Important alert from Ed Kilgore, at NYMag — “Why Right-Wingers Want Sen. Mike Lee on SCOTUS”:
The Republican battle to make Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland go away, and the efforts to pin down GOP presidential candidates on pre-vetted lists of potential Supremes, have all led to increased speculation about the next justice. At present, there’s a major boom among conservatives for Senator Mike Lee of Utah.
Today the Washington Post‘s James Hohmann offers a rundown on all the reasons Lee is enjoying this attention. For one thing, the Utah senator has long been considered Ted Cruz’s best friend in the upper chamber, so if Cruz is elected, it’s a bit of a no-brainer if Lee wants a robe. For another, Lee would probably have an easier time getting confirmed by his colleagues in the clubby Senate than some law professor or circuit-court judge, and might even avoid a Democratic filibuster (assuming Republicans haven’t already killed the SCOTUS filibuster via the “nuclear option”)…
… If nominated next year for the Scalia seat, Lee would be the youngest nominee since Clarence Thomas, who has now been on the Court for nearly a quarter of a century, with many years of extremism probably still ahead of him… For conservatives seeking a permanent grip on the Court and on constitutional law, someone Lee’s age is money.
But the second reason Lee would be significant is only hinted at by Hohmann in the praise lavished on the solon by the Heritage Foundation and longtime right-wing legal thinker Senator Jeff Sessions (the two most likely sources for SCOTUS advice for Donald Trump, as it happens). Lee’s not just any old “constitutional conservative”; he’s a leading exponent of what is called the Lochner school of constitutional theory, named after the early-twentieth-century decision that was the basis for SCOTUS invalidation of New Deal legislation until the threat of court-packing and a strategic flip-flop resolved what had become a major constitutional crisis.
Lee has, on occasion, suggested that child labor laws, Social Security, and Medicare are unconstitutional, because they breach the eternal limits on federal power sketched out by the Founders. Like most Lochnerians, he views the constitution and the courts as designed to keep democratic majorities from stepping on the God-given personal and property rights of individuals and corporations alike. So it’s no surprise he’s been a bitter critic of the deferential view towards Congress expressed by Chief Justice Roberts in the decision that saved Obamacare.
In effect, Mike Lee could become a more influential successor to Clarence Thomas — after overlapping with Thomas on the Court for a decade or two. If Democratic senators have a problem with that possibility, they might want to begin making noises about it so that at least the supposition that Lee is pretty easily confirmable may be called into question.
That Hohmann article is well worth reading, too, if you want all the gory details. Looks like the Repubs are prepared to do a lot worse than Judge Garland…
Merrick Garland is still tutoring students while his Supreme Court nomination is in limbo https://t.co/1pQ60l8VYD pic.twitter.com/sBU5u645FX
— Senate Democrats (@SenateDems) April 7, 2016
Baud
Good. If we don’t show up in November, we deserve Mike Lee for the next 50 years.
LAO
WTF?
redshirt
Serious question: Can someone tell me why Obama could not just appoint a Supreme Court judge and let the Congress and Senate impeach him if they don’t want him to serve? Becuse vocally refusing to even consider voting for the nominee is certainly advice, so Obama has done his duty and is free to proceed.
Say he gives them 90 days of consideration after he has nominated a candidate.
ellie
What the hell?
debbie
Wow, talk about unqualified.
Baud
@redshirt: Justices have always needed Senate confirmation. To try something different wouldn’t be credible.
The Fat Kate Middleton
Mike Lee. Holy shit. Nagahappen.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
Good for him. Don’t back down. Keep telling people she’s unqualified.
Anne Laurie
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: Dial it back, dude. You’ve gone beyond ‘making a point’ and are rapidly approaching ‘spam’.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
What a fucking asshole. Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, too.
burnspbesq
Lee is actually not the scariest name on the list of potential Trump/Cruz nominees that has been floating around today.
LAO
@burnspbesq: I’m afraid to ask.
eemom
um, who the fuck cares at this point who a God-forbid president Cruz would appoint? No shit that he’d appoint the likes of this guy.
redshirt
@Baud: I’d like a lawyer to tell me why, legally.
Brachiator
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
Sigh. Seems like only yesterday (2008) when Clinton was trying this petty bullshit against Obama. Didn’t work then. Ain’t gonna work now.
But if Bernie wants to look like a dumbass, he should go for it.
hitchhiker
@eemom:
Exactly what I thought. No reason whatsoever to publish this, except I suppose to stir up some drama while we all wait for the NY primaries. Cruz cannot vanish from the scene too soon.
Anne Laurie
@eemom: Point is, the argument that “we” should drag feet on Merrick Garland, because President Hillary could pick someone more progressive, has a downside: What if the Repubs decide Mike Lee is their heartthrob?
Too risky to let that idea rise above the level of “Nice one, revanchists. Go back to the Heritage Foundation and dream your Gilded Age fantasies.”
LAO
@redshirt: the constitutional requirement of “consent” has been translated into confirmation.
ETA: I should have added that Article II, specifically names justices of the Supreme Court
debbie
@hitchhiker:
Well, it will energize those who support Cruz and probably insure they get to the polls.
Brachiator
@ellie:
Because the Republicans would love to have an opportunity to try to impeach Obama. They. would. just. love. it.
Impeaching the first black president,even without a conviction, would be freaking golden to these asswipes. It would be the ultimate conclusion to the years of obstruction.
dedc79
A return to Lochner? For folks who didn’t attend law school, the gist of that case was that the government couldn’t pass laws/regulations interfering with the “freedom of contract.” I think that particular case was about bakers.
So if, say, a bunch of sweatshops wanted to hire impoverished 12 year olds and force them to work 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, for pennies, the opinion of the Supreme Court at the time was that it was none of the government’s business. Ah, the good ole days…
Patricia Kayden
@Baud: And if the Bernie or Bust movement pans out, we deserve whatever President KKK Trump gives us.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
It’s official Sanders is toast.
Mark Halperin says Sanders’s attack was great move.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@Anne Laurie: what are you talking about. He keeps saying it. H e said again today. It’s the lead fucking story on the NYT site (Blaring headline). His campaign manager went on tee vee and said today “she made a deal with the devil”. The Net is on fire.
What – cause they keep blundering, it shouldn’t be mocked. makes no sense. U think the New York media is going to dial it back.
Patricia Kayden
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: How is Secretary Clinton unqualified to be President?
Senator Sanders doesn’t have to go so low to compete against her. He really should have taken the high road when he thought she had said that he was not qualified (she never said that).
By the way, this is not about Sanders or Clinton. This is about keeping the White House in Democratic hands and flipping the Senate. Either Democratic candidate is better than what’s on the other side.
redshirt
@LAO: Thank you!
I know Obama would never do such a thing. But its amazing that a small majority of Republicans in the Senate can shut down one of the branches of Government after attempting many times now to shut down another. And that there’s no recrimination from the media at all, really.
They’re literally secessionists within our system. Rebels. Supported by the Corporate Overlords.
We’re doomed without a people’s revolution. But that’s not Bernie’s revolution.
NR
@Patricia Kayden: The Democratic party is not entitled to anyone’s vote.
If Hillary can’t get enough votes to win the election, that’s on her, and only her.
redshirt
@NR: Please answer honestly: Would you rather see a Republican Administration than vote for a “compromise” candidate?
Baud
@NR: Exactly. When people ask me why there aren’t more progressives in elected office, I put 100% of the blame on progressive politicians.
A Ghost To Most
@NR:
Are you going to continue to whine until election day?
Baud
@srv:
Robber/Baron 2016!
Baud
Interesting. On the mobile site, my comments are indented.
Mnemosyne
@burnspbesq:
Is that kind of like how Neel Kashkari was the least scary of the Republican candidates for governor of California the last time around despite the whole “let’s fire guns!” campaign commercial?
NR
@redshirt: I’ve said consistently that I’m probably 90% sure to vote for Hillary in November. After seeing more of the shitshow on the Republican side, it’s probably more like 95% now.
Of course Hillary will need a lot more than just my vote.
Brachiator
@redshirt:
The media cannot mete out punishment. And we have moved far beyond the point where Republicans can be shamed into doing the right thing.
eemom
@Anne Laurie:
Who’s this “we”, kemosabe? I haven’t heard anyone on the left argue that. The debate is over how to react to the republitards’ obstruction of Garland’s nomination, not an argument that “we” should be dragging our feet.
And, once again, the fact that (God forbid) Cruz would appoint this guy, or worse, is a revelation HOW, exactly??
NR
@A Ghost To Most: That’s rich. The whining about “BernieBros” in the comments here could drown out a jet engine.
singfoom
@srv: Man, I remember my great grandparents telling me all about their prosperity working in factories. They told me about the prosperity of the other children losing fingers in the factory machines. Can you pass that shit?
redshirt
@NR: Cool. And that’s true enough.
raven
@srv: Your are so fucking full of shit.
eemom
@srv:
And children dying in mines. FUCK YOU, asshole.
burnspbesq
@LAO:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/04/07/daily-202-key-conservatives-pushing-mike-lee-for-the-supreme-court/5705472c981b92a22ddc6367/
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@LAO: Did you see my reply about your Bundy note? Made in the thread where you announced it.
SiubhanDuinne
Is there any chance we could have a thread explicitly celebrating Tom Levenson and his having been awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship? He deserves a huge Balloon Juice party IMO.
And how many people here know that Tom’s father was also a Guggenheim Fellow? Have to wonder how often that’s happened, to have two generations receive the same award (albeit in different categories).
LAO
@burnspbesq: thank you.
Baud
@SiubhanDuinne:
Ugh. I hate dynasties.
Just kidding. Yay Tom.
Chyron HR
@A Ghost To Most:
Ha ha ha, “until election day”? Anyone ever told you you’re a real optimist?
D58826
@LAO: Someone on a blog suggested, maybe only half in jest, that Garland just show up on the first Tue. in October, put on a robe and take the empty seat. If the GOP complains he will just say sue me!!!!
raven
@SiubhanDuinne: You should send that to Anne and Betty with links/
LAO
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): just looked. Don’t see it.
debbie
@Patricia Kayden:
I think you’re missing his subtle snark, which is easy, considering it’s been repeated countless times.
redshirt
@SiubhanDuinne: That is amazing. Congratulations to Tom.
And also sincerely to John for creating the caliber of Front Pager here. You’re all awesome.
Speaking of which, has anyone heard from Dennis?
LAO
@D58826: I would pay good money to see that.
burnspbesq
@LAO:
Apology in advance for your future nightmares.
raven
@redshirt: He’s with this outfit.
Hoodie
@Brachiator: Not sure they’d want that, it would bring minority voters out in droves in November and would look awful internationally. There are some arguments for Obama moving ahead with the appointment if they refuse to act, and I wouldn’t assume those are not in his thoughts. IIRC, the sheer refusal to consider Garland is unprecendented. I would imagine the argument for going forward with installation would be along the lines of the refusal of the Senate to schedule hearings or take any other actions that indicate an intent to advise enables Obama, after an undefined amount of time, to assume that the inaction represents tacit consent to the nominee. That would be consistent with the fact that the Senate can at any time start hearings and/or hold a vote on Garland, either of which would rebut the presumption of consent. I’m not sure the optics of that would be so great for the GOP in that scenario, particularly among the mouthbreather base, who would view it as caving in to Obama. McConnell has, however, set himself up for that, and Obama could call his bluff. An impeachment is the last thing they want in the middle of an election. It makes no sense to impeach Obama when the Senate can simply stop him from installing Garland by holding a vote. Also, why have an impeachment of a president who will be gone in less than a year? No one sane is going to buy that. I always thought they would just slow roll the nomination through the end of the year, pretend they’re considering Garland but never conclude the process. They may still end up doing that.
SiubhanDuinne
@raven:
Will do, thx
LAO
@burnspbesq: I hesitated before thanking you for that very reason!
JCJ
@srv:
This is some of your most impressive work. We should ask the African American commenters about the liberty that was enjoyed by their great-grandparents. For myself I do not know much about my great-grandparents, but if I may speak for my 24 year old daughter her great-grandfather really enjoyed the prosperity that came along with being a coal miner. He also enjoyed the black lung disease that shortened his life.
redshirt
@raven: Out of the blogging game, then? Good for him!
Calouste
@srv: I don’t know about your great-grandparents, srv, but my great-grandparents weren’t slave owners.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@LAO: It suggested you check bundy criminal corporations from our dealer if you wanted to shoot me a document. I was using code names.
Speaking of, @raven: who the hell was that old guy who looked sort of like Steve Winwood in the video you posted below?
dollared
@Brachiator: And let them try. Obama is clearly not violating the Constitution. And it would give him a huge platform to rip the Republicans to shreds for not doing their jobs.
The “walk him through the front door of the Supreme Court” strategy is win win win win.
Roger Moore
@redshirt:
IANAL, but it’s basically because that’s the way we’ve always done it, i.e. precedent. The Constitution says that judges and other high ranking officials are appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Since the very beginning of the republic, the consent has been understood to mean an active approval, not just the tacit acquiescence, of the Senate. The need for active approval is also implied by the special rules regarding recess appointments, since there would be no need for special rules about what to do when the Senate can’t handle the nomination if doing nothing were sufficient to accept the choice. And there have been plenty of cases of nominees for positions other than the Supreme Court who languished for extended periods without receiving a vote and without being allowed into office as having been passively consented to.
Mary 1.0
@Brachiator: I think she means let them impeach Garland if they don’t want him to serve.
Mike J
@D58826: Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit
raven
@redshirt: I only knew him a bit before he left Athens but lots of my friends know him well and really think highly of him.
lamh36
dollared
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: Yes, and if you weren’t so focused on your sense of victimhood you would realize that what he is saying is that by accepting millions of dollars of contributions and direct payments from rich people, foreign governments and large businesses, she has created a web of conflicts of interest that dis qualify her from the job.
He is not saying that she is not possessed of the skill and experience. He is saying that she cannot act as an uncompromised advocate for the people of the US.
Andy
@SiubhanDuinne: “Hear,Hear”
chopper
@dollared:
even if O was down with the idea (which he’s not), does anybody actually think that merrick garland of all people wants to be seated on the supreme court that way?
The Fat Kate Middleton
@SiubhanDuinne: Wow!! Congratulations, Tom!
LAO
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): I’m on it!
A Ghost To Most
@D58826:
feebog
If HRC wins the General watch how quickly Mitch and his merry band of cutthroats move to confirm Garland. I predict hearings and a vote before Thanksgiving. This is nothing but McConnell playing politics. The people already spoke in 2012 when we overwhelmingly re-elected Obama.
Bobby Thomson
There’s only one way to keep Lee or worse off the SCOTUS. Elect a Democratic president.
lamh36
redshirt
@raven: Yeah he seemed like good people. Hope he’s happy.
Fuck the Confederacy! In Dennis’s honor.
pseudonymous in nc
fact checker, please. (Kilgore’s trolling us with that one, right?)
Mike Lee is a quarter-pounder nothingburger. I continue to be amazed by the poltroons who the GOP congressional gang elevate as their legal scholar inter-lek-tules: Sessions, Cornyn, Lee. Fuckwits, all.
smith
It’s been suggested that Obama could call the Senate back into session at the height of general election campaigning to deal with the extraordinary situation of multiple 4-4 SCOTUS decisions that leave the country with unsettled and inconsistent law. This has its own problems, but at least would serve to keep the issue alive during the election.
Brachiator
@dollared:
He’s already ripping them for not doing their jobs. They don’t much care.
Trollhattan
@srv:
Peace as in the Great War? Prosperity as in the Great Depression? How about a global pandemic at no extra charge? Yes, little can we imagine such halcyon times, today.
Just Some Fuckhead
Where exactly is the full court press by Democrats to get Garland an upperdown vote? Reverse the situation and Republicans and vast RW conspiracy organs would be threatening secession over it and completely dominating every media outlet.
And we wonder why we always lose.
dollared
@Brachiator: it’s about theater. The media will ignore Republican treason unless you give them lots of video. It’s called politics. Democrats should try it sometime.
feebog
@dollared:
The same would apply to Obama then since he has also taken money from “special interests”? Look, I understand the argument, and good for Bernie for not taking superpac money. But the notion that a $2700 donation from a lobbyist for Exxon=in the tank for the Oil Industry is ludicrous.
? Martin
@Roger Moore: Sure, but what if Garland just shows up one day in his robe? Would the other justices have security walk him out of the building? The GOP has always assumed that Dems would follow the rules and conventions while the GOP flaunts them. We don’t always need to be so accommodating.
p.a.
@dollared: Posted this recently, Rep. Jesse Unruh quote:
Technocrat
@? Martin:
Yeah, I’ve never understood that dynamic.
? Martin
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Probably when the current strategy stops working. So far there has been a steady erosion of resistance from Senators. Why disrupt that trend?
dogwood
@dollared:
It’s not a win at all. It’s only a win for partisans who live for the tit for tat, get even at any cost stuff. Politics is entertainment for political junkies; governing is serious busines. People can’t complain about the superficiality of the press and how they cover politics, and then demand our side engage in feeding the beast. It’s hypocritical. I just watched Obama at the UofC law school. There’s no chance in hell he’ll ever sign on to some strategy that matches the nonsense Republicans engage in on a daily basis.
dollared
@chopper: That’s a fair point. I would have nominated somebody who was on the team all the way. IMHO, you have to fight fire with fire. The most likely thing that would happen is that Roberts would decline to seat Garland but issue an order that he will be seated if 30 more days passes without a vote. Roberts knows the R’s behavior degrades the court.
Technocrat
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Who on the Dem side likes Garland? Seriously. It wasn’t a choice destined to fire up the base.
Just Some Fuckhead
One of my Facebook friends said Republicans will never allow a vote on Garland and I replied in a fever, “we will burn it all down!” And my fellow travelers said BURP.
smith
@lamh36: Bill needs to sit down and shut up. Bad enough to spout RW talking points, but to do it because your own damn ego can’t let criticism go is inexcusable in a surrogate who’s supposedly a skilled politician. She’s been said to have heaved lamps at him before. Would not like to hear their dinner conversation tonight.
lamh36
I’m sorry, but I LMBAO at that tweet from Walker. I over the entire thing, but Walker actually tweeting this made me LOL cause my reaction was …whatever dude… you couldnt even make it from the kiddie table.
Bobby Thomson
Now that I’ve seen the full Bill remarks, it’s clear that there’s context missing.
Just Some Fuckhead
@? Martin: What’s working, exactly? Martinsplain it to me.
p.a.
@Trollhattan: But: straw boaters! Even makes up for polio…
Technocrat
@lamh36:
Sanders camp can’t be happy to see that. We’ll have to see if Cruz and Trump decide to get in on the lulz.
Baud
@Technocrat: I like Garland.
dollared
@dogwood: No, actually, you have to set boundaries for bullies. This is the high road. It is fully supported by legal theory – a right to consent not exercised is waived.
And you know what, 300 million Americans need Democrats to be their advocates, not high minded academics. Do you really think FDR, LBJ, Truman would have let this stand?
singfoom
@? Martin:
I’ve always wondered if there’s just annoying petty shit that the President could pull to make Senators live’s harder. Just little things via executive order to agencies they have to deal with.
Like order the GSA to fuck with the Senate chamber, make up an excuse and have them rehab specific committee rooms, shit like that. Just a lot of little annoying shit to make their lives miserable.
I don’t think that’s the person he is, but it’d be entertaining if something like that could happen. “Oh you won’t hear my SCOTUS nominee out? Hey, that Senate gym needs remodelling, it’ll be done in like 4 years. You can use this old shitty pool though.”
I know it’s petty and childlike, but it’s playing their game.
Trollhattan
@p.a.:
That kind of politickin’ will get a fine building named for you.
dollared
@? Martin: Amen.
p.a.
@Trollhattan: ?
Technocrat
@Baud:
Fair enough. However, I think it’s reasonable to say there’s been a lot of pushback on the choice.
Anyway, it won’t be long before you can nominate him yourself.
scav
@srv: Our grandparents were so fucking in love with their unmaginable prosparity that they set up all thse social and governmental institutions to protect themslves from their happiness of addulterated foods; air you could chew; 8 year olds underground in mines and the elderly abandoned without foodstuffs. Let’s get back to their life of reilley and tear down everything they strived for and ignore any lessons they learned. Because that’s conservative, ignoring the past in favor of fantasy.
Technocrat
@Just Some Fuckhead:
“splain” is officially dead now. But I LOL’d.
Sherparick1
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: Halprein, almost as wrong as Kristol. I say Bernie loses New York by 20 points.
redshirt
@Just Some Fuckhead:
This is exactly right, and I hope we all understand and accept it. But then seek to change it.
Republicans would be screaming TREASON at the tops of their lungs on all the news channels if the situation were reversed. We all know this to be true. And shit would change promptly in their favor.
But Dems can never do this. Dems never back Dems on TV. In 8 years like 5 people have got Barack’s back. It’s pathetic.
And yet, Republicans keep getting away with outrages and we can’t even operate by proper governmental procedure.
There’s an imbalance to everything and I’d love to know how we can re-balance it.
Baud
@Technocrat:
I’m nominating a true Baudgressive.
eemom
@Technocrat:
Lots of people who know more about the man than ignorant “fire up the base” bullshitters. Seriously. Go do some research.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Technocrat: The Democratic “base” has to be fired up for the elected party officials to take on the cause?
dogwood
@? Martin:
What is a full court press supposed to look like? Democrats are in the minority in the Senate. They can’t force republicans to do anything. I think what we’re looking at from here on out is the impossibility of anyone ever being confirmed to the Supreme, Court unless the Senate and the White House are controlled by the same party. The tradition of the 9 member panel just may be over.
chopper
@dollared:
so was O’s decision to go around the senate’s non-recess. didn’t go over well.
Just Some Fuckhead
@redshirt: Ya know I’m not completely stupid right? In other news, eemom and I got e-ngaged.
Aimai
@NR: the goal of life, or elections, is not to portion out blame or brag about your (or your candidates) unimpeachable perfection. Its to DO the fucking thing. To live, to govern, to act. The fact that you keep repeating this stupid, childish, premature gloat says a lot about what a useless human being you are.
Technocrat
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Yeah, I think so. Because they need to be pushed to take some political risk, and they won’t be pushed without public support.
@eemom:
I’m not going to research him, because I don’t give a shit about his qualifications. I’m talking about the reaction to him.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Technocrat: I don’t know who you are and how long you’ve been around but “martinsplain” is a term on Balloon Juice, coined a few years ago by Corner Stone, IIRC.
redshirt
@Just Some Fuckhead: I shout it out for the Millennials. I find repetition works with them.
lamh36
So Bernie Sanders tweeted that as President he would apologize for slavery or some such…so ok, whatever.
So Thom Hartmann tweeted:
Le sigh…really…really…so what 28 Presidents before him…I’d like to think of all of them, the 1st Black President, probably isn’t the one who should be apologizing for slavery Thom…smh
amk
For all the we won’t budge an inch song & dance bs from the rethugs, IIRR, the kenyan pretty much got what he wanted in judges appointments.
dollared
@chopper: Sorry, too cryptic. What are you referring to?
redshirt
@dogwood: Seriously, if there’s ever a Republican President again, and he (or she but c’mon let’s be serious) got the chance to nominate a Supreme Court judge with a Democratic Senate, they better not vote, right?
Technocrat
@Just Some Fuckhead:
I enjoy Martin’s explanations. But it’s pretty clear why the term was coined. :)
lamh36
@srv: I like that the headline from Fox news is “Bill Clinton SHUTS down Black Lives Matter…”
It’s just the type of headline a Fox news station would use.
dogwood
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Elected party officials are running ads in states where republicans are up for re-election. Clinton spoke at length about this the other day. Activists are organizing around this issue. Susan Collins met with Garland and hasn’t ruled out voting for him, so she is feeling some heat along with some embarrassment, I assume. This Senate will never confirm Garland, but they might cave on hearings and a vote. I wouldn’t bet on it, but we’ll see. The press isn’t very interested in this issue, which is why Republicans get away with this crap.
J R in WV
@srv:
My Mom’s parents were totes successful, Grand-dad worked in a coal mine tipple, running the hoist that lifted coal 555 feet and dumped it into chutes right beside his work station. He died young of lung disease. He did get to meet tiny baby grandchildren, but none of us remember him. Black lung, Cancer, COPD, he had ’em all.
But they managed to buy a little farm, where they raised a big garden, kept a dairy cow, chickens, a pig. So they ate OK, even if my grand-dad died when I was 10 months old. That’s what you’re in favor of?
Fuck you, asshole. You’re a monster if you think things were better in the USA in 1920 than they are in 2016!
ETA: I see I’m joining a mighty chorus aimed at srv’s sick opinions. Thanks all for pointing out srv’s sickness. I agree!
NR
@Aimai: What the fuck are you on about?
The Democratic party is not entitled to anyone’s vote. That is a fact. Politicians have to earn the votes they need to get into office. If they can’t do that, it’s the candidate’s fault, not the voters. Blaming the voters – which the Democrats love to do – is counterproductive and stupid.
Brachiator
@dollared:
I understand political theater. I don’t see that media attention would be meaningful or have any effect.
The media is not responsible for either indicting or prosecuting Republican treason.
Germy Shoemangler
Samantha Bee said that Trump would nominate a stack of Maxim magazines for the supreme court.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Technocrat: How exactly is standing up for the constitutions political risk. Hell, don’t eve bring the constitution into it. How us there any political risk at all here?
lamh36
@lamh36: FYI, this is the tweet Hartmann was responding to.
FlyingToaster
@dollared: No, they’d have played the system just like Obama and Reid are doing right now.
I’m getting very tired of the whole purity troll meme. You let me know which $100,000 fee for speaking you’ve turned down. Ever. Or any other purity trolls.
Oh, nobody wants to give you a nickel for opening your yap? Color me surprised.
dogwood
@dollared:
FDR, Truman, and LBJ had huge majorities in the Senate, so this would never have been an issue. And FDR’s court packing plan didn’t work out so well for him.
smith
@srv:
???? Here is someone like Nixon would nominate, to ensure that even the mediocre get representation on SCOTUS.
eemom
@dogwood:
Thank you. The “Dems aren’t stepping up for Garland” meme is total bullshit. IMVHO.
prob50
@The Fat Kate Middleton:
Yeah, a wingnut Heritage Foundation/Jeff Sessions crony would make a much more thoughtful and fair SC Justice than some serious and well-respected old fuddy-duddy Constitutional scholar with a funny name. Come on, a manly guy with a ‘Merican’ name like “Mike Lee” or some effete guy named “Merrick”
As a compromise the Dems could suggest Spike Lee. It’s no less ludicrous than the games the Gopernauts are laying out there.
J R in WV
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Really? Congratulations!! That’s fabulous good news, in the middle of political flak, happiness breaks out.
Or am I falling for something? Nope, not April 1st…
sinnedbackwards
@dollared: We should remember that Truman rode the “do-nothing Congress” to re-election, along with a House majority for Dems, AND against both breakaway southern racist dems as well as left-wing Progressives.
Technocrat
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Because it would never be framed as “standing up for the constitution”. I suspect the both-sides-do-it media complex is already desperate to find some equivalence between the two sides. So it would be “Dems politicizing the issue”, or “Angry Democrat Says Intemperate Thing” or some such.
I think they should do it, I just don’t think they will without a lot of pressure.
ETA: Plus, quite frankly, our side is incomprehensibly accommodating.
Just Some Fuckhead
@dogwood: So Democrats are basically only interested insofar as there is some political benefit to be had, not the moral rightness of it. I think we all knew that already but thanks for saying it out loud.
NR
@Technocrat:
Gee, I wonder why that could be?
Baud
@Just Some Fuckhead: Democracy is a bitch.
Brachiator
Late news item:
I don’t care who is qualified or unqualified. I don’t care who has crafted the best apology for this, that or the other. I don’t care who voted for what years ago.
I want to know what the candidates are going to do about the crises we face today, and how they will deal with the ones the world may likely face tomorrow.
And even if they want to be isolationist and say, “tough shit, people, good night and good luck,” have the guts to say so.
Anne Laurie
@redshirt:
You can follow his twitter feed here.
(Don’t need a twitter account to read other folks’ tweets.)
Just Some Fuckhead
@Technocrat: FlipyrWhig may have something to say about you stealing his schlock.
Calouste
@NR:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
dogwood
@Just Some Fuckhead:
What? The Clinton speech was entirely about the threat this shit poses to our democracy. The President has said the Republicans have a right to vote him down, but have a duty to honor the process. The ads that candidates and groups are running don’t say vote Merrick Garland, they say “Tell the Senate to do its job.” I consider all of that to be based on moral rightness rather than political expediency.
redshirt
@Anne Laurie: All this time he’s been tweeting!
Just like Cole is always tweeting. Rarely posting.
NR
@Calouste: It refers to the presumption that progressive votes rightfully belong to Hillary Clinton, and can somehow be “withheld,” thereby giving the election to the Republican. “Entitled” is the right word to describe that mentality.
amk
@Just Some Fuckhead:
You sound just like the religious nuts.
The kneejerk reactions of berniebots here shows how easily they can be fooled into believing I will rule by fiats bernie’s bs.
Technocrat
So…looking for some evidence of this Democratic wave of surrogates pushing the Merrick nomination:
CNN: Lindsey Graham to meet with Merrick
NYT: Lindsey Graham to meet with Merrick
WAPO: Republicans duck and run from Merrick
CBS NEWS: Obama – GOP jeopardizing integrity of judicial branch
TIME: Obama tells Republicans to vote on his nominee.
Lindsey Fuckin Graham, surrogate. I knew he’d come through for us.
prob50
@dedc79:
Ya know reinstating the old workhouse tradition for the offspring of the lower (and middle) clases could save a enough money to finance tax cuts for those under-appreciated jawb creeters of 1% land, build us a heaping pile of brand-new nukuler weapons and put up a really fantastic wall down the Mesican border, make it 100 feet tall and let Donald Trump license it out under his brand name.
Andy
@Brachiator: “Technocracy!” Dude! Hillz Rules! Yeah! “Hillz World, Hillz World, it’s PARTY time most excellent! Hillz World, Hilz World!”…”Schwing”.
A Ghost To Most
@NR:
Ok, we’ve established what you are. Now we’re just haggling over the price.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Brachiator: That sounds like an Iraqi crisis to me. Have you thought about running for a seat in the Iraqi parliament?
NR
@A Ghost To Most: What a bizarre comment.
amk
@A Ghost To Most:
NR has been whining since 2006. Not gonna stop now.
Just Some Fuckhead
@amk: Douchebag, I’m a Clinton supporter. Thanks for the canned Sanders nonsense. I hope you benefited from it somehow.
dogwood
@amk:
It actually is a moral issue in many ways. It certainly involves the integrity of our leaders and the institutions they oversee. Ironically, it is Bernie who hasn’t spoken about this issue in any meaningful way.
A Ghost To Most
@NR:
LesBonnesFemmes
@dollared: He did not mind $10,000 of HILLPAC money donated to his Senate campaign in 2006. Wall St money was just tasty enough to him back then.
NR
@A Ghost To Most: And this is relevant… how, exactly?
eemom
@Brachiator:
A heartfelt comment on a thread full of clowns and trolls.
amk
@dogwood: Given all the judges are either political appointees or politically elected, I don’t see how morality comes into play here.
Andy
@eemom: You should talk!
eemom
@Technocrat:
Looking for it in the emmessemm. God, you’re an idiot.
redshirt
We all know the sad truth.
If it’s not American lives than it does not matter to the NEWS.
4 people die in a small plane crash. Candles.
800 people drown on a Bangladeshi ferry. Wha?
Mnemosyne
@Technocrat:
Garland is a great choice for the Supreme Court. He’s a top judge, a respected jurist, and personally seems to be a really nice guy. But since we don’t belong to an organized party, people have to bitch and moan about any choice Obama makes. Remember the whining about the “corporatist” Elena Kagan? I sure do.
A Ghost To Most
@NR:
You want to be wanted,you want to to be wooed.Burnie wooed you, HRC didn’t. Now the disappointment sets in, and anyone who gets your love now is damn well going to meet your expectations (meet your price).
Or you could quit whining, get with the rest of us, and concentrate on the real opponents.
NR
@Mnemosyne: Don’t pretend Garland is without his problems. He was one of the judges who declared Gitmo a Constitution-free zone. And also there is the matter of his age.
I view Garland as an acceptable compromise candidate in light of the Republican Senate (so long as he is confirmed before the election), but pretending there aren’t legitimate issues and all the complaints are just ODS is bullshit.
Omnes Omnibus
@redshirt: This is why.
dogwood
@amk:
The idea that political actors shouldnt be expected to have a moral code seems odd to me. It’s not about religion. It’s about, honesty, fairness, respect, and decency. President Obama definitely operates within the bounds of his own moral compass.
Technocrat
@eemom:
Ehh. God forbid effective surrogates get mentioned in the MSM. Better we have some great diaries on the Wreck List.
NR
@A Ghost To Most: That’s… a really weird choice of metaphor.
dogwood
@Mnemosyne:
Garland is considered to be left of Kagan by many SCOTUS geeks.
A Ghost To Most
@NR:
You sound like you want to be bought. Is that clear enough?
Technocrat
@Mnemosyne:
Personally, I would have liked a more liberal pick. But my original point was more how he has been a fairly contentious choice, within the Party.
ETA: Edited to add that I don’t think it *really* matters how liberal he is, given the chance of him getting the nom.
NR
@A Ghost To Most: I still have no idea what you’re on about. I want a president who will address the most critical issues facing the nation and the world. If I can’t have that, I’ll settle for keeping the Republicans out. For now.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@Technocrat: “I would have liked a more liberal pick” — like whom?
redshirt
@Omnes Omnibus: What a crazy link. Swastikas jumping out at me!
Just Some Fuckhead
i don’t give a flying fuck which Overton window Garland is staring out of wistfully. He’s the candidate Obama nominated and any Democratic politician – including recent convert Sanders – that isn’t out there making a ruckus is tacitly approving the notion that Obama is somehow uniquely unqualified to carry out the duties of his job.
Mike J
@redshirt: Fore a site about the US constitution, they do seem pretty obsessed with Hitler. Going for the Bundy type traffic?
redshirt
@Mike J: Maritime Law only.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@Technocrat: According to this study Garland is as liberal as RBG. (Chart).
If he’s as liberal as Ginsberg, what more you could you want.
? Martin
I would declare Mike Lee on SCOTUS as final confirmation that Idiocracy was sent back to us from the future as a warning.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Technocrat: I have no idea what you two are arguing about. Were you fussing at each other in another thread? That’s usually the genesis of these WTF comversations.
A Ghost To Most
@NR:
Then stfu about HRC earning your vote. Vote for her or not, but enough with the purity crap. It’s fucking tiresome.
Mnemosyne
@NR:
Name a second problematic decision of Garland’s. Just one. There should be a bunch of them to choose from since he’s such a weak candidate, right?
His age doesn’t bother me. The new trend of only nominating people in their 50s bothers me, actually.
Hoodie
@efgoldman: Not necessarily. The Platinum Coin Theory is based on an interpretation of a statute, which can be shut down by the Supremes. The Seat Garland Theory is based on interpretation of Article II, a political question that the Supremes may not want to touch. Anyway, the Senate has the power to shut down Garland’s installation by taking any formal action that indicates they are actually doing the job of considering Garland. Right now, we have no idea what the Senate’s collective intent is because the GOP leadership refuses to do anything, i.e., McConnell’s or any other individual senator’s pronouncements don’t mean anything if there is no objective indication of a collective intent by the Senate, which would be, at minimum, commencing hearings. The longer they wait, the stronger the presumption they’ve consented or just abdicated their jobs. Article II requires Obama to make appointments, not just nominations. Sure, the Senate can withhold its consent, but theoretically they have to make that clear. So he’s just acting on his constitutional responsibility in the absence of any evidence that the Senate as a whole does not approve of the nomination. It’s a giant bluff on McConnell’s part, and Obama could call it. He just gives them notice that if in, say, 2 months, they don’t commence hearings, he will assume they consent to Garland and he will appoint him to the Court. Nothing impeachable about that, and the Senate can easily solve the crisis by starting hearings or holding a vote.
Mnemosyne
@Technocrat:
As dogwood said, Garland is very liberal, more liberal than some of the liberals on the court right now. The beef against him is that Gitmo decision, which some people have latched into so they can ignore the rest of his record.
Sorry, but Gitmo is not a dealbreaker for me. Abortion is, and Garland has been a rock-steady liberal on that for decades.
Peale
@Technocrat: the only criticism I’ve heard about him is from people who wanted to choose a minority to fire up a segment of the party. He’s not Asian. He’s not Hispanic. He’s not a she.
Turgidson
@pseudonymous in nc:
Pretty sure Kilgore is snarking there. He has a dry sense of humor.
trollhattan
@A Ghost To Most:
Rest of this sentence? :-)
Anyway, yeah. Weak tea, that.
trollhattan
@Mnemosyne:
I’m fine with Garland and the more I learn of him, the more of a mensch he appears to be.
Smart, that president of ours.
Villago Delenda Est
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: The only kiss that could be deadlier is one from Bill Kristol.
Aimai
@NR: no one is blaming anyone for anything. You must have had really poor experiences with early toilet training. You have the angry, fearful, spiteful aspect of a beaten child whose only sucess is withholding his poop. I feel sorry for you. Obsessed, resentful, and constipated is no way to go through life, let alone an election cycle. Try to just get out, vote for your candidate, and stop worrying about blaming or assigning blame. No one gives a fuck.
Technocrat
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
I don’t know, honestly. All the options I’ve seen put forth seem to be moderate to slightly-less-moderate. A pick that made a significant fraction of liberals say “Oh wow, I like this person” would have done for me.
Technocrat
@Just Some Fuckhead:
I’m not really sure either. I intimated that Dems weren’t doing the full-court press for Merrick? Dunno. Not a big deal.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@Technocrat: “Judge Garland is a strong nominee with decades of experience on the bench.” ~ Senator Bernard Sanders.
I guess Sanders is part of the insignificant faction.
Omnes Omnibus
@Technocrat: A person who moves the median vote on the court to the left from Kennedy is a win.
hueyplong
I don’t get complaining about Garland’s opinions and his age. If he’s not your guy for the job, you should be glad he’s old. Complaining about both is an objective indicator that the complaining will continue regardless.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Aimai: I laughed out loud.
dogwood
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
These people don’t care about his actual record, they just want something to complain about. The President is never really doing it quite right. The media said Garland was a moderate,because he got republican votes. That’s the depth of media analysis. Many liberals buy it and whine. It’s exhausting. I’m a liberal and I like the pick. If Obama really wanted to screw around with republicans he should have nominated 77 year old Richard Posner. A highly regarded conservative jurist who thinks Scalia was fucking nuts. I would have loved to see Republicans come up with a strategy on that.
? Martin
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Pretty simple, actually. Every Republican said they wouldn’t even talk to the guy. That’s fallen apart. Even Grassley will meet with him. Several Republicans calling for a hearing. Once enough Republicans wave the white flag, then Dems can speak up more loudly as there will then be a majority asking for a hearing.
But what makes you think a ruckus would get Garland seated? Republicans LOVE it when Democrats make ruckus – they fundraise off that shit. Cleeks law. Winning means seating Garland, not making the Democratic base feel good that you are yelling louder than the dumbshits. That lack of yelling from Democrats is called party discipline. Obama and Reid have a plan. Maybe it won’t work, but it’s a plan and every Democrat is doing their job. Lets give them a bit of respect that maybe they know what they’re doing. So don’t listen to me, listen to them.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Rachel Maddow has two big interviews tonight! Martin O’Malley and Jane Sanders! She’s nervous about interviewing Jane Sanders? Why? I can’t decide which of these two people I’m less interested in hearing from.
this one is bringing some angry baggage to politics, it is a sad spectacle
TDVFZW
@Omnes Omnibus: I like it; short, succinct, and striking. Oh Christ, the alliteration was accidental. I have a broken organ in my head. Stated to avoid yet another untoward device.
Speaking of things literary, I was unaware that all submissions in honor of National Poetry Month were required to be in haiku form. I did understand that we were each required to submit at least one haiku by April 15.
amk
@? Martin:
This.
Gin & Tonic
@TDVFZW: We went through that a couple of nights ago.
Anya
@Just Some Fuckhead: Whenever I see the republicans clownish behavior, their ugliness and their stupidity, I wonder how are these clowns beating our side all the time? I just don’t understand why we’re this inept.
Anya
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I think Rachel is throw with the Sanders campaign. I watched her last night & the night before, and I can tell she’s done propping Sanders.
john w casey
@redshirt: Every Justice to ever sit on the Supreme Court has received an actual affirmative vote from the Senate. That’s a pretty convincing practical interpretation of what the Constitutional language means.
And, yes, I am (or was, retired now) a lawyer.
JC
SiubhanDuinne
@TDVFZW:
Shit! It’s deadline day!
Haven’t written fucking squat.
Sod it. This’ll do.
dogwood
@Anya:
Citizens United, Voter Suppression, and gerrymandering. Calling democrats inept, is easy, but there are some structural hurdles that have allowed the minority of voters to actually maintain power. Until those barriers are gone, the Republican Party will become increasing extreme.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
The Wisconsin Supreme Court election this week is a good example. This wasn’t a primary, it was a statewide general (I’ll defer to any locals if I’ve got that detail wrong). The state party, for whatever reason, could get people excited about the prospect of a truly horrible person being elected to a ten year term that is probably going to affect a lot of people’s lives. Republicans, the worst of their base, have managed to make every election important. Democrats and Dem-leaners, for reasons I can’t quite grok, only get excited about the presidency.
TDVFZW
@Gin & Tonic: So was the consensus, or directive, that they all had to be haiku? Certainly there was a lot of that, and I expect it to continue. Not that I would ever contribute to such a situation. But I’m still confused.
@SiubhanDuinne: Excellent – works in the nature element as a pun. I haz a moment of envy.
NR
@Aimai: Judging by this comment, you have some pretty serious psychological issues.
Seek help.
NR
@Mnemosyne: So you consider abortion rights more important than basic human rights. That’s certainly your perogative. But there are people out there who don’t agree with you, and pretending that the ones who don’t are suffering from ODS is bullshit.
NR
@A Ghost To Most: Like I said: Hillary is going to need a lot more than just my vote.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
so women’s rights =/= human rights.
Always interesting to have the perspective of a self-righteous little rage bunny.
The Lodger
@Omnes Omnibus: Consider that Obama is moving Garland from the most senior position on the nation’s second-highest court to the most junior seat on the highest court. It’s literally the smallest change imaginable.
He seems to be an able, experienced judge, not a party operative in a robe. More like him, please.
Aimai
@NR: you first.
dogwood
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
You hear a lot of arguments here that it is the party’s responsibility to motivate voters. I’ve never ascribed to that philosophy. Citizens have a responsibility in this equation. I don’t need to be wooed, cajoled or excited to go to the polls as if candidates are products and I’m a consumer. I vote because I have an obligation to keep up my end of the bargain as a citizen.
NR
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Sure they are. But they aren’t the entirety of them. And having to sacrifice habeus corpus to secure abortion rights is not a choice we should have to make.
Calouste
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Maddow could ask Jane Sanders where she thinks she has last seen the Sanders family tax returns. They seem to be missing.
Aleta
Not this parking lot.
Lie down in front of
campfires
Without any thoughts.
NR
@Aimai: I’m not the one who’s obsessed with scat.
SiubhanDuinne
@TDVFZW:
Unintended. Nice catch!
Miss Bianca
@SiubhanDuinne: I second this idea!
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Miss Bianca: I’ll third it.
@SiubhanDuinne: The unconscious is an
amazing thing; I believe you intended you intended it for me to enjoy catching.
SiubhanDuinne
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q):
Well, in truth, the word “sod” was a last-minute substitution for another word that didn’t work as well. But I wasn’t consciously thinking “nature” and I wasn’t consciously thinking “wordplay.” So yes, let’s hear it for the amazing unconscious!
SiubhanDuinne
@Miss Bianca:
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q):
Thanks. I sent an email to AL and BC, so perhaps one of them will put up a dedicated thread. And if not, well, Tom knows we love him.
Anne Laurie
@SiubhanDuinne: Thanks! If Tom’s too busy to take a victory lap here, I’m planning on using your link for tomorrow’s breakfast thread.
J R in WV
@Just Some Fuckhead:
So Dogwood speaks for the whole Democratic party now?
Great! I just need to be informed of these seismic adjustments to freedom of speech. I won’t speak of Democratic policies any more, they are Dogwood policies now. I see.
;-)
NR
@efgoldman: So just fuck all those guys at Gitmo, right? Who cares if the president can disappear someone into an offshore prison, torture them, and hold them indefinitely without charges or trial so long as abortion rights are protected.
Gin & Tonic
@NR:
I like scat too. Tell me who’s your fave, Ella or Jon Hendricks?
Omnes Omnibus
@NR: I do find it interesting that you only show up during things like primaries and fights over major legislation. And that you always damn the good for not being perfect. Just an observation; no accusation.
Calouste
@NR: Except for the torture part, you mean standard procedure for prisoners of war? Who are held indefinitely (or at least until the war ends or a prisoner exchange happens) without charges or trial, and who can’t actually be charged except for war crimes.
debbie
@Brachiator:
Too late for you to see this, but your post is the best I’ve seen here in the last couple weeks. Pity it seems to have been little noticed. Baud better find a spot for you in his administration!
Just Some Fuckhead
@? Martin: Good points. Democrats need to keep their powder dry anyways.
WaterGirl
Testing block quote one way… Elizabeth Warren:
Testing block quote the other way (still Elizabeth Warren):