??MUST-WATCH??
Amy Klobuchar is on FIRE and did NOT come to play.???? pic.twitter.com/Poh8MVbDjF
— DeMarcus ?? (@semperdiced) September 24, 2020
Because these were too good not to share!
Ruth Bader Ginsburg chose, over and over again, not to let awful circumstances crush her determination to fight towards a better world. We owe her to keep that relentless determination alive, as best our individual circumstances permit.
Opinion: Justice Ginsburg leaves us our marching orders https://t.co/WiBOR2QIAY
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) September 25, 2020
… Ginsburg was arguably the most influential Jew in U.S. history (perhaps tied with Sandy Koufax for the most loved). Rabbi Lauren Holtzblatt’s remarks at the ceremony centered on “tzedek, tzedek tirdof” — the phrase from Deuteronomy 16:20 meaning “justice, justice you shall pursue,” featured in an inscription on a piece of art in Ginsburg’s office. There are many rabbinical discussions on why the word “justice” is repeated, but my favorite — one certainly applicable to Ginsburg — is that you must pursue justice in a just way. Justice is not merely the result that matters, but the means by which you seek it. Ginsburg exemplified this idea by pursuing justice for all Americans, case by case, through the steady progress of the law. Might does not make right. It is through rational and creative thinking that justice is advanced. Justice does not come as a bolt from the blue, but as the result of tenacious, fierce, careful and inspired work.
If we are looking for a deus ex machina to relieve us from the scourge of President Trump and from the repeated denial of justice — for example, to African Americans such as Breonna Taylor — then we are missing the importance of Ginsburg’s legacy. Justice comes over years and decades, through voting, through the courts and through direct and peaceful action. What will save us from Trump is not a flash of conscience in the hearts of Republican senators, but the determination of tens of millions to pursue and defend the rule of law and the dignity of all Americans…
The outpouring of love and grief and loss we have seen over this week for a Supreme Court justice is as unique in history as Ginsburg was. Perhaps some of it comes from the loss of a great champion who was dedicated with every fiber of her being to pursuing justice and to bringing us all into the “We” in “We the people.” Now she rests, the rabbi noted, and we take up her struggle. We will need to be as determined, methodical and persistent as she was.
Ginsburg’s final class of clerks recall her unwavering dedication to law and life.
Throughout the pandemic and her own ailments, young lawyers say the late justice remained meticulous and upbeat. https://t.co/mnpcmz7L0v
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) September 25, 2020
She belonged in all the places.
Women belong in all the places.No exceptions.
We see you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
pic.twitter.com/p4UeGpikWA— Canadian Forces in ???? (@CAFinUS) September 25, 2020
RBG ad worth a watch until the very end and retweet pic.twitter.com/LjjxO3T7b2
— Adam Parkhomenko (@AdamParkhomenko) September 19, 2020
Baud
QFT. There are no quick fixes or instant solutions to our problems.
Yutsano
@Baud: But we do have one fix we can inaugurate: vote. And vote in such large numbers that it will be impossible to ignore the intentions of the country.
MomSense
Klobuchar really moves me with her speech. You could hear the fullness of emotion in her voice and she found a way to express it powerfully and honestly. I’ve been so impressed by her and if, dog willing, we get through this I would love her to be Majority Leader or any role she wants.
zhena gogolia
@MomSense:
I like her more in that speech than I ever have. (She was good at the DNC too.)
Yutsano
@MomSense:
Majority Whip maybe. I like the idea of more women in Senate leadership. But Majority Leader only happens over the dead body of Patty Murray. She is number four in leadership before any other woman in the Senate.
prostratedragon
Heard a radio show last night in which Itzhak Perlman presented some of his favorite music for the Holy Days. This was one piece:
MomSense
@Yutsano:
I know, but Patty Murray’s personality and skills have always seemed more suited for whip. She reminds me of Dick Durbin, who is an excellent whip. I don’t think Murray has the personality or charisma for the more public leader role.
MomSense
@zhena gogolia:
I loved her contempt for some of the bullshit things some of the candidates said during the primaries and the fact that she removed her name from Veep consideration in recognition of the need for America to have a woman of color represent the Democratic Party.
MazeDancer
Hoping Klobuchar is the designated hitter to ask Barrett if she must bow to her husband if he wants to speak about a SCOTUS opinion.
Can’t be Kamala, who is more open to attack for anything she asks at the hearing.
Not everyone out there knows how BSC Barrett is. Our only hope is that she reveals herself in the hearings.
Ohio Mom
One thing I did not know until this week is that RBG wrote the Olmstead decision. Disability rights advocates refer to this decision all the time — Olmstead changed almost everything.
The gist of the decision is that the unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is a form of unlawful discrimination. As such, people with disabilities have a right to receive state funded supports and services to live in the community rather than institutions.
As soon as I read that RBG wrote Olmstead, I thought, Of course, who else could/would have done it.
zhena gogolia
@MazeDancer:
They always manage to cover it up during the hearings. (Except Kavanaugh, and it didn’t matter.)
Chief Oshkosh
<a href=”#comment-7872489″>@MazeDancer</a>:Not everyone out there knows how BSC Barrett is.
Does “BSC” = “Bug Shit Crazy” or BS “Catholic,” where the “BS” means something I’m unfamiliar with? Other than bullshit, which some might say is redundant. Not me, but some.
germy
@prostratedragon:
Talk about someone who was erased.
There’s been so many times when I’ve mentioned Paul Robeson to people, either in discussions about politics or music or film, and they’ve said “Who? I’ve never heard of him.”
TS (the original)
Speaking of Judges
BILLINGS, Mont. — A federal judge ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s leading steward of public lands has been serving unlawfully, blocking him from continuing in the position in the latest pushback against the administration’s practice of filling key positions without U.S. Senate approval.
U.S. Interior Department Bureau of Land Management acting director William Perry Pendley served unlawfully for 424 days without being confirmed to the post by the Senate as required under the Constitution, U.S. District Judge Brian Morris determined.
Has anything legal been done by this administration. I remember President Obama only having a limited time for people to be “acting” in positions. Has trump even tried to get Senate confirmations? Almost too late to be bothered but good to see them losing in court.
J R in WV
I posted this comment in a thread last night after jumping on a comment by VidaLoca (a nym I do not recall seeing, but that’s just luck of the draw or my failing memory). I’m reposting the comment here where people I offended might see it.
OK, I want to apologize for jumping on VidaLoca last night. I was under the weather, irritated, and went off when I perceived that VidaLoca accused B-J Jackals of standing around doing nothing. While “doing nothing” was part of the lengthy and constructive comment, it was by no means intended as an accusation of B J or the Jackals, and my hasty reply was rightly put in its proper place.
I’m sorry for what I said, and for the offense I gave to fellow jackals as well. I will try to be less hair-trigger and more thoughtful. My bad.
PST
@MazeDancer:
I think the Republicans have laid a trap for us and that this kind of question would constitute taking the bait. One of the hard, hard lessons of the Kavanaugh hearings was just how much they motivated the right. Kavanaugh was a pig with plenty of evidence of sexual and financial misconduct. He deserved every bit of what he got. Nevertheless, it really whipped up the Trump team. And I’m not just talking about the pundits and politicians. It comes up all the time talking to relatives and neighbors as well, “What about what they did to Kavanaugh?” We don’t need that now, and it will be especially bad because, first, Barrett simply doesn’t have that kind of dirt in her record, and second, because a segment of the voting population that Biden/Harris needs in certain swing states is going to identify, aspirationally, with Barrett. Her appearance, her family, and her professional success will represent something to some white swing-voting women who could still go either way. Given the near certainty that Barrett will be confirmed, why add the additional injury of hurting the ticket, even if it feels good. Barrett can be closely questioned about her record and her philosophy in a normal way, but the Democrats need to be guided by a strategy, not indignation. They don’t want the hearings appearing in a last-minute barrage of Trump ads. They especially need to be careful about religion. I’ve heard repeated references to Senator Feinstein’s comment about the dogma being strong in that one, and more of the same will hurt. I’m an atheist who simply cannot understand faith, but most people identify with religion in some form and can take umbrage at perceived attacks. At least this group Barrett belongs to seems spiritual and not political. It is kind of the opposite of Opus Dei. It is laic, ecumenical, and mystical. Like other charismatic movements, it is disliked by much of the Church establishment even if tolerated. I think of it kind of like Sufi movements in Islam, strange to me but not dangerous like some other movements that have arisen. All of which is a digression. At this point, Barrett’s appointment is a misfortune that we can’t do anything about now, so we should avoid mistakes that might hurt our ability to do something about it in a few months. Win the presidency and the senate, and then we can fix the court but good, Barrett or no Barrett.
debbie
@Baud:
There are no quick fixes other than making damn sure this never happens again.
debbie
@Yutsano:
Not just vote. Legislate.
Quinerly
@J R in WV: ?❤️???
You’re a good guy. Great post.
Josie
@PST:
You make some excellent points here. I hope whoever is planning the Democratic approach to the hearings is thinking along the same lines. We don’t need hysterics and chaos right now. Our opponents provide enough of that.
MomSense
O/T but one of my kids just told me about an episode of the podcast called Wind of Change about the Scorpions song called Winds of Change which may have been written by the CIA to help take down the USSR. I hated that song with a passion, but it could be an interesting topic. My son’s description is spies killing communism with the power of rock n roll.
MazeDancer
@PST:
One of the reasons Kavanaugh was excused was because he was a man. And so many mothers of boys were screaming “this could happen to your son. Bad girls could trap him and ruin his life.
Perhaps you’re right, it’s a trap. But there has to be a way to expose Barrett.
Also, would you please consider paragraph breaks in your longer comments? Big, blocks of text are almost impossible to read. People will just scroll past.
H.E.Wolf
Here’s more on “tzedek, tzedek tirdof”, from within that religious tradition. Much discussion through the centuries on the significance of the comma and the repetition of “tzedek”, which I found very interesting.
https://www.reconstructingjudaism.org/dvar-torah/justice-justice
kindness
God Bless RBG. It pains me to see ‘some’ people blame her for not retiring early in Obama’s presidency and handing this seat to Trump. I mean, really had she retired during Obama’s second term, MoscowMitch would have blocked any nominee just as he did with Judge Garland’s nomination. The only way the retirement complaint works is to say she should have retired during Obama’s first term when she was still extremely spry and healthy. No. Those people who are saying this about RBG aren’t simply assholes. They are disingenuous. They are the same kind of ‘liberals’ who aren’t really Democrats to begin with.
When Uncle Joe wins I hope he nominated DiFi to run the CIA or something she can’t resist so we here in CA can have a Senator that will vote for eliminating the filibuster and expanding all the Federal benches.
PST
@MazeDancer: You’re right about the long blocks. I seldom write so much. This just kind of poured out of me.
Betty Cracker
@PST: Agree 100%. I don’t know what the Dem strategy is, but tbh, I hope DiFi isn’t running it, even though she’s the ranking member. She’s the one who made ACB a cause célèbre with evangelical nuts in the first place.
ACB should be opposed because the appointment is illegitimate by the GOP’s own made-up rules. Maybe the Dems should boycott the whole thing as an illegitimate exercise. It would deprive Reps of their martyr points, and it won’t matter anyway because we don’t have the votes to stop them.
But if they do participate, ACB should be asked about her views on settled law, whether she thinks Josh Hawley was correct when he said he wouldn’t vote for a nominee who wouldn’t strike down Roe and if he applied that litmus test to her, and she should be asked about a recent ruling that seem to indicate she’d strike down the ACA.
We should not fall into their culture war trap and give them an excuse to screech about religious discrimination.
schrodingers_cat
@PST: BTW are you a man or a woman?
PST
@schrodingers_cat: I am having a hard time resisting the urge to answer, “Neither, I’m a dog.” How would anyone know? But in fact I’m a 66-year-old white man living in Chicago.
PST
@schrodingers_cat: Further on the subject, if you are suggesting that maybe I would find the sexism of People of Praise more disturbing if I were a woman, it’s possible. I find it plenty disturbing, but still think that making a point of it in the hearing will, on balance, hurt the cause of recovering the Senate and the Oval Office.
Baud
@Betty Cracker:
I’m hope someone asks whether she would be willing to work with her colleagues on a 13 member court.
Ok not really because it’ll probably backfire, but I would like to see it.
What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us?
@MazeDancer: I’ve said this before but they need to focus the questions on opinions and decisions she’s made that are wedge issues within the Republican coalition. Where does she come down on corporations are people/the unfettered ability of corporate America to screw over the little guy? Where is she on whether SS and Medicare are constitutional? What about the Affordable Care Act? Will she vote to take health care away from millions? Bring up what she’s said on these issues. Make one or the other portion of the Republican electorate question whether they’ll like what they get with her on the court. Get even a relatively small sliver of those folks to stay home and we win.
zhena gogolia
@J R in WV:
You didn’t offend me. I thought the comment was trying to be helpful, but your response was within the realm of the acceptable IMO.
schrodingers_cat
@PST: Your entire comment of how women should just take it lying down now that this zealot has been nominated to the bench is rage inducing and thanks for confirming my guess that you are a man.
Oh and we won the House after the Kavanaugh’s ascension to the Supreme Court so your point that those hearings hurt the Dems flies in the face of what actually happened
sdhays
How do you know that? Nobody knew about Kavanaugh’s crimes at this point in the process.
My expectations are low. I just want to the Senate Judiciary Committee (assuming there’s even a hearing, and I wouldn’t put any money on that happening) to get her on the record promising to recuse herself from anything related to the upcoming election or explicitly refuse so that it’s crystal clear that she’s a partisan hack who deserves to be relegated to the minority.
MomSense
@PST:
I personally wish it were a winning issue for us, but I think it hurts us – especially with Senate races. We lost some really good Senators and races to the Kavanaugh vote- Heitkamp, McCaskill, Nelson, Donnelly.
schrodingers_cat
@MomSense: Did it though? Were they polling higher before the nomination fight and did their anti-Kavanaugh vote tank them.
Josie
@PST:
Evidently the Democratic leaders in the Senate agree with you. Excuse the naked link. I’m a computer illiterate and don’t understand how to do it properly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/court-trump-senate-democrats/2020/09/25/2f7259a8-ff48-11ea-9ceb-061d646d9c67_story.html
Betty Cracker
@schrodingers_cat: I didn’t read PST’s comment that way at all. We can question and expose her extremist views without attacking the bizarre cult she’s in. That’s what I thought he was saying.
MomSense
@schrodingers_cat:
We have to pick up the Senate and that means unseating Republicans which is tough and I don’t think Judges and SCOTUS help us. I’m doing text banking this year so I’m not getting as much feedback but my phone banking friends are saying Gideon’s recent focus on judges and SCOTUS is hurting. The polls have definitely tightened.
schrodingers_cat
@Josie: He is saying we don’t fight at all, just accept the fact that she is going to be confirmed.
Yes the Rs have the numbers but I would like to see the Dems fight. I will let the Senate Ds decide the strategy on how to do it.
Josie
@schrodingers_cat:
I’m not sure he is saying not to fight, but to be more strategic about the grounds on which we choose to fight.
sdhays
@sdhays: Just to add – I think the history of the Kavanaugh nomination isn’t quite right. He nearly wasn’t confirmed. If Susan Collins had made a different political calculation, one which would have put her in a much better position in her current election, Kavanaugh would not be on the Court right now.
That defeat, right before the election, would have changed some voting behavior. We can’t know how, but personally I think it would have depressed Republican turnout and maybe even delivered Democrats the Senate.
Baud
@MomSense:
That’s sad to hear. I thought we were supposed to care more about the court this year than we were on the past.
MomSense
@Baud:
It resonates in the much more liberal 1st district but not in the older, rural, conservative 2nd district.
schrodingers_cat
@Josie: Let me translate it for you then, the feelings of the mythical midwestern white voters (who mostly vote R) aka “Real Americans” matter more than the lives of women, minorities and immigrants.
MomSense
@schrodingers_cat:
I’d have to go back and read the after election articles, but what I remember is that the Republican candidates hammered that vote hard and exit polling showed it was a significant factor.
schrodingers_cat
@Baud: We are supposed to roll over and play dead and hope that will convince non Ds to vote for our candidates.
WaterGirl
@MomSense: I have listened to some of that Podcast. it’s interesting, but I worried that he was sharing too much info about his sources, enough that could perhaps allow them to be identified. Plus he has a nice voice, and it kept putting me to sleep.
So I kind of fell off watching it. But it’s definitely an interesting story.
johnnybuck
@Betty Cracker: I think they should boycott. have one member read a prepared statement to the effect that the process is illegitimate and they will not grant it legitimacy by participating.
Fuck ’em
Josie
@schrodingers_cat:
I think you are reading into his comment something that isn’t there. I am a woman and have lived all my life in an area with a large community of immigrants/minorities. I assure you I would find anything denigrating either one repugnant, but that is not to be found in this comment.
In fact this is his statement, “Barrett can be closely questioned about her record and her philosophy in a normal way, but the Democrats need to be guided by a strategy, not indignation.” Sounds like good common sense to me.
zhena gogolia
WaterGirl
@Baud: For what it’s worth…
The word I am hearing is that we are supposed to talk about what’s at stake re: the supreme court: ACA, climate change, etc as opposed to specifics about the nominee, which can turn the nominee into a martyr.
What I have been hearing is the (rightfully) complaints about the ridiculous ramming through and the republicans who are totally reversing their positions on supreme court nominations do not help us. Talking about what’s at stake apparently does help us.
If you listen to Amy K’s rant, she followed exactly that formula.
schrodingers_cat
@Josie: I am just reading what he wrote. This commenter I have never seen before is saying that the feelings of the mythical midwestern white voters (who mostly vote R) aka “Real Americans” matter more than the lives of women, minorities and immigrants, actual D voters, whose rights this woman is going to strip away
As for how to question her is beyond my paygrade since IANAL , I will leave it to the senate Ds to come up with a coherent strategy.
MJS
In my opinion, there are three things that the nominee must be asked:
There should be no questions that even hint at her religious views, or anything dealing with her personal life.
Mousebumples
@MomSense: I’ve listened to it. (Winds of Change) It’s interesting, and similar to Argo, in some ways, in concept. It’s an interesting diversion, at least.
Ronan Farrow also has an interesting podcast – Catch and Kill. Depressing in some ways, but I feel (as a woman) it was good information to be aware of and mindful of.
laura
@MomSense: it was a semi-interesting theory and Patrick Radden Keefe is a monster writer (Say Nothing – if you haven’t read it, READ IT), but hes lacking as a podcaster IMHO. Roadie Brother the Younger was on the Monsters of Rock Tour that is the basis for the plot -and has a great Klaus Meine impression and so I listened to the story and found it amusing but then kind of meh. Fun while it lasted and definitely interesting tidbits about the CIA and the business of rock & roll. Will not spoiler the ending in case you decide to listen to the whole thing.
sdhays
@WaterGirl: I think there’s a lot of value in that. The process the Republicans are embarking upon completely de-legitimizes anyone Dump appoints. Her own awfulness is just details. The details are important, but in the throws of an election, they’re really not the main point. The point is building support for correcting the travesty next year or, somehow, getting a few Republicans to blink (although I don’t think that’s going to happen this time).
Baud
@WaterGirl:
That makes sense. Only a fraction of our voters care about the party enough to defend it. Whatever it takes to win.
MJS
@johnnybuck: I couldn’t disagree more. Why would Democrats pass up the opportunity to get the nominee on the record regarding her statement when Obama was attempting to fill Scalia’s vacancy? Allowing Republicans to move forward with a fawning hearing, or no hearing at all, would be horrible optics for the Democrats. Voters want to see resistance to this bullshit, not resignation.
RaflW
“Ginsburg was arguably the most influential Jew in U.S. history (perhaps tied with Sandy Koufax for the most loved).”
McConnell and McCarthy skipping the memorial service was a very loud raspberry blown at Jewish voters. But we’ll continue to get thumb suckers about why the GOP does so poorly with that segment in elections. Huh.
Josie
@schrodingers_cat:
But wouldn’t it be more productive to point out her willingness to strip away those rights by questioning her record rather than attacking her religion or personal attributes? I believe that was the point he was making.
That said, I could be wrong. Done with this topic.
Amir Khalid
@MomSense:
Intriguing theory, but one would think the CIA had more direct ways to bring about the fall of the Communist bloc than ghostwriting a rock ballad for a German band.
Sure Lurkalot
As for Barrett, I hope someone points out her lack of experience.
As for her religious leanings, I do hope that there’s some outlet for a fair description, because I tire of giving space to theories of governance opposed to the separation of church and state enshrined in the constitution, somehow validated by Jesus and spouted by people whose lives are very unChristlike. Honestly, I don’t see some of the tenets of charismatic religion any different from QAnon. Likely needless to say, I’m an atheist. When do atheists get such kid glove treatment?
What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us?
@schrodingers_cat: What the Democrat’s focus of questioning has to be about is the wedge between the moneybags wing of the Republican coalition and the “Real Americans” Average Joe wing. The AJ wing hates the moneybags wing.
Point out that this nominee and his other two make three Justices in a row that are wholely owned subsidiaries of the moneybags wing. Make the AJ wing question whether they’re getting what they want from these appointments, and by extension make them question whether Trump is on their side or is just another tool of the moneybags wing. That’s where I’d go with the questions.
laura
I’ve got an opinion about the Kavanaugh hearing that at it’s essence it was The Worst job interview in the history of job interviews. His spittle-flecked, red faced rage as he demanded “Give me my fucking promotion to a lifetime tenure right fucking Now!”
If anyone ever acted like that in front of a hiring panel for a promotional position and then got the promotion, I’ll eat a bug. The entitlement gags me to this day.
Baud
@Sure Lurkalot:
I can’t think of any Democrat that cares about atheism. But I’m not sure athiests are unified under the Dem banner.
schrodingers_cat
@Josie:
Everything is fair game when it is a life time appointment. The Ds on the Senate Judiciary committee will make those calls and I will support them.
PST
@sdhays:
That is the way I would like to see the hearings used. With a strategy, like pushing Barrett into a corner on recusal. Because she spent most of her career as a teacher, not a judge, she has a richer paper trail than many nominees on the big issues. Judges actually spend most of their time on mundane disputes. She is famous for her argument that even if you are an “originalist,” as she is, there are some precedents that must be honored even though they cannot be defended under originalist analysis. These “superprecedents” include Brown v. Board but not Rowe v. Wade. Plenty of questions could involve what cases should and should not be included in this category. I trust smarter people that me to come up with the strategy, but there has to be a strategy. Beating her up just won’t help.
I’m honestly not proposing that the senators just roll over. They need to makes goals and work toward them. Likewise, I do not think that a boycott of the hearings would be a good idea. Half of our indignation about Garland was that he was not even given a hearing, let alone confirmed. Boycotting weakens that argument.
schrodingers_cat
@MJS: Its funny how the do-something-Twitter has suddenly become do-nothing Twitter.
It is like the purity left is batting for the Rs.
JPL
Sorry if it’s been mentioned, but Dana Milbank went full Hitler in his column today. link
MomSense
@sdhays:
I don’t think Kavanaugh is hurting Collins in this election. The vote for the tax scam is – bigly.
Johnnybuck
@MJS: because particpation infers legitimacy when there’s nothing legitimate about this. I think it says a hell of a lot more to boycott what is a foregone conclusion than to confer legitimacy on shit show. Lack of participation removes the veneer of that. You can name off a laundry list of why you’re not participating.
PST
@schrodingers_cat:
I’m a regular who reads BJ every day but often has nothing to say, especially since a lot of threads are dead by the time I get there. I read your comments, respect them, and hate to be on your bad side. I firmly believe that we cannot let this be about feelings. This is not about valuing the feelings of some people over the feelings, let alone the lives, of others. It is about winning the election, the only real cure for the mess we’re in, and if feelings get in the way, they have to be laid aside. Personally, I think we did the right thing with Kavanaugh. It energized both sides. It is almost impossible to say in retrospect how it affected the House, where we won seats, and the Senate, where we lost them. But I don’t think that will be the effect this time. Barrett is a far less attractive target than Kavanaugh was, and the energizing will not be symmetrical this time. What’s more, although I don’t give a damn about the feelings, per se, of white, Midwestern voters, I care about their votes. Not because they should matter more than any other votes — we should scrap the Electoral College — but because in this time and place they could matter more. I’m an old Hoosier living in Chicago, and my vote wouldn’t actually swing anything either place under our crazy system. Those are locked in. But there are people living in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin at the margins of electoral victory whom Democrats can’t afford to lose. I don’t think we lose votes in those areas if a few Democratic senators don’t look tough in the upcoming hearings, but we might lose some if swing voters perceive her as a sympathetic figure and an attack as vicious, or anti-Catholic, or even anti-woman (as illogical as that might be). We have to be very cold-blooded about the strategy of countering what I think the Trump team perceives as a clever trap.
MJS
“You can name off a laundry list of why you’re not participating.” When, and to whom? On Twitter? Well, that will tell your supporters why you’re doing it, but no one else. Or do you expect the media to report “both sides” and give equal time to the fawning hearing and the reasons why Democrats didn’t participate? Good luck with that. “Democrats roll over for Trump” is a helluva signal one month before an election, but that’s going to be the message relayed by the media.
schrodingers_cat
@PST: You are not on my bad side. I do agree that our strategy needs to be well thought out and not emotional.
Ruckus
I am not all that amazed at how on edge most/all of us are.
Life for most of us is in uncharted water, crap is happening all around us that we have less than no control of, health, religion, politics have all been torn open by both circumstance and politics. 200K dead, too many more very likely, health of many/most in question, politics are on a raw edge, norms are being violated left and right in the name of who knows what to call it and we are fighting, yes fighting among our selves, but at least we are doing this like a family, about almost everything. And about nothing. We are fighting like family because we are mad at situations/people we can’t do really anything about and that is a sad and angry place to be. We are being torn apart and that is advantageous to our enemy, and make no mistake, conservatives/republicans are our enemy. We need to take a moment and work on creating a stronger opposition to that, than to each other, because otherwise they will win. It is their forte, chaos. They win by chaos, their leader knows absolutely nothing else, chaos is his only card, he has left chaos in his wake for ever. We need to be stronger than that, which shouldn’t be difficult, he is after all a moron with one skill, fucking up everything.
kindness
Democrats can string the vote out and should. Democrats certainly need to ask probing questions knowing she will decline to answer. That is the Trumpian way. Democrats will then be able to introduce her record and her writings showing she’ll do all the horrible things Democrats are saying she will do. We know we won’t be able to stop her confirmation because Senate Republicans are a cult and swill the Koolaide. Democrats should use these hearings to make their case to the MSM/people as to why they need to vote Democratic this election.
It’s going to be a short term lose to a long term win. The ACA & birth control are going to be shot down. Eliminating the filibuster, increasing the Federal benches and filling them immediately using MoscowMitch’s rules will allow Democrats to write new legislation bringing all those things back in short order.
Here in California the dynamic in the 70s & 80s was that the government was dysfunctional because Republicans and the stupid supermajority requirements made it so. Our people finally figured it out and dumped the supermajority requirements and then Democrats were able to actually govern and did a good job of it. People saw that and found they liked the government again. That can happen with the federal government too. It just has to be able to do it. Dump the filibuster. Fill the courts with our people and let Republicans whine like they always do.
Chief Oshkosh
@MJS:
That, alone, should disqualify her based on her own professed ethics.
Bluegirlfromwyo
From what I can tell, polling has been both against a Supreme vote before the election and against packing the court. We also know that Barnett is getting on the court by November. Seems to me the smart play is to keep pressing what’s at stake to make court packing look more attractive and to win so we can do it. Has the added benefit of going with McConnell’s new precedent too.
Chief Oshkosh
@schrodingers_cat:
Maybe so, but doesn’t that all the more make it important that the hearing be conducted strategically? FWIW, I’m burning to know how the nominee would answer the question about whether her faith dictates that she must bow to her husband, but I don’t see that getting a lot of votes.
And that’s all that this is about: winning the presidential and senatorial elections. Trump could nominate shit on a shingle (actually, he did with Special K), and the GOP Senate would confirm. So, regardless of the nominee, the only guiding aim for the Senate Democrats should be: Will this question help our election campaigns or will it hurt them?
mad citizen
@Baud: From way upthread: A question on a 13 member court might be too on the nose. My new understanding is that Congress (Senate?) makes the rules for SCOTUS, though maybe a large reform requires an amendment. In any case, I would like to hear questions about how she views a lifetime appointment; and how she might view a conversion to an 18 year term. Might be nice to get those ideas into the public square more than they are now.
Ruckus
@What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us?:
I believe in this case that’s not a convincing argument. I believe that a lot of the right side of the aisle doesn’t see the money bag right as we do. It’s why that argument often falls flat, they see that the moneybags are on their side of the aisle and that the money buys them what they want. Sure they will never get themselves to the money bag point but still, they are not an enemy to the general right side.
Ruckus
@mad citizen:
Any questions that officially show our hand when we are in a position of weakness, which we are currently, really doesn’t do us any good. They have the votes. We ask about her career, about her goals about her means of obtaining those goals. We ask why those goals are realistic, apply to the country as a whole or only speak to a tiny portion. There will then be a vote and she will pass. It’s a show and we are on the losing side at this moment so we don’t show our hand or give them ammunition. It’s not good but it’s what there is. Numbers count and the only possible question I see as relevant is does she think it’s proper to appoint a new justice at the end of a term. We even know her answer and the end result. But that’s the play. What goes on behind closed doors may be different, what plays is public is being the better side. But asking that one question may sway a reluctant senator, if such a thing exists.
Kay
@kindness:
Obama and Leahy: Not Real Democrats.
Omnes Omnibus
@Ruckus: What we are in a position to do is to delay but not stop the process. Our side can make clear the danger that she poses. We can make the case that people who would push someone like her forward in a pure power play like they are doing do not deserve any access to levers of power. We can vote from now until November 3, and we can make clear that we will not accept any anti-democratic malarkey that they may try to pull.
johnnybuck
@MJS: Roll over? Rolling over is playing by their rules. Rolling over is giving them the veneer of respectability. You think the fucking media is gonna ignore a fucking boycott?
You talk about the base? I read on this very fucking blog right here all about the ways the Democrats fucked up the Kavanaugh hearings. And for what? 4 seats in the senate? You realize we have seats in play right now.
The seat is gone. Lindsay Graham said they had the votes for whomever the President nominates. That’s not “advise and consent,” that’s a rubber stamp!
We always play by their rules and we always lose, and we still can’t figure out why. Norms don’t matter anymore. Beating up the nominee is what they fucking want us to do! it might look like fighting but its really capitulation.
I want them to own what they done, and i don’t want to collabarate.
YMMV
Kay
I’d just call it a loss and continue trying to win the Presidential election and senate seats.
All a delay effort does is add risk to what is a very favorable environment for Biden with little or no upside. Tough loss, take the hit, defeat Trump and some senators. The absolute worst result would be losing the seat AND inadvertently benefiting Trump and GOP Senators. There isn’t enough possible upside from what will be a failed effort to stop this to take that risk.
IMO. They want the distraction. They’re begging for it. Don’t give it to them.
Almost Retired
FWIW, I’m attending a (virtual) event later this afternoon for a California-based civil rights organization. The keynote speaker is Adam Schiff. He’s not in the Senate, of course. But I’m sure he’ll offer plenty of insight about the upcoming court battle (which is critical to the people served by the organization hosting the event) and perhaps share information about the D’s expected strategy. I’ll report back if he sheds any light on this subject. He rarely pulls his punches.
Omnes Omnibus
@Almost Retired: Cool. I am looking forward to hearing he had to say.
Kay
Senator Whitehouse is right. We already lost this- let’s not lose everything else pretending we didn’t.
It’s a tough enough loss without compounding it with denial. We don’t have time for that.
WaterGirl
@Almost Retired: I will echo Omnes. I would love to hear what he had to say.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Kay: I agree, focus on health care– repeat over and over again that more than 7 million people now have a pre-existing condition about which medical science still knows very little– and trying to get her to explain why she shouldn’t recuse herself from any election-related cases when trump has explicitly linked her nomination to same, hammer her on her hypocrisy wrt to Garland
David ? ☘The Establishment☘? Koch
most influential Jew in US history is probably Leo Szilard
most beloved Jew is obviously Mel Brooks
Rina99
@Kay: That’s how I’ve felt since RBGs death. We lost the seat, and nothing we do is going to change that, outside of four Republicans deciding to vote against the pick. Thats not going to happen. Get the current nominee on record about the decisions she would make. It seems like Dem senators understand that. It’s not them rolling over, but focusing on the bigger goal of winning enough seats to make it possible to undo the damage going forward.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Rina99: as bad as this is, it would be healthy if this process is what got through the rather marble-like noggins of certain people that energy and passion and volume and performative activism are valuable things in politics, but don’t mean much unless we win elections
dww44
@Bluegirlfromwyo: Dead thread, and all that, but I am on a one person campaign to get us Democrats, progressives, liberals, lefties to all agree to stop using the term “court packing”. It is really court expansion and the idea is that we expand the number of justices all the way down the federal judiciary by creating 70 to 100 more justice positions. That will go a long ways to speed up the delivery of actual justice and perhaps 4 of them should be at the SC level. I kinda always liked the #13.
And while we’re doing all this, we should also legislate term limits for all federal judges/justices staggered in such a way that guarantees an equal # of SC appointees to each Presidential term. Let that term limitation filter all the way down. We could name that legislation the “Anti-McConnell Rule” since it will have been his absolute extremism that brings us forthwith to this action. Now, let’s go run the tables on November 3.
Balconesfault
Louis Brandeis?
lowtechcyclist
We need to remember, if it turns out that we are successful this November in ejecting the Orange Turd and winning the Senate, that this is just the beginning of our work. Too often, we’ve assumed that once we elected a ton of Democrats, our part was largely over and they’d take it from there.
Let’s be sure not to do that this time. The Democratic Party is the only party that can bring about the changes we want to see, but it’s still a party that’s risk-averse, that wants bipartisan cover they’re never going to get, and is afraid of what the talking heads on TV might say about them if they try to get big shit done.
And they need to get big shit done in 2021. On Covid-19, on voting rights, on civil rights, on climate change, on statehood for DC (and PR if they want it), on an expanded judiciary at the Supreme Court and Circuit Court levels, on a bunch of other things.
So we need to keep on top of them. Plan to take five minutes a day, twice a week, to call your Representative and your Senators about the issues that matter to you. Especially those of you who are represented by one or more Democrats. Your topics can be what’s in the news right then, or they can be something else that’s on your mind. But if Democratic Congresspersons’ phones never stop ringing with calls from constituents who expect them to get shit done, they’re more likely to get shit done.
Another Scott
@dww44: We could just call it the Judicial Procedures Reform Act of 2021 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
Personally, I like what I’m hearing about Beyer’s and others’ proposals:
But, enlarging the number of positions to a starting 13 should be part of the reforms. I’m not sure we could tolerate a 6:4 SCOTUS for 3 years or waiting until late 2028 until we had a 6:7 majority…
Thomas 72 (28+ years) – R
(Bader-Ginsburg 87 (27 years) – D)
Breyer 82 (26 years) – D
Roberts 65 (14 years) – R
Alito 70 (14 years) – R
Sotomayor 66 (11 years) – D
Kagan 60 (10 years) – D
Gorsuch 53 (3 years) – R
Kavanaugh 55 (1 year) – R
Barrett 47 (0 years) – R
So, let’s see…
2021 – Biden +1 D, total 10 so Thomas goes senior, back to 9. Back to 5:4
2023 – Biden +1 D, total 10 so Breyer goes senior, back to 9. Still 5:4
Biden/Harris 2025 – B/H +1, total 10 so Roberts is next. 14+5 = 19 years > 18 years so Roberts goes senior. Back to 9. But now 4:5
B/H 2027 – B/H + 1 so total 10 so Alito is next. 14+7 = 20 > 18 years so Alito goes senior. Back to 9. But now 3:6.
So, it would be 4 years (August 2024) before Team D had the majority again. That’s a Lonnnnnnng time to have the monsters still in charge.
Fight for 13!!
Cheers,
Scott.
Another Scott
@Another Scott: (August 2025), of course.
(sigh)
Cheers,
Scott.
brantl
@J R in WV: Maybe there’s hope for you, yet.
Almost Retired
@WaterGirl: Alas, I over-promised and can’t deliver. Congressman Schiff’s keynote address last night was pre-taped, presumably before the events of the last week. So nothing on the Court and the D’s strategy.