I really hope Chuck is serious that *everything* is on the table if Mitch tries to ram Amy Cony Barrett (or whatever wack job they dig up) through. I’m skeptical though. This nails it. The way you get the bully to stop is by hitting him harder than he’s ever hit you.
they should be *more* vicious. https://t.co/6VijZ7Mql1
— Oliver Willis (@owillis) September 19, 2020
Got to raise some more money to help make that happen. Let’s hit some that have had some surprisingly good polling numbers recently. You can see everyone we are raising money for here.
Barbara Bollier, Kansas Senate
Steve Bullock, Montana Senate
Theresa Greenfield, Iowa Senate
Jaime Harrison, South Carolina Senate
My 2 cents. If you want Dems to be tougher, stop wringing you’re hands in skepticism when they talk tough. It undercuts the message.
You’re = your
ETA:. And that’s a generic “your.” It’s a cultural problem, not an OP problem.
I thought I saw pundits saying “The average voter doesn’t care about supreme court appointments.”
I mean, they’re yelling “Fill that seat!” at his fucking rallies! Where do pundits get their ideas?
The people at his rallies aren’t average voters.
The Dark Avenger
What’s wrong about being ruthless?
This is a fight for democracy, not a tiddlywinks game.
Dorothy A. Winsor
@germy: The choice of a woman SC nominee is like the choice of Sarah Palin. They’re so into identity politics that they figure any woman would be equally supported by the Ds. They’re all alike, amirite?
@Dorothy A. Winsor:
Or Clarence Thomas replacing Thurgood Marshall.
I spent about an hr yesterday reading up on this People of Praise that Amy Coney Barrett is involved in. Seems very cultish to me. Would love to see a post on it. I must have been traveling/something… Remember when she was nominated to the 7th Circuit by Trump. Don’t remember too much mention of this fringy sounding Catholic group. Anybody know anything personally about it? Read the Wiki page, couple of articles from 2017.
What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us
Yup. A bunch of us have been saying for years that the only way the GOP will ever learn is by being severely punished, and that means using every tactic we can think of to win every rhetorical argument, win every political fight, and do everything we can to drive them into the political wilderness.
Honestly I thought it should have started with the Merrick Garland nomination. Josh Marshall at TPM wrote several articles about a legal argument that if the Senate fails to hold hearings on a nominee, that constitutes tacit approval and the nominee should be able to assume whatever position they were nominated for. He started writing them about other nominees that Mitch put on indefinite hold but also about Garland.
Obama should have put Garland on the SCOTUS 6 months after his nomination and tested that theory. At least it would have force the Senate to hold a hearing and vote. Maybe we’d have won that vote, maybe lost it. Maybe they would have tried to yank Garland from the court but at least we would have pulled out every stop. Frankly I though Obama should have tried it with other nominees that Mitch put on indefinite hold earlier in his presidency…Mitch decided to break Senate norms and gum up the works to an unprecedented degree by absolutely refusing to consider dozens of nominees. Obama could have put a stop to it by just letting his unvoted on nominees take their positions, basically saying if the Senate doesn’t care enough to hold hearings and vote, well, they must not have a problem with my nominee. And dared Mitch to do something about it. When it happened once, Mitch might have caved and started holding hearings and votes on all of the remaining nominees.
Also, read on Twitter that a Romney insider is saying he will not vote for a nominee. Anybody else seeing something more than idle Twitter chit-chat?
I remember when Schumer beat D’Amato, and the general feeling was that it was because Schumer was the first opponent willing to get down in the gutter with D’Amato. So that Schumer does exist, though it’s been awhile since we’ve seen him.
@What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us: I tend to agree. But my hindsight is always 20/20. Funny how that is.
Dorothy A. Winsor
@germy: Exactly. What a travesty.
Somehow our pundits always seem to end up as apologists for the other side. Now I’m seeing past statements by Biden and raw political power as legitimate reasons for Republicans fast tracking a Supreme Court seat, not just before an election but actually during one.
If that’s all fine and dandy, then there’s no problem with Democrats adding to the court or using some procedure to delay the installation of a new member.
@Baud: Our Progressive betters have one message no matter what the situation, that the Ds are doing it wrong.
I haven’t seen that but I swear i had seen a quote of a statement by McConnell (from a reporter i don’t follow) that seemed to indicate waiting a little bit. That person speculated that maybe McConnell isn’t sure he has the votes. (just tried to find it again without success ?)
Frankly, it would probably be easier for endangered GOP Senators up for reelection to talk about respecting the vote of the public in November. If Ernst (for example) has to vote on a nominee, she’ll either lose the base or independents. Doesn’t seem like a recipe for helping the GOP retain power in the Senate – and we know Mitch is all about power for him and his.
@Quinerly: I know they swore a lifetime loyalty oath to each other.
I would hope it would come up during any future hearings, right?
The only functional reason to ram through a SC justice before the election is to not have the election.
Doing that would be neutering the Senate and going full banana republic, which Trump is cheerfully doing already. POLITICALLY, the Republicans are only helped by a seat being in play during the election because it would motivate people to take sides and turn out their base like nothing else could.
It’s not a given that this would be ENOUGH, and I think this is why Trump and McConnell are scrambling to seize the Court and, presumably, call off the election.
And, again, if they do that they’re seizing the country entirely and replacing the whole system with autocracy. Rendering the Senators, Democrat and Republican alike, nothing more than courtiers with no real power.
So basically this is the last chance of the Senate to protect their phony-baloney jobs? Trump doesn’t need them anymore once they do this last thing.
Also, Biden can plausibly promise NOT to pack the court if they keep the seat open and hold the election… because everyone expects that he won’t want to do such a thing, and yet it’s increasingly mainstreamed and expected as a response. I think if Biden makes that bargain, he’d keep it. I’m not sure he’s going full ‘pack the court’ unless McConnell actually follows through… and McConnell has to have control of his Senators, control enough to charge them over the cliff and into impotence, useless, and the perpetual shame of history. What McConnell wants HURTS them.
@germy: that’s one of the pieces I read. PoP website was interesting. Wiki gave a good background too. Seems you don’t have to be Catholic to join. I’m looking to find someone who has had actual personal experience with it, one way or another. Put out the word to all Catholics/lapsed Catholics I know. (St. Louis very Catholic city, Saint Louis University where I went to law school is Jesuit). I know people who have had brothers involved in Opus Dei. Looking for first hand experiences. Anything this fringy should be disqualifying. I also think it will make a 8 to 1 majority Catholic Court. Pretty fucking scary.
So she’s a Socialist!
@germy: you win the internets!
@Quinerly: Breyer and Kagan are Jewish.
It’s tempting to believe that polling in SC indicates that Jamie Harrison has a realistic chance of pulling off a huge upset against Lindsey Graham, but the fact that keeps popping the bubble on my dreams of this is: best realistic case is that Trump only wins South Carolina by half the margin (range of 7 to 8%) as in 2016 (14 to 15%). Is there really 8% of the SC electorate who will split their ticket to vote for both Trump (R) and* Harrison (D)? The only way the upset happens with a Trump margin in SC of 7-8% is if slightly more than 7-8% of Trump voters fail to vote in the down-ticket races.
Wish it could happen Jamie Harrison, but if I’m going to donate to Senate Campaigns in states other than my own (NC – Cal Cunningham), especially ones where the D candidate might face slightly but not forbidding odds, it’s going to be more realistically winnable races, such as Bullock in Montana.
@Baud: Fuck the message. When they start backing up the message with action, we’ll stop being skeptical.
@The Dark Avenger: There was a poster at the vigil for RBG at the SCOTUS that said:
Fight for every vote. Fight for equal protection.
@Dorothy A. Winsor:
https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-trump-judge-amy-barrett-ruth-bader-ginsburg-11d25276-a92e-4094-8958-eb2d197707c8.html (from March 2019)
Of course, Donnie can and does change his mind all the time, so who knows.
(Someone on Twitter said that he’s going to be furious when he finds out that she didn’t vote for him, so there’s that. If that’s true, of course.)
Does anyone else have trouble with ActBlue’s Website? I have spent the better part of an hour trying to contribute to Jaime Harrison. It’s possible the thing is working, in which case I have just made six $100 donations in short order. But I don’t think it is. If I go to “History” it says “Something has gone wrong with your account, please sign in again” and when I hit the “Sign in Again” button right below it, it just refreshes the page. It says it has my credit card number on file, but when I hit the “Contribute” button it sends me to a PayPal window. I am not checking the “Paypal” box. Anyway, I gave up.
@E.: It sounds like some cookies on your browser are messed up.
Try again using a “Private Browsing” window. On Chrome, Ctrl-Shift-N will open a new private browsing window. (Similar features exist on Firefox, Safari, etc.).
If that works normally, then you probably want to clear your ActBlue cookies (after you save any relevant information). If that doesn’t work, then you may need to try a different browser and/or contact them for help.
I hope this helps. Good luck!
@Baud: If the axioms of actions speak louder than words and past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, then color me a skeptic.
Are there ways to retaliate against McConnell personally? For instance, why should the House agree to any spending bill giving money to Kentucky? Also, McConnell has proven he will not work with Democrats, so If the Democrats take the Senate, they should refuse to allow any Republican bills or amendments to get a hearing while McConnell remains in the Senate leadership.