A rolling Constitutional Crisis

And this is Good News for John McCain as it helps him consolidate his Teabagging base.

This is basically saying that any Democrat is fundamentally illegitimate and they are not allowed to do their job. A Senate that is split 51-49 in either direction with Clinton in the White House gives the Republicans plenty of space to haggle over nominees. They could make it clear that nominees X, Y, Z could easily get approved by eighty votes while nominees A,B,C would need either a party line vote (which is a tough vote for Plain state Democrats) or would fail completely.

But no, no to haggling, no to norms, no to anything other than control. This is a rolling Constitutional crisis.

But it is good news for John McCain.

114 replies
  1. 1
    Foxhunter says:

    WATB. Sad!

  2. 2
    JPL says:

    If that happened, I’d like for Kennedy to retire.
    I would have said Roberts, but I know that is a stretch.

  3. 3
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    Well I’m just too late for the thread below, since they seem to suffer a quick and silent demise the moment a new one goes up, but I wanted to propose that we call the anti-Gerrymandering effort “Demandering”

    We are demandering a return to representative democracy!

  4. 4

    I swear, if Amy Schumer’s cousin doesn’t nuke the filibuster…

  5. 5
    Trentrunner says:

    The MOST generous interpretation of this (“…we would be united against”) is that it assumes that the GOP block would not be able to derail an HRC SCOTUS nomination, i.e., they are in the minority and can’t prevent the nominee from being approved.

    One of the fifty thousand goddamn talking heads whose shows McCain appears on like a rash should probably ask him about this.

    But that’s being most fucking generous. And CNN shows Trump winning in Ohio this morning. Winning. A serial sexual assaulter.

  6. 6
    pacem appellant says:

    I don’t care what John McCain thinks and neither should any Democratic member of the Senate. Hold hearings, confirm justices, toss the non-standing filibuster out. It really should be that easy.

  7. 7
    kindness says:

    It won’t matter if it’s D/R 58/42 in the Senate. They will continue to block any Supreme Court nominee because Rs think that is where their bread is buttered.

    And I predict the need for a Supermajority for Supreme Court nominees disappears this next term because of it.

  8. 8
    chopper says:

    This is basically saying that any Democrat is fundamentally illegitimate and they are not allowed to do their job.

    which is what the GOP has been running on since the 90s at least.

  9. 9
    Matt McIrvin says:

    This is what I thought.

    My prediction: a 51-seat Republican Senate under a Clinton Presidency will block 100% of executive and judicial appointments permanently. Clinton will have to govern without a Cabinet.

  10. 10
    bobbo says:

    yeah filibuster out.

  11. 11
    Jeffro says:

    Thank you for the help with Democratic turnout there, John McCain …

    … perhaps more importantly this is how you lose the war in the media.

    No more filibusters no more holds … maybe no more Senate

  12. 12
    cokane says:

    We’ll see, the vote in November sends a big message. It’ll be important if Clinton can get close to 50% of the vote, not just a big margin over Trump.

    A Dem Senate and maybe House could, temporarily, neuter this kind of behavior as well

  13. 13
    eric says:

    @Matt McIrvin: they would demand that the President herself testify before their committees

  14. 14
    JPL says:

    I just read that Josh Ernest said

    “The candidate who snorted his way through the first two debates is accusing the other candidate of taking drugs?”

    He then quickly said he was kidding.. lol

  15. 15
    Jeffro says:

    Let’s have this as the opening question for debate number three by the way

  16. 16
    Bill E Pilgrim says:

    This should become the new Clinton campaign ad, run 24/7. Elect me, but give me a congress that will work with me also, rather than one that’s already telling you that even if I cloned Justice Scalia and put him forward, they’d block his nomination because a Democratic President selected him.

  17. 17

    When he says “united,” what does that mean? Does it mean that every Republican will vote against any Clinton nominee? As long as the Democrats win at least four seats and hold the presidency, nominees could go through. But does it mean that no Republican will even vote to let nominees come up for votes? If that’s what he’s saying, then even in the minority, nobody gets through.

    I don’t even know what to think about this. I mean, yes, as everybody loves to say, elections have consequences, and if the Republicans hold the Senate, then I guess they’re within their rights to vote down anybody Clinton puts up., though it would be a clear dereliction of their jobs to be unwilling to even help her choose nominees that they could back. But using cloture votes to keep a majority from even holding votes… This is deeply un-American. We don’t do shit like that in the U.S. (I know, I know, the Republicans have violated any number of standards of basic decency over the last 15 years; but this seems over the line, even for them.)

    Where does this shit end? What would be to keep the Senate after the election from, let’s say, just flat out refusing to accept the credentials of any elected Democratic senator this year? The Constitution gives Congress the right to judge the qualifications of its members. What if they just flat out say that they won’t take the qualifications of any Democrat elected this year? They would be guaranteed to hold the Senate if they did that. I know it sounds deranged to even bring shit like this up, but who would have thought a few years ago that they’d keep a Supreme Court seat empty for a fucking year just because the president was a Democrat? If flat out shooting down any Democratic nominated Supreme Court nominee under any circumstances isn’t over the line, why would wholesale rejection of elected Democratic senators be over it?

  18. 18
    trollhattan says:

    In this the eighth year of President McCain’s reign it’s refreshing to see the gloves finally come off. What a guy!

  19. 19
    kindness says:

    Oh and please God, don’t let Senator Leahy run the Judiciary Committee again if Democrats win a majority in the Senate. When he ran it last time he scrapped Republicans prior requirement of no blue slips needed from home state senators to let a nominee continue to requiring 2 blue slips. So when you have a state with 1 or 2 Republicans they refuse to fill one out and Leahy let them die the bastard.

  20. 20
    sigaba says:

    This threatens the legitimacy of the Senate. She won’t govern without a cabinet, she’ll just appoint one and let the courts hash it out. And if they take the Republicans’ side she’ll just go Andrew Jackson (with the Senate as the Indians).

  21. 21
    trollhattan says:

    I think Hillary should start messing with them and mention reviving the Fairness Doctrine. In 2009 that was a Really Big Thing among Republicans, even if Obama had mentioned it approximately zero times. That and taking their ammo, which I’m still hoping for.

  22. 22
    Immanentize says:

    @Matt McIrvin: I have been thinking about this possibility and I wonder whether a President (either party in a similar situation of the Senate refusing to act as opposed to acting and rejecting or acting slowly) could start a new process that gives the Senate a reasonable period of time (say 3 months) to fulfill the advice and consent duty (either vote to approve or reject) otherwise, the person will be appointed as if consent had been granted.

    Flipping the burden seems reasonable, even under the structure of the constitutional power. It is not there to be ignored.

  23. 23
    mb says:

    If HRC wins with a R senate, I think we will see a 7 member court before we see a 9th justice. In fact, I think there will be a push to reduce the Court to 7 permanently — assuming it’s the right 7.

  24. 24
    Bill E Pilgrim says:


    taking McCain’s horseshit literally

    That is a disturbing image, though I doubt it’s what you really meant to say.

    So “literally” as opposed to what, you’re taking what McCain said figuratively then I assume? When he said “we’ll be united against” anyone Clinton puts forth, he just meant “we’ll be spiritually opposed to such a nominee, but we won’t act on that and will swiftly vote to confirm!” That about it?

  25. 25
    Matt McIrvin says:


    they would demand that the President herself testify before their committees

    Oh, please, don’t throw Hillary Clinton into that briar patch.

  26. 26
    Elizabelle says:

    @Jeffro: Yeah. I was thinking, McCain’s statement is going to put a little more spring in the step of Dem GOTV workers and voters.

    Vote that tired old codger out.

    Not like he doesn’t have a gen-er-ous US government pension. And an heiress wife, for dog’s safe.

    Give the man a rest.

  27. 27
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Party before country.

    These guys are all Leninists. Fuck them.

  28. 28
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (Formerly Mumphrey, et al.):

    Where does this shit end?

    Appomattox, if you’re a stickler for tradition.

  29. 29
    Trentrunner says:

    The GOP has already blown through the norm about approving SCOTUS judges. They’ve done it. It’s done.

    The “Obama’s a short-timer” was just an excuse.

    With Hillary, they’ll find another.

  30. 30


    Not like he doesn’t have a gen-er-ous US government pension.

    Or two.

  31. 31
    Cacti says:

    If any friend or acquaintance of yours was actually considering Gary Johnson…

    He just identified Clarence Thomas as his ideal Supreme Court Justice.

  32. 32
    Turgidson says:

    And these asshats are shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that a racist nitwit with an anger management problem is their nominee. They will tell us with a straight face that there is no connection between these bullshit stunts and the ascent of the Short-Fingered Vulgarian. They’ll also piss in your face and tell you it’s cleansing spring water.

    They are determined to once again learn absolutely nothing from any of this, the health of our small-r republican form of government be damned. Fuck them all.

  33. 33
    Arclite says:

    Im kinda pissed that Obama didn’t harp on this obstruction more. I haven’t heard anything from him in this topic in six months.

  34. 34
    Trentrunner says:

    Sam Wang just Tweeted an analysis that Trump’s Access Hollywood sex assault bragging and subsequent accusers coming forward have had NO EFFECT on the race. (Wang says the first debate has made the big difference in Hillary’s increase.)

    Maybe there’s some sort of lagging effect to come, but Jesus Christ.

  35. 35
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Trentrunner: Democrat.

    Only excuse the maggots need.

  36. 36
    Mary G says:

    How’s the polling in Arizona? Does his opponent have a chance? We need to get her elected.

    ETA looked it up 53/37 McCain.

  37. 37
    Nom de Plume says:


    I haven’t heard anything from him in this topic in six months.

    He’s actually been hitting this topic pretty hard in recent speeches, at least obliquely. His main focus has been on saying Trump is the natural consequence of a Republican party that’s gone nuts, but he has tied obstruction into that message.

  38. 38
    rikyrah says:

    needs to be an ad immedately

  39. 39
    Hungry Joe says:

    Conservatives must always have a majority in the Supreme Court; It Is Written. If the Left had a majority, why, it wouldn’t be fair.

  40. 40
    Turgidson says:

    @Mary G:

    It looked like it would be close a while back, but McCain has had a pretty big lead ever since he got his primary behind him. Only way he’s vulnerable would be if this is a wave election on a scale no one sees coming right now.

  41. 41
    Immanentize says:

    @Davis X. Machina: Well played (and too true)

  42. 42
    Mister Forkbeard says:

    @Trentrunner: Honestly, this is a threefold problem: Trump voters who love him, Trump voters who will vote for him over Hillary because of some imagined corruption/evil, and independent/undecided voters who think Hillary is the devil.

    The “Hillary is the Devil” thing is what really gets me. Thinking Hillary is corrupt is apparently the ‘obvious and cool’ thing now, despite the lack of actual evidence. I just read a facebook thread (and a few reddit threads) where people were arguing that Hillary was possibly even MORE corrupt than Trump. Because during the Haiti disaster relief effort, Hillary had actually talked to people Bill had relationships with in order to get aid out faster. They called this “paying special attention to Clinton Foundation donors” which proved… favoritism? I don’t know.

    But basically, any accusation of corruption is treated as true. They also trotted out the whole “DNC gave debate questions to Hillary and rigged the election”, ignoring that they also gave the questions to Bernie. I just don’t know how to deal with these idiots – it’s infuriating.

  43. 43
    MCA1 says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: Leninists without a Lenin, is part of the problem. They’re Cleekists, really. An entire half of the government defined politically by nothing but opposition to the other party.

  44. 44
    Prescott Cactus says:

    McCain is 10+ points over opponent Ann Kirkpatrick. As long as photo’s of him and Sheriff Joe licking the same lollypop at the State Fair don’t go viral, he’s in again. Other than this race, AZ will trend blue. Local NPR announced Michelle Obama visit today (ETA: visit on Thursday) and $2 million TV buy. More paid staff also incoming was also mentioned.

  45. 45
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Hungry Joe: Well, all that actually paying attention to the Bill of Rights shit without excising the words they don’t like that do actually restrict access to their precious metal penii of death is obviously commie shit.

  46. 46
    Immanentize says:

    @MCA1: Cleekists with or without the guns?

  47. 47
    Bobby Thomson says:

    On the contrary, 51-49 D doesn’t lead to haggling. Republicans have given Democratic senators all the ammunition they need to nuke the filibuster. Heckofajob, Crash!

  48. 48
    low-tech cyclist says:

    I hope that Dems are asking the other Senate candidates in close races where they stand on this matter. Will they vote to confirm qualified nominees that Clinton nominates to the Federal courts, including SCOTUS, or are they going to block them just because they’re not the sorts of nominees that a Republican would have picked?

    I’m looking at you, Pat Toomey, Kelly Ayotte, Richard Burr, Joe Heck, Rob Portman, Ron Johnson, Mark Kirk, Marco Rubio, Roy Blunt, Todd Young.

  49. 49
    Elizabelle says:

    @Hungry Joe: It’s the Andrea Mitchell Greenspan NBC rule.

    To not have conservatives in control of the Supreme Court is to go against natural law.

  50. 50
    Humdog says:

    This is simply more of the same from Republicans, they will not treat us as legitimate Americans and the animated portion of their base do not want them to.

    Kevin Drum had a thought piece on possibilities of legislation if Paul Ryan wanted accomplishments to point to for his Presidential campaign in 2020. But if the only accomplishments that the R voters count is anti D, we are collectively nowhere. I have thought for years, “the Chamber of Commerce types won’t countenance this latest obstruction” only to be found wrong, again. If the biz types can hardly beat back a debt limit threat, what countervailing forces will encourage Rs to participate in divided govenance?

  51. 51
    Jeffro says:

    @Trentrunner: “quit taking hostages and do your job McCain”

    If Obama doesn’t say that you know his Press Secretary well

  52. 52
    Anoniminous says:


    It is extremely difficult-to-impossible to analyze a single variable’s affect on complex, dynamic, phenomena in real time using statistical analysis without committing post hoc ergo proptor hoc.

  53. 53
    cleek says:


    They’re Cleekists, really.

    i feel dirty

  54. 54
    Jeffro says:

    @Hungry Joe: naturally I do not want Scalia back (eww) but losing him sure shook the right wing to the core… it did crystallize for them how the court was about to flip due to their continued inability to win presidential elections.

    Unfortunately the only way to make them pay the price is to do the hard work of digging out each of these Republican senators and hoping that we can get a Democratic majority to get rid of the filibuster altogether

  55. 55
    Helen says:

    @Trentrunner: Maybe. But it’s sent Trump over the edge. And that’s good enough for me. He’s been tweeting bullshit conspiracy theories and WATB complaints all day long and no one on his campaign has stopped it. They have all given up.

  56. 56
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @JPL: kidding on the square.

  57. 57
    trollhattan says:

    @Bobby Thomson:
    Have to ask, not being a Senate watcher, how many blue dogs are left? I well recall Obama’s theoretical 60-seat majority that wasn’t and a 51-seat majority requires all Dems…and Bernie…to act in concert to get anything done.

  58. 58
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @Arclite: Democrats don’t vote on SCOTUS issues, but Republicans do. It would actually help Trump.

  59. 59
    gene108 says:

    If we stop replacing SCOTUS judges, we can start taking bets on which one will be the last one alive.

  60. 60
    Turgidson says:


    There aren’t many blue dogs left and the caucus is more unified than it was then. Manchin, Heitkamp and Tester are the only ones I can think of off-hand, and only Manchin insists on being an insufferable show-off in his party disloyalty. Angus King is a bit of a flake too, sometimes, but will probably vote the right way on important things – certainly on SCOTUS. Bayh will also be an ass from time to time if he gets back in.

    Those last southern Democratic Senators, who hung on either by being flaks for their local corporate concerns (Blanche Lincoln) or from political dynasty families (Landrieu, Pryor) are gone and not coming back soon.

  61. 61
    Peale says:

    Am I supposed to congratulate Sheppard Smith for his courage?

  62. 62
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @trollhattan: potential Ben Nelsons: Durbin, Feingold, King (I), Tester, Heitkamp, Leahy, Manchin.

  63. 63

    @trollhattan: @Turgidson: I’d rather have 60 Blue Dogs than 49 true believers.

  64. 64
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @Trentrunner: already priced in. Basically no one was really surprised by it and tribalism/confirmation bias ensure that no
    minds will be changed regarding candidates – only regarding issues.

  65. 65
    pacem appellant says:

    @Immanentize: Congress has abdicated powers to the execute before (glaring example, the right to declare war). Under the “use it or lose it” doctrine (don’t even know if that’s actually a thing), what happens when the Congress fails to perform its constitutional duties? If the Supremes stepped in and said, “no way, you can’t appoint a cabinet without the Senate’s approval” give them the middle finger as an explanation of the separation of powers. This feels so Nixonian that we even need to be talking about this at all.

  66. 66
    sukabi says:

    @Mister Forkbeard:

    Thinking Hillary is corrupt is apparently the ‘obvious and cool’ thing now, despite the lack of actual evidence.

    That’s the result of 25+ years of negative propaganda. The difference between beliefs and facts.

    As has been proven in many other scenarios once someone starts to BELIEVE something it is very difficult, if not impossible to alter how they think about it.

  67. 67
    trollhattan says:

    @Turgidson: @Bobby Thomson:
    Much appreciated–thanks!

    ETA: we will be sending you a shiny 2016 model Senator Kamala Harris, but have to keep the frayed tires on the Feinstein two more years.

  68. 68
    OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Bobby Thomson: Won’t speak of the others, but Durbin is pretty liberal

  69. 69
    Matt McIrvin says:


    With Hillary, they’ll find another.

    Which is why I think preventing her from seating a Cabinet is it. They haven’t done that yet.

  70. 70
    scott (the other one) says:

    I know McCain’s announcement isn’t exactly a shock to many on here—other than, perhaps, the fact that he actually said it out loud—but this is, to quote the bard, a big fucking deal. It’s honestly scandalous. It’s shocking, even after all they’ve done and said, a complete violation of the political norms that have ruled our country for most of the past couple centuries.

    It’s also a crystal clear invitation to the Dems, should they (oh please oh please oh please dear merciful FSM) retake the senate, to nuke the filibuster on Day One.

    “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” ~Maya Angelou

  71. 71
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: he trends liberal, but he also has PITA tendencies. Leahy also is liberal but insists on adherence to norms and customs that are obsolete.

  72. 72
    scott (the other one) says:

    @gene108: Allow me to emphasize that I very much hope I’m wrong…but if they really stop confirming justices, the existing justice are really, really going to need their security details stepped way the hell up.

  73. 73
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @Mister Forkbeard: As I mentioned elsewhere, I’m seeing friends-of-friends passing around with interested concern an essay by Australian lefty journalist John Pilger about how Hillary Clinton is more dangerous to world peace than Donald Trump. With comments such as “I don’t necessarily believe this, but this guy is respected and knows what he’s talking about…”

  74. 74
    NorthLeft12 says:

    @Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (Formerly Mumphrey, et al.): Sounds like the Hastert rule is going to be applied to the Senate. So you need a majority of the Republican Senators to pass anything through the Senate?

    Sounds like a warning to any “independent” Republicans.

    Although I agree that this is mostly Mad Dog McCain trying to prove his Tea Bag cred. Gawd, what a hypocritical jackass he is.

  75. 75
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: specifically, Simpson-Bowles.

  76. 76

    Republican legislators are vividly aware of just how much they’ve gotten from the Supreme Court over the last forty years, and how a liberal Supreme Court will screw them over. Among many other things, it directly threatens the gerrymandering and voter suppression they’ve been relying on to maintain their power when they’re actually outnumbered.

  77. 77


    If we stop replacing SCOTUS judges, we can start taking bets on which one will be the last one alive.

    And they’d better get good security, or people who want to influence the outcome of their cases will adopt Second Amendment remedies.

  78. 78
    PaulW says:

    This is why Every Republican Senator NEEDS TO LOSE THIS YEAR.

    They are clearly violating their oath of office to advise and consent.

    I’m willing to bet they’ll do the same thing to Hillary’s cabinet postings. Say no to even giving them hearings.

  79. 79
    Trentrunner says:

    @Anoniminous: This seems smart.

    Still, if there were video of Trump fucking a chicken, you’d think his numbers would demonstrably crater. Same with BRAGGING ABOUT SEXUALLY ASSAULTING WOMEN.

  80. 80
    Mister Forkbeard says:

    @sukabi: Yep. Even some of my liberal friends will say things like “With all the sketchy stuff Hillary’s done over the past 20 years she didn’t do herself any favors,” but they can’t actually point to anything sketchy she did that was legitimately sketchy. I honestly don’t know how to combat it – I’ve tried, and people just give you the “wow, you’re weird” look if you tell them Hillary hasn’t a significant scandal or even anything beyond “this looks sketchy”.

  81. 81
    NorthLeft12 says:


    that his “approach to governing is based on a belief that individuals should be allowed to make their own choices in their personal lives” and that “abortion is a deeply personal choice.”

    These are Johnson’s own words that he believes reflects Judge Thomas’ philosophy. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

  82. 82
    OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Bobby Thomson: Name a person in Congress who isn’t a PITA when it suits them. ;-)

  83. 83
    John Revolta says:

    McCain has let the mask slip. These fucks are outright hysterical with fear with the realization that Hillary is probably going to appoint 2 or even three SC justices. Game over, man! Let’s make sure it happens.

  84. 84

    @pacem appellant:

    If the Supremes stepped in and said, “no way, you can’t appoint a cabinet without the Senate’s approval” give them the middle finger as an explanation of the separation of powers.

    Of course one wildcard is that some of the justices may be upset that their own court is suffering from the same treatment and let that affect their thinking on the Senate’s duty to review nominations.

  85. 85
    Kay says:

    I spoke to a Dem Bd of Elections member today. They announce election results here at the courthouse- people go down there as poll closing times come and congregate in the entry area and then they announce local, state and federal results as they come in.

    I don’t go because I’m not bipartisan enough and I’m a sore loser, but a lot of people do go :)

    Anyway, they are planning to announce results jointly, one D and one R, together- the D will introduce the R and vice versa, to try to avoid any “crazies” freaking out over rigged elections.

    I just think it’s wild they’re thinking seriously about this. That they have to.

  86. 86
    Trentrunner says:

    LOL GOP: So I guess some NC GOP person was on FOX news (nat’l) claiming that the GOP firebombing destroyed “completed absentee ballots.”

    Just one problem: Having completed absentee ballots in another’s possession is a Class I felony.

    They should have given the ballots to the Marx Brothers.

  87. 87
    cleek says:

    @Mister Forkbeard:
    it’s strange. i see it in people who are otherwise really quite smart. they just know Clinton is corrupt and that the lack of evidence doesn’t prove anything.

    true. maybe she is corrupt. maybe there are tons of criminal charges working their way through the pipeline as we speak.

    or maybe not.

    but ‘not’ doesn’t stick and they fall right back to “i just don’t trust her.”

  88. 88
    Hal says:

    Uh, does McCain realize how that might not work so well for him?


    It hasn’t turned out that way. The death in February of Justice Antonin Scalia, combined with the same factors that gave liberal justices an advantage last year, has led to a continuation of the trend. That has left conservatives even more determined to block President Obama from replacing Scalia.

    From voting rights and the power of labor unions to class action lawsuits against corporations and the rights of criminal defendants, the court’s four liberal justices have been on the winning side of every major decision so far this term. Oral arguments were completed on Wednesday, and 33 of 69 cases have been decided.

  89. 89
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Elizabelle: This is why Mrs. Greenspan has a near Felonious Five manifest number.

  90. 90

    Starting to look like our old justices retiring in 2010 might have been a shrewd calculation. Oh wait, suggesting that is wrong somehow.

  91. 91
    OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Bobby Thomson: I take most of the Simpson-Bowles posturing as just that: Posturing. In hind sight it seems to me that S-B was dead on arrival and everybody knew it but they all had to pretend to take it serious because otherwise nobody would take them serious.

  92. 92
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Trentrunner: These clowns make Duck Soup look like a documentary.

  93. 93
    RaflW says:

    The electorate needs to vote for a new president to create a new POTUS mandate to move a new SCOTUS nominee, that was all just a lie!?! How could that be?

    Srsly, though, the Republican party is total garbage. Government exists only to be blown up (while being profitable for the flowers).

    Fuck ’em. Hope Hillary and all of us can seal the Senate deal next month!!

  94. 94
    John Revolta says:


    Hillary should start messing with them and mention reviving the Fairness Doctrine

    Oh pleasepleaseplease Mr. FSM……………….!

  95. 95
    Tilda Swinton's Bald Cap says:

    Booman has an interesting take on Ryan and the House. Link

  96. 96
    OzarkHillbilly says:


    “i just don’t trust her.”

    At which point I ask, “Why? Because Republicans tell you not to?”

  97. 97

    @RaflW: @RaflW:

    The electorate needs to vote for a new president to create a new POTUS mandate to move a new SCOTUS nominee, that was all just a lie!?!

    Sorry, but all that talk is going down the memory hole on November 9th. There will be a new reason that they’ve always opposed a nomination, and anyone who claims the old one ever existed will be laughed at by the VSP.

  98. 98
    Feebog says:

    Luckily, it’s beginning to look like we may retake the Senate with a seat to spare. WI and IL are locks. We can score wins in NH, PA, and NC. And the polls have turned around in NV, with Maestro showing a small lead or tie. FL is a very long shot, but the most recent polls still show Murphy within striking distance. MO is another race where we may have a chance, Kandar could pull off an upset. So, if we win the five above and hold NV, that makes it 51-49.

  99. 99
    burnspbesq says:


    Fuck you, asshole. Precisely why should we not take McCain at his word? Because it flouts long-established democratic norms? How fucking stupid are you?

  100. 100
    burnspbesq says:

    @Smedley Darlington Prunebanks (Formerly Mumphrey, et al.):

    Where does this shit end? What would be to keep the Senate after the election from, let’s say, just flat out refusing to accept the credentials of any elected Democratic senator this year?

    Absolutely nothing.

  101. 101
    Tilda Swinton's Bald Cap says:

    Looks like he’s walking it back. Link

  102. 102
    Lizzy L says:

    @Tilda Swinton’s Bald Cap: Inconvenient truths… F**k “walking it back.” I don’t believe him.

  103. 103
    Tilda Swinton's Bald Cap says:

    @Lizzy L: Not saying I do either.

  104. 104
    Cain says:


    I think Hillary should start messing with them and mention reviving the Fairness Doctrine. In 2009 that was a Really Big Thing among Republicans, even if Obama had mentioned it approximately zero times. That and taking their ammo, which I’m still hoping for.

    Fuck nothing, we need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.. that will single handedly stop creating crazy people and grifting. Jeezus, we seriously need some balance in this country.

  105. 105
    dogwood says:

    @Tilda Swinton’s Bald Cap:
    I don’t think he’s walking it back, just clarifying. I didn’t read the first statement as a promise to “Garland” her nominees, just a promise to vote against them. The Republican base loves those confirmation hearings where their Senators grandstand and dish out the red meat. They will hold hearings because they are political theater, and then vote against confirmation. If the Republicans hold the Senate which isn’t unlikely, then we will have an 8 member SCOTUS. If dems come through then any liberal justice who wants to retire some day, better act fast because 2018 is going to be tough for dems. Senators like Sherrod Brown who came in ’06 on a rare democratic midterm wave and faced reelection during a presidential year are going to have a much harder time in ’18.

  106. 106
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @John Revolta:

    Bringing it back is feel-good, symbolic — i.e. pointless — politics. The Fairness Doctrine is as dead as Kelsey’s nuts.
    Cable news networks wouldn’t be covered, they don’t use the public airwaves. (Satellite up- and downlink doesn’t count — not broadcast….)

  107. 107
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: And they’ll say “No. It’s because Bernie told us not to….”

  108. 108
    1,000 Flouncing Lurkers (was fidelioscabinet) says:

    @Elizabelle: Is his opponent, Ms. Kirkpatrick, in our ActBlue fundraiser?

  109. 109
    Brachiator says:

    @Matt McIrvin:

    My prediction: a 51-seat Republican Senate under a Clinton Presidency will block 100% of executive and judicial appointments permanently. Clinton will have to govern without a Cabinet.

    This is sounding a bit like the new Kiefer Sutherland drama, “Designated Survivor.”

  110. 110
    catclub says:

    @Feebog: Where is Indiana and Bayh in that calculation. I have heard of, but not read, that Bayh’s race is tightening.

  111. 111
    Brachiator says:


    I think Hillary should start messing with them and mention reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

    Why? Who cares? The fairness doctrine is as quaint as broadcast TV with 3 major networks.

  112. 112
    JR in WV says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    The original Fairness Doctrine only applied to over-the-air broadcasts because that’s all that existed when those regulations were passed. If an independent FCC passed new fairness rules, they could certainly apply to all broadcasts, whether sat based, cable based, or old-style over-the-air broadcasts.

    If a channel or show wants to support a political party, they need to take that on, just like newspapers used to be Democratic or Republican, formally. It was on the masthead, mostly. That’s faded now that most towns are lucky to have one newspaper, but the point still applies.

    How the Fairness Doctrine was back before these technologies existed doesn’t have much to do with a modern, newly written requirement for fairness.

  113. 113
    tkrr says:

    @Mister Forkbeard: I don’t think you can deal with them. The problem that we have to face with people like that is that they’re thoroughly convinced that they have The Real Deal — it’s almost like a mystery religion, where they get to be the insiders.

  114. 114
    tkrr says:

    @JR in WV: It would be very hard to justify a Fairness Doctrine for cable or Internet that worked the same way as it did for broadcast media. Part of the reason it existed in the first place is that broadcast spectrum is a fairly limited resource, at least as compared to newspaper. (This is the same reason pirate radio broadcasts are illegal.) Because of the need to protect broadcast services from interference, the barrier to entry is fairly high, so the Fairness Doctrine, alongside rules about media ownership, existed to keep one group or set of groups from monopolizing the airwaves.

    If the Fairness Doctrine came back, first off, it would be utterly meaningless for the Internet. Net neutrality performs a similar function strictly on a traffic level, but has no interest in content; the Internet is more like print media in that regard. It could potentially apply to certain high-traffic websites like YouTube or Amazon where they’ve got such a dominant market position that people tend not to go anywhere else, but that’d be a tough sell even when it makes sense because the way the Internet works, a large website simply can’t crowd out long-tail competition.

    It would probably apply to cable TV, but it wouldn’t make sense for it to apply to individual stations. Fox News wouldn’t have to change at all; it would fall on the carriers — Comcast, TWC, Cox, etc — to make sure that they didn’t fail to carry available competition (ie MSNBC).

Comments are closed.