Tom Sullivan at Digby’s blog posted an interesting idea on how the Senate Dems might handle the upcoming Barrett hearings, given that they are numerically powerless to stop Republicans from confirming the judge. Sullivan says the concept originated on history prof Bill Svelmoe’s FB page, and the gist is to turn the hearings into The Trump Show, with Democrats using examples of Trump admin malfeasance to elicit responses on legal questions. An excerpt:
Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?
Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?
It’s not a bad idea. The Trump admin is one long carnival of criminality, so the Dems wouldn’t run out of source material: Hatch Act violations, refusal to comply with congressional oversight, the Ukraine shake-down, family separations at the border, etc.
As Svelmoe put it, flipping the script this way would weaponize Barrett’s “supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it’ll be great television …”
Sounds like a solid idea. What say you? Open thread.
geg6
I LIKE IT!!!!!!!!!!
Make her humiliate herself or show herself for the upstanding, intelligent, honorable handmaiden she claims to be.
westcoastranger
That’s just good business. What an amazing idea.
randy khan
Interesting idea. In practice, she’d repeatedly say that she can’t comment on cases that might come before the court or on hypotheticals. (Sometimes it even would be true.) But the spectacle of her not responding to the questions could be helpful.
MisterForkbeard
Eh. I think she’d just say “I can’t comment on potential cases, and it’s a complicated subject. I will not compromise myself or my judicial ethics by weighing in on a hypothetical.” Rinse, repeat.
different-church-lady
It’s a fascinating idea: use the hearings as negative ads. If effective, the cost of this SCOTUS seat is the presidency. The only stategic response for the GOP would be to postpone confirmation hearings to after the election, at which isn’t soon enough for Barrett to be voting in any immediate ratfucking.
Another Scott
Sounds good to me, but it might be getting into the weeds too much for good sound bites on TV (which, like it or not, sway public opinion).
Schumer has been beating on health care. That probably needs to be part of any questioning of her, since we know that she’s being rammed through to have her on the bench when the ACA case is taken up in November.
True, short, to the point, and something that the vast majority of Americans care about.
Cheers,
Scott.
trollhattan
“Something, something, stare decisis. I do not deal in hypotheticals.”
She’s not falling for it, not even a little. The last few nominees have all learned to sidestep the “woman’s right to choose” queries and will not even weigh in on whether Brown vs. Board of Education was properly decided. [Spoiler: judicial overreach!]
I expect three days of “I may or may not like beer.”
Kay
I love the incredible arrogance that says everyone in the country has to hold their breath and hope one or another far Right judge doesn’t snatch away their healthcare coverage.
I mean, Jesus. The nerve of these people. Ten years they’ve been threatening us.
This person, chosen by Donald Trump and rubberstamped by a far Right Congress, could take her seat on that court immediately after the public rejects Donald Trump and the far Right Congress and none of them care a whit. Not only are they not worried about it, they are petulantly demanding we all embrace it. It’s just too much. They make too many threats and too many demands.
Felanius Kootea
I think this is an excellent idea! Watch her squirm.
Someone on the thread below mentioned the Lincoln Project ad featuring Captain Sullenberger. It is a thing of beauty.
different-church-lady
@MisterForkbeard: It’s not about her answers: it’s about the questions.
patrick II
It is a great idea. I would like to hear which Heritage legal position supports that kidnapping and caging of children if the president says it’s O.K.
Does that legal principle support the cost of the (known) six children who lost their lives?
Baud
Pounding a shoe on the table worked for Khrushchev. Might be worth a shot.
Kay
She’s not going to answer any of the questions she’s asked.
She doesn’t have to. They’ve already announced they’re all voting for her. She has a really thin record so they have no earthly idea what she’ll do once she’s on, but this is no more a “hearing” than I’m a kangeroo.
But since pulling this off was a wholly political power play, I have no objection to Democrats using the “hearing” that is not a hearing as a platform for politics. That only seems fair. Half the country should be heard.
Yutsano
@Baud: I…don’t think that would be a good look for Amy Coney Barrett…
Kent
I’m no great expert on these things. But it seems to me that Trump’s malfeasances are completely baked into the political environment these days. Everyone in the US pretty much already has a solidified opinion about Trump himself.
What I think is much less known (because of the media malpractice) is the extent to which the GOP at the state and federal level is STILL actively trying to destroy the ACA and strip medical care from tens of millions of Americans. This is FAR FAR more consequential to most Americans than emoluments.
I would spend every damn moment of the hearings probing the ACA which Barrett has a history of writings about. Paint her as a far right radical who wants to strip ordinary Americans of their health insurance in the middle of the pandemic and just fucking let them die. And by extension, tie that onto Trump.
If she doesn’t outright promise to uphold the ACA then rip her to fucking shreds in hearings and in ads, and tie the whole thing to Trump.
We won 2018 on health insurance. That’s how we win 2020 as well. Because only the most truly vile dead enders actually want to strip health insurance from their fellow Americans.
MattF
Everyone agrees that Barrett is brilliant, so no doubt she’d find a way around those lines of questions. Trying to outsmart her or embarrass her will be futile and it’s a bad look. I think Ds should keep banging away at healthcare and, yes, reproductive rights. It’s not just abortion— there’s there’s a long list of connected issues there, including insurance for contraception, childcare, and women’s health.
Soprano2
It’s how they’re trying to cement what they believe is their God-given right to rule over all of us regardless of what the majority of us want. I think they truly believe this is for the best for everyone, and that the majority is too stupid to know what’s best for it. It’s the worst kind of autocratic overreach, but unfortunately it’s probably going to affect us for at least the next 10 years. I think this hyperbole about having a conservative majority “for a generation” is over-the-top. Who knows what will happen to people, after all Scalia just dropped dead way ahead of when people probably thought he would die. They all talk as if Clarence Thomas and Alito are going to live 30 more years.
mrmoshpotato
@MisterForkbeard: Or, to put it another way – Out-Alberto Gonzalez Alberto Gonzalez.
Sab
@Another Scott: GOP is already working on tjat. Reuters has an article up right now about how ACA might not actually be all that much at risk.. Every legal expert the article quotes has been involved in anti-ACA litigation. Really balanced there. Author’s name is Lawrence Hurley.
Shalimar
The hypotheticals dodge in particular drives me nuts. You’re a judge. If you had pulled that “won’t answer hypotheticals” bullshit on the Bar Exam, you wouldn’t even be a lawyer.
Kent
She’s already on the record opposing the ACA and calling for it’s repeal. Dems should just take her at her actual fucking word that she wants to strip heath care from tens of millions of Americans and just dare her to contract them
Don’t try to get an actual answer out of her. Just say. We already KNOW your position because you told us. Don’t you have any shame about wanting to strip health care away from millions?
Kay
I predict this fake hearing will be 50% Republicans speechifying on her brilliance and promoting the far Right agenda, so, absolutely, Democrats should counter.
That’s what it’s about and that’s ALL it’s about.
bystander
I don’t get Dem Senators saying they won’t talk to her. Why pass up the chance to ask her if she realizes how out of touch with Americans she is? How fringe her legal gyrations and double talk are? Over and over again.
James E Powell
Democrats need to use the next week or so to inform the nation that Barrett is a right-wing radical who uses her fringe Catholic ideas to shield her from criticism. She is on record on a number of issues. She is eager to impose her extreme right-wing religious views on the whole nation. And the Republicans are trying to jam her onto the court because they know the majority of the country do not agree with her extreme right-wing views and would prefer a justice who is more like the majority of Americans.
It’s not going to stop the Republicans, but it could make give what they are doing more impact in the election. Repeat it over and over: Banning abortion is not just her opinion, it is the central goal of her entire legal philosophy. Republicans want her to vote to get rid of ACA because they know they will never have the votes to do it in the congress.
Ruckus
I like it.
Either she answers in ways that screw her or her benefactor, in ways make her look ineffective, or refuses to answer at all, which makes her look petty. Now republicans will think that makes her look smart because she’s owning the dems.
And given the situation, that may be as good as it gets because nothing is going to stop mitch from ramming this through. Except republican defectors. And I’ll be very surprised if that happens.
trollhattan
@Kay:
Remembering Lindsay Graham practically bursting into tears apologizing to Li’l Brett for what big meanies those Democrat Party people were to him, I can only imagine the shitfest they have in store for us this time. “You’re being mean, to a girl!“
Kent
Asking hypotheticals in this sort of hearing is the wrong way go about it. You lay out their actual positions and make them deny them. And when they don’t you pounce.
“Yes or No. Are you willing to tell the American people that you won’t vote to strip health care from tens of millions of their fellow citizens?
That’s how you ask those sorts of questions.
geg6
@bystander:
The meetings aren’t public, so why bother with the bullshit she’ll be flinging in private? I wouldn’t meet with her because she’s an illegitimate nominee whose views are a given. Fuck that nonsense.
Ruckus
@Kent:
I like it.
She is, as a number have stated, for ending the ACA. Make her own that. Officially. Openly.
Sab
@trollhattan: At least she won’t be able to bring her spouse in to be tearful, like Alito did, or are GOP men now allowed to cry in public?
Sebastian
This is so good I would pay to watch it.
geg6
@Sab:
Kavanaugh did, so it must be okay.
Lavocat
It sure as fuck is better than not showing up at all (Josh Marshall’s advice, over at Talking Points memo), which is akin to having a temper tantrum and screaming “NOT FAIR!”. You know what’s better than not showing up to do your fucking job? ANYTHING!
Betty Cracker
@Felanius Kootea: That’s a really good ad.
J.
I LOVE this, but I fear, as many of the previous commenters noted, that she will avoid answering these questions. But it would make for good TV!
jonas
That she even accepted her nomination under the present circumstances belies the notion that she had any character to begin with…
Immanentize
It would be a good strategy — but the emoluments clause is the weakest sauce ever. Go to easy things like the recently decided (by SCOTUS) tax return cases. Or to the standard used to find the Commerce Department violated set administrative procedures regarding the census. Or the administrative vacancies Act. Cases already decided, but which Trump keeps violating.
Also, I want her explanation why she publicly argued that Garland should not be considered but she should?
Sloane Ranger
@randy khan: This!
Kent
Exactly. Don’t fuck around with hypotheticals. You just wrap her position and that of her party around her neck and make it public. Let her deny it if she wants. And if she tries to wiggle out of it you pounce.
Apply the same thing to all of the GOP senators in the hearing. Let them fucking try to defend stripping health care from millions.
Immanentize
@Lavocat: agree. I want Josh M to point to any group that won a political argument by deciding to boycott an election. That move has loser stink all over it.
Jeffro
@trollhattan: She strikes me as more of a wine person ;)
zhena gogolia
@Felanius Kootea:
I think it’s VoteVets and not Lincoln Project.
Sab
@geg6: I thought he just yelled and frothed at the mouth.
snoey
How about:
“It’s not about you or the answers you give, your another Federalist Society hack Trump judge so we know those already. My colleagues across the aisle know this or they wouldn’t have announced their support before knowing which FSHTJ the nominee was going to be.
I’m going to use my time talking about the stakes.”
Welcome to legal realism, no more games its raw power time.
Betty Cracker
@Lavocat: I think turning the hearings into an anti-Republican ad is a better strategy, but I get why Marshall (and others) say maybe the Dems shouldn’t participate at all. It’s an illegitimate process by the Republicans’ own rules, and depriving them of the bipartisan dog and pony show underscores what a partisan screw-job it is. I have no idea if that message would resonate more than the “temper tantrum” scenario you cite, but it doesn’t seem as obviously dumb to me as it does to you.
Regardless, it’s not going to happen. They are participating. I just hope everyone is focused on what the job is.
Ridnik Chrome
Sounds like a solid idea. What say you?
It gets my vote.
What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us?
@Soprano2: I don’t believe for a second most of them think what they’re doing is for the best for everyone. They’re a wholly owned subsidiary of Moneybags Inc. and they just do not care about everyone, they only care about the rich. The pro life movement is just a way for them to keep stringing along a non-trivial number of non rich voters.
I think some questions on Trump’s unconstitutional behavior are a good idea but spending the entire hearing on it might be too inside-basebally.
I do think they should ask point blank about Trump saying he needs her on the court to help him steal the election and whether accepting a nomination under those circumstances is ethical. They should also push her to commit to recusal if an election suit comes to the Court.
Immanentize
@Ruckus: I think Kamala Harris has indicated that is her whole focus for the confirmation hearings. Good. That shows the campaign is focussed.
Hoodie
@Kent: Agree. I think you start with the recognition that she will be confirmed and the point is more to establish and further a narrative for court reform than to somehow miraculously block the nomination. Making Trump the focus is a distraction for short term effect and will be less useful in reforming the Court after Barrett is inevitably confirmed. You want to make sure she is put into a position where she will be confirmed to be a partisan hack and/or a loon. Ask her about her connections to the Federalist Society. Question about her judicial philosophy, how she views the role of the Court vs. the Congress and President, etc. Question her on her published writings on issues such as the ACA and Roe. She’ll probably dodge, but the idea is to create a record for the argument to expand the Court in the next year. The narrative to further is that the GOP has perverted the Court by grooming ideologues and nakedly partisan operatives who will camp out on the Court and block every democratic attempt to govern for the next 40 years. You want to get her to at least tacitly confirm that she thinks that’s a good role for the Court. The ACA is a good focal point for that.
Sab
@J.: They can read her published writings to her and ask her to comment on her own published comments.
piratedan
I understand the walking away from the process folks, I get what they are saying. For me, it seems like Dems getting any time in front of America is such a rare thing these days that I think they should seize the opportunity to do so and make sure that they read her statements and positions on such legalities into the record.
After all, there’s not even a guarantee that we’ll see any of this on TV and if so, what will be cherrypicked for dissemination. Can’t hurt to get her to confirm what her own purported positions are, unedited and in public for people to see.
THIS is the result of what they elected.
Immanentize
@Betty Cracker: Schumer said he is not meeting with her because it is a bogus process. That is probably enough to make that point.
Immanentize
@zhena gogolia: It is pitched as a combined effort of both groups.
LevelB
That is the best idea I have heard in a long time. Get it all on the record – and let the republicans defend the crimes.
trollhattan
@Jeffro:
“I went to communion three times today and I’m baked!”
Kent
Yeah, that was sheer dumbfuckery.
The Democrats are being given free TV coverage and the eyes of the nation during this confirmation fight. Take it and use it to some larger strategic end if you know the votes are against you. Pick their 3 or 4 weakest GOP positions and spend the whole hearing hammering them. Whatever polls the worst for the GOP. Health care? Voting rights? Environmental protection?
The Dems would be committing political malpractice of the highest order if they don’t use the ENTIRE confirmation process as a free anti-GOP infomercial against Trump and every single GOP elected official.
Principled stands get you nowhere. That was Kerry’s approach to the swift boating. He wasn’t going to “dignify it” with a response. He kept his “dignity” and Bush won re-election.
randy khan
@Kay:
Oh, they know.
topclimber
@Kay: My understanding is that the ACA case hinges on the abolition (or perhaps just zeroing out) of the mandate penalty. No penalty equals no tax. No tax means the Roberts justification for the mandate is moot. Add in the overreach of a wingnut trial judge that no mandate means the whole law is thrown out.
The court will hear the case after the election, but will surely not issue a ruling for several months. During that time a new Biden administration and hopefully a Senate that goes along with the House can reinstate or refund the penalty at $1 a year.
IANAL (you are) but wouldn’t that make the GOP case moot?
Jeffro
Re: using the hearings to ask her questions about emoluments, the ACA, etc: sure, go for it. We might as well get a few shots in before she’s seated.
Dems need to keep reminding Americans how far out of the mainstream Sister Barrett and the GOP are – no time like the present, leading right up to the election.
jonas
Given that she’s already stated her flat-out opposition to the ACA, I wonder if Roberts would make her recuse herself when they hear the case.
randy khan
@Kent:
I agree. There should be a lot of this. And the occasional question about her law review article arguing that Social Security is unconstitutional.
catclub
I am not sure about that. I think the GOP does not really want to win that ACA destruction case. They need to rush her in for an extra vote on vote and voter suppression in the upcoming election.
Immanentize
Also, make Amy say nice but substantive things about RBG. OR NOT? I noticed when she spoke at her coming out party she listed a number of people who were inspired by Ruth. She did not include herself. Odd, I thought.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Another Scott: “Fighting for Health Care” worked in 2018, it’s a good message.
Mag
Regarding Lincoln Project and Barrett, I think Angry Black Lady is spot on:
Lincoln Project are still Republicans to their core. They like the product, just not the orange packaging.
Immanentize
@Mag: George Conway said as much a couple of days ago.
Shalimar
@Kent: What you’re asking is a hypothetical, unless you point out it’s a specific case they vote on in 7 weeks, in which case she won’t comment on cases currently before the Court.
Jeffro
@trollhattan: LOL
Somehow, unlike Mr. I Like Beer, I have a feeling she will keep her cool. Prove me wrong, though, Dems ;)
Sure Lurkalot
It’s not just taking health insurance away from those who get coverage via the ACA but the many other protections the act expanded to employer based insurance. Emphasize how everyone will likely lose coverage like preexisting condition, free wellness visits, etc.
Comrade Scrutinizer
@Kay: I think all these “this is what she should be asked” comments are nonsense; just a pipe dream. As you say, she won’t answer anything of substance, she’s not going to be pinned down on any position. Why should she? The fix is in.
What I do wonder is whether the GOP decides to cut Trump loose. It’s kinda late for the GOP to moderate their positions, but on the other hand they’ve successfully weaponized the judiciary, they’ve rolled back a lot of regulations, and they’ve given their donors mega tax breaks. What else can Trump do for them? I doubt that (most of) the GOP wants to burn everything down. That really doesn’t benefit them. They have to be concerned about their Senate majority, so even a small pull away from Trump could preserve some seats. If Trump goes full totalitarian that doesn’t benefit them either; he’s too unstable. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some pullback from Trump in the next couple of weeks.
BlueGuitarist
@MattF:
Has Barrett been clear about Griswold v Connecticut and whether states can ban access to contraception?
trollhattan
@Jeffro:
It will be necessary for the women to bring the knives to these hearings. Senator Harris, for a handy example.
Johnnybuck
Well I’m sure it will make everybody feel better but it won’t change a thing. The public already is opposed to this confirmation.
What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us?
@Mag: I just saw a Lindsey Must Go add on MSNBC from The Lincoln Project using his footage where he says “use my words against me”. It’s an attack add on Lindsey Graham who is in charge of this whole process. Maybe they’re not our friends but they don’t appear to be down with the rush to confirm.
Jeffro
@Mag: LP has also been going after pro-trumpov Senators, and I’m pretty sure they came out saying the double standards (on who does/does not get a hearing and a vote) have to stop. Not the same thing as flat-out publicly opposing the ACB nomination, but still.
(But I may have them confused with Stand Up Republic’s recent statements like that. So many anti-trumpov Republican groups to keep track of these days! =)
I can’t see LP turning on Dems until the GOP has pretty much rid itself of trumpov and Trumpism, which is to say, likely never. Turn on the Dems at any point before that time, and they’d be assisting the trumpistas. They seem more likely to stay on the fringe of our big tent for quite some time.
What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us?
@randy khan: If she is on record as arguing that Social Security is unconstitutional the Dems should definitely expose that multiple times. It’s a huge wedge issue within the Republican coalition.
Johnnybuck
@What Have The Romans Ever Done for Us?: They know she’s going to be confirmed, they just want to kick Lindsey and send a message that they’re the ones calling the tune in the post-Trump era.
And they get a Judge out of it in the process.
It’s a win-win
Betty Cracker
@Hoodie: Good points, and it’s high time the Federalist Society got more scrutiny. WE know what it is, but my guess is if you polled Americans, 90% wouldn’t have the foggiest notion. They’ll pretty much run our fucking lives soon, so it would be nice if everyone knew what the FS brand meant.
Jeffro
It doesn’t really have to change a thing…but it could, at the margins. You’re right that the public is against any nomination going forward at this time, and is opposed to the things Barrett stands for as well. So why not highlight that repeatedly in hearings and really fire up our base? Why not tie her nuttiness firmly around the GOP’s throat heading into the election?
If nothing else, it helps ‘prep the battlefield’ a bit for when we add four justices to SCOTUS next year. “Hey, if they’re going to put people this far out of the mainstream onto the Court just because they can…we have to restore the balance here…”
ETA or geez what Hoodie already said 30 comments ago…I need to slow down when I scan these threads =)
orsonk
Sounds like a great idea!
Ocotillo
It might not be a bad idea to ask her about Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society. What I am saying is give America a primer on who they are, etc… Also, get into discussing why the Koch’s Americans for Prosperity is spending millions to support her.
You don’t really ask a question as such (she’s not talking) just frame a question with a Maddow like explanation of the dark money and behind the scenes power brokers that are putting her in this seat.
Kent
@Mag: Exactly. We allied with Stalin to beat the Nazis. And it was the right thing to do. You take your allies when you can find them. But you don’t get naive about it.
Steeplejack
@Soprano2:
Thomas is a cardiac event waiting to happen.
miroker
I am all for them doing that, but after watching their performance in the past few years, I have no hope that they have either the spine or the desire to stand up for what is right. They feed at the same trough as the republican’ts as far as campaign bribes (oops, donations) go, so they are too scared to rock the boat.
catclub
@Kent:
AKA: 40% of he electorate.
Kent
You never know how these things will shake out and what the downstream consequences are. For example the GOP did endless fucking Benghazi hearings in 2014. Did they change anything? Not for the Obama Administration. But they arguably gave us President Trump because it was the Benghazi hearing fishing expeditions that ultimately uncovered the Clinton emails thing.
The GOP knows better than to ever walk away from a free microphone.
Sloane Ranger
@trollhattan:
The way to avoid this is for all the men to give their time over to Harris and Klobashar
Also Barrett can’t have a meltdown like Kavanaugh. It will make her seem weak and emotional. Like a girl In RWNJ world, girls are only allowed to play if they act like one of the boys.
Kent
@catclub: We can do a lot if we have the other 60%
zzyzx
I’d ask her, “You referred to the 14th amendment as ‘possibly illegitimate.’ Do you think that the 14th Amendment is actually part of the US Constitution?”
If she answers yes, then ask her to explain what she meant, if no, then hammer on that.
A Good Woman
@Immanentize: Also, I want her explanation why she publicly argued that Garland should not be considered but she should?
That right there is where it should start with the Democrats questions.
catclub
Trump talks ALL the time about his second term agenda, doesn’t he?
Falling Diphthong
I like it! Make it clear just how far from the Constitution we have progressed as frogs in boiling water these last four years.
Falling Diphthong
@Immanentize:
Ask for the specific section of the Constitution that says that when different parties hold the Senate and presidency, it’s okay for the Senate to take a crap on the Constitution and not do their job IF the Senate is run by Republicans. Seriously, I want someone to try and put this in traditional judicial conservative respecting the intent of the founding fathers terms.
Skepticat
Spot on. I think it’s an excellent idea.
LongHairedWeirdo
If they did that, I’d all-but demand that they also ask about their opinion regarding the President’s duty to see that the law is faithfully executed – requesting actions known to violate the law, offering pardons, etc..
I am probably going in the wrong direction with that suggestion – it might make lousy TV, and the point here is to interest viewers, to make some go “hey, that’s a good point” and, of course, to paint the Republicans as completely amoral about these appointments, and about Trump.
(Kavanaugh should have been enough to show Republican amorality about SCOTUS appointments- someone who screams about having to face a clearly relevant question of fact, and suggests that having to answer questions means he’s the subject of vicious attacks, would be courting contempt charges as a *witness* – the idea of leaving him as a judge, much less promoting him, should sicken people. Except, of course, people like him, and Trump, who think rules are made to affect others.)
Falling Diphthong
@Comrade Scrutinizer:
I think that’s the point of this strategy. Don’t try to think of an incredible zinger that will derail her confirmation or bind her rulings afterward–that isn’t happening. Use the hearings to motivate D voters and depress R voters.
I’ve long said that Democrats only get het up about judicial nominations when there’s a Supreme Court vacancy, which is not a useful time to get het up. This is not a powerful argument for Trump–if he were smart and thought the race was close, he’d be saying that Rs only got that extra justice if they turned out to re-elect Trump first. McConnell seems to have convinced him the Supreme Court can declare him king–this is about McConnell’s legacy, not Trump’s.
Barbara
@Mag: Right. Trump is too crude for them and can’t dissemble enough to keep the unfairness unsaid. What they can never admit is that putting someone like Trump up for election is the only way they can possibly bring enough rubes along to get 270 electoral votes. John McCain and the Northern Lights couldn’t do it, and someone like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan definitely can’t. No, their continued power depends on insanity of one kind or another.
And really, Democrats take them more seriously than Trump supporters do. Seriously, unmasked, the white working class that they leverage to gain electoral power does not really like the hard right agenda supported by the Lincloln Project anymore than I do. I don’t bother looking at their ads anymore. Their power rests on the idea that Democrats will act on the implied threat that there is more of where Trump came from. They are totally a Washington power broker phenomenon.
topclimber
@Mag: Two points:
Johnnybuck
@Kent: Maybe I’m wrong, but if your position is that this is an illegitimate process to begin with and you are refusing to meet with the nominee because of that, yet you want the opportunity question her at the same time (in a hearing where she won’t directly comment on any of your inquires) seems like something Republican members on the committee will have a field day with.
They’ll call it hypocrisy, discourteous and political grandstanding and likely fire up their own base.
The Other Bob
The best thing they can do is get her to lie under oath. Then later remove her from the bench for perjury.
Kay
Ha. This is going to be fun!
Martin
Consider that conservatives are a lot like the folks that believe the planet is overpopulated. In their mind, if we raise the standard of living of all Americans, the country would collapse. It would be unaffordable, our cultural institutions would fail (taco truck on every corner), and crime would run out of control because black people would be subject to the same polite policing that upscale white people are, and they believe that some large portion of the country are inherent criminals.
This is the core concept of conservatism. Everything else is in service to this idea. If you give everyone health insurance, then nobody will have health insurance because the people you add will bankrupt the people that have it. That’s their calculus. It’s obviously bullshit, but it’s what conservatism is.
Kattails
@Kent: Better. Just lay it right out in her own words.
Also, do you truly believe your tenure would not be tainted by being appointed by a possible felon? By someone with (read off list) all these currently pending charges against him? What makes it legitimate for someone like this to have the power to nominate anyone, at this point in time for freaking dogcatcher?
Omnes Omnibus
@Immanentize: Painting her her as a hypocrite is good.
zhena gogolia
@Immanentize:
Oh, thanks, I misread.
Baud
@Johnnybuck: There’s nothing Dems can do that the right won’t have a field day with.
Chief Oshkosh
Two BIG thumbs up on the tactic of making Barret walk through the Donny Parade of Crimes.
Betty Cracker
@Kay: Encouraging! IIRC, you’ve said that if Ohio is close, PA and MI are probably out of reach. Good!
Baud
@Kay:
There’s still good in Ohio. I can feel it.
zhena gogolia
@Jeffro:
I’ve seen LP people harshly criticizing the rush to confirm a justice.
James E Powell
@Johnnybuck:
I’d like to see some polling that reveals what percentage of Americans know it is happening, know how the process works, remember the Republicans refusal to consider Garland, understand how the supreme court affects anything other than abortion, care at all about the whole thing.
Anyone whose vote can be affected by the supreme court is already locked in on their candidate. The point of the hearings is to brand her as a radical right winger in general and an enemy of ACA specifically. The only possible positive outcome would be that voters turn on a few vulnerable Republican senators and they lose.
David ? ☘The Establishment☘? Koch
@Kay:
Meanwhile
Kay
In news that should surprise no one, the Trump Campaign bosses are horrible.
Omnes Omnibus
@jonas: Roberts has no ability to make anyone recuse themselves.
James E Powell
@Kent:
Not saying you are wrong, but the reason that the Benghazi hearings worked was because the press/media hate Hillary Clinton and it gave them something to use against her. If the Benghazi hearings had been directed against Obama, they’d have gone nowhere fast.
Jeffro
@Kay: As of this moment, OH looks like a good D pickup possibility, maybe even better than GA or TX.
And trumpov keeps holding out hope that he’s going to “flip” MN – good luck with that, orange man.
So very weird, this election, these polls.
I have Biden/Harris at around 350 EVs and that’s without GA, TX, or IA.
MisterForkbeard
@A Good Woman: I’ve had some conservative friendly friends tell me that all THEY see is that she said “The Senate can do what it wants, so it’s totally okay to not vote on Garland” and now is saying “The senate can do what it wants, so it’s okay to vote on me”.
Basically, she refused to have an opinion and in so doing just so happens to have landed on the exact Republican position every time.
WaterGirl
Could not possibly love this idea more!
zzyzx
I saw a Trump ad on MNF last night and I was surprised at how boring it was. There was a generic “Biden will raise my taxes!” appeal and then a lot of “Trump just gets it.”
I don’t see how that moves anyone.
hueyplong
@zzyzx: Yes, it’s difficult for her to characterize as a “hypothetical” a question about the meaning of her own statement.
Barbara
@Omnes Omnibus: He doesn’t, but having worked for the chief judge in a circuit, there are ways of gaining compliance. Starting with not permitting junior justices to write any opinions on their pet subjects. You can really bottle someone up as the chief if you want to.
David ? ☘The Establishment☘? Koch
@Baud: Thanks for the reminder. I need to set my YoutubeTV to record tonight’s Cleveland-Yankee game. ⚾
Mousebumples
(https://twitter.com/LeanTossup/status/1311004341185249287?s=03)
Warnock leads the field at 33% in the open Senate seat.
Johnnybuck
@Baud: I’m well aware of that, and i stated I could be wrong, I hope I am.
Chief Oshkosh
@trollhattan: So have all Democratic Senators yield their time to a female Senator. One Kamala Harris comes to mind. Hell, if you want good TV, have Sen. Harris ask four rounds of questions to one round from Senator Warren. That’s about the right ratio.
It’ll be great TV, so Donny will be compelled to watch. Hilarity will ensue.
MattF
Pinned tweet on the @stronglang timeline.
WaterGirl
@Felanius Kootea: @zhena gogolia: You are both right. It’s the Lincoln Project in partnership with Vote Vets.
Kelly
If we get the trifecta along with structural changes to the judiciary, DC and Puerto Rico statehood I want an immediate do over on the 2020 census. Seems straightforward and easy to justify.
Kay
It’s really odd to have to pay election observers. I wonder if they shipped her in from somewhere else. You have to be an Ohio “elector” (voter) in Ohio.
Immanentize
@Steeplejack: So is Alito. And of the two, he is the rage-aholic who needs daily feeds of rage-ahol. He will pop.
ETA and Roberts has a seizure disorder that has (literally) floored him a few times that I know about. And compared to those at the Court, I don’t know shit.
Citizen Alan
@Omnes Omnibus: Yeah, that ship sailed with Bush v. Gore, in which two members of the majority voted despite having family members working on the Bush transition team.
James E Powell
@Kay:
I’m wondering if they cancelled the TV ads so they could pay their election watchers.
Omnes Omnibus
@Barbara: This is true, but I don’t want people thinking that the Chief Justice has powers the does not have. I also try to push back whenever I see people arguing that the ABA should disbar people or not permit a lawyer to do certain things. You and I know that isn’t within the power of the ABA, but many commenters don’t know the arcane workings of the legal profession.
Betty
@zhena gogolia: It’s both.
Omnes Omnibus
@Citizen Alan: So you think there is no value in making her own it?
LuciaMia
@David ? ☘The Establishment☘? Koch: So wheres their ad money going?
Immanentize
@Mousebumples: Fuck Lieberman
lowtechcyclist
@trollhattan:
@Sloane Ranger:
Seconded. Besides pre-empting that whinefest, Harris and Klobuchar are smarter than most of the men to begin with. Give ’em the ball and let ’em run with it.
Mousebumples
@Immanentize: yup. He’s at 7%,if i remember right. (Loeffler and Collins are mid 20s)
catclub
@Kelly: here is the only clause in the Consty:
No bar to extra enumerations.
JPL
@Mousebumples: Earlier I saw a Loeffler ad attacking Warnock, which I found odd. Previously she was going after Collins, and now I know why.
catclub
@James E Powell:
No, why pay them AT ALL, the day after the election. Trumps M.O.
Llelldorin
I’m a bit optimistic that The Lincoln Project might be succumbing to the reverse of a syndrome I remember from newly-minted Republicans in the ’80s, that I think I’ve seen described around here as “I’ve always been a Democrat, but now that I’m a Republican I’m deeply concerned about Chappaquiddick.”
Once you’re on the outside of the Republican Party looking in, a lot of things that we’ve been complaining about for years are suddenly really obvious. (See, for example, Max Boot suddenly noticing the racism deeply embedded in the Republican Party these days.)
Llelldorin
@lowtechcyclist:
Thirded. Harris also has experience as an advocate, which Barrett, for all her undoubted brilliance, conspicuously lacks.
Kay
@James E Powell:
It’s weird! Why do they have to pay people? In 2012 Obama had a lead lawyer who did the organizing and I assume (hope) she was paid but the observers are usually a volunteer job. She wasn’t AT the polling place. She was directing the whole state.
I listened in on the Biden Ohio election observers call last night and I know they’re all volunteers.
Nora Lenderbee
This!
tam1MI
@David ? ☘The Establishment☘? Koch: The cancellations of advice buys looks an awful lot like a campaign that has run out of money…
SiubhanDuinne
@zhena gogolia:
It’s los dos, according to the end credits.
MisterForkbeard
@Kelly:
I mean, even IF you ignore all the fuckery going on this time, cutting the problem in half, disobeying orders to keep the Census going, etc… we did it in the middle of a pandemic where meeting in person was heavily skewed.
All political/fuckery considerations aside, it’s pretty easy to make the case that the census just isn’t going to be accurate. Census officials have actually said so.
Immanentize
@Kay: But personally, as we have discussed, I think the Dems should pay all their campaign workers. 15 or fight!
Immanentize
@MisterForkbeard: I saw an analysis in the NYTimes that the fuckery is going to hurt red states much more than blue, with NM being the only blue in the top 10 that will be undercounted.
A Good Woman
RVAT ad to air tonight in OH
Immanentize
@A Good Woman:
“Country over party” is a good ending line.
patroclus
Well, initially, I was optimistic that we could convince at least a few Republican Senators that a USSC nomination was utterly ridiculous in the middle of an election but that appears to have failed, so I agree now that the best tactic is to make the whole thing as political as possible and ask about health insurance, the Post office, the Census, the grifting, the tax returns, the Ukraine scandal, LGBT rights, women’s liberty and anything else that is currently a political issue and make the Republicans and Barrett own all of it. Sure, she won’t respond substantively but everyone knows that. Paint her as what she obviously is and make it clear that this rush to fill Ginsburg’s seat is entirely political.
Shalimar
@Mousebumples: I’m not sure what Lieberman is still doing in this race. He has no chance whatsoever of finishing ahead of Loeffler and Collins, and his career in politics is over if he keeps Warnock out of the top 2.
Another Scott
@Felanius Kootea: That’s a great ad.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
SiubhanDuinne
@Steeplejack:
Not until January 20, 2021, please.
Mousebumples
Does he even currently have a career in politics? Or is he just here for the chaos/lulz?
WaterGirl
@A Good Woman:
patroclus
@SiubhanDuinne: Well, we’ve got a little leeway. The new Senate will be in place by January 6.
zhena gogolia
@patroclus:
Yeah.
Anya
Trump is gonna go full Q-anon. He’ll start with claiming Soros planted a chip inside Biden’s ear that gives him answers then he’ll progress to 2020 pizzagate. Pundits will claim “Biden shows anger. That played into Trump’s hands.”
patrick Il
@Shalimar:
Combine that with”I won’t discuss cases that might come before the Supreme court” and you are left with name rank and serial number.
Shalimar
@Mousebumples: Someone who knows him better will have to answer. He obviously has the arrogance to be a politician, running for senator as his first job instead of finding a House seat. I’m guessing he thinks he has a future and will try again. Whether anyone else should care is an open question.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Martin: Conservatives believe EVERYTHING is zero sum and Trump embodies this philosophy. If you gain something, I must be losing something, even if I can’t pin point what it is.
Barbara
@Omnes Omnibus: I was just making the point that the CJ has soft power, like assigning the authorship of opinions.
James E Powell
@Kay:
I worked as a poll watcher nearly every election back in Ohio and I never got paid. A few times they gave us donuts.
Litlebritdifrnt
@LuciaMia: According to the Daily Mail Brad Parscale’s bank account.
Cheryl Rofer
misterpuff
@David ? ☘The Establishment☘? Koch: Drumpf Campaign Strategy: Why spend the money on ads? We spend the money on fixers (Congress, SC and lawyers)…and I (Drumpf) keep the rest.
Another Scott
@Mag: Rick Wilson of the Lincoln Project as asked about her on C-Span yesterday.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?476256-4/washington-journal-rick-wilson-discusses-campaign-2020-future-gop
(Sorry about the CAPS)
So, yeah, under different circumstances he might like her. But it’s clear his main goal is burning Trump and Trumpism to the ground. And he’s alsohaving some glee that it’s going to put the hurt on a lot of GOP Senators who refused to honor their oath to protect the Constitution.
Cheers,
Scott.
piratedan
@Cheryl Rofer: so… hours after RBG is interred? If only they were as adept to responding to a national pandemic.
Gin & Tonic
@Immanentize: No, thanks.
SiubhanDuinne
@patroclus:
Then January 6th it is!
Ruckus
@Immanentize:
The symbolism of Chuck not meeting with her does make the point and officially.
cain
Gosh, that sounds like typical republican projection. I mean hypocrisy is putting a SCOTUS nominee to vote in the first place.
Nobody is dumb enough to think that what’s happening isnt’ a Republican power play.
patroclus
@Another Scott: Wow, Rick needs to calm down and stop shouting. I think he’s going to have a heart attack or something.
Seriously, the leadership of the Lincoln Project are former Republicans – much of the staff are Dems. The leadership will go their separate ways after the election – the core ratf*ckers will remain ours. I’m not worried.
Johnnybuck
@cain: Hey, I said I could be wrong, but I don’t understand how this helps wavering democratic voters, and not have the same effect for Republican leaners.
Mary G
That Sully ad is killer.
piratedan
@Johnnybuck: I take the POV that it’s better to be seen fighting for the people, showing how this is supposed to work and acknowledge how the GOP has led us to this travesty of process and candidate.
Ruckus
@Betty Cracker:
I directly know people that if asked would have no idea what the FS is, what it stands for, who it wants to screw over, or why. They just do not follow this political stuff. Or even pay a lot of attention to the news.
moops
Since these are not really hearings as anyone would understand the term, the Dems can just declare they are there to chat with a new USSC judge that the GOP have already decided to accept. Let’s just talk shall we?
You can also make it about Bill Barr, and Mitch McConnell. Since she will refuse to answer questions about pending legal points you can make her answer questions about past misdeeds of appointed and elected Republicans. If Mitch McConnell has been taking funds from Russia for his campaigns, should he also be impeached? If Bill Barr lied to Congress about the Mueller Report, should he be impeached?
Those are constitutional questions but not something that comes before the court.
germy
MomSense
Millions of people cannot pay their rent and millions of children are going hungry – and these Republican shitweasels cannot be bothered to help them. But a fucking SCOTUS justice who wants to strip healthcare from millions of Americans, thinks she can determine who is worthwhile enough to vote, and is apparently cool with making women’s bodies the property if the state.
I’m so fucking done with Republicans.
James E Powell
@Betty Cracker:
In truth that number would be higher than 90%, but the name “Federalist Society” sounds like something that everyone should know about so in a poll, people will say they’ve heard of it even though they have no idea what it is.
Another Scott
@James E Powell: … and nobody knows who funds and important part of them, either.
https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/speeches/the-third-federalist-society
(The “?” are apparently non-standard characters from MS Word or something.)
Lots and lots of sunlight needs to shine down on these various “non-profits”…
Grr…
Cheers,
Scott.
Cameron
I’m not a Nathan Robinson fan, but this piece has some very disturbing ( to me, anyway) descriptions of some of our future Justice’s past decisions.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/09/why-amy-coney-barrett-should-not-be-on-the-supreme-court/
Ruckus
@Martin:
BINGO!
Many wonder how republican politicians can continue to screw their own voters and get applauded for it. It is the sparrow/curtain rod story. As long as their “enemies” are getting treated worse, they are fine with whatever.
craigie
@Kent:
The way to do this is to start with “You’re on record as opposing the ACA. Can you describe the legal reasoning that supports your position?”
Nowhere to hide on that one.
Chris Johnson
@Martin: The youtuber Innuendo Studios has covered this very well in the video, ‘Always A Bigger Fish’. The thing is if you understand that’s the motivation of conservatives it gives you better weapons for arguing with them.
Essentially you say ‘the hierarchy you support is not honest. It is giving people on the top an easy ride, a cheat. You need to not be cheating hardworking people on behalf of some oligarchs and cheaters who have not earned their success’.
Since it is an article of faith to them that those on the top earned it, if you can prove that some on the top did not, then you can get the conservatives evening the score for you. IF you can prove that some on the top cheated.
Conveniently, they all do. There’s always a crime.
Another Scott
Entertaining goings-on in court today, apparently…
(via Popehat)
Kay – “We need better elites!!”
Cheers,
Scott.
Kay
@Another Scott:
Income inequality makes lower quality elites. They don’t have to compete with scrappy peons! :)
Conservatives should embrace my theory. It’s very market-based.
WaterGirl
@Another Scott: Who are sullivan and powell?
James E Powell
@WaterGirl:
Sullivan is the judge on Flynn’s case. Powell – no relation – is Flynn’s attorney.
WaterGirl
@James E Powell: Thank you! I know that Judge Sullivan is the judge on Flynn’s case, but without knowing the attorney’s name or the context, I was totally lost.
Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes
OUTFUCKINGRAGEOUS!
Louisville now has a “Green Zone” of heavy equipment and traffic blocks cordoning off Injustice Square and the courthouse complex. There is no vehicular traffic for about a 12 block area, with further barricades out about another 4 blocks to deny people most access to downtown.
This is strangling such restaurants as are still open and is in place even after the cessation of a 9 pm to 6:30 am citywide curfew.
At various times of the day, pedestrians – including lawyers – are harassed for ID and to state their business going into the cordoned area. It is my intention to cross that line without providing ID or stating my business (which is to file a confidential pleading in a child dependency case) that I cannot file online. I intend to be the biggest asshole on the planet, so that after I’m released, the city writes me a sizable check.
Bill Arnold
Can a lawyer here have a look at this to see what ACB is saying about the Fourteenth Amendment?
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1619&context=jcl
The argument is a little complex; not sure I’m following it as she … intended.
germy
cckids
This. To me, this is the main point.
Also, they need to refrain from going after her weird, dangerous religious beliefs. That gives both the R’s and (more importantly) the media a convenient handle to grab and to ignore everything else that is said.
catclub
@SiubhanDuinne: Did you see the WAPO editorial on “Thomas needs to recuse himself from anything related to Joe Biden” and then they quote from his (Thomas’s) book on how Biden mistreated him?
SiubhanDuinne
@germy:
I approve the timing of the trolling!
catclub
Good luck with that!
Immanentize
No matter what you may think of the Lincoln Project, I give them props for their “Whispers” ad which certainly hastened the downfall of Brad Parscale.
Baud
@Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes:
Or to your widow.
Fonzie84
The idea is moronic. It will be child’s play for someone as brilliant a jurist as she is and an experienced professor as well to turn these simple questions around to something positive for herself and for Trump. These senators are no intellectual match for Barrett. They should simply hide under their desks until it is all over rather than undermine the Democrats’ chances in November.
Immanentize
@Bill Arnold: it is part of a Scalia musing that the 14th A. Applies only to African Americans who are descendants of slaves. No I am not kidding.
For fuckwits like her, I like to ask:
Is funding the airforce, space force and marines unconstitutional? Do we have an unconstitutional “standing army?”
jonas
@Kay:
That story in that link was nuts. All these volunteers/workers for Trump are stunned to find out that the campaign is filled with all these managerial assholes who don’t give a damn about the people below them. FFS. Have you ever seen the president you’re campaigning for? What the hell did you expect?
Oh, that’s right. You didn’t expect the leopards to eat *your* face.
catclub
@Another Scott: you have to be impressed by how cheap it is for billlionaires to fund these groups. The Koch are worth something like $40B and here they might have given $5M. Call it $4M for simplicity and it
is 1/100th of 1% of $40B. So if I had only $400,000 it would be like $40 – one restaurant meal.
Immanentize
@Another Scott: I followed the whole hearing today via Emptywheel. Holy crazy nutjobs, Batman! Record and fact free arguments. It is possible Sidney Powell altered a document submitted to the Court. Shit gonna get real.
catclub
@Baud: I was thinking the same thing. Outcomes Might be melanin dependent.
tybee
@Baud:
as long as someone gets paid, it’s all good
@Baud:
debbie
I’ve decided to watch reruns of Criminal Minds tonight. Seeing competent psychopaths will be a refreshing change.
catclub
Biden should state that his returns also show he does not owe money to unknown foreign entities.
Benw
Confirmation of Trump’s malfeasance would be a highlight of Barrett‘s hearings!
Mike S (Now with a Democratic Congressperson!)
@Jeffro: I’d be interested in hearing her thoughts on who might have standing to sue for the enforcement of the Emoluments clause. Is it enforceable at all? Or is a law needed to enact penalties?
catclub
except they always catch em, right? The real competent ones never get caught. BTK went 25 or so years before being caught.
Or do you mean the detectives are competent psychopaths? I could go with that.
WaterGirl
@Immanentize:
My ears perked up! Can you tell us more?
catclub
@WaterGirl: there was a live blog at TPM
SiubhanDuinne
@catclub:
No, I missed that! Thanks, I’ll go find it as soon as I catch up with this thread.
WaterGirl
@catclub:
Sometimes takes a whole season, and even more than one season, to catch the really bad ones.
Another Scott
@Cameron: Thanks for the pointer.
It’s a long piece for the web, but worth the time.
Co-sign.
Cheers,
Scott.
Martin
@Chris Johnson: The challenge though is that who is in the over/underclass is incredibly flexible. In the span of a single conversation the rich can move from over- to under-, etc.
zhena gogolia
Morzer
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: make Coney Barrett go through every sordid, corrupt moment of Trump’s presidency and answer for it on the record. Make Goody Two Shoes squirm.
debbie
@catclub:
No, they do get caught in the end, but they’re much harder to figure out than the Orange Clown.
It’s a very fine line, but I’ll do anything to avoid watching the debate.
catclub
on the TPM live blog juicy tidbit:
Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes
@Baud:
Her fondest dream…..
Sebastian
@piratedan:
Well isn’t that the core of the problem in this country? Republicans and their oligarch puppet masters have been flooding the airwaves for decades year round and the only time we get to show the population we are not baby eating commie monsters is during a presidential election because then we finally get our message out.
The rightwing noise machine needs to be destroyed or anything we do will roll back downhill like Sisyphus’ rock.
David ? ☘The Establishment☘? Koch
@catclub:
This is some shit. Flynn lied directly to the face of the FBI (they have audio of the calls) and some agents still wanted to “doubt” his guilt.
jeffreyw
@Ruckus:
Hearing FS, first thing folks around here think is Farm Service. Sells seed, fertilizer, fuel and LP gas.
catclub
I liked this one:
catclub
@David ? ☘The Establishment☘? Koch: OR, the DOJ is claiming that some agent had some doubt, but not actually bringing that person to testify to such facts.
brantl
@Felanius Kootea: Sully’s commercial is spectacular! And what Amy Barrett needs to be asked is the definition of each crime that Dumbold Jerk Stump has committed, then go briefly through the facts, and ask how that doesn’t fit the definition of the crime? Do this with every instance. Rinse, repeat. They can beat him to DEATH with this.
Redshift
@craigie:
The answer I want to hear is “you’re on record as opposing the ACA, but have also insisted that the courts should not ‘make policy’.” How do you reconcile those positions?
Kenneth Fair
@randy khan: I think that’s exactly what she would do. Maybe the way to fix that is to frame the questions as hypotheticals, but where the hypothetical is obviously and directly based on what Trump has done.
Another Scott
@Immanentize:
(Surovell is my state senator and a very sharp cookie!)
Cheers,
Scott.
Kay
Told ya.
Biden could take care of the whole criminal gang just by investigating that campaign’s finances.
There is no way in hell the sleazy Trump Family and the low quality hires collected all that money without stealing some of it.
Omnes Omnibus
@Fonzie84: I call shenanigans.
Redshift
@James E Powell:
Exactly. There was barely a peep in the news media about Ron Johnson’s Hunterghazi hearings.
Kay
Because of course he did. That should be a given at this point.
Redshift
@Kay: Bet he’s only being investigated because he didn’t clear his stealing with the boss, and he’s not a family member.
James E Powell
@Bill Arnold:
I gave it the quick overview and if I was paid to do so I would provide a well-researched response, but the short as is right here.
More generally, the idea known variously as originalism, original intent, and, I guess now, original public meaning – is a bullshit intellectual guise by which the right-wing seeks to repeal the 20th century. Apart from their habit of only applying it to get right-wing results and ignoring it when it doesn’t, the claim that it should be an objective constitutional first principle fails because there is nothing to show that the framers intended to embody the theory in the constitution.
Another Scott
Yeah!
Is that…? Yes, yes it is. Hmm… Rooting for injuries, I am.
(via ssurovell)
Cheers,
Scott.
catclub
@Redshift: beat me to it.
Miss Bianca
@Le Comte de Monte Cristo, fka Edmund Dantes:
God speed you, dude. WTF, Louisville??!
brantl
@trollhattan: And the Dems should say, “you can prove that’s a girl, and I’ll think about apologizing, okay?”.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Another Scott:
I’m no accountant, but Ima go ahead and call bullshit on that
Another Scott
(via NotLarrySabato)
https://www.gofundme.com/f/winitforrbg is the clean link.
Cheers,
Scott.
The Thin Black Duke
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Especially when Coulter is implying that the Democrats are to blame for such a corrupt system.
J R in WV
@Felanius Kootea:
Wife and I just watched that ad — Captain Sullenberger is well spoken and obviously skilled at his craft of flying. The ad is superb, as is Sully. His flying that airliner successfully into the Hudson river, saving every passenger, the whole crew, was heroic in the best sense of the word.
Vote….Him…. Out!!!! What a great person. Proud he is standing up for America and the Democratic Party!
Bunter
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I’ve had this argument with many people. Doesn’t matter that there’s no 50% bracket. Or that even in NYC, I, who have nothing other than the standard deductions, don’t pay anywhere near that even with adding up Fed, state and local. People believe it and cannot be disabused of the belief. I finally told the last three people they needed better accountants if true. Oh, to make it worse, this is in the financial sector.
David ? ☘The Establishment☘? Koch
@Kay: That just adds to the long, long list (link). I’m not sure if I should add Bolton to the list as well (he’s facing a grand jury).
James E Powell
@Immanentize:
I saw a quote on TPM that in her conversation(s) with Trump, Flynn’s attorney said she recommended that he not pardon Flynn. Is that because guilt is implicit in a pardon? He already pleaded guilty. Why wouldn’t his attorney just take the pardon & go?
MomSense
@Immanentize:
I skimmed one exchange that started with executive privilege (unceremoniously denied) and then went to attorney client privilege which also was denied. It was like D’oh moment after D’oh moment. Where did Flynn find his counsel??
topclimber
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: You are no doubt right about federal income tax. But add in state tax, sales tax, property tax, excise taxes on more than you want to know and she might be in the mid 30% area.
Or she can be doing the usual BS of treating marginal tax rate (that on your highest bracket) with total tax.
Being it is Coulter, I go with the usual BS.
Ruckus
@jeffreyw:
I’m sure that’s around where you live, not around this blog…
Some in the navy would have thought that meant fucking skanks, so add in a third possibility.
And of course here it means Federalist Society.
StevetheWeave
[I posted this on DailyKos two days ago. You get her to agree, agree, agree, and then play switcheroo.]
The Dems have to give up this 5-minutes-each BS in favor of a professional prosecutor, someone like Daniel Goldman who worked on impeachment to Pamela Karlan from Stanford who testified at the impeachment.
The Rethugs brought in that “Expert on Rapes” during the Kavanaugh hearing from somewhere in flyover country. We can bring our expert.
This is outright war and Barrett is a right-wing ideologue. There is video of her saying, effectively, that settled law is settled. Major BS. Do you really think that if an Abolish Roe case came up, she would recuse (no way!)? Or she would not agree to abolish?
In the hearing, she’s going to say that her previous opinions are valid. And when the time comes, she will deliberately reverse herself. She is deep down – in her soul – (of which will get uglier as she ages and gains more power )– fundie’s dream.
Quite sure that she looks in the mirror every morning these days and says, “Perhaps we would like to the first woman Chief Justice”
So here’s what she should be asked (Q/A).
Is she religious? Yes.
Believes in Bible? Yes
Will you confirm that Bible has broad appeal to many people? Yes.
And among many folks, there is some disagreement about how it is read and interpreted? Yes.
Some people believe that what happened in the Bible literally happened, but for others the drama of the Bible supports many beliefs and stories with the weight of moral authority. Is that correct? Yes.
So whether it really happened or not, the beauty of the Bible are its stories, real or hypothetical, that inspire us. Correct? Yes.
But generally the Bible certainly says that “the most of us and the least of us” are human beings who should be treated with dignity and respect? Yes.
One of the 10 commandments which Christians, Jews, and other religions agree is “Thou shall not commit adultery” or “Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife.” Correct? Yes.
In as few words as possible, please define adultery for us. Blah. Blah. Blah,
(Now, get ready)
It has been reported and verified many times that Donald Trump dated and may have had sexual relations with other women while still married to his 2nd wife.
Would that act be defined as adultery?
Blah, Blah, Blah. (starts to twirl in her seat; some pompous Rethug Senator gets all huffy).
Another of the 10 commandments is “Thou shall not steal.” Correct? Yes.
In as few words as possible, please define stealing for us. Blah. Blah. Blah,
(Now, get ready)
It has been reported and verified many times that Donald Trump did not fully pay men and women who did contract work for him. (If you have a better incident to use, use it)
Would that act be defined as stealing?
Blah, Blah, Blah. (starts to twirl & burn in her seat; some pompous Rethug Senator screams for someone else to get the fire extinguisher, and then gets all huffy).
REPEAT AS MANY TIMES AS NECESSARY TO WATCH HER SQUIRM (AND TRUMP WILL GO NUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Look, the Rethugs will call the Dems religious bigots for questioning her faith. Here, we use her faith against her.
She has also ruled on tax matters. We should try to find a way to have her cite her religion against stealing, and use that as a way to shame Trump on his non-payment of taxes.
(This is why we need a full-time Questioner on behalf of Senators. Dems senator press release: we are 100% united and we are fighting for the people! Other suggestions welcome)
Feel free to add.
But …
We need a full-time Questioner on behalf of Senators.
Miss Bianca
@Omnes Omnibus: I was going to call “malarkey”. Or something more pungent.
craigie
@Redshift:
Also excellent.
Bill Arnold
@Immanentize:
The Air Force is mentioned. The part I was looking at was this (and the surrounding argument(s)):
and the footnote for the Fourteenth Amendment mention is:
Another Scott
@Bunter: I’m sure she’s taking her gross pay as the denominator, the net pay as the numerator, and saying it’s less than 0.50 and therefore she’s losing “half her income in taxes”. Note she didn’t say “income taxes”.
Lots and lots of people are in that boat. And it’s not particularly unfair for most of them above the median income.
But “billionaires” paying $750, yeah, that’s unfair. If she wants Democrats to fix the tax code, that’s fine with me!!
Cheers,
Scott.
debbie
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Even if she’s living in New York (the city and state taxes are both high), she’s lying. Because of course.
Geminid
@James E Powell: Before “Originalism” there was “Strict Constructionism.” But that got so identified with racism it had to be rebranded as “Originalism.”
SiubhanDuinne
@Miss Bianca:
“Fucking bullshit” was what first popped to mind. Is this a new troll or someone with a history here?
Miss Bianca
@SiubhanDuinne: I just automatically suspect “new troll”, myself, but who knows.
brantl
@Bill Arnold: It’s pretty obvious even in a cursory read, that she’s got a stick shoved up her ass, just as far as the one that was up Scalia’s.
Wyatt Salamanca
@trollhattan:
I look forward to Lindsay bursting into tears on Election Day when he has to give his concession speech. He needs to be swept into the trash receptacle of history along with Trump.
Wyatt Salamanca
@SiubhanDuinne:
Meet the new troll, same as the old troll.
(With apologies to Pete Townshend)