There are only nine justice positions on the United States Supreme Court. At present one remains unfilled. The person originally nominated for that justice seat was Merrick Garland. He was nominated a little over a year ago on March 16, 2016. In an unprecedented action the Republican controlled US Senate refused to meet with him or grant him a hearing. Their role in the nomination was to advise the president and consent to or not consent to his nomination. This it refused to do.
The one thing you could say about Merrick Garland is that he was not nominated by a president who surrounded himself with people who are under investigation by the FBI for colluding and conspiring with Russia to undermine the American election. He was nominated by a president above any suspicion so that had he been approved by the Senate he would have joined the Supreme Court without any taint.
Thus it is that Democratic Senate leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called for a halt to the nomination process in which he was joined by Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Shumer said: “It is unseemly to be moving forward so fast on confirming a Supreme Court justice with a lifetime appointment while this big gray cloud of an FBI investigation hangs over the presidency.”
Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday Shumer called it “the height of irony that Republicans held this Supreme Court seat open for nearly a calendar year while President Obama was in office, but are now rushing to fill the seat for a president whose campaign is under investigation by the FBI.”
He continued by saying: “You can bet that if the shoe was on the other foot—and a Democratic President was under investigation by the FBI—that Republicans would be howling at the moon about filling a Supreme Court seat in such circumstances,”
Some people have suggested that the Supreme Court is such an important body in our nation that a nominee to that position should never have a cloud him or her. That the appointment of a justice by an administration that has a cloud over it, especially one that may be found to have colluded with the Russian, will forever diminish the standing of the Supreme Court in the view of the nation.
That, of course, is all rubbish.
The status of a president at the time of his making a nomination to the Supreme Court is all that is important. If the president is the person who was duly sworn in as president and he is holding his office during that time then all his acts are considered the acts of the president. That is the only way that the nation can function. In other words no matter what you believe of Trump or how you believe he gained the presidency, by hook or crook, he is still the president. His acts are the acts of the president until such time he no longer holds that position.
For instance, during the time the FBI is investigating the Trump team’s relationship with the Russians business must go on as usual in Washington. For one thing we know an FBI investigation can go on endlessly. When Congress passes laws the person holding the office of the president will sign or veto those laws.
For the argument that Gorsuch’s nomination is tainted to hold water then you would have to assert that all the legislation Trump signed into law during his tenure is tainted. No one has even hinted at that for to suggest otherwise would end up with a state of anarchy. For until Trump resigns or is removed from office he is the only president we will have and his acts as long as he holds that office are as valid as the acts of any other president.
It was only a short time ago the Democrats were complaining that there were only eight justices on the Supreme Court. It seems their remedy for that is to keep it at eight in perpetuity. Whatever Trump’s sins may be they do not fall on a guy like Gorsuch. Nor will his appointment to the Supreme Court bring any taint to the institution.
Would it matter if it was reported that he received $10,000,000 and when questioned about it he said it wasn’t anyone’s business? http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a54003/gorsuch-dark-money-campaign/
Yo, that’s what’s up trllfhutuy.
Still waiting for your boy Trump to show us his deal-making genius on health care. Cardboard cutout Paul Ryan isn’t much help. So sad.
Bill and Neal,
Trump got 3 million fewer votes than crooked Hillary. He got fewer electoral votes than Clinton or Obama. More electoral votes than any GOP candidate since HW, but that says more about the GOP than it does Trump.
Now you have a president who feels the need to get into a schoolyard Twitter exchange with a chump named Snoop Doggy Dog.
That’s what we have now: a president who feels the need to get into a schoolyard Twitter exchange with a chump named Snoop Doggy Dog.
Say that a few times and think about what that means.
The president of the United States allows himself to get pulled into a spat with a guy named Snoop Doggy Dog.
That’s what it has come to.
He’s a disgrace and a demagogue and a buffoon, if you ask me. And I say that as a conservative, as someone who is glad that the Supreme Court is going our way, as someone who disagreed with much of Obama’s agenda, as someone who doesn’t necessarily disagree with many of the things the Trump administration has advocated (the revised travel ban, the push for corporate tax reform, deregulation, pressing NATO allies to reach the 2 percent military budget threshold, etc), and as someone who is no fan of the establishment.
Trump is an aberration, and history will see him as such.
My sentiments exactly. Can’t wait for Trump to hand off to Pence before mid-term. Donald Jr. for VP?
★ the * wily Russkies 🙂
” People who are under investigation by the FBI for colluding and conspiring with Russia to undermine the American election. ” … Invocation to the Democratic Black Mass to undermine a duly and legally elected American President . The Chalice is full of Democratic piss. The Host is the ” floppy disc” that the devious and untutored Democratic supergal, Debbie Wassermann Schulz, claims the wilt Russkies used to ” hack ” the election. This, from a consummate hypocrite who participated in her own in house Party rigging , as Chairwoman of the Dem Convention, to disenfranchise Bernie Sanders and his supporters. What a Crew! …
” Crew ” heal thyself . 🙂
Here are even more media lies: Trump’s approval rating is down to 37 percent in the latest Gallup poll. Paul Manafort was secretly paid $10 million a year by a Russian oligarch. Trump’s choice for Labor secretary cut a sweetheart deal with billionaire/child molester Jeffrey Epstein. The Secret Service needs an additional $60 million, nearly half of which is intended to pay for protecting Trump’s family and his pad in Trump Tower. A Wall Street Journal editorial complains that Trump’s unfamiliarity with the truth places him in danger of being viewed as a “fake president.” More media lies as I learn of them ….
This is a parody of common sense, right ? Illogical partisan rhetorical excess and nonsense being what it is these days? 🙂
Matt:
Finally, (I know I posted too much today) always remember the tempered and immortal words of Democrat Nancy Pelosi about Trump’s decision to nominate Gorsuch:
“…As far as your family is concerned, and all of us, if you breathe air, drink water, eat food, take medicine, or in any other way, interact with the courts, this is a very bad decision.”
Matt:
CNN reports on a poll (McClatchy/Harris 2014) after Crimea takeover and fighting erupts in Eastern Ukraine;
“55% of Americans say they consider Ukraine to be in U.S. national interests, with 39% saying the country is either not very important or not important at all to the U.S. There is little partisan divide on this question. But only 7% say military options against Russia should be considered, with 46% saying the best way to deal with the crisis is through economic or political means, and 43% saying the U.S. should not get involved at all. A CNN/ORC International poll conducted in early March also indicated that only a small percentage of Americans wanted the United States to get involved militarily in the crisis.”
A 2017 CNN polls shows about 22% of Americans favorably view Putin, while 70% unfavorably view him; and 28% of Americans favorably view Russia.
2. Correct me if I’m wrong, but of the 10,000 persons killed in the fighting in Eastern Ukraine, only 500 have come from Russia (Russian military or paramilitary).
3. Russia intervened in its “near abroad” where sizeable percentages of ethnic Russians live. So, two factors: (1) neighboring countries and (2) large percentages; but I would add a third (3) local unrest, clamor for independence. So, yes, that could mean Latvia and Estonia (both about 25% ethnic Russian) but probably not Lithuania (5%), but the Baltic people have not been clamoring for some local independence as folks in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and in the Donbass region have.
4. Russia will stick up for Russians worldwide, as Americans will stick up for Americans, and Israelis will stick up for Jews.
5. Me? I’m pro-Irish and pro-English. I like what NC posted: Peace through Strength.
Isn’t it an absurd argument to claim Trump wants to weaken NATO? Trump has brow beaten the Europeans to spend 20 to 30 billion more per year on defense. He has proposed 55 billion more for the U S DOD. Combined one is looking at $80 billion more per year increase in NATO funding under Trump’s initiatives. Hillary never made this type of proposal. Will the West and NATO be stronger under Trump’s acts? It seems obvious. Why would Russia want an Administration that is dramatically enhancing defense to come to power? They would want the soft approach of the liberals. Did the Soviets fear Carter’s soft line or Reagan’s tough one? Trump is strengthening our military as Reagan did. Hillary had no such proposal. 2. Russian aggression in Ukraine, Crimea and elsewhere took place under a weak Obama. Hillary would have been just as feckless. Peace through Strength works. 3. The Russians ran a disinformation campaign against the Western Intel guys. They feigned animosity to Hillary. The FBI and CIA fell for it hook, line and sinker. Putin and his crowd always want to face the weakest hand not the most powerful. If one looks for a soft,weak defeatist approach they will get it from the Democrats e.g. Kerry, Clinton, Obama and Carter.
Matt:
Other CNN lies: CNN says Trump lied when he said Germany was not paying its fair share, yet in July, 2016, CNN itself reported that 23 of 28 NATO countries failed to pay their fair share (2%): “Of the 28 countries in the alliance, only five — the US, Greece, Poland, Estonia and the UK — meet the target. Many European members — including big economies like France and Germany — lag behind. Germany spent 1.19% of its GDP on defense last year and France forked out 1.78%.” So, if Germany is only paying @1.2% of their GDP, and their GDP is about $3.5 trillion, that means Germany is short about $30 billion per year.
2. Other falsehoods: Trump criticized NATO after hiring Manafort. Trump criticized NATO before the Brussels bombing of March 21, 2016. He took immense heat for calling it “obsolete”, demanding it “modernize” and its members contribute “their fair share.” He hired Manafort on March 28, 2016, and Manafort did not become Campaign Manager until June.
Matt: and to whom it may concern:
Gorsuch seems a shoe-in; but remember so was Bork; and remember poor Ginsburg was rejected on the pretext that he had smoked a little a weed as a teen and young professor.
I read all viewpoints: Here’s my problem with the Media: CNN story (“Trump’s problem with the truth.”)
It gives these examples: 1: He said he was “wiretapped.” The NYT reported his campaign workers were “wiretapped”; the BBC reported three FISA warrants were sought against Trump; yesterday, the FBI said it has been “investigating” Trump’s campaign’s ties with Russia since July. The modern definition of wiretapping is any electronic surveillance. How do you “investigate” ties to Russia without electronic surveillance? Moreover, we know the FBI et al listened in and released Flynn’s talks with the Russian Ambassador and Trump’s talks with the Mexican and Australian Presidents. Someone is surveilling Trump and his people. And they were doing it during the Obama Administration.
2. CNN says Trump lied when Trump overestimated inaugural crowd sizes: Trump said it “looked” like a million people, and if you see pictures from the podium it did “look” like the Mall was packed.
3. CNN says Trump lied when he said there were millions of illegal votes: One Federal District Court reported that 3% of 30,000 persons called to jury duty were illegals registered to vote. 3% of 200 million voters is 6 million, and if only 1/3 voted you got millions illegally voting. Three University Professors authored a study estimating illegal voting accounted for tens of thousands to a few million; other academics criticized that study; the original authors rebutted the critics. CNN has covered the critics at length, but omitted the rebuttals.
4. CNN says Trump likely lied when he said he never met Carter Page. Why? Because Page worked in his campaign, ate at the cafeteria at Trump Tower, had coffee at a Starbucks at Trump Tower, and “spent many hours” at the campaign headquarters at Trump Tower. Can’t all those facts be true?
(The Washington Times reports: “White House and campaign advisers dismiss Page as an inconsequential figure who has never met the president. He wasn’t on the campaign payroll and severed ties with the Trump team before the election.” )
5. CNN says Trump’s “own Attorney General” found there was no “wiretapping.” Obama, not Trump, appointed Comey.
It’s interesting how facts are spun.
P.S. Listening to the Hawaii Senator questioning Gorsuch, you’d think he was up on treason charges, but no, he was just being “Borked.”
P.P.S. Kennedy’s nomination, in November 1987, followed the rejection of Bork in the summer and Ginsburg in the fall of ’87. So, Reagan was really trying to nominate 18 months of more before the 1988 election, not during the Primary Season as Obama did with Merrick.
Great common sense here. Wish I’d thuoght of that.
Matt:
History’s spun; interpretations vary.
An “unprecedented” refusal to act on Garland? In 1968, the Senate rejected LBJ’s lame duck nominee and the “Thurman Rule” was adopted. (No Supreme Court nominations by a lame duck president, in the presidential election year, the months before an election.)
In the 19th Century, 7 lame duck appointments (made after election but before new President took office (in March) were rejected.
Herbert Hoover’s 1932 nomination was appointed; and FDR’s 1940 nomination of Murphy also was appointed. But they were before Term Limits. HH could have run for office again; and FDR did. But even if you said “Aha, HH indicated he wasn’t going to seek reelection, the “precedent” goes back to HH (over 80 years.)
So, precedent abounds for refusing to act on last year nominations of a lame duck president. As you noted Merrick was nominated less than 9 months before the election when Obama was a true lame duck.
Kennedy was “nominated” in November 1987 and appointed in February 1988. That is consistent with the precedent: No appointment of lame duck nominees.
Well-written.
Perhaps you’ll soon write about Acosta and Jeffrey Epstein?
Oops, forgot the link:
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/trumps-labor-secretary-nominee-alexander-acosta-helped-infamous-pedophile-jeffrey-epstein-avoid-federal-charges_032017