Senate Republicans scramble to put Trump at arm's length
Many GOP politicians and voters have allowed Trump to lie blatantly, self deal /squander, verbally attack and in general act like an authoritarian dictator in some third world country. Thankfully we live in a democracy where hopefully the majority will not tolerate this kind of behavior by an elected civil servant.
I still do not understand why so many people love and support Trump, and probably never will. However I am pretty sure the GOP is going to pay big time for their foolish cult following, and it seems that the GOP politicians are beginning to understand this.
58 comments:
GOP Fears Blue Wave?
off topic link:
Republicans have seen the enemy: Democracy
It seems on topic to me... Kind of... I am stealing it for non-WAPO people.
"Brace yourself while I paint a picture of a nightmarish future. It’s one in which every American gets to vote without impediment or inconvenience. Where the presidential candidate who gets the most votes actually moves into the Oval Office. Where bills in Congress are debated and then voted on, the side with more votes prevails, then those laws take effect and the public can judge the results.
This is the terrifying political hellscape the Republican Party is determined to prevent. For a party with a dwindling base and a broadly unpopular agenda, there is no more profound threat than democracy.
In the first day of questioning in Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, she gave no indication that she will be anything but an enthusiastic participant in their effort to hold it back.
Following the spectacularly disingenuous blank-slate strategy of all Republican nominees, Barrett insisted that she has no relevant beliefs about the Affordable Care Act, the duly enacted law Republicans are asking the court to strike down, or any other law for that matter. “I can’t make any prior commitments” about whether she’d side with the GOP in its deranged lawsuit seeking to have the ACA nullified. “It would be inconsistent with judicial independence.”
And Barrett was asked: Would she commit to recuse herself from disputes over this election, given that the president has basically said she must be confirmed to help him steal it? She would not.
Barett says 'I'm not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act'
Judge Amy Coney Barrett told Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) on Oct. 13 that she had done no deals and was not trying to destroy the Affordable Care Act. (The Washington Post)
Every Republican watching surely nodded in satisfaction."
"But Republicans see another threat, that a future Congress and president — perhaps even next year — might add more justices to the Supreme Court. Many liberals support this idea, not only because Republicans reduced the number to eight in 2016 and then increased it back to nine once President Trump took office, but also because the highly ideological conservative supermajority Barrett will solidify has been assembled even though Democrats won more votes in six of the past seven presidential elections.
So in Barrett’s confirmation hearings and a hundred cable news appearances, Republicans are raising the alarm. As Sen. Ben Sasse says, doing his best faux-outrage, expanding the court would be “the suicide bombing of two branches of government,” and “It’s grotesque” that Joe Biden won’t take a firm stance on whether at some future point he might support such a move (Biden says he’s “not a fan” of the idea, but that still leaves the possibility open).
Are Republicans being hypocrites on this question? Of course they are; back in 2016 many of them suggested that they might hold open one or more seats for an entire presidential term if Hillary Clinton won the election.
But there’s something more important going on than mere hypocrisy. Right now the bulwarks of Republican minority rule are under profound threat. This election they could lose both the presidency they won despite losing the popular vote, and the Senate which they control despite the fact that millions more Americans voted to be represented there by Democrats. Should that happen, the Supreme Court will be all they have left at the federal level.
Their minority rule has never been in more peril than it is right now.
And they’re counting on that Supreme Court to issue rulings that make it possible for them to retake power despite their minority status, by solidifying partisan gerrymandering, validating voter suppression and inhibiting the government’s ability to protect voting rights — and strike down laws passed by Democrats."
"It’s all on the line for Republicans. Which is why they’re so freaked out about the idea of Democrats expanding the court.
Republicans know that they have a real advantage in that debate, which is that the elite media hold Democrats to a very different standard. Journalists simply accept that Republicans are shameless and ruthless — that they will trample any norm and break any tradition if it gives them an advantage — as the way things are.
On the other hand, when Democrats even contemplate playing hardball, they can expect to be hounded and scolded until the process question blocks out every other consideration. But here’s the problem: If one side breaks all the norms and the other side respects them, the norms lose all meaning. They don’t create a civil situation or a well-operating legislature. They’re just a shackle constraining one party but not the other.
Furthermore, sometimes you need the threat of norm-breaking to retain a system where norms mean something. Right now, Republicans obviously don’t fear any punishment for their own actions. So Democrats have to make a credible threat to retaliate, or they’ll just keep getting walked over.
That applies to the court itself as well. With a 6-3 majority, the conservative justices will be tempted to go hog-wild, not just nullifying the ACA and overturning Roe v. Wade, but invalidating any meaningful law a Democratic-led Congress would pass, dismantling the administrative state, striking down the rest of the Voting Rights Act, rubber-stamping discrimination against gay Americans, making it impossible for unions to operate, eliminating all campaign finance regulations, forbidding the government from regulating the environment, and who knows what else."
"But the justices should have in their minds that if they do that while Democrats still control the presidency and Congress, four seats could be added to the court and there would be a 7-6 liberal majority.
Which would be at least a closer reflection of the will of the public — especially since, if Biden wins in November, Democrats will have won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections.
I couldn’t put it better than Sen. Lindsey O. Graham did this week on Fox News:
If we lose the House, the Senate, and the White House, they’re going to change the rules of the Senate, Maria, so you only need a majority. Anything coming out of the House sails to the Senate. They’re going to expand the court from nine to whatever number they need to make it liberal. They’re going to abolish the electoral college, which means New York and California pick our president. They’re going to change America.
Imagine how awful it would be if “you only need a majority” to pass a bill! And the idea that the 59 million Americans who live in New York and California would actually have their votes matter in a presidential race as much as people who live in Wisconsin or Florida? The very thought makes Graham want to retch.
This is what Republicans fear. Democracy is pounding on their door, and they’ll do anything to stop it."
It is kind of funny how folks on the far left are happy to recommend violating norms while decrying the evils of the Far Right...
And of course I am against any silliness that wants to undo the electoral system...
I can not even imagine the mess we would have if the cities could Lord their Liberalism over the massive land mass that is America.
I don't favor now, increasing the number of justices. But in our checks and balances, increasing the number of justices is one of the checks that maintain the political and constitutional balance the founders envisioned.
Unlike other Republican justices, Judge Barrett tells us she doesn't have a political agenda. If she wasn't, why was she chosen by a president who was elected on a promise that the justices he nominates would have a very specific political agenda? Did she lie to someone? The president? Or is she lying to us?
--Hiram
She probably does not have a political agenda.
She simply interprets and rules in a fashion that Trump etal like.
Kind of like Ginsburg ruled in a way Liberals liked.
Or did Ginsburg have a political agenda?
Will she develop one once she is on the bench?
The fact is, she wanted the gig, and she will do just about anything to get it.
Not that it matters, because I don't think it would be a good thing if she did, but no, I don't think RBG had a political agenda. One reason it's hard to answer that question definitively is that Ruth never really had control of the court's docket. She was never in a position to choose the cases the court considered. It's been a long time, half a century really, since the court could really be considered liberal.
--Hiram
But we know that RBG ruled consistently one way...
Was that political or interpretation of the law?
At this point, "political agenda" and "interpretation of the law" are essentially inseparable. (Bush v. Gore is pretty much the key example of this -- where the conservatives justices threw out decades of devotion to "states rights" to hand the election to Bush) Lindsey Graham was pretty confident this morning about how Judge Barrett would rule on abortion, even if she has apparently never considered it before. That's why it's so newsworthy when a particular justice breaks with what one would expect in a particular case.
To have an agenda, means you are proactive in getting things done. You just don't discuss things, you choose the things that discussed. You run the meeting instead of just attend the meeting.
The conservative court we have seen in recent decades seems to have a laundry list of legal issues it wants to address. Their allies in the conservative bar know what the justicies priorities are, and they craft cases that they know the justices will find appealing. The liticigious Litt le Sisters of Poor don't reach the court by chance, they are the result of a process of selection.
What about the both siderism here? The liberal era of the court occurred in the 1950's to 1970's, starting perhaps with Brown v. Board and ending with Roe v. Wade. Did the justices then have an agenda? Possibly. The great judicial project back then was civil rights and the application of the bill of rights to the states. As I recall, it didn't have much to do with anyone's legislative agenda. There wasn't a lot of movement in Congress to ban school prayer, or to provide that those accused of felonies in state courts should be provided with lawyers. Legislators weren't terribly interested in one man one vote, since legislators are always wary of changing something that benefits them. In any event, that was a long time ago, and if you will notice most of the great innovations of the Warren years are accepted without question today.
--Hiram
It seems to me that you guys like to claim politics when the rulings and interpretations are other than what you want.
Just as Jerry and crew do when the opposite occurs.
Funny how that works.
To the contrary, we should stop with the illusion that the courts aren't political. They clearly are. This whole kabuki show going on in Washington right now is grotesque.
Sean,
So what is your answer to having humans as Justices?
The Democrats lost the Presidency in 2016 and the Senate in 2018...
This is the natural consequence of their choices.
Just as the GOP over reach and support of a lying, manipulative, a**hole will likely cost them the White House and the Senate... And so the pendulum swings.
It is hard to believe that the DEMs had full control just ~11 years ago...
Before they over reached and lost it.
We passed Obamacare. And nobody since has been able to keep their own doctor.
As it happens, we only had control for about five months because Franken's seat was filled late, and we lost Kennedy's seat.
--Hiram
And somehow you stilled annoyed a lot of voters... :-)
"The Democrats lost the Presidency in 2016 and the Senate in 2018..."
Democrats won the popular vote in 2016 (by 2.9 million) and in 2018 (by nearly 18 million). The problem is that our system right now is rigged to be anti-democratic.
What we need is a good dose of democracy. Get rid of the Electoral College. Get rid of the filibuster. Get rid of lifetime terms on the Supreme Court. Expand the Court to 13 seats instead of 9 (this would be a more "originalist" position as there used to be a tie between the number of circuit courts and Supreme Court justices). Mandate non-partisan redistricting for the House of Representatives.
Or... The DEMs could accept that they are competing in the USA by the USA's rules.
And adopt a platform that is more acceptable to more people from various regions of the country...
How does one of my favorite sayings go?
"Every Party Dreams of Changing the Rules to Their Benefit. None consider improving their own failings." :-)
I keep wondering why we will need state governments if DEMs like Sean get their way?
"And adopt a platform that is more acceptable to more people from various regions of the country..."
Which major planks of the Democratic platform are not supported my a majority of the voting public?
Moose
"The DEMs could accept that they are competing in the USA by the USA's rules."
The rules are not immutable. The Electoral College is different today than at our founding. The number of justices on the Supreme Court has changed several times. There's no constitutional basis for the filibuster. Pretending that the rules have to stay the same is just an excuse to support minority rule.
Moose,
I am pretty sure you can tell which are far left planks
Sean,
The rules have changed some and slowly over ~240 years...
But respecting state rights and the representation of less populated states and districts has always been a core position...
What you seem to support is changing the USA into a Federally controlled country, which I think will lead to pain and suffering for most.
Or maybe you think they should transfer all the power to the European Union government and dissolve the member country governments also?
"What you seem to support is changing the USA into a Federally controlled country, which I think will lead to pain and suffering for most."
Less populated states and districts are still protected by the Senate. How much non-democracy should we allow? Why should a bunch of arbitrarily drawn state lines have more importance than actual people?
Then maybe the EU should get rid of those arbitrarily drawn lines and become a national democracy if it is such a good idea for the USA...
Then the citizens in the most populous countries can dominate the others even more than they do today?
Back to the USA, the same concept holds though we do have the same language. And what you are recommending is that we take away some the small states measly 3 electoral votes and give them to the States with 40+...
All in the name of letting the urban masses rule the whole country... How do you think "fly over country" will respond to being made powerless?
How do you think the stability of the EU would be affected if they did something so foolish?
You didn't answer my question.
Moose
I think VOX did a pretty good job back in August.
And my views on How the DEMs win the Presidency from Feb 2020.
Does that answer your question adequately?
Maybe I will write a new post on how the DEMs may over reach in the next 4 years and destroy any good will they gained because of Trump the idiot...
"All in the name of letting the urban masses rule the whole country..."
All Republicans have to do is "adopt a platform that is more acceptable to more people from various regions of the country...", right?
Let's face it, your real issue is with Democrats actually exercising political power. Mitch McConnell ruthlessly applies power and you think it's great.
The vast majority of regions vote GOP.
And I have been very critical of the FOX / Trump / GOP more recent actions.
Finally, repeatedly I am critical McConnell's inaction on the bills that the House passed, his hypocrisy regarding SCOTUS Justice actions, and his general weasel like actions.
So we may disagree, but falsely labeling is somewhat childish.
It seems to me that you guys like to claim politics when the rulings and interpretations are other than what you want.
Hardly. There was no more political decision than Brown v. Board. There was no more political decision than Baker v. Carr which provided for one man one vote. There was no more political decision than Griswold v. Connecticut which struck down state law banning birth control.
Are the criminal procedure decisions, the other hallmarks of the Warren Court political? Was it a political decision when the court held people accused of felonies in state courts had a right to an attorney? Do you think that was wrong? Was it political when the court held people arrested must be advised of their rights?
Do you truly and honestly think it is political when the state claims the right to dictate the most intimate decisions about one's body? Do you truly see Donald Trump as some sort of moral authority on that issue?
--Hiram
If Trump loses, and yes, I am looking for wood to knock on, what many in the GOP will want to do is forget he ever happened. It would be like Germany after WW II, where no seemed to admit to a former political affiliation. But it's a question of whether that will be allowed to happen. I have no doubt the media will be okay with it. They will return to their comfortable both siderism compbined with their alligence to tradictional DC CW. In the midst of a terrible recession, we will hear a lot about deficit spending and that stuff, things Republican totally forgot about the last four years.
But that might not happen. Even in defeat, Trump will not be totally discredited. He will still be around, still tweeting, still holding rallies I hope. His kids will all run for president. Ane the dcamage he has done to our institutions such as the Supreme Court cannot be undone. It's a legacy we will live with forever.
--Hiram
Hiram,
I personally have no idea what a "political ruling" is vs an "unbiased wise ruling"...
It is the Far Left and Far Right who seem to see them in abundance and obsess about them.
I sure do not know when a human becomes a human, versus the equivalent of a tumor to be scraped our and disposed of. I think this is a social norm issue, not a who controls one's body issue. So I assume it will always be a contentious issue.
The Left and Right have been becoming increasingly polarized since cable news and social media allowed them to withdraw to their respective echo chambers. Trump is a symptom, not sure what the cult followers will do when he is kicked out of office.
I assume many will say that he was robbed by the evil media and the deep state. :-(
I personally have no idea what a "political ruling" is vs an "unbiased wise ruling"...
Think of Brown v. Board, driven by a politician turned Chief Justice who obviously had a political agenda, addressing an issue, which for whatever reason, the elected branches of government seemed unable to solve. The constitution was written to protect slavery. It failed in that particular area, because of the Civil War. Still, the south was able with the power given by the constitution to prevent us from dealing with issues of civil rights. So the court intervened.
I viwe Trumpism as like the Peronist movement in Argentina. It's why I thought of Trump's recent balcony appearance in terms of Patty LuPone singing "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" All that's missing is the combover: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpNy6xqoQa8&ab_channel=MORMusicClips
--Hiram
"who obviously had a political agenda"
Or did he just believe that was the intent of the Constitution?
Or did he just believe that was the intent of the Constitution?
My guess, is that the framers who did after all embrace human slavery, would have been pretty comfortable with racially segregated schools. Were they really expecting the slave kids and the free kids to share the same classrooms?
--Hiram
You are kind of amusing since slavery was a hot button issue even back in 1776...
Slavery and race have always been major factors in American politics. See the 1610 Project. The constitutional convention of 1787 revolved around slavery, and it dominated American politics to the Civil War. It's why our country looks the way it does. It's why we have the states we have.
--Hiram
Slavery is why originalists are chosen for the Supreme Court.
--Hiram
A Different Perspective
The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution.
Wow.
The consitutions speaks in specific terms about people held to involuntary servitude and addresses issues related to the slave trade. Does it really make a difference that the people they were referring weren't described by race? Could it be Swedes that were bought and sold on the auction block?
--Hiram
Please provide details / examples...
And remember that the writers of the Constitution knew it was a document that would need improvement and flexibility over time. Therefore they created an amendment process.
The three fifths of a person and the importation of persons clauses.
The constitution was indeed amended to eliminate slavery but only after the Civil War.
==Hiram
While I admittedly find it hard to understand why anyone would vote for Trump, I am pretty fmiliar with the forces he taps into. They are always there, always have been there, and they will not go away after he leaves the scene. I do believe that Trump and his family will be factors in presidential politics for the rest of my life. That will happen in part because there is no mechanism for discrediting him, and his movement. McCarthy was discredited by a Republican establishment, a unified media in opposition, and his own overreaching. Are any of those forces now strong enough to discredit Donald Trump, and his successors?
--Hiram
wE hAvE tO kEEp tHe eLeCtoRaL cOlLegE sO tHeRe iS fOcUs on rUrAL Areas. (note the first map)
NYT: Flush With Cash, Biden Eclipses Trump in War for the Airwaves
Sean,
The ad buys go to the undecided states. No surprise there.
And yet Trump visited out state MN more than urban MN...
The electoral college focuses on unpopulated states not rural areas. I am sure there are many more rural voters in California than Wyoming, but the votes of Wyoming voters, most of whom live in cities, I bet, count much more than the votes of Californians.
Ad buys go to big evenly divided states. What that means is that they have many people who live in large cities. States like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
I thought Trump had a shot in Minnesota because of last summer's violence. He did too, which is why he ran so many commercials playing to the fear of urban violence. He may still win here, but the Trump campaign is no longer betting on that. They have pulled their money, leaving the state to Biden. I also thought Tina Smith was pretty vulnerable, but Jason Lewis seems to have no money, somewthing I can't figure out.
--Hiram
Please note that rural California is still pretty Conservative.
Jason is too much like Trump... He is screwed.
Please note that rural California is still pretty Conservative.
And urban Texas is very liberal. But all of their votes count for much less than the votes of very few people who live in Wyoming who for some reason we have chosen to favor.
--Hiram
--
Then maybe those folks should move to Wyoming. :-)
I think the states should be reapportioned. Instead of asking people to move to Wyoming, a portion of California should be ceded to Wyoming. If each state had the same population, the way senate districts in each state have the same population, the disparity of impact problem would be solved. This reapportionment would only apply to federal elections. Administratively, the states could staty the same.
If population disparities in senate district are unconstitutional, how can population disparities in states be constitutional?
--Hiram
I think Dems should just moderate their platform so more people in WY would vote for them. :-)
Post a Comment