"It was sure fun being a one-term Senator," said a bunch of faux-moderate GOPers https://t.co/ZJasCjnaqo
— Jonathan Singer (@jonathanhsinger) March 30, 2016
New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte is the “GOP moderate” given the lead in that NYTimes article, and the “tough” issue first mentioned as bringing her grief from her less-RWNJ constituents is her refusal to meet with Judge Merrick Garland. Mark Kirk of Illinois gets a mention, but he was smart or desperate enough to break with Mitch McConnell on the touchy topic of President Obama’s new SCOTUS pick. (Kirk even called his fellow Repubs “too close-minded”.) Perennial “Sensible Centrist” Susan Collins went even further, per Buzzfeed:
… Asked in a radio interview on Tuesday if she was “catching hell from her own party,” Collins said, “Not really. Obviously, the leader’s not real happy with me.”
“I’m sure there’s some people who are unhappy with me, but this is a solemn responsibility and is very important,” she continued, noting both sides have played politics in the past with contentious Supreme Court nominations.
Collins said she was “perplexed” by McConnell’s position given the possible outcomes of the presidential election…
Dahlia Lithwick, tongue firmly in cheek, suggests a workaround…
…Judge Garland has been nominated by President Obama. Senate Republicans refuse to give him a hearing. After a suitable period of time—lets say by the end of September of 2016—Judge Garland should simply suit up and take the vacant seat at the court. This would entail walking into the Supreme Court on the first Monday in October, donning an extra black robe, seating himself at the bench, sipping from the mighty silver milkshake cup before him, and looking like he belongs there, in the manner of George Costanza.
Really, what could the other justices do? They aren’t going to have the marshals tackle him. He is, after all, the chief judge of the second most important court in the land, respected across the ideological spectrum. And in the absence of a Senate hearing on his nomination, one certainly might infer that the Senate has by now consented to his presence there. (If you’re the law review type, here is a very plausible argument that this is actually the case.) But more urgently, this is the kind of action—OK, “stunt”—that would draw attention to the fact that just because GOP senators want to pretend that Obama’s Supreme Court nominee is invisible, doesn’t mean that he has to play along. By my playbook, Garland could show up for work in a black robe every day in October, participate in oral arguments with a handful of incisive questions in November, and even start to write a few modest opinions in December, demonstrating how real his nomination is. By January, nobody will even remember that he never got a hearing!
What I love best about what I am calling the Reverse Bartleby is that Judge Garland would be achieving two vital goals: First, he would be doing his job and highlighting that this is precisely what Senate tantrum throwers are refusing to do. But second, he would be out-absurding the absurd, and bravely standing up for a principle: that the constitution, as Robert Jackson famously suggested, contemplates an effective government. And unlike what’s being modeled by most Republican senators, that principle is not something as ignoble as “we’ll blow up the court before we let it shift to the other side,” which looks more like hostage-taking than taking a stand. The additional points being made would include that the court functions better with nine judges than with eight, that if Republicans refuse to hold hearings, well, someone should solve that, and that advise and consent doesn’t mean that the NRA or the Koch brothers get a veto…
***********
Apart from applauding deliberately farcical action in defense of the Constitution and the rule of law, what’s on the agenda for another day in a week that already seems to have gone on too long?
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
Obama’s new Secret Service agents are really imposing:
(photo #1)
(photo #2)
Baud
Thanks, AL. You’ve given me a new idea on how to achieve the presidency.
Schlemazel (parmesan rancor)
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
#1 PROOF HE HAS SUPPORT OF THE DARK SIDE!
#2 PROOF HE USED MAGIC & GENIES TO WIN THE ELECTION!
Amir Khalid
@Baud:
And it just might work!
Princess
So it looks like the Texas state Republican Convention will be open carry. Because what could possibly go wrong with a bunch of armed Cruz and Trump supporters in a single room? I guess even those in the party are rooting for injuries at this point.
peach flavored shampoo
Collins is such a schmuck. Both sides? In the past? Is this another Bork ref? As if the qualifications of Bork and Garland to be a SCOTUS justice are similar.
God I detest that odius mouthpiece of stupidity.
Patricia Kayden
@Baud: LOL! Good luck with that.
@Princess: That’s fine with me. They love guns more than people so whatever happens will be much deserved.
debbie
I cannot imagine what McConnell was thinking when he thought this would be a good idea. How long until there’s a Newt-style rebellion?
OzarkHillbilly
@debbie: Whatever gave you the idea that McConnell thinks?
Chyron HR
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
“Dr. Obama, I’m First Order.”
Punchy
@Chyron HR: No chemical kinetics this early in the morning, please.
Iowa Old Lady
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
It’s not often Obama looks short.
gene108
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
In regards to photo #2 Shaq looking a bit short next to Yao
debbie
@OzarkHillbilly:
Even lizards think.
Mary
@peach flavored shampoo: More important than the substantive differences between the two judges is that at least Bork got a hearing and a vote. If Repubs want to vote against Garland on ideological grounds, that’s fine. Extraordinarily stupid and aggravating, but fine. Instead they’re refusing to even engage in the process, most likely because they want to keep Garland as their least worst option for confirmation in the lame duck session.
gene108
@gene108:
In reality We are all teeny tiny babies next to Yao
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
Schlemazel (parmesan rancor) was talking in the last thread about running into Norm Coleman in an airport.
He was a one term senator and now he’s some kind of lobbyist.
That’s the problem: the incentive structure is different for dems and repubs. A dem loses and they end up as a professor somewhere. a repub loses and they become a fat cat lobbyist. Sure they would rather stay in office, but if not, there’s a nice golden parachute waiting for them.
So Kelly ayotte wants to keep her seat, but she will cast counter-productive votes knowing she can cash in if all goes bad.
dr. bloor
@Baud:
You might want to take a little bit of cocaine and a few hookers with you to soften the resistance of the Secret Service.
retiredeng
Is “Pocket Judge” the name for that stunt?
OzarkHillbilly
@debbie: Well, they have brains and firing neurons and synapses etc etc, but do they have conscious thought? Or do they just respond to stimuli? You don’t think about breathing, yet you do breathe. I have seen precious little evidence that McConnell thinks about Obama’s words and actions, but rather he just responds to Obama reflexively, like the little hammer just below the knee.
He can’t help himself.
debbie
@OzarkHillbilly:
Well, “Nature” tells me lizards think. But I agree, McConnell is Derangement in its purest form.
Davebo
@gene108:
Sad but yet not sad that Yao’s career was so short. Met him once and he was a really nice guy.
Sadly, you really can’t get decent Chinese food at his restaurant.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
Ever the comedian, Trump is attacking Michelle Fields saying Lewindowski only grabbed her cuz she was carrying a bomb disguised as pen.
Iowa Old Lady
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: Trump is so preposterous that he’s hard to counter because what do you say when a leading presidential candidate claims it’s legitimate to be alarmed by a reporter’s pen, and he’s not talking metaphorically?
ETA: ABC News has this quote from Trump: “I’m sure there will be a counter-claim coming down the line,” Trump added. “Should I file charges against her because she touched my arm as well?”
amk
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
A guy who wants people to have guns everywhere is scared of a woman with a pen.
bemused
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
What I remember reading is the Saudis hired Coleman lobbying firm. What he does for them I don’t recall.
I do have some fond memories of Coleman when he was my Senator. He and his wife refinanced their home 12 times in 14 years ending with almost $800,000 30 year loan. There were rumors that Norm liked to hit on women a lot not confirmed but his dad was caught having sex in a car with a much younger woman not his wife at age 81. Norm’s wife Laurie had Hollywood ambitions that didn’t pan out but she sell a hands free hair dryer called Blo ‘n Go, not a well thought out product name.
Gin & Tonic
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
What’s Chris Fucking Dodd professor of? Oh, yeah, MPAA.
BillinGlendaleCA
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: Ya know, Shaq’s a reserve officer with LASD.
BillinGlendaleCA
@dr. bloor: Are the hookers and blow for Baud or the Secret Service?
Scamp Dog
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: Imperial president!
OzarkHillbilly
@bemused:
Puts me in mind of “Kum and Go”s, first time I saw one all I could think of was a drive thru whore house.
Kay
Pittsburgh’s largest employer:
SEIU spent 20 million dollars to get Fight for Fifteen off the ground and make it national. The Ohio Senate race in 2012 – one race- cost 84 million. As far as bang for buck it’s been amazingly effective.
OzarkHillbilly
@BillinGlendaleCA: Both!
sherparick
I found the biggest joke in the NY Times love letter to Kelly Ayotte was calling her “moderate.” I would like to find one example of her so called moderation. I know that she forms the third spot on the National Security Menage a Trois with John McCain and Lindsay Graham. I know that she voted to defund Planned Parenthood and to repeal Dodd-Frank. New Hampshire’s wing-nuts are as wing-nutty as they come and she comes out of that mileu.
Elizabelle
DougJ linked to a Steve and Cokie Roberts column from February 26 in last night’s “Damn it Janet” (aka Susan Sarandon) post.
Steve and Cokie Roberts: GOP must stop Trump – now
Mr. and Mrs. Roberts are shocked, shocked, shocked at Trump and call him out, but this column makes it clear they are wired for Republicans stooges.
Face it, Trump achieved air because of all the free air time and discussion, little of it substantive, that his utterings drew. It surprised Trump, pretty much. And has emboldened him.
Look what Cokie serves up, halfway through:
Fuck you Cokie. Elections do have consequences. It’s Barack Obama’s job, as duly elected president, to make the Supreme Court appointment. He has done so. It is not the next president’s job.
I’m shocked at how quickly Cokie and the few I’ve heard on CNN went straight to: no new Justice until after the elections. And they don’t point out how absurd that is.
Which is why a creature like Donald Trump is able to thrive in this poison atmosphere.
Ms. Roberts gets no plaudits from me. Weak sauce. What a cocktail wienie asshat.
Kirbster
Kelly Ayotte is trying to rehabilitate her image after a series of “Do your job” ads after the Merrick Garland SCOTUS nomination and her refusal to meet with him. The pro-Ayotte ads are about her work on a opioid addiction prevention bill. I guess the poor dear can only work on one thing at a time. Perhaps she should resign from the Senate Judiciary Committee if it’s too much for her.
I plan to throw some $$ into Maggie Hassan’s campaign to unseat Ayotte in November.
Emily68
I can’t be the only one who always misread “Judge Garland” as “Judy Garland”.
geg6
Speaking of endangered GOP senators from purplish/blue states, Pat Toomey is just plain saying fuck it about trying to get anyone who is not a white male to vote for him in his latest series of ads bragging about how he, alone, stopped the riots perpetrated by those people that have now destroyed half of America’s cities and left them a burning, desolate ruin. And all cops heart Pat Toomey and not any of those other pu$$ies running against him.
Fermion T. Clown
Has anyone read the Yale Law Review article that Lithwick cites? I skimmed the first couple of pages … it doesn’t look like a joke, and it’s too early for 1 April (I think), so I sent it off to my wingnut sister, an ex-DA, for her comments.
Thing is, should Hillary be elected in November, the Replicants hold the Senate, and Mitch the Turtle does what he does best – obstruct, in particular SCOTUS nominees Hillary sends down – we’ll have a constitutional crisis on our hands.
So if the analysis isn’t a joke, I could imagine this happening. Political parties aren’t suicide pacts, and eventually power flows away from those who only obstruct.
chopper
@retiredeng:
I was going to use the phrase “trillion dollar platinum coin” but that works too.
EconWatcher
@Elizabelle:
My strongest memory of Cokie Roberts will always be this: As I was driving long distance in the 90s and listening to NPR, it was announced that a three-judge, wingnut cabal led by Rehnquist had just fired Robert Fisk as independent counsel investigating Whitewater–for no identifed reason at all, and no apparent basis other than that he had so far failed to indict Clinton–and installed Ken Starr in his place: Starr, a man who lost his job as Solictor General because Clinton beat his boss in an election.
I started slamming my fist into the steering wheel and screaming obscenities because it was so completely obvious that this was a fix to get Clinton. I mean, only a complete idiot could fail to see that, right? We’re in for a wild ride, I thought.
Then I heard Cokie Roberts’ deep, confident voice, reassuring that Judge Starr (not his most recent job) was of course completely beyond reproach and could be trusted to be entirely fair despite the somewhat odd circumstances of Fisk’s firing and his hiring. I almost lost my pupils in the back of my skull, I rolled my eyes so hard.
Yeah, Cokie. You’re a real genius.
Paul in KY
@OzarkHillbilly: He thinks. Sometimes the thoughts are stupid & some time they are diabolical.
Elizabelle
@EconWatcher: Gag. It’s probably better to know how awful she is. I took her for a trusted voice for too long. Well paid media is training us to distrust them.
Retire Cokie. (PS: she probably goes to yoga or cocktails with Mrs. Kenneth Starr, or something. They’re all incestuous.)
No One You Know
@amk: Wins teh Internetz. It’s why they fear Hillary.
sigaba
@amk: A society with pens is a polite society!
dollared
Her tongue is not fully in her cheek, and anybody who thinks this is a bad idea is a sad, loser, 1980s Democrat. The Senate’s duty is to advise and consent. If they do not act, they have waived their opportunity for input. That is red letter contract law.
There is absolutely no reason not to push this entire hairball into John Umpire Roberts lap. Give McConnell 60 more days. He still does nothing, walk Garland up to the front door of the Supreme Court and defy Roberts to refuse to seat him. Make him pay for his team’s transgressions.
Any other path is sheer, fucking cowardice.
PaulWartenberg2016
I am predicting the GOP Senate will cave on this and confirm Garland by August.
http://noticeatrend.blogspot.com/2016/03/garland-is-going-to-get-confirmed-by.html
chopper
@dollared:
i guess obama is a sad loser and a coward then, because i’m pretty sure he thinks it’s a bad idea. guy doesn’t go for gimmicks and the last time he tried to go around the senate with an appointment he got slapped down hard by the supreme court.
dollared
@chopper: Obama hasn’t played his cards yet. And Roberts doesn’t have 5 votes anymore for any slapping.
Cowards, Democrats. for 40 years Republicans have been redefining the law. For the 40 years before that, it’s what the Dems did. When did the Dems turn into cowards? When William O. Douglas died?
Grumpy Code Monkey
@Princess:
The venue can (and most likely will) forbid open and concealed carry, provided they post the proper signage (per TX statutes 30.06 and 30.07). Not that a Class C Misdemeanor is that much of a deterrent.
chopper
@dollared:
obama doesn’t do gimmicks.
the slapdown i referenced was 9-0. it certainly stung quite a bit.
dollared
@chopper: An open question of law in an unprecedented situation is not about “gimmicks.” You take your best reading of the law and you assert it.
And if Roberts disagrees, that’s fine. He’s going to write an opinion that says that the Senate is not doing its job. And the failure stays center stage.
chopper
@dollared:
but obama won’t. he’s a guy who, in spite of unprecedented gop obstruction, still gives a huge shit about process. and, contrary to popular belief, obama doesn’t really like having his decisions declared unconstitutional. i think it’s the constitutional scholar in him.
it’s like the trillion dollar coin; there were rational reasons made as to it being legal (and there were rational reasons made as to why it wasn’t), but it was a moot point because it wasn’t something a person like obama was interested in. and he made that clear. he said fuck that shit, it’s a gimmick and a joke.
now sometimes you can imagine a gimmick working. sometimes a gimmick may be all you have. but that doesn’t matter, because obama doesn’t typically do that shit. he’s the sort of guy who’d rather let the nomination sit than seat a judge on the court using such an insanely questionable method that would likely get shot down hard by the court.
chopper
and honestly, does anybody really think that of all people merrick garland, current chief of the dc circuit of all places, would want to be seated based on such a controversial and questionable interpretation of the constitution? what happens if, as you say, roberts writes an opinion shooting the whole thing down and says that the Senate is not doing its job. what does that do to garland’s career as a judge? does anyone think either garland or obama wants garland’s career to become collateral damage just to stick it to the senate during an election year?
even if obama were interested in this sort of hail mary (and he isn’t), i doubt garland is either.