Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

What Republicans have said in the past about confirming a Supreme Court justice in a presidential election year will not haunt them. For that you need a conscience. You need a sense of responsibility. You need a sense of guilt. You also need enough loyalty to put the country first, before devotion to a lunatic and your bank accounts. What Republicans have said in the past about the subject means nothing to them. Why would it? When has any Republican in recent times exhibited any evidence that he or she has an ounce of character, honor or even a soul? I've gathered this list of quotes not because I would be foolish enough to think any of these slaves of Trump and Putin would have the integrity to honor their words. That's hard enough for anyone of the political persuasion, but a Republican? Hell will freeze over down to absolute zero before that. I just thought it would be good to gather these quotes all in one place for easy reference and possible use. The politicians who uttered these words are either true believers or they will claim they have no choice but to be cowards and do the filthy utilitarian work of their totalitarian emperor. Sad. Caesar's Senators had more honor and the gladiators of the time fought with honor and dignity to the last; and Trump is no Caesar no matter what he thinks in his severely damaged mind. Instead he is well on his way to being a modern day Caligula with no one in Washington or in the korporate media having the political courage to stop him.

These days we are all being reminded of what the maximum assclowns of the United States Senate said when, in February 2016, President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, a centrist at best, who had been approved of by numerous republicans on previous occasions. Moscow Mitch says his proudest moment in his life is when he got in Obama's face and told him he will never get to fill the vacancy back then. This time we're in September, only six weeks away, not nine months, from election day as in 2016 and people have already started to vote. Herr Trump will also nominate a conservative judge approved of by Republicans and, most likely, by the Heritage Society. The only difference that really matterered to Republicans was Obama's heritage.

Much is at stake, including workers rights, a woman's right to choose, health care, civil rights and voting rights issues, and environmental legislation.

The quotes below are all from 2016 when Justice Antonin Scalia's death created the vacancy that President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill. The quotes add up to even more political hot air of the reeking stench variety than ususal and, they must have stampeded each other to get to the microphone. It's what politicians of all stripes do but not all of them wish to be so destructive in the service of a madman and his master.

Let's start with $enator Lindsey Graham, the Chairman Of The $enate Judiciary Committee, man who has worked overtime in recent years to brand himself the queen of talking out of both sides of his ass. Don't forget his conflicting statements about his golf partner and master Herr Donald Trump being a "race-baiting xenophobic religious bigot."

1. $enator Lindsey Graham, 2016- "I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."

2. $enator Ted Cruz- "It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year, There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year."

3. $enator Cory Gardner- "I think we're too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision." (Hey, Cory, if February was too close to the election...)

4. $enator Marco Rubio- "I don't think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president's term. I would say that if it was a Republican president."

5. $enator Rob Portman- "I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. That wouldn't be unusual. It's common practice for the $enate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it's been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year." (Yo, Rob! It's 84 years now!)

6. $enator John Cornyn- "At this critical juncture in our nation's history, Texans and the American people deserve to have a say in the selection of the next lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court." (Notice that $en. Cornball makes a distinction between Texans and Americans. Also, just to split hairs, it would be more honest of everyone in Washington to admit that the only say we have is limited to which list we get to approve from. Don't expect that to change.)

7. $enator Deb Fischer- "It is crucial for Nebraskans and all Americans to have a voice in the selection of the next person to serve a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, and there is precedent to do so. Therefore, I believe this position should not be filled until the election of a new president."

8. $enator Richard Shelby- "This critical decision should be made after the upcoming presidential election so that the American people have a voice."

9. $enator Roger Wicker- "The American people should have the opportunity to make their voices heard before filling a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court."

10. $enator John Thune- "Since the next presidential election is already underway, the next president should make this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court." (It's even more underway this time, Johnboy.)

11. $enator Mike Rounds- "I believe that Justice Scalia's replacement should be nominated by the next president of the United States." (Mikey, you'll be happy to know that that can actually be arranged through a process of impeachment, four years later, but it's doable. Whadaya say?)

12. $enator David Perdue- "The very balance of our nation's highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the $enate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and $enate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people."

13. $enator Thom Tillis- "The campaign is already underway. It is essential to the institution of the $enate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president." (The hypocritical bullshit is particularly high with you Thom. Kudos!

14. $enator Richard Burr- "In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president."

15. $enator Roy Blunt- "The $enate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president."

16. $enator Cory Gardner- "I think we're too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision."

17. $enator Joni Ernst- "We will see what the people say this fall, and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination." (Here's a fine example of the rampant hypocrisy and insincerity of this list of goons. If they truly meant that the American people should have the decision... well several million more of them voted for Hillary Clinton and not Herr Trump.)

18. $enator Ron Johnson- "I strongly agree that the American people should be allowed to decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. $enate."

19. $enator John Barrasso- "The American people will soon decide our next president. That person should get to choose the next Supreme Court nominee."

20. Senator Pat Roberts- "It is not in the Constitution that the $enate must vote."

21. $enator Dan Sullivan- "The decision to withhold advancement of Mr. Garland's nomination isn't about the individual, it's about the principle. Alsaskans, like all Americans, are in the midst of an important national election. The next Supreme Court justice could fundamentally change the direction of the court for years to come." (Yeesh! This assclown can't even begin to hide his contempt for the American people. And, he can't even bring himself to refer to Judge Garland by his title.)

22. $enator Pat Toomey- "With the U.S. Supreme Court's balance at stake, and with a presidential election fewer than eight months away, it is wise to give the American people a more direct voice in the selection and confirmation of the next justice." (I see. 8 months is a no-go. Less than 2 months is a full speed ahead. That's pretty good Pat. You're headed to the top regions of the $enate Asshole list. Congrats! You've worked hard. You deserve it!)

23. $enator Steve Daines- "The American people have already begun voting on who the next president will be, and their voice should continue to be reflected in a process that will have lasting implications on our nation." (That's right $enator, the American people, this time 4 years later, have already begun voting, so...)

24. $enator John Boozman- "Our country is very split and we are in the midst of a highly contested presidential election. My colleagues and I are committed to giving the American people a voice in the direction the court will take for generations to come."

25. $enator Lamar Alexander- "This debate is not about Judge Garland. It's about whether to give the American people a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice."

Here's a couple of real winners, from Oklahoma. It took 2 of them to come up with an 18 word sentence. Congratulations guys.

26. $enator Jim Inhofe and $enator James Lankford- "A presidential election year is not the right time to start a nomination process for the Supreme Court."

And, more recently this past May:

27. $enator Chuck Grasshole- "You can't have one rule for Democratic presidents and another rule for Republican presidents." (Yeah Chucky, sure, whatever you say but you and your colleagues think your president is above the law even to the point of treason so...)

And, just this past weekend:

28. $enator Lisa Murkowski- "I would not vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. We are 50 some days away from an election."

And, no list of completely insincere, duplicitous senatorial a-holes commenting on the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice right before an election could be complete without hearing from Lindsey Graham's number one competitor in Congress's daily talking out of both sides of the ass competition. Ladies and Gentlemen, the rape endorsing pride of Maine:

29. $enator Susan Collins- "I think that's too close, I really do."

And special bonus quote of significance from this past weekend on FOX "News":

30. $enator Tom Cotton- "Democrats are threatening to riot in the streets." (Tom, baby, hundreds of people spontaneously appearing in front of the Supreme Court building as the news of RBG's death broke on Friday night, is not a riot, but, it was a message that you and your repug brethren are too thick to understand.)

Imagine if they had walk-thru lie detectors at the entrances of the Capitol Building. None of these slimy little fetid worms would ever get in. Majority Leader Moscow Mitch has already gleefully contradicted his words from 2016 (See the meme above.) He didn't even wait until RBG's body was cold. Moscow Mitch is that far gone into goonland. He just had to get on his knees and please the freaky orange object of his affections. Expect the others to also do the wrong thing in the service of the wrong president. Donald Trump has been the most obvious symptom of the Republican disease. The people above and those who vote for them are the disease itself. Those who tolerate this disease are guilty in a separate but equally deadly way.

An additional point to consider: As shown above, both Collins and Murkowski are on record the last few days as saying that they are of the opinion that there should be no voting on a new court nominee until after the election. The media hacks have parroted their words. Big fucking deal. As usual, too many people are buying the bullshit and rolling around in it. They look at $enators Collins and Murkowski and naively think that's two republican no votes of the four that would be needed to stop whatever nazi nutbag Herr Trump nominates and cheers along with his crass "Fill That Seat" slogan. That's assuming a lot. Who would be the other two? $enatorCollins' male counterpart $enator Mittens Romney? He's already said he's on board the Trump train to Hell. And what of fake Democrats such as $enators Joe Manchin and Doug Jones? The two special elections, Georgia and Arizona? The winners of each could theoretically be sitting in the $enate immediately after the election but will either Democratic candidate even be elected. Mark Kelly in Arizona, possibly. Rev. Raphael Warnock in Georgia? Georgia? That's a big maybe. So where's the four no votes? Spin the wheel.

Even if Biden manages to win, there are nearly 3 months called November, December and January where the $enators who are currently in place or something very close to that could and would vote the exact same way as they can before the election. As a practical matter, there seems to be no difference. Only after the inauguration are there likely possible meaningful differences that could alter the end result and few people in Washington, Rep. Ilhan Omar being one very rare exception, or the media are pointing that out. After the inauguration is what people should be calling for and outright demanding. Once again, the korporate media has eagerly bought into political obfuscation. It's ridiculous. It's Washington. It's what the idiot voting public falls for every time. Suckers! And definitely, losers!

So who will fill Merrick Garland's Supreme Court seat?

by Ken

There's a good chance, as we knew all through the 2016 presidential derby, that the Supreme Court we now think of as the "Roberts Court" is going to be transformed over the next few years into the "Trump Court."

For now, President Trump has one vacancy to fill, the one that remains because Republicans took one of their more outrageous dumps on the Constitution by refusing to consider former President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, to fill the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. By now you'd figure that all the Republican senators who committed this consitutional outrage would be on Death Row pending appeals of their treason convictions.

And while no one hopes for even the most minimal level of competence or decency in the Trump pick for this seat, which we're told now will be announced February 2 ("We have outstanding candidates. We'll pick a truly great Supreme Court justice"), it changes the High Court only in the sense that it returns it to its status before Scalia's death, as a more or less reliable -- usually depending on the judicial vagaries of Justice "Slow Anthony" Kennedy -- right-wing death machine. Of course this represents a big change from the 4-4 deadlock that has existed on the shrunken court.

According to the sources consuilted by the Washington Post's Supreme Court reporter, Robert Barnes, the hot prospects on the administration's current short list of candidates are judges from four circuits of the federal Court of Appeals. Here are Barnes's backgrounders on the fearsome foursome:

WILLIAM PRYOR, 11th Circuit (Atlanta)

One candidate on the shortlist that probably would not meet [Senate Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer’s test ["It's hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we could support"] is the one Trump has specifically mentioned.

That is Pryor, 54, a protege of Trump’s choice for attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions. Pryor followed Sessions as Alabama’s attorney general and had a contentious Senate confirmation after President George W. Bush nominated him to the bench. Bush eventually made him a rare recess appointment in 2004, and he was finally confirmed by the Senate as part of a compromise deal.

Pryor thrilled supporters at his hearing by not backing away from a previous observation that the Roe v. Wade decision was a constitutional “abomination.” His past comments on gay rights and stalwart support of the death penalty have made him the nominee that liberal groups say they would most fiercely oppose.

He has long been considered the front-runner for the job but lately has drawn fire from some staunch conservatives. Several groups have objected to a decision he joined that upheld the right of a transgender woman to sue over being fired. The appeals court panel based its decision on Supreme Court precedent, but conservative groups said Pryor’s decision was unwarranted.

John G. Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation, one of the groups that supplied Trump with names of potential nominees, defended Pryor in the National Review. Criticism of the judge from the left was expected, Malcolm wrote, but the attack from the right “is a strange development.”

NEIL GORSUCH, 10th Circuit (Denver)

Gorsuch, 49, would not bring the outsider credentials represented by others on Trump’s list. His mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, headed the Environmental Protection Agency under President Ronald Reagan, and he was raised in Washington. His résumé includes Columbia University, Oxford and Harvard Law.

He is seen as a reliable conservative, with a reputation for clear and lucid writing. His law clerks regularly move on to the Supreme Court — not just for conservative justices but also for liberals such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Gorsuch is an originalist, like Scalia, meaning he attempts to interpret the words of the Constitution as they were understood at the time they were written. He is protective of religious rights and found that they could be infringed by requirements of the Affordable Care Act requiring employers to provide contraceptive services.

THOMAS HARDIMAN, 3rd Circuit (Philadelphia)

Hardiman, 51, has more of the backstory Trump might find appealing. He was the first in his family to go to college, and for a time, he drove a taxi to finance his education at Notre Dame and Georgetown University Law Center. He is a lifelong Republican who married into a Pennsylvania family with prominent Democratic roots.

Hardiman serves on the 3rd Circuit with Trump’s sister Maryanne Trump Barry. Conservatives praise his record on gun rights — he dissented from a decision that upheld New Jersey’s restrictive law on who may receive a permit to carry a gun. The Supreme Court declined to review the decision.

But the justices on a 5-to-4 vote upheld one of his decisions that said jails were justified in strip searches for those being committed, no matter the seriousness of the charge.

RAYMOND KETHLEDGE, 6th Circuit (Cincinnati)

Kethledge, 50, is less well-known than the others but is said to have support among senators. He is a University of Michigan graduate who, like Gorsuch, clerked for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. His nomination was opposed by Michigan’s Democratic senators, but he was confirmed in 2008 as a result of a compromise deal in the Senate.

A Wall Street Journal editorial bestowed “opinion of the year” on a 2014 ruling against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The agency had brought an action against Kaplan Higher Education Corp. alleging discrimination, but Kethledge shot down the testimony of an expert the EEOC had relied upon.

He also ruled for a group called the NorCal Tea Party Patriots in a class-action case the group had filed against the Internal Revenue Service alleging that conservative groups had been targeted.

WATCH FOR A FAMILIAR COMEDY TO PLAY OUT
IN THE NOMINEEE'S CONFIRMATION HEARINGS

Is it really worth pondering which of these picks would be the "least worst"? Meanwhile, the Plum Line's Paul Waldman is looking ahead to the eventual nominee's confirmation hearings.

"By many accounts," Paul writes, "it was the prospect of a Democrat filling that seat that persuaded conservative evangelicals to support Donald Trump en masse, when they might have decided to stay home rather than back a philandering, amoral candidate whose efforts to pander to them were as transparently phony as a $3 bill." That support, Paul says, "according to exit polls," ran to 81 percent of white evangelicals who voted. And now, on this first Trump Supreme Court nomination, they have every reason to think they're going to get what they paid for with those votes.

"There are many issues to be concerned about when the Senate takes up this nomination," Paul writes,

but let’s be honest: We all know that most of the debate is going to be about abortion, specifically whether Roe v. Wade will be overturned. And I can tell you exactly what’s going to happen.

Okay, Paul, we'll bite. Tell us exactly what's going to happen.

Here’s how it will go: Despite the fact that the president has insisted that he will appoint a justice who will vote to overturn Roe, and despite the fact that every conservative interest group will insist that his choice must be a vote to overturn Roe, and despite the fact that it’s in the Republican Party platform to overturn Roe, and despite the fact that nearly every Republican politician wants to overturn Roe, and despite the fact that the nominee will have been chosen only because all those people feel sure he’ll be a vote to overturn Roe, the nominee will go before the Senate and the country and pretend that he has no opinion on whether Roe should be overturned. But he’ll hint that he might vote to uphold it, because it’s a precedent and he has deep respect for precedent, and he has an open mind, so who knows. This will be a lie, but it’s what he’ll say.

And how does Paul know? "Because it’s what Republican Supreme Court nominees always do in their confirmation hearings."

Its most extreme version was embodied by Clarence Thomas, who began with the maybe-I’ll-uphold-it claim. “I believe the Constitution protects the right to privacy,” he said. “And I have no reason or agenda to prejudge the issue or to predispose to rule one way or the other on the issue of abortion, which is a difficult issue.” But then he went even further, saying in response to a question that not only had he not made up his mind about Roe, but he had never in his life even had a conversation about the most controversial legal issue of our age: “Senator, your question to me was did I debate the contents of Roe v. Wade, the outcome in Roe v. Wade, do I have this day an opinion, a personal opinion on the outcome in Roe v. Wade; and my answer to you is that I do not.” There could not have been a single person in America, liberal or conservative, who thought Thomas wasn’t lying.

But it's unusual, Paul says, for a right-wing Supreme Court nominee to go this far.

In its slightly less laughable version, the denial is usually a combination of the following assertions: I don’t want to prejudge any case that might come before the court. Precedent is important. Nothing I said before now applies, because the role of a justice is so unique. My personal views, if I should happen to have any, which I probably don’t, would never enter into my rulings.

Not only Chief Justice "Smirkin' John" Roberts but even the late Justice Scalia shuffled through their versions of what Paul describes as "this absurd charade," which he notes predictably drives Democratic Senate questioners batty,

since everyone knows how full of it the nominee is. So the senators try to ask the question a dozen different ways to see if they can come up with a key that will unlock the truth, and they inevitably fail.

Which particular version of the denial charade can we look forward to? "As it happens," Paul writes, "among the finalists for Trump’s pick, there is one judge, William Pryor, who has an unusually clear record of statements on abortion in general and Roe in particular."

He has been such an outspoken critic of the decision, calling it the “worst abomination in the history of constitutional law,” that it would be almost impossible for him to claim that he might uphold it. Does that mean that he won’t be nominated? To know the answer to that question you’d have to get into Trump’s mind, and who knows what’s going on in there. What we do know is that whoever gets the nomination, he’ll be a vote to overturn Roe. No matter how much he tries to deny it.

#

What Democrats Failed to Do on January 3

Yes. I, for one, think of this daily.

by Gaius Publius

It's widely understood, even in Republican circles, that a Supreme Court nomination that should have fallen to a Democratic president was stolen from him by Senate Republicans and will be handed instead to a Republican president, Donald Trump. (In Republican circles, it's not just understood, it's celebrated.)

Democratic Party leadership have four ways they can respond — Not at all, Weakly, Strongly, or Very strongly. "Responding not at all" is not an option, since Senate Democrats (and frankly, institutional Democrats in general) must at least appear to have "seen the Sanders light" and started to stand up for the people — and more frankly, themselves — in this newborn Age of Trump.

Responding with words and not deeds would qualify as "responding weakly." Some actions in opposition and retaliation could be considered "responding strongly," depending on the action, though when you consider that Trump's SCOTUS nominee will serve for life, even the strongest of oppositions — save the full Mitch McConnell response ("oppose everything all the time") — still seems not strong enough by comparison.

Any "very strong" response would necessarily be one that actually "resteals" the nomination back into Democratic Party control and prevents the Trump nomination entirely. Happily, there is such a response — or was. The clock on that response started on January 3 at the very open of the new session of Congress, and ran out just a few minutes after that.

Yet that response would have worked, which is why I'm presenting it to you now. This is your first example of Senate Democrats not choosing a "very strong response" to Republican and Trumpian provocation. For the details, read on.

David Waldman's Plan to Steal Back the Obama's SCOTUS Nomination

This piece was written in December, and it distills thinking by David Waldman (KagroX as was) on how the Democrats can use (manipulate) Senate rules to deny Trump the right to nominate his own candidate for the Supreme Court in place of Merrick Garland. This plan, in other words, puts Merrick Garland on the bench.

I know from personal experience that Waldman knows his Senate rules; he's my goto person when I have questions myself, and I'm not alone in relying on him this way.

From Karoli Kuns at Crooks and Liars, here's the distillation of Waldman's plan (emphasis in original):

Senate Democrats Have One Shot At Saving SCOTUS - Will They?

It is now time for Senate Democrats to take their shot at saving this country from fascists assuming the reins of power in January. It can be done, but it will require them to be courageous and aggressive.

David Waldman (KagroX on Twitter) has outlined how they can confirm Judge Merrick Garland on January 3rd for the few minutes that they will be the majority in the Senate. Waldman is a long-standing expert on Senate procedure and political plays. He was one of the first to call for passage of the ACA via reconciliation in the Senate after Scott Brown was elected.

Here it is, in a nutshell.

On January 3, 2017, Democrats will hold the majority in the Senate for a few minutes, until the newly-elected Senators are sworn in. Biden could convene the Senate in those few minutes and call for a vote. The majority could then suspend the rules and vote in Merrick Garland.

The key here is that VP Biden would have to be willing to convene the Senate and recognize Senator Dick Durbin instead of Mitch McConnell. Durbin moves to re-nominate Garland, and Senate Democrats then vote to confirm him. They will have a quorum for those few minutes.

Kuns appropriately adds:

It's bold. Garland would be confirmed by 34 Democrats and no Republicans. It will certainly enrage Republicans, but they're already enraged and full of hubris about how they're going to screw Democrats anyway, so what do they really have to lose?

Not much. It takes courage. It takes a resolve to do what's right for this country, to reclaim the Supreme Court nomination Republicans think they stole from us. It takes backbone.

Here's where the rubber meets the road. We're not talking about "comity" anymore. We're talking about conviction and confirmation.

Is this a legitimate use of Senate rules? Yes. Using the rules within the rules is legitimate (legal) by definition. Would the Republicans pitch a total fit if this happened? Of course, but they do that anytime they lose and some times even when they win.

Should Democrats care about Republican objections? No. But are they bold enough to do this? Of course not. We know that because they didn't do this.

I kind of hate to say this as early as I'm saying it, but "Ladies and gentlemen, these are your Senate Democrats in action." Or inaction, as the case may be. This counts as responding "not at all." Get ready for weak, but ineffective, responses later to show they have a pulse.

Why This Matters

This matters for two reasons, not just one. First, it's a fairly damning, in my opinion, indication of what to look for from the rump Clinton-Obama leadership team in the Senate. Will they act boldly in the Age of Trump, or just appear to? Jury's out, but it doesn't look promising.

And second, as Clinton, Obama and every institutional Democrat with a voice and a microphone reminded us constantly during the campaign — The Supreme Court Matters. But enough to do anything about, or or anything effective? Apparently not, despite the campaign season hysterics.

Remember the rule: The role of money in politics is to neuter Democrats and enable Republicans. I'm afraid we're about to see a string of examples of this, starting with the one just cited.

GP
 

State Of The Races-- Wisconsin Senate Contest And Presidential Head-To-Heads

To be honest, Wisconsin voters have had feeling of buyer's remorse for some time and there really wasn't any smart money on far right extremist Ron Johnson ever being reelected. Real Clear Politics average of polls for the Wisconsin Senate seat have Russ Feingold leader with 5.7% with 13 polls going back a year. Feigned was ahead in every single one of them. The newest poll was released yesterday by Wisconsin Public Radio and it shows Feingold ahead 51-41%-- a pretty difficult 10 point climb for Johnson, who is currently sinking, not gaining. The poll checked approval numbers for President Obama, Governor Walker and for both senators, Johnson who's term is expiring and Tammy Baldwin who was elected in 2012. Obama's approval number is 53%. Tammy's is 47%. Walker's is at 43% but Johnson's is worst-- 42%. After 6 years as senator 10% of registered voters say they've never even heard of him.

Like I said, none of this is really a surprise. The NRSC knew going into this that Johnson was their weakest link for November-- perhaps tied with Illinois' Mark Kirk. Johnson's an unpopular extremist in a state that is usually pretty moderate, especially in presidential years-- and voters seem to have fond memories of Feingold. And it doesn't matter who's at the top of the ticket in this race. Voters feel they've tried Johnson out and he's not what they were looking for.

But another factor seems to be having an impact on the race: the hyper-partisan obstructionism Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley have orchestrated to greet President Obama's nomination of centrist Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Johnson supports their position of blocking the nomination by not even allowing hearings on a respected and much-admired circuit court chief justice.Now look at the responses to these two questions from the WPR poll:

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but no one can argue that Johnson throwing his lot in with the obstructionists is helping him with Wisconsin voters. A majority favors hearings and the more Feingold's campaign helps voters connect the obstructionism to Johnson, the worse it's going to be for him in November.

A tiny aside, here. The poll did head to head match-ups between the 4 remaining candidates. Just like in North Carolina and virtually every other state, Bernie beats the Republicans handily and Clinton... well, that whole lesser-of-two-evils case her campaign desperately sometimes works a little and sometimes doesn't. Bernie beats Trump 52-33% among registered Wisconsin voters. Hillary beats Trump too-- but it's much hairier-- Clinton 46%, Trump 34%. Worse is the match-up with Cruz. Bernie cleans his clock, 50-40%. Hillary is within the margin of error, 45-44%. Not good in a state the Democrats have to win to to come out ahead in November. Don't say I didn't warn you-- Hillary is too dangerous for Democrats who want to win the White House.

You can help Bernie at the thermometer on the right and Russ Feingold at the thermometer on the left. Which means more to you?

The Republican Party's Grassley-McConnell Blockade Of The Supreme Court Continues

Iowa Republicans obstructing the Supreme Court

If I was a senator, I'd be predisposed to vote against Merrick Garland. He's just too conservative. I wrote about it on the day President Obama nominated him. But I would have not the slightest reticence about speaking with him and examining him in an open hearing. Anything less is strictly anti-democratic, hyper-partisan obstructionism, disrespect for the Constitution and for the American voters who elected Barack Obama. If I remember correctly, Obama's approval rating is 53% (45% disapprove) whereas the Congress is barely in double digits and Mitch McConnell, the Republican who came up with the No Hearings strategy has a 15% approval rating.

Monday's Des Moines Register published another editorial on Chuck Grassley's role in the Republican obstructionist strategy. Grassley, whose seat is up in November, is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and has refused to agree to hearings on the president's nominee, something I don't remember ever have happened before in history.

The Supreme Court will continue to function, but not to its full effectiveness as a third branch of government. There are already signs that the pace of rulings has slowed in the last two months.

How long should the nation’s highest court be weakened, and in some situations, effectively neutered? For more than a year, according to Grassley and other Republicans.'

Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has argued that the appointment should be delayed until a new president is sworn in 2017-- even if Democrat Hillary Clinton wins in November.

He calls it a waste of time to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee for the court, Merrick Garland. Even though few disagree that Garland's resume is superb. Grassley even said so in 1997, when the Senate was considering Garland for an appeals court nomination: “He seems to be well-qualified. He would probably make a good judge in some other court … where the seat needs to be filled."

Senator, this seat needs to be filled, regardless of whether the presidency and your own seat is up for grabs in November.

We have admired Grassley’s principled stands on issues in his 35-year tenure as U.S. senator. In most cases, these stands have ensured government works more effectively and efficiently for his constituents and taxpayers.

But refusing to hold hearings on Garland is pure partisanship-- and simple stubbornness.

Grassley won’t give Garland a chance, to even let him in the game.

That’s unsatisfying. And un-American.

If I remember correctly, the Des Moines Register is not just the biggest newspaper in Iowa, it is also a newspaper that regularly endorses Chuck Grassley for reelection. One of the few Republicans who have rejected the McConnell-Grassley strategy is Maine's senior senator, Susan Collins. And she thinks the strategy stinks. Unlike Mark Kirk, who is fighting for his political life, Collins' seat isn't up this year. But yesterday she was the second Republican senator to meet with Garland. Afterwards she told the media that she's "more convinced than ever that the process should proceed. The next step, in my view, should be public hearings before the Judiciary Committee so that the issues that we explored in my office can be publicly aired... He has a humility about him. He has clearly thought very deeply about the issues confronting the courts, there was not any question he could not handle, and he has a long record of accomplishment."

Collins said Tuesday that it was “premature” to say whether she would support Garland in a floor vote but said she “found the judge to be extremely straightforward” during a lengthy conversation that touched on the Second Amendment, the limits of executive power and the role of the court in American life.

“He gave very thorough, impressive responses to all of my questions,” she said.

Asked about the blockade favored by Grassley and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Collins said the Senate is “best served by following the regular order” but added that she was “not optimistic that I will be changing minds on this issue.”

She added: “It would be ironic if the next president happens to be a Democrat and chooses someone who is far to Judge Garland’s left.”

McConnell's strategy is working... to decimate the Senate Republicans

Another Republican up for reelection in November is John Boozman of Arkansas and he was pressured into taking a meeting as well. He's not bright enough to follow Collin's logic about someone "far to Judge Garland's left." After his 20 minute long meeting, he couldn't wait to tell the media that he still opposes holding Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination. Boozman has been pressured by right-wing extremist groups who he normally counts on for support.

Garland deserves a serious hearing and senators owe it to their constituents to vote yes or no based on the merits, although perhaps some-- Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, I guess-- would prefer a Donald Trump nominee. I suggest that if you don't, you consider any or all of the Blue America Senate candidates by tapping on the thermometer below:

Will The Republican Party EVER Be Able To Escape Its Own Congenital, Backward-Looking Obstructionism?

On the day Obama announced his nominee to fill Scalia's job was Merrick Garland, we made it clear what our opinion of the nomination is: Yuck! The political gamesmanship yielded up the most conservative nominee a Democrat has proposed to the Supreme Court in many decades. Terrible choice... but politically strategic. Easily, the worst of all outcomes would be that Garland gets confirmed in a lame duck session after a Bernie landslide pulls in a nearly filibuster-proof Democratic Senate that does not include Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Rob Portman (R-OH), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John McCain (R-AZ), Rand Paul (R-KY), Richard Burr (R-NC), and where Alan Grayson has replaced Marco Rubio. That would mean a Senate with 57 Democrats (as long as Vermont replaces Bernie with Peter Welch) and 43 pretty demoralized Republicanos. With Bernie in the White House and a healthy Democratic majority in the Senate, there would be no need to pick a conservative nominee. Even if Clinton wins the White House, she would likely pick a better nominee than Garland, likely nominate outstanding California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu.

But Democratic strategy has been to pressure vulnerable-- and even not-so-vulnerable-- Republicans to give Garland a fair hearing. Mark Kirk already met with him. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski said they will as well. And with editorialists across the country pounding on the GOP for their blatant and ugly obstructionism, even Kansas' Jerry Moran and far right ideologue Ron Johnson indicated that they might be open to a fair process. But then the pressure from the far right started mobilizing and-- poof-- Moran, Murkowski and Johnson instantly caved.

Johnson, who is the most likely Senate Republican to lose his seat in November, told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel on March 16 that he'd meet with Garland. "I have no problem with meeting with people. I'll have to say, I'm not sure what the point will be." He's since changed his perspective to "no comment." Moran, who has no viable opponent in November, but was blasted by the editors of the Kansas City Star on March 16, has been even worse.

Senators Jerry Moran of Kansas and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have reversed themselves and say they now back the decision made by Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, not to hold hearings.

“Senator Moran called Senator Grassley to discuss his position,” said a statement released by Mr. Moran’s office on Friday. “As Senator Moran has said, he is opposed to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. He has examined Judge Garland’s record and didn’t need hearings to conclude that the nominee’s judicial philosophy, disregard for Second Amendment rights and sympathy for federal government bureaucracy make Garland unacceptable to serve on the Supreme Court.”

Mr. Moran’s announcement, first reported by National Review, came a week after he said the Senate should move forward with the nomination process, including holding hearings and meeting with Judge Garland.

“As I have said since the vacancy was created, I believe I have a duty to ask tough questions and demand answers,” he said in a statement on March 25. “I am certain a thorough investigation would expose Judge Garland’s record and judicial philosophy, and disqualify him in the eyes of Kansans and Americans.”

On March 21, according to the Garden City Telegram, Mr. Moran told constituents, “I would rather have you complaining to me that I voted wrong on nominating somebody than saying I’m not doing my job.”

Similarly, a spokeswoman for Ms. Murkowski, Karina Petersen, said the Alaska senator also no longer supported holding hearings, though she will meet with Judge Garland to discuss cases that are important to her state.

“Senator Murkowski respects the decision of the chair and members of the Judiciary Committee not to hold hearings on the nominee,” Ms. Petersen wrote in an email.

In February, before Mr. Obama named Judge Garland as his pick, Ms. Murkowski told reporters in Alaska that the nominee should be granted a hearing. Though she emphasized, in a Facebook post the next day, that she opposed Mr. Obama’s making the nomination, Ms. Murkowski had declined to directly address her stance on holding hearings since her comments in February.

As the right-wing psychos-- including the Koch brothers' pet congressman Mike Pompeo-- went nuts on Moran's ass, he backed away from even agreeing to meet with Garland. His latest statement, through an aide: "He has examined Judge Garland’s record and didn’t need hearings to conclude that the nominee’s judicial philosophy, disregard for Second Amendment rights and sympathy for federal government bureaucracy make Garland unacceptable to serve on the Supreme Court. Senator Moran remains committed to preventing this president from putting another justice on the highest court in the land."

Just a week earlier Moran told the Dodge City Daily Globe "I think we have the responsibility to have a hearing, to have the conversation and to make a determination of the merit... I think I have the responsibility to consider a nominee presented by a president and make a determination whether he or she is qualified. I'm willing to participate in the process" and had admitted that not meeting with Garland and not pushing for a hearing would be "not doing my job."

You would be severely mistaken if you thought the only thing making the GOP dysfunctional and detrimental to the United States is Donald Trump. The way extremists can push Republican senators like Moran, Johnson and Murkowski around go deeper than Trump's bizarre ego-trip. Political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson in yesterday's NY Times:

Given the current dysfunction of the Republican Party, many both inside and outside Republican ranks are probably hoping that a big defeat will force the party to change. But waiting, as the current president once put it, for the “fever” to break may be fruitless.

Try this setup instead: It’s 2017. After Mr. Trump’s landslide defeat, President Clinton has a Democratic Senate and House of Representatives. The Republican National Committee has just released its latest post-mortem-- it probably looks a lot like the post-2012 soul-searching exercise, the Growth and Opportunity Project, which encouraged moderation in tone and inclusiveness in policy.

But that blueprint is ignored. Instead, the party quickly regroups in opposition to the incoming administration. Most Republican voters hate Mrs. Clinton even more than they hated Mr. Obama. The conservative apparatus for sowing discontent with a new administration is in place, flush with cash and battle-tested.

For Republicans in and outside government, it will be a time not for facing up to hard truths but for doubling down on hardball tactics.

...More worrisome, they reinforce a dangerous spiral. The most effective Republican response to its own unpopularity in presidential elections is to take steps to make the American political system more unpopular still.

The final pre-primary polling for Wisconsin came out a few hours ago by Emerson and it shows that Bernie has surged past the establishment candidate and now leads her by 8 points (51-43%); in Emerson's last Wisconsin poll 2 weeks ago, Hillary was up by 6 points. Nice turn-around, which he'll need to do in New York as well. He's doing his part; are we doing ours? And, you know, it's not enough to support Bernie's bid for the presidency. His political revolution means replacing an obstructionist, corporately-owned Congress with a more progressive one. You can be part of that-- we all can. Whether you give $270 to one candidate or split $27 among all of them, please take a look at these progressives running on Bernie's platform... and do what you can:

That Merrick Garland Nomination-- Yuck!

Despite fulsome praise from the carefully orchestrated Democratic lapdog organizations, progressives are anything but impressed with Merrick Garland... although many progressives are impressed with President Obama's revitalization of his multi-dimensional chess game against the Senate Republicans. The video from Fox News above is important to watch if you want to follow and comprehend this kabuki theater as it unfolds over the next few months. As Fox's "senior judicial analyst," Judge Andrew Napolitano, explained above, "Garland is the consummate Washington, DC insider [and] the most conservative nominee to the Supreme Court by a Democratic president in the modern era." By "modern era," he's talking about in any of our lifetimes.

Now everyone will be-- should be-- asking why Obama backed away from the already bad enough Sri Srinivasan-- who he had, after all, told all his allies he had decided on-- to choose Garland? Perhaps he is figuring (or something) that President Hillary-- or, most certainly President Bernie-- will not re-nominate him after the clumsy and hyper-partisan Republican Senate braggarts stumble awkwardly into rejecting him. Had Obama selected his first choice-- Srinivasan-- after the Republicans killed that nomination, Hillary wouldn't have had much choice other than to re-nominate him if she were elected along with a Democratic Senate. If progressives put up at least a bit of a fight against Garland's conservatism during the debate-- if there is a debate, which there should be-- she can safely pass over him and nominate someone much younger and more-- dare I say-- liberal... although more liberal than Garland covers a lot of ground.

It might be Hillary's inclination to go for, say, California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu, husband of long-time close Hillary crony Ann O'Leary. Some think, in fact, that it is that threat of Liu-- and his 40 liberal years on the Court, that may well lead to Grassley and McConnell changing their tune on the obstructionism dance they've been doing. So far two very at risk Republican senators, Kelly Ayotte (NH) and Mark Kirk (IL) plus Susan Collins (ME), have announced they will be meeting with Garland and giving his nomination due consideration. Republicans aren't obligated to confirm him but they are insane to treat him with any disrespect given his position as the Chief Justice of the DC Circuit Court which makes so many of the important decisions they care most about. McConnell, Hatch (who actually suggested Garland just last week), Flake, Graham, Cornyn and Grassley-- if not vicious ideologues and clods like Cruz, Sessions and Lee-- know better than to piss the guy off for no reason. I had to laugh when I read a statement from the Congressional Record-- albeit an old one-- from Iowa Governor Terry Branstad to Grassley: "I am writing to ask your support and assistance in the confirmation process for a second cousin… Merrick Garland has had a distinguished legal career."

Don't expect DWT to be supportive of Garland-- although, obviously we respect the process. The White House and its lapdogs can fight this battle on their own while we highlight all Garland's horrible conservative decisions that have been so harmful to real people. It's important for progressives-- if not professional Democrats and those Beltway lapdogs of theirs, to make it clear to Hillary and Democratic senators that we expect more in a nominee, a lot more than Merrick Garland. Obama's fine in making the Republicans look like the unreasonable jackasses they are... so long as we don't get stuck with Garland in the process.

Bernie seems to be playing along. This was his statement a couple of hours ago: "Judge Garland is a strong nominee with decades of experience on the bench. My Republican colleagues have called Judge Garland a 'consensus nominee' and said that there is 'no question' he could be confirmed. Refusing to hold hearings on the president's nominee would be unprecedented. President Obama has done his job. It’s time for Republicans to do theirs. I call on Sen. Grassley to hold confirmation hearings immediately and for Leader McConnell to bring the nomination to floor of the Senate if Judge Garland is approved by the Judiciary Committee."

UPDATE: Don't Let Anyone Tell You Garland Is A Progressive

Mark Plotkin isn't high on President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland and points out that a nominee's acceptability to Republicans-- with Garland has aplenty-- shouldn't be what motivates "a president to choose someone in particular. A president who takes that path is denigrating the process and making this most important appointment nothing more than a political deal." But what Plotkin is all worked up over is a case many people have never heard of, Alexander v. Daley.

The basis of the legal argument put forth by American University law professor Jamin Raskin, Assistant D.C. Corporation Counsel Walter Smith and attorneys Charles Miller, Evan Schultz and Tom Williamson of Covington & Burling-- as noted in a law review article co-authored by Raskin in Human Rights Brief-- was that the "denial of the D.C. community's right to be represented in the U.S. Congress violates the rights of Equal Protection, Due Process, a republican form of government, and the privileges and immunities of national citizenship-- all critical democratic guarantees of the U.S. Constitution."

What Garland did, along with another judge, was to rule against the citizens of D.C. In a tortured and simplistic opinion, he said that since D.C. was not a "state," its citizens should not be accorded the same rights as every other U.S. citizen. This opinion was the moral equivalent of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), saying that "separate but equal" was legal.

In my opinion, it was a classic illustration of voter suppression, using a phony legal justification for denying the vote to an entire group of U.S. citizens-- in this case, citizens of the nation's capital. That decision alone should disqualify him from consideration to the highest court in the land.

It is my opinion that Garland did not want to go out on a limb and favor anything so radical as providing the vote to over 600,000 disenfranchised citizens (76 percent of whom are registered as Democrats). You see, this opinion would be viewed as controversial and too liberal, and the last thing Garland wanted was to have those monikers attached to him.

So he carefully positioned himself on the "right" side so he could be viewed as viable if a chance for the Supreme Court ever presented itself. When it came to this decision, Garland, with all his impressive educational and professional credentials, chose to think of his own judicial advancement first.

At the very top of the Supreme Court, emblazoned in stone, are these simple words: "Equal justice under law." Merrick Garland decided to ignore and violate that sacred principle.