Also within minutes after the crowd booed approvingly as Trump detailed how Democrats were denying Judge Kavanaugh due process, he swung over to Hillary for a second, and the crowd immediately went into “Lock her up!”
They do not do irony well in Mississippi.
So much of Trump’s appeal has always been that he gives people permission to unleash their inner asshole.
Also, NBC reported earlier tonight that the FBI was probably wrapping things up in their investigation either tonight or tomorrow morning.
CNN reporting just now that the FBI is expanding their investigation beyond the individuals they initially interviewed, to include friends marked at that July 1st get together.
I dunno…
Enidigm
3442
I wouldn’t be surprised if the FBI announced illegal actions…
by the office of Diane Feinstein, and wanted a subpoena of all her records and computers. Because that’s how the world is going now, and she’s a boogie(wo)man they’ve long held in the deepest contempt.
JoshL
3444
We used to live in that world, but then the Republicans changed the rules.
But now you do. If you don’t like it, you can blame Mitch McConnell. He is absolutely and solely responsible.
Welcome. I think it should be read on the Senate floor when they vote.
CraigM
3446
I mean, hell, we had not even a week before the nom Republican Senators on record saying that Obama needed to nominate a moderate like Garland. Garland was specifically name checked by GOP Senators as the type of person that would be confirmed.
Fucking chickenshit liars.
Nezz
3448
Just to clarify: You agree that according to the constitution, the Senate is free to withhold consent for any reason? Yet you think this power should be further constrained? By what?
Any judge on a list provided by the Federalist Society is IMO automatically not qualified. The Federalist Society has a specific partisan and political agenda (not the least of which is dismantling the EPA.) It would be great if we could get judges appointed who didn’t have a political ideology and instead used logic and reason to interpret the law - but that’s not something I expect to see in my lifetime.
If advice and consent is just a rubber stamp of the President’s choice, then it isn’t advice and consent.
Also, ‘Qualified’ is in the eye of the beholder. Republicans are fond of pretending that the polticization of the Court goes back to the treatment of Bork; but the position of Dems on the committee at the time was that Bork was not qualified, that his record demonstrated that he lacked the judicial mind and judgement to be a Justice. Personally, I think their view was right, on the basis of his actions during the Saturday Night Massacre alone.
So I’m not on board with the idea that anyone with a legal background who isn’t a convicted felon and who somehow managed to tick the right career boxes is by definition qualified to sit on the Court, and that Senators have no business second guessing the Executive Branch on those selections. But if they want to use that power, they have to do so while exercising good faith and showing respect for the norms. Garland should have gotten a real hearing, there should have been a committee vote, etc. If Garland were rejected, and Obama made another choice, the same thing should have happened.
Nezz
3451
Even if everybody knew that it was just for show? To me it seems more respectful, both to the man and to the office, to make it clear beforehand that he doesn’t have the votes for reasons outside of his control.
Yes. It’s the process. If you’re going to reject a nominee, you should first examine the nominee and produce an argument as to why the nominee shouldn’t be confirmed. And, if you’re going to reject every nominee regardless of who they are, you should be seen to be doing that. You shouldn’t be able to effectively prevent the President from making another nomination by simply refusing to meet with his first one.
They did produce an argument: Obama doesn’t get a nominee.
That’s not an argument, it’s the absence of one.
Sharpe
3456
On the issue of qualified versus unqualified Judges and when the Senate should approve or reject a Justice, there’s a very strong argument that Garland meets Scott’s definition of a qualified Justice, even if you disagree with him ideologically. He had the necessary temperament and character, as well as the legal experience and qualifications.
Here are some examples of Justices who politics I disagree with, but who I feel are/were qualified:
Gorsuch - I strongly dislike his ideological approach but there’s just nothing about him that I know of that goes beyond the realm of political disagreement into disqualification
Roberts - Again, not in agreement with the conservative ideology or legal philosophy, but qualified.
Scalia - I hate a number of his signature opinions, but the man could write an opinion and relied on logic, even if I disagreed with his premises.
Kennedy - I’m not a fan of his opinions as I feel his rationales are very inconsistent, but, again, nothing that disqualifies him.
Who do I consider not qualified?
Bork - as Scott says, his actions during the Saturday Night Massacre (he’s the guy who fired Archibald Cox after everyone above him resigned) disqualify him. People keep saying that he was blocked b/c he was too conservative but Watergate was still quite fresh when he was nominated.
Thomas - too partisan, does not develop his opinions with sufficient detail to have a usable rationale and his rationales are very conclusionary.
Alito - too partisan, conclusionary, and his opinions are IMO overly snide and condescending, and also wrong at the same time. (I don’t mind legal arrogance if you are correct but to be arrogant and incorrect and I hate that with a great hate.)
Kavanaugh - as they say, ditto (in regards to partisanship and temperament). That’s before we even get to the drunk sexual aggressor business.
YMMV. This is all part of my bigger idea that there is a meaningful difference between ideological disagreement versus having an entirely different approach to norms, democracy, reality, partisanship, etc.
To be clear, I don’t think there’s anything wrong or norm-eroding about voting against a nominee because you disagree with their ideology. Ideology matters, and it certainly colors one’s view of the law and how it ought to be applied, and IMO that’s what Senators are there for. The norm erosion comes from using the power of the majority to pervert the process. If the majority votes the guy down, that’s how it works; but when the majority corrupts the background check process, or withholds relevant information, or prevents the majority from revealing that information, or establishes mock hearings, or simply refuses to consider any nominee at all, then they’ve abandon the norms.
If I were a Senator and a nominee refused to offer an opinion on a matter of settled law (e.g. Roe v Wade, Citizens United, etc) I would assume the nominee did so because their view was something they didn’t want to defend, so they were hiding it, and I would vote based on that assumption.
Lantz
3458
I think that the larger issue is that GOP leadership is withholding votes on things with bipartisan support that could potentially pass. That is the perversion of our system that is causing a landslide of problems. It applies to this and a million other things.
Sharpe
3459
So you would be OK with Democrats voting against every single Justice nominated by a Republican President? I have to say, I do not agree at all.
