• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Many life forms that would benefit from greater intelligence, sadly, do not have it.

Hey hey, RFK, how many kids did you kill today?

The media handbook says “controversial” is the most negative description that can be used for a Republican.

No one could have predicted…

Oppose, oppose, oppose. do not congratulate. this is not business as usual.

If you thought you’d already seen people saying the stupidest things possible on the internet, prepare yourselves.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”

Stop using mental illness to avoid talking about armed white supremacy.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Republicans: The threats are dire, but my tickets are non-refundable!

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

One of our two political parties is a cult whose leader admires Vladimir Putin.

This country desperately needs a functioning fourth estate.

We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.

Marge, god is saying you’re stupid.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

Narcissists are always shocked to discover other people have agency.

Second rate reporter says what?

Giving in to doom is how we fail to fight for ourselves & one another.

I swear, each month of 2025 will have its own history degree.

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

The words do not have to be perfect.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Activist Judges! / Open Thread: The Backpfeifengesicht SCOTUS Candidate

Open Thread: The Backpfeifengesicht SCOTUS Candidate

by Anne Laurie|  April 7, 20166:14 pm| 242 Comments

This post is in: Activist Judges!, Cruz-ifiction, Open Threads, Republican Venality, Assholes

FacebookTweetEmail

Important alert from Ed Kilgore, at NYMag — “Why Right-Wingers Want Sen. Mike Lee on SCOTUS”:

The Republican battle to make Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland go away, and the efforts to pin down GOP presidential candidates on pre-vetted lists of potential Supremes, have all led to increased speculation about the next justice. At present, there’s a major boom among conservatives for Senator Mike Lee of Utah.

Today the Washington Post‘s James Hohmann offers a rundown on all the reasons Lee is enjoying this attention. For one thing, the Utah senator has long been considered Ted Cruz’s best friend in the upper chamber, so if Cruz is elected, it’s a bit of a no-brainer if Lee wants a robe. For another, Lee would probably have an easier time getting confirmed by his colleagues in the clubby Senate than some law professor or circuit-court judge, and might even avoid a Democratic filibuster (assuming Republicans haven’t already killed the SCOTUS filibuster via the “nuclear option”)…

… If nominated next year for the Scalia seat, Lee would be the youngest nominee since Clarence Thomas, who has now been on the Court for nearly a quarter of a century, with many years of extremism probably still ahead of him… For conservatives seeking a permanent grip on the Court and on constitutional law, someone Lee’s age is money.

But the second reason Lee would be significant is only hinted at by Hohmann in the praise lavished on the solon by the Heritage Foundation and longtime right-wing legal thinker Senator Jeff Sessions (the two most likely sources for SCOTUS advice for Donald Trump, as it happens). Lee’s not just any old “constitutional conservative”; he’s a leading exponent of what is called the Lochner school of constitutional theory, named after the early-twentieth-century decision that was the basis for SCOTUS invalidation of New Deal legislation until the threat of court-packing and a strategic flip-flop resolved what had become a major constitutional crisis.

Lee has, on occasion, suggested that child labor laws, Social Security, and Medicare are unconstitutional, because they breach the eternal limits on federal power sketched out by the Founders. Like most Lochnerians, he views the constitution and the courts as designed to keep democratic majorities from stepping on the God-given personal and property rights of individuals and corporations alike. So it’s no surprise he’s been a bitter critic of the deferential view towards Congress expressed by Chief Justice Roberts in the decision that saved Obamacare.

In effect, Mike Lee could become a more influential successor to Clarence Thomas — after overlapping with Thomas on the Court for a decade or two. If Democratic senators have a problem with that possibility, they might want to begin making noises about it so that at least the supposition that Lee is pretty easily confirmable may be called into question.

That Hohmann article is well worth reading, too, if you want all the gory details. Looks like the Repubs are prepared to do a lot worse than Judge Garland…

Merrick Garland is still tutoring students while his Supreme Court nomination is in limbo https://t.co/1pQ60l8VYD pic.twitter.com/sBU5u645FX

— Senate Democrats (@SenateDems) April 7, 2016

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Thursday Evening Open Thread
Next Post: Open Thread: Bill Clinton vs. #BLM Activists, in Context »

Reader Interactions

242Comments

  1. 1.

    Baud

    April 7, 2016 at 6:20 pm

    Good. If we don’t show up in November, we deserve Mike Lee for the next 50 years.

  2. 2.

    LAO

    April 7, 2016 at 6:20 pm

    WTF?

  3. 3.

    redshirt

    April 7, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    Serious question: Can someone tell me why Obama could not just appoint a Supreme Court judge and let the Congress and Senate impeach him if they don’t want him to serve? Becuse vocally refusing to even consider voting for the nominee is certainly advice, so Obama has done his duty and is free to proceed.

    Say he gives them 90 days of consideration after he has nominated a candidate.

  4. 4.

    ellie

    April 7, 2016 at 6:22 pm

    What the hell?

  5. 5.

    debbie

    April 7, 2016 at 6:23 pm

    Wow, talk about unqualified.

  6. 6.

    Baud

    April 7, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    @redshirt: Justices have always needed Senate confirmation. To try something different wouldn’t be credible.

  7. 7.

    The Fat Kate Middleton

    April 7, 2016 at 6:25 pm

    Mike Lee. Holy shit. Nagahappen.

  8. 8.

    David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch

    April 7, 2016 at 6:27 pm

    New York — (NYT) Mr. Sanders showed no sign of backing down at a news conference in Philadelphia on Thursday morning. While saying that he does respect Mrs. Clinton, he continued to express doubts about her qualifications and made clear that he does not intend to hold back.

    Good for him. Don’t back down. Keep telling people she’s unqualified.

  9. 9.

    Anne Laurie

    April 7, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    @David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: Dial it back, dude. You’ve gone beyond ‘making a point’ and are rapidly approaching ‘spam’.

  10. 10.

    the Conster, la Citoyenne

    April 7, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    @David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:

    What a fucking asshole. Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, too.

  11. 11.

    burnspbesq

    April 7, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    Lee is actually not the scariest name on the list of potential Trump/Cruz nominees that has been floating around today.

  12. 12.

    LAO

    April 7, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    @burnspbesq: I’m afraid to ask.

  13. 13.

    eemom

    April 7, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    um, who the fuck cares at this point who a God-forbid president Cruz would appoint? No shit that he’d appoint the likes of this guy.

  14. 14.

    redshirt

    April 7, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    @Baud: I’d like a lawyer to tell me why, legally.

  15. 15.

    Brachiator

    April 7, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    @David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:

    Good for him. Don’t back down. Keep telling people she’s unqualified.

    Sigh. Seems like only yesterday (2008) when Clinton was trying this petty bullshit against Obama. Didn’t work then. Ain’t gonna work now.

    But if Bernie wants to look like a dumbass, he should go for it.

  16. 16.

    hitchhiker

    April 7, 2016 at 6:34 pm

    @eemom:
    Exactly what I thought. No reason whatsoever to publish this, except I suppose to stir up some drama while we all wait for the NY primaries. Cruz cannot vanish from the scene too soon.

  17. 17.

    Anne Laurie

    April 7, 2016 at 6:35 pm

    @eemom: Point is, the argument that “we” should drag feet on Merrick Garland, because President Hillary could pick someone more progressive, has a downside: What if the Repubs decide Mike Lee is their heartthrob?

    Too risky to let that idea rise above the level of “Nice one, revanchists. Go back to the Heritage Foundation and dream your Gilded Age fantasies.”

  18. 18.

    LAO

    April 7, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    @redshirt: the constitutional requirement of “consent” has been translated into confirmation.

    The role of the Senate in the confirmation process is defined in the Constitution. Article II, Section 2 provides that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint high government officials.” Positions requiring confirmation are specified by statute. Senate Rule XXXI regulates proceedings on nominations in executive sessions (“executive” in this case refers to executive business, not to a closed or secret session). Each Senate committee may adopt its own procedures as long as they do not conflict with Senate rules. For more information on congressional processes, see http://www.crs.gov/products/guides/ guidehome.shtml.

    ETA: I should have added that Article II, specifically names justices of the Supreme Court

  19. 19.

    debbie

    April 7, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    @hitchhiker:

    Well, it will energize those who support Cruz and probably insure they get to the polls.

  20. 20.

    Brachiator

    April 7, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    @ellie:

    Can someone tell me why Obama could not just appoint a Supreme Court judge and let the Congress and Senate impeach him if they don’t want him to serve?

    Because the Republicans would love to have an opportunity to try to impeach Obama. They. would. just. love. it.

    Impeaching the first black president,even without a conviction, would be freaking golden to these asswipes. It would be the ultimate conclusion to the years of obstruction.

  21. 21.

    dedc79

    April 7, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    A return to Lochner? For folks who didn’t attend law school, the gist of that case was that the government couldn’t pass laws/regulations interfering with the “freedom of contract.” I think that particular case was about bakers.

    So if, say, a bunch of sweatshops wanted to hire impoverished 12 year olds and force them to work 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, for pennies, the opinion of the Supreme Court at the time was that it was none of the government’s business. Ah, the good ole days…

  22. 22.

    Patricia Kayden

    April 7, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    @Baud: And if the Bernie or Bust movement pans out, we deserve whatever President KKK Trump gives us.

  23. 23.

    David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch

    April 7, 2016 at 6:39 pm

    It’s official Sanders is toast.

    Mark Halperin says Sanders’s attack was great move.

  24. 24.

    David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch

    April 7, 2016 at 6:40 pm

    @Anne Laurie: what are you talking about. He keeps saying it. H e said again today. It’s the lead fucking story on the NYT site (Blaring headline). His campaign manager went on tee vee and said today “she made a deal with the devil”. The Net is on fire.

    What – cause they keep blundering, it shouldn’t be mocked. makes no sense. U think the New York media is going to dial it back.

  25. 25.

    Patricia Kayden

    April 7, 2016 at 6:41 pm

    @David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: How is Secretary Clinton unqualified to be President?

    Senator Sanders doesn’t have to go so low to compete against her. He really should have taken the high road when he thought she had said that he was not qualified (she never said that).

    By the way, this is not about Sanders or Clinton. This is about keeping the White House in Democratic hands and flipping the Senate. Either Democratic candidate is better than what’s on the other side.

  26. 26.

    redshirt

    April 7, 2016 at 6:43 pm

    @LAO: Thank you!

    I know Obama would never do such a thing. But its amazing that a small majority of Republicans in the Senate can shut down one of the branches of Government after attempting many times now to shut down another. And that there’s no recrimination from the media at all, really.

    They’re literally secessionists within our system. Rebels. Supported by the Corporate Overlords.

    We’re doomed without a people’s revolution. But that’s not Bernie’s revolution.

  27. 27.

    NR

    April 7, 2016 at 6:44 pm

    @Patricia Kayden: The Democratic party is not entitled to anyone’s vote.

    If Hillary can’t get enough votes to win the election, that’s on her, and only her.

  28. 28.

    redshirt

    April 7, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    @NR: Please answer honestly: Would you rather see a Republican Administration than vote for a “compromise” candidate?

  29. 29.

    Baud

    April 7, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    @NR: Exactly. When people ask me why there aren’t more progressives in elected office, I put 100% of the blame on progressive politicians.

  30. 30.

    A Ghost To Most

    April 7, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    @NR:
    Are you going to continue to whine until election day?

  31. 31.

    Baud

    April 7, 2016 at 6:47 pm

    @srv:

    Robber/Baron 2016!

  32. 32.

    Baud

    April 7, 2016 at 6:47 pm

    Interesting. On the mobile site, my comments are indented.

  33. 33.

    Mnemosyne

    April 7, 2016 at 6:47 pm

    @burnspbesq:

    Is that kind of like how Neel Kashkari was the least scary of the Republican candidates for governor of California the last time around despite the whole “let’s fire guns!” campaign commercial?

  34. 34.

    NR

    April 7, 2016 at 6:48 pm

    @redshirt: I’ve said consistently that I’m probably 90% sure to vote for Hillary in November. After seeing more of the shitshow on the Republican side, it’s probably more like 95% now.

    Of course Hillary will need a lot more than just my vote.

  35. 35.

    Brachiator

    April 7, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    @redshirt:

    But its amazing that a small majority of Republicans in the Senate can shut down one of the branches of Government after attempting many times now to shut down another. And that there’s no recrimination from the media at all, really.

    The media cannot mete out punishment. And we have moved far beyond the point where Republicans can be shamed into doing the right thing.

  36. 36.

    eemom

    April 7, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    @Anne Laurie:

    Point is, the argument that “we” should drag feet on Merrick Garland, because President Hillary could pick someone more progressive, has a downside: What if the Repubs decide Mike Lee is their heartthrob?

    Who’s this “we”, kemosabe? I haven’t heard anyone on the left argue that. The debate is over how to react to the republitards’ obstruction of Garland’s nomination, not an argument that “we” should be dragging our feet.

    And, once again, the fact that (God forbid) Cruz would appoint this guy, or worse, is a revelation HOW, exactly??

  37. 37.

    NR

    April 7, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    @A Ghost To Most: That’s rich. The whining about “BernieBros” in the comments here could drown out a jet engine.

  38. 38.

    singfoom

    April 7, 2016 at 6:51 pm

    @srv: Man, I remember my great grandparents telling me all about their prosperity working in factories. They told me about the prosperity of the other children losing fingers in the factory machines. Can you pass that shit?

  39. 39.

    redshirt

    April 7, 2016 at 6:51 pm

    @NR: Cool. And that’s true enough.

  40. 40.

    raven

    April 7, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    @srv: Your are so fucking full of shit.

  41. 41.

    eemom

    April 7, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    @srv:

    Lochner could well return this country back to levels of prosperity and liberty that our great-grandparents enjoyed.

    And children dying in mines. FUCK YOU, asshole.

  42. 42.

    burnspbesq

    April 7, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    @LAO:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/04/07/daily-202-key-conservatives-pushing-mike-lee-for-the-supreme-court/5705472c981b92a22ddc6367/

  43. 43.

    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)

    April 7, 2016 at 6:56 pm

    @LAO: Did you see my reply about your Bundy note? Made in the thread where you announced it.

  44. 44.

    SiubhanDuinne

    April 7, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    Is there any chance we could have a thread explicitly celebrating Tom Levenson and his having been awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship? He deserves a huge Balloon Juice party IMO.

    And how many people here know that Tom’s father was also a Guggenheim Fellow? Have to wonder how often that’s happened, to have two generations receive the same award (albeit in different categories).

  45. 45.

    LAO

    April 7, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    @burnspbesq: thank you.

  46. 46.

    Baud

    April 7, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    @SiubhanDuinne:

    Ugh. I hate dynasties.

    Just kidding. Yay Tom.

  47. 47.

    Chyron HR

    April 7, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    @A Ghost To Most:

    Ha ha ha, “until election day”? Anyone ever told you you’re a real optimist?

  48. 48.

    D58826

    April 7, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    @LAO: Someone on a blog suggested, maybe only half in jest, that Garland just show up on the first Tue. in October, put on a robe and take the empty seat. If the GOP complains he will just say sue me!!!!

  49. 49.

    raven

    April 7, 2016 at 6:59 pm

    @SiubhanDuinne: You should send that to Anne and Betty with links/

  50. 50.

    LAO

    April 7, 2016 at 6:59 pm

    @a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): just looked. Don’t see it.

  51. 51.

    debbie

    April 7, 2016 at 7:00 pm

    @Patricia Kayden:

    I think you’re missing his subtle snark, which is easy, considering it’s been repeated countless times.

  52. 52.

    redshirt

    April 7, 2016 at 7:00 pm

    @SiubhanDuinne: That is amazing. Congratulations to Tom.

    And also sincerely to John for creating the caliber of Front Pager here. You’re all awesome.

    Speaking of which, has anyone heard from Dennis?

  53. 53.

    LAO

    April 7, 2016 at 7:00 pm

    @D58826: I would pay good money to see that.

  54. 54.

    burnspbesq

    April 7, 2016 at 7:00 pm

    @LAO:

    Apology in advance for your future nightmares.

  55. 55.

    raven

    April 7, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    @redshirt: He’s with this outfit.

  56. 56.

    Hoodie

    April 7, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    @Brachiator: Not sure they’d want that, it would bring minority voters out in droves in November and would look awful internationally. There are some arguments for Obama moving ahead with the appointment if they refuse to act, and I wouldn’t assume those are not in his thoughts. IIRC, the sheer refusal to consider Garland is unprecendented. I would imagine the argument for going forward with installation would be along the lines of the refusal of the Senate to schedule hearings or take any other actions that indicate an intent to advise enables Obama, after an undefined amount of time, to assume that the inaction represents tacit consent to the nominee. That would be consistent with the fact that the Senate can at any time start hearings and/or hold a vote on Garland, either of which would rebut the presumption of consent. I’m not sure the optics of that would be so great for the GOP in that scenario, particularly among the mouthbreather base, who would view it as caving in to Obama. McConnell has, however, set himself up for that, and Obama could call his bluff. An impeachment is the last thing they want in the middle of an election. It makes no sense to impeach Obama when the Senate can simply stop him from installing Garland by holding a vote. Also, why have an impeachment of a president who will be gone in less than a year? No one sane is going to buy that. I always thought they would just slow roll the nomination through the end of the year, pretend they’re considering Garland but never conclude the process. They may still end up doing that.

  57. 57.

    SiubhanDuinne

    April 7, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    @raven:

    Will do, thx

  58. 58.

    LAO

    April 7, 2016 at 7:03 pm

    @burnspbesq: I hesitated before thanking you for that very reason!

  59. 59.

    JCJ

    April 7, 2016 at 7:04 pm

    @srv:

    return this country back to levels of prosperity and liberty that our great-grandparents enjoyed

    This is some of your most impressive work. We should ask the African American commenters about the liberty that was enjoyed by their great-grandparents. For myself I do not know much about my great-grandparents, but if I may speak for my 24 year old daughter her great-grandfather really enjoyed the prosperity that came along with being a coal miner. He also enjoyed the black lung disease that shortened his life.

  60. 60.

    redshirt

    April 7, 2016 at 7:05 pm

    @raven: Out of the blogging game, then? Good for him!

  61. 61.

    Calouste

    April 7, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    @srv: I don’t know about your great-grandparents, srv, but my great-grandparents weren’t slave owners.

  62. 62.

    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)

    April 7, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    @LAO: It suggested you check bundy criminal corporations from our dealer if you wanted to shoot me a document. I was using code names.

    Speaking of, @raven: who the hell was that old guy who looked sort of like Steve Winwood in the video you posted below?

  63. 63.

    dollared

    April 7, 2016 at 7:07 pm

    @Brachiator: And let them try. Obama is clearly not violating the Constitution. And it would give him a huge platform to rip the Republicans to shreds for not doing their jobs.

    The “walk him through the front door of the Supreme Court” strategy is win win win win.

  64. 64.

    Roger Moore

    April 7, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    @redshirt:

    I’d like a lawyer to tell me why, legally.

    IANAL, but it’s basically because that’s the way we’ve always done it, i.e. precedent. The Constitution says that judges and other high ranking officials are appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Since the very beginning of the republic, the consent has been understood to mean an active approval, not just the tacit acquiescence, of the Senate. The need for active approval is also implied by the special rules regarding recess appointments, since there would be no need for special rules about what to do when the Senate can’t handle the nomination if doing nothing were sufficient to accept the choice. And there have been plenty of cases of nominees for positions other than the Supreme Court who languished for extended periods without receiving a vote and without being allowed into office as having been passively consented to.

  65. 65.

    Mary 1.0

    April 7, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    @Brachiator: I think she means let them impeach Garland if they don’t want him to serve.

  66. 66.

    Mike J

    April 7, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    @D58826: Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit

  67. 67.

    raven

    April 7, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    @redshirt: I only knew him a bit before he left Athens but lots of my friends know him well and really think highly of him.

  68. 68.

    lamh36

    April 7, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    @micnews
    Bill Clinton told #BlackLivesMatter protesters they are “defending the people who kill the lives you say matter”

  69. 69.

    dollared

    April 7, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    @David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: Yes, and if you weren’t so focused on your sense of victimhood you would realize that what he is saying is that by accepting millions of dollars of contributions and direct payments from rich people, foreign governments and large businesses, she has created a web of conflicts of interest that dis qualify her from the job.

    He is not saying that she is not possessed of the skill and experience. He is saying that she cannot act as an uncompromised advocate for the people of the US.

  70. 70.

    Andy

    April 7, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    @SiubhanDuinne: “Hear,Hear”

  71. 71.

    chopper

    April 7, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    @dollared:

    even if O was down with the idea (which he’s not), does anybody actually think that merrick garland of all people wants to be seated on the supreme court that way?

  72. 72.

    The Fat Kate Middleton

    April 7, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    @SiubhanDuinne: Wow!! Congratulations, Tom!

  73. 73.

    LAO

    April 7, 2016 at 7:16 pm

    @a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): I’m on it!

  74. 74.

    A Ghost To Most

    April 7, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    @D58826:

    If the GOP complains he will just say sue me [take it up with the Supreme Court] !!!!

  75. 75.

    feebog

    April 7, 2016 at 7:18 pm

    If HRC wins the General watch how quickly Mitch and his merry band of cutthroats move to confirm Garland. I predict hearings and a vote before Thanksgiving. This is nothing but McConnell playing politics. The people already spoke in 2012 when we overwhelmingly re-elected Obama.

  76. 76.

    Bobby Thomson

    April 7, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    There’s only one way to keep Lee or worse off the SCOTUS. Elect a Democratic president.

  77. 77.

    lamh36

    April 7, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    Caller who reported man with gun at Wal-Mart may be charged http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article70453902.html

  78. 78.

    redshirt

    April 7, 2016 at 7:20 pm

    @raven: Yeah he seemed like good people. Hope he’s happy.

    Fuck the Confederacy! In Dennis’s honor.

  79. 79.

    pseudonymous in nc

    April 7, 2016 at 7:20 pm

    longtime right-wing legal thinker Senator Jeff Sessions

    fact checker, please. (Kilgore’s trolling us with that one, right?)

    Mike Lee is a quarter-pounder nothingburger. I continue to be amazed by the poltroons who the GOP congressional gang elevate as their legal scholar inter-lek-tules: Sessions, Cornyn, Lee. Fuckwits, all.

  80. 80.

    smith

    April 7, 2016 at 7:21 pm

    It’s been suggested that Obama could call the Senate back into session at the height of general election campaigning to deal with the extraordinary situation of multiple 4-4 SCOTUS decisions that leave the country with unsettled and inconsistent law. This has its own problems, but at least would serve to keep the issue alive during the election.

  81. 81.

    Brachiator

    April 7, 2016 at 7:21 pm

    @dollared:

    And let them try. Obama is clearly not violating the Constitution. And it would give him a huge platform to rip the Republicans to shreds for not doing their jobs.

    He’s already ripping them for not doing their jobs. They don’t much care.

  82. 82.

    Trollhattan

    April 7, 2016 at 7:22 pm

    @srv:
    Peace as in the Great War? Prosperity as in the Great Depression? How about a global pandemic at no extra charge? Yes, little can we imagine such halcyon times, today.

  83. 83.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    April 7, 2016 at 7:24 pm

    Where exactly is the full court press by Democrats to get Garland an upperdown vote? Reverse the situation and Republicans and vast RW conspiracy organs would be threatening secession over it and completely dominating every media outlet.

    And we wonder why we always lose.

  84. 84.

    dollared

    April 7, 2016 at 7:24 pm

    @Brachiator: it’s about theater. The media will ignore Republican treason unless you give them lots of video. It’s called politics. Democrats should try it sometime.

  85. 85.

    feebog

    April 7, 2016 at 7:24 pm

    @dollared:

    He is not saying that she is not possessed of the skill and experience. He is saying that she cannot act as an uncompromised advocate for the people of the US.

    The same would apply to Obama then since he has also taken money from “special interests”? Look, I understand the argument, and good for Bernie for not taking superpac money. But the notion that a $2700 donation from a lobbyist for Exxon=in the tank for the Oil Industry is ludicrous.

  86. 86.

    ? Martin

    April 7, 2016 at 7:25 pm

    @Roger Moore: Sure, but what if Garland just shows up one day in his robe? Would the other justices have security walk him out of the building? The GOP has always assumed that Dems would follow the rules and conventions while the GOP flaunts them. We don’t always need to be so accommodating.

  87. 87.

    p.a.

    April 7, 2016 at 7:25 pm

    @dollared: Posted this recently, Rep. Jesse Unruh quote:

    On lobbyists – “If you can’t eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them you’ve got no business being up here.”[5][6]

  88. 88.

    Technocrat

    April 7, 2016 at 7:27 pm

    @? Martin:

    The GOP has always assumed that Dems would follow the rules and conventions while the GOP flaunts them. We don’t always need to be so accommodating

    Yeah, I’ve never understood that dynamic.

  89. 89.

    ? Martin

    April 7, 2016 at 7:27 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Where exactly is the full court press by Democrats to get Garland an upperdown vote?

    Probably when the current strategy stops working. So far there has been a steady erosion of resistance from Senators. Why disrupt that trend?

  90. 90.

    dogwood

    April 7, 2016 at 7:27 pm

    @dollared:
    It’s not a win at all. It’s only a win for partisans who live for the tit for tat, get even at any cost stuff. Politics is entertainment for political junkies; governing is serious busines. People can’t complain about the superficiality of the press and how they cover politics, and then demand our side engage in feeding the beast. It’s hypocritical. I just watched Obama at the UofC law school. There’s no chance in hell he’ll ever sign on to some strategy that matches the nonsense Republicans engage in on a daily basis.

  91. 91.

    dollared

    April 7, 2016 at 7:27 pm

    @chopper: That’s a fair point. I would have nominated somebody who was on the team all the way. IMHO, you have to fight fire with fire. The most likely thing that would happen is that Roberts would decline to seat Garland but issue an order that he will be seated if 30 more days passes without a vote. Roberts knows the R’s behavior degrades the court.

  92. 92.

    Technocrat

    April 7, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Who on the Dem side likes Garland? Seriously. It wasn’t a choice destined to fire up the base.

  93. 93.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    April 7, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    One of my Facebook friends said Republicans will never allow a vote on Garland and I replied in a fever, “we will burn it all down!” And my fellow travelers said BURP.

  94. 94.

    smith

    April 7, 2016 at 7:29 pm

    @lamh36: Bill needs to sit down and shut up. Bad enough to spout RW talking points, but to do it because your own damn ego can’t let criticism go is inexcusable in a surrogate who’s supposedly a skilled politician. She’s been said to have heaved lamps at him before. Would not like to hear their dinner conversation tonight.

  95. 95.

    lamh36

    April 7, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    I’m sorry, but I LMBAO at that tweet from Walker. I over the entire thing, but Walker actually tweeting this made me LOL cause my reaction was …whatever dude… you couldnt even make it from the kiddie table.

    @ScottWalker
    For once, I agree with Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be President.

  96. 96.

    Bobby Thomson

    April 7, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Now that I’ve seen the full Bill remarks, it’s clear that there’s context missing.

  97. 97.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    April 7, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    @? Martin: What’s working, exactly? Martinsplain it to me.

  98. 98.

    p.a.

    April 7, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    @Trollhattan: But: straw boaters! Even makes up for polio…

  99. 99.

    Technocrat

    April 7, 2016 at 7:32 pm

    @lamh36:

    Sanders camp can’t be happy to see that. We’ll have to see if Cruz and Trump decide to get in on the lulz.

  100. 100.

    Baud

    April 7, 2016 at 7:32 pm

    @Technocrat: I like Garland.

  101. 101.

    dollared

    April 7, 2016 at 7:32 pm

    @dogwood: No, actually, you have to set boundaries for bullies. This is the high road. It is fully supported by legal theory – a right to consent not exercised is waived.

    And you know what, 300 million Americans need Democrats to be their advocates, not high minded academics. Do you really think FDR, LBJ, Truman would have let this stand?

  102. 102.

    singfoom

    April 7, 2016 at 7:32 pm

    @? Martin:

    We don’t always need to be so accommodating.

    I’ve always wondered if there’s just annoying petty shit that the President could pull to make Senators live’s harder. Just little things via executive order to agencies they have to deal with.

    Like order the GSA to fuck with the Senate chamber, make up an excuse and have them rehab specific committee rooms, shit like that. Just a lot of little annoying shit to make their lives miserable.

    I don’t think that’s the person he is, but it’d be entertaining if something like that could happen. “Oh you won’t hear my SCOTUS nominee out? Hey, that Senate gym needs remodelling, it’ll be done in like 4 years. You can use this old shitty pool though.”

    I know it’s petty and childlike, but it’s playing their game.

  103. 103.

    Trollhattan

    April 7, 2016 at 7:33 pm

    @p.a.:
    That kind of politickin’ will get a fine building named for you.

  104. 104.

    dollared

    April 7, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    @? Martin: Amen.

  105. 105.

    p.a.

    April 7, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    @Trollhattan: ?

  106. 106.

    Technocrat

    April 7, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    @Baud:

    Fair enough. However, I think it’s reasonable to say there’s been a lot of pushback on the choice.

    Anyway, it won’t be long before you can nominate him yourself.

  107. 107.

    scav

    April 7, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    @srv: Our grandparents were so fucking in love with their unmaginable prosparity that they set up all thse social and governmental institutions to protect themslves from their happiness of addulterated foods; air you could chew; 8 year olds underground in mines and the elderly abandoned without foodstuffs. Let’s get back to their life of reilley and tear down everything they strived for and ignore any lessons they learned. Because that’s conservative, ignoring the past in favor of fantasy.

  108. 108.

    Technocrat

    April 7, 2016 at 7:36 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    “splain” is officially dead now. But I LOL’d.

  109. 109.

    Sherparick1

    April 7, 2016 at 7:36 pm

    @David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: Halprein, almost as wrong as Kristol. I say Bernie loses New York by 20 points.

  110. 110.

    redshirt

    April 7, 2016 at 7:36 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Where exactly is the full court press by Democrats to get Garland an upperdown vote? Reverse the situation and Republicans and vast RW conspiracy organs would be threatening secession over it and completely dominating every media outlet.

    And we wonder why we always lose.

    This is exactly right, and I hope we all understand and accept it. But then seek to change it.

    Republicans would be screaming TREASON at the tops of their lungs on all the news channels if the situation were reversed. We all know this to be true. And shit would change promptly in their favor.

    But Dems can never do this. Dems never back Dems on TV. In 8 years like 5 people have got Barack’s back. It’s pathetic.

    And yet, Republicans keep getting away with outrages and we can’t even operate by proper governmental procedure.

    There’s an imbalance to everything and I’d love to know how we can re-balance it.

  111. 111.

    Baud

    April 7, 2016 at 7:37 pm

    @Technocrat:

    I’m nominating a true Baudgressive.

  112. 112.

    eemom

    April 7, 2016 at 7:37 pm

    @Technocrat:

    Who on the Dem side likes Garland? Seriously. It wasn’t a choice destined to fire up the base.

    Lots of people who know more about the man than ignorant “fire up the base” bullshitters. Seriously. Go do some research.

  113. 113.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    April 7, 2016 at 7:37 pm

    @Technocrat: The Democratic “base” has to be fired up for the elected party officials to take on the cause?

  114. 114.

    dogwood

    April 7, 2016 at 7:38 pm

    @? Martin:
    What is a full court press supposed to look like? Democrats are in the minority in the Senate. They can’t force republicans to do anything. I think what we’re looking at from here on out is the impossibility of anyone ever being confirmed to the Supreme, Court unless the Senate and the White House are controlled by the same party. The tradition of the 9 member panel just may be over.

  115. 115.

    chopper

    April 7, 2016 at 7:38 pm

    @dollared:

    is fully supported by legal theory – a right to consent not exercised is waived.

    so was O’s decision to go around the senate’s non-recess. didn’t go over well.

  116. 116.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    April 7, 2016 at 7:39 pm

    @redshirt: Ya know I’m not completely stupid right? In other news, eemom and I got e-ngaged.

  117. 117.

    Aimai

    April 7, 2016 at 7:39 pm

    @NR: the goal of life, or elections, is not to portion out blame or brag about your (or your candidates) unimpeachable perfection. Its to DO the fucking thing. To live, to govern, to act. The fact that you keep repeating this stupid, childish, premature gloat says a lot about what a useless human being you are.

  118. 118.

    Technocrat

    April 7, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Yeah, I think so. Because they need to be pushed to take some political risk, and they won’t be pushed without public support.

    @eemom:

    I’m not going to research him, because I don’t give a shit about his qualifications. I’m talking about the reaction to him.

  119. 119.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    April 7, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    @Technocrat: I don’t know who you are and how long you’ve been around but “martinsplain” is a term on Balloon Juice, coined a few years ago by Corner Stone, IIRC.

  120. 120.

    redshirt

    April 7, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead: I shout it out for the Millennials. I find repetition works with them.

  121. 121.

    lamh36

    April 7, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    So Bernie Sanders tweeted that as President he would apologize for slavery or some such…so ok, whatever.

    So Thom Hartmann tweeted:

    Thom Hartmann
    ‏@Thom_Hartmann Thom Hartmann Retweeted Bernie Sanders
    Wow. Even President Obama hasn’t yet done this. Waaaaaay overdue!

    Le sigh…really…really…so what 28 Presidents before him…I’d like to think of all of them, the 1st Black President, probably isn’t the one who should be apologizing for slavery Thom…smh

  122. 122.

    amk

    April 7, 2016 at 7:42 pm

    For all the we won’t budge an inch song & dance bs from the rethugs, IIRR, the kenyan pretty much got what he wanted in judges appointments.

  123. 123.

    dollared

    April 7, 2016 at 7:42 pm

    @chopper: Sorry, too cryptic. What are you referring to?

  124. 124.

    redshirt

    April 7, 2016 at 7:44 pm

    @dogwood: Seriously, if there’s ever a Republican President again, and he (or she but c’mon let’s be serious) got the chance to nominate a Supreme Court judge with a Democratic Senate, they better not vote, right?

  125. 125.

    Technocrat

    April 7, 2016 at 7:45 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    I enjoy Martin’s explanations. But it’s pretty clear why the term was coined. :)

  126. 126.

    lamh36

    April 7, 2016 at 7:47 pm

    @srv: I like that the headline from Fox news is “Bill Clinton SHUTS down Black Lives Matter…”

    It’s just the type of headline a Fox news station would use.

  127. 127.

    dogwood

    April 7, 2016 at 7:48 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead:
    Elected party officials are running ads in states where republicans are up for re-election. Clinton spoke at length about this the other day. Activists are organizing around this issue. Susan Collins met with Garland and hasn’t ruled out voting for him, so she is feeling some heat along with some embarrassment, I assume. This Senate will never confirm Garland, but they might cave on hearings and a vote. I wouldn’t bet on it, but we’ll see. The press isn’t very interested in this issue, which is why Republicans get away with this crap.

  128. 128.

    J R in WV

    April 7, 2016 at 7:48 pm

    @srv:

    My Mom’s parents were totes successful, Grand-dad worked in a coal mine tipple, running the hoist that lifted coal 555 feet and dumped it into chutes right beside his work station. He died young of lung disease. He did get to meet tiny baby grandchildren, but none of us remember him. Black lung, Cancer, COPD, he had ’em all.

    But they managed to buy a little farm, where they raised a big garden, kept a dairy cow, chickens, a pig. So they ate OK, even if my grand-dad died when I was 10 months old. That’s what you’re in favor of?

    Fuck you, asshole. You’re a monster if you think things were better in the USA in 1920 than they are in 2016!

    ETA: I see I’m joining a mighty chorus aimed at srv’s sick opinions. Thanks all for pointing out srv’s sickness. I agree!

  129. 129.

    NR

    April 7, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    @Aimai: What the fuck are you on about?

    The Democratic party is not entitled to anyone’s vote. That is a fact. Politicians have to earn the votes they need to get into office. If they can’t do that, it’s the candidate’s fault, not the voters. Blaming the voters – which the Democrats love to do – is counterproductive and stupid.

  130. 130.

    Brachiator

    April 7, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    @dollared:

    it’s about theater. The media will ignore Republican treason unless you give them lots of video.

    I understand political theater. I don’t see that media attention would be meaningful or have any effect.

    The media is not responsible for either indicting or prosecuting Republican treason.

  131. 131.

    Germy Shoemangler

    April 7, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    Samantha Bee said that Trump would nominate a stack of Maxim magazines for the supreme court.

  132. 132.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    April 7, 2016 at 7:59 pm

    @Technocrat: How exactly is standing up for the constitutions political risk. Hell, don’t eve bring the constitution into it. How us there any political risk at all here?

  133. 133.

    lamh36

    April 7, 2016 at 7:59 pm

    @lamh36: FYI, this is the tweet Hartmann was responding to.

    @BernieSanders
    As president, I would formally apologize for our country’s deplorable practice of slavery.
    https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/718202901366185985

  134. 134.

    FlyingToaster

    April 7, 2016 at 8:00 pm

    @dollared: No, they’d have played the system just like Obama and Reid are doing right now.

    I’m getting very tired of the whole purity troll meme. You let me know which $100,000 fee for speaking you’ve turned down. Ever. Or any other purity trolls.

    Oh, nobody wants to give you a nickel for opening your yap? Color me surprised.

  135. 135.

    dogwood

    April 7, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    @dollared:
    FDR, Truman, and LBJ had huge majorities in the Senate, so this would never have been an issue. And FDR’s court packing plan didn’t work out so well for him.

  136. 136.

    smith

    April 7, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    @srv:

    Garland is someone like Nixon would nominate. Which is why I can support him.

    ???? Here is someone like Nixon would nominate, to ensure that even the mediocre get representation on SCOTUS.

  137. 137.

    eemom

    April 7, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    @dogwood:

    Elected party officials are running ads in states where republicans are up for re-election. Clinton spoke at length about this the other day. Activists are organizing around this issue. Susan Collins met with Garland and hasn’t ruled out voting for him, so she is feeling some heat along with some embarrassment, I assume.

    Thank you. The “Dems aren’t stepping up for Garland” meme is total bullshit. IMVHO.

  138. 138.

    prob50

    April 7, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    @The Fat Kate Middleton:

    Mike Lee. Holy shit. Nagahappen

    Yeah, a wingnut Heritage Foundation/Jeff Sessions crony would make a much more thoughtful and fair SC Justice than some serious and well-respected old fuddy-duddy Constitutional scholar with a funny name. Come on, a manly guy with a ‘Merican’ name like “Mike Lee” or some effete guy named “Merrick”

    As a compromise the Dems could suggest Spike Lee. It’s no less ludicrous than the games the Gopernauts are laying out there.

  139. 139.

    J R in WV

    April 7, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    eemom and I got e-ngaged.

    Really? Congratulations!! That’s fabulous good news, in the middle of political flak, happiness breaks out.

    Or am I falling for something? Nope, not April 1st…

  140. 140.

    sinnedbackwards

    April 7, 2016 at 8:02 pm

    @dollared: We should remember that Truman rode the “do-nothing Congress” to re-election, along with a House majority for Dems, AND against both breakaway southern racist dems as well as left-wing Progressives.

  141. 141.

    Technocrat

    April 7, 2016 at 8:05 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Because it would never be framed as “standing up for the constitution”. I suspect the both-sides-do-it media complex is already desperate to find some equivalence between the two sides. So it would be “Dems politicizing the issue”, or “Angry Democrat Says Intemperate Thing” or some such.

    I think they should do it, I just don’t think they will without a lot of pressure.

    ETA: Plus, quite frankly, our side is incomprehensibly accommodating.

  142. 142.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    April 7, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    @dogwood: So Democrats are basically only interested insofar as there is some political benefit to be had, not the moral rightness of it. I think we all knew that already but thanks for saying it out loud.

  143. 143.

    NR

    April 7, 2016 at 8:08 pm

    @Technocrat:

    Plus, quite frankly, our side is incomprehensibly accommodating.

    Gee, I wonder why that could be?

  144. 144.

    Baud

    April 7, 2016 at 8:09 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Democracy is a bitch.

  145. 145.

    Brachiator

    April 7, 2016 at 8:09 pm

    Late news item:

    As many as 50,000 Iraqis in Fallujah face starvation and death as they are unable to leave the besieged city controlled by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL also known as ISIS)….

    In one recent video that Baghdad-based activists provided to HRW, an unidentifiable woman said she is from Fallujah and that her children are dying because there is no rice, no flour – not even local dates – and the hospital has run out of baby food.

    Reports have surfaced of people being forced to eat bread made from ground date seeds while drinking soup made from grass, HRW said. A sack of flour was being sold for $500 in Fallujah compared to $15 in the capital, Baghdad.

    I don’t care who is qualified or unqualified. I don’t care who has crafted the best apology for this, that or the other. I don’t care who voted for what years ago.

    I want to know what the candidates are going to do about the crises we face today, and how they will deal with the ones the world may likely face tomorrow.

    And even if they want to be isolationist and say, “tough shit, people, good night and good luck,” have the guts to say so.

  146. 146.

    Anne Laurie

    April 7, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    @redshirt:

    Speaking of which, has anyone heard from Dennis?

    You can follow his twitter feed here.

    (Don’t need a twitter account to read other folks’ tweets.)

  147. 147.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    April 7, 2016 at 8:11 pm

    @Technocrat: FlipyrWhig may have something to say about you stealing his schlock.

  148. 148.

    Calouste

    April 7, 2016 at 8:13 pm

    @NR:

    entitled

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  149. 149.

    dogwood

    April 7, 2016 at 8:15 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead:
    What? The Clinton speech was entirely about the threat this shit poses to our democracy. The President has said the Republicans have a right to vote him down, but have a duty to honor the process. The ads that candidates and groups are running don’t say vote Merrick Garland, they say “Tell the Senate to do its job.” I consider all of that to be based on moral rightness rather than political expediency.

  150. 150.

    redshirt

    April 7, 2016 at 8:15 pm

    @Anne Laurie: All this time he’s been tweeting!

    Just like Cole is always tweeting. Rarely posting.

  151. 151.

    NR

    April 7, 2016 at 8:16 pm

    @Calouste: It refers to the presumption that progressive votes rightfully belong to Hillary Clinton, and can somehow be “withheld,” thereby giving the election to the Republican. “Entitled” is the right word to describe that mentality.

  152. 152.

    amk

    April 7, 2016 at 8:16 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    not the moral rightness of it

    You sound just like the religious nuts.

    The kneejerk reactions of berniebots here shows how easily they can be fooled into believing I will rule by fiats bernie’s bs.

  153. 153.

    Technocrat

    April 7, 2016 at 8:17 pm

    So…looking for some evidence of this Democratic wave of surrogates pushing the Merrick nomination:

    CNN: Lindsey Graham to meet with Merrick
    NYT: Lindsey Graham to meet with Merrick
    WAPO: Republicans duck and run from Merrick
    CBS NEWS: Obama – GOP jeopardizing integrity of judicial branch
    TIME: Obama tells Republicans to vote on his nominee.

    Lindsey Fuckin Graham, surrogate. I knew he’d come through for us.

  154. 154.

    prob50

    April 7, 2016 at 8:17 pm

    @dedc79:

    So if, say, a bunch of sweatshops wanted to hire impoverished 12 year olds and force them to work 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, for pennies, the opinion of the Supreme Court at the time was that it was none of the government’s business. Ah, the good ole days…

    Ya know reinstating the old workhouse tradition for the offspring of the lower (and middle) clases could save a enough money to finance tax cuts for those under-appreciated jawb creeters of 1% land, build us a heaping pile of brand-new nukuler weapons and put up a really fantastic wall down the Mesican border, make it 100 feet tall and let Donald Trump license it out under his brand name.

  155. 155.

    Andy

    April 7, 2016 at 8:18 pm

    @Brachiator: “Technocracy!” Dude! Hillz Rules! Yeah! “Hillz World, Hillz World, it’s PARTY time most excellent! Hillz World, Hilz World!”…”Schwing”.

  156. 156.

    A Ghost To Most

    April 7, 2016 at 8:18 pm

    @NR:

    Politicians have to earn the votes they need to get into office. If they can’t do that, it’s the candidate’s fault, not the voters. Blaming the voters – which the Democrats love to do – is counterproductive and stupid.

    Ok, we’ve established what you are. Now we’re just haggling over the price.

  157. 157.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    April 7, 2016 at 8:20 pm

    @Brachiator: That sounds like an Iraqi crisis to me. Have you thought about running for a seat in the Iraqi parliament?

  158. 158.

    NR

    April 7, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    @A Ghost To Most: What a bizarre comment.

  159. 159.

    amk

    April 7, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    @A Ghost To Most:

    NR has been whining since 2006. Not gonna stop now.

  160. 160.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    April 7, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    @amk: Douchebag, I’m a Clinton supporter. Thanks for the canned Sanders nonsense. I hope you benefited from it somehow.

  161. 161.

    dogwood

    April 7, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    @amk:
    It actually is a moral issue in many ways. It certainly involves the integrity of our leaders and the institutions they oversee. Ironically, it is Bernie who hasn’t spoken about this issue in any meaningful way.

  162. 162.

    A Ghost To Most

    April 7, 2016 at 8:26 pm

    @NR:

    Churchill: “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?” Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… ”
    Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”
    Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!” Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price
    Winston S. Churchill

  163. 163.

    LesBonnesFemmes

    April 7, 2016 at 8:26 pm

    @dollared: He did not mind $10,000 of HILLPAC money donated to his Senate campaign in 2006. Wall St money was just tasty enough to him back then.

  164. 164.

    NR

    April 7, 2016 at 8:27 pm

    @A Ghost To Most: And this is relevant… how, exactly?

  165. 165.

    eemom

    April 7, 2016 at 8:28 pm

    @Brachiator:

    A heartfelt comment on a thread full of clowns and trolls.

  166. 166.

    amk

    April 7, 2016 at 8:28 pm

    @dogwood: Given all the judges are either political appointees or politically elected, I don’t see how morality comes into play here.

  167. 167.

    Andy

    April 7, 2016 at 8:30 pm

    @eemom: You should talk!

  168. 168.

    eemom

    April 7, 2016 at 8:30 pm

    @Technocrat:

    Looking for it in the emmessemm. God, you’re an idiot.

  169. 169.

    redshirt

    April 7, 2016 at 8:32 pm

    We all know the sad truth.

    If it’s not American lives than it does not matter to the NEWS.

    4 people die in a small plane crash. Candles.

    800 people drown on a Bangladeshi ferry. Wha?

  170. 170.

    Mnemosyne

    April 7, 2016 at 8:34 pm

    @Technocrat:

    Garland is a great choice for the Supreme Court. He’s a top judge, a respected jurist, and personally seems to be a really nice guy. But since we don’t belong to an organized party, people have to bitch and moan about any choice Obama makes. Remember the whining about the “corporatist” Elena Kagan? I sure do.

  171. 171.

    A Ghost To Most

    April 7, 2016 at 8:37 pm

    @NR:
    You want to be wanted,you want to to be wooed.Burnie wooed you, HRC didn’t. Now the disappointment sets in, and anyone who gets your love now is damn well going to meet your expectations (meet your price).

    Or you could quit whining, get with the rest of us, and concentrate on the real opponents.

  172. 172.

    NR

    April 7, 2016 at 8:39 pm

    @Mnemosyne: Don’t pretend Garland is without his problems. He was one of the judges who declared Gitmo a Constitution-free zone. And also there is the matter of his age.

    I view Garland as an acceptable compromise candidate in light of the Republican Senate (so long as he is confirmed before the election), but pretending there aren’t legitimate issues and all the complaints are just ODS is bullshit.

  173. 173.

    Omnes Omnibus

    April 7, 2016 at 8:39 pm

    @redshirt: This is why.

  174. 174.

    dogwood

    April 7, 2016 at 8:40 pm

    @amk:
    The idea that political actors shouldnt be expected to have a moral code seems odd to me. It’s not about religion. It’s about, honesty, fairness, respect, and decency. President Obama definitely operates within the bounds of his own moral compass.

  175. 175.

    Technocrat

    April 7, 2016 at 8:40 pm

    @eemom:

    Ehh. God forbid effective surrogates get mentioned in the MSM. Better we have some great diaries on the Wreck List.

  176. 176.

    NR

    April 7, 2016 at 8:41 pm

    @A Ghost To Most: That’s… a really weird choice of metaphor.

  177. 177.

    dogwood

    April 7, 2016 at 8:42 pm

    @Mnemosyne:
    Garland is considered to be left of Kagan by many SCOTUS geeks.

  178. 178.

    A Ghost To Most

    April 7, 2016 at 8:44 pm

    @NR:
    You sound like you want to be bought. Is that clear enough?

  179. 179.

    Technocrat

    April 7, 2016 at 8:45 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    Personally, I would have liked a more liberal pick. But my original point was more how he has been a fairly contentious choice, within the Party.

    ETA: Edited to add that I don’t think it *really* matters how liberal he is, given the chance of him getting the nom.

  180. 180.

    NR

    April 7, 2016 at 8:49 pm

    @A Ghost To Most: I still have no idea what you’re on about. I want a president who will address the most critical issues facing the nation and the world. If I can’t have that, I’ll settle for keeping the Republicans out. For now.

  181. 181.

    David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch

    April 7, 2016 at 8:50 pm

    @Technocrat: “I would have liked a more liberal pick” — like whom?

  182. 182.

    redshirt

    April 7, 2016 at 8:51 pm

    @Omnes Omnibus: What a crazy link. Swastikas jumping out at me!

  183. 183.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    April 7, 2016 at 8:52 pm

    i don’t give a flying fuck which Overton window Garland is staring out of wistfully. He’s the candidate Obama nominated and any Democratic politician – including recent convert Sanders – that isn’t out there making a ruckus is tacitly approving the notion that Obama is somehow uniquely unqualified to carry out the duties of his job.

  184. 184.

    Mike J

    April 7, 2016 at 8:52 pm

    @redshirt: Fore a site about the US constitution, they do seem pretty obsessed with Hitler. Going for the Bundy type traffic?

  185. 185.

    redshirt

    April 7, 2016 at 8:55 pm

    @Mike J: Maritime Law only.

  186. 186.

    David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch

    April 7, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    @Technocrat: According to this study Garland is as liberal as RBG. (Chart).

    If he’s as liberal as Ginsberg, what more you could you want.

  187. 187.

    ? Martin

    April 7, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    I would declare Mike Lee on SCOTUS as final confirmation that Idiocracy was sent back to us from the future as a warning.

  188. 188.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    April 7, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    @Technocrat: I have no idea what you two are arguing about. Were you fussing at each other in another thread? That’s usually the genesis of these WTF comversations.

  189. 189.

    A Ghost To Most

    April 7, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    @NR:
    Then stfu about HRC earning your vote. Vote for her or not, but enough with the purity crap. It’s fucking tiresome.

  190. 190.

    Mnemosyne

    April 7, 2016 at 8:59 pm

    @NR:

    Name a second problematic decision of Garland’s. Just one. There should be a bunch of them to choose from since he’s such a weak candidate, right?

    His age doesn’t bother me. The new trend of only nominating people in their 50s bothers me, actually.

  191. 191.

    Hoodie

    April 7, 2016 at 9:01 pm

    @efgoldman: Not necessarily. The Platinum Coin Theory is based on an interpretation of a statute, which can be shut down by the Supremes. The Seat Garland Theory is based on interpretation of Article II, a political question that the Supremes may not want to touch. Anyway, the Senate has the power to shut down Garland’s installation by taking any formal action that indicates they are actually doing the job of considering Garland. Right now, we have no idea what the Senate’s collective intent is because the GOP leadership refuses to do anything, i.e., McConnell’s or any other individual senator’s pronouncements don’t mean anything if there is no objective indication of a collective intent by the Senate, which would be, at minimum, commencing hearings. The longer they wait, the stronger the presumption they’ve consented or just abdicated their jobs. Article II requires Obama to make appointments, not just nominations. Sure, the Senate can withhold its consent, but theoretically they have to make that clear. So he’s just acting on his constitutional responsibility in the absence of any evidence that the Senate as a whole does not approve of the nomination. It’s a giant bluff on McConnell’s part, and Obama could call it. He just gives them notice that if in, say, 2 months, they don’t commence hearings, he will assume they consent to Garland and he will appoint him to the Court. Nothing impeachable about that, and the Senate can easily solve the crisis by starting hearings or holding a vote.

  192. 192.

    Mnemosyne

    April 7, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    @Technocrat:

    As dogwood said, Garland is very liberal, more liberal than some of the liberals on the court right now. The beef against him is that Gitmo decision, which some people have latched into so they can ignore the rest of his record.

    Sorry, but Gitmo is not a dealbreaker for me. Abortion is, and Garland has been a rock-steady liberal on that for decades.

  193. 193.

    Peale

    April 7, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    @Technocrat: the only criticism I’ve heard about him is from people who wanted to choose a minority to fire up a segment of the party. He’s not Asian. He’s not Hispanic. He’s not a she.

  194. 194.

    Turgidson

    April 7, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    @pseudonymous in nc:

    Pretty sure Kilgore is snarking there. He has a dry sense of humor.

  195. 195.

    trollhattan

    April 7, 2016 at 9:03 pm

    @A Ghost To Most:

    Then stfu about HRC earning your vote. Vote for her or not, but enough with the

    Rest of this sentence? :-)

    Anyway, yeah. Weak tea, that.

  196. 196.

    trollhattan

    April 7, 2016 at 9:05 pm

    @Mnemosyne:
    I’m fine with Garland and the more I learn of him, the more of a mensch he appears to be.

    Smart, that president of ours.

  197. 197.

    Villago Delenda Est

    April 7, 2016 at 9:06 pm

    @David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: The only kiss that could be deadlier is one from Bill Kristol.

  198. 198.

    Aimai

    April 7, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    @NR: no one is blaming anyone for anything. You must have had really poor experiences with early toilet training. You have the angry, fearful, spiteful aspect of a beaten child whose only sucess is withholding his poop. I feel sorry for you. Obsessed, resentful, and constipated is no way to go through life, let alone an election cycle. Try to just get out, vote for your candidate, and stop worrying about blaming or assigning blame. No one gives a fuck.

  199. 199.

    Technocrat

    April 7, 2016 at 9:11 pm

    @David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:

    I don’t know, honestly. All the options I’ve seen put forth seem to be moderate to slightly-less-moderate. A pick that made a significant fraction of liberals say “Oh wow, I like this person” would have done for me.

  200. 200.

    Technocrat

    April 7, 2016 at 9:14 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    I’m not really sure either. I intimated that Dems weren’t doing the full-court press for Merrick? Dunno. Not a big deal.

  201. 201.

    David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch

    April 7, 2016 at 9:16 pm

    @Technocrat: “Judge Garland is a strong nominee with decades of experience on the bench.” ~ Senator Bernard Sanders.

    I guess Sanders is part of the insignificant faction.

  202. 202.

    Omnes Omnibus

    April 7, 2016 at 9:17 pm

    @Technocrat: A person who moves the median vote on the court to the left from Kennedy is a win.

  203. 203.

    hueyplong

    April 7, 2016 at 9:19 pm

    I don’t get complaining about Garland’s opinions and his age. If he’s not your guy for the job, you should be glad he’s old. Complaining about both is an objective indicator that the complaining will continue regardless.

  204. 204.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    April 7, 2016 at 9:20 pm

    @Aimai: I laughed out loud.

  205. 205.

    dogwood

    April 7, 2016 at 9:20 pm

    @David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
    These people don’t care about his actual record, they just want something to complain about. The President is never really doing it quite right. The media said Garland was a moderate,because he got republican votes. That’s the depth of media analysis. Many liberals buy it and whine. It’s exhausting. I’m a liberal and I like the pick. If Obama really wanted to screw around with republicans he should have nominated 77 year old Richard Posner. A highly regarded conservative jurist who thinks Scalia was fucking nuts. I would have loved to see Republicans come up with a strategy on that.

  206. 206.

    ? Martin

    April 7, 2016 at 9:21 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    What’s working, exactly? Martinsplain it to me.

    Pretty simple, actually. Every Republican said they wouldn’t even talk to the guy. That’s fallen apart. Even Grassley will meet with him. Several Republicans calling for a hearing. Once enough Republicans wave the white flag, then Dems can speak up more loudly as there will then be a majority asking for a hearing.

    But what makes you think a ruckus would get Garland seated? Republicans LOVE it when Democrats make ruckus – they fundraise off that shit. Cleeks law. Winning means seating Garland, not making the Democratic base feel good that you are yelling louder than the dumbshits. That lack of yelling from Democrats is called party discipline. Obama and Reid have a plan. Maybe it won’t work, but it’s a plan and every Democrat is doing their job. Lets give them a bit of respect that maybe they know what they’re doing. So don’t listen to me, listen to them.

  207. 207.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    April 7, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    Rachel Maddow has two big interviews tonight! Martin O’Malley and Jane Sanders! She’s nervous about interviewing Jane Sanders? Why? I can’t decide which of these two people I’m less interested in hearing from.

    @Aimai: You have the angry, fearful, spiteful aspect of a beaten child whose only sucess is withholding his poop.

    this one is bringing some angry baggage to politics, it is a sad spectacle

  208. 208.

    TDVFZW

    April 7, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    @Omnes Omnibus: I like it; short, succinct, and striking. Oh Christ, the alliteration was accidental. I have a broken organ in my head. Stated to avoid yet another untoward device.
    Speaking of things literary, I was unaware that all submissions in honor of National Poetry Month were required to be in haiku form. I did understand that we were each required to submit at least one haiku by April 15.

  209. 209.

    amk

    April 7, 2016 at 9:28 pm

    @? Martin:

    Winning means seating Garland, not making the Democratic base feel good that you are yelling louder than the dumbshits.

    This.

  210. 210.

    Gin & Tonic

    April 7, 2016 at 9:28 pm

    @TDVFZW: We went through that a couple of nights ago.

  211. 211.

    Anya

    April 7, 2016 at 9:33 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Whenever I see the republicans clownish behavior, their ugliness and their stupidity, I wonder how are these clowns beating our side all the time? I just don’t understand why we’re this inept.

  212. 212.

    Anya

    April 7, 2016 at 9:36 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: I think Rachel is throw with the Sanders campaign. I watched her last night & the night before, and I can tell she’s done propping Sanders.

  213. 213.

    john w casey

    April 7, 2016 at 9:36 pm

    @redshirt: Every Justice to ever sit on the Supreme Court has received an actual affirmative vote from the Senate. That’s a pretty convincing practical interpretation of what the Constitutional language means.

    And, yes, I am (or was, retired now) a lawyer.

    JC

  214. 214.

    SiubhanDuinne

    April 7, 2016 at 9:39 pm

    @TDVFZW:

    I was unaware that all submissions in honor of National Poetry Month were required to be in haiku form. I did understand that we were each required to submit at least one haiku by April 15.

    Shit! It’s deadline day!
    Haven’t written fucking squat.
    Sod it. This’ll do.

  215. 215.

    dogwood

    April 7, 2016 at 9:42 pm

    @Anya:
    Citizens United, Voter Suppression, and gerrymandering. Calling democrats inept, is easy, but there are some structural hurdles that have allowed the minority of voters to actually maintain power. Until those barriers are gone, the Republican Party will become increasing extreme.

  216. 216.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    April 7, 2016 at 9:43 pm

    @Anya: I wonder how are these clowns beating our side all the time? I just don’t understand why we’re this inept

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court election this week is a good example. This wasn’t a primary, it was a statewide general (I’ll defer to any locals if I’ve got that detail wrong). The state party, for whatever reason, could get people excited about the prospect of a truly horrible person being elected to a ten year term that is probably going to affect a lot of people’s lives. Republicans, the worst of their base, have managed to make every election important. Democrats and Dem-leaners, for reasons I can’t quite grok, only get excited about the presidency.

  217. 217.

    TDVFZW

    April 7, 2016 at 9:48 pm

    @Gin & Tonic: So was the consensus, or directive, that they all had to be haiku? Certainly there was a lot of that, and I expect it to continue. Not that I would ever contribute to such a situation. But I’m still confused.

    @SiubhanDuinne: Excellent – works in the nature element as a pun. I haz a moment of envy.

  218. 218.

    NR

    April 7, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    @Aimai: Judging by this comment, you have some pretty serious psychological issues.

    Seek help.

  219. 219.

    NR

    April 7, 2016 at 9:53 pm

    @Mnemosyne: So you consider abortion rights more important than basic human rights. That’s certainly your perogative. But there are people out there who don’t agree with you, and pretending that the ones who don’t are suffering from ODS is bullshit.

  220. 220.

    NR

    April 7, 2016 at 9:55 pm

    @A Ghost To Most: Like I said: Hillary is going to need a lot more than just my vote.

  221. 221.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    April 7, 2016 at 9:55 pm

    @NR: @Mnemosyne: So you consider abortion rights more important than basic human rights.

    so women’s rights =/= human rights.

    Always interesting to have the perspective of a self-righteous little rage bunny.

  222. 222.

    The Lodger

    April 7, 2016 at 9:57 pm

    @Omnes Omnibus: Consider that Obama is moving Garland from the most senior position on the nation’s second-highest court to the most junior seat on the highest court. It’s literally the smallest change imaginable.
    He seems to be an able, experienced judge, not a party operative in a robe. More like him, please.

  223. 223.

    Aimai

    April 7, 2016 at 10:00 pm

    @NR: you first.

  224. 224.

    dogwood

    April 7, 2016 at 10:01 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:
    You hear a lot of arguments here that it is the party’s responsibility to motivate voters. I’ve never ascribed to that philosophy. Citizens have a responsibility in this equation. I don’t need to be wooed, cajoled or excited to go to the polls as if candidates are products and I’m a consumer. I vote because I have an obligation to keep up my end of the bargain as a citizen.

  225. 225.

    NR

    April 7, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    so women’s rights =/= human rights.

    Sure they are. But they aren’t the entirety of them. And having to sacrifice habeus corpus to secure abortion rights is not a choice we should have to make.

  226. 226.

    Calouste

    April 7, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Maddow could ask Jane Sanders where she thinks she has last seen the Sanders family tax returns. They seem to be missing.

  227. 227.

    Aleta

    April 7, 2016 at 10:10 pm

    Not this parking lot.
    Lie down in front of
    campfires
    Without any thoughts.

  228. 228.

    NR

    April 7, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    @Aimai: I’m not the one who’s obsessed with scat.

  229. 229.

    SiubhanDuinne

    April 7, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    @TDVFZW:

    Excellent – works in the nature element as a pun.

    Unintended. Nice catch!

  230. 230.

    Miss Bianca

    April 7, 2016 at 10:16 pm

    @SiubhanDuinne: I second this idea!

  231. 231.

    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)

    April 7, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    @Miss Bianca: I’ll third it.
    @SiubhanDuinne: The unconscious is an
    amazing thing; I believe you intended you intended it for me to enjoy catching.

  232. 232.

    SiubhanDuinne

    April 7, 2016 at 10:23 pm

    @a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q):

    Well, in truth, the word “sod” was a last-minute substitution for another word that didn’t work as well. But I wasn’t consciously thinking “nature” and I wasn’t consciously thinking “wordplay.” So yes, let’s hear it for the amazing unconscious!

  233. 233.

    SiubhanDuinne

    April 7, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    @Miss Bianca:
    @a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q):

    Thanks. I sent an email to AL and BC, so perhaps one of them will put up a dedicated thread. And if not, well, Tom knows we love him.

  234. 234.

    Anne Laurie

    April 7, 2016 at 10:32 pm

    @SiubhanDuinne: Thanks! If Tom’s too busy to take a victory lap here, I’m planning on using your link for tomorrow’s breakfast thread.

  235. 235.

    J R in WV

    April 7, 2016 at 10:32 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    So Dogwood speaks for the whole Democratic party now?

    Great! I just need to be informed of these seismic adjustments to freedom of speech. I won’t speak of Democratic policies any more, they are Dogwood policies now. I see.

    ;-)

  236. 236.

    NR

    April 7, 2016 at 10:49 pm

    @efgoldman: So just fuck all those guys at Gitmo, right? Who cares if the president can disappear someone into an offshore prison, torture them, and hold them indefinitely without charges or trial so long as abortion rights are protected.

  237. 237.

    Gin & Tonic

    April 7, 2016 at 10:56 pm

    @NR:

    I’m not the one who’s obsessed with scat.

    I like scat too. Tell me who’s your fave, Ella or Jon Hendricks?

  238. 238.

    Omnes Omnibus

    April 7, 2016 at 11:38 pm

    @NR: I do find it interesting that you only show up during things like primaries and fights over major legislation. And that you always damn the good for not being perfect. Just an observation; no accusation.

  239. 239.

    Calouste

    April 8, 2016 at 2:42 am

    @NR: Except for the torture part, you mean standard procedure for prisoners of war? Who are held indefinitely (or at least until the war ends or a prisoner exchange happens) without charges or trial, and who can’t actually be charged except for war crimes.

  240. 240.

    debbie

    April 8, 2016 at 7:34 am

    @Brachiator:

    Too late for you to see this, but your post is the best I’ve seen here in the last couple weeks. Pity it seems to have been little noticed. Baud better find a spot for you in his administration!

  241. 241.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    April 8, 2016 at 1:09 pm

    @? Martin: Good points. Democrats need to keep their powder dry anyways.

  242. 242.

    WaterGirl

    April 8, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    Testing block quote one way… Elizabeth Warren:

    For seven years, through artificial debt ceiling crises, deliberate government shutdowns, and intentional confirmation blockades, Senate Republicans have acted as though the election and reelection of Obama relieved them of any responsibility to do their jobs. Senate Republicans embraced the idea that government shouldn’t work at all unless it works only for themselves and their friends. The campaigns of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are the next logical outgrowth of the same attitude — if you can’t get what you want, just ignore the obligations of governing, then divert attention and responsibility by wallowing in a toxic stew of attacks on Muslims, women, Latinos, and each other.

    If Senate Republicans don’t like being forced to pick between a bullet and poison, then here’s some advice: Stand up to extremists in the Senate bent on sabotaging our government whenever things don’t go their way. Respect the oath you took to uphold and defend the Constitution. Show some courage and put that oath ahead of party politics. Do your job — and start by considering the president’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

    Testing block quote the other way (still Elizabeth Warren):

    For seven years, through artificial debt ceiling crises, deliberate government shutdowns, and intentional confirmation blockades, Senate Republicans have acted as though the election and reelection of Obama relieved them of any responsibility to do their jobs. Senate Republicans embraced the idea that government shouldn’t work at all unless it works only for themselves and their friends. The campaigns of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are the next logical outgrowth of the same attitude — if you can’t get what you want, just ignore the obligations of governing, then divert attention and responsibility by wallowing in a toxic stew of attacks on Muslims, women, Latinos, and each other.

    If Senate Republicans don’t like being forced to pick between a bullet and poison, then here’s some advice: Stand up to extremists in the Senate bent on sabotaging our government whenever things don’t go their way. Respect the oath you took to uphold and defend the Constitution. Show some courage and put that oath ahead of party politics. Do your job — and start by considering the president’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - PaulB - Olympic National Park: Lake Quinault 1
Image by PaulB (5/17/25)

Recent Comments

  • Kayla Rudbek on Repubs in Disarray Open Thread (May 18, 2025 @ 12:28am)
  • Jay on Repubs in Disarray Open Thread (May 18, 2025 @ 12:15am)
  • Omnes Omnibus on Repubs in Disarray Open Thread (May 18, 2025 @ 12:04am)
  • RaflW on War for Ukraine Day 1,178: Russia Commits Another War Crime in Sumy (May 17, 2025 @ 11:59pm)
  • Adam L Silverman on War for Ukraine Day 1,178: Russia Commits Another War Crime in Sumy (May 17, 2025 @ 11:48pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!