Wednesday, February 08, 2017

The Essence Of A Closet Case Is The Learned Ability To Lie Without Effort-- Miss McConnell And Neil Gorsuch


Arguably the most hypocritical man to have ever served as Senate Majority Leader in our lifetimes is Kentucky closet queen Mitch ("Miss") McConnell, the architect of the dogged Republican decision to prevent-- for a full year-- the appointment of President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court from being even considered. On the very day Obama announced the nomination of Merrick Garland, DWT's response was one of profound disappointment. But no one around here is a president entitled to make nominations and McConnell's role in blackballing him was reprehensible. Yesterday-- behind a Politico paywall-- he claimed that the fascist-oriented Neil Gorsuch-- a so-called "judge"-- must get an up-or-down vote and that "Democrats are threatening to hold up a qualified Supreme Court nominee for one reason: to hurt Donald Trump."

McConnell claims Gorsuch is celebrated on both sides of the aisle. That's a lie. Gorsuch is widely recognized as a small-minded partisan hack and he is absolutely reviled by progressives. Unlike Merrick Garland, who was a dull moderate, Gorsuch is a vicious far right ideologue (with a fake smile). I think Bernie spoke for most progressives when he said that "It is imperative that a new justice be prepared to defend the rights of all Americans, not just the wealthy and large corporations. Our next Supreme Court justice must vote to protect American democracy and keep campaigns free of the corrupting influence of big money, treat workers fairly, safeguard liberties for women and minorities, protect religious freedom and to safeguard the privacy rights of citizens." He was describinhg the polar opposite of Neil Gorsuch.

McConnell claimed that because everyone was happy to confirm Gorsuch to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, he's fine for the Supreme Court. Somehow the comparison with the admiration conservative Republicans heaped on Merrick Garland was lost on the delusional McConnell. "So why," McConnell lisped, "would Democrats contemplate doing something so radical and out of the mainstream now-- against a superbly qualified judge Democrats didn’t raise objections to before, a man Democrats have praised many times since?" He claims it's "far left groups" who hate Trump. He insists that Senate Democrats "are attempting to paint this nominee as an 'extremist' and are calling for a filibuster before the ink is even dry on his nomination" and repeats the Alt-Fact talking point that "Democrats are having a tough time coming to grips with the election results" and that protesters are "rioting." That isn't rue and that isn't the reason. Gorsuch is the reason. Here's Miss McConnell'shyper-hypocritical case:
I realize that Leader Schumer in particular is under immense pressure from the radical fringes of our politics. But he and his party can’t allow themselves to be led around by the far left.

Senator Schumer recently declared on the Senate floor that he would seek to deny a straight up-or-down vote for Judge Gorsuch because, he claimed, Republicans had “insisted” on similar treatment for President Obama’s nominees.

Only thing is, we hadn’t. The Democratic leader was forced to return to the floor to correct himself. I think we all appreciated Leader Schumer making clear to America that Republicans did not-- not-- insist on supermajority 60-vote thresholds for either of President Obama’s two first-term Supreme Court nominees. We allowed straight up-or-down votes for President Clinton’s nominees too. There’s no reason someone as widely respected on both sides of the aisle like Judge Gorsuch should be treated differently now.

I’ve been consistent all along that the next president-- Democrat or Republican-- should select the next nominee for the Supreme Court. I maintained that view even when many thought that president would be Hillary Clinton. But now the election season is over, and we have a new president who has nominated a superbly qualified candidate to fill that ninth seat.

Democrats now have a choice. They can tear our country apart further, or they can stand up and lead. I invite Leader Schumer and his party, who repeatedly declared how necessary it was to have nine justices on the court, to now follow through on their refrain of “we need nine” by giving this tremendously well-qualified nominee fair consideration and an up-or-down vote.
It's true that Miss McConnell didn't insist on a 60 vote threshold for Garland. There was no need to. He just flat-out declared that the Senate Republicans wouldn't even consider the nomination and would hold no hearings, let alone a vote. McConnell is a practiced liar-- after decades of pretending to be a heterosexual while soliciting sex from young men in Louisville's "Pickle Park." He's brought his alt-facts universe to his duties in the U.S. Senate.

Last night Miss used an archaic 19th Century rule rule to silence Elizabeth Warren and prevent her from reading into the record a letter from Coretta Scott King about Jeff Sessions' utter unsuitability, a rule that was put in place by pro-slavery senators to prevent abolitionists from talking about slavery. These were the ideological forebearers of Mitch McConnell and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III... and so many of today's Republican Party politicians.

The crazy man in Mar-A-Lago seems to have set the tone for the debate on his Supreme Court nominee. Democratic senators are extending him the courtesy of interviews. Jon Tester (D-MT) did it yesterday and said he hadn't made up his mind yet. Schumer met with him today-- far more than Miss McConnell ever did with Garland. Can the senators not question Gorsuch about Trump's recent spate of crackpot tweets undermining the judicial branch? I would think someone will have to ask Gorsuch about impeachment in light of the crazy judicial tweets this weekend.

Is Trump undermining the judiciary for the sake of his drug-addled followers so that when he's eventually, inevitably convicted of something serious they'll be gaslighted enough to back his defiance? Even Pence, speaking on ABC's This Week yesterday, admitted that Judge Robart has the authority to halt Trump's unhinged and unconstitutional Executive Order.

Eventual Gorsuch hearing should be just swell. Aside from the twittery attacks on judges, the senators have to ask him about all the business conflicts, the Pam Bondi bribery case (and the rest of the sordid Trump University saga)... It might even be an opportunity for Trumpanzee supporters to learn something about the way the political system works. But, make no mistake, the hearings will be almost as much about Trumpanzee as they are about Gorsuch, who doesn't appear to be independent enough to stand up to Trump, Pence and Bannon. As the Washington Post pointed out over the weekend, "Gorsuch’s nomination lands at a time when the Supreme Court is likely to be called upon to review what Trump already has shown to be a broad reliance on executive power."

Labels: , , , ,


At 11:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This piece raises two questions.

1) So Ms. Turtle "repeats the Alt-Fact talking point that 'Democrats are having a tough time coming to grips with the election results' and that protesters are 'rioting'." We were assured "(t)hat isn't (t)rue."

So, why did we have to endure more of the "wisdom" of Mr "axis of evil" Frum who lectured us on how to protest politely so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the ruling neo-fascist GOP elite?

2) Then Ms. Turtle claimed that "Democrats didn’t raise objections" to Gorsuch when he was nominated for the district court post he now holds and "have praised many times since." I noted no denial of those claims. The, admittedly rhetorical question: when do the Dems realize that not only ARE there consequences of elections but, also, that there are consequences of being chronic, spineless twits?

John Puma

At 6:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

John, et al, I remind you that the same money that owns the Rs also owns the Ds. As such, miss turtle's statement that (paraphrasing) gorsuch is revered as the second coming by both sides of the aisle, is essentially correct BECAUSE he is worshipped, owned even .. perhaps, by the money that owns both sides of the aisle.

This guy is already confirmed. We just have to endure the performance, maybe even a chapter play, before he is seated. The money loves this guy. Best case is the democraps hold out for a while to maximize their donations in exchange for confirmation.


Post a Comment

<< Home