Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Prediction: the GOP will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

Republicans don’t want a speaker to lead them; they want a hostage.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

An almost top 10,000 blog!

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

“woke” is the new caravan.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

New McCarthy, same old McCarthyism.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

He really is that stupid.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

This fight is for everything.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Schmidt just says fuck it, opens a tea shop.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

You are here: Home / Past Elections / 2020 Elections / Senator McConnell Moves To Contact: The President’s Nominee “Will Receive a Vote On the Floor of the Senate”

Senator McConnell Moves To Contact: The President’s Nominee “Will Receive a Vote On the Floor of the Senate”

by | 217 Comments

This post is in: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Senator McConnell has placed his marker on the table.

Image

ABC news is reporting that the President will announce his nominee shortly.

I expect that the President will announce his nominee no later than Wednesday and that Senator McConnell will have that nominee up for a vote before the full Senate no later than the Wednesday after that so that the new justice can be seated before the Supreme Court starts its new term in October. And to try to do sort of a judicial nomination shock and awe campaign by moving so quickly that no one can respond to what McConnell is doing.

I’ve seen Senator Murkowski’s statement, and it was nice to read, but the simple reality is that for Senators Collins, McSally, Gardner, Tillis, and Graham it is ride or die. They cannot let go of the tiger that is the President and his base at this point because it will not get them the Democratic votes to either save them in the case of Collins, McSally, and Gardner, nor to open up their reelection campaigns from the statistical ties that Tillis and Graham are in. Abandoning the President and his base of supporters on this will cost them more support and votes, then trying to look like they’re standing on principle.

The question is not what can be done to stop it, though I definitely believe as much hell as possible should be raised over what Senator McConnell is going to do. The question is what you are willing to do after Senator McConnell does what he is going to do to install a sixth conservative associate justice on the Supreme Court.

I expect there will be violence over this. Violence between senators. Violence directed at senators. And violence between Americans. I’m not calling for it, but as a nat-sec professional who works on low intensity warfare, this is what I expect.

Updated at 10:30 PM EDT

I just want to clarify and elaborate a bit on what I think is likely to happen. I expect that the violence directed at senators will come from the hard core and extreme right. It will be directed at the Republican senators who are being reported as potentially not supporting the President and Senator McConnell on confirming a new justice before the election and the inauguration; Gardner, McSally, Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Graham, Grassley, and Alexander. It will start with threatening emails, voicemails, and direct messages. And it may escalate to actual attempts at physical intimidation to send a message: get or stay in line or else… Similarly, I expect that violence between Americans will originate from the same direction. Some MAGA asshole will decide to gun his car through a vigil being held in memory of RBG or a demonstration and rally to demonstrate to Senator McConnell and his GOP majority that they have to abide by the rules McConnell established in 2016. Or that, as we’ve seen with the MAGA truck/vehicle rallies in Portland, that those supporting the President will show up and pepper spray and paintball those standing vigil for RBG or rallying to pressure McConnell and his GOP majority to not be hypocrites. This violence will be stochastic terrorism, but if it happens, I expect it will originate on the hard core and extreme right.

Open thread.

Reader Interactions

217Comments

  4. 4.

    guachi

    Yup. The vote will be quick to prevent any kind of mobilization. There will be no Kavanaugh. I’d be surprised if there were even a hearing of any kind. There will not be four Republicans who will stop this.

  5. 5.

    James E Powell

    I do not disagree with anything you wrote. I expect it will take more than two weeks, because I also expect it will help Trump’s re-election chances if it is still hanging in the balance.

  7. 7.

    Chief Oshkosh

    I don’t know that there will be violence if McConnell goes forward with a vote. If he didn’t, I think that there would be violence from the right. The people on the left who actually care about the Supreme Court are not the violent types. They aren’t anarchists. In fact, they are arguably the most rule-of-law portion of the Democratic party.

    But who knows. I’ve been wrong about a lot since 2016.

  9. 9.

    PPCLI

    “I expect there will be violence over this. Violence between senators. Violence directed at senators. And violence between Americans.”

    Adam, I have the greatest admiration for you and your writing. And this is a passionate moment. But I beg you to edit out these four sentences.

  11. 11.

    negative 1

    @James E Powell: I’ve thought of that, but consider also that he’s not smart and has no restraint.  Also, other repubs know its at least a 50/50 shot that this is their last chance.

  12. 12.

    Emerald

    So we absolutely will be expanding the number of SCOTUS justices. Justice Cruz can enjoy his place in the minority.

    If, of course, the 6-3 majority doesn’t just decide that tRump will remain president no matter what the vote.

  14. 14.

    Adam L Silverman

    @guachi: McConnell will to try to move as quickly as possible to do sort of a judicial nomination shock and awe campaign by moving so quickly that no one can respond to what McConnell is doing.

  17. 17.

    Brachiator

    I expect there will be violence over this. Violence between senators. Violence directed at senators. And violence between Americans.

    Probably not. A lot of anguish and anger. But violence? Not over a Supreme Court nominee.

    I am not surprised that McConnell said that there would be a vote. He and the White House must have been in contact and coordinated their response.

  19. 19.

    patroclus

    McConnell has 1 vote.  He needs 49 more.  And he’s already lost Murkowski and 47 Dems (plus Independents).  And virtually all of those 49 are on record with delaying USSC nominations if a vacancy occurs during an election until after the next Inauguration.  Moreover, many are currently in tough re-election campaigns and would potentially gain votes if they broke with Trump on the timing of a vote; not necessarily a vote itself.  McConnell is not omnipotent.  His announcement starts a fight which is not over yet.  The Ginsburg vacancy, by definition, is one of the biggest election issues this Fall.  This is not over by any stretch.  This is an opportunity for us to start winning.

  20. 20.

    Hildebrand

    Moving from “what you are willing to do” to  “I expect there will be violence over this” – is perilously close an incitement to violence.  You’ve gone too far.

  21. 21.

    CaseyL

    I can come up with any number of scenarios, each more horrifying than the last.  Not only for what kind of filth will wind up on the Court, but what that Court will do to ensure the GOP’s continuing rule.

    I’m too heartsick to think clearly.  Gonna pack it in for the night.

  23. 23.

    oldgold

    Isn’t it at least arguable the better play for the Republicans would be to slow this down. Argue before the election, you need to elect Trump and a Republican Senate to replace RBG with a conservative Justice. And, if election  turns out badly for them,  go the lame duck route.

  25. 25.

    scottinnj

    McConnell will figure that 6 SC judges is > losing Senate for 2/4/6/ years.And that the Dems won’t have the votes to pack the court.

  26. 26.

    pattonbt

    There is too much at stake for McConnell to not bend every rule and norm. In the end, it comes down to four republican senators. Three now with murkowski. How much faith do any of you have three more can be found, and more importantly, relied upon? McConnell cates not for anything else in the world right now. Same with trump. The standing process will be obliterated and sped up exponentially.

  27. 27.

    Martin

    I expect there will be violence over this. Violence between senators. Violence directed at senators. And violence between Americans.

    I’m down.

    I’m not worried about abortion or gay marriage. The GOP needs their wedge issues – winning actually hurts them electorally.

    But Trump has already publicly announced that he’s going to litigate this election and choosing one of the people that will make that ruling just days before the election comes very close to my concept of a coup.

    I don’t think it’ll work, but Trump can’t recognize when he’s putting a match to gasoline.

  29. 29.

    Gvg

    There is already violence. Against women and minorities and immigrants…because of actions of the Roberts court, especially gutting the voting rights act. Denied contraceptives by bigots, abortion restrictions…on and on. There is backlash too.

    i am really upset.

  34. 34.

    guachi

    @patroclus:  Which Republican Senators vote against a replacement and what is their motivation for doing so?

    Murkowski isn’t up for election and appears to be doing this on principle. The only other Senator who might join her is Collins. That’s two. I don’t see two more.

  35. 35.

    Martin

    @Hildebrand: I disagree. We’re already having violence over the existing political actions. It’s idiotic to not expect we’ll have more violence by adding more political bad acts.

  36. 36.

    Kropacetic

    There needs to be a general strike.  These unethical fucks are going to bring us back to feudal serfdom.  They need to see what it looks like when Americans stop participating in their corrupt, bullshit system.

  37. 37.

    Eljai

    Nobody really knows for sure what will happen.  History can turn on a dime.  I intend to stay safe and engaged and I want to encourage everyone to do the same. Take care of yourselves, call your senators, protest if you can do so safely, and don’t give up. These ratbastards know that their time is up and that’s why they’re working frantically to install their puppets. They are not invincible.

  39. 39.

    JPL

    Romney is a no until after the election.   Collins said last week, she would not vote before the election and not during a lame duck.   Murkowski is a no.

  41. 41.

    Emerald

    @Mai Naem mobile: I imagine he he would vote to confirm himself. Why not? Nothing else matters. But I expect him to be the next Justice. If we get the Court to 13 he will then be a part of the minority of Republican justices.

    If they don’t f*ck the election to stop us.

  42. 42.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Hildebrand:

    Moving from “what you are willing to do” to  “I expect there will be violence over this” – is perilously close an incitement to violence.  You’ve gone too far.

    You see a step there I don’t. Maybe a couple

  46. 46.

    PsiFighter37

    @scottinnj: This. I do not think there are enough Democratic votes in the Senate to pack the court, and Mitch is more than willing to sacrifice the majority if it means that any legislation we care about will be arbitrarily nullified by SCOTUS for a generation – or longer. Heck, I would not be surprised if McConnell is calling over to Uncle Clarence and Alito and asking if they have any interest in an early retirement as well.

  47. 47.

    gene108

    @patroclus:

    The Ginsburg vacancy, by definition, is one of the biggest election issues this Fall.

    If McConnell rams through a nominee in four weeks, which is what I expect, replacing her seat on the court will be off the table.

    And President Biden will not expand the SCOTUS or the lower courts.

    I’m normally not a defeatist, but I think we’re screwed for another 15-20 years, unless Thomas, Roberts, and Alito end up croaking early in Biden’s term.

  48. 48.

    Steeplejack

    I know McConnell won’t, but has anyone even mentioned Merrick Garland yet? Looking at you, pundit class.

    Rachel Maddow is eulogizing Ginsburg. She did just have Hilary Clinton on; she said that McConnell and any nomination before the next president must be fought tooth and nail (not her exact words).

    Maybe Lawrence O’Donnell will get into the political machinations.

  49. 49.

    DRickard

    I expect that the President will announce his nominee no later than Wednesday and that Senator McConnell will have that nominee up for a vote before the full Senate no later than the Wednesday after that

    I wouldn’t be surprised if McConnel doesn’t force a vote preemptively confirming the nominee before the nominee is even named.

  50. 50.

    guachi

    @JPL: Romney is a no? That kind of surprises me. Has he put out a statement to that effect?

    I guess that leaves us at needing one Republican. McSally? I don’t see it from her. I’m wracking my brain trying to think of Senators. Gardner in Colorado? I think they are sure losers so voting “yes” or  “no” will have zero effect on their electoral chances.

  53. 53.

    Lacuna-Synecdoche

    @kindness:

    A 13 member court when Uncle Joe wins and Democrats take the Senate is our only hope.

    15. If we don’t, Republicans will just push it to 15 themselves as soon as they get the chance.

    They probably won’t push it to 17 though, because that’s just ridiculously too many. 15 is about as far as you can push it without looking silly. IMHO. YMMV

  55. 55.

    Repatriated

    @Lum’s Better Half: If they think it’ll be close enough to provide a “good enough” case to overturn the election with the now-current bench, waiting motivates anti-choice senate voters.  If they think it will be such a rout that blatant partisan judicial hackery will be required, they need to install a hack immediately.

  57. 57.

    patroclus

    @guachi: Mark Kelly can be sworn in immediately if he wins in Arizona in the special election.  The same is the case in the Georgia special election.  There have also been many examples of Senators in history retiring early, and their replacements being appointed early in the resulting lame duck to gain seniority.  Murkowksi has already announced that she won’t be hypocritical.  Mitt Romney.  Lamar Alexander.  Ben Sasse. Susan Collins.  Cory Gardner.  Tom Tillis,  Martha McSally (if Kelly doesn’t win).  That’s a lot more than 4.  And there are other possibilities…

  58. 58.

    JPL

    There needs to be one more Senator that will stand on principal.   The last thing I want is for Pence to break the tie.  What Senators are up for reelection in 22?    What Senators have their eyes set on being the next nominee?   If Rubio had a brain, he’s say no.

  59. 59.

    Hildebrand

    @Martin: I don’t doubt there could be violence (because Trump and his fascist followers are promoting that violence).  My problem is that Adam’s language is far too close to incitement all by itself.  It’s wildly irresponsible and dangerous.

    We need to respond to this crisis, not react.  We need to channel our frustration and anger and sadness into constructive action – not utter threats of harm and questioning each of the readers here, ‘what are you prepared to do.’  We are better than that – and yes, that bloody well matters.

  60. 60.

    RaflW

    To your closing, Adam, I said in the car a little while ago to the BF: what McConnell will do will ratchet us closer to the looming (but not inevitable) civil war.

    Your timeline seems plausible, and chilling.

  61. 61.

    guachi

    I just realized that if the Democrats have enough votes to make DC a state they can manufacture the votes to add two Justices.

  62. 62.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @guachi:

     Romney is a no? That kind of surprises me. Has he put out a statement to that effect?

    Not me, he hates trump, and somewhere under the demagogue who ran in 2012 is the guy who was governor of MA, and he’s still married to the woman who donated generously to Planned Parenthood. I still can’t believe he scorched the for Tagg with his impeachment vote, but he did

  64. 64.

    Lacuna-Synecdoche

    *Sigh*

    I don’t know whether to mourn Ginsberg’s passing, or to be pissed at her for not leaving when Obama was still president and we still controlled the Senate.

    Both I guess.

    If only she could have held on another 4 months and 3 days.

  67. 67.

    JPL

    @guachi:BREAKING: A high-level Romney insider tells me Mitt Romney has committed to not confirming a Supreme Court nominee until after Inauguration Day 2021.

  68. 68.

    Damien

    It must be fun to be a Republican and know that you can just toss the rules whenever it suits you and know that you don’t have a single opponent to stop you from doing it.  Respecting the Constitution and rule of law really ties your arms behind your back, doesn’t it?  Same thing with the assholes walking around with assault rifles: they can do it because there’s no one on the other side who wants to step into that turf, it’s outside the bounds of discourse.

    What are we gonna do?

  71. 71.

    gene108

    @PsiFighter37:

    if it means that any legislation we care about will be arbitrarily nullified by SCOTUS for a generation

    I have a vile evil thought. One day one of Mitch’s grandkids or great-grandkids will get screwed over in some way and seek take legal action. But the kiddo finds out the courts cannot help, because of decisions handed down by McConnell appointed justices.

    I do not just wish ill on current Republicans, but for all the subsequent generations to come, unless the current Republicans repent.

  73. 73.

    Another Scott

    @Geminid:

    Justice Ginsburg fought tirelessly for gr8er justice, equality &opportunity for all ppl. She was a trailblazer in so many ways &for so many ppl Her sharp legal mind, tenacity &resilience leaves a remarkable imprint on our nation Barbara + I join our nation in mourning her passing

    — ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) September 19, 2020

    That’s all, so far…

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  74. 74.

    lamh36

    @Brachiator: someone made the theory the Chump co new things were badder with RBG, it’s why all of a sudden he started mouthing off about who he would chose next for the court…and those he mentioned were quick to say “bye Roe vs Wade”

  76. 76.

    negative 1

    @guachi: This.  Any R senator in a close race has to confirm, because they need all the votes from their base that they can get.  Don’t worry, Collins will swear that this time she held out for a moderate by furrowing her brow more powerfully than the last time.

  78. 78.

    bmoak

    @JPL:

    The reporting on this is deceptive.  Murkowski made her remarks before RBG passed away, so she was just speaking to a hypothetical.  Lindsey Graham has made similar noises.  Do you think he won’t vote to confirm anyone Trump nominate?

  79. 79.

    guachi

    @JPL: Cool. The only reason I’m surprised is RBG dying isn’t something that has any relation to something Trump did and believing there should be a full Supreme Court to hear cases isn’t a completely ridiculous position.

  82. 82.

    JPL

    @negative 1: Collins mentioned to a reporter last week, that she would not vote for a Supreme Ct. nominee before the election or during the lame duck.   That was last wee, so she might have forgotten.

  83. 83.

    patroclus

    @JPL: That’s 2 Republicans we’ve got in less than 2 hours.  I suspect there will be more.  And remember, it costs these Republicans very little because they aren’t actually voting against Trump’s nominee – it’s just about the timing of a vote.  And most of them are already on record in the Garland situation.  This is doable.

  85. 85.

    MisterForkbeard

    @Elizabelle: I’m not particularly enjoying the doom porn either.

    Trump and McConnell are evil weasels. They have always been evil and will continue to be. Not letting this get me down, and there’s chances to fix this before and after the election.

    Put pressure on vulnerable senators and otherwise continue as normal: Full fucking steam ahead. Except for grieving RGB, of course.

    ETA: Look, we’re already all in to defeat Trump. Now we’re alliest-in? We’re at 100% and we’ve already committed to doing everything we can. So let’s stop getting ourselves down and just get to it.

  86. 86.

    JPL

    If Rubio goes along with this,  forget running for president.   That will leave a mark with college educated women.

  87. 87.

    Adam L Silverman

    @PPCLI: I can tell you the truth or tell you what you want to hear.

    I did add this to the end of that short paragraph:

    I’m not calling for it, but as a nat-sec professional who works on low intensity warfare, this is what I expect.

  89. 89.

    Damien

    @patroclus: I’m sorry, but I would much rather hear the hard truth from someone who has been trained and worked for years to learn the situations that likely precipitate violence than to ignore the very real likelihood of increased stochastic terrorism in order to pretend that we aren’t faced with ascending fascism.

    His words are his judgment, and I think Adam has long, long since earned the right to have his judgments taken seriously.

  90. 90.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @MisterForkbeard:

    Trump and McConnell are evil weasels. They have always been evil and will continue to be. Not getting this get me down, and there’s chances to fix this before and after the election.

    Put pressure on vulnerable senators and otherwise continue as normal: Full fucking steam ahead. Except for grieving RGB, of course.

    This.  All of this.

  91. 91.

    Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

    @gene108:

    And President Biden will not expand the SCOTUS or the lower courts.

    What are you basing this on? McConnell shoving a nominee through changes things

  92. 92.

    negative 1

    @JPL: You sort of wish they’d at least admit that they were lying back when it was only hypothetical.  I mean, McConnell at least has the spine to admit he has no principles.  What’s Collins excuse going to be?  That she was so deeply concerned that it actually caused amnesia?

  94. 94.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @gene108:

    And President Biden will not expand the SCOTUS or the lower courts.

    You think it would be his unilateral decision? He would veto the bill? I don’t think there will be a bill to veto, and I personally find all this castle-in-air building tiresome when there are ditches to be dug, but let’s not turn the court-packing fantasy into a purity test for Biden to fail just yet, eh?

  95. 95.

    Matt McIrvin

    @patroclus: Heard some speculation that this could boost Trump’s chances fair and square by bringing the never-Trumper Republicans home, because they do really care a lot about getting conservative Justices on the Court.

    But I don’t know. Whoever he appoints is likely to be a pure hack. Does a conservative ideologue who hates Trump want someone who is Trump’s personal hack? And a lot of them seem to be slipping ideologically as well, frankly.

  96. 96.

    Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

    @Adam L Silverman:

    It’s not about “what we want to hear”. It’s fine to tell us the issues we face. It’s just you tend to never offer any solutions to fix these problems we face

  99. 99.

    gene108

    @patroclus:

    Not a chance. The Senate does nothing quickly. McConnell is not omnipotent.

    The only things the Senate does quickly these days is confirm justices, and impeachment trials.

    The rest of the stuff does not matter one iota to them.

    McConnell is a shitty legislator, if you want to get actual laws passed. But when it comes to obstruction, and getting the courts stacked with conservative justices he maybe the best Senator in the last 100 years at it.

    I am feeling very, very despondent. Probably not entirely rational.

  101. 101.

    mrmoshpotato

    FUCK YOU, MITCH!  YOU TURTLE-FACED FASCIST MOTHERFUCKER!

    FUCK YOU, MITCH!  YOU TURTLE-FACED FASCIST MOTHERFUCKER!

    FUCK YOU, MITCH!  YOU TURTLE-FACED FASCIST MOTHERFUCKER!

    FUCK YOU, MITCH!  YOU TURTLE-FACED FASCIST MOTHERFUCKER!

    FUCK YOU, MITCH!  YOU TURTLE-FACED FASCIST MOTHERFUCKER!

    Rest in peace, Justice Ginsburg.  Thank you for holding on for us for as long as you could.

  102. 102.

    patroclus

    @Damien: I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with him.  In this country and on this blog, we are allowed to have our own opinions.  Adam can say what he wants and I’ll say what I want.  Is that okay?

  106. 106.

    Steeplejack

    Maddow cut to to the end of Biden’s live statement. He made a great point: It’s 46 days to the election, the quickest Supreme Court judge confirmation was 47 days, and the average is about 70 days.

  108. 108.

    Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

    @Omnes Omnibus: 
    This.
    1. The future is not written in stone; this cuts both ways.
    2. Adam may well be educated and have years of experience, but that does not make his predictions absolutely certain to happen.

  109. 109.

    Bruuuuce

    @guachi: Grassley has also come out with a similar statement to Murkowski. And it wouldn’t surprise me if Romney opposed a nominee before the election.

    Sadly, those three still leave a 50-50 Senate vote, with the tie broken by Pence

  111. 111.

    BethanyAnne

    I guess Trump and McConnell want to make sure that when the Supreme Court decides this presidential election, that they owe their seats to Trump.

  113. 113.

    patroclus

    @gene108: No, the Senate takes a lot of time to confirm even lower court judges.  There is vetting, there are hearings, there are blue slip hold-ups (which Graham does honor), there are unanimous consent request agreements, there are numerous recesses, there are cloture votes, there are long votes which extend over hours.  Anyone who watches C-SPAN2 knows this.  There will be no vote before the Election.  Almost certainly no hearings either.  If anything happens, it’ll be in the lame duck.

    Grassley’s statement makes 3 in less than 3 hours.

  114. 114.

    JPL

    Manu Raju tossed out Lamar Alexander’s name as possibly not wanting to vote on the Supreme Court now on principle.  It didn’t appear that he heard anything, but was speculating.

  115. 115.

    DougJ

    “I’ve seen Senator Murkowski’s statement, and it was nice to read, but the simple reality is that for Senators Collins, McSally, Gardner, Tillis, and Graham it is ride or die”

     

    yup

  116. 116.

    Jinchi

    The Supreme Court gains it’s authority in large part because of it’s legitimacy and it is on the edge of losing that, completely. The entire rationale behind lifetime appointments is that justices were above politics. Everything McConnell has done since his decision to block Garland has put the lie to that argument. This move is transparently political in a way that is undeniable. Democrats have to stop worrying about norms and giving due deference to Trump appointees and start playing hardball themselves.

    Four of the current justices already were put on the court by men who lost the popular vote.  If Trump moves to nominate someone like Tom “No Quarter” Cotton or William “Try Democrats for Sedition” Barr, Democrats need to dedicate themselves to tearing the institution down and rebuilding it in a way that guarantees it’s representative of the people.

  117. 117.

    Mary G

    My prediction is that Moscow Mitch will release Murkowski, Collins, and either Romney or Gardener to vote no and break the tie with Pence. Not going to waste a lot of time on it and work on flipping the Senate, even signed up to virtual phonebank tommrow and I loathe phonebanking.

    I am not qualified to be violent, but I am willing to be cannon fodder. Does anyone know Arizona law about being outside a polling place in a minority district with a GoPro to push back verbally against Arpaio’s thugs if they try to intimidate voters?

  118. 118.

    Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

    @negative 1:

    I’m not just talking about this particular problem. It’s lots of things. His posts for the last several months always give off the impression that we’re fucked no matter we do. And if that’s the case, then why should we even try? It’s the reason why I tend to skip his posts

  119. 119.

    Hildebrand

    @Adam L Silverman: You came pretty damn close to calling for it – language like ‘what are you prepared to do’ with a lead into predictions of violence?  That is sailing into dangerous territory.

    I’m glad you added your caveat – but that revision never should have been necessary.

  120. 120.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @JPL: maybe, but Lamar! also said about impeachment, I know he’g guilty, but judges

    @DougJ: I’d bet that every single one of them is trying to figure out how to thread the needle, and they all live in hope that they can outlast trump. We’ll see

  121. 121.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Hildebrand: I didn’t post “I think there should be violence”. I’m a nat-sec professional who specializes in low intensity warfare. When I’m writing something like that it is because that’s what I assess is likely to happen given the available information. Believe me, if I’m calling for violence, you’ll know.

  122. 122.

    Lapassionara

    @Matt McIrvin: But why? I think this motivates Democrats. I talked to someone tonight who thought Trump would delay putting a name in nomination because the uncertainty would help his election chances. If Trump makes a nomination before the election, he has served his purpose. Just a thought.

  124. 124.

    trnc

    @Geminid: I want to see what Grassley says.

    I wouldn’t put a lot of faith in Chuck to do the right thing, considering he was drawling “Biden rule” as if it actually existed every chance he got.

  127. 127.

    Damien

    @patroclus: I’d like to know your basis for disagreement.  Everyone can and does have opinions, but the opinions of someone convinced that vaccines are poison don’t carry the same weight as a vaccinologist, and rightly so.

    Adam has predicted increased stochastic right-wing violence, and his opinions have been borne out, so I feel that him laying down the idea that violence will increase, especially toward the most visible obstructors (god willing) of Trump’s agenda, doesn’t exactly come out of left field.

    So, in my opinion, calling it “absurd” is pretty far over the line.  If he came out and said that he expected McConnell to suddenly gain a renewed appreciation for parliamentary procedure and to host the first bipartisan Supreme (Court) Pizza Party, that would be pretty absurd.  In this case, it seems like a pretty rational extension of the growing violence we’re seeing already.

    But hey, I’m just a guy with no criminological or military experience.

    So on what basis are you calling Adam’s statement beyond the pale?

  128. 128.

    Adam L Silverman

    @scottinnj: He won’t lose the Senate for that many years. This is the last favorable Senate cycle for Democrats based on the composition of which third of senators is up for election every two years. After this year, every successive Senate election favors the Republicans because of the nature of demographic change in the US combined with the counter-majoritarian nature of how we elect senators.

  129. 129.

    Chris Johnson

    @Martin:

    But Trump has already publicly announced that he’s going to litigate this election and choosing one of the people that will make that ruling just days before the election comes very close to my concept of a coup.

    I don’t think it’ll work, but Trump can’t recognize when he’s putting a match to gasoline.

    Exactly. Just because they are going to try doing this in its most extreme way, Trump and Moscow Mitch, doesn’t mean they will get what they want. They are betraying the actual Republicans in doing it, and putting them in danger. Adam Silverman is absolutely right: this is an escalation that will not make Republicans safer or more secure.

    Nor should they be.

    And that is why it’s not a foregone conclusion. I think people are assuming (or putting forth the narrative) that McConnell and Trump and Barr and fucking Jared Kushner are uber-powerful and can do anything they want.

    Instead, we get plague and tyranny and hit squads with unmarked vans on our home soil and that’s supposed to be a sign of strength.

    It ain’t. People rebel. We’ve been watching the Lincoln Project fighting the Trumpers for months now, and still I see people going ‘oh they’ll return home as soon as they whiff a SC seat in play’.

    I don’t think people properly understand how completely vile the Trump thing smells to real conservatives. In many ways it’s the opposite of what they care about, it’s like their fantasies of Hillary Clinton except that it’s supposedly on their side. And there keep being these little hints that he’s not really on their side, that he’s only in it for himself, that he is the end of the line and is betraying all they believe in.

    And he is.

  130. 130.

    Jinchi

    @Mary G: My prediction is that Moscow Mitch will release Murkowski, Collins, and either Romney or Gardener to vote no and break the tie with Pence.

    Romney can do what he wants, he’s already a pariah in the party. But he’ll vote for virtually any nominee certified by the Heritage Foundation. Murkowski isn’t up for re-election, so she’s fine as well.

    Collins and Gardener can’t break. Their only hope is that Republicans turn out to vote for them and they will be abandoned in an instant if they pass up a vote to solidify the conservatives on the court.

  133. 133.

    gene108

    @Goku (aka Amerikan Baka):

    What are you basing this on? McConnell shoving a nominee through changes things

    Because no Democrat has the ability to figure out how to make the system work better for them. That’s all Republicans have been doing for the past 20 years.

    I cannot picture Biden, Schumer, or Pelosi demanding something as radical as expanding the SCOTUS or increasing the size of the lower courts or increasing the size of the House, after the 2020 census, which would tilt the playing field to the Democrats.

    They want the current playing field to be fairer. They do not want to change field entirely, even if it is to their advantage.

    Show me one instance, where any prominent Democrat even hints at figuring out a way to legitimately make the system work better for Democrats?

    The best Democrats can think of is a new voting rights act or a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision. Basically, Democrats are reacting to Republican malfeasance and trying to restore the earlier balance.

    None of them are thinking how to make a system work better for their interests.

    I cannot picture this changing after this election. Maybe, if we Democratic voters start pushing them this year, they may do something towards the end of the decade, if they are still in power.

  137. 137.

    Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

    @gene108:

    Show me one instance, where any prominent Democrat even hints at figuring out a way to legitimately make the system work better for Democrats?

    Harris has said she is in favor expanding the SCOTUS.

  138. 138.

    Martin

    @Matt McIrvin: No. I’d argue the opposite. Never Trumpers aren’t so much about opposing Trump personally any more, as they are about making sure there’s some kind of democratic system in existence they can operate in.

    The risk of Trump right now is that he’s just a patronage machine for the GOP.  But that only holds as long as he needs their votes. The moment that ends, they get thrown to the curb. Trump only cares about Trump, not their causes or issues.

    Sure, it might be a short term win, but a huge long term loss.

  140. 140.

    Fair Economist

    @guachi:

    Romney is a no? That kind of surprises me

    Me, not so much. Romney seems to understand Trump wants a fascist takeover and I think he knows enough to know everybody loses if that happens. He doesn’t like Putin, and doesn’t want Putin running the US.

  142. 142.

    PsiFighter37

    @Adam L Silverman:  I disagree – if anything, we will have a lot of opportunities in 2022 – there is no reason why toadies like Toomey, Johnson, and Rubio will hold on again. 2024 will be a rehash of this past year, which means we should have a shot at Rick Scott, but agreed that year will be harder.

    Give DC and PR statehood, and the discussion becomes completely different.

  143. 143.

    Hildebrand

    @Adam L Silverman: In the moments of greatest tension the greatest care must be used in how we say what we say.  I said you were perilously close because of the way you were connecting questioning what we were prepared ‘to do’ to an immediate prediction of violence.

    Now, you did revise your statement, and I commend you for that – but the first version was skating close to the edge.  You know darn well that wondering what people are ‘prepared to do’ in the context of talking about violence is not an innocent turn of a phrase.

  146. 146.

    PsiFighter37

    @Arclite: Her conscience is to be an asshole…so that won’t yield us any better of a result.

    Anyone thinking that GOP senators in a tough race will break with Trump is fooling themselves. They will get no points from people who are not voting for them now for not licking Dear Leader’s boots this time around, but they will royally piss off their base. I would argue that any GOP senator up for reelection THIS YEAR is absolutely, 100% going to vote for whatever shitspittle is nominated.

  148. 148.

    gene108

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    I don’t think there will be a bill to veto, and I personally find all this castle-in-air building tiresome when there are ditches to be dug, but let’s not turn the court-packing fantasy into a purity test for Biden to fail just yet, eh?

    I am not making it a purity test. It’s a pipe dream Congressional Democrats would do something so radical as to expand the SCOTUS.

    The only hope is 4 Republican Senators make it clear to McConnell they will not vote for a new SCOTUS nominee until after the new Senate is sworn in on January 3, 2021, and we have to hope that Democrats take control of the Senate by then.

    I am not liking our chances.

    Republicans have no principles any more. I do not see them giving up their chance to have a strangle hold on the SCOTUS for another 15-20 years, when it is so close, just out of principle.

    We’re screwed regarding the SCOTUS for the time being.

    Anything else is wishful thinking.

  150. 150.

    VeniceRiley

    Never been happier to have an escape from Gilead already in the works! Honestly, I can’t wait to get out of here.
    Mitch didn’t even wait for her body to get cold. The entire right will be re-energised by this.
    On the upside- massive money is pouring into Act Blue senate races.

  151. 151.

    JaySinWA

    You all need to work on a way to extract a price for any nominee getting a vote for approval, we may not win the war on this one, but this should be a costly battle. If you just roll over and say there is nothing we can do, you have lost. Hell we might even win one.

  152. 152.

    Jinchi

    @Lacuna-Synecdoche: I don’t know whether to mourn Ginsberg’s passing, or to be pissed at her for not leaving when Obama was still president

    The current lifetime tenure system creates unfortunate choices in the game theory of a court justice. Many would reasonably retire earlier if they didn’t have to think through the politics of their succession. Democrats lost the Senate majority 6 years ago and she clearly thought she had more to offer at the time. She probably thought, like most of us, that she would get to hand off the nomination to Hillary Clinton.

    I’m not saying I completely agree with her decision to stay, but really it shouldn’t have been put on her to make it.

  154. 154.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Adam L Silverman: I can tell you the truth or tell you what you want to hear.

    Your words. I don’t want to get in a semantic fight, but what you offered was your honest opinion not the truth.

  155. 155.

    Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

    @gene108:

    Anything else is wishful thinking.

    It won’t be if we take the Senate and pressure our Senators to pack the Supreme Court

  156. 156.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @gene108:

    I am not making it a purity test.

    that’s how you made it sound. Maybe you need to take a walk, or go watch or read or eat something comforting.

    This means there’s more work to do now than there was this morning, which was a lot.

  157. 157.

    Jinchi

    @JaySinWA: If Republicans overplay their hand, they will have given Democrats a pretty good case for packing the court. There is nothing that says there should only be 9 members. It’s just the sense of fair play that’s kept it that way. Once it becomes a political football, that game should be over.

  159. 159.

    Edmund Dantes

    What if a 6-3 court rules court packing or judicial reform unconstitutional? 6-3 where Roberts vote doesn’t matter is a huge get.

  160. 160.

    MazeDancer

    @Bruuuuce:

    Sadly, those three still leave a 50-50 Senate vote, with the tie broken by Pence

    But if Mark Kelly wins he can be sworn in late November.

    With just Murkowski, Romney, and Collins bowing out, that means Mitch doesn’t have the votes,

  161. 161.

    Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

    @Edmund Dantes:

    What if a 6-3 court rules court packing or judicial reform unconstitutional? 6-3 where Roberts vote doesn’t matter is a huge get.

    The key is to pack the Court before that happens. When the new justices are seated, it won’t matter at that point

  162. 162.

    jonas

    Well, if there’s one silver lining here, it’s that the end of Roe v. Wade just got fucking REAL for millions of women and that is going to prove to be one hell of a voter turnout motivator to flip the Senate in November. If SCOTUS overturns R. v. W. — which is a virtual certainty now with whatever misogynistic nutjob Trump and McConnell ram through — reproductive rights supposedly get kicked back to the states. But if there’s ever a House-Senate-Presidency GOP trifecta in power again, their first order of business will be a federal abortion ban, tying all sorts of federal aid and funds to banning abortion, and probably many forms of birth control as well. That is absolutely the plan and that’s what people need to understand. No thinking “oh, well, I live in Massachusetts or California, so wev.” They will come for you, too. Count on it.

  163. 163.

    Chris Johnson

    @Damien:

    I’m sorry, but I would much rather hear the hard truth from someone who has been trained and worked for years to learn the situations that likely precipitate violence than to ignore the very real likelihood of increased stochastic terrorism in order to pretend that we aren’t faced with ascending fascism.

    Absolutely. And the thing is, we already HAVE right wing stochastic terrorism, from the smaller group that is QAnon followers and Trump cultists. They are already being pushed as hard as they possibly can, under burning skies, while believing that cities are being overrun with wall-to-wall monsters like some horror movie. That is HAPPENING and has some effectiveness.

    Adam refers to the risk of left wing stochastic terrorism. I am not signing up for that. I don’t have to. There are a lot more of us than there are of them and we’re better organized and have a lot more money and resources and statistically, doing a lastminute frantic scuttling of even the appearance of rule of law, even if to US it looks like ‘Trumpsters acting exactly as we expect’, there are a lot of people out there who didn’t want to believe this would come to pass.

    And the same mass media that drives the QAnons into a frenzy will not be able to resist speculating endlessly on the heinous end results of what ‘politics’ has brought us.

    And a lot of people will be radicalized… and again, we outnumber them substantially, and our struggle is usually with complacency.

    It’s not a foregone conclusion that the Senators will play along with what Trump wants, here, even when McConnell is all in on the plan.

    They are endangered by McConnell’s, and Trump’s, recklessness. It is NOT SAFE for them to dispense with the pretense of having a democracy. Their actions have obvious consequences and we don’t know exactly what, or who, or where, but they don’t have to do this. They can stall, they can make ‘principled stands’ in hopes of currying favor with a Biden administration, they can do any number of things. They aren’t McConnell’s puppets.

  164. 164.

    patroclus

    @PsiFighter37: And I would argue that giving up on convincing Republican Senators to actually take one position at variance from Trump is counter-productive.  Especially one about timing and not a nomination itself.  The effort should be made; no matter how forlorn the chances.  We should stop playing prediction-making pundits and start engaging in advocacy.. History is replete with examples of Senate candidates changing their positions on one issue during a campaign in order to arguably increase their chance of getting more votes.  Especially if they are merely one of many, that is, we should be shooting for many more than just 4.

  165. 165.

    Eolirin

    @Goku (aka Amerikan Baka): Adam isn’t wrong in the longer term, though. Without a blow out this year and without DC and possibly PR, we really can’t hold the senate for all that long. Demographics really are going to be a huge problem.

    Just, it’s not so bad in 2022. It’ll all depend on how big the margin is this year. If we only get 50, 51 seats, and we don’t get DC, we are probably even odds to lose it at the midterms. We could get 53-54 seats though. If that happens we hold until at least 2024, possibly longer. 

    And McConnell is old. He could die before he gets power back if we do really well this year.

  166. 166.

    Geminid

    McConnell may have made this quick announcement because he knows he has enough republican Senate votes and is just eager to get the show on the road. Or he may have made this quick announcement because he’s not sure he has the votes and figures he can bumrush the waverers. I’m sure trump wants to push a nominee through, because he’s drowning and this looks like a life preserver. But for some republican senators this is an anchor even if they’re one of the 22 republicans not up for reelection until 2022. They don’t owe trump, and I doubt if they respect trump (well, maybe Blackburn does). So, like I said, I want to hear what Grassley says. And see what he does.

  167. 167.

    jonas

    @Jinchi: That’s about the only gambit Dems have at this point: they should make it clear that if McConnell and Trump do this, and Biden wins and Dems flip the Senate, court packing is on and fuck all y’all.

  169. 169.

    JaySinWA

    @Jinchi: Stacking the court is a long game solution. I am looking at a more immediate pain solution that avoids that in the short term. long term I am fine with a larger SC, but I would rather it be more a pragmatic move than a political one.

  171. 171.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Chris Johnson: Actually, I’m not referring to left wing stochastic terrorism here. I expect that the threats and violence directed at Senators will come from the extreme right, not the extreme left.

  172. 172.

    PPCLI

    @Adam L Silverman: I’m glad for the added words, they do soften the edge.

    It’s not a matter of what I do or don’t want to hear. My expectations for what will in fact happen in the next six months are not far from yours, though I pray I’m wrong. But in their original, raw form, the unqualified words were to my eye too easily interpreted as incitement.

  174. 174.

    Jinchi

    @jonas: Well, if there’s one silver lining here, it’s that the end of Roe v. Wade just got fucking REAL for millions of women

    This is not a silver lining. Repeal of Roe has been a serious worry for months now, which is why everyone was on edge about RBG even before today’s unhappy news.

    We all knew that she would be leaving the court in the next year. The next president would replace her. If she gets replaced before November it would ironically become less of a motivating factor. Republicans might want to delay the vote past the election for that reason alone.

  176. 176.

    Jinchi

    @JaySinWA: Stacking the court is a long game solution.

    But threatening to stack the court is a short term solution. Republicans play these games because they assume Democrats won’t respond in kind. Publicly making the argument that fast tracking a nominee right before a pivotal election will cause a backlash could be enough to give Republicans pause. And it could give Collins, Romney, Murkowski, McSally and the rest an excuse to drag their feet. They could even be self-righteous about it.

    That’s a better short term option than hoping 4 Republican Senators will suddenly gain a conscience, and it sets the stage for the future.

  177. 177.

    patroclus

    @PPCLI:Indeed, the wording changes make the post far less absurd.  Not that he ever was out because I was merely disagreeing, but Adam is back in my good graces.  FWIW.  Like anyone really cares what I think…  Maybe he’s right.

    Whatever.  I think the effort to stop Trump from naming Ginsburg’s replacement is far more interesting to talk about.  Which Republicans can we convince to agree?  How can we do it?

  178. 178.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Chris Johnson: I have just added this as an update to the original post:

    I just want to elaborate a bit on what I think is likely to happen. I expect that the violence directed at senators will come from the hard core and extreme right. It will be threatening emails, voicemails, and direct messages. And it will be actual attempts at physical intimidation to send a message: get or stay in line or else… Similarly, I expect that violence between Americans will originate from the same direction. Some MAGA asshole will decide to gun his car through a vigil being held in memory of RGB or a demonstration and rally to demonstrate to Senator McConnell and his GOP majority that they have to abide by the rules McConnell established in 2016. Or that, as we’ve seen with the MAGA truck/vehicle rallies in Portland, that those supporting the President will show up and pepper spray and paintball those standing vigil for RGB or rallying to pressure McConnell and his GOP majority to not be hypocrites. This violence will be stochastic terrorism, but if it happens, I expect it will originate on the hard core and extreme right.

  179. 179.

    Chris Johnson

    @Adam L Silverman: They’re already getting threats and violence. What Trump and McConnell want here doesn’t significantly increase the danger to Dem congresscritters: if anything it lessens it, as some of the chuds will think their heroes are delivering a great victory.

    If the Trump administration badly wants to seize the Supreme Court, it won’t be for the traditional Roe v Wade reasons. It’ll be because Trump wants to declare himself King for life (however long THAT is) and McConnell, Barr etc. are backing his play because they’re run by Putin in the way that Trump can’t be.

    And the danger there is that what Putin does to seed stochastic terrorism is NOT CONTROLLED. It is just as capable of throwing up a hysterical person who flips sides or decides that Jared Kushner is the Antichrist or something. Everything we are seeing trends towards more violence and terrorism, by design, but it is simply not possible to ONLY make exactly the maga chuds hysterical and have the liberals and lefties all peaceably accept fascism. I mean, even if they did there’s still the Lincoln Project folks, and from what I’ve seen of them they are representative of actual Republicans, and they seem to have a very good understanding of what they’re up against.

  180. 180.

    Adam L Silverman

    @PPCLI: To further clarify, I have added this as an update to the original post:

    I just want to elaborate a bit on what I think is likely to happen. I expect that the violence directed at senators will come from the hard core and extreme right. It will be threatening emails, voicemails, and direct messages. And it will be actual attempts at physical intimidation to send a message: get or stay in line or else… Similarly, I expect that violence between Americans will originate from the same direction. Some MAGA asshole will decide to gun his car through a vigil being held in memory of RGB or a demonstration and rally to demonstrate to Senator McConnell and his GOP majority that they have to abide by the rules McConnell established in 2016. Or that, as we’ve seen with the MAGA truck/vehicle rallies in Portland, that those supporting the President will show up and pepper spray and paintball those standing vigil for RGB or rallying to pressure McConnell and his GOP majority to not be hypocrites. This violence will be stochastic terrorism, but if it happens, I expect it will originate on the hard core and extreme right.

  181. 181.

    Damien

    @Adam L Silverman: I’d really like to hear your opinion on two things, though it may upset some of the commenters.

    1) This one I leave out after thinking it over

    2) What books or papers would you recommend to someone trying to get a grounding of knowledge in the kind of low-level warfare you’re describing?

    Your posts always make me want to learn more, but I’m afraid of sliding down a rabbit hole.

  182. 182.

    Adam L Silverman

    @patroclus: Actually I care what most of you think. You all have no idea how many professional papers I’ve written in the past five years that started out as posts here and my final product, for whomever I was doing it for, was improved by the commenters’ responses to the post.

  184. 184.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Chris Johnson: I’m not talking about the Democratic senators. I’m talking about hard core supporters of the President, as well as the extreme right, targeting one or more of the Republican senators that everyone is speculating will not go along with McConnell to try to scare them into line.

  187. 187.

    Chris Johnson

    @Adam L Silverman: There’s a guy, Beau of the Fifth Column.

    He’s done some videos on how Trump’s behavior in Portland is insane and literally the opposite of what our military is trained to do, and this is pertinent because his take is that Trump’s goon squad were behaving like they were trying to elicit mass violence, even though doing this also poisons the ground against the occupying force.

    i.e. if you’re protesting, you’re mad. But if you’re protesting and right wing goon squads run you over and kill your friends, you rage and the next day there’s ten times more protesters and the word gets around, and you’re all twice as enraged and you’ll never forget what they did to you.

    I am suggesting that Trump is actively trying to elicit this right-wing violence just as you suggest, except they are visiting it upon the body politic and that this is a very big mistake with serious consequences. You cannot have a revolution out of just poor and marginalized people. But what Trump is doing, is dragging a much wider demographic into direct action. You’re not seeing the consequences of first throwing away rule of law, and then visiting right-wing violence upon what are still Americans.

  189. 189.

    Morzer

    @Damien: I think that those accusing Adam of calling for violence do not understand the difference between saying “It will rain tomorrow” and “I want it to rain tomorrow”.

  192. 192.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Damien: I recommend Bernard Fall. Start with this article:

    https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol18/iss3/4/

    And then move on to Hell in a Very Small Place and Street Without Joy.

    https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Very-Small-Place-Siege/dp/030681157X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=bernard+fall&qid=1600483589&sr=8-1

    https://www.amazon.com/Street-Without-Joy-Indochina-Stackpole/dp/0811736547/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=bernard+fall&qid=1600483589&sr=8-2

    From there, I’d read People’s War, People’s Army:

    https://www.amazon.com/Peoples-Insurrection-Manual-Underdeveloped-Countries-ebook/dp/B06XGLFS3R/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=giap&qid=1600483679&sr=8-4

    https://www.amazon.com/Military-Art-Peoples-Nguyen-Giap-ebook/dp/B07QPW4KVW/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1600483679&sr=8-2

    Galula is interesting if you want to see what was actually done in Algeria:

    https://www.amazon.com/Counterinsurgency-Warfare-Theory-Practice-Classics-ebook-dp-B001WAK6PQ/dp/B001WAK6PQ/ref=mt_other?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1600483742

    I’d go with those to start.

  193. 193.

    Chris Johnson

    @Adam L Silverman: Ah! Okay, that’s a lot clearer. I completely get what you’re saying here. Hard right terrorists bullying THEIR OWN people into the coup.

    I’m not convinced that isn’t already happening.

    More relevantly: what they want is in fact a coup and the canceling of the election, and this is dangerous. In being unwilling to go along with a (frankly far from radical left) Democrat in what’s shaping up to be a wave election, they risk plunging the country into warfare that they will not win. They don’t have a majority. They don’t seem to control the FBI. They don’t control the military.

    What we’re looking at, I entirely agree with how you’ve outlined it, but they have not thought it through. This is a hell of a big country to try to hold against its will. And I feel more of this is underway than you’re acknowledging: I’m not convinced these Senators are NOT getting constant death threats already. I think they’re already terrorized, and of course those who are actively working with Putin (moderately speculative on my part there?) are terrorized that they will simply be murdered BY Putin, in their own beds or offices, the minute they outlive their usefulness. I understand the poisoned guy who was a recent political opponent did get out of his country and survive? This is hardly hypothetical.

  197. 197.

    Chris Johnson

    @Adam L Silverman: Beau of the Fifth Column cited an actual publically available manual on taking over small countries and such things. I’ve looked it up in my history:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTNqT6LcW1o

    This links to a RAND manual that apparently is what he’s talking about. I thought it was a military manual? It’s National Defense Research Institute. “Paths To Victory – Lessons From Modern Insurgencies”

  198. 198.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Chris Johnson: I’ve got both that and the earlier Rand publication on the topic. The simple reality is that there has only been one fully successful 3rd party counterinsurgency, which was the British in the “Chinese” Emergency in Malaya. What the British had to do to win that low intensity war would be considered war crimes and crimes against humanity today. You might be able to consider the British the winners in the Aden counterinsurgency, but that was only because they redefined their strategic objectives, declared victory, and went home. That’s it. You can’t win a counterinsurgency as a 3rd party unless you’re willing to be exceedingly brutal, commit overwhelming force on the ground, and you’re planning on staying as long as it takes. None of these things are really options in the modern world, let alone for the US.

  199. 199.

    Chris Johnson

    Is this talking your language, Adam? This is Beau’s link.

    https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR291z1/RAND_RR291z1.pdf

    The impression I get is that regarding COIN force (counterinsurgency, putting down a rebellion such as more than half the country would absolutely be), there are specific approaches leading to successfully putting down the insurgency. And a Biden administration would be taking the successful approaches towards putting down the MAGA insurgency already established… but what we’re looking at and what you describe in the right-wing terrorism scenario, is the UNsuccessful approach, what is less likely to work even when the COIN force outnumbers the insurgency.

    Which they absolutely don’t: otherwise, why set up a coup if you were going to win electorally?

  200. 200.

    Hildebrand

    @Morzer: I cannot speak for anyone else, but my original issue was that the last paragraph didn’t exist in a vacuum – those words came on the heels of a needlessly provocative question about what we are ‘prepared to do’.

    I appreciate that Adam clarified his statement, because that first version was not as clear as the revision.

  201. 201.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Chris Johnson: Insurgency and counterinsurgency are one type of low intensity violence. It ranges from revolution, rebellion, civil war (actual ones, not what ours was, which was a rebellion), insurgency, and terrorism for levels of war, as well as irregular, asymmetric, and unconventional warfare, guerrilla warfare, and terrorism as types of war/way to conduct war.

  203. 203.

    Chris Johnson

    @Adam L Silverman: Does it make sense to you that, to the Trump/Putin people, they frame it as THEY are the counterinsurgency, and we (beginning with BLM) are the insurgency?

    To me it seems very clear. We have an insurgency, occupying blocks here and there, torching police stations in extreme cases, largely not doing any such thing. And the insurgency (which happens also to be against the administration of the country) is growing whenever it’s attacked, much like the RAND paper suggests.

    It seems to me like, if the Trump people jam through a MAGA Supreme Court justice, the insurgency will grow. And it’s very likely that if they do this and then call off the election rather than risk a humiliating defeat, the insurgency will blow up hugely… and if MAGA terrorists attack it, it will only get larger.

    Bad scenario, but it strikes me as very bad for the MAGAs and the Republicans who set the machine in motion. And this is why I am not certain Trump will get his SC justice. You outline a pressure that would lead to Senators caving and allowing him to get this SC justice, very likely to be immediately used to his benefit.

    I think Senators are able to game this out too, and I’m not convinced. I think this could be a breaking point, one way or another. We may get our general election yet :)

  205. 205.

    InternetDragons

    As someone who searches out Adam’s posts for their clarity and thoughtfulness, I have zero problems with his observations and assessment of our current reality. It’s harsh, but being harsh isn’t remotely the same thing as inciting. I swear, if this blog only supported front-pagers who cheerfully provided lists of vague ‘action steps and solutions’ or focused only on reminding us to vote, I would really lose hope. Like some of us here, I’ve experienced the horror of stochastic violence and I think it’s important to recognize the circumstances where we’re most vulnerable. So thank you, Adam. This mostly-lurker is always glad to see your name pop up on the front page, and especially tonight. Living through some of the big moments in history ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.

    Anyway, I saw an interesting perspective on the fallout from McConnell’s announcement tonight of his intention to move forward with a floor vote. Dana Houle writes, “McConnell just screwed Graham. McConnell didn’t say he’d confirm a Justice. He said there would be a floor vote. That only happens if Graham sends a nominee. It also gives Kamala Harris a HUGE platform, in a format in which she’s extraordinarily good.”

    I hadn’t considered it from that angle, but it left me feeling that the outcome may not be as black-and-white as I feared when I first saw McConnell’s statement.

  206. 206.

    Damien

    @Adam L Silverman: I read the paper and have ordered the books.  I really appreciate your taking the time to make the suggestions.

    The paper is absolutely fascinating, and I honestly cannot believe how applicable it still is; I also can’t believe how applicable it feels to our current situation.

    Great read, thank you!

  207. 207.

    Dan B

    @Adam L Silverman: I don’t feel like you overstepped.  It seemed clear that you were talking about an increase in the right wing violence we’re experiencing in Portland and Seattle, although Seattle seems to be right wing police violence with just some infiltrators.

    I lived in Jim Crow south.  Many of my classmates were at Kent State.  I was in Chicago during the Chicago Seven trial.  That was state sanctioned violence.  It was perilous times.  I believe most minorities believe there is continuing violence and more is on the way.  I prefer to be aware of how much peril we face so it’s less of a shock when it happens or a relief that it wasn’t as bad.

    The discussion should be about whether it will be state sanctioned violence – an FBI with Border Patrol series of attacks – or just Qanon Proud Boys encouraged.  It seems like Democratic governors have lityle power to stop the violence.  Do we need a citizen run resistance and how would it operate?  Do we need a non-violent strategy?

    Thanks for your knowledge!

  209. 209.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Damien: My work is heavily influenced by Fall’s work,

    And you are quite welcome. Another thing you can watch and then decide if you want to read the book, which is the PBS documentary The Airmen and the Headhunters, which is about Special Group Z and its operations on Borneo during WW II.

    Here’s the link to the documentary:

    https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/the-airmen-and-the-headhunters-watch-the-full-episode/499/

    And here’s the link to the book:

    https://www.amazon.com/Airmen-Headhunters-Soldiers-Tribesmen-Unlikeliest-ebook-dp-B003K15IH6/dp/B003K15IH6/ref=mt_other?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=

  210. 210.

    Matt McIrvin

    @Chris Johnson:

    they risk plunging the country into warfare that they will not win. They don’t have a majority. They don’t seem to control the FBI. They don’t control the military.

    See, I would agree with you, except that the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg upends all of this and creates the possibility that they WOULD have the military.

    Why? The military is legalistic: they accept the Constitutional chain of command.

    What does the Constitution say? Whatever the Supreme Court says it says.

    A sufficiently captured Supreme Court could literally make the Constitution say whatever Trump wants it to, and then the military would follow. Trump could tell them to annihilate protesters and obey him as dictator, and their orders would be legal and coming from a constitutionally legitimate authority, by definition, because if anyone objected a Supreme Court majority would be saying so.

  211. 211.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Dan B: You’re welcome. But it’s just about midnight and you’ve asked me for a completely new post. Remind me in a couple of days and I’ll see what I can put together.

  213. 213.

    Raven Onthill

    Does anyone think, or perhaps even know, if this will increase the turnout of women in November? I’ve been expecting women to rise up since 2008 and, so far sisterhood has not been powerful enough. I wonder if this death will change that.

    Has anyone looked at Amy Coney Barrett’s character and have any sense of it? I have formed a few opinions, but I am not at all sure of them. Barrett seems generally similar to Scalia in her notable cases, even, in one case siding with an apparent rapist against Purdue University. She is also a conservative Catholic and member of an ecumenical Christian group, People of Praise, which I am unable to find much about. Perhaps in her we see a zealous believer. If so, there is much to fear. Such people ought not be on our highest Court; I do not see how she can possibly leave her religious convictions out of her decisions.

  214. 214.

    Chris Johnson

    @Matt McIrvin: Nope. They aren’t robots. They are also not interested in brainlessly executing the orders of Russian assets.

    If Trump manages to both jam a SC Justice in, and get the shorted-out Supreme Court to annihilate protesters and use the military to attack civilians, first that’s a long chain of ugly (you don’t simply initiate law in the Supreme Court!) and secondly that’s so goddamn sketchy there’s no way it would work.

    They’re not robots, or golems. Trump has total contempt for their values.  Seems so do you? No. Just no. That’s not how any of this works.

  217. 217.

    Tehanu

    I can actually feel my blood pressure going up so I can’t read the whole thing. God damn that lying sack of turtle shit.

Comments are closed.