So while I was away from the computer today, the Republicans apparently decided to say fuck it, and are doing the legislative equivalent of YOLO. They’ve pulled down their pants down in public, are rubbing feces all over themselves, and doing a Burning Man tribal dance in front of the entire nation and world:
Senate Republican leaders, trying to slam shut any prospects for an election-year Supreme Court confirmation, said on Tuesday they would not even meet with President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, urged the president to reconsider even submitting a name.
At the same time, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans issued a letter unanimously rejecting any confirmation hearings.
The actions of Senate Republican leaders and the committee of jurisdiction sent a clear signal to President Obama and wavering Republicans that their ranks would not crack. It also thrust the Senate into unprecedented territory; Senators meet with high-court nominees as matters of courtesy and cordiality, but even that tradition has been rejected.
Instead, Republican leaders vowed they would not even consider Mr. Obama’s nominee regardless of his or her qualifications.
And you can forget about recess appointments:
Senate Republicans aren’t going to take any chances that President Barack Obama might try to appoint a Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia while they’re not looking.
Obama has the constitutional right to “fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session” in what’s known as a recess appointment. It’s a controversial maneuver designed to bypass the Senate confirmation process, but Obama previously used it in 2012 to install long-delayed members of the National Labor Relations Board.
But Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Monday that he doesn’t expect the Senate to recess at all for the remainder of the year.
“I’d say it’s safe to say we’re going to do whatever it takes to make sure the president doesn’t issue any recess appointments,” Cornyn said.
There have been some, Kevin Drum, for example, who think that this has a lot to do with Robert Bork. This is the same excuse that is charitably rolled out by people who always seem to be blinded by the venality of the modern GOP. The Bork confirmation is blamed for the problems with all judicial nominations. It’s blamed for the loss of bipartisanship in general. Every time these claims are trotted out, they are also a sideways attack on Ted Kennedy, but it is worth remembering what precisely Ted Kennedy said about Robert Bork:
Mr. Bork should also be rejected by the Senate because he stands for an extremist view of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court that would have placed him outside the mainstream of American constitutional jurisprudence in the 1960s, let alone the 1980s. He opposed the Public Accommodations Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposed the one-man one-vote decision of the Supreme Court the same year. He has said that the First Amendment applies only to political speech, not literature or works of art or scientific expression.
Under the twin pressures of academic rejection and the prospect of Senate rejection, Mr. Bork subsequently retracted the most neanderthal of these views on civil rights and the first amendment. But his mind-set is no less ominous today.
Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.
Save the segregated lunch counter (and that’s only because it is a bridge too far even for our media, but not too far- google Trump + Muslim +Ban), everything Kennedy said about Bork is now enshrined within the mainstream of conservative thought and written in to the platforms of the GOP in many states for all to see. So no, this isn’t about Bork. This is merely the next logical step in the progression of a sociopathic party.
Drum’s fault is that he is a kind and decent man. I am not, and coupled with the fact that I was inside the belly of the beast for a long while, and I know how they think and act. I am unburdened by the blinders of good will, and have an easy formula for how I decide why and what the GOP is going to do in every situation. Merely imagine the dumbest, most venal, and most cynical self-serving immediate choice, add in a heap of racism and a little bit of Jesus, and you have whatever the Republicans will propose.
They aren’t just doing this because they can, they are doing it because they are scared, and they are afraid, and they are losing, and they know it. They are doing this because they hate Obama. This is the same kind of impotent rage they had towards Clinton, who just whipped them every single time and smiled all the way through it, but this time it is worse because Obama is a black man and the country has changed. They are losing the demographic war, so all they have is the courts and the hope that their jury-rigged voting process can keep things in place just a little bit longer. They are doing this because they know they are weak going into the 2016 election, and have convinced themselves that if they all stand together, the American people aren’t going to be able to pick out Kirk in Illinois or Toomey in PA or Johnson in Wisconsin or Portman in Ohio or Ayotte in NH and so on.
Just as serial killers ramp up the frequency and violence as their condition progresses, so do the sociopaths in Congress. It wasn’t too long ago we were all shocked at someone yelling “You lie” during the State of the Union, but here we are. They are weak and they are desperate and things are only going to get worse. It’s up to us to stop them.
Peak wingnut was a lie.
Baud
Fuckin’ A.
Thoroughly Pizzled
Righteous rant. The cards are on the table. They’re betting that America is as disgusting and cynical as they are, and it’s up to us to prove them wrong.
sherifffruitfly
true then, true now, true forever
https://balloon-juice.com/2012/02/05/they-fucking-hate-you/
Cacti
Robert Bork got a hearing and a vote.
He was rejected.
JPL
@sherifffruitfly: That was a great post.. My son is a consultant and works for various firms. Although he doesn’t believe in discrimination in any form, when the Supreme Court allowed gays to marry, a business partner got tears in his eyes, my son got it. Scalia went backwards and we can’t allow that.
Mingobat f/k/a Karen in GA
What consequences will they suffer for this, though? They’re doing what their knuckle-dragging moron followers want.
Bill E Pilgrim
There is no peak wingnut. There is only wingnut pique.
(Said to the tune of “Zuuul”, for best effect.)
harold persing
Cole, you are a mensch, first of all. Second, this is pretty fucking succinct. Thanks, mate.
russell
there is no peak wingnut. there is only asymptotic wingnut.
SciNY
I mused a bit on this elsewhere, but right now I’m wondering about a bit of constitutional hardball to brush these guys back from the plate. Specifically I’m intrigued by a recent post over at Balkinization (http://bit.ly/1RlTIVl). Basically it discusses the argument that Article II only requires the Senate to “consent,” not the higher standard of”confirm” as is current practice. As I understand it, there are a number of situations in law where inaction or silence is taken to be the equivalent of consent. So what happens if 200 days go by with no meetings, hearings, or votes, but then the President says that the Senate has consented and now his nominee is deemed to be appointed? He can also say he’s working from a strict textual understanding, as the Framers intended did not intend the Senate to have the ability to “pocket veto” a nominee by ignoring her. Probably a dream, but maybe this argument gets brought up after we have someone who’s an obvious no-brainer for the Court, forcing these clowns to do their job.
Keith P.
@Mingobat f/k/a Karen in GA: In theory, the consequences is that they lose both the White House and Senate this year, the Senate then gets rid of all filibusters, and President Clinton appoints Anita Hill (or thereabouts) to the Scalia vacancy. But then, if they hedge their bets and take the likelier moderate pick that Obama gives them, their base flips out for not being totally confident in a GOP election sweep.
They’re damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don’t, but I guess they are terrified of getting embarrassed in hearings if they took this route rather than what would presumably be the smarter idea and just run out the clock.
smintheus
Republicans as well as Dems voted against Bork; do the Drums of the world know that? Or that Bork was Nixon’s infamous hatchet man? If Obama nominates a hatchet-man, all power to Senate Republicans if they want to vote him down. But they still need to hold a vote to do that.
Bill E Pilgrim
@russell: asymptopic
A topic about Homer and company?
Seebach
Ted Cruz just tweeted that since Trump called him a baby, he hopes Trump won’t try to eat him, with a clip from Austin Powers 2.
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/702304168245985287
This is the most amazing, stupidest election.
redshirt
So when is it officially a civil war or a coup?
Patricia Kayden
Thank you, John, for speaking in righteous anger. You wrote exactly what I feel. I’m enraged, even more so at the response of Democratic politicians.
Where is the rage? What is the stance of Democratic Senators? Are they planning to shut down the Senate over this Republican obstructionism or is it going to be business as usual?
Is President Obama going to be disrespected again without any backup?
Republicans led getting away with this nonsense with zero consequences.
Gravenstone
If the Senate wishes to stay in session until the election, is there any plausible way Reid (and any other Democrat either retiring or not up for re-election this cycle) can force them to stay in session without break? Sorry, no going home to campaign for you obstructionist fuck knobs. You want to throw a tantrum on the public dime? Then earn your filthy lucre the hard way.
Miss Bianca
Thank God they haven’t managed to grind President Obama down. I think I’m going to have write an open letter to Senator Gardner. But all I can think of to say is: posterity shall judge you. And I’m very much afraid you will be weighed in the balance and found wanting.
Frank Wilhoit
The Republicans have found the perfect formula. Every time they crank up the noise, they bring out thousands of voters who have been sitting home since 1980 (or forever), and simultaneously disgust an equal (roughly) number of Democrats into giving up on the political process altogether.
Gravenstone
@smintheus:
Was there talk of nominating Rahm, and I missed it?
Bill E Pilgrim
@Cacti:
Also Reagan then nominated Kennedy, and the Senate confirmed him unanimously.
So okay, Obama can nominate a left wing extremist who’s rejected, then a moderate who’s confirmed unanimously, I’m good with that. They want Bork parallels, there’s the real one.
PhoenixRising
@smintheus: Kevin Drum isn’t old enough to remember that Bork was the guy Nixon put in the job after the first 2 lawyers told him that what he was doing was both wrong and illegal…who did the job.
But the point that everything Bork wanted to make this country is STILL what they want to make this country; Teddy was correct, and we have to keep fighting them until they die…it’s just exhausting to contemplate, but it’s the truth. This ends when Rubio, the first Millenial candidate (he’s gotten so much praise for not winning we kicked him out of GenX in a secret meeting last night) dies of old age. Until then it’s going to be a battle.
JPL
@Miss Bianca: Let him know that he shouldn’t vote again, until the next election. Also mention that it appears that he didn’t read beyond the second amendment. You won’t get a response, but you will feel better.
Aleta
Wish their pay could be docked for failure to perform. Unbelievable to have no fear of announcing this.
Conspiracy to obstruct federal officials from doing their job?
humboldtblue
You want to make them squirm look at the statehouses. They’re good with not having the Oval Office, they’re good without having the Supreme Court, because they know Hans Von Spakovsky is still operating at the state level and they know Greg Abbot and Ken Paxton will ensure that your public schools and your public parks and your public roads and water and general services will soon be private — in the best case scenario — or rationed according to their whim on who is worthy.
It’s going to take decades of state-by-state legislative action to undo the past 16 years of anti-health-care-anti-social service-anti-public good and they’re fine with that. They have the private money, you have taxes. They won the first three decades if not the first half of the new century of the new millennium by ensuring corporations are people and money is speech.
Trump is the suppurating sore, he’s not the disease. The people Cole is describing may be scared, they may be desperate, but they are also rich connected and working at the local and state level to ensure you fucking dirty goddamn liberals don’t gay up their children any more than you already have.
sidhra
This.
smintheus
@PhoenixRising: Sure, I agree that Bork’s judicial philosophy was noxious. But it’s worth remembering that Bork was most famous as the triggerman in the Saturday Night Massacre, something that all by itself disqualified him from appointment to the Supreme Court.
Baud
I’m too tired to watch it, but I’m surprised there’s no open thread for the Dem town hall.
Or is BJ finally boycotting it for excluding me?
Eric S.
I get the satisfaction of voting against Kirk this year.
@Gravenstone: An interesting question. I don’t know the answer but hopefully someone here can answer for both of us.
ETA: I never, ever voted for Kirk.
Mai.naem.mobile
I talked to a right wing nut I work with this weekend. I knew he was right wing but I didn’t know how right wing he was. He’s the prototypical Republican – older and white. He hates HRC with a passion and thinks she’s a murderer. I thought he was talking about Benghazi! but no he was talking about all the people in Whitewater who died mysteriously. He thinks HRC ordered hits on them. He also said we should go back to the system we had before Obama care. I asked him what system was he talking about since we didn’t have anything. He said he’ll vote for Trump because he’s not bought by lobbyists and not a politician. He likes how Trump says what’s on his mind. I told him that may be so but Trump doesn’t have any solutions and he said he will because he has to. I was kind of gobsmacked.
Patricia Kayden
@Frank Wilhoit: Why would Democratic voters give up on the political process to reward Republicans for their obstructionism? This should be a rallying point for our side. This is why we have to come out in force in November.
p.a.
This post is why blogs> tweets. A textbook upside the head vs a spitball through a straw.
RaflW
No formal recesses, but highly likely that nearly no bills will be passed this sham of a session. They’ll have to do a Continuing Resolution to push through the second year of the budget deal from last October, but that may be the sum total of their “work.”
Our democracy is failing, right before our eyes. And the majority of news outlets and pundits will just provide bland commentary on it as it dies. Remarkable.
schrodinger's cat
@Baud: I am on a political news hiatus right now, until after Supah Tuesday. Its too damn depressing.
Roger Moore
@Keith P.:
The basic problem is that they know damn well that Obama is going to nominate somebody who is eminently qualified and has received a near unanimous vote from the Senate within the past few years. Their well-justified worry is that enough Republican senators would feel the pressure to confirm that nominee that they’d be unable to stonewall once the process got started. Their only hope is to block the whole process by coming up with the best excuse they can come up with for why they can’t consider any candidate. That way they can reject even an obviously superb candidate without the trouble of a hearing.
pseudonymous in nc
Or at least that nobody looks too hard below the top line of the ballot in a presidential year. Well, fuck that. ‘UPHOLD YOUR OATH, DO YOUR JOB’ is a nice easy slogan in every Senate race this year with a GOP incumbent.
And to pick up on humboldtblue’s point: Yertle Turtle knows that with the House gerrymandered and the Senate on permanent vacay, the only places where the wheels of government are turning are state legislatures, and we know what the lubricant is for.
Anoniminous
Florida, Illinois, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are toss-ups. We need to keep Colorado and Nevada.
If you live in one of those states, you have your mission.
Hungry Joe
They won’t allow a Supreme Court appointment because they do not consider Obama to be a legitimate President (Kenyan birth). Bill Clinton wasn’t legit because he got a lot less than 50% of the vote the first time (the Ross Perot year) and wasn’t legit the second time because Whitewater, blue dress, etc. Neither Bernie Sanders (Jewish, i.e., One Who Rejects Jesus; also communist) nor Hillary Clinton (criminal: Benghazi, e-mails) will be legitimate, either.
The system, she is broke. It’s like Bogart’s boat in “The African Queen,” building up pressure because he once dropped a wrench into the engine. We keep kicking it to keep it from exploding, but one of these days …
Bill E Pilgrim
@Bill E Pilgrim: D’oh. I misread the word, so the joke didn’t work. Tried to request deletion of the comment but there it is again. oh well.
Patricia Kayden
@Miss Bianca: Yep. President Obama and Mrs. Obama have handled themselves with dignity and grace. Hope they go for a long vacation (preferably outside of the US) for a couple months and just sit down after his term is over. I’m tired for them.
Eric S.
@Baud:
I’ve boycotted all of them. This reason is as good as any.
eemom
As you know I agree — except about Drum’s fault being that he is a kind and decent man. Maybe he is — but that’s not why he talks out his ass about shit he knows nothing about.
Speaking of which — will people please give a rest to the idiocy about appointing Anita Hill? CHRIST, that is stupid.
raven
@Roger Moore: Did anyone think they were going to do anything else?
MomSense
@Anoniminous:
Or a neighboring state. The campaigns are really good about finding housing and transportation if you live too far away for day trips.
Roger Moore
@smintheus:
It’s also worth remembering that Reagan knew all this and nominated him anyway. The Bork nomination was a deliberate provocation, but we’re expected to ignore that and pretend all the partisanship was on the Democratic side for rejecting him. Once again, the Republicans are allowed to do as they please, and the Democrats are the bad guys for pointing it out.
RaflW
@Cole
I would only add that in this state, they don’t care what gets destroyed as they fall.
Aleta
@Baud: If it should happen that you are are cheated out of winning, I will personally pass the hat to buy you a white house.
Eric S.
@Anoniminous: Mission accepted, sir. (Or madam, whichever is the case)
Trentrunner
I’m willing to change my mind, but I just don’t see the electorate getting up in arms over SCOTUS appointments’ process. I wish they would. But the media has already laid down the #BothSidesDoIt groundwork with the Biden video, and I can see voters’ eyes glazing over as each side drills down into arcane Constitutional/Senatorial process precedents.
But I’m happy to be proven wrong.
Patricia Kayden
@Baud: I’m all debated out. Since I’m voting for the Dem candidate in November, there is no reason to watch all of these dang Democratic primary debates. I’ll watch the general election debates though.
Nate Dawg
Caucus cutie on MSNBC makes this year much more fun to watch.
Donald Trump just walked into a caucus site live unexpectedly and is talking to the voters.
NB:
If Dems want to “be the change”:
1) Get rid of caucuses
2) limit campaign donations for first 4 primaries
3) primaries are week-long with mail-in voting so everyone can vote
4) change primary schedule every cycle so entrenched interests have no leg up
I just can’t get behind a party that fails to live up to its own name on basic principles.
raven
@Nate Dawg: He’s a fucking moron.
Roger Moore
@raven:
There had been a suggestion that they’d give the nominees pro-forma hearings and then reject them on a party line vote. Alternatively, they could bounce them at the judiciary committee level, which would require fewer of them to cooperate and protect others from the worry of having to put their votes on the record.
p.a.
@Trentrunner:
Any woman worried about her right to control her own body, any minority and college student who understands voter suppression and vote caging.
raven
@Roger Moore: Yea, they could have but it seemed to me this was always the way they’d go.
Steve in the ATL
@eemom:
I know you can be abrasive and you rub a lot of people the wrong way, but I have to agree with your first paragraph. Your second paragraph is a fine indicator of my first point.
amk
The last ‘graf.
If only the fucking media had said this 24×7.
Nate Dawg
@raven: Who is a moron?
Donald said he “loved Maddow” and “she has the most beautiful graphic design” of any of the news programs.
Wow. I actually agree with him on something.
Mike J
@eemom:
I like the idea of us hoi polloi keeping the thought of who he *could* nominate out there. We know he;s going to nominate an incredibly qualified person, probably one who is already on the federal bench and has been uncontroversially approved by the Senate.
No, Obama should not be giving press conferences about it, but it’s fine for us to poke Republicans with a nice sharp stick.
PhoenixRising
@Trentrunner: Yeah, I’m afraid you may be correct. The narrative (lie) that this is business as usual/both sides do it has been aired out quite a bit the past few days.
SCOTUS appointments are huge, in that everyone knows how important they are. For the vast majority of USians who didn’t marry a specialist in the history of the institution like I did, though–voters are easily fooled about what’s normal vs warfare by bloodless means.
raven
@Nate Dawg: That dope that’s doing the remote from the caucus site.
Gin & Tonic
@Roger Moore:
It’s also worth remembering that Bork failed in the Judiciary Committee by 5-9 but rather than withdraw, insisted on going ahead to a full Senate vote. Which was granted, and he went down 58-42, with six Republicans voting against him.
smintheus
@Roger Moore: You’re right, Reagan was thumbing his nose at Democrats by nominating Bork. It was considered a shocking nomination, on both sides of the aisle…until most Republicans joined ranks and found their hymnals.
Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (formerly Mumphrey, et al.)
This shit is why I read this blog every day.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
Horseshit
Crying over Bork is just a smoke screen to aid media sympathizers, who have zero knowledge of history, to peddle the false “both sides” excuse.
It’s not both sides. Bork got a hearing and a vote.
Steve in the ATL
Trying to read the righteous rant, but struggling to get past the picture….
Also agree that Kevin Drum talks out of his ass a lot which is unrelated to his being a nice guy.
Steve in the ATL
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
This needs to be repeated ad nauseum.
SiubhanDuinne, Annoying Scoundrel
@Gin & Tonic:
Why would going from Jud Ctte to full Senate be a matter for the nominee to decide?
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
Please Proceed, Senators.
rikyrah
You tell the truth, Cole.
Wrb
Oh my.
That was an excitable clown.
I’ll now only think beautiful thoughts.
Steve in the ATL
In re: Facebook: I have hidden or unfriended those who post RWNJ rants, but now my feed is clogged with Bernie fanatics attacking Hillary. I gently remind them that everything Hillary would do as president is a million times more to their liking than what any Republican would do, but they are too busy foaming at the mouth to admit that I am always right.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Baud:
I believe that to be the case, but I have no actual information to confirm that belief.
SiubhanDuinne, Annoying Scoundrel
Calling Betty Cracker! Betty Cracker, please pick up the white courtesy phone. There’s some disturbing news from Florida.
MomSense
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q):
I’m watching but not sure we want to have another he said she said thread about our candidates.
Baud
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): I believe you’ve succinctly captured the conservative mindset.
Nate Dawg
@raven: he’s cute, nice, and did a fine job with an on-the-spot interview with the GOP frontrunner (his first interview of that magnitude, ever).
And that hair! Cut him some slack.
PhoenixRising
@Steve in the ATL: Yeah, I’m about to lose some folks who can’t stop posting every attack on HRC. It’s just boring.
superpredators4hillary
Whoopsie! Contentious debate thrown…structural realities…unrealistic expectations. Fire up the magical thinking…and the invisible jet.
schrodinger's cat
@amk: News out of India is very troubling too. Sangh brotherhood is showing its true colors. How worried should we be about a repeat of 1975?
raven
@Nate Dawg: Ugh, he was awful in the Dem caucus and he’s worse tonight. His ridiculous, breath-taking description of the process was like some 10 year old and the only thing that was worthwhile was when a female vet blasted out “THE VA IS FUCKED UP”!
randy khan
@Gravenstone:
I can think of a couple of plausible ways to do that – (1) have a few Dems stay behind; one suggests an absence of a quorum (which requires recess or adjournment under most parliamentary rules); the chair denies it; then the Dems vote to overrule the chair; (2) Dems stay behind and move to recess. If they’re in the majority among those present, they can set a recess. (There’s a complication involving the House having to agree, but if the House doesn’t agree, then the President has specific recess/adjournment powers.)
Someone who knows more about Senate rules than me probably will be able to explain why these ideas wouldn’t work.
Nate Dawg
@raven: His caucus segments have been pretty even-keeled (not breathless) and engaging. He shows the process up close, from the inside (f-bombs and all), and I hadn’t seen anyone capture the verite moment like he has.
A breathless reporter usually stands still and just spews excitable pablum. He actually wanders around and talks to people, and is pretty low key for a reporter.
You’re obviously just jelly of that hair.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
People don’t realize Bork was so extreme SIX Republicans voted against him.
Bob Packwood
Arlen Specter
John Chafee
Lowell Weicker
Robert Stafford
John Warner
All joined 52 Democrats (which included a lot of Blue Dogs/Dixecrats like John Stennis & Richard Shelby) in voting him down.
The vote was an overwhelming 58-42 defeat.
Mingobat f/k/a Karen in GA
@SiubhanDuinne, Annoying Scoundrel: Oh, of course.
Miss Bianca
Here’s what I find so weird…how is it that anyone could choose to vote for someone who explicitly embraces that “government is the problem” mentality that emboldens asshats like McConnell to take this intransigent attitude. They’re so into business as a model, why does no one ever put it to them like this: voting for someone whose explicit goal is to make sure government is as ineffective as possible is like a board of directors voting in a chief executive whose entire pitch is: “I believe business is the problem. I hate business, and I think *this* business should be small enough to drown in a bathtub.” It’s beyond crazy – it’s criminally irresponsible. Why would you hold yourself to such a shoddy standard of citizenship?
mclaren
Brace for collision.
Obama has plenty of options to grind these thugs into hamburger.
For start, he can force all of congress to remain in session continuously, with all senators and congressmen on the senate or house floor. Let’s see them try to run for re-election or raise cash.
Next, Obama ramps up a challenge to NLRB v Noel Canning. At the same time, Obama announces that he is no longer accepting the authority of the congress to raise the debt limit ceiling — he’s going to do it unilaterally. Next, Obama needs to go on TV and make stump speeches around the country calling on Americans to flood congress with phone calls and letters.
What will they suffer from this?
They won’t raise money for their re-election, they’ll find themselves in a legal fight to the death, and they’ll get so much public heat that Republicans in congress will turn into briquettes.
This is going to be a knock-down drag-out epic Thunderdome battle. And Obama will win.
Adam L Silverman
@redshirt: It won’t be a civil war, it would be a rebellion or, perhaps a revolution. If it fails to achieve its objectives, but the state also fails to completely put it down it would become an insurgency.
Civil war’s, definitionally/classically, are between two claimants to the same positions of power. Civil wars, technically, occur when the International Committee of the Red Cross declares that one is taking place.
https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-873-vite.pdf
Adam L Silverman
@Baud: Actually I didn’t know it was on, but I came down with a head cold last night, so have been out of it most of the day. Can’t speak for the other usual suspects.
Jeffro
@humboldtblue: amen
The Kochs don’t really care if Trump wins or not because they and their allies in the Senate and House will continue to gum up the works nationally while they roll most state legislatures back to the 1800s .
jc
The Republicans *are* weak and desperate. It’s a time-tested GOP tactic, they’re hoping they can bullshit their way through the next few months, so they’ll keep stalling and prevaricating until they can figure out some way to prevent a Democratic president from installing a Democratic justice — their worst nightmare. (And I admit, another Scalia in that chair is my worst nightmare.) But I fear they’ll stop at nothing.
burnspbesq
Everybody here seems to be missing Drum’s point.
Drum’s point has nothing to do with whether Bork’s rejection by the Senate was justifiable (it was). It has very little to do with whether, objectively, Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden crossed a line that had never before been crossed in Supreme Court confirmation hearings (maybe yes, maybe no).
Drum’s point is about Republicans’ memories of the event, and its power to inspire Republican vindictiveness. And I dont think any of Drum’s critics have come close to a convincing rebuttal.
mclaren
@Frank Wilhoit:
More liberal defeatism.
“We’re doomed, doomed, doomed, doomed, doomed, doomed, doomed! There’s nothing we can do!”
Bullshit. Pull your socks, get a grip, and come out fighting, you wuss.
burnspbesq
@jc:
Desperate, yes. Weak? Not as long as 51 of them hang together.
If 51 of them hang together, they have ALL the power they need to pull this off.
Gin & Tonic
@SiubhanDuinne, Annoying Scoundrel: I think the generally accepted idea was that when he went down in Committee he’d withdraw his nomination. He didn’t.
Punchy
Johnny, if you’re on a plane to Chicago, Im sitting right behind you. If not, I’ve now identified your exact doppelganger. Fat digits and all.
burnspbesq
@mclaren:
Aw, shit, you’re not even close to all in.
The idea that the senate can only exercise its power to advise and consent is an affirmative vote of a majority of its members is nothing but a historical convention with no grounding in the text of the Constitution.
If Obama really has no fucks left go give, he can send up a nomination, and announce that unless the Senate rejects it today by a two-thirds vote, he will deem it consented to, and the nominee will be sworn in tomorrow.
Fuck it, if you’re going to go, go big.
Calouste
Keep also in mind that the whole “last year of the presidency” is just a convenient excuse. If Scalia would have gone to meet his maker six months ago, the Gridlock & Obstruction Party would also have blocked an Obama nominee. They know that a Supreme Court that has a majority of Justices that actually follow the law rather than their ideology will mean the beginning of the end of the GOP as we know it.
RobertDSC-Quad Intel Mac
They should all be arrested and charged with sedition.
Matt McIrvin
Someday soon they’re going to come to our houses and murder us and our children with one bullet to the back of the head, and every time, they’ll carefully explain that it’s the same thing we did to Robert Bork.
Steve in the ATL
@Adam L Silverman:
When do Wars of Northern Aggression occur? Asking for my neighbors.
Adam L Silverman
@Steve in the ATL: You’ll know it when Congress approves a general officer named Sherman for his fourth star.
Steve in the ATL
@Adam L Silverman: Well played
sidhra
@SiubhanDuinne, Annoying Scoundrel:
Talk about Aliens……
JGabriel
NY Times via John Cole @ Top:
I hope Democratic Senators learn their lesson from this and, going forward, will treat all Republican Senators, Representatives, and Presidents with the same levels of disrespect, denigration, and hostility that President Obama is being exposed to today, and that President Clinton was shown in the 90’s.
In particular, if Republicans succeed in keeping up this charade of not even interviewing the President’s SCOTUS nominee, or holding hearings, then, I hope, Democratic Senators will make it a tradition, and practice, to never hold SCOTUS hearings for any Republican President.
After all, if Americans wanted a Republican President to appoint SCOTUS Justices, then they would have elected a Republican Senate.
Cmm
Well this is a problem because that’s just the beginning of the point when their narrative began to deviate more and more spectacularly from what really happened. They are mad that the Clintons got away with multiple murders and that Bill weaselled out of impeachment somehow and that 9/11 is really the Democrats fault and that Iraq was too totally justified and there were weapons of mass destruction and we could have won Iraq and Afghanistan but Obama pulled us out too soon and Obama destroyed the economy and Obama created the deficit and Obama was never a legitimate president because he was born in Kenya.
We can’t give credence to their emotional state based on events that didn’t happen. Otherwise 30 years from now we’ll be discussing how the Republicans felt totally justified in doing their latest hijinks because they are still mad about how Obama had Scalia murdered that time.
billb
Time is Nighe, It is O K Corral Time for Harry and Barry,
One Last Fight. These are the smartest, toughest DEMS
we have had in ages. They are leaving, nothing to lose.
They need to keep all of the Senate In-Season for the
whole year. We can take back 12-15 seats like this.
Also I learned here tonight that our most disgusting
Oregon Senator, Bob ‘can I grope you’ Packwood,
at least voted against Bork. So Yeaaa.
Aleta
Looking at Nevada…poll workers wearing Trump shirts, handing out ballots left and right w/o asking for IDs, (isn’t voter fraud a Republican issue?), running out of ballots …
It all adds up to rules don’t matter. No rules is the way they want it.
Also, amount of news coverage = directly proportional to polling results. Trump said something outrageous every day for months. In the beginning, he made a top headline every day. Even now he’s the analysts’ favorite theme.
Not too long ago there was bad coverage … Say the wrong thing about grocery scanners or dumb voters who take solace in guns, and a candidate had to work to recover. Trump says anything he wants, and people love it. Fuck the rules, vote them down, cause that’s the
road to wealth. If you get caught poisoning something, pay the fine and keep going for the profits.
JGabriel
@burnspbesq:
Here’s hoping the Koch family, their allies, and the Republican Party spend the next century feeling the powerful pointy end of Democratic vindictiveness, skewered through their collective asses, withered hearts, and shriveled brains while slowly being turned and spit-roasted over radioactive fire.
nutella
The righteous rants here today have reminded me to send a donation to future senator Duckworth’s campaign, and to multiply the amount x 5.
J R in WV
@burnspbesq:
Burnsie,
Sometimes we disagree. Sometimes we disagree a lot!
But this post, this is a tiny piece of genius! I like it a whole lot. It’s imaginary, President Obama isn’t going to go nutso on the Rs just because the Rs have gone nutso on America.
But I agree, in the end President Obama will win.
thanks for the great post!
Suzanne
One of my Senators (Flake) was sounding potentially reasonable there for a minute. Guess that passed.
John is right. They pull this shit because they are small, petty, weak, and morally bankrupt. They can’t genuinely be shamed. I mean, the majority of that party is supporting a goddamn reality TV star for the highest office in the land, who has no experience with laws except probably to break them. Fuck it. The American experiment is over.
Peak Wingnut is really just Peak WTF.
SiubhanDuinne, Annoying Scoundrel
@sidhra:
I know, he always looks as though he belongs on a grocery-store-checkout-line paper like the Enquirer.
SiubhanDuinne, Annoying Scoundrel
@Gin & Tonic:
Granted, and I thank you, but still, didn’t the committee have the option to NOT refer the nomination to the full Senate? Couldn’t they have just ignored it until it died of ennui or something?
mclaren
Meanwhile, the scary angry negro Kenyan muslim does not appear to have been intimidated:
“Guantanamo Bay: Obama in prison closure push,” BBC world news, 23 February 2016.
burnspbesq
@J R in WV:
You are too kind, sir.
I can’t take full credit for the idea. Drew Koppelman had a post at Balkinization last week that’s worthe reading.
mclaren
@burnspbesq:
If Obama really has no fucks left to give, he sends up a nominee and if the nominee isn’t even voted on he orders the capitol police to seat his nominee on the supreme court on the grounds that congress has violated the separation of powers delineated under the constitution, arrogating to itself both executive and legislative functions by pre-emptively refusing to even consider the president’s nominees.
What’s the black-letter law behind this? In INS v Chadha (1983), the Supreme Court affirmed that a legislative veto fails the requirements set forth for legislation in Article I, section 7 of the constitution. By pre-emptively refusing to even consider the president’s nominee for the supreme court, congress is in effect trying to exert a legislative veto, which violates INS v Chadha. Since congress has abandoned its proper role and its trying to arrogate executive powers to itself, the executive branch must take action to re-assert the balance of powers.
That’s the legal logic and black-letter precedent law Obama can use.
And that’s only the start. I can think of ten other legal bases from taking pre-emptive executive action to override this congressional overreach without even breaking a sweat, and so can any lawyer worth spit.
If Eric Holder can stand in front of the American people and declare with a straight face that “due process” consists of launching a hellfire missile at a wedding party in Afghanistan, I guaran-fucking-tee you that the president’s counsel can come up with 27 far more devious and infinitely more legally convincing reasons for Obama to simply override congress’s obsctructionism on the supreme court appointment.
This is going to be a smackdown. And Obama will crush ’em.
mclaren
@burnspbesq:
Here’s a convincing rebuttal:
“Get over it.” — Antonin Scalia, speaking about the Bush v Gore supreme court decision.
burnspbesq
@Cmm:
You’ve just made the same error. You’re dealing on a normative level, and Drum was being purely descriptive. It does not matter whether they are right to believe what they believe. Not even a little bit. They believe it, and they will act on it. And if you pretend it isn’t there, then like the super-genius Wile E. Cole (recall that Cole’s initial reaction to McConnell’s announcement was incredulity), you will be caught with your pants down when they act on it.
burnspbesq
@mclaren:
Remind us again where you got your J.D.
mclaren
@Suzanne:
Suzanne, just chill. Obama has got this.
People were panicking when congress threatened the debt ceiling. I told you it was garbage and Obama would handle it. Guess what? He handled it.
This is also garbage, and Obama will handle it.
Barack Obama is smarter than I am, and if I can figure out half a dozen ways of getting around this unconstitutional obstructionist horseshit, you think he can’t?
Puh-lease.
mclaren
@burnspbesq:
Remind me again what’s wrong with my black-letter law citation.
In addition to INS v Chadha (1983), Obama can use Bowsher v Synar (1986) and Morrison v Olsen (1988).
Please use your alleged legal mastery to explain why each of these doesn’t offer a rock-solid precedent against legislative encroachment on executive powers.
Hint: congress refusing even to consider a president’s supreme court nominees constitutes a prima facie case of legislative encroachment on executive powers.
mclaren
@burnspbesq:
You are incorrect, as usual.
The on-point legal cite here is Matthew Stevenson’s essay “Can the President Appoint Principal Executive Officers Without a Senate Confirmation Vote?” in the Yale Law Journal.
122 Yale L.J. 940 (2013).
You may have a JD, burnsie, but your legal research skills aren’t worth spit.
The summary is worth perusing:
Whether the president finds hi/rself constrained by congressional inaction on a nomination depends on the philosophy of presidential power to which the executive subscribes. If the president believes in the “weak president” doctrine, congressional inaction is binding; if the president choose to espouse the “strong president” doctrine, however, congressional inaction provides no impediment to executive action.
These philosophies of presidential power are not spelled out in black-letter law and are not defined in the constitution. Consequently Barack Obama has a great deal of legal latitude here in dealing with congressional obstructionism on his supreme court nominees.
JGabriel
@Steve in the ATL:
Wars of Northern Aggression occur when we allow the losers of the War of Southern Treason to rename it in their own self-serving history textbooks.
Gretchen
People understand on a visceral level that if you show up for work and refuse to do your job, you should be fired. Senate Republicans are refusing to do their jobs, so they should be fired. Democrats should start pounding that today, and keep pounding all the way until next January, and beyond if necessary.
pluege
… a buffoon. Shame on those who read his bleh.
Isobel
The picture up top is apropos. This is becoming a national embarrassment. One of my Ghanaian colleagues is the equivalent of a state legislator. He asked me today why these people don’t get sacked out of office for not doing their jobs. It’s ridiculous.
ETA: spelling
Dog Mom
@Gretchen: Exactly!
Paul in KY
@burnspbesq: That would be big.
C.V. Danes
This has to be one of the stupidist decisions I have even seen come out of this Senate. They would rather stonewall Obama on the off chance that Trump will win and they’ll keep the Senate majority, instead of working with Obama now on the more likely chance of Clinton winning and a Democratic majority in the Senate?
It just blows the mind.
C.V. Danes
@mclaren: This is all well and good, but it assumes that Obama can find a candidate willing to be at the center of a political firestorm.