While I abhor this, I was expecting him to nominate Hannity. Judge Barrett at least appears to have read the constitution, even if I disagree with her interpretation of it. Some of these judges that they’ve been installing don’t seem to have more qualifications than that they write a Qanon blog.
The most damning thing is that he would need convincing. It’s staring everyone in the face that this is the only viable strategy but he has yet to say anything other than he thinks the repugnicons should not try to nominate someone. And who are these ‘Dems’ you refer to? Who has the necessary stature and influence to tell him to his face to do this right now or forget any chance having a Supreme Court which will allow him to get elected when Trump ties the election result up in court actions?
I think their only mental tool to make their lives better is to make more money. That’s why they dismiss things like global warming. Obviously being rich will protect them, because to them there is nothing that being rich doesn’t fix.
No, because that will be treated as a promise to not expand the Judiciary if whatever they do can be read as something other than “this stunt.”
The game for forty years is that the right wing violates norms to damage democracy and then the Democrats struggle against procedural roadblocks to get part of the damage repaired before the next damage phase. Time to stop that ratchet. We’re already more than halfway to full-on fascisms, and going to only one-third back before the next advance is not going to solve the problem.
He’s stopped saying he won’t do it. He’s now avoiding any answer, which marks a very clear shift. Whether or not he will remains to be seen.
As for “which Dems”, there are plenty who he would listen to I’m sure. Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, etc. Carter, Bill Clinton, as former presidents as well, would have some gravitas. That said, I don’t know if they will, I’m expressing my wishes, not a foundational expectation. With our current crop of Dems, I’ve learned to expect them to fight with one hand tied behind their backs and the other clutching their pearls.
You’re arguing semantics here. It’s a stunt, or hypocrisy, or rank evil, whatever you want to call it. Choose a better term if you like, it won’t matter to the GOP. They will do it regardless of how it appears or what folks call it.
And yes, I want the Dems to fight. Time to fight dirty, too. The GOP have shown no compunction to fight within the rules, even their own made up ones.
Legal “originalists” are very much like religious fundamentalists.
They claim that they are stripping off any interpretation, precedent and work-arounds developed over the centuries, and going back to the source texts and thoughts of the founders (which they magically divine by using a seer stone to read the words between the lines).
In truth, they are slapping on their own layers of interpretation, and their movement is unconsciously or deliberately dishonest. (Or both.)
Where do they get these insane motherfuckers with weird, superstitious, religious ideation? It’s like they have a farm and they are cranking them out of bodysnatcher pods.
All of it is designed to promote the rich, white, male, hetero, Christian hegemony. Nothing they do is FOR any other group. If another group feels a positive result, it is a side-effect of the attention paid to the white male majority. It has its roots in the Puritanical beginnings of the nation, through its early aristocracy, through the westward expansion, through slavery and its supposed end, through reconstruction, through the explosive economic growth of the 1900’s, two world wars, followed by a sustained period of unabated greed, right down to today. All of it, broadly, taking place under that country club umbrella of white supremacy. Yeah, I left out a few details, but I’m not writing a college thesis. I’m venting on the internet.
Please do not confuse what I am predicting with what I believe. Any threat to respond to Republican violations will be twisted into a promise to meekly accept anything that can be misrepresented as not exactly what predicated the threat.
That, in turn, makes such a threat counterproductive.
I’m honestly not sure exactly how this works, but I think the Senate Parliamentarian has some kind of say in how the business of the Senate can proceed. I think it’s the case that this would require McConnell to exercise another “nuclear option” changing the Senate rules to either cut the Parliamentarian out of the loop entirely or to give the majority leader further power to control the agenda even when an impeachment trial is pending. (I’d welcome a correction or clarification from anybody with more Robert’s Rules experience than I have…)
McConnell would, of course, claim that exercising that option is justified by what he’d claim is Democrats’ politically motivated impeachment proceeding, but it would at least give them a way to run a little more time off the clock.
Exactly this. All text is interpreted. “Originalism” is a fiction. The choices are that you build on what all the smart people before you interpreted, or you presume to be smarter than everyone and just do what you want, rationalizing later.
So, this one is tough for me. I don’t think Trump should have to wait–as odious as he is, he’s the current president.
But McConnell set a precedent. He set one that we all knew he wouldn’t hold himself to. And by doing so he greatly weakened our system, which relies on people acting in good faith. And so I think Dems should do everything in their power to stop this. And if Schumer wants to stop it, the tools are there for him–he can grind Senate business to a halt with all sorts of procedural tactis. But he won’t, because he’s spineless.