Barrett seems ultra super crazy liberal compared to what Trump’s base wants though. I mean look at this quote:
She also remarked that it was “very unlikely” the court will overturn the core aspect of Roe v. Wade : “The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand. The controversy right now is about funding. It’s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded.”
What the fuck - she’s a commie socialist vegan pizzapedo and the rabid GOP fan base won’t accept anyone that won’t immediately vote to outlaw abortion for infinity. Plus she’s a woman. A woman!!
If this happens, what are the short-term political consequences? Leave aside whether he should be on the court. Assume we have a hearing, and Orrin Hatch once again accuses a woman of lifting her lies from a book (with Hill, it was The Exorcist), and the rest of the GOP plays to the camera, fighting for ‘their guy.’
How does that impact the mid-terms? Is the Trump base more fired-up and likely to vote, or more complacent now that they have their guy on the court? Can the gender split in Trump’s approval rating get any worse, or is there a floor to that? Can the Dem base even be more likely to vote than they already are?
This is likely McConnell’s primary concern, so I think it’s an interesting question. My prediction is that he’ll prevent this hearing from happening.
The analysis over at electoral-vote.com says that the typical strategy would be for the President’s team to go all-in with Kavanaugh while they think about whether or not they can succeed. If they decide he won’t get confirmed, then something will come up that allows Kavanaugh to “respectfully” bow out, allowing Trump & Co. to save face and put up their second choice.
At least that’s how it works when you don’t have crazy people running the country!
A few times today, I’ve seen the term “go to the mattresses.” Growing up, a similar term I used was “go to the wall.” Is this a clever way of implying Trump works and lives in a padded cell, or did the phrase always exist and I just missed it all these years?
I dunno, while they certainly would prefer to be seen as perfect, there’s a reason why Dr. Ronny Jackson isn’t running the VA now.
Hopefully the Senate can get another nominee to “advise and consent” without the Dems spending too much political capital. This could be another Harriet Miers, not another Bork.
I believe it was Puzo who coined the term. It’s from the mafia wars.
The term comes from when a family rents an apartment for about 10–20 guys while the Battle is going on. They get 15–20 mattresses and live in a small 10x15 apartment with 10–20 mattresses n the floor. They sleep in numbers as to protect themselves from a rival attack or git. They travel in numbers and are rarely seen alone.
I just assumed the term came from when a teenager prone to drinking has targeted a younger female student as his conquest for the night. When the time comes to consummate their relationship, he alerts a friend and they “go to the mattreses” aka the private secluded bedroom they’ve already secured for the evening’s festivities.
I thought the term was “go to the mat” and was a wrestling reference. I assumed “to the mattress” was somebody being cute about this being sexual in nature.
I agree with ShivaX: McConnel and the GOP leadership (sans Trump) is probably ready to bail on Kavanaugh but Trump really wants Kavanaugh to obstruct the looming legal proceedings against members of Trump’s campaign and family. I suspect the inside baseball right now is the GOP leader trying to convince Trump to make a change. As to whether that succeeds, I have no clue.
I don’t buy that, though - do you really think any Republican appointed nominee is going to vote to allow the President to be indicted while a Republican (ish) President is in office? After all, the only reason his vote would even matter is because we’re assuming the other four would vote against indictment, and …questionable… decisions aside, some of them have more integrity than Kavanaugh can even dream of.
As a general question? Yes, and I point to several examples: The unanimous opinion in US v Nixon, and the pluralities in cases like Hamdi v Rumsfeld.
In this case? Again, yes, I think there are conservative judges who if appointed to the Court would hold that a President is subject to the law. Of those currently on the court, I think Roberts would be on that side of the question, and it’s not unthinkable we could get another Roberts out of this nomination.
Kavanaugh’s defense: I don’t know Ford. I wasn’t there. This never occurred.
Defense by those who helped vet and promote Kavanaugh: What happened between Kavanaugh and Ford was misinterpreted. It was just rough-housing. Horseplay!
