As Politico explains in this article, the odds of stopping another Trump appointment to the Supreme Court are slim to none.
Republicans have 53 Senate members. Democrats 47.
It would require four Republicans to vote no. If only three vote no, there will be a tie, and VP Pence will cast a tie-breaker in favor.
There has been speculation that Collins and McSally might vote no if the vote is held before the election. Murkowski of Alaska has said she thought it was inappropriate to confirm a new justice right before the election. That’s a possible three.
James Hohmann has a fascinating article in the Washington Post. He writes that Republicans will forge ahead with a nominee and won’t care f they are called hypocrites for saying the opposite in 2016, when they refused to give a hearing to Obama’s appointee Merrick Garland, ten months before the election.
He says the Senate would likely vote after the election, during the lame duck session.
He says Trump called McConnell and said he would appoint a woman, a conservative to be sure. Trump called McConnell on his flight back to Washington from a rally in Minnesota to say he likes Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and Barbara Lagoa of the 11th Circuit, two people briefed on the discussion tell Seung Min Kim….
Barrett, only 48, was confirmed to her post in late 2017 on an almost party-line vote. The only two Democrats who defected were Sens. Joe Manchin (W.V.) and Joe Donnelly (Ind.), who was defeated the next year. As a devout and outspoken Roman Catholic (she has seven children), she has left little doubt in her public comments and jurisprudence about her deeply-held hostility to reproductive rights. “Your legal career is but a means to an end, and … that end is building the kingdom of God,” Barrett said in a 2006 speech to graduates of Notre Dame, where she attended law school.
He added that the Supreme Court battle would energize the right and enable Trump to change the subject away from the pandemic.
He also said that if the Democrats win, the left will pressure them to expand the Court and “pack” them.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Since it is apparent that crooked, backstabing, lying, very unpopular Moscow Mitch McConnel is going to reveal he is a manipulating hypocrite by pushing through Trump’s recommendation to fill Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat before January 3rd when the next Congress convines, there is no reason why the democrats should not pack the Supreme Court by adding seats and filing them with progressives and/or liberals if they take back the White House, add to the majoirty they already have in the House, and win back the majority in the U.S. Senate.
“under the Constitution, the number of Supreme Court Justices is not fixed, and Congress can change it by passing an act that is then signed by the President. Article III, Section 1, starts with a broad direction to Congress to establish the court system: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” …
“The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the first Supreme Court, with six Justices. In 1801, President John Adams and a lame-duck Federalist Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which reduced the Court to five Justices in an attempt to limit incoming President Thomas Jefferson’s appointments. Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans soon repealed that act, putting the Court back to six Justices. Then, in 1807, Jefferson and Congress added a seventh Justice when Congress added a seventh federal court circuit.
“In early 1837, President Andrew Jackson was able to add two additional Justices after Congress expanded the number of federal circuit court districts. Under different circumstances, Congress created the 10th Circuit in 1863 during the Civil War, and the Court briefly had 10 Justices. Congress then passed legislation in 1866 to reduce the Court to seven Justices. That only lasted until 1869, when a new Judiciary Act sponsored by Senator Lyman Trumbull put the number back to nine Justices, with six required at a sitting to form a quorum. (President Ulysses S. Grant eventually signed that legislation and nominated William Strong and Joseph Bradley to the newly restored seats.)
“Since then, aside from President Franklin Roosevelt’s ill-fated threat in 1937 to add new Justices who sympathized with his policies to the Supreme Court, the number of Justices on the Court has remained stable.”
Get out and vote, vote for Biden, vote for democrats, but do not vote for Republicans because millions of lives, the environment, and the survival of our species is at stake.
Judge Amy Barrett misses several points of the teachings of Jesus. First, He said: the kingdom of God is within you. Second, He said: Render onto Caesar the things that are his and to God the things that belong to Him. Jesus opposed a theocracy in this world and cautioned the Pharisees that they oppressed the people. Judge Barrett favors oppressing others with her religious views much as Catholics were oppressed for 700 years in Ireland.
During the great hunger in Ireland when a million Irish died, Catholic clergy preserved civil order for men who practiced the economics that Charles Koch and Bill Gates subscribe to. Gates participates in the Catholic Church that his wife attends. He lives in the state with the most regressive tax system in the nation. He opposed raising minimum wage and favors consumption taxes over income taxes, which result in the poor paying a rate of almost 7 times the rate the rich pay in the state of Washington. Gates spent $200,000 to defeat judges who rendered verdicts favorable to public education.
Conservative religion aligns with despots as Jefferson said, in all times and in all countries.
Thank you. One of the Irish Freedom Fighters I knew said: “We need to treat the clergy civil but strange until we note their intent.” One his Irish friends fought in WWI and later married an English women he met in hospital. They settled on his family farm in County Clare. He died from mustard gas effects as a young father. One day, he noted the parish priest and local solicitor going to the widow’s home. He arrived a bit after them. The widow welcomed him. He asked what are these two about? “They want me to sell my husband’s farm to the landlord who owns the property next to ours.” “Oh do they? And what do you want?” She replied: “ I want what my husband wanted. I want my children raised n educated here where my husband was born.” Then, my friend looked to the priest and the solicitor and he asked: “Will you defile the wishes of a dead Irish patriot? Quietly, they departed. The good people of the community learned the story and gathered to support the widow and her children. Let us gather for justice and fairness.
Robert- your story has played out millions of times over history.
The church’s defenders will counter with, “but, the church has done good things, too”. The difficulty is that the bad things are macro in effect.
Linda,
The point of my story is that in civil matters clergy cannot be trusted. In matters of the soul, clergy who help us reflect on the Devine Will to love one another can be identified by what they say and do. Our best choice is try to be a good neighbor and not a political tool. Faithful Catholics serve others as Mother Teresa did without self interest. Many believers and non believers achieve this level of service. They are real people not manipulated by ideology who see what is in front of them. They see intimidation when it appears. They see evil and hatred and selfishness and they see love, kindness and fairness when it appears before them. They know what they see and they are not blinded by labels even if the label is racial, religious, or social.
Grassley said in July it was too close to the election to confirm another Supreme Court justice. Mark Kelly if elected could be seated in November.
Sent from my iPhone
>
There is a way to stop the Supreme Court nomination: Impeachment is first over any nomination hearings or votes. If the House makes the issue to impeach Barr a reality, the Senate has to stop all other business.
There are no grounds to impeach Attorney General Barr. Policy differences are NOT a reason; then again when do democrats need a reason.
Putin stooge.
Barr has betrayed the standards of the DoJ many times. He represents the American public, not Trump. He lies again and again to cover for his wicked boss.
Today is a good day for you, jacquilenhardt5598. You will get another Supreme Court Justice who understands that America needs to be run according to the selective Christian values that William Barr approves of and who will repeal the Affordable Care Act that Trump and Barr believe needs to be repealed and have tried to do so many times but couldn’t do until they got one more Trump Supreme Court justice. Now you can rest easy that you’ll never have to worry about health insurance again since you can buy it from a private company at whatever price they decide you should pay.
And since Barr hates regulations, you’ll be pleased to know that if you or your family ever have to use that health insurance for anything but minor issues – or if you have any pre-existing conditions – you’ll have the complete freedom to find a new private company that finds your family profitable to insure when the old one dumps you. You appreciate “freedom” so much that I know you are glad that with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, that health insurance company you paid so much in premiums to when you were healthy has “freedom” — something you can appreciate — to dump you now that you or one of your family member’s illness will cut into their profits. And it is only if insurance companies are completely free of regulations that might lesson their right to profit handsomely that America will be great again. Stay healthy, and if you don’t, I’m sure some rich guy will take pity on you and give your family half a million bucks to pay for treatment.
I’m not sure why you are posting here when your dream of a right wing Christian nation where people who get sick are too expensive to worry about is going to come true. And hey, don’t worry about COVID-19 or even the flu — Trump has guaranteed he’ll cover all your healthcare and only someone who didn’t give Trump $20,000 to attend Trump U. would ever doubt a thing Trump says.
I know how important that is to you, and this is surely a good time for you to gather together at packed churches with other people who know COVID-19 is a hoax, and celebrate your victory with lots of chanting and singing Trump’s praise. I don’t expect you to reply, since you will be much too busy gathering together inside with lots and lots of like-minded Trump supporters to celebrate private health insurance for all, including your grandparents. And if you are really, really lucky, Trump will have repealed the Affordable Care Act by the time you are done celebrating together with those who “know” COVID-19 is a hoax, too.
I speculate Jacqui is not Christian and is furthering Russian propaganda.
Putin’s interests are not served by a religious war in the U.S. because the 50+ percent in conservative religions receive grooming from their leaders to vote GOP. Putin understands income disparity created by the GOP (and some establishment Dems) drives a wedge between the races and, he is hoping for a civil war resulting in oligarchs but, weakened ones.
I’m a Christian, which is why I vote Republican. I sure wouldn’t want to be Ruth, as explains to her maker why she strode by all these years in support of the abortion of babies. It is the LEFT that has pushed Communist Russia, and now the communist Chinese on the American people. Quit projecting.
Jacqui-
With luck, one of the mask-less Christians who dies of Covid, one of the uninsured who dies in the hospital parking lot because ACA was cancelled or, one of the mothers who’s life is sacrificed for a fetus’ chance at survival will get back with us from heaven and tell us what Jesus Christ thought.
You, like Jerry Falwell and the pedophile priests, may be on the wrong side of the pearly gates.
No grounds? This is a man who has turned the Department of Justice into the private law firm of Don the Con. Extreme malfeasance.
quote from j************5598 “…the LEFT that has pushed Communist Russia, and now the communist Chinese on the American people.” Huh!? It was Nixon (GOP) who opened the door to communist China. Communist Russia is gone, kaput, history. It’s now crony capitalistic oligarchic Russia. Isn’t Trump a fan of Putin, doesn’tTrump have financial interests in Russia. It’s the US capitalists who are in love with commie China not the “left.” Check out Walmart with all its commie Chinese products, not a lefty organization. I bet jacquienhard has a houseful of commie Chinese products.
For J…, being “Christian” is the equivalent of pulling for a sports team and content with wearing a jersey and being guided by one overarching idea–winning at all costs. Devotion to the team and the current players on it are everything. Ethics, morality, tolerance, charity, intellectual consistency, reverence for and understanding of tradition–not to mention history, as her inane comments on “communism” demonstrate–have little room in her idea of ideology of faux religiosity. In other words, she is the exemplar of being a drone of the Idiot–a faith based on expedient power, not piety.
It’s hilarious to see a self-proclaimed Christian here who is sending a message that Christianity fixes this fractured political system(which historically and repetitively turns out wrong). Barr and Trump are not just going after their partisan enemies. They choose to go after so many people who have no interest in stupid partisan loyalty.
CINOs who display their loyalty to political platform as the utmost way to serve God are nothing more than modern-day Pharisees.
Freedom of religion is a right, but I’m old school. Keep religion out of affairs of the state. Good fences make good neighbors! We do not live in a theocracy, nor should we.
Of Barrs and Bars
The bar is low
If passing Barr
Is where you go
To pass the bar
Joe-
Jacqui plucks out talking points from the right wing orbit instead of gathering info. for herself or thinking on her own. She’s the type who puffs herself up and corrects others with Limbaugh’s, “America is a republic”
When the right to vote is taken from her as Peter Thiel wants, she will deserve it but, women who have voted Democratic, won’t.
She’s oblivious to the harbinger of 13 GOP women in the U.S. House and 186 GOP men.
jac5598: “I’m a Christian, which is why I vote Republican.”
It’s a non-sequitur.
The largest religious segment by far (43% of voters) in 2016, “notional Christians” [i.e., non-born-again], split 50-50 between Clinton and Trump.
Polled after 2016 election on 14 policy issues, white Evangelical voters’ primary concerns were terrorism and the economy. SCOTUS nominees was in the middle, and abortion near the bottom.
Don’t pretend your speculation about RBG’s place in the firmament is in the least motivated by Christianity.
Religious leaders persuade some number of their congregants to vote GOP. Those pastors and priests package the voting advice as a demand which will be met by those who have Christian values.
For as long as I can remember, while theocracy has gained power, Democratic political messaging has avoided religion. How’s that working? Let’s ask CAP.
Cheryl…….have you learned any more—-in support or correction…..I have had two posts not accepted, despite very civil wording, and I do not know why. I think Kamala Harris would be capable of convincing the house to impeach kavanaugh if she knows more now than she did when he looked baffled by her questions during his confirmation…..with the goal of muddying things up, to slow what was going on. A nationally respected writer responded directly to me, explaining why that was not a good idea. (He does favor adding more than the 9 supreme court judges.) I zm particularly interested in how true your “senate has to stop all other business” comment. Is that confirmed?
Joe,
Your comments were not rejected.
Wordpress is arbitrary about putting comments into moderation.
We will know exactly when McConnell has lined up the votes to approve Trump’s new Supreme Court Justice — when Susan Collins publicly comes out saying she “opposes” and will vote against Trump’s appointment, that means her vote isn’t needed.
There is a myth that Susan Collins “stood up” to Mitch McConnell in not supporting the “skinny repeal” of the Affordable Care Act. What people seem to forget is how completely stunned everyone in the GOP was when John McCain – at the very last second — walked up and provided the 51st vote against the repeal of the ACA. VP Pence was standing by to break the tie that McConnell was certain would be the case when he allowed Susan Collins to vote against repealing the ACA. If Mitch had known in advance that John McCain planned to oppose repealing the ACA, he would never have allowed Susan Collins to oppose it. Collins only does so when her vote is not needed.
John McCain’s goal was to stick it to Trump. Thanks for describing the rest of the story.
“that means her vote isn’t needed”
This is a time-honored tactic of congressional voting. The Whip allows defections when enough votes to win are counted in order to create an illusion for certain constituencies or the home state or district. Collins is a master of this ineffectual, cowardly tactic and hopefully, after four terms, the people of Maine are finally starting to wise up.
Yeah – I’m pretty sure she has used weasel words and the co-opted media has let her get away with it as usual. Sara Gideon needs to pin her down.
Collins says “no vote until after election day” (which allows a vote during the lame duck session).
Collins says “president elected Nov. 3” should choose, which allows her to say on Nov. 4 or 5 “well since we don’t know who is elected, Trump should just nominated someone we can vote on right away.
I do hope Sara Gideon pins her down — will Collins commit to blocking any vote on a replacement for RBG until after inauguration day 2021? If not, she is trying to mislead Maine voters by implying that she believes the next president should choose the replacement, when she is really just saying, let’s leave it until after the election so Maine voters think I care about their needs more than Mitch McConnell’s needs. She is leaving a hole big enough to drive a truck through that allows her to vote for the Trump/McConnell pick if Biden isn’t declared the winner on Nov. 3, which we all know is unlikely to happen with mail-in voting.
Don’t believe Collins. She will waffle before Election Day, then vote for Trump nominee after the election.
If it’s a blue wave on November 3rd, then it’s time to grant statehood to Puerto Rico and D.C, and expand SCOTUS & the appellate court. Otherwise, it’s back to the Lochner era.
Yes, there has to be a huge blue wave. I still think about what would have happened with a huge blue wave in 2016 — can you imagine there being 3 young RBGs joining Kagan, Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer to have a solid progressive Supreme Court, as would have happened if the democrat had won instead of Trump. And with the possibility of replacing Stephen Breyer with a younger justice and perhaps Clarence Thomas, too?
I’m done looking back, except to say that we MUST remember 2016 and understand exactly how high the stakes are, just as they were in 2016. The far right has always known that. I hope moderates to those on the far left also understand the stakes, or at least stop pushing the false narrative that Supreme Court doesn’t matter.
Perhaps Hillary’s campaign team which included Neera Tanden, John Podesto (CAP) and Randi could have messaged the public about theocracy’s takeover?
They did. The problem is that you only heard what got filtered by the media.
Surely the people who trusted Bernie Sanders would have been concerned enough about theocracy’s takeover to prevent it if the non-stop extensive campaigning that Bernie did for the democrats in 2016 had mentioned theocracy’s takeover. Surely you don’t think Bernie avoided mentioning that, do you? Do you really think the Bernie supporters didn’t vote for the democrat because Bernie never informed them of theocracy’s takeover? Or did they just not listen? Or did they just not care? Or were they actually happy that there would be a theocratic takeover?
Don’t you think the obvious answer is because that message was drowned out by the false propaganda the far right was pushing about the democrat that made it impossible for any of Bernie’s (or the democratic nominee’s) points to be heard?
Establishment Dems may have made the same strong case about the importance of judgeships and had their arguments thwarted by media.
Is there a review of comments about theocracy by Nancy Pelosi and John Podesto in 2016?
For Bernie to focus negative attention on Christian theocracy when he was Jewish would have been political suicide. Progressive Dems appreciate that Bernie stayed on message about income disparity. Establishment Dems certainly didn’t and aren’t effectively getting that message into the public’s ears in 2020. And, who would expect it from the billionaire-funded CAP staff and multi-millionaire establishment Dems?
“…For Bernie to focus negative attention on Christian theocracy when he was Jewish would have been political suicide. ..”
Say what??? You think Bernie Sanders was so terrified of not having political power that he’d rather not say one word to his supporters about the FAR RIGHT WING takeover of the Supreme Court that would happen if Trump was elected?
Let’s look at this logically. Those of us who didn’t dismiss everything that the DNC and Democrats said as an outright lie ALL knew how important it was for a democrat to be elected so that the Supreme Court didn’t turn to the far right. We knew it because the DNC and the democrats said it often AND we believed what they said (also hey, we believed it since it was obviously true!) That’s why we voted for the democrat whether she was our first or 3rd choice candidate. We knew that there WAS an enormous difference in the Supreme Court picks that Trump or the democrat would make. The notion that “people didn’t know” because “the democrats never ever mentioned it one time” is belied by the fact that all of us knew! The only question was which of us believed it mattered, and the ones who did voted for the democrat and the ones who didn’t are today perfectly fine because whether Trump or the democrat chose justices didn’t matter very much at all to them – if it mattered even a little they would have voted to make sure it didn’t happen, not to help make it happen! And they have every right not to care about the Supreme Court and should simply own it.
It’s clear that people who were certain there was nothing good about the DNC or democrats were not going to believe anything the democrats told them. They would have believed Bernie if he had told them. And I believe Bernie did talk about the make-up of the Supreme Court in his tireless efforts to make sure the next 2 or 3 SC Justices weren’t far right. So either his supporters also didn’t believe Bernie at all, or what Bernie was saying was drowned out by all the right wing propaganda that fooled them into being so angry that their candidate didn’t win that they simply didn’t much care whether Trump did.
You are insulting the very upright Bernie Sanders with your innuendo that Bernie Sanders was far more concerned with preserving his own political future than he was concerned about having Trump appoint 3 far right Supreme Court Justices. Surely you don’t believe that is true. It isn’t. While Bernie hoped his supporters who clearly weren’t going to listen to the democrats might listen to him, it is clear that either the right wing propaganda drowned out Bernie’s message, or that the composition of the Supreme Court was of almost no importance to some Bernie voters — but I also note that there were many Bernie voters who DID vote for the democrat because they agreed with what Bernie was telling them about the importance of the Supreme Court.
Those progressives who didn’t think the Supreme Court was important didn’t vote for the democrat. I don’t think there’s really any 3rd party voter from 2016 who is willing to embarrass themselves by saying “wait, you mean the president would get to choose the next justices – why didn’t anyone tell me that??” They knew and didn’t care. There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, they are a far more enviable position today than those of us who are not simply mourning RBG’s passing, but truly worried and upset at the notion that Trump will appoint yet another far right Justice. We’d all be much happier if we cared as little as they do.
NYC
Trying to untangle what was written
Voters (a) didn’t know SCOTUS’ importance because media deep-sixed the Dems’ message? or (b) knew, but didn’t think it mattered.
(b) seems unlikely.
A purpose is served by unbundling the secular right wing from the theocratic right wing in order to clarify where power resides. And, for those who politically message it aids in honing in on the correct audience.
Untangling again, (a) Bernie talked about the importance of SCOTUS decisions/appointees? and/or, (b) Bernie talked about theocracy?
It’s possible that politicians are appropriately advised that tribe members can criticize their religion but, an outsider is not permitted to. Did establishment Dems talk about theocracy? Or, did they limit the message that media deep-sized, to just the importance of SCOTUS appointments?
I don’t want you to misunderstand me. Bernie is the standard bearer for progressives and is fighting so that economic deprivation of the 99% doesn’t destabilize the country. In a battle, the loss of a commander is disastrous to the cause. I would see it as irresponsible for Bernie to compromise his effectiveness.
Linda says: “I would see it as irresponsible for Bernie to compromise his effectiveness.”
I doubt anyone thinks I am going out on a limb here when I say that Bernie Sanders knows he can be a lot more effective as a progressive leader if the Supreme Court isn’t controlled by the far right for the rest of his life.
Bernie knows that what would “compromise his effectiveness” is the end of democracy, certified by a right wing Supreme Court!
How many reporters will identify for the public, the Christian religion of a justice, politician, politician’s appointee or a private sector power broker when the person’s Catholic? If the person is evangelical, Jehovah Witness, Mormon or, from Scientology, it’s a different story. For example, how many in the public know William Barr is Catholic and about how it drives him politically?
As example of the preferential treatment afforded the Catholic religion, consider how the press whitewashed Trump’s visit to the Knights of Columbus shrine. Because Amy’s a woman with 9 kids, an exception may be made. Leonard Leo has 8 or 9 kids and few in the public are aware he is Catholic.
Many Catholic power brokers in D.C. pronounce religious motivation but, it doesn’t filter down to the voters. When it does, the retort is, “You’re picking on Catholics.”
Commenters at this blog still distance themselves from acknowledgement of theocracy. And, if the reporters who write about Catholic influence in D.C. and state capitols, read the comments in various threads at this blog, they would learn what to expect in terms of vitriol and skepticism when the topic is not evangelicals but instead the political influence of the other major U.S. conservative religion.
Have there been any exposés about the state Catholic Conferences in reference to school privatization, women’s reproductive rights, conversion therapy bans, the Equal Rights Amendment, advocacy for non-pharmaceutical birth control, etc.?
Linda Considering the divided economic state of the country, along with the rejection of the ACA, and the attempt to drain public service and even Social Security, I think the idea of the United States being a theocracy, Christian and/or Catholic, is a laughable ruse. Though identified with a secular state, ALL of those programs and movements are essential to Christian thought. Opposition to such ideas is in DIRECT opposition to Christian thought as flowing from the pages of the Bible.
That some evangelical Christians and brought-up Catholics think otherwise is just evidence that they are being “taken” into one of the outer circles the of totalitarian movement per Hannah Arendt’s recording of it in her work on that movement. Just like all great movements in history, there are always those who twist everything to their own advantage.
Also, presently, as with other times in recent history, oligarchy, authoritarianism, and even totalitarian-fascism hide beneath the evangelical and other-Christian label, as well as under the black robes of Catholicism, gone into hiding precisely because of the formidable rot that finally was exposed with the presence of pedophilia and, worse, its cover-up. (Remember when we commonly saw robes in public?)
And many Catholics really do think abortion is the problem to end all problems . . . hence someone like Trump gets their vote. I do not agree with them–my view is that they are short-sighted at the very least; but at that least, in their little pocket of thought, they are genuine about their view of life and children.
I certainly think they don’t understand the reality that, in fact, they are “useful idiots” to people like Trump and his minions (Catholic or not). In my and many others’ view, people who hail from the Catholic tradition like Barr might as well go shit on the closest Catholic altar as to call themselves genuine Christians, by anything in the New Testament and some of the Old (as another writer here says above).
As far as O’Connell is concerned, I don’t think I can remember a more clear example of blind power gone wild in history. Trump and O’Connell may put up a Catholic for the Bench. . . but let us remember that well over 60+ percent of “the people” including many Catholics are FOR women’s rights and for at least allowing abortion to occur. Even if they have to hold their noses, they know the absurdity of having seven children in today’s world, especially on the totally backwards idea of “no birth control.” They know that decline is the opposite of progress, and backwards is not where they want to go. If Biden grasps THAT, it may save the day.
Finally, remember that, as only ONE example among many, Nancy Pelosi is Catholic. I am Catholic; and some others here who agree with most others here about education, public institutions, democracy, and other political ideas are Catholic.
In opposition to what you seem to think, the fact that a person is Christian . . . Catholic, or evangelical . . . or Jewish, Muslim, . . . whatever, . . . does not mean they have nasty “religious” snakes growing out of their heads, as if they were some sort of religious pod people. Please get that idea out of your head. CBK
More great news, I just saw Trump stand on the South Lawn and say he’s making a deal to have Walmart give $5 billion to “education”. Yikes! More money to fund privatization. Then he was answering a question about having a woman on the Supreme Court and he made an hourglass figure gesture with his hands when he said the word ‘perfect’ in “maybe a woman would be a perfect choice.” What a world.
Elections have consequences. The Republicans rightly saw the 2016 election as a sign that the Supreme Court only mattered to the voters who believed there was a very important difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Nearly all Republicans knew that it was important, and voted for Trump despite the fact he was totally unfit for office. And the propaganda directed to Trump-haters that there was barely any discernible difference between the candidates worked since I know I was shocked at how many people didn’t listen to Bernie Sanders and truly believed that whether the Supreme Court had 3 new right wing justices or 3 new progressive justices wasn’t nearly as important as sending a message. I recall trying to tell people that the Supreme Court mattered over and over in 2016, but I respect that everyone had the right to believe that the Supreme Court isn’t very important and cast their vote accordingly. I actually envy them since this is not at all devastating to them as it is to people who believe that the Supreme Court matters.
The role Leonard Leo plays in judge appointments and his religious motivation- did Pelosi, Podesto,…. avoid the topic purposely, was it not on their radar or, what? The usual media black hole
excuse?
Thanks again.
Linda,
You sometimes make good points, but in this case I really think you aren’t even trying. Most voters across the spectrum have no idea who Leonard Leo is and distracting voters by focusing on what you believe is a winning message the dems should have used — “Leonard Leo will choose justices” certainly sounds like an idea Trump and Barr would approve of (given how silly it is).
You do realize that voters know that presidents choose Supreme Court justices, right? You do realize that anyone who professes not to understand that the Justices chosen by a Republican president are different than those chosen by a Democrat president — I’m talking a difference of night and day! — just sounds dishonest. You think that telling those people about Leonard Leo would have scared them more than Mitch McConnell saying he’s hereby blocking Obama’s pick because he wants a Republican president to choose a right wing justice?
As Biden would say, awww…come on. People who didn’t care about the Supreme Court voted 3rd party. People who did either voted for Trump (knowing they’d get far right justices) or the democrat (knowing they’d get moderate to progressive justices). Surely that’s not even mildly debatable! Surely you don’t believe there were swaths of 3rd party voters who had no idea that Trump would choose right wing Justices and the democrat would choose justices like RBG! That was simply a difference that did not matter very much to some voters. In 2016 there were voters who desperately wanted Trump to pick SC Justices and there voters who desperately wanted the democrat to pick SC justices and there were voters who didn’t really care which of those two chose SC justices very much and they voted 3rd party. It’s their own choice, and if some of them have regrets now, they would be much more respected if they just admitted they didn’t care, they realize they were wrong, and they do regret their vote. I can’t imagine someone would actually use the “I was ignorant of how the Supreme Court worked” defense to try to blame “the democrats” for not telling them that presidents choose Supreme Court justices.
NYC
It’s your opinion that, except for media’s bias, establishment Dems had persuasive messaging and effective tactics and strategies, sufficient to win the 1000 seats lost prior and, the 2016 presidency?
And, the neoliberal pandering to the interests of billionaires could dove tail with a campaign to improve the lot of the 99%?
If so, the well-known saying, “keep doing what you’re doing and expect a different outcome”, appears applicable.
Linda,
The real puzzle to me is why working class whites voted for a gold-plated billionaire who views them with contempt.
Linda,
I have no idea what you are talking about. In 2016, either you voted 3rd party because having Trump choose Supreme Court Justices didn’t matter to you, or you voted for the democrat, because having progressive justices was important to you.
If you voted 3rd party, than clearly whether this country has a right wing Supreme Court or a progressive Supreme Court was not very important to you. We all voted with our eyes wide open. There is nothing wrong with making a choice according to what you think matters and what doesn’t matter. That’s what 3rd party voters did in 2016, and it’s their right to do it. Just own it and if you realize it was a bad decision, don’t blame someone else for “forcing” you to make that bad decision, just don’t make that bad decision again! I voted against Carter because he wasn’t progressive enough for me, and got 8 years of Reagan. I didn’t blame Jimmy Carter for not doing a better job convincing me when Carter – and lots of people around me – kept telling me what was at stake. I didn’t listen and didn’t care and I own that mistake. I just made sure not to make the same mistake twice.
NYC
If I was representative of voters, Democrats across the board would be elected. So, presumably, the PR people understand messaging to voters like me wastes money and effort. Pundits seem to think blue collar workers abandoned the Dem party and Dem messaging didn’t dissuade them. They live in the states that Hillary unexpectedly lost.
I guess the party can keep repeating the 2016 playbook.
However, your premise may be right, the Dem focus that was singularly on preaching to the choir somehow backfired and it was external factors that doomed the effort. But I’d put my money on the neoliberals’ pandering to people like Bloomberg.
In my lifetime, there will never be a progressive presidential candidate. Nancy Pelosi’s campaign for Joe Kennedy against Ed Markey provides some evidence. Pelosi and Kennedy delivered Auchincloss, a former Republican who favors school choice..
Linda,
I grew up in the midwest and I know why people who used to vote Democrat support Trump, and most of them are terrified of Bernie Sanders and AOC. Those former Democrats are certain that the democrats don’t care about them — and it is definitely not because the democrats are too corporate or neocons (if that was the case, they would be repulsed by the Republicans, too). Those former Democrats think that the Democrats only listen to the far left!
Democrats are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can’t woo voters by appealing to their hatred and racism like the Republicans do. They run on policy. And if their policies seem too left wing, they always lose. Always. The Dems sometimes lose when their policies are very moderate, but they always lose when they aren’t moderate enough. I wish it wasn’t so. But I don’t understand why anyone believes that a progressive who can’t win a national primary would magically win a general election unless they believed the voters nationwide were hungering for progressive politicians, but they aren’t (I wish they were). That’s why Trump keeps trying to link Biden to Bernie and AOC. To scare voters who Trump knows might otherwise vote for Biden.
Can I say how funny it is that you are judging Nancy Pelosi on supporting Joe Kennedy in his primary against Markey? You do realize that Chuck Schumer was giving lots of money to Ed Markey (which is probably why Markey won)? Isn’t Chuck Schumer the guy who makes sure that the neo-con candidate (presumably that is what you believe Joe Kennedy is) wins, instead of using his power to help the progressive one?
And finally, it is patently untrue that Nancy Pelosi “delivered Auchincloss” to replace Joe Kennedy. There were 9 candidates in that primary and Joe Kennedy barely won with 23% of the vote! And the ONLY reason Joe Kennedy won is that the progressive vote was fractured! He barely defeated the progressive 2nd place candidate — Jesse Mermell — Mermell and her supporters asked other progressive candidates to step down so they didn’t attract progressive voters, but they did not. That’s what happens when all the people who know that one candidate is really bad don’t support the candidate with the best – the only – chance of defeating him. I wish the other progressive candidates had withdrawn and had convinced their supporters to vote for Jesse Mermell, as that primary election was so close. But Nancy Pelosi had no involvement and she certainly wasn’t promoting Auchincloss (although the Boston Globe, typically, was, but that would not have mattered if the progressive voters had coalesced around Jesse Mermell.)
With newcomers like AOC relegated to the back bench, I agree with you that the 99% are screwed. I suppose we could just wait for the upheaval over concentration of wealth or, for the election of the next paper hanger or an America that elects a Putin.
I refuse to believe polls that demand the only choice is between neoliberals and a party that believes people should be left to die in the gutter like feral dogs.
It’s a damn shame that when Bishop Alfred Schert of Allentown, Penn. says, it’s the clergy’s obligation to inform the faithful about the hierarchy of issues that must be considered in conscience by every voting Catholic i.e. top place goes to pro-birth, it is left unchallenged by Dems. It’s a damn shame that when Bishop Joseph Strickland endorses Fr. James Altman’s video that says a person can’t be a Catholic and a Democrat, it’s left unchallenged by the Dem party.
An op ed posted in the The Hill analyzed why Catholics left the Dem party, “The have-not New Deal Catholics became the haves.”
Linda,
I agree with your point here.
The problem is that when those have nots became the haves, they stopped caring about what happened to the have nots and seemed to only care about the “unborn”. I don’t think anything about the progressive agenda appeals to them.
One thing I suspect is that many of those “haves” benefited from good progressive policies that allowed them to become a “have”. But their children are not necessarily among the “haves” and they seem to want to blame the democrats for giving to much to the “have nots” for that.
That is why the Republicans can successfully appeal to them, too. Those “haves” don’t approve of racism per se and believe they are not racist. But they are very receptive to the idea that the democrats don’t care about white people and only care about the undeserving “others”. That’s why they identify so strongly with the Republicans.
The Republicans blame the democrats entirely as the only reason that white voters are suffering economically. The left blames the democrats entirely as the only reason that Americans are suffering economically. Why is anyone surprised that those voters have internalized the Republican message – “it’s the Democrats’ fault” – since they are hearing it from all Republicans and all progressives. The only people trying to get them to look the larger picture are those very democrats that clearly would say anything to avoid admitting that it’s all their fault.
Where the progressive movement went wrong, IMO, is that they were so focused on destroying and attacking the democrats that they convinced white working and middle class voters that there was nothing wrong with the Republicans, since it was all the democrats’ fault. I never understood why, in 2016, there was no effort made by progressives to demonize Republicans — all the focus was about demonizing Democrats — but I do think a lot of that was encouraged by Russian and right wing trolls and they succeeded in making that the pervasive meme through the election season. And that did long term damage to the progressive cause since it succeeded in legitimizing the Republican party to them. Now those voters simply dismiss anything critical of the Republicans as “sour grapes” said by the democrats (“libruls”) who they know know are responsible for everything bad that happens. They learned that in 2016 when they heard that message over and over again from both the Republicans and the left.
Karma, Mitch
Payback’s a _____, Mitch.
Forcing this vote leaves no alternative. After the election, we must pack the court.
There was Catholic oppression of Jews, Muslims, Lutherans, Protestants, Pagans, etc., from the Holy Roman Empire up to Napoleon too. 😮
Have Republicans and other political parties disbanded. Rename the Democratic Party the American Party.
😁😊🤓🙂
A lot of people are anti-abortion, but are nowhere to found, when a baby or child is found abused and/or neglected, or dead.
Example: 5 year old AJ Freund of Crystal Lake ☹️😭
Rusty Yates and his wife were conservative religious. After experiencing post partum psychosis following the birth of the 4th child and being advised not to get pregnant with a fifth child, they went ahead. Predictable tragedy happened. He skated and started a new family. The wife remains in prison. Rusty asked for a deity’s forgiveness and granted it to himself.
That is a despicable lie. Religious, and Conservatives give a lot to the causes of children. I worked for a non-profit called Olive Crest Treatment Center for Abused Children, started by a deeply religious couple. That is just one example.
Why are conservatives against food stamps for poor children, why are conservatives against universal health care that would benefit poor children?????? Oh sure, beg for alms, beg for charity and pray, that will fix everything……never. You can have food stamps, universal health care and prayer, much better. I am not against praying or prayer. Not to worry, with Trump, McConnell and far right wing justices, all the essential programs will be killed and we will be back to 1929.
DeVos-type conservatives think that people should take care of themselves or rely on religious charity, not government
I know people like Jacqui. They vote GOP because they believe their privilege is linked to the status quo. Some number of them are racial bigots. The pretense of moral ground is singularly limited to the contrived abortion issue. A women’s loss of life is acceptable while a baby’s is not- the logic shows the hollowness of pro-life propaganda.
My viewpoint is kind of lonely….I have a feeling that Kamala Harris knows a lot more about Kavanaugh than she has been able to tell…..he probably committed perjury in his denials of what he did……Not sure if Kamala could do anything that would matter, but she is going to have to play an assertive role pretty soon, or else. The media is so numb, they can no longer handle Trump….they seem to be going through the motions.
I guess there was a good reason to eliminate my post about Kamala and Kavanaugh…..I might be so torn apart that my suggestion to put pressure on if she still could, just did not make enough sense. I still feel that Kamala has a significant role to play.
Well, at least we now know —
What Jerry Falwell Jr’s next job will be.
The only question is —
Does the Supreme Court have a pool?
Supreme Hypocrisy
Falwell needs a pool
A pool to make him drool
A place for wife to sit
And pool boy who is it
given the amount of crud that Trump spews out on a daily basis……I wish a reporter would just ask him if he is considering Jerry Falwell Jr. for the supreme court vacancy?
Or, Becky Falwell. Both Becky and Kavanaugh’s wife share an alleged problem- husbands with alcohol abuse issues.
I have only a forlorn HOPE that Trump might get a BAD case of Covid-19 and become incapacitated [physically] long enough to prolong things until after the election. If he were to die from it poetic justice would occur but I will not hold my breath. This would solve multiple problems.
Someone said that with the death of Ginsburg the whole political scenario will have changed. It would seem to be a reasonable assumption. Abortion now will become once again THE criteria for voting among many people.
My personal view is that Trump is the antithesis of everything that Jesus ever taught, his most basic principles.
I am deeply concerned about the division which Trump has created and fear that when either Biden or Trump is elected there is a real danger of perhaps civil war erupting. If not, dissension so profound as to further tear our country apart. The boogoloo boys are actively seeking it, the Nazis and White Supremacists would seem to welcome it and Trump himself in my opinion is undoubtedly if not actively seeking it would most certainly welcome it as he would them claim a national emergency, seize power, create a police state and like so many dictators before, with a relative small majority make themselves dictators. That would certainly fit Trump;s ambition.
Scary beyond belief for me but moneyed interests would welcome such a happening.
So much more but after all the above, few if any will pay attention to this anyway.
Ronald Reagan. Yuck! He called his wife “Mommy”. 😮
Ronald Reagan Quotes:
“There you go again. Are you better off today than you were four years ago.
Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall.
The homeless sleep on warm grates because they want to.
Ketchup is a vegetable.”
I can’t imagine anyone voting for Ronnie Reagan. Yuck! 😮
I think “slim to none” is a bit pessimistic.
If I could think of four GOP senators who will vote no even after the election, I would be optimistic.
Does anyone think that really if the shoe were on the other foot and a democrat was president and in charge of the Senate and a judge moved on that they wouldn’t push a nominee through? Of course they would – as they should. Trump is president until January (2024 lol). He still has a job to do! Of course he is going to nominate someone! What happens after that, we’ll see. Hopefully all of these silly republicans in the Senate grow a pair and vote yes. Because if the shoe were on the other foot, it would be a unanimous vote.
Actually, that’s not true. I heard that historian Michael Beschloss said on TV that two Democratic presidents had the chance to fill a Supreme Court vacancy just before the election but decided to wait and leave the choice to their successor. When I get the details, I will let you know which ones they were.
Diane The two, according to MB, were Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson. Lincoln was a republican, but that was a time when those labels held considerably-different meanings and, need I say that Johnson was a democrat.
BTW, “My Life” is a newbie . . . ?
But to MY LIFE, I wouldn’t assume the depth of hypocrisy for Democrats today that you obviously see in the actions of the Republicans. Such projections only reflect on the state of your own character. CBK
Lots of Trump trolls drop in, leave a provocative comment, then (hopefully) disappear. Some stay.
A few leave the same comment over and over and I delete them.
Diane Amazing . . . I didn’t now that . . . makes for a lot of behind-the-scenes work for you. CBK
I’m not talking about history. In fact, I just heard in history that it has happened before. But I’m talking about today. This very moment. If Hillary were god forbid president, and Schumer was in charge of the Senate, do you really think they would say “You know, let’s wait until after the inauguration. ” If you truly believe that, you have not been paying attention this past 4 years. Hell, they probably would have started hearings already and it’s been 3 days. They would ram it down our throats saying ‘it’s their job.’ They absolutely would.
My Life Okay . . . as you wish . . . let’s talk about TODAY. So . . . the republicans are NOT trying to pack the court TODAY, and haven’t done so already in the past (the Garland rejection).
AND R’s are NOT making up the rules to suit them TODAY and as they go along (as they have in the past).
Then TODAY, you are saying that none of that matters because TOMORROW (projecting into the future) the democrats would do the same thing under the same circumstances.
And that’s your argument? Everyone’s doing it? I think that’s as good an example of moral shallowness as I have ever heard. <–scratch that. Replace with “moral degeneracy.” CBK
No, I don’t think they are trying to ‘pack the courts.’ I think, as I said, the president is trying to do his job. He still has a job to do. He is president until January. As for my argument, Yes, quite frankly. And why? Because democrats step in line. I guarantee that if this were the situation, I don’t care who the D Sens are. They wouldn’t worry about their job, they would do it. This is a job that needs to be done. Obama nominated Garland. He did his job. Trump has the same job to do. When Trump wins in November, do you think this wouldn’t stop if he waited? Do you think the Dems would say, “ok, he won fair and square, let’s get that judge in?” No, they would still be whining. Trump can nominate someone, the Senate can then do what it both needs and wants to do. It’s how government works. Elections have consequences. Besides, we may need a full court to decide the outcome of the election.
My Life Waffle, waffle, waffle. CBK
And Trump would be a scholar. In your imagination.
I will take Trump’s intelligence over any liberal any day, including Crazy AOC who has the intelligence of silverware.
You approve of Trump’s racism? His history of sexual assaults? His multiple infidelities? His abandonment of our allies, the Kurds? His criminal neglect of the environment? Don’t you know he looks on people like you with contempt? He hangs out only with people who are rich enough to join Mar-a-Lago, entry fee $250,000. Can you afford to join one of his clubs? If not, he thinks you are a sucker.
What has he done that is racist please? That is a very big charge to accuse someone of to just throw it out there randomly. As a human being with common sense, I have not seen any racism. Please provide me with an example. But if we are discussing racism, why are you so disturbed by whatever things you think Trump has done, yet probably not offended when Biden declares immediately that his running mate, and now his SC nominee will be a black woman? To me, that’s blatant racism. I wonder why more blacks aren’t more pissed off about that. Trump has been a fantastic ally. You are so busy hating crowds that you do not see or care what he has done for the middle east and Israel because you are so filled with hatred that you can’t appreciate what he’s done.
Earth to My Life . . . come in, My Life . . . do-do-do-do-do, do-do-do-do . . .
(. . . by that I mean: Rod Serling’s Twilight Zone theme music). CBK
Thank you for making my point.
My Life demonstrates exactly why Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his supporters would still vote for him.
If President Trump shoots someone on Fifth Avenue, My Life would say “I know the Democrats would have done that too so it’s fine”.
There is nothing that President Trump or the Republicans can decide to do — including mass extermination of non-white children — where My Life could not – if he wanted – say it is okay, using his favorite rationale — “I know the Democrats would have done that to white children, so it’s fine.”
Since My Life has explained that history is irrelevant, what matters is that he “knows” that the Democrats would have done the same thing, it’s really impossible to argue with him.
As long as you live your life by the philosophy that all evil can be justified by your belief that the people you hurt would have done that to you first (no evidence needed, just your own belief), nothing evil is off the table.
I imagine My Life envisions a country where everyone has the right to gun down their neighbor because My Life’s expression of Republican theology — “I know they would have done that to us, so it’s okay” — is their new religion.
NYC . . . yes, again, it’s a shallow ethics that My Life suggests. It can take you no where except to the lowest common denominator of human living. “Do it to them before they do it to you.” Bye-Bye to sleeping with both eyes closed, not to mention to civilization.
The other thing is that so many have inoculated themselves against any truth that is not politicized in their direction by calling it FAKE NEWS. Done Deal. . . . don’t have to think any more. The irony is that Donald admits today that he thinks any American that he doesn’t already know is a nobody. It’s almost like he’s daring his base to wake up . . . and yet so far, they don’t. CBK