcoming the rich with open arms, and the middle class will be the one (again) stuck with paying for what Bernie wants. IMO, the solution is less taxes to bring back the companies and the money parked abroad and as a result - more JOBS.

[boutons_deux]

"Do we not see all these companies leaving the US in order to pay less taxes?"

that's not what there doing, but it's normal you're misinformed

[Nbadan]

I don't understand why some think that rich people are just gonna take being taxed at such high levels. This is not the 60s. We live in the age of the internet, Concords, etc. Rich people can live anywhere and still be connected. Do we not see all these companies leaving the US in order to pay less taxes? Monte Carlo and other countries will be welcoming the rich with open arms, and the middle class will be the one (again) stuck with paying for what Bernie wants. IMO, the solution is less taxes to bring back the companies and the money parked abroad and as a result - more JOBS.

Can't move their businesses...and the US is still the largest consumer market in the world...besides, once they declare their allegiance to another country they cannot legally make political donations here in the US....win..win...

[Splits]

Did you even bother to look at all of the links I posted from liberal sources questioning his math?

Daily Caller is liberal?

:lmao

[rmt]

Can't move their businesses...and the US is still the largest consumer market in the world...besides, once they declare their allegiance to another country they cannot legally make political donations here in the US....win..win...

Well, if I was being taxed 77% on my income, I think I'd just sell up, give up my citizenship and move elsewhere.

[Nbadan]

Well, if I was being taxed 77% on my income, I think I'd just sell up, give up my citizenship and move elsewhere.

First of all, I doubt it gets anywhere close to 77%....probably closer to the mid 50's on the high end....Bernie would not get everything he wants from either a GOP or Democrat Congress...but at least he has started the conversation in the right direction....call it wealth distribution, call it progressive taxation...money concentrates...and large money concentrates really, really fast...that is what it wrong with our country....too big to fail....

[rmt]

First of all, I doubt it gets anywhere close to 77%....probably closer to the mid 50's on the high end....Bernie would not get everything he wants from either a GOP or Democrat Congress...but at least he has started the conversation in the right direction....call it wealth distribution, call it progressive taxation...money concentrates...and large money concentrates really, really fast...that is what it wrong with our country....too big to fail....

Therein lies the problem - he can't get what he wants - so where does that take us? With single-payor and more and more debt since he can't pay for it. Or no single-payor with more money out of our pockets being wasted and irresponsibly spent by this government.

[Nbadan]

With single-payor and more and more debt since he can't pay for it

Single payer could result in a thousand dollars a month to typical middle class families in health care savings....I don't think they will mind a slight tax increase....and single payer does not mean government would run healthcare...just the way the bill is negotiated..

[101A]

First of all, I doubt it gets anywhere close to 77%....probably closer to the mid 50's on the high end....Bernie would not get everything he wants from either a GOP or Democrat Congress...but at least he has started the conversation in the right direction....call it wealth distribution, call it progressive taxation...money concentrates...and large money concentrates really, really fast...that is what it wrong with our country....too big to fail....

much of the country is in the mid to upper 50's already.

[rmt]

much of the country is in the mid to upper 50's already.

The upper levels are paying 39.6%, 7.65% ss + medicare, extra 2.35% for Obamacare Medicare tax, and 3.8% extra on Obamacare capital gains - that's 53.4%. That's not even considering property tax, state income tax, sales tax, gasoline tax and the myriad of other hidden taxes - just federal income tax. . What's the point of working if the government is gonna take most of it?

[boutons_deux]

The upper levels are paying 39.6%, 7.65% ss + medicare, extra 2.35% for Obamacare Medicare tax, and 3.8% extra on Obamacare capital gains - that's 53.4%. That's not even considering property tax, state income tax, sales tax, gasoline tax and the myriad of other hidden taxes - just federal income tax. . What's the point of working if the government is gonna take most of it?

and no deductions?

[Th'Pusher]

The upper levels are paying 39.6%, 7.65% ss + medicare, extra 2.35% for Obamacare Medicare tax, and 3.8% extra on Obamacare capital gains - that's 53.4%. That's not even considering property tax, state income tax, sales tax, gasoline tax and the myriad of other hidden taxes - just federal income tax. . What's the point of working if the government is gonna take most of it?

Your numbers are way off. Look up the effective tax rate, which is what people actually pay.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456.

[rmt]

The upper levels are paying 39.6%, 7.65% ss + medicare, extra 2.35% for Obamacare Medicare tax, and 3.8% extra on Obamacare capital gains - that's 53.4%. That's not even considering property tax, state income tax, sales tax, gasoline tax and the myriad of other hidden taxes - just federal income tax. What's the point of working if the government is gonna take most of it?

My bad - I added the medicare, ss, and obamacare medicare/capital gains tax after and forgot to delete the "just federal income tax". The 39.6% is marginal and ss is capped at $118,500. There's also an extra medicare tax of 0.9% for over $200,000 that I left off. Deductions, exemptions, etc are here:

http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/compensation/articles/pages/fica-social-security-tax-2016.aspx

[RandomGuy]

Did you even bother to look at all of the links I posted from liberal sources questioning his math?

Sadly enough, Bernie does better than the GOP crowd as far as tax policy. I grew up with the Republican party being the one of "fiscal responsibility".

That went out the window with the Bush tax cuts that added trillions to the national debt for vanishingly small benefit.

Supply side economics has become the GOP dogma, despite the mounds of evidence that it is an abject failure.

Kansas is the best example:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article54477390.html
http://www.kansasbudget.com/

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/05/29/republicans-have-become-the-party-of-red-ink

As a social liberal and fiscal conservative with a decent understanding of economics, I just can't really support a party with an abject disconnect from economic reality.

Many on the right like the strawman that democrats don't support or like free markets, but that is a myth that doesn't survive the mildest of scrutiny. The vast majority of Democrats, myself included, believe in free markets. We just want them fairly regulated. don't take my word for it, just ask them.

Sanders might not have the best fleshed out plans, but they do detail his priorities, and many of them are very worthwhile goals.

As a realist, I know they will end up being swampy pits to drain, with reality being far more stubborn than human intent, ala closing Gitmo.

But they are a helluva lot more likely to make our lives better than a "wall on the Mexican border".

The big problem I see with the GOP is its utter lack of ideas. It is intellectually bankrupt. "cut taxes" seems to sum up the entirety of their policy idea arsenal, after making sure gay people can't marry (rolls eyes).

[RandomGuy]

It is indisputable that he has more business experience than all the others. I am under no disillusion as to who or what Trump is - I'm not expecting him to even build a wall much less have Mexico pay for it or deport 11 million illegals. He is the anti-thesis of almost everything I believe in BUT he has the one skill and experience that might pull this country from the financial disaster it's heading toward. Something none of these politicians have - business sense. All these things both sides fight over pales in comparison to having a JOB where one can provide one's own food, housing, healthcare, education, etc.

They all lie (Carson less so in this area) - even Bernie - if his fans think that rich people have enough money to support all he wants - they don't - it'll be the middle class again who shoulders most of the burden. If he tries to tax the rich as high as he wants, do you think they are going to stay here in the US. They will do what all the companies who did tax inversion do - leave for lower taxes.

I'd like to be so bankrupt as to be flying around the country in a plane with my name displayed on the side.

The presidency is so completely unlike running a business that the skills don't even come close to carrying over.

Worse, Trumps arrogance and posturing would make him enemies in both parties, and simply create another running feud between the executive and legislative branch, making him by definition ineffectual, even more so than Obama has been.

Running a business as a CEO that can unilaterally implement policies without dealing with a legislative body doesn't make you magically better. Obama for all the hullabaloo about the executive orders tried that, and any informed analysis of those orders was that they were pitifully ineffectual at achieving desired policy goals.

A president needs congress and vice versa.

Trump will not get you jobs, and certainly won't do as well as Obama has done so far for that simple reason.

[boutons_deux]

yeah, both parties play it, one plays it much harder than the other

McCain abandons previous standards on Supreme Court nominees


Not long after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced (https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/699308951242932228?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)his support for the Republican Party’s blockade against any President Obama nominee. The senator’s partisan reaction was swift and unequivocal.

It’s also wholly at odds with everything McCain has said and done throughout his career. TheHuffington Post reported (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-mccain-supreme-court-nominees_us_56c3ab12e4b0c3c550531205?l0jp2e29) yesterday:


The top Democrat vying to challenge John McCain for his Senate seat this fall is accusing the Arizona Republican of hypocrisy over the effort to replace – or rather not replace – the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. […]

The campaign team for Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.), who’s running to replace McCain, found the senator’s switch so noteworthy that they went looking for those previous occasions when he explained why presidents deserve votes on nominees. And they found them.


Indeed, the Kirkpatrick campaign uncovered some real gems. In one particularly notable example, McCain sat down with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in July 2005, making the case that

if Democrats want to choose Supreme Court nominees, then they should “win the next presidential election,” since “that’s the way the system works.”
For the record, Democrats did, in fact, win the next presidential election.

The senator also noted at the time that he “voted for both Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg, because I believed that President Clinton won the election,” and “elections have consequences.”

McCain added, “The American voter was very well aware of what kind of judge the president of the United States was going to appoint and they decided to re-elect him. Maybe that wasn’t the reason, but they knew that came with the deal.”

Right. And in 2012, Republicans spent a fair amount of time telling Americans that the future of the Supreme Court was on the line. To borrow a phrase, voters were very well aware of what kind of judge President Obama was going to appoint and they decided to re-elect him. Maybe that wasn’t the reason, but they knew that came with the deal.


Perhaps McCain might make the case that 2016 is qualitatively different because it’s a presidential election year, but let’s not forget that McCain was in the Senate in 1988 when he voted (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/100-1988/s436) along with 96 other senators to confirm Justice Anthony Kennedy.

As for the senator’s explanation, his office issued a written statement blaming (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-mccain-supreme-court-nominees_us_56c3ab12e4b0c3c550531205?l0jp2e29) the “nuclear option” for destroying “any semblance of cooperation.” :lol

As a substantive matter, this can charitably be described as gibberish.

In case McCain’s forgotten, the Senate Republican minority imposed a blockade in 2013 on any President Obama nominee for the D.C. Circuit, regardless of merit, filibustering literally every jurist considered for the appellate bench. Republicans said at the time that the partisan blockade would continue indefinitely, even on judges who enjoyed majority support in the Senate.

Left with no choice, Democrats restored majority rule using a legislative maneuver that Republicans came up with during the Bush/Cheney era. McCain and his cohorts now believe that change justifies a new tantrum and another blockade. There is simply no way to take such an argument seriously.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mccain-abandons-previous-standards-supreme-court-nominees?cid=sm_fb_maddow

Recess appointment, Barry, DO IT!

[Splits]

Y_3PEIUEGto

[101A]

Sadly enough, Bernie does better than the GOP crowd as far as tax policy. I grew up with the Republican party being the one of "fiscal responsibility".

That went out the window with the Bush tax cuts that added trillions to the national debt for vanishingly small benefit.

Supply side economics has become the GOP dogma, despite the mounds of evidence that it is an abject failure.

Kansas is the best example:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article54477390.html
http://www.kansasbudget.com/

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/05/29/republicans-have-become-the-party-of-red-ink

As a social liberal and fiscal conservative with a decent understanding of economics, I just can't really support a party with an abject disconnect from economic reality.

Many on the right like the strawman that democrats don't support or like free markets, but that is a myth that doesn't survive the mildest of scrutiny. The vast majority of Democrats, myself included, believe in free markets. We just want them fairly regulated. don't take my word for it, just ask them.

Sanders might not have the best fleshed out plans, but they do detail his priorities, and many of them are very worthwhile goals.

As a realist, I know they will end up being swampy pits to drain, with reality being far more stubborn than human intent, ala closing Gitmo.

But they are a helluva lot more likely to make our lives better than a "wall on the Mexican border".

The big problem I see with the GOP is its utter lack of ideas. It is intellectually bankrupt. "cut taxes" seems to sum up the entirety of their policy idea arsenal, after making sure gay people can't marry (rolls eyes).

I am not a believer in Supply Side; nor am I believer, at all, of what Bernie is selling. Generally, although many of the left's goals are admirable, the amount of power and control that must be ceded to the state in order to achieve those is, in my view, too great a price to pay. Liberty should be the most cherished, and protected goal, because once it is lost, it is (almost) never recovered. Equality and Fairness are elusive, if not unattainable, ideals, and people have varying definitions of what those even are. If a person from even 70 years ago could see how good the average, or even far below average American is living today, they would consider whatever we have done a great success. And yet, much of the population is dissatisfied with either their own, or their perception of other people's stations in life.

Raise taxes more, give the Federal government control of 30%, instead of 20% of our economy - and, I guarantee, there will be plenty of people still dissatisfied. There will still be people with more, and people will still feel like they are getting a raw deal. Others who want to stop at that level will be condemned and called all kinds of names. There will always be people who want more progress. I actually asked a friend (assistant dean of Fine Arts at a university here). Liberal, intelligent guy. If Bernie wins, and gets everything he is asking for; would he then be for the status quo? He admitted that, no, at that point, no doubt, there would be something else to push for - another reason to raise taxes on some, or all of the people. Some other wrong to right.

The Bush tax cuts on the wealthy are history. That was the left's battle cry for a decade. They got that, but kept the tax cuts for 99% of the population. But that didn't really make the rich any poorer, did it? They said it would; that it would right a wrong. So they are doubling down; obviously Obama (ne Hillary) was not enough. We must take more from them, until we are all equal, until everything is fair.

It won't work.

By the way, you say Democrats are still free market types? Not all of them. Millenials (many don't know what they are saying), are, to a large degree, not supporters of free markets - and certainly not "capitalism".

We need more parties. I don't like either of the choices, and it's frustrating that to fight Democrats that I must be vote Republican.

[baseline bum]

If a person from even 70 years ago could see how good the average, or even far below average American is living today, they would consider whatever we have done a great success.

70 years ago the country was just coming out of WWII and hadn't had that high a standard of living, well ever. What if you asked 35 years ago when this country was producing things, when there was a strong middle class, when people weren't under tons of debt?

[Blake]

It would be funny (in an ironic sort of way) if Obama nominated Ted Cruz.

Seems like there was an episode of House of Cards where Frank did something similar

[101A]

70 years ago the country was just coming out of WWII and hadn't had that high a standard of living, well ever. What if you asked 35 years ago when this country was producing things, when there was a strong middle class, when people weren't under tons of debt?

You mean since we instituted the massive, expansive "War on Poverty"? Don't mean to be too sarcastic, BB, but that kind of makes my point.

[101A]

Seems like there was an episode of House of Cards where Frank did something similar

Been watching that with the wife the past few weeks. If any of that is anything but complete fiction? I'm buying an island.

[baseline bum]

You mean since we instituted the massive, expansive "War on Poverty"? Don't mean to be too sarcastic, BB, but that kind of makes my point.

War on poverty? You mean the war on working people with St Ronnie's union busting and Bush 41 / Clinton and their free trade crap?

[rmt]

The presidency is so completely unlike running a business that the skills don't even come close to carrying over.

Worse, Trumps arrogance and posturing would make him enemies in both parties, and simply create another running feud between the executive and legislative branch, making him by definition ineffectual, even more so than Obama has been.

Running a business as a CEO that can unilaterally implement policies without dealing with a legislative body doesn't make you magically better. Obama for all the hullabaloo about the executive orders tried that, and any informed analysis of those orders was that they were pitifully ineffectual at achieving desired policy goals.

A president needs congress and vice versa.

Trump will not get you jobs, and certainly won't do as well as Obama has done so far for that simple reason.

I think that someone who's written the #2 ranked book in business/entrepeneurship with a title called "The Art of the Deal" and run a multi-billion dollar company will get along with Congress and get jobs better than a community organizer who doesn't even try to get along with Congress but go around them.

Respectfully, let's just agree to disagree.

[baseline bum]

Liberty should be the most cherished, and protected goal, because once it is lost, it is (almost) never recovered.


The conservative idea of freedom and liberty is so abstract. How about the freedom a good public transportation system would give working people to find jobs without having to take a car loan and being at the mercy of constantly fluctuating gas prices?

[ElNono]

The conservative idea of freedom and liberty is so abstract. How about the freedom a good public transportation system would give working people to find jobs without having to take a car loan and being at the mercy of constantly fluctuating gas prices?

Or the freedom of being able to go to work and take care of your family without having to second guess if you're going to go bankrupt after spending 10 days in a hospital... much more practical and tangible freedoms than hurr, durr thomas jefferson...

[Chinook]

We'll always be slaves to our needs, so we'll never be free. The closest any of us will come to that is the folks who are so rich that they can meet their needs with little effort. Not gonna happen.

But yeah, I'm really more concerned with being slaves to corporate America than I am to being slaves to a paternalistic government. I'm not for either, obviously, but I would at least like to know I could get the basics in life without having to be a good bet to companies looking to make money off me.

[101A]

The conservative idea of freedom and liberty is so abstract. How about the freedom a good public transportation system would give working people to find jobs without having to take a car loan and being at the mercy of constantly fluctuating gas prices?


Or the freedom of being able to go to work and take care of your family without having to second guess if you're going to go bankrupt after spending 10 days in a hospital... much more practical and tangible freedoms than hurr, durr thomas jefferson...


We'll always be slaves to our needs, so we'll never be free. The closest any of us will come to that is the folks who are so rich that they can meet their needs with little effort. Not gonna happen.

But yeah, I'm really more concerned with being slaves to corporate America than I am to being slaves to a paternalistic government. I'm not for either, obviously, but I would at least like to know I could get the basics in life without having to be a good bet to companies.

Wow.

It seems self evident to me what freedom is. It is the ability to succeed or fail based on ones abilities, opportunities and good fortune. The more of that you trade away for "protection" or "basics in life" (do those include cable TV, smartphones and cars - 'cause just about everybody has those), the less you have, and the less you have to gain. If you fail to recognize that corporate America's big win is centralizing power in Washington, and then grabbing that power as necessary for itself, then you cannot be helped. I live here in the North East - Wall Street and DC are VERY close to each other - express trains run between them. That is no accident. You are puppets for those who you think you are fighting.

[101A]

We'll always be slaves to our needs, so we'll never be free. The closest any of us will come to that is the folks who are so rich that they can meet their needs with little effort. Not gonna happen.


Or, we can continue to put forth a great deal of effort to more than meet our needs. Why is having to work an indication of not being free? Your definition of freedom includes not having to do anything productive, or of value. Because that is how I read that.

[baseline bum]

So more pie in the sky freedom?

[101A]

So more pie in the sky freedom?

What is pie in the sky about self-determination?

[rmt]

The conservative idea of freedom and liberty is so abstract. How about the freedom a good public transportation system would give working people to find jobs without having to take a car loan and being at the mercy of constantly fluctuating gas prices?

Why do you think that only government can provide a good transportation system? I would bet money that the private sector could provide that system cheaper, faster and better than the public sector. Miami-Dade County has taxed us an extra 1/2 cent for an inefficient system has gone absolutely nowhere while we continue to pay for years and years to come. They promise and never come through and does that tax roll back? Of course not. I have worked for the government and the waste and duplication is unreal. My husband has been on an interview with the County and they are so behind in technology, it would be funny except that my tax dollars are funding this.

My idea of freedom is being able to do what I want to do (within the law). That includes the freedom to teach my kids what and how I want (homeschooling) - instead of relying on a decaying public education system that will indoctrinate them with liberal views. I would like to save for my old age instead of relying on a Social Security that looks like it wouldn't be around when I get to retirement age. I KNOW that I can do a better job with that money than the government. More and more taxes take away my freedom to live the way I want, educate my children the way I want and provide for my family.

These freedoms we enjoy is why everybody wants to come to the US. We take these freedoms for granted and want to turn ourselves into Europe - want to take the power (because that's what money is) out of our hands into the hands of a wasteful, inefficient government for more promises.

Oh, my husband says he and some other programmers could put up a better Obamacare website for MUCH less than $2.1 BILLION - one that actually has the backend.

[101A]

Or the freedom of being able to go to work and take care of your family without having to second guess if you're going to go bankrupt after spending 10 days in a hospital... much more practical and tangible freedoms than hurr, durr thomas jefferson...

I have health insurance for that. I pay for it. I am not afraid of going bankrupt. If you cannot afford health insurance, the ACA guarantees to subsidize your premium payments.

[Th'Pusher]

Wow.

It seems self evident to me what freedom is. It is the ability to succeed or fail based on ones abilities, opportunities and good fortune. The more of that you trade away for "protection" or "basics in life" (do those include cable TV, smartphones and cars - 'cause just about everybody has those), the less you have, and the less you have to gain. If you fail to recognize that corporate America's big win is centralizing power in Washington, and then grabbing that power as necessary for itself, then you cannot be helped. I live here in the North East - Wall Street and DC are VERY close to each other - express trains run between them. That is no accident. You are puppets for those who you think you are fighting.

Why not address corporate America's "big win" in centralizing power through Washington and leverage the power of the federal government to serve as a counterbalance to corporate interest so that it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people?

[101A]

Why not address corporate America's "big win" in centralizing power through Washington and leverage the power of the federal government to serve as a counterbalance to corporate interest so that it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people?

Corporations leveraging the Federal Govt. as a counterbalance against corporate interest? I think I either don't understand what you are saying, or you did not say what you thought you said.

[Th'Pusher]

Corporations leveraging the Federal Govt. as a counterbalance against corporate interest? I think I either don't understand what you are saying, or you did not say what you thought you said.

Sorry. I wasn't clear. Take away corporate America's "big win" by preventing them from leveraging the federal government for its own interests. Return the government to the people, allowing them to leverage government size and power to serve as a counterbalance to corporate interests.

[rmt]

We'll always be slaves to our needs, so we'll never be free. The closest any of us will come to that is the folks who are so rich that they can meet their needs with little effort. Not gonna happen.

But yeah, I'm really more concerned with being slaves to corporate America than I am to being slaves to a paternalistic government. I'm not for either, obviously, but I would at least like to know I could get the basics in life without having to be a good bet to companies looking to make money off me.

I encourage you to use the internet to find something to enhance your ability to provide for your needs. We are a single-income family of 5 - I've home schooled for years now, but I searched out things I could do at home with 3 small children and educated myself in those things. I do things like day-trade and mine bit coins to make extra money. Yes, there are stock winners and losers but the more you know the better and the longer you do it, you get a feel for it. If I had more time, I would tutor neighbor kids. Whatever it takes, search it out. One thing I try to instill in my kids (in order to survive) is GRIT - don't give up - try, try again. Remember MJ, what his high school coach told him and how he responded.

[rmt]

Please don't see the above as a recommendation to day-trade. That should be done only with money one can afford to lose - it is very risky.

[RandomGuy]

I think that someone who's written the #2 ranked book in business/entrepeneurship with a title called "The Art of the Deal" and run a multi-billion dollar company will get along with Congress and get jobs better than a community organizer who doesn't even try to get along with Congress but go around them.

Respectfully, let's just agree to disagree.

A bit on Obama's job creation record.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/05/obama-has-overseen-more-job-creation-than-both-bushes-combined-but-less-than-other-recent-presidents/

Underlying all this is the fact that presidents don't really "create" jobs. What you should be asking yourself is how this is going to happen.

The economy does that. By your own logic Obama has created millions more jobs than Donald Trump ever has.

The only jobs a president can actually create are those that are direct government hires.

About all a president can do is create policies aimed at encouraging private investment that might create jobs. That requires a compliant congress that will pass the policies into law.

Do you think that Trump will get the next congress to play ball any more than Obama does?






... or will he have to go around congress with unilateral executive orders... which is what CEOs generally do.

I don't find that line of reasoning convincing at all.

[hitmanyr2k]

I think that someone who's written the #2 ranked book in business/entrepeneurship with a title called "The Art of the Deal" and run a multi-billion dollar company will get along with Congress and get jobs better than a community organizer who doesn't even try to get along with Congress but go around them.

Respectfully, let's just agree to disagree.

Running a business doesn't mean you're going be great at making deals with a toxic congress lol. It's like candidates who say because they have governor experience that they're ready to be President. Reagan and Bush had governor experience and both were clusterfucks when it came to running the country and especially their shit foreign policy decisions that negatively impacted this country for decades. I haven't seen one thing from Trump that makes me believe he can fix anything in this country. His substance amounts to this...

"I have a lot of money so trust me, look at my polls, we're going to build a huge wall and make Mexico pay for it, (insert subject) is "tremendous" x 10, (insert subject) is "horrible" x 5, (insert subject) is "terrible" x 5, trust me we're going to win again, believe me I'm going to make it better, random insult on Jeb Bush, so and so is a liar, so and so hasn't attacked me yet so he's a nice guy, did I mention how great we're doing in the polls"

This is what he's running on, simpleton terms...and he's going to fix the country lol. I think Trump is pulling his latest "Art of the Deal" on clueless rubes right now.

[rmt]

A bit on Obama's job creation record.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/05/obama-has-overseen-more-job-creation-than-both-bushes-combined-but-less-than-other-recent-presidents/

Underlying all this is the fact that presidents don't really "create" jobs. What you should be asking yourself is how this is going to happen.

The economy does that. By your own logic Obama has created millions more jobs than Donald Trump ever has.

The only jobs a president can actually create are those that are direct government hires.

About all a president can do is create policies aimed at encouraging private investment that might create jobs. That requires a compliant congress that will pass the policies into law.

Do you think that Trump will get the next congress to play ball any more than Obama does?






... or will he have to go around congress with unilateral executive orders... which is what CEOs generally do.

I don't find that line of reasoning convincing at all.

Yes, I think that Trump will get the next congress to play ball more than Obama (who doesn't even try - he just goes around them via EO). And the policies that will bring the jobs are lower taxes to bring back the companies and the trillions parked abroad. See my posts above to see my opinion of government hires.

[baseline bum]

Why do you think that only government can provide a good transportation system? I would bet money that the private sector could provide that system cheaper, faster and better than the public sector. Miami-Dade County has taxed us an extra 1/2 cent for an inefficient system has gone absolutely nowhere while we continue to pay for years and years to come. They promise and never come through and does that tax roll back? Of course not. I have worked for the government and the waste and duplication is unreal. My husband has been on an interview with the County and they are so behind in technology, it would be funny except that my tax dollars are funding this.

My idea of freedom is being able to do what I want to do (within the law). That includes the freedom to teach my kids what and how I want (homeschooling) - instead of relying on a decaying public education system that will indoctrinate them with liberal views. I would like to save for my old age instead of relying on a Social Security that looks like it wouldn't be around when I get to retirement age. I KNOW that I can do a better job with that money than the government. More and more taxes take away my freedom to live the way I want, educate my children the way I want and provide for my family.

These freedoms we enjoy is why everybody wants to come to the US. We take these freedoms for granted and want to turn ourselves into Europe - want to take the power (because that's what money is) out of our hands into the hands of a wasteful, inefficient government for more promises.

Oh, my husband says he and some other programmers could put up a better Obamacare website for MUCH less than $2.1 BILLION - one that actually has the backend.

Paying taxes takes away your freedom to teach your children?

[rmt]

And what type of jobs are being created? Part-time 28 hour jobs. Lesser paying jobs. Look I am well aware of what kind of jobs are out there - my husband just came off his longest period of unemployment - 5 months. That's 5 months of me searching the boards for jobs, and they are much less paid and crappier than the last time he was unemployed.

[rmt]

Paying taxes takes away your freedom to teach your children?

Paying more taxes means less money in my pocket for expenses and saving for retirement - it could mean the difference between me being able to stay home/teaching my kids and having to go out and work.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, I think that Trump will get the next congress to play ball more than Obama (who doesn't even try - he just goes around them via EO). And the policies that will bring the jobs are lower taxes to bring back the companies and the trillions parked abroad. See my posts above to see my opinion of government hires.

Obama tried for about 6 years before giving up on Congress. The current GOP dominated Congress has pretty much made it their mission not to do anything that the executive branch wants, for pretty much the sole reason that they are trying not to give him any policy achievements that can be pointed to by the next Democratic candidate for president.

How exactly will Trump get Congress to play along, and how will that be different that what the current (or even past) president did?

As for the magic "lower taxes" myth: You can't lower taxes enough to bring back jobs for $10/hr workers to compete with $0.10/hr developing world labor. Those jobs are gone, until you get the rest of the world to begin approaching wage parity with the US.

You want jobs, increase marginal taxes on the highest incomes, then use that to invest in human capital (education) and physical infrastructure (which can't be outsourced).

[RandomGuy]

QPKKQnijnsM

[RandomGuy]

Paying more taxes means less money in my pocket for expenses and saving for retirement - it could mean the difference between me being able to stay home/teaching my kids and having to go out and work.

Imagine the people who work 80+ hours a week at low-paying jobs. You have just described the poverty cycle in the US.

[baseline bum]

I just don't understand this government get out the way sentiment when that's exactly what caused the 2008 financial meltdown that this country still hasn't recovered from. Everyone listened to Greenspan's right wing horseshit about not regulating Wall Street and low and behold, they stole people's money and then held taxpayers hostage. What's really disturbing about this is now the banks are so rich they're recruiting all the best graduates in scientific fields so that they can become part of this zero sum game instead of having their talents utilized in the productive economy.

[ElNono]

I have health insurance for that. I pay for it. I am not afraid of going bankrupt. If you cannot afford health insurance, the ACA guarantees to subsidize your premium payments.

I'm glad your business is doing well and you can afford to buy that piece of mind. Some people can't. Business sometimes go up and down, and the ACA won't guarantee anything about that. It's funny, because the obvious solution is simply go work for one of those corps you're saying they suck up our freedom, which BTW, are quick to leave you on the street once whatever ails you takes over a month or two to heal. And you know, Medicaid doesn't really kick in until you're already in the shitter.
Not to mention killing that whole entrepreneurship angle about working for yourself and really being free.

There's pages and pages to be written with what's wrong with this whole thing, but yeah, I do think that kind of peace of mind do embody 'liberty and freedom' in very tangible ways (in ways I didn't think they did when I was younger, perhaps), and so I think it would be neat that we all could have that piece of mind as opposed to just those that can afford it. But I'm fully aware it's just a wish.

[Spurminator]

It seems self evident to me what freedom is. It is the ability to succeed or fail based on ones abilities, opportunities and good fortune.

I'd be 100% behind this ideal if the last of those wasn't, by far, the biggest determining factor.

In America, with some exceptions, success is based primarily on being born into it. True self-determination requires a more even starting point and playing field.

[Splits]

Yes, I think that Trump will get the next congress to play ball more than Obama (who doesn't even try - he just goes around them via EO). And the policies that will bring the jobs are lower taxes to bring back the companies and the trillions parked abroad. See my posts above to see my opinion of government hires.

Have you been paying attention to anything the past 8 years? All the GOP in Congress has done is obstruct anything Obama proposed. Shit, in 2010 McConnell openly admitted his primary goal was to make Obama a 1-term president through obstruction! They didn't even try to hide it, they openly admitted their job was purely political to try and stymie Obama at every turn. Filibusters have gone through the roof compared to historical norms. :lmao this line of bullshit is so stupid. My main complaint with Obama is that he tried for WAY too long to try and work with Congress when it was obvious they had no intention no matter how far to the right he went. They shut down the fucking government obstructing him.

[101A]

I'm glad your business is doing well and you can afford to buy that piece of mind. Some people can't. Business sometimes go up and down, and the ACA won't guarantee anything about that. It's funny, because the obvious solution is simply go work for one of those corps you're saying they suck up our freedom, which BTW, are quick to leave you on the street once whatever ails you takes over a month or two to heal. And you know, Medicaid doesn't really kick in until you're already in the shitter.
Not to mention killing that whole entrepreneurship angle about working for yourself and really being free.

There's pages and pages to be written with what's wrong with this whole thing, but yeah, I do think that kind of peace of mind do embody 'liberty and freedom' in very tangible ways (in ways I didn't think they did when I was younger, perhaps), and so I think it would be neat that we all could have that piece of mind as opposed to just those that can afford it. But I'm fully aware it's just a wish.

I've been in the health insurance industry for 22 years, at all times managing > 20,000 employees and their dependents coverage. I have intimate knowledge of what health conditions that relatively large swath of people have - especially the very sick ones. Never once has a person been "kicked to the street" because of their condition. I'm sure it has happened, but it the cumulative years I have amassed, I have not seen it. I can only figure, then, that what you speak of is rare (it is, of course, very illegal).

My own company, in that time, has had to deal with 4 separate terminal illnesses - we kept each of those employees on the payroll through that, or gave them as much time off as necessary to deal with the dependent that was on our plan, but was dying. I'm kind of offended, frankly, at your condemnation of employers.

[101A]

I'd be 100% behind this ideal if the last of those wasn't, by far, the biggest determining factor.

In America, with some exceptions, success is based primarily on being born into it.


That's a talking point; I'm not sure the data would bare that out - also, "successful" has different definitions to different people. Maybe the ultra rich - but the doctors, lawyers, business owners I know have unremarkable, middle class, or lower backgrounds. The common thread among them is hard work.

[101A]

I just don't understand this government get out the way sentiment when that's exactly what caused the 2008 financial meltdown that this country still hasn't recovered from.

The government, specifically, backed bad mortgages through Sallie and Freddie. Hardly getting out of the way, the government enabled.

[baseline bum]

The government, specifically, backed bad mortgages through Sallie and Freddie. Hardly getting out of the way, the government enabled.

That shit was blown up through unregulated financial innovation.

[101A]

QPKKQnijnsM

What is your prescription to address this?

It's not talking income, right? It's talking wealth. What people actually own. How much are the several hundred billionaires affecting that chart? How much does the "value" of Microsoft, or Facebook, or Berkeshire affect that chart. Gates didn't ever receive that as income, it was never taken from a poorer person, he just owned Microsoft, and its value increased, thus increasing his wealth. Same thing with me, frankly. I'm no billionaire, but my company is worth a 4 to 5 million. I don't have that money, but it surely counts to my net worth. I guess if you extrapolate that return through the years of my work, and add it to my salary, you could come up with a discrepancy between what I have, and what my employees make, but in terms of salary, I actually have employees who have higher ones than I do.

The top 1% is over 3 million people. That's a lot of people. Are we talking property confiscation? That video does not suggest a solution, but, realistically, actual property confiscation will have to take place to seriously affect that chart. Income tax won't dent it. Take all my income, I still have more "wealth" than all of my employees. To access it, however, I'll have to sell my company to someone wealthier. My employees then? Out of jobs.

[Spurminator]

That's a talking point; I'm not sure the data would bare that out - also, "successful" has different definitions to different people. Maybe the ultra rich - but the doctors, lawyers, business owners I know have unremarkable, middle class, or lower backgrounds. The common thread among them is hard work.

It's not impossible, but those are exceptions. Your friends should be proud. They worked a lot harder than most people born into a better situation will ever have to in order to achieve the same means or better.

[101A]

That shit was blown up through unregulated financial innovation.

The vast majority of the loans were backed by the government entities - it's one of the reasons the investment vehicles that were the bundled mortgages were able to be sold as solid, practically risk-free investments. Also, the government making capital gains less expensive than regular income also drew "talent" to the investment class. I would like to see the banks broken up, though - and not allowed to play both sides of the street (banking, insurance AND investing). Clinton and Graham gave us this.

I am not for unrestricted de-regulation. I WANT Wall Street curtailed. I don't want power centralized in New York OR DC.

[Splits]

What is your prescription to address this?

It's not talking income, right? It's talking wealth. What people actually own. How much are the several hundred billionaires affecting that chart? How much does the "value" of Microsoft, or Facebook, or Berkeshire affect that chart. Gates didn't ever receive that as income, it was never taken from a poorer person, he just owned Microsoft, and its value increased, thus increasing his wealth. Same thing with me, frankly. I'm no billionaire, but my company is worth a 4 to 5 million. I don't have that money, but it surely counts to my net worth. I guess if you extrapolate that return through the years of my work, and add it to my salary, you could come up with a discrepancy between what I have, and what my employees make, but in terms of salary, I actually have employees who have higher ones than I do.

The top 1% is over 3 million people. That's a lot of people. Are we talking property confiscation? That video does not suggest a solution, but, realistically, actual property confiscation will have to take place to seriously affect that chart. Income tax won't dent it. Take all my income, I still have more "wealth" than all of my employees. To access it, however, I'll have to sell my company to someone wealthier. My employees then? Out of jobs.

Out of curiosity, how is it possible to have 20,000 employees and a company only worth 4-5 million?

[101A]

It's not impossible, but those are exceptions. Your friends should be proud. They worked a lot harder than most people born into a better situation will ever have to in order to achieve the same means or better.

You are deluding yourself if you think most successful people don't work hard. And I'm not saying others don't - my own son didn't go to college, is now an enlisted man in the Navy. Works his ass off.

[101A]

Out of curiosity, how is it possible to have 20,000 employees and a company only worth 4-5 million?

My company manages health insurance plans. I have 20 employees, but manage a whole bunch more.

[ElNono]

I've been in the health insurance industry for 22 years, at all times managing > 20,000 employees and their dependents coverage. I have intimate knowledge of what health conditions that relatively large swath of people have - especially the very sick ones. Never once has a person been "kicked to the street" because of their condition. I'm sure it has happened, but it the cumulative years I have amassed, I have not seen it. I can only figure, then, that what you speak of is rare (it is, of course, very illegal).

My own company, in that time, has had to deal with 4 separate terminal illnesses - we kept each of those employees on the payroll through that, or gave them as much time off as necessary to deal with the dependent that was on our plan, but was dying. I'm kind of offended, frankly, at your condemnation of employers.

I've personally seen this happen to people very close to me, and I also have about over a decade working with the US healthcare industry too. By law, we have a healthcare system that gives you a few months if you're unable to perform your duties, and if you eventually have to file for disability, something like Medicare doesn't kick in for the next two years (and COBRA is a scam, since you have to basically pay for 100% of your premium now that you don't have a job). That window is exactly when you need the care the most. I mean, I don't know the numbers post-ACA, but at least pre-ACA about half of the bankruptcies in this country were due to healthcare costs, so it's silly to say this is a 'rare' situation.

Not sure why you're offended by my characterization of employers, tbh, but I don't really blame them. They're in it to make money, and if you're a dragging money away, then it's logical they would let you go. That's as "free market" as it gets.

But then again, this is the conundrum between "free market" and actually caring for people when they need care the most. I have also lived in countries (pretty much all of them except the US) where healthcare is provided by the state, and you don't have to worry about this situation. The older I get, the more appreciative I am about that kind of system.

[Th'Pusher]

You are deluding yourself if you think most successful people don't work hard. And I'm not saying others don't - my own son didn't go to college, is now an enlisted man in the Navy. Works his ass off.

Look up the stats on social mobility in the US. It's a statistical fact that there is minimal upward social mobility in the US.

[101A]

I've personally seen this happen to people very close to me, and I also have about over a decade working with the US healthcare industry too. By law, we have a healthcare system that gives you a few months if you're unable to perform your duties, and if you eventually have to file for disability, something like Medicare doesn't kick in for the next two years (and COBRA is a scam, since you have to basically pay for 100% of your premium now that you don't have a job). That window is exactly when you need the care the most. I mean, I don't know the numbers post-ACA, but at least pre-ACA about half of the bankruptcies in this country were due to healthcare costs, so it's silly to say this is a 'rare' situation.

Not sure why you're offended by my characterization of employers, tbh, but I don't really blame them. They're in it to make money, and if you're a dragging money away, then it's logical they would let you go. That's as "free market" as it gets.

But then again, this is the conundrum between "free market" and actually caring for people when they need care the most. I have also lived in countries (pretty much all of them except the US) where healthcare is provided by the state, and you don't have to worry about this situation. The older I get, the more appreciative I am about that kind of system.

I, too, can appreciate that. And I have certainly seen health issues affect people's lives - I realize I painted with too broad a brush. I have a hell of a dog in this fight (as I have stated before), so I probably cannot be objective. The value of my company, after all, my net worth, disappears the minute this country goes single-payor.

[101A]

Look up the stats on social mobility in the US. It's a statistical fact that there is minimal upward social mobility in the US.

Is it greater in the European countries that have more socialized programs? (Seriously, I don't know - and don't have time to look it up right now, got to go)

[ElNono]

I, too, can appreciate that. And I have certainly seen health issues affect people's lives - I realize I painted with too broad a brush. I have a hell of a dog in this fight (as I have stated before), so I probably cannot be objective. The value of my company, after all, my net worth, disappears the minute this country goes single-payor.

I understand, and frankly, mine is more wishful thinking than anything else, I'm fully aware of that.

[rmt]

I, too, can appreciate that. And I have certainly seen health issues affect people's lives - I realize I painted with too broad a brush. I have a hell of a dog in this fight (as I have stated before), so I probably cannot be objective. The value of my company, after all, my net worth, disappears the minute this country goes single-payor.

You and all those doctors who spent 12 years studying with $100ks in students loans should be voting republican. Their income is gonna take a big hit with single-payor.

[CosmicCowboy]

When I retire I'm going to take out student loans, max them out for the next 15 years going to class and hitting on the young hotties then get the loans forgiven when I die. Who needs nursing homes?

[CosmicCowboy]

Ill probably get a puppy to lure them in then give them $100 bills to show me their tits.

[CosmicCowboy]

It would be age discrimination to refuse me student loans. I could get like multiple phd's

[rmt]

Ill probably get a puppy to lure them in then give them $100 bills to show me their tits.

Not to bark when you lie? :lol

[baseline bum]

When I retire I'm going to take out student loans, max them out for the next 15 years going to class and hitting on the young hotties then get the loans forgiven when I die. Who needs nursing homes?

All the interesting classes only have ugly Asian bitches though. I occasionally had a fine Persian or Indian in my CS courses, but not many. Go humanities for the hoes worth your sugar daddy dollars tbh.

[ElNono]

Ill probably get a puppy to lure them in then give them $100 bills to show me their tits.

:lol would be ironic if you die of a stroke during one of these...

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol would be ironic if you die of a stroke during one of these...

Fuck we all gotta die of something. It could be worse than motor boating nice young titties.

[baseline bum]

Fuck we all gotta die of something. It could be worse than motor boating nice young titties.

Yeah, better than laying there in the hospital dying of nothing.

[clambake]

cowboy is right. do what we did. fuck the guys behind you.

[101A]

cowboy is right. do what we did. fuck the guys behind you.
Can they do that? I don't keep up with new porn.

[DarrinS]

Remember the good old days when everyone was unionized, had a pension, and died before age 60?

[baseline bum]

Remember the good old days when everyone was unionized, had a pension, and died before age 60?

Everyone was unionized with pensions in the 1930s?

[Splits]

Everyone was unionized with pensions in the 1930s?

:lol ether

[baseline bum]

DarrinS is right about life expectancy increasing significantly, but he really exaggerated the point. Men dying off before 60 on average is Great Depression level.

[Splits]

DarrinS (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2042) is right about life expectancy increasing significantly, but he really exaggerated the point. Men dying off before 60 on average is Great Depression level.

Not really. In the past 55 years it has gone from 70 to 79:

http://i.imgur.com/t9TKjYM.png


It's almost purely dictated by income level.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/09/2300-19-800x583.jpg&w=1484

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/09/2300-20-800x589.jpg&w=1484

[baseline bum]

That's weird, it doesn't jive with these figures I found:

http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html

[Splits]

That's weird, it doesn't jive with these figures I found:

http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html

Looks consistent to me. For example, in your table the 1980 life expectancy was 70 for men and 77.4 for women, an average of 73.7.

My table shows 73.66

http://i.imgur.com/0RSc2q8.png

[Splits]

1998: 76.65 from your table. World Bank graph shows 76.58

http://i.imgur.com/u69HReH.png

[CosmicCowboy]

My charts bigger than your chart!

[boutons_deux]

Bork example offers little help to Republicans

Senate Republicans know exactly what they want to do: maintain a blockade against any President Obama nominee for the Supreme Court. What GOP senators don’t know is how to defend their scheme.

I received an email yesterday from a conservative reader responding to a piece (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-abandon-norms-and-traditions-governing-fails) on Republicans abandoning traditional norms with their radical tactics. His response read, “Two words: Robert Bork.” As Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert noted (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/16/sorry-right-wing-media-the-bork-comparison-does/208619), there’s apparently a lot of this going around.

“Democrats have been blowing up the appointment process piecemeal since they turned Judge Robert Bork’s last name into a verb back in 1987,” wrote Jonah Goldberg in the Los Angeles Times, in a column about the fight over replacing Scalia.

“Look at what the Democrats have done in poisoning the well, particularly on judicial nominations, stretching back to 1987 and the character assassination against Robert Bork,” complained Townhall political editor Guy Benson on Fox News.


The problem with the comparison is that the two examples just don’t have much in common – or at least not as much as Republicans and their allies would like to believe.

As longtime readers may recall (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/robert-bork-conservative-legal-icon-di), Bork was a Reagan nominee for the Supreme Court in 1987, and he became one of the most controversial choices in American history. Shortly after the president’s announcement, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) delivered a famous condemnation on the Senate floor: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, school children could not be taught about evolution, writers and artist could be censured at the whim of government.”

It was a stinging indictment, based largely on fact.

Bork, who developed an unfortunate reputation stemming from his role (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre) in Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” in 1973, was on record (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/12/19/167645600/robert-borks-supreme-court-nomination-changed-everything-maybe-forever)

defending Jim Crow-era poll taxes,

condemning portions of the Civil Rights Act banning discrimination in public accommodations, and

arguing against extending the equal protection of the 14th Amendment to women.

As we discussed (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/robert-bork-conservative-legal-icon-di) several years ago, the ensuing fight marked a turning point in the confirmation wars. It was during consideration of Bork that senators largely decided it wasn’t enough to merely consider a Supreme Court nominee’s qualifications; they also had to consider whether he or she was ideologically and temperamentally suited for the bench.

In Bork’s case, it was a test he failed. When his nomination reached the Senate floor, 58 senators, including six Republicans, voted to reject him. (After the vote, Strom Thurmond, of all people, urged (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/24/politics/24REAG.html?pagewanted=all) the Reagan White House to nominate someone less “controversial.”) The Republican president soon after nominated Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed by the Democratic-led Senate, 97 to 0.

Nearly three decades later, the left looks back at the results as a victory for civil rights and modernity. The right still see the dispute as the first modern example of mean liberals blocking a qualified conservative from reaching the high court.

That argument will probably continue for a while, but to suggest this is comparable to the contemporary fight is a stretch. If the Senate Democratic majority had announced that no Reagan nominee would be considered under any circumstances, regardless of merit, conservatives would obviously have a reasonable case to make.

But that’s not what happened. Reagan nominated a radical, and Democrats considered the nomination in committee and on the Senate floor. There was no filibuster, in part because the era of filibustering everything and everyone had not yet begun, and in part because it wasn’t necessary – there was bipartisan opposition to giving Bork a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.

A little tidbit: more Republicans voted against Bork’s nomination in 1987 than voted for Justice Elena Kagan’s nomination in 2010. (Six Republicans opposed Bork; five (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00229) Republicans supported Kagan.) It’s the sort of thing that adds some context to the trajectory of GOP politics.

How is the Bork example relevant to the 2016 dispute? At a superficial level, both involve a Supreme Court vacancy at a time of divided government. But after acknowledging that, the similarities effectively end – the Bork controversy was about one person, who was deemed unacceptable by a bipartisan majority, but who was followed by another nominee was easily confirmed.

The current controversy is about a party imposing a blockade on any nominee, sight unseen, because the party hates a democratically elected, two-term president.

Boehlert’s conclusion (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/16/sorry-right-wing-media-the-bork-comparison-does/208619) rings true:

“If conservatives can put forward a common sense argument why Obama should ignore his constitutional obligation to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court, they ought to detail that argument. Because pretending today’s crisis is just like the Bork battle only highlights the holes in the GOP proposal.”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mccain-abandons-previous-standards-supreme-court-nominees?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[Chinook]

Or, we can continue to put forth a great deal of effort to more than meet our needs. Why is having to work an indication of not being free? Your definition of freedom includes not having to do anything productive, or of value. Because that is how I read that.


Yeah, because any time you start talking about what you HAVE to do, you're actually talking about limiting freedom, not expanding it. Freedom is simply the ability to do what you want. There's nothing self-evident about it being a social-Darwinist concept like you were imply. (And yes, that's the only place where saying success and failure should be based on merit leads.)

My point was that our ability to do what we want is limited by our need to do things we have to do. In the most basal sense, that means that we have to sacrifice some of our day eating and sleeping and taking care of bodily functions. In a more pointed sense, it means that we have to sell our time for money that we can use to buy a means to meet our needs. The more you make per hour, the fewer hours you have to sell, or more practically, the more money you have left over after your needs are met in order to use on paying for things you want to pay for.

I don't want to make this long-winded, so I'll just wrap up by saying that the motivation I described is usually accepted, hence why conservatives want lower taxes to give them more money to spend as they see fit, and why liberals want more money for more people. The idea that people have to be able to meet some abstract standard of "success" to be free is rather foreign and not really pertinent to the daily lives of many people who are just looking to survive. When you have people who work 40 hours a week providing necessary services struggling to make ends meet, that's where you have a loss of freedom that requires action, not when you have a rich person who wants to government to take out less money from their bonus check.

[Chinook]

I encourage you to use the internet to find something to enhance your ability to provide for your needs. We are a single-income family of 5 - I've home schooled for years now, but I searched out things I could do at home with 3 small children and educated myself in those things. I do things like day-trade and mine bit coins to make extra money. Yes, there are stock winners and losers but the more you know the better and the longer you do it, you get a feel for it. If I had more time, I would tutor neighbor kids. Whatever it takes, search it out. One thing I try to instill in my kids (in order to survive) is GRIT - don't give up - try, try again. Remember MJ, what his high school coach told him and how he responded.

First, MJ was lying about that. Second, I was speaking philosophically. Humans are not minds in a vat looking for meaning. We are organic machines trying to keep functioning as long as possible. The tension between us as mental beings and us as physical beings is where the "slavery" comes in.

Personally, I'm not desperate for actualization at the moment. I would like to make more money and do a job I love, but I don't hate my current job, and I make more than a lot of people. So I'm content to spend time doing this. If I'm still here when I'm 30, that would be a bigger issue. Anyway, yeah, I have a lot of hobbies and interests that keep my mind working, my interest in the Spurs being the most obvious to people on this board. I can't do everything I'd like to do (like have season tickets at the AT&T Center), but I'm also not the one crying for maximum freedom.

[boutons_deux]

Where the Senate Stands on Nominating Scalia’s Supreme Court Successor


Of the 46 Democratic* senators, 46 say President Obama should nominate a successor:

Of the 54 Republican senators, 29 say the Senate should not confirm a nominee from President Obama:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/17/upshot/scalia-supreme-court-senate-nomination.html

[rmt]

First, MJ was lying about that. Second, I was speaking philosophically. Humans are not minds in a vat looking for meaning. We are organic machines trying to keep functioning as long as possible. The tension between us as mental beings and us as physical beings is where the "slavery" comes in.

Personally, I'm not desperate for actualization at the moment. I would like to make more money and do a job I love, but I don't hate my current job, and I make more than a lot of people. So I'm content to spend time doing this. If I'm still here when I'm 30, that would be a bigger issue. Anyway, yeah, I have a lot of hobbies and interests that keep my mind working, my interest in the Spurs being the most obvious to people on this board. I can't do everything I'd like to do (like have season tickets at the AT&T Center), but I'm also not the one crying for maximum freedom.

I was under the impression that MJ was cut from his high school basketball team. If not, then my bad. I don't understand the bolded statement. I don't consider myself a slave to anyone. I suppose I willingly submit to God and my husband in terms of the way I live my life and the decisions I make. And I guess, my husband trades his labor for money. If anything, the slavery would be to government where I feel I contribute my taxes and the government is wasteful and irresponsible with that money.

I was alarmed more of your previous mention of "needs" but this post sounds content, if not happy. My suggestion was just to expand our horizons because ideally we'd want income from various sources - not just our job.

[boutons_deux]

Hatch: Don’t ‘denigrate’ Court through constitutional process

“No one will be appointed who isn’t a consensus choice,” Graham said (http://www.politico.com/blogs/south-carolina-primary-2016-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/supreme-court-justice-appointment-lindsey-graham-219249). “Now can the president find someone who 90 percent of us will agree upon? Maybe someone like Orrin Hatch.”

It was a sign of the times: a Republican senator believes the Democratic president should nominate another Republican senator to the Supreme Court in the hopes of reaching a “consensus.” Democrats, presumably, would be expected to just go along.

Hatch spoke to (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/whats-going-to-happen-when-obama-nominates-a-new-justice-top-senators-weigh-in/) PBS’s Judy Woodruff last night, repeating the arguments one would expect him to make. The senator said, for example, that “whoever wins the presidency is going to be able to make this nomination” – overlooking the nagging detail that Barack Obama has already won the presidency. Hatch added, “Usually, you never nominate anyone during the last year of a president,” a claim that is demonstrably untrue – not only have plenty of nominations (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/15/10998836/supreme-court-nomination-election-year) come during presidential election years, they’re also usually confirmed (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/15/us/supreme-court-nominations-election-year-scalia.html). The longtime GOP senator has the entire story backwards.

Hatch added, in reference to his Senate colleagues’ penchant for politicization, “[L]ook at what they did to Clarence Thomas.” If by “what they did,” Hatch means confirm Clarence Thomas to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court, then sure, by all means, let’s “look at what they did.”

But it was the senator’s conclusion that simply amazed me.

“I just don’t want the court politicized :lol

And this would be the biggest politicization the court in history. :lol

And that is saying something, because there have been some other times that certainly would come close to matching this.

“But, in all honesty, I just don’t want to see the court denigrated :lol

any further than it would be in this very caustic election year with the way things are going right now.”



According to Orrin Hatch, following the process outlined in the Constitution risks “politicizing” and “denigrating” the Supreme Court.

But allowing rabid partisans to impose a year-long blockade, motivated by nothing but contempt for a democratically elected president, and leaving a Supreme Court vacancy in place for 11 months, would calm the political waters.
In all honesty, I keep expecting Republicans to come up with better arguments. If this is the best the GOP can do, this dispute is only going to get uglier.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/hatch-dont-denigrate-court-through-constitutional-process?cid=sm_fb_maddow

Repugs! :lol

[z0sa]

So more pie in the sky freedom?

Basically the gist of 101A's oppositiin to Bernie not even that liberal of policies. Help eliminate debt, rebuild our infrastructure, close obviously 100% corrupt loopholes and tax evasion? That's not how freedom works!

[RandomGuy]

What is your prescription to address this?

It's not talking income, right? It's talking wealth. What people actually own. How much are the several hundred billionaires affecting that chart? How much does the "value" of Microsoft, or Facebook, or Berkeshire affect that chart. Gates didn't ever receive that as income, it was never taken from a poorer person, he just owned Microsoft, and its value increased, thus increasing his wealth. Same thing with me, frankly. I'm no billionaire, but my company is worth a 4 to 5 million. I don't have that money, but it surely counts to my net worth. I guess if you extrapolate that return through the years of my work, and add it to my salary, you could come up with a discrepancy between what I have, and what my employees make, but in terms of salary, I actually have employees who have higher ones than I do.

The top 1% is over 3 million people. That's a lot of people. Are we talking property confiscation? That video does not suggest a solution, but, realistically, actual property confiscation will have to take place to seriously affect that chart. Income tax won't dent it. Take all my income, I still have more "wealth" than all of my employees. To access it, however, I'll have to sell my company to someone wealthier. My employees then? Out of jobs.

"I guess if you extrapolate that return through the years of my work, and add it to my salary, you could come up with a discrepancy between what I have, and what my employees make"

You hit on it exactly. Wealth accumulated by owners of capital is wealth provided by the labor of employees, whose true value to the enterprise is not realized. Those with money to save, can save, and you simply have an exponential progression from there. It is an inevitable feature of capitalism. It is a mathematical certainty that wealth will accumulate at the very top.

As the video notes, it isn't the top 1% here that skews it. It is a fraction of that 1%, the hyper-wealthy. They own as much as EVERYONE else combined, even those in the top 1%.

The solution in the past was a very steep marginal tax rate, capital gains taxed as normal income, an estate tax with teeth, and unionized labor that fought for a larger share of the profits.

All of which prevent hyper-wealth from accumulating, and arguably made society better off overall.

People should be allowed to be rewarded for owning businesses, and having great ideas. The question we need to ask ourselves is... how much?

When the actual:

https://viaexmachina.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/wealth-distribution-in-america.jpg

is so far from what we all agree is fair:

http://furthr.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/wealth21.jpg

What SHOULD we do? It is obvious that the GOP is the party of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. They have bought into the propaganda and parrot it incessantly. "job creators" etc.

The hyper-rich do not create jobs, arguably so to anyone who understands economics, i.e. marginal propensity to save, and cumulative effects of compound interest.

You can't call collecting compound interest on $1,000,000,000 "hard work". It shouldn't be given kid gloves and taxed LESS than the actual hard work of people working 80-120 hours a week.

[Chinook]

I was under the impression that MJ was cut from his high school basketball team. If not, then my bad.

You're under that impression because that's what MJ said. It just turns out he was lying his ass off and was lambasting the coach for no other reason than Jordan being an egomaniac.


I don't understand the bolded statement. I don't consider myself a slave to anyone.

You can consider yourself a slave to "no one" as much as you like up until the point that you die from not eating or breathing. My point was to essentially show the dualist tension that exist between humans as thinkers and humans as animals. And I don't mean id/superego. I mean that you can only function as a person so long as you meet your human needs. Because the needs come first, the person's ability to truly be free, to be creative, to explore, to just chill out, it's all limited by being in the physical world and having to do what we have to in order to stay here. So "you" the person you think of yourself as being is a slave to "you", the organism that demands to keep living at the expense of your (the first you) time and effort.

I know that sounds far out there. But the concept of freedom at its base is really abstract. Behind all government is contract theory, behind contract theory is rights theory, behind rights theory is Hegelian dialecticism and so forth. So when people want to talk about "freedom", I think it's important to understand how nebulous it actually is and how little it jives with the real world.

But thanks for your concern about my financial well-being. I probably will look into expanding my sources of income relatively soon. Gotta knock out those student loans first. :lol

[RandomGuy]

The Gini coefficient (also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio) (/dʒini/ jee-nee) is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income distribution of a nation's residents, and is the most commonly used measure of inequality. It was developed by the Italian statistician and sociologist Corrado Gini and published in his 1912 paper "Variability and Mutability" (Italian: Variabilità e mutabilità).[1][2]

The Gini coefficient measures the inequality among values of a frequency distribution (for example, levels of income). A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality, where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has the same income). A Gini coefficient of one (or 100%) expresses maximal inequality among values (for example, where only one person has all the income or consumption, and all others have none).[3][4] However, a value greater than one may occur if some persons represent negative contribution to the total (for example, having negative income or wealth). For larger groups, values close to or above 1 are very unlikely in practice.

The Gini coefficient was proposed by Gini as a measure of inequality of income or wealth.[5] For OECD countries, in the late 2000s, considering the effect of taxes and transfer payments, the income Gini coefficient ranged between 0.24 to 0.49, with Slovenia the lowest and Chile the highest.[6] African countries had the highest pre-tax Gini coefficients in 2008–2009, with South Africa the world's highest, variously estimated to be 0.63 to 0.7,[7][8] although this figure drops to 0.52 after social assistance is taken into account, and drops again to 0.47 after taxation.[9] The global income Gini coefficient in 2005 has been estimated to be between 0.61 and 0.68 by various sources.[10][11]
FWIW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

http://franklycurious.com/media/1/20120630-incomedisparity.png

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, because any time you start talking about what you HAVE to do, you're actually talking about limiting freedom, not expanding it. Freedom is simply the ability to do what you want. There's nothing self-evident about it being a social-Darwinist concept like you were imply. (And yes, that's the only place where saying success and failure should be based on merit leads.)

My point was that our ability to do what we want is limited by our need to do things we have to do. In the most basal sense, that means that we have to sacrifice some of our day eating and sleeping and taking care of bodily functions. In a more pointed sense, it means that we have to sell our time for money that we can use to buy a means to meet our needs. The more you make per hour, the fewer hours you have to sell, or more practically, the more money you have left over after your needs are met in order to use on paying for things you want to pay for.

I don't want to make this long-winded, so I'll just wrap up by saying that the motivation I described is usually accepted, hence why conservatives want lower taxes to give them more money to spend as they see fit, and why liberals want more money for more people. The idea that people have to be able to meet some abstract standard of "success" to be free is rather foreign and not really pertinent to the daily lives of many people who are just looking to survive. When you have people who work 40 hours a week providing necessary services struggling to make ends meet, that's where you have a loss of freedom that requires action, not when you have a rich person who wants to government to take out less money from their bonus check.

Another thing that many conservative/libertarian minded people miss is that we are not islands unto ourselves.

Personal decisions almost invariably affect others in one way or another. In that way we are a society, with a collective risk and responsibilities.

If my personal decision is to ignore my kids to the point that they grow to be criminals, my choices have forced their victims to pay, and society as a whole to pay for their incarceration, just as a quick, easy example. Reality is much deeper, and more intertwined.

Societies as a whole benefit from allowing people to reach their potential. This is the huge strength of free markets that provide rewards for talent.

BUT

At some point, how much is enough for a human being, especially when it comes at the expense of others? Economies require labor and capital to function. Reward one too much over the other and everybody loses, i.e. communism and hyper-concentrated capitalism.

[RandomGuy]

Anyhoo... speaking of work... Laters.

[Chinook]

Another thing that many conservative/libertarian minded people miss is that we are not islands unto ourselves.

Personal decisions almost invariably affect others in one way or another. In that way we are a society, with a collective risk and responsibilities.

If my personal decision is to ignore my kids to the point that they grow to be criminals, my choices have forced their victims to pay, and society as a whole to pay for their incarceration, just as a quick, easy example. Reality is much deeper, and more intertwined.

Societies as a whole benefit from allowing people to reach their potential. This is the huge strength of free markets that provide rewards for talent.

BUT

At some point, how much is enough for a human being, especially when it comes at the expense of others? Economies require labor and capital to function. Reward one too much over the other and everybody loses, i.e. communism and hyper-concentrated capitalism.

Not to mention that EVERYONE benefits from a society where basic needs are guaranteed. Employees with less to worry about at home are going to work better, take fewer sick days and in general be better consumers. Having good roads helps for the transportation of goods and again ensures that employees can get to work on time. Standardized (high-level and affordable) education means a broader workforce to choose from and hopefully a wealthier clientele to push goods onto. It's just a basic investment strategy here.

[boutons_deux]

Grassley at center of court storm

Grassley, the chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee, prides himself as being an advocate of transparency and good government. But those credentials are being called into question in the intense debate over replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Grassley issued a statement an hour later concurring. “It only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”

The editorial board of the Des Moines Register ripped (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/02/16/editorial-grassleys-supreme-court-stance-all-politics/80409360/)Grassley for the statement, saying the senator missed an opportunity “to be less of a politician and more of a statesman.”

“He could have made it clear that he favors a Senate vote on the matter — a move that still would enable Republicans to accept or reject the eventual nominee based on merit — but he chose instead to disregard his constitutional duty by rejecting a nominee who hasn’t even been named,” the paper wrote.

Grassley has since backed off his statement under growing pressure from Democrats, outside groups, legal observers and even fellow Republicans.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/269783-grassley-at-center-of-court-storm

[boutons_deux]

Outside Groups Warn GOP: Don’t Even Think About Holding A SCOTUS Hearing

If any Republican senator is thinking about defecting from the GOP’s tough line on blocking a Supreme Court nomination until next year, then let them be warned. Outside conservative groups are preparing to go to war over who should get to pick a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly over the weekend, and they don’t want to see even a hearing considering the nominee President Obama has vowed to put forward.

“The strategy that makes the most sense is to say that there should not be any consideration of this nominee,” Curt Levey, executive director of the FreedomWorks Foundation, said in an interview with TPM. "It would be irrelevant to have a hearing because it’s the situation: the fact that it’s an election year, the

“It’s not about any one particular nominee,” Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the conservative legal organization Judicial Crisis Network, told TPM. “We know exactly the kind of person [Obama] is going to appoint. Getting into those details is just a silly distraction.”

“Senator McConnell is right, under no circumstance should the Republican Senate majority confirm a Supreme Court nominee as Americans are in the midst of picking the next president,” Michael Needham -- the head of Heritage Action, the lobby arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation

The Family Research Council is also advocating that Senate refuse to take up any nominee Obama submits.

FreedomWorks is preparing to target senators who look like they’ll back down from the fight, while bolstering those who hold to McConnell’s tough initial line.

“In some cases where there are potential primary opponents, we might consider supporting a primary opponent if the senator did not do the right thing,”

part of the strategy of denying the Obama administration even a hearing is to prevent the media from focusing on the person instead of the process, and in effect, starving the story of oxygen.

But the outside groups pushing the tactic also argued it’s a more principled approach to blocking a nominee that Republicans will inevitably block in a vote anyway.

“It’s the most honest,” Levey said. ”The very fact that people on our side feel very strongly that there shouldn’t be a hearing before we know the nominee is because it’s not really about the nominee. ... Frankly, the real objection here is to Obama.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/outside-groups-scotus-nom-fight?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29 (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/outside-groups-scotus-nom-fight?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29)

... and the "strong on law and order and Constitution" Repugs say: "Fuck the Constitution" when it pleases us, just like scumbag Scalia.

[Spurminator]

You are deluding yourself if you think most successful people don't work hard. And I'm not saying others don't - my own son didn't go to college, is now an enlisted man in the Navy. Works his ass off.

"Work hard" is relative. I'm sure most successful people work hard relative to not working. My issue with the self-determination ideal is it implies everybody has equal opportunity to move upward just by "working hard." In reality, if you are born into wealth, you have a much better chance of success than if you are born into poverty, even if you work equally hard in the two scenarios.

[boutons_deux]

Sandra Day O’Connor, the retired Supreme Court justice appointed by a Republican president, said on Wednesday that President Barack Obama should get to name the replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

O’Connor, in an interview with a Fox affiliate in Phoenix, disagreed with Republican arguments that the next president, and not Obama, should get to fill the high court vacancy.



O’Connor specifically said during the interview, “I think we need somebody there to do the job now and let’s get on with it.” She added, in reference to President Obama, “It’s an important position and one that we care about as a nation and as a people. And I wish the president well as he makes choices and goes down that line. It’s hard.”

That’s not at all what Republicans wanted to hear.

On the contrary, O’Connor, a Reagan appointee who retired in 2006, effectively said the opposite of what GOP senators have argued since Saturday night.

Obviously, O’Connor is now a private citizen and her opinions are her own, but she’s also a respected figure, especially on matters related to the high court. If she’d said the opposite in the interview, encouraging Obama and sitting senators to leave the seat vacant until 2017 for the good of the institution, it’s a safe bet Republicans would be citing her judgment every day for the next several months.

But she didn’t. O’Connor seems to have no use for the GOP arguments whatsoever.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/oconnor-undermines-gop-talking-points-court-vacancy?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[RandomGuy]

Grassley at center of court storm

Grassley, the chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee, prides himself as being an advocate of transparency and good government. But those credentials are being called into question in the intense debate over replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Grassley issued a statement an hour later concurring. “It only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”

The editorial board of the Des Moines Register ripped (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/02/16/editorial-grassleys-supreme-court-stance-all-politics/80409360/)Grassley for the statement, saying the senator missed an opportunity “to be less of a politician and more of a statesman.”

“He could have made it clear that he favors a Senate vote on the matter — a move that still would enable Republicans to accept or reject the eventual nominee based on merit — but he chose instead to disregard his constitutional duty by rejecting a nominee who hasn’t even been named,” the paper wrote.

Grassley has since backed off his statement under growing pressure from Democrats, outside groups, legal observers and even fellow Republicans.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/269783-grassley-at-center-of-court-storm





Sure... go back on topic...


heh.

The GOP members involved will have to walk back the "not no how, no way" they first committed themselves to.

Someone made a very good point that Scalia himself would likely have taken a dim view of ignoring the constitution when trying to replace him.

Not a fitting way to honor the man, as many on the right claim to do, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

Sandra Day O’Connor, the retired Supreme Court justice appointed by a Republican president, said on Wednesday that President Barack Obama should get to name the replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

O’Connor, in an interview with a Fox affiliate in Phoenix, disagreed with Republican arguments that the next president, and not Obama, should get to fill the high court vacancy.



O’Connor specifically said during the interview, “I think we need somebody there to do the job now and let’s get on with it.” She added, in reference to President Obama, “It’s an important position and one that we care about as a nation and as a people. And I wish the president well as he makes choices and goes down that line. It’s hard.”

That’s not at all what Republicans wanted to hear.

On the contrary, O’Connor, a Reagan appointee who retired in 2006, effectively said the opposite of what GOP senators have argued since Saturday night.

Obviously, O’Connor is now a private citizen and her opinions are her own, but she’s also a respected figure, especially on matters related to the high court. If she’d said the opposite in the interview, encouraging Obama and sitting senators to leave the seat vacant until 2017 for the good of the institution, it’s a safe bet Republicans would be citing her judgment every day for the next several months.

But she didn’t. O’Connor seems to have no use for the GOP arguments whatsoever.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/oconnor-undermines-gop-talking-points-court-vacancy?cid=sm_fb_maddow



"safe bet" indeed.

[RandomGuy]

Can they do that? I don't keep up with new porn.

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Scalia's Death and the Republican Party of Strict Obstructionism

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-M.jpgitch McConnell's pledge to block any Supreme Court nominee to succeed Antonin Scalia is finding what appears to be near-unanimous support from Senate Republicans (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/more-republicans-say-theyll-block-supreme-court-nomination.html), but others speculate that President Obama may use the fight to increase Democratic turnout (http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/how-the-politics-of-the-next-nomination-will-pay-out/) at the polls this fall. What are the risks of McConnell's strategy?

Excuse me, but if we are talking about the politics of this brawl, it’s a no-brainer.

Obama, a lame duck who will not be on the ballot in November, has nothing to lose by standing on principle and carrying out a president’s duty to submit a nominee to the Senate.

The GOP, by contrast, has a lot to lose come Election Day — including control of the Senate. Though a Times front-page headline this morning reads “Court Path Is Littered With Pitfalls, for Obama and the G.O.P (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/us/politics/supreme-court-path-is-littered-with-pitfalls-for-president-and-gop.html).,” the only potential pitfalls it actually identifies are all for the GOP.

Still, before we get to the politics of the Scalia vacancy, please let’s talk about the bigger picture. The constitutional picture, if we must be grand about it.

As the president pointed out Tuesday (http://www.npr.org/2016/02/16/466992726/obama-the-constitution-is-pretty-clear-about-a-supreme-court-vacancy), it’s laughable that conservatives who claim to be strict constitutionalists in the Scalia vein want to defy the Constitution by declaring that a president has no right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during his final year in office. As the Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell has pointed out, the GOP has taken the position that the first year of a president’s term also does not officially count (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republican-obstructionism-is-nothing-new/2016/02/15/2d856c12-d42c-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html) — that’s the logic by which its presidential field (Donald Trump excepted) keeps insisting that President Bush “kept us safe” despite the fact that 9/11 occurred eight months into his presidency.

Then again, the radical right that now rules the GOP, for all its protestations of strict fidelity to the Founding Fathers, has been as hostile to the federal government during the Obama years as the secessionists who embraced the ideology of John C. Calhoun to foment the Civil War.

Republicans in Congress have

held up countless judicial appointments (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/payback-gop-blocks-obama-judge-picks-judiciary-119743) and Executive-branch appointments, denying American governance the essential tools of personnel in top-tier jobs;

they have balked at the routine fiscal task of raising the debt ceiling;

they have shut down the government altogether (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/republicans-shut-down-the-government-for-nothing/280611/) when they couldn’t get their way.

Today’s secessionist insurgency has reached such an extreme that both Republican senators from the Dixie stronghold of Alabama, Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions, have blocked the elevation of Abdul Kallon to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (where he would be the first African-American from Alabama to serve (http://henrycountyreport.com/blog/2016/02/12/sen-sessions-and-shelby-to-block-nomination-of-black-muslim-judge-to-federal-court/)) even though they both backed him (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/before-antonin-scalias-death-a-clash-between-gop-and-obama-over-appellate-judges.html) for his current post as a U.S. District judge.

Which brings us to the politics. Rob Portman of Ohio is one of seven (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/02/15/daily-202-why-blocking-obama-s-pick-to-replace-scalia-could-cost-republicans-their-senate-majority/56c13943981b92a22d189bff/) incumbent Republican senators up for reelection this year in states that Obama won in the 2012 election. After Scalia’s death, he tweeted that it was “the best thing for the country” to “trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/portman-gop-senate-219304).” He refuses to acknowledge that the American people did weigh in on who should make that appointment when they voted in the last presidential election and the one before that.

But like a true nullifier of the Calhoun persuasion, he simply denies the legitimacy of elections, laws, and a president he doesn’t like.

Does he not think this will not be noticed by his own constituents when they return to the polls this fall?

What’s more, Obama could inflict more damage on Portman and other vulnerable Senate incumbents — and on the GOP’s national ticket — by nominating a qualified justice who by definition will further highlight the party’s knee-jerk hostility toward immigrants, women, black people, gay individuals, and Hispanics.

James Hohmann of the Post cites the potential nominee Monica Márquez (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/02/15/daily-202-why-blocking-obama-s-pick-to-replace-scalia-could-cost-republicans-their-senate-majority/56c13943981b92a22d189bff/), the first Latina and first openly gay justice of the Colorado Supreme Court.

Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast proposes Tino Cuellar (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/15/the-gop-s-worst-nightmare-scotus-nominee.html), an associate justice in the California Supreme Court who was born in Mexico and became a naturalized citizen before earning degrees at Harvard, Yale Law, and Stanford.

Cuellar’s wife, Lucy Koh, is another contender (https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/law-policy-and-it/judge-lucy-h-koh-supreme-court): America’s first female Korean-American district judge, confirmed by a 90-to-0 vote in the Senate when Obama nominated her for the post in 2010 but sure to be rejected now by the same Republican senators who voted for her then.

How exactly does this end well for the GOP in an election year?

By refusing to act on the Scalia vacancy, the party will once again brand itself as the party of obstructionism, government dysfunction, and animosity toward the growing majority of Americans who do not fit its predominantly white male demographic.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/scalias-death-and-gops-strict-obstructionists.html

[spurraider21]

Repugs! :lol
chuck schumer is a democrat

[boutons_deux]

Glenn Beck says God killed Scalia to goose Ted Cruz's poll numbers. Sure, why not. (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/18/1487254/-Glenn-Beck-says-God-killed-Scalia-to-goose-Ted-Cruz-s-poll-numbers-Sure-why-not)

On Tuesday, the conservative radio host and Cruz supporter assumed the voice of God to explain to listeners how Scalia's death was a divine wake up call for conservatives. [...]

Beck then took on the voice of the Lord: "I just woke the American people up. I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, 'Look how close your liberty is to being lost,'" he said.

"The Constitution is hanging by a thread. That thread has just been cut. And the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist (as president)," Beck said.

Beck, who has endorsed Cruz, often invokes God during speeches at the Texas senator's campaign rallies, and has even claimed that Cruz's birth was brought about by "the hand of divine providence."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/02/18/1487254/-Glenn-Beck-says-God-killed-Scalia-to-goose-Ted-Cruz-s-poll-numbers-Sure-why-not?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

[spurraider21]

again, what the fuck are these headlines :lol... how is this considered journalism?

[TeyshaBlue]

Journalism :lmao

[boutons_deux]

President Obama Trounces Republicans as 62% Want SCOTUS Vacancy Filled Now

Even with a leading question, a new Fox News poll shows what Republicans are up against as 62% say the President and Senate should take action to fill vacancy now, while just 34% say wait.

Independents broke along similar lines 61% to 35%.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/18/62-president-senate-fill-scotus-vacancy.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[boutons_deux]

The Judicial Crisis Network's Incredibly Dishonest Pro-Obstruction Ad

The messaging that conservatives seem to have settled on regarding the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia is that somehow Americans won’t have a say in who the next justice is unless the confirmation of any nominee is stalled until after the next president takes office. (No matter that the current president was, in fact, elected by the American people for this very job (http://blog.pfaw.org/content/gop-vs-integrity-american-judicial-system).)

The first TV ad out of the gates (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/18/ad-war-over-antonin-scalia-successor-begins/80548422/)in the Supreme Court battle comes from the Judicial Crisis Network, which uses this messaging in an effort to pressure Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley to stand strong on denying a hearing to any Obama nominee for the seat.

The screen shows softly lit stock footage of diverse Americans as a voiceover says:

It’s ‘We the People.’ Sometimes the politicians forget that. The Supreme Court has a vacancy and your vote in November is your only voice. Sen. Chuck Grassley agrees: the American people should decide. This isn’t about Republicans or Democrats. It’s about your voice. You choose the next president, the next president chooses the next justice. Call Sen. Chuck Grassley. Thank him for letting the people decide.


we always have to note that during the George W. Bush administration the

Judicial Crisis Network was called the Judicial Confirmation Network (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rebirth-judicial-confirmation-network) and that

its stated mission was to ensure that “the confirmation process for all judicial nominees is fair and that every nominee sent to the full Senate receives an up or down vote."

As far as we know, the Judicial Confirmation Network didn’t oppose any of the 28 federal judges who were confirmed during Bush’s final year in office.

But it definitely “isn’t about Republicans and Democrats”!

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/judicial-crisis-networks-incredibly-dishonest-pro-obstruction-ad

[boutons_deux]

GOP LYING? never!

GOP tries to make up Supreme Court ‘tradition’ that doesn’t exist

Marco Rubio, like most Senate Republicans, intends to maintain a blockade against any Supreme Court nominee put forward by President Obama, regardless of the person’s qualifications. He even has a talking point he’s eager to share.

Yesterday, CNN’s Jake Tapper noted, for example, that Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in President Reagan’s final year in office, but Rubio replied that doesn’t count because the nomination was made a couple of months prior. The senator added (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1602/18/cg.01.html):

“This is a tradition that both parties have lived by for over 80 years where in the last year, if there was a vacancy in the last year of a lame duck president, you don’t move forward.”


Rubio isn’t the only one using the word “tradition” this way. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said (https://twitter.com/lisamurkowski/status/700482929869377536) on social media yesterday that President Obama should “follow a tradition embraced by both parties and allow his successor to select the next Supreme Court justice.”

I’m not unsympathetic to the idea that traditions matter in the political process. In fact, I made just such a case (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-abandon-norms-and-traditions-governing-fails) earlier this week, exploring the consequences of congressional Republicans abandoning traditional norms that have helped make governing possible for generations.

But now seems like a good time to add some clarity to the matter. Honoring traditions is one thing; making up traditions that don’t actually exist is something else.

Look at that Rubio quote again: “This is a tradition that both parties have lived by for over 80 years where in the last year, if there was a vacancy in the last year of a lame duck president, you don’t move forward.”

Now, I have no idea if Rubio is confused, uninformed, or trying to deceive the public. I do know, however, that his talking point doesn’t make any sense.

There is no such “tradition.” In order for something to become “traditional,” it has to happen routinely over the course of many years, and in this case, the number of instances in which both parties have agreed to leave a seat on the Supreme Court vacant for a year, waiting for an upcoming presidential election to come and go, is zero.

Or put another way, if Rubio and Murkowski want to compile a list of all the examples that help establish this tradition – instances in which Supreme Court vacancies went unfilled because it was a presidential election year – I’d find that incredibly useful.

But I have a hunch such a list won’t appear anytime soon. That’s because plenty of presidents have nominated justices (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/15/10998836/supreme-court-nomination-election-year) in election years – and those nominees have generally been confirmed (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/15/us/supreme-court-nominations-election-year-scalia.html).

One might even say the American tradition holds that presidents do their jobs when there’s a vacancy (choosing a nominee), which leads senators do their jobs (consider that nominee for the bench).

It’s one thing to make up “rules” that don’t exist. But to characterize an event that hasn’t occurred as a bipartisan “tradition” is to take partisan propaganda to unhealthy levels.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-tries-make-supreme-court-tradition-doesnt-exist?cid=sm_fb_maddow

iow, FUCK the Repugs to hell.

[spurraider21]

sounds like chuck schumer circa 2007

[boutons_deux]

Scalia’s Resort Trip Was Gifted By a ‘Friend’ Who Had Business Before the Supreme Court



It’s now been revealed that the luxury hunting ranch vacation Antonin Scalia was on when he died was a gift from someone who Scalia indirectly helped with a recent Supreme Court decision.

In late 2015, the Supreme Court declined to hear (http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100515zor_4f15.pdf) an age discrimination suit (Hinga, James V. Mic Group, LLC (http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/14-20616/14-20616-2015-05-06.html)) against a subsidiary of the manufacturing company J.B. Poindexter, which is owned by John B. Poindexter. Poindexter also owns the 30,000-acre Cibolo Creek Ranch in Shafter, Texas, where Scalia was vacationing when he died last weekend. According to the Washington Post, Scalia didn’t pay (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/17/justice-scalias-death-and-questions-about-who-pays-for-supreme-court-justices-to-visit-remote-resorts/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_obama-820pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)for his flight to the ranch, or for his room at the luxury ranch. His food and beverages were also free. Poindexter maintains that Scalia wasn’t given any preferential treatment, as the 36 people staying at the ranch that weekend were all staying for free.

However, the Post also reports that lingering questions remain about who else was staying at the ranch, and whether or not Poindexter or any of the ranch’s guests were trying to curry favor (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/17/justice-scalias-death-and-questions-about-who-pays-for-supreme-court-justices-to-visit-remote-resorts/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_obama-820pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory) with the late Justice:

The nature of Poindexter’s relationship with Scalia remained unclear Tuesday, one of several lingering questions about his visit. It was not known whether Scalia had paid for his own ticket to fly to the ranch or if someone else picked up the tab, just as it was not immediately clear if Scalia had visited before.

It is also still not known who else was at the Texas ranch for the weekend, and unless that is revealed, there could be concerns about who could have tried to raise an issue around Scalia, said Stephen Gillers, who teaches legal and judicial ethics at the New York University School of Law. He compared it to unease that arises when judges and officials from major companies are invited to seminars or educational events that bring them together for periods of time.


During Justice Scalia’s tenure on the nation’s highest court, an astonishing number of decisions favored corporate plaintiffs and defendants, prompting the New York Times to call it the most corporate-friendly court (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/opinion/sunday/the-corporate-friendly-court.html) since the World War II era. An op-ed in theAtlanta Journal-Constitution called the current Supreme Court — which, including Scalia, had the conservative majority of Roberts-Alito-Thomas-Scalia-Kennedy deciding cases in favor of big business — an “enforcer of corporate power (http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookman/2013/may/06/supreme-court-enforcer-corporate-power/).” The op-ed cited a professional statistical review that examined the results of over 2,000 cases:

The study published in the Minnesota Law Review (http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/EpsteinLanderPosner_MLR.pdf) ranked the 36 justices who have served in the post-WWII era in terms of how corporate-friendly their rulings have been. Not surprisingly, the five conservative members of the current high court all ranked in the top 10 most business-friendly justices to serve in that era. Four of the six most business-friendly justices now serve on the court.


http://usuncut.com/news/scalia-hunting-trip-was-a-gift/

Not the first time Scalia didn't bother to avoid an appearance of corruption.

The Roberts court is the 1%/VRWC/BigCorp court.

[boutons_deux]

Outside Groups Warn GOP: Don’t Even Think About Holding A SCOTUS Hearing

If any Republican senator is thinking about defecting from the GOP’s tough line on blocking a Supreme Court nomination until next year, then let them be warned. Outside conservative groups are preparing to go to war over who should get to pick a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly over the weekend, and they don’t want to see even a hearing considering the nominee President Obama has vowed to put forward.

“The strategy that makes the most sense is to say that there should not be any consideration of this nominee,” Curt Levey, executive director of the FreedomWorks Foundation, said in an interview with TPM. "It would be irrelevant to have a hearing because it’s the situation: the fact that it’s an election year, the fact that his policies are before the court, the fact that the court is so finely balanced at the moment.”

The pressure he and other groups are putting on lawmakers comes after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a statement almost immediately after Scalia’s death (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/conservative-senate-block-noms), signaling that Republicans would delay the confirmation process, regardless of the nominee, until after a new president has been inaugurated.

“It’s not about any one particular nominee,” Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the conservative legal organization Judicial Crisis Network, told TPM. “We know exactly the kind of person [Obama] is going to appoint. Getting into those details is just a silly distraction.”

For both sides of the political divide, the stakes could not be higher.

“We’ve known this was coming for while. We set aside resources for this fight because everyone knows the next president is likely to have maybe three nominations to make,” Severino said. She wouldn’t go into details about her group’s next moves when it comes to halting the Obama nominee, but said “we’re totally prepared for it,” including financing the effort.

One key choice for Republican lawmakers is whether to go through the motions of considering a nominee -- though hearings and other vetting -- before blocking them in a vote, or whether GOP leaders should refuse to even begin the process in the first place. McConnell’s statement, which was quickly followed by statements made by other Republican leaders echoing his logic, suggested they were planning for a full stonewall -- no hearings, no nothing

Outside conservative groups with influence on Capitol Hill -- and particularly those that inhabit its far-right flank :lol -- were quick to cement the line McConnell drew.

“Senator McConnell is right, under no circumstance should the Republican Senate majority confirm a Supreme Court nominee as Americans are in the midst of picking the next president,” Michael Needham -- the head of Heritage Action, :lol the lobby arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation :lol -- said in a statement posted Monday. (http://heritageaction.com/press-releases/statement-on-death-of-justice-scalia-and-looming-nomination-fight/)

The Family Research Council :lol is also advocating that Senate refuse to take up any nominee Obama submits.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/outside-groups-scotus-nom-fight

[baseline bum]

“The strategy that makes the most sense is to say that there should not be any consideration of this nominee,” Curt Levey, executive director of the FreedomWorks Foundation, said in an interview

:lol

[boutons_deux]

It’s time to end Antonin Scalia’s prison state: How the next SCOTUS justice could help end mass incarceration

Few people did more to ensure the ranks of American prisons swelled over the past generation than Scalia

It’s hard to believe that the United States’ vast prison archipelago, holding roughly 2.2 million human beings in cages, somehow squares with the constitutional prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment.” To many eyes, it is both of those things: The system is fueled by statutes prescribing long sentences that are both extreme and by comparison odd for crimes both minor and major.

But narrow majorities on the Supreme Court led by recently-deceased Justice Antonin Scalia haven’t seen it that way.

Scalia, reaching back to the 18th century as he liked to do, pushed the Court to adopt a maximally restrictive view of what kind of punishment could be so grossly disproportionate so as to run afoul of the Constitution. In practice, he found nothing that would qualify.

Replacing Scalia with a more humane, less hidebound justice could allow the Court to take a more expansive look at the Eighth Amendment and, in doing so, do something quite radical: help end mass incarceration. In could also end the death penalty, something that Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have strongly suggested (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/06/29/justices-breyer-and-ginsburg-it-is-highly-likely-the-death-penalty-is-unconstitutional/) they are ready to do.

“Scalia was perhaps the strongest opponent of proportionality analysis of any kind under the Amendment,” emails Jonathan Simon, a University of California Berkeley law professor and faculty director of its Center for the Study of Law and Society.

“A more robust proportionality rule would go a long way to eliminating some outsized determinate sentences that drive a big part of mass incarceration.”

But by 1991, the Court put an end to their flirtation with checking excessive punishment, voting in Harmelin v. Michigan to uphold Ronald Harmelin’s state mandatory life without parole sentence for possessing 672 grams of cocaine.

Scalia, writing for himself and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, found that “the Eighth Amendment contains no proportionality guarantee” because while “disproportionate punishment can perhaps always be considered ‘cruel,’ but it will not always be (as the text also requires) ‘unusual.’”

Simon points to the 2011 decision Brown v. Plata, where the Court ruled that California’s overcrowded prisons were unconstitutional, pushing a recalcitrant state toward some measure of decarceration (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/an-unprecedented-experiment-in-mass-forgiveness/2016/02/08/45899f9c-a059-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.html). Predictably, Scalia called the ruling “outrageous” in his dissent. By contrast, Justice Kennedy’s majority decision indicated the Court’s growing willingness to consider even those duly convicted of a crime to nonetheless remain human beings.

An additional justice who understands this, and maybe even a bit more expansively than Kennedy, could usher in a sea change in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence—one that could put a huge dent in mass incarceration. A fair look of the harsh sentences that hundreds of thousands of Americans currently serve makes it clear that the system is no doubt both cruel and unusual. To end mass incarceration, the Court needs another Justice Marhsall.

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/21/its_time_to_end_antonin_scalias_prison_state_how_t he_next_scotus_justice_could_help_end_mass_incarce ration/

[boutons_deux]

Republicans debate whether to honor constitutional process

Republicans made a bold claim – tradition holds that the Senate ignore Supreme Court nominees in presidential election years – and Democrats “disagree” with that claim. Which side is correct? The article doesn’t say.

So let’s answer the question with the demonstrable truth: Republicans are lying.

There is no “common practice” (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-tries-make-supreme-court-tradition-doesnt-exist) that justifies their blockade strategy, and there is no “tradition” (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/rubes-on-the-court-a-scatological-close-read) to honor.

The gambit GOP senators have launched is simply without precedent (http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/how-the-politics-of-the-next-nomination-will-pay-out/) in the American experience.

Whether or not some “agree” or “disagree” with a party’s talking points is irrelevant. Partisans can respect traditions, norms, and common practices, but they can’t simply make them up out of whole cloth – and reporters certainly shouldn’t help them by playing along.

the Indiana Republican, who’s retiring this year, said he’s applying a “litmus test” in which Antonin Scalia’s replacement should agree with Scalia’s “constitutional position.” :lol

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-debate-whether-honor-constitutional-process?cid=eml_mra_20160222

Olympia J. Snowe, a former moderate Republican senator from Maine. “I believe that the process should go forward and be given a good-faith effort :lol

good-faith from the Repugs? :lol

[boutons_deux]

Republicans Risk Five Key Senate Races With Supreme Court Stance

The Senate is in play this November, and the same vulnerable Republicans whose defeats might cost the G.O.P. control of the chamber are at once among the likeliest to back President Obama’s nominee. They are also the likeliest to suffer if the fight has political costs to the party.

The Democrats aren’t favored to retake the Senate. They would need to gain five seats (or four if they retain the presidency). But they have a real opportunity to win because a large number of Republicans from competitive or Democratic-leaning states are up for re-election. These Republican senators could have strong electoral incentives to support Mr. Obama’s Supreme Court nominee — otherwise, their opposition will be used against them.

The large number of relatively moderate Republicans from relatively moderate states is an artifact of the sweeping Republican victory in the midterm elections six years ago. In that election, Republicans won six Senate seats in states that Mr. Obama would carry in 2012: Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Illinois.

All of these senators, except Marco Rubio of Florida, are running for re-election, and all of them are vulnerable. Democrats have recruited strong candidates in all but one of these states, Pennsylvania — and the situation there isn’t so bad for the party.

What all of these vulnerable senators have in common is that their success depends on winning a fair share of relatively moderate voters who traditionally vote Democratic in presidential elections.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/upshot/supreme-court-vacancy-looms-over-five-key-senate-races.html

[boutons_deux]

Explosive New Polls Show GOP Poised To Lose Senate Seats If They Block Obama SCOTUS Nominee

Two new polls of Ohio and Pennsylvania revealed that voters are outraged over the Republican plan to block President Obama's Supreme Court nominee. The anger is so strong that it could cost the GOP incumbent Senate seats in both states.

According to PPP (http://www.americansunitedforchange.org/page/-/PPP%20Poll%20Toomey-Portman%20Hurt%20By%20Supreme%20Court%20Stance%202-22-2016.pdf):


-Strong majorities of voters- 58/35 in Ohio and 57/40 in Pennsylvania- think that the vacant seat on the Supreme Court should be filled this year.

What’s particularly noteworthy about those numbers- and concerning for Portman and Toomey- is how emphatic the support for approving a replacement is among independent voters.

In Ohio they think a new Justice should be named this year 70/24 and in Pennsylvania it’s 60/37.

Those independent voters are going to make the difference in these tight Senate races, and they have no tolerance for obstructionism on the vacancy.

-Voters are particularly angry about Senators taking the stance that they’re not going to approve anyone before even knowing who President Obama decides to put forward.

By a 76/20 spread in Pennsylvania and a 74/18 one in Ohio, voters think the Senate should wait to see who is nominated to the Court before deciding whether or not to confirm that person.

Toomey and Portman are out of line even with their own party base on that one- Republicans in Pennsylvania think 67/27 and in Ohio think 63/32 that the Senate should at least give President Obama’s choice a chance before deciding whether or not to confirm them.

-This is an issue that really does have the potential to make Portman’s and Toomey’s lives even harder this fall if they don’t change their tune.

In both states the numbers are identical

- 52% of voters say they’ll be less likely to vote for either Portman or Toomey this fall if they refuse to confirm a replacement for Justice Scalia no matter who it is, compared to only 25% who say taking that stance makes them more likely to vote for them.

In both cases the numbers reinforce how perilous it is with independents for Portman and Toomey to take the position that they’re not confirming someone no matter what

- in Ohio 59% of them say that makes them less likely to vote for Portman to just 15% more likely, and for Toomey it’s 55% of independents less likely to vote for him based on that stance to only 24% more inclined to support him.


http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/22/republicans-poised-lose-senate-seats-ohio-pa-block-obama-scotus-nominee.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[Aztecfan03]

701828664342630400

[spurraider21]

that was June before the election, we're still February

[boutons_deux]

Repugs refusing to consider ANY and ALL yet unknown nominess risks losing the Senate.

If they succeed in blocking, SCOTUS is hung until 2017, AND the Repugs can't win the WH (they won't), then a Dem Pres will still nominate. The big risk that that a Pres Hillary would nominate a center-right person who would tip the court right, so Hillary could say "I get things done" (no matter who gets fucked, like Iraq, Libya, college debtors, medically bankrupted Americans)

[Aztecfan03]

that was June before the election, we're still February
2007 also had Schumer saying the same thing 18 months before the election.

And now is also well within the political campaign season that Biden talks about in that video.

[spurraider21]

yeah, the schumer quotes are by far the most damning as far as Dems are concerned, regarding this process

by the time biden was making his speech the primaries were already over if i'm not mistaken

[rmt]

They both would do the same thing - refuse to approve any nominee.

[boutons_deux]

They both would do the same thing - refuse to approve any nominee.

mind reading?

Did the Dems REFUSE to consider ANY and ALL nominees, sight unseen?

Rigthwingut defense of Repugs: the Dems are just as bad (meaning there's nothing good about the Repugs to defend, and Repug supporters know it)

[Aztecfan03]

mind reading?

Did the Dems REFUSE to consider ANY and ALL nominees, sight unseen?

Rigthwingut defense of Repugs: the Dems are just as bad (meaning there's nothing good about the Repugs to defend, and Repug supporters know it)

some of them, yes. Even though they never actually had the opportunity.

[boutons_deux]

some of them, yes. Even though they never actually had the opportunity.

they, they didn't

Obama's will give the Repugs their opportunity in a couple weeks. Strict obstructionism says they will continue as from Jan 2009.

[boutons_deux]

Republicans seize on Biden quote, which does them no good

Republicans were deliriously happy. After all, if Joe Biden himself had called for a comparable blockade, endorsing a delayed process in a presidential election year, GOP senators could simply say they were honoring the standard the vice president created. It was, the right cried out in unison, the “game changer” they were waiting for.

Except, it really wasn’t.

For observers who appreciate details, some obvious troubles probably jumped out right away. For example, in 2016, there’s an actual vacancy on the high court, while in 1992, there was not. There’s a qualitative difference between a hypothetical set of circumstances and actually implementing a brazenly partisan scheme that’s never been attempted in American history.

There’s also the matter of the date: Biden’s 1992 speech was delivered at the end of June, not long before Congress’ summer recess. That’s not at all similar to declaring in mid-February that a Supreme Court vacancy must go unfilled for a year.

But more important still is the part of the 1992 speech that went overlooked. ThinkProgress noted (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/22/3752298/no-joe-biden-didnt-say-that-the-senate-should-block-supreme-court-nominees-during-an-election-year/) that,in the same remarks,

Biden added that if the then-Republican president “consults and cooperates with the Senate,

or moderates his selections absent consultation,

then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”

That doesn’t sound like a call for a partisan blockade against any and all nominees, sight unseen. It sounds like the opposite.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-seize-biden-quote-which-does-them-no-good?cid=sm_fb_maddow

So all y'all's "Dems are just as bad as the Repugs" is pure bullshit, as always. The Repugs have been, are MUCH WORSE.

[boutons_deux]

Georgetown University Law Professors Slam Late Justice Antonin Scalia

“Scalia was a giant in the history of the law, a brilliant jurist whose opinions and scholarship profoundly transformed the law,” Dean William Treanor said in the announcement, noting that Scalia had returned to the school to talk and answer questions multiple times over the years.

“He cared passionately about the profession, about the law and about the future, and the students who were fortunate enough to hear him will never forget the experience. We will all miss him.”

But two professors took issue with the announcement.

One of them, professor Mike Seidman, sent a letter to the faculty noting that he disagreed with the announcement but noting that “norms of civility preclude criticizing public figures immediately after their death.”

However, two days later, professor Gary Peller decided it was time (http://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/scaliagate-at-georgetown-law-the-conservatives-strike-back/2/?rf=1) to criticize Scalia in an email to students and fellow faculty.

“I am not suggesting that J. Scalia should have been criticized on the day of his death, nor that the ‘community’ should not be thankful for his willingness to meet with our students. But he was not a legal figure to be lionized or emulated by our students.

He bullied lawyers,

trafficked in personal humiliation of advocates, and

openly sided with the party of intolerance in the ‘culture wars’ he often invoked.

In my mind, he was not a ‘giant’ in any good sense,” said the liberal professor.

“I imagine many other faculty, students and staff, particularly people of color, women and sexual minorities, cringed at headline and at the unmitigated praise with which the press release described a jurist that many of us believe was a defender of privilege, oppression and bigotry, one whose intellectual positions were not brilliant but simplistic and formalistic.”

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1973373-georgetown-university-law-professors-slam-late-justice-antonin-scalia/''

[boutons_deux]

Justice Scalia Explains Why Leaving His Seat Vacant Is A Terrible Idea

explained the adverse impact of that losing a justice has on the court. Here is the key passage from Scalia’s memo (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-475scalia.pdf), noted by a former law clerk for Scalia, Ian Samuel:

On the Supreme Court, however, the consequence is different:

The Court proceeds with eight Justices, raising the possibility that, by reason of a tie vote, it will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case.

Thus, as Justices stated in their 1993 Statement of Recusal Policy: “[W]e do not think it would serve the public interest to go beyond the requirements of the statute, and to recuse ourselves, out of an excess of caution, whenever a relative is a partner in the firm before us or acted as a lawyer at an earlier stage.

Even one unnecessary recusal impairs the functioning of the Court.” (Available in Clerk of Court’s case file.)

Moreover, granting the motion is (insofar as the outcome of the particular case is concerned) effectively the same as casting a vote against the petitioner.

The petitioner needs five votes to overturn the judgment below, and it makes no difference whether the needed fifth vote is missing because it has been cast for the other side, or because it has not been cast at all.


Here, the Republican Senate is essentially creating an eight person court for an entire year or longer, something that would create the problem Scalia warned about in every single case heard by the Court until his replacement is confirmed.

More broadly, Republican Senators are intent on turning the 2016 presidential election into a referendum on the Supreme Court. Scalia also spoke out against the politicization of the appointments process.

“I am not happy about the intrusion of politics (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1116/p01s03-usju.html) into the judicial appointment process,” Scalia said in 2010. :lol

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/23/3752627/justice-scalia-explains-why-leaving-his-seat-vacant-is-a-terrible-idea/

The HEAVILY biased, politicized shill for VRWC/1%/BigCorp was against politicization of SCOTUS when the politicization didn't go to the extreme right. :lol

[Winehole23]

Georgetown law profs demand trigger warnings:


Citing the widely debated controversy at Yale last year, they wrote that having to endure criticisms of Scalia is “clearly the most grievous imaginable macro-aggression against all conservative students and faculty.” As a result, they argued, “this incident calls for remedies at least as substantial” as the ones imposed at Yale, “and an equally powerful statement” from the dean denouncing the “micro-aggression.”https://theintercept.com/2016/02/23/georgetown-law-professors-complain-conservative-students-are-traumatized-by-criticisms-of-scalia-demand-remedies/

[ChumpDumper]

701828664342630400


2007 also had Schumer saying the same thing 18 months before the election.

And now is also well within the political campaign season that Biden talks about in that video.So you think those Democrats were right?

I don't.

[ChumpDumper]

701828664342630400


2007 also had Schumer saying the same thing 18 months before the election.

And now is also well within the political campaign season that Biden talks about in that video.So you think those Democrats were right?

I don't.

[boutons_deux]

what Biden said was not absolute, was said just before the summer recess late June, not in Feb, and most of all:

But more important still is the part of the 1992 speech that went overlooked. ThinkProgress noted (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/22/3752298/no-joe-biden-didnt-say-that-the-senate-should-block-supreme-court-nominees-during-an-election-year/) that,in the same remarks,

"Biden added that if the then-Republican president “consults and cooperates with the Senate,

or moderates his selections absent consultation,

then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”

[RandomGuy]

So you think those Democrats were right [to say wait until the election to fill a SCOTUS vacancy]?

I don't.

Neither do I. Try getting the partisan hacks to cop to criticizing the GOP for it is not something I will hold my breath for.



what Biden said was not absolute, was said just before the summer recess late June, not in Feb, and most of all:

But more important still is the part of the 1992 speech that went overlooked. ThinkProgress noted (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/22/3752298/no-joe-biden-didnt-say-that-the-senate-should-block-supreme-court-nominees-during-an-election-year/) that,in the same remarks,

"Biden added that if the then-Republican president “consults and cooperates with the Senate,

or moderates his selections absent consultation,

then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter."

Very good point of difference.

I don't recall a letter by the Judiciary Committee saying "we won't even schedule a hearing" or the Senate leader saying "I wouldn't even meet the nominee".

It is an opening gambit, that not even they believe. Part of a negotiating tactic.

Silly, but how the game is played. The GOP is trying to maximize what they can get out of it, i.e. a candidate as conservative as possible.

Feel sorry for the punching bag that gets the nod.

[boutons_deux]

"Feel sorry for the punching bag that gets the nod."

.... won't even have to appear, won't be called.

If he or she does appear, voted down, Barry should another one, even more lefty, and more lefty, and more lefty.

[FromWayDowntown]

Obviously, Republican constitutional "principle" on this matter would be eroded some if Obama shocked the world and nominated one of their guys.

I still think the President could make incredible hay against the Republicans if he floated the name of an uber conservative judge as a potential nominee and let the Republicans sweatily walk back their insistence upon no hearings.

[boutons_deux]

if he floated the name of an uber conservative judge as a potential nominee

... making hay vs. handing the VRWC/1%/BigCorp another 5 - 4 court for many years? hell no.

[FromWayDowntown]

... making hay vs. handing the VRWC/1%/BigCorp another 5 - 4 court for many years? hell no.

He could float a name (and give the media a basis to at least ask the question) without actually nominating an uber conservative judge.

[boutons_deux]

He could float a name (and give the media a basis to at least ask the question) without actually nominating an uber conservative judge.

a bait'n'switch? bait a Bork and then switch to a Nortorious RBG? Just Do It.

[boutons_deux]

A White House invitation for U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley to discuss the current U.S. Supreme Current vacancy with President Barack Obama has so far gone unanswered.

Turning down the meeting would represent a break in protocol from two previous high court vacancies during Obama’s presidency, when the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the Senate majority and minority leaders attended Oval Office meetings.

works if senators are willing to have a conversation.

“Early this week, we extended an invitation to Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Leahy to join President Obama in the Oval Office for a consultative meeting of filling the Supreme Court vacancy,” a senior White House official told the Des Moines Register. “We have not heard back from Chairman Grassley.”


I suspect for the Iowa Republican, the calculus is pretty straightforward: Grassley has no intention of ever doing his duty, so there’s no real point in going to the Oval Office to discuss whether or not Grassley is going to take his responsibilities seriously. He’s already decided not to.

But let’s recognize this for what it is: a scandal. For the first time in American history, a Senate majority party not only intends to leave a Supreme Court vacancy in place for a year, Republicans are also imposing a blockade on the constitutional process itself.

As of yesterday, Grassley won’t talk to the president about potential justices, and at least five (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/23/key-senate-republicans-say-no-hearings-for-supreme-court-nominee/) GOP senators – including the Senate Republican leadership – said they won’t even talk to the president’s nominee if he or she showed up at their offices for a visit.
Nothing like this has ever happened in the American experience. That’s not hyperbole; it’s a demonstrable fact (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/senate-court-blockade-has-never-happened-before.html).

As Republican politics reach new levels of radicalization, the intensity of their maximalist tactics has arrived at an unprecedented and scary point.

The Republican Party may very well be broken, but just as alarming is the fact that the GOP is tearing the Senate down with it.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-are-breaking-the-senate?cid=sm_fb_maddow

Will voters hold Repugs accountable? Hell, no. Nearly every Repug involved is in a safe state, a voter-suppressed state, a gerrymandered district, and they are all slave and red states. Repugs are only accountable to their donors.

[FromWayDowntown]

a bait'n'switch? bait a Bork and then switch to a Nortorious RBG? Just Do It.

The truth is, Republicans would likely dodge that question by calling it academic until there's an actual nominee, but it would be a useful exercise (I think) to test just how committed they are to this notion that a lame duck President should not nominate -- no matter what -- in an election year.

[boutons_deux]

The truth is, Republicans would likely dodge that question by calling it academic until there's an actual nominee, but it would be a useful exercise (I think) to test just how committed they are to this notion that a lame duck President should not nominate -- no matter what -- in an election year.

Nominate a Bork, have the Repug Jud committee invite him/he (how about Priscilla garbage Owen of dubya's 5th Circuit/NOLA?) to Congress, then the morning of the Senate hearing, Barry withdraws his nominee.

[Aztecfan03]

what Biden said was not absolute, was said just before the summer recess late June, not in Feb, and most of all:

But more important still is the part of the 1992 speech that went overlooked. ThinkProgress noted (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/22/3752298/no-joe-biden-didnt-say-that-the-senate-should-block-supreme-court-nominees-during-an-election-year/) that,in the same remarks,

"Biden added that if the then-Republican president “consults and cooperates with the Senate,

or moderates his selections absent consultation,

then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”

We already know Obama won't do that, though.

[boutons_deux]

We already know Obama won't do that, though.

Barry has invited Repug(s) to WH to discuss the nominaiton. Repugs don't even respond, so GFY

[FromWayDowntown]

So, not quite as aggressive as floating a Cruz vetting, but:


President Barack Obama said Wednesday it would be "difficult" for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to explain his decision not to consider a Supreme Court nominee without looking like he's motivated by politics.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid suggested a Republican, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, as a potential nominee. A source confirmed to CNN that the White House is vetting Sandoval, although he has not been actively involved in the process.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

Sandoval doesn't have the traditional SCOTUS bona fides, since he's not a graduate of an elite law school and has no experience on an appellate bench, so there would likely be merit-based reasons to defeat his nomination, which is why it seems unlikely that he'd actually be nominated. But it's potentially a clever ploy by the White House and could force the Republicans to admit to pure political obstructionism.

[Aztecfan03]

So, not quite as aggressive as floating a Cruz vetting, but:



http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

Sandoval doesn't have the traditional SCOTUS bona fides, since he's not a graduate of an elite law school and has no experience on an appellate bench, so there would likely be merit-based reasons to defeat his nomination, which is why it seems unlikely that he'd actually be nominated. But it's potentially a clever ploy by the White House and could force the Republicans to admit to pure political obstructionism.
him being pro-choice doesn't help if it's a ploy though.

[rmt]

Don't they have to ask this republican governor if he wants to be a SC judge? If he's been a politician/governor, I doubt he wants the life of a SC justice - very different job/life.

[FromWayDowntown]

him being pro-choice doesn't help if it's a ploy though.

He's a Roman Catholic Republican and while I doubt that he'll actually be nominated, such a nomination would be far more centrist than most would expect out of President Obama (and, not surprisingly, a pragmatic choice by the President) and an attempt to replace Justice Scalia with someone with a similar background. Again, I think this notion will not come to fruition (at least it most likely won't come through fruition with Sandoval) but it's a pretty far cry from the belief that the President would just insist upon a liberal ideologue to fill the vacancy.

If nominated but not confirmed, Sandoval would also force Republicans to eat one of their own or to create a precedent of complete inaction (one that doesn't actually exist at this point) that they'll likely whine about if and when the tables are turned.

[FromWayDowntown]

Don't they have to ask this republican governor if he wants to be a SC judge? If he's been a politician/governor, I doubt he wants the life of a SC justice - very different job/life.

Of course he has to accept, but very few lawyers or politicians would ever turn down the chance for lifetime tenure on the highest court in the land. He would have far more power and prestige as a Supreme Court justice than as the Governor of Nevada.

I think that to turn down that opportunity (which wouldn't likely come again), one would basically have to be either completely unwilling to risk the exposure that confirmation hearings might bring or already be on track for even higher offices in the not-too-distant future. People in the know (Tom Goldstein, in particular) mention Kamala Harris as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court, but have suggested that she would likely turn down that nomination because she will almost certainly win a Senate seat in the Fall and then be positioned well to run for President:


I’ve long said that the most likely candidate for the next Democratic appointment was California Attorney General Kamala Harris. She is fifty-one. A female nominee has significant advantages as well. That is particularly true for the candidacy of the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. For reasons I’ve discussed elsewhere, I think her nomination is difficult to oppose ideologically, given her history as a prosecutor.

If Harris wanted the job, I think it would be hers. But I don’t think she does. Harris is the prohibitive favorite to win Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat in the 2016 election. After that, she is well positioned potentially to be president herself. If nominated, she would have to abandon her Senate candidacy and likely all of her political prospects. So I think she would decline.

I would think that for most people, declining a Supreme Court nomination would take something like that.

[boutons_deux]

Sandoval immediately rejected by repugs

Repugs say NOBODY EVER by obama

[FuzzyLumpkins]

citizens united should be a litmus test.

[boutons_deux]

‘I’m here to do my job,’ says senator who isn’t doing his job

After some vacillating that left his intentions unclear, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has made up his mind. When it comes to dealing with the Supreme Court vacancy, the far-right Iowan won’t hold a hearing on President Obama’s unnamed nominee; he will not support a vote on the nominee; and he’s not even sure whether or not he’ll accept a White House invitation to have a conversation about the nominee.

The ridiculous posture leaves Grassley in the unenviable position of becoming a laughingstock for the ages. As of yesterday, however, the Republican senator said he just doesn’t care (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/270614-grassley-i-dont-care-if-i-ever-go-down-in-history) about history’s judgment.

“Do you think I spend my days wondering about how Chuck Grassley will go down in history?” he told reporters on Wednesday, according to The Des Moines Register.

“I don’t care if I ever go down in history,” added Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I’m here to do my job.”


Those six words – “I’m here to do my job” – may be the most interesting Grassley has uttered in quite some time, because it suggests the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has grown confused about what his job actually is.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/im-here-do-my-job-says-senator-who-isnt-doing-his-job?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[rmt]

Sandoval: I do not wish to be considered for Supreme Court job.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/sandoval-i-do-not-wish-be-considered-supreme-court-job-n525791

[Splits]

Sandoval should have waited until November to announce he wasn't interested in the job. What a jerk, making an announcement like that in an election year.

[ElNono]

Justice Scalia’s Death Prompts Dow Chemical to Settle Lawsuit

Antonin Scalia’s empty Supreme Court seat has cost Dow Chemical $835 million.

That is how much the chemical company is paying in a decade-old lawsuit that was heading to the top court. Dow decided the death of Justice Scalia, a conservative judge, changed the balance of the suit and settled. It is a reminder that the gridlocked politics surrounding the Supreme Court have real-world effects.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/business/dealbook/justice-scalias-death-prompts-dow-chemical-to-settle-lawsuit.html

[ElNono]

“Growing political uncertainties due to recent events with the Supreme Court and increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class-action suits have changed Dow’s risk assessment of the situation,” the company said in an e-mailed statement.

...

“Class-actions is one of the areas where Justice Scalia’s absence is likely to have an impact,” said Gregory Garre, an appellate lawyer at Latham & Watkins in Washington and previously President George W. Bush’s top Supreme Court lawyer. “Companies will have to be careful what they ask for in seeking review, or at least face an added burden in prevailing at the court on class-action issues.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-26/dow-cites-scalia-s-death-in-settling-urethanes-case-for-835m

[boutons_deux]

We already know Obama won't do that, though.

excellent mindreading.

Obama's been getting killed because he's been playing softball vs Repug smash-mouth hardball.

Repugs didn't block Sotomayor or Kagan, because they didn't change the balance of court away from the politicized VRWC Repug shills.

There's plenty of Congressional recesses in the next few months. Obama should do it.

[boutons_deux]

Scalia's Death Is Already Making Biz And Conservative Activists Avoid SCOTUS

The Supreme Court has only been in session without Justice Antonin Scalia for a week. But already, his death is affecting cases, and particularly decisions not to take certain cases to the Supreme Court without the guarantee of his vote.

Last week, Dow Chemical made headlines by opting for a $835 million settlement in a class action lawsuit rather than risk having the case heard by a Scalia-less Supreme Court. A lower court had already ruled against the company for allegedly conspiring to fix prices for industrial chemicals, and prior to the settlement, Dow had appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling.

In the absence of Scalia's vote, taking the case to the eight other justices risked the company not just a loss in the specific case, but the potential for a broader ruling that would have put companies in a tougher position in future class action lawsuits.

The current court line-up "increased the likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class action suits,"

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association announced Thursday it would not petition the court to overturn an appeals court decision upholding a New York gun control law.

the group argued that currently there are "only four justices committed to a proper understanding of the Second Amendment," :lol

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scalia-cases-being-dropped?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

[RandomGuy]

Sandoval: I do not wish to be considered for Supreme Court job.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/sandoval-i-do-not-wish-be-considered-supreme-court-job-n525791

Wasn't surprised.

[RandomGuy]

Justice Scalia’s Death Prompts Dow Chemical to Settle Lawsuit

Antonin Scalia’s empty Supreme Court seat has cost Dow Chemical $835 million.

That is how much the chemical company is paying in a decade-old lawsuit that was heading to the top court. Dow decided the death of Justice Scalia, a conservative judge, changed the balance of the suit and settled. It is a reminder that the gridlocked politics surrounding the Supreme Court have real-world effects.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/business/dealbook/justice-scalias-death-prompts-dow-chemical-to-settle-lawsuit.html

Holy shit.

That does have some interesting effects.

4-4 splits mean that the lower court ruling stand.

Which means if you get a lower court tilted one direction or the other... those lower courts just got a whole lot more important.

[spurraider21]

Holy shit.

That does have some interesting effects.

4-4 splits mean that the lower court ruling stand.

Which means if you get a lower court tilted one direction or the other... those lower courts just got a whole lot more important.
true but it still doesn't establish a SCOTUS precedent so it could easily be revisisted

[RandomGuy]

Here is a fun idea...

Let President Hillary and the Democratic Senate consider this nominee:

Barack Obama


BOOM. Elections have consequences.

http://berryflow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Drops-Mic-640x336.jpg

[baseline bum]

Here is a fun idea...

Let President Hillary and the Democratic Senate consider this nominee:


Counting your chickens too early man. Hillary is a terrible candidate.

[DMX7]

Here is a fun idea...

Let President Hillary and the Democratic Senate consider this nominee:

Barack Obama


BOOM. Elections have consequences.

http://berryflow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Drops-Mic-640x336.jpg

Obama would be great. He is a constitutional scholar. And who would know better whether his executive orders are constitutional than the man who wrote them?

[RandomGuy]

Counting your chickens too early man. Hillary is a terrible candidate.

I somewhat agree. I think the Democratic party could do better.

That said, she is still better than any of the clowns currently still in the GOP car...

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hElIRoMbbAo/maxresdefault.jpg

[RandomGuy]

https://cmgajcluckovich.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/020115-toon-luckovich2-ed.jpg

[spurraider21]

wow, u posted comics. kudos

[boutons_deux]

White House Is Said to Be Vetting Iowa Judge for Supreme Court Seat

President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) is vetting Jane L. Kelly, a federal appellate judge in Iowa, as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org), weighing a selection that could pose an awkward dilemma for her home-state senator Charles E. Grassley (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/charles_e_grassley/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who has pledged to block the president from filling the vacancy.

In a Senate floor speech in 2013, Mr. Grassley effusively praised Judge Kelly, (http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/iowan-jane-kelly-clears-senate-be-circuit-court-judge-eighth-circuit) a longtime public defender, just before she won unanimous confirmation to her current position on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The senator read from a handwritten recommendation letter he had received from a retired judge, David R. Hansen, a Republican appointee he counted as an old friend. Mr. Hansen called Judge Kelly a “forthright woman of high integrity and honest character” and a person of “exceptionally keen intellect.”

“I congratulate Ms. Kelly on her accomplishments and wish her well in her duties,” Mr. Grassley said at the time. “I am pleased to support her confirmation and urge my colleagues to join me.”

Democrats have privately said that selecting Judge Kelly might force Mr. Grassley to change his stance and hold hearings, out of a sense of obligation to a respected jurist from his home state and concern about tarnishing his reputation in Iowa months before he faces re-election.

The six-term senator is facing pressure from voters to consider any nominee on the merits, but he said in an interview Wednesday that he would not change his position even for a fellow Iowan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/politics/white-house-vetting-jane-kelly-judge-supreme-court.html?_r=0&ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

With Hillary as the next Pres, Obama's chance to screw the Repugs on SCOTUS is vastly more important, and will be, for decades.

[RandomGuy]

wow, u posted comics. kudos

Why, thank you.

A picture is worth a thousand words?

[RandomGuy]

White House Is Said to Be Vetting Iowa Judge for Supreme Court Seat

President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) is vetting Jane L. Kelly, a federal appellate judge in Iowa, as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org), weighing a selection that could pose an awkward dilemma for her home-state senator Charles E. Grassley (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/charles_e_grassley/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who has pledged to block the president from filling the vacancy.

In a Senate floor speech in 2013, Mr. Grassley effusively praised Judge Kelly, (http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/iowan-jane-kelly-clears-senate-be-circuit-court-judge-eighth-circuit) a longtime public defender, just before she won unanimous confirmation to her current position on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The senator read from a handwritten recommendation letter he had received from a retired judge, David R. Hansen, a Republican appointee he counted as an old friend. Mr. Hansen called Judge Kelly a “forthright woman of high integrity and honest character” and a person of “exceptionally keen intellect.”

“I congratulate Ms. Kelly on her accomplishments and wish her well in her duties,” Mr. Grassley said at the time. “I am pleased to support her confirmation and urge my colleagues to join me.”

Democrats have privately said that selecting Judge Kelly might force Mr. Grassley to change his stance and hold hearings, out of a sense of obligation to a respected jurist from his home state and concern about tarnishing his reputation in Iowa months before he faces re-election.

The six-term senator is facing pressure from voters to consider any nominee on the merits, but he said in an interview Wednesday that he would not change his position even for a fellow Iowan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/politics/white-house-vetting-jane-kelly-judge-supreme-court.html?_r=0&ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

With Hillary as the next Pres, Obama's chance to screw the Repugs on SCOTUS is vastly more important, and will be, for decades.




Hardball politics.

GOP is shooting itself in the foot here, and the reposte from Obama will be for them to lose in some way, and I will not feel any sympathy for the asshats.

[boutons_deux]

Hardball politics.

GOP is shooting itself in the foot here, and the reposte from Obama will be for them to lose in some way, and I will not feel any sympathy for the asshats.

It's still Obama playing slow-pitch softball.

His overhand 90 MPH hardball "crazy pissed off n!gga" strike would be to appoint her or an even more progressive equivalent during a Congressional recess, of which there are many remaining.

Or,

His first nominee, the sooner the better (time flies), gives the Repugs the chance to refuse to "advise and consent".

Then Barry whacks them with a "strict Constitutionalist" tactic and appoints her or other during Congressional recess, to fulfill his Constitutional duty.

[boutons_deux]

Pressure takes its toll on Chuck Grassley

How you know the Supreme Court fight is getting intense:

The Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee threw a bit of a tantrum yesterday -- and reporters caught it on tape.

It was probably the most consequential “gaffe” of 2014. Iowa’s Bruce Braley, a Democratic Senate hopeful running for an open seat, took a very specific shot (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/bruce-braley-chuck-grassley-farmer-with-no-law-degree-105010) at the state’s longtime senator, Republican Chuck Grassley. If the GOP took the Senate majority,

Braley said in March 2014,

you might have a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school,

never practiced law,

serving as the next chair of the Senate Judiciary.”

Braley later apologized, but the media pounced and wouldn’t let go. The Democrat’s lead evaporated, and he lost the election by nearly 10 points.

His point, however, was that Grassley probably isn’t qualified to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee – the panel that, among other things, is responsible for considering Supreme Court nominees – and two years later, it’s starting to look like Braley was onto something.

The Iowa Republican rejected (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/top-senate-republican-rejects-call-voting-rights-fix) calls for restoring the Voting Rights Act by saying,

“If you want to fix more minorities voting, more minorities are already voting.”

His handling of Loretta Lynch’s Attorney General nomination was unfortunate (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/will-republicans-scuttle-lynchs-ag-nomination).

At one point,Grassley boasted that his panel had cleared the way for confirmation of 11 judicial nominees – and he was off by 11 (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-readies-partisan-circus-lynch-hearings-begin).

But the GOP senator’s support for an unprecedented blockade against any Supreme Court nominee, sight unseen, has cast Grassley in an even less flattering light.

The Iowa Republican, unable to defend his ridiculous antics, has become so embarrassed (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/us/politics/struggle-over-supreme-court-pick-enters-a-new-level-of-hardball-politics.html) that last week he “raised a binder to cover his face before hurriedly retreating” from reporters on Capitol Hill with questions about his behavior.

Yesterday, it sounded like the pressure was getting to him (http://m.whoradio.iheart.com/articles/1040-who-radio-news-121648/grassley-has-less-than-cordial-meeting-14442909/).


A day after a meeting at the White House with President Obama that he characterized as “cordial,” Sen. Charles Grassley had a fiery exchange with some reporters on his stand on the US Senate taking up Obama’s expected Supreme Court nomination.


It’s worse than it sounds.

Take a listen to the audio clip posted here (http://m.whoradio.iheart.com/articles/1040-who-radio-news-121648/grassley-has-less-than-cordial-meeting-14442909/). The Des Moines Register’s Kathie Obradovich asked Grassley about his approach, which

the senator defended by pointing to the 2014 midterm elections, as if the results somehow invalidated the constitutional process and the authority of President Obama’s office.

Around the 2:15 mark, however,

Grassley starts coming unglued,

raising his voice and shouting bizarre arguments about the EPA,

court “packing” (the poor guy still doesn’t know (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-basics-court-packing) what that means), and

his general contempt for the president.

The recorded tantrum raised questions anew about what in the world Grassley is doing as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

There’s no reason to believe the pressure is going to ease in the coming weeks and months, especially if the president nominates an Iowan (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/politics/white-house-vetting-jane-kelly-judge-supreme-court.html) who used to enjoy Grassley’s enthusiastic praise.

Making matters even worse is the review of Grassley’s record on the issue of judicial nominees. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest noted yesterday, for example, that as recently as

2006, Grassley declared on the Senate floor, “A Supreme Court nomination is not a forum to fight any election. It is the time to perform one of our most important constitutional duties and decide whether a nominee is qualified to serve on the nation’s highest court.”

He did not add at the time, “Unless I really hate the president in office at the time.”

As recently as 2009, Grassley signed onto a letter (http://www.politico.com/story/2009/03/republicans-warn-obama-on-judges-019526) to President Obama saying he should re-nominate President Bush’s leftover judicial nominees from 2008, just a gesture of goodwill. Seven years later, this same senator refuses to even consider a qualified Supreme Court nominee?

I’m sure Chuck Grassley wants the public to take his partisan antics seriously. I’m not at all sure why anyone would do so.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/pressure-takes-its-toll-chuck-grassley?cid=sm_fb_maddow

Thanks, Repugs. All y'all MISgovern with extreme skill and talent. :lol

[boutons_deux]

Senate Republicans swat away Obama’s outstretched hand

“The president … gave everyone in the room, Democrats and Republicans, the opportunity to put forward their own suggestions for potential Supreme Court nominees. The president didn’t guarantee that he would choose that person, but the president did indicate that he would take seriously any recommendations that either Democrats or Republicans had to put forward.”

It all sounds quite routine – or what would be routine under normal American circumstances. But as it turns out, this Oval Office meeting was actually a reminder about just how abnormal the times really are. The New York Times, quoting one of the gathering’s participants, said today’s discussion was “very short (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/us/politics/obama-to-make-case-to-gop-senators-to-fill-supreme-court-seat.html?ref=politics).”

Leaving the meeting, [Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid] suggested that the Republicans appear to be waiting for Donald Trump to be in the White House. “There wasn’t much said at the meeting,” Mr. Reid said.


The Hill also quoted (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/271286-no-signs-of-breakthrough-in-scotus-stalemate) Reid saying in reference to the GOP senators, “They were adamant. They said, ‘No, we’re not going to do this at all.’”

Referring to Democrats, Reid added, “All we want them to do is to fulfill their constitutional duty, and at this stage, they are deciding not to do that.”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/senate-republicans-swat-away-obamas-outstretched-hand?cid=sm_fb_maddow

Unprecedent shit from these Repug shitbags, and their billionaire owners.

[boutons_deux]

Senate Republicans will ignore Court nominee, but RNC won’t

The Associated Press reported (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rnc-launches-campaign-oppose-obamas-supreme-court-pick) this morning:

The Republican Party is launching a campaign to try to derail President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, teaming up with a conservative opposition research group to target vulnerable Democrats and impugn whomever Obama picks.

A task force housed within the Republican National Committee will orchestrate attack ads, petitions and media outreach…. The RNC will contract with America Rising Squared, an outside group targeting Democrats that’s run by a longtime aide to GOP Sen. John McCain.


RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said his attack operation would “make sure Democrats have to answer to the American people for why they don’t want voters to have a say in this process.” Priebus added (http://website-rollcall-680121718.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com/news/politics/gop-prepares-strike-on-obamas-scotus-pick)that the White House is poised to “break with decades of precedent.”

Republicans, the RNC chair went on to say, are “going to vet that person and put their real record on display.”

At face value, most the RNC’s rhetoric is plainly laughable. Obviously, no one is trying to deny voters a role in the process – voters are the ones who elected President Obama (twice), giving him the authority to act. It’s equally obvious that the “decades of precedent” talking point is brazenly untrue (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/senate-republicans-debunk-their-own-supreme-court-talking-points), as even some Senate Republicans have been willing to acknowledge.

But just below the surface, there’s something even more ridiculous going on.

For example, the RNC is going to have a tough time pitching their opposition to the unnamed nominee as sincere and principled if the party launches its partisan war against him or her before knowing who the nominee is.

There’s an important difference between, “This is a horrible choice,” and “We have no idea who the choice will be, but we’re sure it’ll be horrible.”

It’s the sort of posture that leads more to eye-rolling than meaningful debate.

Perhaps more importantly, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent raised (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/14/in-supreme-court-fight-republicans-lead-with-their-chins/) an overlooked detail.

Ideally, of course, [the vetting of the nominee] is what would happen if the Senate were to hold hearings on that person. But that might afford the nominee a chance to directly respond to his or her Republican cross-examiners in a high profile setting (as opposed to only having Democratic groups mounting all the pushback, which of course they will also do, once there is a nominee).

Direct exchanges between the nominee and Republican Senators, alas, might reflect well on that person.

And so the only “vetting” and examination of the nominee’s “real record” will be undertaken through the RNC and associated GOP-aligned groups.

That’s not meant as sarcasm. It’s the actual Republican party-wide position right now.


Quite right. Under the American political process, the Senate is supposed to oversee the formal vetting of a Supreme Court nominee. In 2016, however, Senate Republicans don’t want to – so they’re outsourcing the vetting to the Republican National Committee.

What should be done by senators and officials – people who are ultimately accountable to the public – will instead be done by partisan operatives.

There is no precedent for anything like this in the American tradition. Senate Republicans and the RNC evidently don’t care.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/senate-republicans-will-ignore-court-nominee-rnc-wont?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[baseline bum]

Here is a fun idea...

Let President Hillary and the Democratic Senate consider this nominee:

Barack Obama


BOOM. Elections have consequences.

http://berryflow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Drops-Mic-640x336.jpg

If Clinton is president with a Dem senate I'd rather she nominated a liberal to the court though.

[boutons_deux]

If Clinton is president with a Dem senate I'd rather she nominated a liberal to the court though.

she would nominate a centrist who would vote with the 4 Repugs more often than not, because she's "pragmantic", "get things done", but always for the establishment she defines.

[boutons_deux]

:lol These mofos are truly crazy, with logic from Alice In Wonderland

Hatch: Court blockade will limit ‘mistreatment’ of nominee

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) last week told reporters (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/senate-republicans-rediscover-the-value-pinata-politics) that President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, no matter who he or she might be, “will bear some resemblance to a pinata” during the confirmation process. This didn’t sit right with Democrats, who interpreted Cornyn’s comments as something akin to a threat.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) went to the chamber floor yesterday to argue the “pinata” comments were simply misunderstood – because Senate Republicans are really just looking out for (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r114:2:./temp/~r114PlxCrM:e8706:) the unnamed nominee’s best interests. From the Congressional Record:


“After all, the whole point of deferring the nomination and confirmation process [until 2017] is to limit the mistreatment of any nominee,

:lol

as Senator Cornyn suggested in his remarks. This unfounded accusation is also deeply ironic, coming from the party that stooped to the character assassination of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. :lol

“If there is anyone who has been treated like a pinata in this debate, it has been Senator Grassley.” :lol


I’m not sure which is more alarming: the ridiculousness of Hatch’s argument or the fact that he was able to deliver these remarks with a straight face.

Just a week after some GOP senators were willing to acknowledge (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/senate-republicans-debunk-their-own-supreme-court-talking-points) the party’s nakedly partisan tactics, Orrin Hatch would have the public believe Senate Republicans really just want to “limit the mistreatment” of Obama’s court nominee.

Is this about politics? Heaven forbid! Hatch and his colleagues aren’t focused on the future of the court, so much as they’re deeply concerned with the eventual nominee’s feelings.

Because if there’s one thing Senate Republicans are proven throughout the Obama era, it’s their capacity for empathy towards high-profile White House nominees.

Republicans are just so darned polite and big-hearted, they can’t bear to think about a judge facing months of attacks … from other Republicans.
As for Hatch’s reference to Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, it’s worth remembering, in case the senator has forgotten, that both Bork and Thomas were given confirmation hearings and floor votes, which are precisely the steps Hatch and his cohorts refuse to even consider as part of their unprecedented blockade. (Thomas was even confirmed, which hardly represents mistreatment.)

And if Hatch sees Grassley as some kind of victim, he’s clearly not paying close enough attention (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/pressure-takes-its-toll-chuck-grassley).

Senate Republicans have had more than a month to come up with coherent arguments to justify the first-ever Senate blockade against any Supreme Court nominee. If the best they can come up with is “we’re just being nice to the president’s choice,” it’s a reminder of the underlying bankruptcy of their entire gambit.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/hatch-court-blockade-will-limit-mistreatment-nominee?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[RandomGuy]

If Clinton is president with a Dem senate I'd rather she nominated a liberal to the court though.

Oh... snap. Good one.

[RandomGuy]

:lol These mofos are truly crazy, with logic from Alice In Wonderland

Hatch: Court blockade will limit ‘mistreatment’ of nominee

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) last week told reporters (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/senate-republicans-rediscover-the-value-pinata-politics) that President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, no matter who he or she might be, “will bear some resemblance to a pinata” during the confirmation process. This didn’t sit right with Democrats, who interpreted Cornyn’s comments as something akin to a threat.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) went to the chamber floor yesterday to argue the “pinata” comments were simply misunderstood – because Senate Republicans are really just looking out for (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r114:2:./temp/~r114PlxCrM:e8706:) the unnamed nominee’s best interests. From the Congressional Record:


“After all, the whole point of deferring the nomination and confirmation process [until 2017] is to limit the mistreatment of any nominee,

:lol

as Senator Cornyn suggested in his remarks. This unfounded accusation is also deeply ironic, coming from the party that stooped to the character assassination of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. :lol

“If there is anyone who has been treated like a pinata in this debate, it has been Senator Grassley.” :lol


I’m not sure which is more alarming: the ridiculousness of Hatch’s argument or the fact that he was able to deliver these remarks with a straight face.

Just a week after some GOP senators were willing to acknowledge (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/senate-republicans-debunk-their-own-supreme-court-talking-points) the party’s nakedly partisan tactics, Orrin Hatch would have the public believe Senate Republicans really just want to “limit the mistreatment” of Obama’s court nominee.

Is this about politics? Heaven forbid! Hatch and his colleagues aren’t focused on the future of the court, so much as they’re deeply concerned with the eventual nominee’s feelings.

Because if there’s one thing Senate Republicans are proven throughout the Obama era, it’s their capacity for empathy towards high-profile White House nominees.

Republicans are just so darned polite and big-hearted, they can’t bear to think about a judge facing months of attacks … from other Republicans.
As for Hatch’s reference to Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, it’s worth remembering, in case the senator has forgotten, that both Bork and Thomas were given confirmation hearings and floor votes, which are precisely the steps Hatch and his cohorts refuse to even consider as part of their unprecedented blockade. (Thomas was even confirmed, which hardly represents mistreatment.)

And if Hatch sees Grassley as some kind of victim, he’s clearly not paying close enough attention (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/pressure-takes-its-toll-chuck-grassley).

Senate Republicans have had more than a month to come up with coherent arguments to justify the first-ever Senate blockade against any Supreme Court nominee. If the best they can come up with is “we’re just being nice to the president’s choice,” it’s a reminder of the underlying bankruptcy of their entire gambit.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/hatch-court-blockade-will-limit-mistreatment-nominee?cid=sm_fb_maddow




jeezus. That really is fucked up.

The GOP really has lost its mind.

I would be laughing if it didn't have such dire consequences.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's not about governing, it's about power. The two aren't the same.

[boutons_deux]

It's not about governing, it's about power. The two aren't the same.

the anti-government Repugs purely ideologically refuse to govern.

power? It's about influence money to whore legislators to buy policies that protect/enrich/enable the paymasters, while enriching the whores. The system is 100% corrupt to the core.

[boutons_deux]

Obama Nominates Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court

He's by far the least controversial -- and most confirmable -- candidate from the president's short list.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nomination_us_56e85c4ce4b065e2e3d788f0?ir=Politics&section=us_politics&utm_campaign=031616&utm_content=FullStory&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics

[boutons_deux]

Lies, Distortions, And Smears: How Right-Wing Media React To Obama's Nominees And Appointments
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/03/16/lies-distortions-and-smears-how-right-wing-medi/209051

[boutons_deux]

Obama makes his choice for the Supreme Court

Merrick Garland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland) is an eminently qualified and respected jurist. He’s the chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, a former federal prosecutor, and a former Supreme Court clerk with an impeccable background.

If there were a dictionary entry for “Generic, Mainstream Supreme Court Nominee for a Democratic President,” Garland’s picture would be on the page.

Under normal political circumstances, Garland is the kind of jurist who’d be confirmed easily with overwhelming Senate support. Given the radicalization of the Republican Party, however, these are not normal political circumstances.

I tend to see Garland as more than just a high court nominee – he’s also represents a presidential dare.

“You’ll refuse to consider any nominee?” Obama seems to be effectively telling the Senate Republican majority.

“Fine. I’m sending a moderate, 63-year-old white guy. How committed are you, exactly, to this blockade?”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/obama-makes-his-choice-the-supreme-court?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[boutons_deux]

ASSlaw

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/george_mason_university_announces_new_20160406?utm _source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+Truthdig+Truthdig%253A+Dril ling+Beneath+the+Headlines

[SnakeBoy]

Yes. But I wanted to be sure you yourself fully comprehended what you were saying. But I don't think tying the current presidents hands is worthwhile. I would think so even if there were a Republican in office.

A year plus is far too long to have one branch of the federal government impaired.

I completely agree with you RG

[SnakeBoy]

Just goes to show that with time and open communication the left and the right can come to completely agree with each other.

#civilitywins

[SnakeBoy]

Here is a fun idea...

Let President Hillary and the Democratic Senate consider this nominee:

Barack Obama


BOOM. Elections have consequences.

http://berryflow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Drops-Mic-640x336.jpg

Almost forgot










































































































BOOM

[RandomGuy]

I completely agree with you RG

Trump party has had its say. They denied Obama's choice, on the off-bet that Trump would be able to pick.

SO now we have a new standard, don't we?

At this point shameless hypocrisy is required to be a conservative, sort of in the ideological DNA so to speak. Conservatives in general appear to have abandoned any pretense at principles. Good to have that clear.

I will have my horses back in the condition I left them in.

[RandomGuy]

more laziness

#zzzzz

[DMC]

As a reference to all the "thoughts and prayers" hypocrites.

[SnakeBoy]

As a reference to all the "thoughts and prayers" hypocrites.

https://media.giphy.com/media/11R5KYi6ZdP8Z2/giphy.gif

[pgardn]

Some significant bumpage here.

Boyz doing work.
What do we call it here, triggered?
I would have believed without bumpage.

[clambake]

https://media.giphy.com/media/11R5KYi6ZdP8Z2/giphy.gif

explain it to me.

[DMC]

Some significant bumpage here.

Boyz doing work.
What do we call it here, triggered?
I would have believed without bumpage.
I just bet you would have

[DMC]

explain it to me.

There's a cricket and he's basically chirping which means there is no one else actually saying anything so that's all you can hear is the cricket chirping but it's not entirely accurate because indoors crickets are pretty loud so even if people were talking you probably could still hear the cricket chirping.

[clambake]

just waiting for the explanation for non-hypocrites.