Trump Plans To Win 6-3 Or 5-4… In Overtime

 

From Newsmax

-by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman

Trump's Kampf (German for struggle) has been clear since before he got in the White House:

Endlessly scream Big Lies about a “fake” election.

Pack the Court with flunkies, culminating with Amy Barrett.

Create chaos in the swing states.

Use gerrymandered TrumpCult state legislatures to override the popular vote (see below for the 1887 Electoral Count Act).

Sabotage the Electoral College past its “Safe Harbor” date. Let all the deadlines pass.

Get the whole mess in front of the Trump-owned Supreme Court. Win either 6-3 or 5-4, depending on a wavering John Roberts.

The stage was set in 2010, when the Koch Brothers gerrymandered fascist legislatures into 29 states, including Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Arizona, and other Electoral College pivots.

In a well-funded covert operation known as the Redmap Coup, GOP agents took state power throughout the US. The Obama Democrats said and did nothing (see David Daley’s Ratf**ked).





Since 2016, Trump has screeched that millions of Mexicans swam the Rio Grande to vote for Hillary Clinton. Defeated by obvious election thefts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, Clinton said and did nothing.

From 2010 to now, GOP Dirty Tricksters have filched a thousand elected offices, including at least six US Senate seats and those three on the Supreme Court. The Democrats have said and done nothing.

A Florida referendum decisively re-enfranchised more than a million ex-felons, only to be trashed by a governor and legislature empowered in a stolen 2018 election.

Nationwide, the TrumpCult has stripped some 17 million citizens from the voter rolls.

It has budgeted $20 million for 50,000 armed White Supremacist militias to intimidate voters.

It has assaulted vote-by-mail, gutted the US Postal Service, obliterated drop boxes, misdirected voters, subverted ballots, intimidated citizens, trashed precincts, sabotaged reception and recount deadlines, and done all else possible to sabotage this year’s vote count.

Inside the voting centers, they’re disqualifying countless ballots without significant opposition from the supine Democrats.

And they’re sabotaging digital scanners set to count virtually all of 2020’s ballots, illegally destroying electronic ballot images, which can supply an accurate vote count quickly and easily.

Instead, in virtually any state, those machines (many linked to the internet) could be hacked to produce any tally the TrumpCult might want.

Trump does face significant opposition.

Polls showing a massive public rejection may understate the power of 86 million millennials who generally despise Trump, but have been slow to vote. Their younger Gen Z siblings also hate him, but are just starting to come to the polls.

Overall, Trump’s imperial white misogynist hate-base is on a demographic death march. Whites will soon be a minority in this country. A strong woman of color like Kamela Harris-- a “monster” in Trump’s eyes-- embodies their worst nightmare... and the tangible future they will fight to resist.

So the Millennial/Z’s diverse, tolerant, Solartopian mega-generation must flood the polls to overcome Trump’s election theft breakwater.

To start, as elders shun infectious voting centers, Millennial/Zs may transform the ranks of poll workers.

The epic shift to vote-by-mail and early voting is at last moving our elections away from hackable electronic touchscreens and onto hand-marked paper ballots.

With protected chains of custody and preserved digital images, we could get quick, accurate, reliable vote counts.

But tens of millions of youthful voters must arise, especially in the gerrymandered swing states.

Only overwhelming margins like those run up by Obama in 2008 and 2012-- at least 5%, probably more-- can prevent these fascist legislatures from voiding the popular vote and sticking Trump delegations into the Electoral College.

That means winning the 2020 Trifecta by restocking the registration rolls, protecting early voting and vote-by-mail, and preserving the digital vote count.

Otherwise, amidst the choreographed chaos, by a count of 6-3 or 5-4, Donald Trump will become President for Life.

Postscript: The Electoral Count Act of 1887

The US Constitution gives legislatures the power to choose their state’s Electoral College delegations, no matter what the public wants.

This became an issue when the 1876-1877 election devolved into the kind of chaos Trump aims to create this year.

Democrat Samuel Tilden got 250,000 more votes than Rutherford B. Hayes, whose Republicans stole enough Electoral College votes to force a five-month stalemate. Hayes finally cut a deal to end southern Reconstruction, disenfranchising the African-American population.

Ten years later, the Electoral Count Act set a “safe harbor” date-- this year an entirely unworkable December 8-- by which legislatures must certify their state’s Electoral College delegation. The role of the state governors is murky and untested.

An obvious Trump strategy would be to sabotage state vote counts and delay definitive tallies beyond the legal deadline. The Roberts-Kavanaugh-Barrett “Brooks Brothers Mob” did that in 2000 by physically assaulting Florida’s recount, allowing the Supreme Court to throw the election to George W. Bush.

This year, Trump could repeat history in Florida (not to mention Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas and/or Arizona) delaying the certification of enough Electoral votes to deny Biden the presidency, even if he wins the popular vote by many millions.

Electoral votes must be delivered to the Vice President by December 23. On January 6, a joint session of the newly-elected Congress counts them, with a dizzying array of variables in between.

Any Senator can join with a Representative to force a closed two-hour joint session evaluating any state’s Electoral College delegation.

In 2001, then-VP Al Gore prevented the Congressional Black Caucus from challenging the Florida delegation that had been seated by armed thugs who got the Supreme Court to stop the Florida recount. Gore also stopped Rev. Jesse Jackson from staging a national demonstration demanding the popular vote be honored.

In 2005, with then-VP Dick Cheney presiding, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) joined Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Cleveland) to challenge Ohio’s fraudulent delegation. Congress didn’t care. Bush got a second term.

This year, Trump has his armed White Supremacists-- his Hitlerian Brown Shirts-- on “standby.”  Their orders are to create chaos at the polls and in the vote count.  The country’s laws are antiquated, contradictory, often incomprehensible.

But Trump's “November Surprise” bottom line is obvious: delay the vote counts, hijack the state legislatures, steal the Electoral College delegations, get it all to his “safe harbor” Supremes, who will crown him 6-3 or 5-4... or at least try.

Because the key questions have now become:

Could a huge popular landslide prevent this coup from happening?  How big does it need to be?  How much election protection will it require?

What (if anything) will the Democrats do about all this?

And, most importantly...what will YOU do about it?


 

 
 
  -------------------------


Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman co-wrote The Strip & Flip Disaster of America’s Stolen Elections, which resides at www.freepress.org along with Bob’s Fitrakis Files.

Greasing the Bench

 

-by Skip Kaltenheuser

John Grisham, meister of legal thrillers, must look at the Dark Money flying about Supreme Court nominees and think, “You stinking thieves, give me my book plots back!”

In a logical world, in a sane US Senate resistant to corruption, Senators would give the bum's rush to nominees to the Supreme Court who are being promoted with millions, tens of millions, in dark money. Dark money, funding not readily traced to the actual donors, slithering through a labyrinth of shell corporations, donor trusts and 501(c)(4) organizations. And slithering around Senators voting on judicial nominee confirmations, not just for the Supreme Court but all Federal judges, whispering rewards and threats when they’re up for re-election. Dark Money groups like the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, flowing into groups like the Federalist Society, which Trump brags picks his judges, and the closely connected Judicial Crisis Network.

During Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings for the Supremes, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), asked Gorsuch who his angels were who provided seven million dollars to first deny Obama nominee Merrick Garland and then later drop ten million promoting Gorsuch to the bench. Gorsuch’s reply was that if Whitehouse wanted to know who they were, he should ask them. As if Gorsuch had no idea. And no idea of exactly what his hooded benefactors want from courts. In backing Brett Kavanaugh, one dark donation alone provided seventeen million. Many millions are now swirling to promote Amy Coney Barrett. Not to play down the importance of issues like reproductive rights, or the emphasis on preserving even the most meager opportunities for medical coverage, but it’s not hot-button issues that attract the incognito Big Money to such legal eagles of the Ayn Rand brotherhood. It’s their pro-corporate, anti-regulatory, anti-labor and anti-consumer histories. It’s their willingness to pay close attention to the Amicus briefs from the Big Money’s minions. It’s about suppressing the vote, rigging democracy with gerrymandering, etc.... It’s about insulating industries like fossil fuels, and their Wall Street investors, from accountability for the myriad pollution they knowingly cause. It’s about protecting the interests of those at the top.

And when the banks start making wholesale property grabs again, it’ll be about ushering them along as they ride roughshod over people, as the floodgates open for those tumbling into a fractured, pro-creditor bankruptcy system, peppered with self-serving “trustees”. Wait and see.

Redefining The Supreme Court by Nancy Ohanian

As Tom Neuburger recently detailed, Barrett has rung one alarm bell after another that she will be a grim reaper of the rights and protections of workers when they conflict with the Big Money, and injured consumers have little to rejoice about. In her brief time on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Barrett quickly joined the ilk of judges who are black-robed crowbars for prying wide the wealth gap via a legal assembly line of pro-corporate decisions.

David Sirota recently revealed an important case coming before the Supreme Court involving state and municipal government lawsuits against Shell Oil, for which Barrett’s father was a lawyer for decades. Oil companies want the Court to require climate cases be heard in the more corporate-friendly federal courts. Asked about climate change during her hearings, Barrett’s reply was that she does not have “firm views”, “...I’m not really in a position to offer any kind of informed opinion on what I think causes global warming.” How convenient. Isn’t that special? Cue the Church Lady.





During Barrett’s confirmation hearings, Senator Whitehouse schooled the Senate with this riveting presentation. Some of it drew from this 29 page treatise he published in the Harvard Law School Journal on Legislation. Both are worth the time. Whitehouse revealed 80 cases at the Supreme Court involving an identifiable Republican donor. Astoundingly, damningly, all were decided in the right-wing’s favor in 5-4 decisions. Many whittle down the concept of civil juries. Because why would fat cats suffer standing before a jury not of their board members? Eighty five-four partisan decisions. People with track records of defying odds like that wouldn’t be allowed through the door of a casino. What the hell are they doing on the Supreme Court?

But Whitehouse is moving the right direction, pushing reforms such as disclosure of big donors to groups that run political advertisements supporting or opposing judicial nominations. He seeks to add a few teeth to the Federal Election Campaign Act to cover judicial nominations and to report spending to the Federal Election Commission, (which could use any dentures it can get).

More generally, Democrats are also having their rolls in the hay with Dark Money. If doing things for principled reasons, why should their benefactors be secret? It’s a gutless position, and chips away at the moral high ground smart Democrats should lay claim to. No reason to go down that road unless you’re a Washington grifter and/or peddler of influence, unless you don’t want your motivations for giving or collecting money laid bare. Don’t Democrats realize voters would take note if they made a point of eschewing money from the shadows? Probably. But that’s not the road to riches. Look at the establishment alarm at Bernie's independence from the Big Money. Can’t have that. Society will crumble.

At the creation of the United States, elites were not in short supply but giant, powerful corporations weren’t a thing. Small corporations were created to develop infrastructure, but were tightly controlled by local political authorities. Now, corporate behemoths stride the land, including those connected to international corporations, often as US subsidiaries, even of foreign banks. Some are out of central casting for movies about dystopian futures. Much of political Washington floats on money these corporate interests pour in through ever more inventive ways to those addicted to it, tapping for fresh veins like junkies. Plenty of good people in Washington, but the city is increasingly a magnet for those who will do anything for money, for whom rationalization is an art form. Sooner or later they’re very well-connected. One doesn’t go up against one, on many issues one goes up against large swaths of them, including party leaders talking out of both sides of their mouths.

In 2010, Pam and Russ Martens, of the must-read site Wall Street on Parade, showed that Charles Koch of Koch Industries, for which fossil fuels are central, is joined at the hip with Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund. The Martens explored the money behind a race-baiting, Islamophobic film on DVDs circulated through major newspapers and direct mail as the 2008 election approached. Back then they wrote, “...the far right has assembled a $6 billion interlinked machine of think-tanks, lobbyists, PACs, astroturf front groups, media sycophants, endowed professorships, state-based political fronts and now even their own centralized headhunter; all to throw us off the scent that the real threat to the poor and middle class in America is corporate domination."

It’s impressive, how so few people could persist in causing so much harm, from the climate or to our judiciary.

“When you find hypocrisy in the daylight, look for the power in the shadows,” said Whitehouse. From his paper’s conclusion: “...Enormous effort has been put by large and powerful interests into a fifty-year project to capture the courts. These interests seek to maintain, and indeed further entrench, the corporate-friendly outcomes into which they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars...Dark money is a plague anywhere in ourpolitical system. Citizens deprived of knowing the identities of political forces are deprived of power, treated as pawns to be pushed around by anon-ymous money and message. Dark money encourages bad behavior, creatingthe “tsunami of slime” that has washed into our political discourse. Dark money corrupts and distorts politics. Bad as all that is, dark money around courts is even worse. The chances of corruption and scandal explode. The very notion that courts can be captured undercuts the credibility upon which courts depend. It is surprising that the Judiciary has not come to its own defense in these matters… As Justice Brandeis also said, 'If we desire respect for the law we must first make the law respectable.'”

And the influence diseases run rampant in the States

The purchase of the courts isn’t only about the Supremes or even the rest of the Federal judiciary. State courts are where the action is for the vast majority of Americans, and also where many Federal judges began. Citizens United revved up the ability to capture elected judges, or Governors who appoint them, by well-heeled business interests and their lawyers. Allow me to slip in this essay I did for Barron’s over six years ago. As with most tales of political influence, things only get worse.

IN CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC, FIVE JUSTICES of the U.S. Supreme Court found that the First Amendment protection of free speech prohibited Congress from banning political advocacy by organizations, including pushing for the election or defeat of candidates. Tightly blindfolded, Justice Anthony Kennedy concluded, “Independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Justice Kennedy should observe what’s happening to state courts.

Citizens United was a campaign finance accelerant, and not just in federal races. It threatens the integrity of state courts, which hear 95% of the nation’s cases.

At the state level, a majority of judges and justices stand in some form of election. These elections are the minor leagues of U.S. politics, even more vulnerable to the power of money than elections for Congress and state legislatures. Donors who try to buy laws and lawmakers are interested in buying the interpretation of the laws, as well.

A poll conducted by 20/20 Insight last year found that nine of 10 American voters believe both direct contributions and inde- pendent spending affect courtroom decisions. Earlier polls have consistently shown citizens losing confidence in the courts. Other polls show sizable cohorts of state judges and justices believing decisions are affected.

It’s not just past contributors calling the tunes. It’s anticipation of getting contributions in the future, perhaps in a run for a higher court, as well as the chilling fear of being attacked by well-financed opponents. Though big majorities of judges say they want fixes for the campaign finance arms race, more of them are playing the game. Influence mischief was under way long before Citizens United, but a report from the Brennan Center for Justice, the National Institute on Money in State Politics, and Jus- tice at Stake shows the 2010 Citizens United ruling’s rising impact on judicial races.

There was a 50% rise over the prior record, of 2003-2004, in independent spending by interest groups in state Supreme Court races in 2011-2012. Spending that was not controlled by candidates or their campaign committees was 27% of total campaign spending, not counting spending by the political parties. More than a third of all funds spent on state supreme court races came from seven special-interest groups and three state political parties. Television ads backing candidates for high courts took a huge leap—over a quarter funded by special interests, much of it attack ads involving hot button issues and wild distortions of controversial rulings.

You might think that a judge should recuse himself if a party to a case contributed to the judge or spent money on supportive election materials, and 92% of the people responding to a Justice at Stake/Brennan Center for Justice poll would agree with you. But the grounds for a judge’s recusal are judged by the judge.

The U.S. Supreme Court took a half-step toward a higher standard in a case from the West Virginia Supreme Court. Anticipating an important case against A.T. Massey Coal Co., Massey’s CEO flooded money into ads attacking an incumbent justice, who lost the election. The winning beneficiary of the Massey money refused to recuse himself when the case reached the state Supreme Court. A majority opinion in 2009 by Justice Kennedy said that while not every litigant contribution requires recusal, “extreme facts” can create a “probability of bias” violating due process. On rehearing, the West Virginia court determined the case should have been filed in Virginia.

Throughout the land, significant campaign contributions haven’t generated many recusals. In some states, including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, half of the cases before the highest court involved litigants who contributed to justices. John Grisham needn’t fear running short of plots based on reality.

Joanna Shepherd, an economist and professor at Emory University School of Law, wrote a study for the American Constitution Society examining the relationship between campaign contributions and state Supreme Court decisions in 2010-12. After excluding cases in which two businesses squared off against each other, Shepherd found strong patterns: The more contributions justices garner from business interests, the more likely their decisions will favor those interests.

Donor disclosure offers little solace. Dark money often travels through layers of obscurity, including through Super PACs and through 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations that needn’t disclose their donors. Anyway, voters show limited interest or limited ability to sort out conflicts of campaign interest. There are over 50 judges on a ballot in Harris County (Houston), Texas; such elections tend to be straight partisan votes.

However one comes down on whether the First Amendment sanctions unlimited spending on campaigns, judicial elections are different. And if judicial elections aren’t different, judges ought to be. States should insist that judges recuse themselves in cases involving their contributors and their campaign supporters. That would ease the arms race.

To thwart independent expenditures and dark money, the states should move from elections toward merit-based appointments. Insulate the process from politics, using a diverse, professional selection committee.

A U.S. Supreme Court justice discussed the loss of confidence in the courts in a 1999 interview on Frontline: “We weren’t talking about this 30 years ago because we didn’t have money in elections. Money in elections presents us with a tremendous challenge, a tremendous problem, and we are remiss if we don’t at once address it and correct it...if an attorney gives money to a judge with the expectation that the judge will rule...in his client’s interest.... It’s corrosive of judicial independence.” Justice Anthony Kennedy might review these words before writing his next campaign-finance decision. They’re his.

Give judges gavels; take away their tin cups.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

 

by Noah

The Trump/McConnell farcical Supreme Court confirmation hearings will officially begin on 10/12 but Amy Coney Barrett is already sitting in a stolen seat. Here's how that came about: In May 2017, Donnie Dictator nominated Barrett to a seat on the Seventh Circuit Court, the court which covers Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. This is the same seat to which President Obama nominated an African-American judge named Myra Selby in 2016. But, of course, the Republican-controlled $enate was never going to confirm a Black female nominee who was nominated by a Black president. That was a bridge way, way, way too far for any republican to go. They'd rather fantasize about blowing up the bridge and lynching the nominee. So, they blocked Judge Myra Selby and kept the seat warm for their Dear Leader who then nominated Crackpot Amy Coney Barrett. Trump ended up appointing 4 count 'em 4 white judges to the Seventh Circuit, including Barrett and the Seventh Circuit became as white as snow, just the way republicans like it, very 1850.

It's not just Amy Coney Barrett's skin tone that is crucial to republicans. She opposes same sex marriage and is supported by and has taken money from a group that is seeking to criminalize homosexuality. She is anti-choice. She is reportedly even anti-contraceptives. She is so far right that she once excoriated arch-consevative Chief Justice John Roberts for not making Obamacare illegal and taking away healthcare from over 25,000,000 of her fellow Americans. Like an al Qaeda or Taliban terrorist, she has embraced a religious sect (People of Praise) that believes a woman should be subservient to men and at least believe figuratively that her place is the laundry room, the kitchen, and the bedroom, except herself, of course. Her statements on guns reveal that she has no problem with white supremacist groups getting more and bigger weaponry, even though she has two young adopted Haitian children. That might lead to some interesting dinner table conversations in a few years. On voting issues, she also falls on the racist side. In other words, except for the kids, you can picture Donald Trump himself in a black robe, sitting on the Supreme Court. Amy Comey Barrett's positions demonstrate that she is every bit the crackpot psychopath that he is. She is the Republican Party's dream nominee. She is another Republican merchant of human misery and death, one of the most blatant and extremist of all.

Amy Coney Barrett obviously checked all the loyalty oath boxes in her extensive White House interviews with Herr Trump and his nutbag staffers. The biggest one isn't mentioned above but it's mentioned in the meme itself. For Trump, the biggest attribute she has is that she will rule in his favor when he brings the election itself to the court in an effort to remain in power. She is severely tainted just by being Trump's choice. Everything about her indicates that she will rule in favor of a 3rd World-style coup if the opportunity presents itself. She is the physical embodiment of what so many Amercans died to prevent in a long string of wars.

Speaking of ruling on election matters, you want irony? Here's some irony: Amy Coney Barrett worked for James Baker's law firm. They represented George Bush during the Bush vs. Gore election case. That's just the kind of experience Donnie Dictator is looking for.

People like Ruth Bader Ginsburg worked hard to open doors for other women. This Amy Coney Barrett wants to sit smugly on the bench and close those doors behind her. I've always called that The Queen Bee Syndrome. I've seen it in the corporate world. It's a form of "I've got mine, Jack (or, in this case, Jill) so screw you. I can oppress a woman as much as any man."

I wonder if she likes beer.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

 

by Noah

It's long past time for America to realize that Supreme Court Justice John Roberts is the Stephen Miller of the court. That doesn't mean he is the only anti-voting rights judge on the court. There are others and right now it looks like their number is about to grow by one more. But, Justice Roberts is their leader. He has devoted his life to the decimation of voting rights for selected citizens and we know who is at the top of that list. Conservatives may have changed their names and party affiliations over the decades but they haven't changed their targets. If Trump's spoken plans to take the election to the Supreme Court come to pass, Robert's position on suppression and ballot counting will be key.

Roberts started his career at the Supreme Court as a clerk for Justice William Rehnquist, one of the most arch conservitive judges to ever plague the court. Then, in 1981, at age 26, Roberts took a job as one of Reagan Attorney General William French Smith's aides. He was then chosen to make the case against our voting rights laws which were up for renewal and fine-tuning at the time. He was a perfect choice for such an evil.

The voting rights act that Roberts was so dedicated to overturning even as a young man was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That law dismantled much of the post reconstruction era Jim Crow law system that blocked millions of American citizens of color from exercising their right to vote, especially but not exclusively in the states that, to this day, celebrate their heritage of being members of the Confederacy and fighters for repression and slavery. Jim Crow made many citizens pay "unique" poll taxes; guess the number of marbles or beans in a jar, recite poems they'd never heard before, and subject themselves to endless other indignities when they showed up to vote. This is what Roberts wanted to continue and wants to no doubt fully restore. Nowhere was that desire more evident than in the Roberts-led Supreme Court 2013 decision to finally gut the Voting Rights Act with Roberts leading the way by disingenuously saying the law was no longer needed since, in his opinion, racism is over. How's that for a big transparent screen to hide behind? He might as well have said that Black Lives Don't Matter since that has obviously always been his thinking anyway. Since the infamously immoral 2013 decision, every state with a typically racist republican legislature has moved to put Jim Crow style voter suppression rules back into place. And, of course, we haven't seen a bit of racism in our society since 2013, right?

Vote suppression and the twisted use of the Supreme Court have been two of the pillars of Republican Party strategies to win elections. There is no better example than the Bush Crime Family's strategy in Florida for the 2000 presidential election when Katherine Harris, the Florida Secretary of State, under the direction of Jeb Bush, did more than get rid of votes. She purged extreme numbers of voters from the rolls, thus taking away their ability to vote to begin with. The key determination usually used in such things is race and it seems that Harris removed names that "sounded African-American." In 2000, the Bush vs. Gore decision damaged the Supreme Court's credibility. This year, Trump is steering the court like a Titanic heading for a killer iceberg. Republicans across the country have already spent up to $20,000.000 to back up the voter suppression mechanics that they have previously put in place.

President Trump and his party are now pushing the envelope well beyond what was done 20 years ago. This time, purging and voter suppression tactics aren't enough to satisfy their plans for a white nationalist fascist dictatorship. The Republican Party's Dear Leader is openly calling it his "Get Rid Of The Ballots" strategy. It's Bolivian. It's Putinesque. It's however you want to call it. It's the deliberate final nail in the coffin of our long decaying Democracy. It is the Republican Party sum total be all and end all platform for 2020 and they hope to have the Roberts Supreme Court decide this year's election in their favor. Trump is being so bald-faced about this that he has publicly said that that is why he wants his new nominee confirmed immediately and you can bet that a commitment to rule in his favor on election matters and any other matters before the court was clearly made to be a qualification for being the nominee during the interviews. His record of demanding loyalty before country is well recorded. Just ask Jim Comey. Trump is a kiss the ring mobster and he plans on having one more immoral judge that will see things his way so he can consolidate power just like his pals Putin, Duterte, and Kim did it.

Our psychopathic president has made his plans obvious at least since his "president for life" statement 3 years ago. Now he is openly calling for getting rid of ballots and he's not just counting on Louis DeJoy's efforts at the USPS. He's got the sleaziest Attorney General of all time, William Barr, corrupting and commanding the entire so-called Justice Department to work overtime on finding ways to make our votes "disappear like a miracle."

Make no mistake. This has been the long term Republican Party strategy for decades. The proof of that is in the fact that, as I write this Friday morning, nary a peep or anything above a vague whisper of objection to this "Get Rid Of The Ballots" strategy has been heard coming from the mouths of Republicans anywhere in this country. There's no shock there. When they were against impeaching Trump and embracing Putin and his cash, they showed their colors. They've had days to object to Trump's recent public revelation of his plan to stay in office. There has been no patriotic, country first screaming from the rooftops. They are what they are.

By the way, I recently saw Chucky Schumer on MSNBC where he described Roberts as a "moderate." He did it with a straight face even though he was decrying the repbulican steal the election strategy. He is not alone. Many democrats and media hacks refer to Roberts as a "moderate." That just goes to show how far to the right the Democratic Party has moved in the past 50 years in a grotesque and nearly futile effort to keep up with the Republicans. As we all should know by now, that leads nowhere but to oblivion.

ACB-- Another Terrible Idea Of Trump's And His Circle

 

I dissent by Nancy Ohanian

Dan Balz wrote scorching column for the Washington Post yesterday even before Trump announced Amy Coney Barrett, Facing possible defeat, Trump threatens the integrity of the election. "Each week has brough evidence," he began, "of the damage [The Donald] has done during his nearly four years in office. According to his own words, he is not finished. This past week brought a renewed warning of a harm he could yet inflict on the integrity of elections. [Donald] did more than simply refuse to pledge that he would facilitate a peaceful transfer of power if he loses to former vice president Joe Biden, though that in itself was a step no previous president has taken. In doing so, he escalated his ongoing attack on mail-in ballots, seeding the ground to contest the election as rigged or fraudulent if he is not the winner and to propel the country into chaos."

Balz speculated that all this carp from The Donald may "merely reflected the mind-set of a president who knows he is running behind in his bid for a second term, one more rhetorical flailing to somehow throw the opposition off balance and to distract from the real reasons for Biden’s lead in the polls. But this close to the election, anything Trump does to question the validity of the count should be regarded as serious and treated as such. Republicans who normally stand by idle when the president says or does something outrageous pushed back against his words-- though, notably, nearly all were careful neither to rebuke nor condemn the president personally. They simply pointed to a long history of peaceful transfers from one presidency to the next and stood up for the Constitution, which is the minimum expected of elected officials who have sworn an oath to defend that document."

As you know, almost all of these Republicans-- who were fanatics that "the voters must weigh in" when Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court-- almost a year before before the election-- are now saying that Donald's nominee must get a vote. Democrats see it differently. Reaction against his nomination yesterday was swift and overwhelming. Mondaire Jones is Blue America's candidate of the week and a court expert, so I was talking with him about about the nomination. His take, like many progressives, is that Barrett "thinks the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. She thinks abortion is 'always immoral.' She is hostile to LGBTQ+ civil rights, & would vote to undo marriage equality. Her nomination would be a direct attack on millions of Americans. We won't stand for it. A generation ago, the GOP replaced Thurgood Marshall, the founder of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, with someone who has cast decisive votes to undermine racial justice. Now they want to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with someone who promises to undo her legacy of reproductive justice. Not on our watch." Jones will try to find support among his new colleagues to expand the Supreme Court by 4 members next year. [You can contribute to his campaign here.]

Current members were concerned about the same things Jones is concerned about. Pramila Jayapal, right after the announcement:

Any individual nominated to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court must believe in equal justice under law and opportunity for all. That means being fully committed to protecting civil rights and voting rights, women’s rights and workers’ rights, reproductive rights and disability rights, LGBTQ+ rights and Indigenous rights. It also means standing on the side of people over profits and communities over corporations when it comes to health care, protections for those with pre-existing conditions, immigration, the environment, consumer protections, ending gun violence and getting money out of politics.

Not only does Amy Coney Barrett fail to meet that standard, but she has spent years consistently and dangerously arguing against it from the federal bench. It is no wonder that conservative, right-wing groups had her on their recommendation list as they continue their coordinated attacks on health care, abortion rights, voting rights and the right of workers to organize. I strongly oppose this lifetime appointment to the highest court in our land, and I urge President Trump to withdraw his nomination as quickly as he made it.

With less than 40 days until the election, and as voters across America are already casting their ballots, we need to let their voices be heard. They know that everything is on the line. We must allow them to choose the next president and then allow that president to choose the next nominee for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. This is the same standard that Republicans implemented at the end of President Obama’s term when Merrick Garland was nominated with more than seven months remaining before the election. This is how we must proceed with the future of the court, this country and our democracy hanging in the balance.

AOC weighed in quickly as well: "If confirmed before the election, Barrett will have the opportunity to cast the deciding vote to strike down the ACA on November 10th when the Court hears California v. Texas. Millions of Americans would be thrown off their health insurance in the middle of the pandemic, and health insurers could refuse to cover individuals who have or have had COVID-19... And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Barrett holds radical positions when it comes to the right to choose. She is on record saying that abortion is 'always immoral.' On the 7th Circuit, she has repeatedly handed down decisions that would have limited abortion. With her on the Court, the conservative goal of repealing Roe v. Wade is within reach."

Bernie urged his supporters across the country to tell their senators "to do everything possible to slow down the nomination process... He called her nomination "a disaster for our country and our movement. If confirmed, she poses a threat to health care, LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, voting rights, workers' rights, environmental protections, and so much more. Now Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans are going to try to rush through Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings and have the Senate vote on her nomination before the end of this year." He continued:

It is not a radical idea to suggest that the winner of this year's presidential election should be the one to select Justice Ginsburg's replacement. In fact, that is what the clear majority of the American people want.

But now that Trump has announced his nominee, Mitch McConnell is planning to rush a vote during this election year-- a complete contradiction from his position just a few years ago.

You may recall that in 2016 Mitch McConnell refused to have the Senate vote on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Scalia. McConnell's view at that time was that the nomination should be the job of the next president.

Here is what McConnell told Fox News in 2016:

"The Senate has a role to play here. The president nominates, we decide to confirm. We think the important principle in the middle of this presidential year is that the American people need to weigh in and decide who's going to make this decision."

And it's not just Mitch McConnell-- many other Republican senators are on the record saying the same thing.

Well, today I say to my colleagues in the Senate: We must let the next president name Justice Ginsburg's replacement. Respect the will of the American people and delay Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Barbara Lee (D-CA) noted that "Senate Republicans have no shame in pushing a right-wing judge just weeks before the election despite the fact that a majority of Americans believe Mitch McConnell should wait to replace the judge until after the election. This lifetime appointment will reshape the court to a 6-3 conservative majority and have far-reaching impacts on our nation for generations to come. Amy Coney Barrett has a record of being hostile to reproductive rights, immigrants’ rights, gun control policies, and the Affordable Care Act. With the Supreme Court scheduled to hear a case on the Affordable Care Act coming up a week after the election, the stakes have never been higher. Right now our fundamental rights are on the line, and we need to do everything we can to honor Justice Ginsburg’s last wish and prevent Mitch McConnell from stealing this seat."

Back to Balz's pre-announcement column. He wrote that Señor Trumpanzee's "Republican allies in Congress... are they the people whose views he cares about most. Instead, his attempt to discredit mail-in ballots as a way to challenge a possible Biden victory is aimed at rallying his own army of supporters, prepping them to respond, if necessary, with protests or perhaps worse if he challenges vote tabulations-- and therefore the results-- in the days after the election. If any people believed that the president was just letting off steam when he declined to pledge a peaceful transfer of power, they can look to something White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said after FBI Director Christopher A. Wray had testified before a Senate committee that he knows of no evidence of 'any kind of national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it’s by mail or otherwise.' Wray’s comments were the latest in a string of statements from all kinds of election and security experts debunking Trump’s claims about mail-in ballots being rife with fraud. Meadows, however, chose to challenge the FBI director during an interview Friday on CBS’s This Morning. 'With all due respect to Director Wray,' he said, 'he has a hard time finding emails in his own FBI, let alone figuring out whether there’s any kind of voter fraud.' That was not a chief of staff trying to retract a president’s words or clean up after a mistake. What he said in attacking Wray was meant to reinforce the message the president continues to deliver."

Attorney General William P. Barr has added his voice to the campaign against mail-in ballots, saying they mean an end to the sanctity of the secret ballot-- and ignoring the steps states take to protect the secrecy of votes cast that way. This past week, Barr told the president about discarded mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, which the president claimed was evidence of fraud.

Voting-law experts have sharply criticized a Justice Department investigation into the matter.

People do want to know who wins the presidency as soon as possible, and generally that’s been on the night of the election or by early next day. But that was in years when nearly everyone voted in person on Election Day. In recent years, more Americans have chosen to vote ahead of the election at designated early-voting sites.

This year, because of the coronavirus pandemic, millions of Americans are reluctant to vote in person, whether on the day of the election or during specified early-voting windows. They prefer to mark their ballots without having to be in places with other people. As a result, there has been a surge in requests for mail-in ballots. Trump appears to fear that the more people who vote, and the easier it is for people who fear the virus to do so safely, the less chance he has to win the election.

The processing of those mail-in ballots will take longer than ballots cast on Election Day. Some states require that mail-in ballots arrive by Election Day, others that they simply be postmarked by Election Day. Ballots may legally arrive for days after Election Day, and processing and counting can and will be slow in some places, as the primary elections showed. There will also be challenges to some of these ballots, and some will be discarded because they were filled out improperly.

No matter the exact system, the processing and counting of these ballots is more laborious and therefore slower. California is a case in point, a state where the counting can go on for days and possibly weeks. In 2016, Hillary Clinton saw her vote totals rise steadily after the week of the election, eventually amassing a popular vote margin of nearly 5 million votes in the state. In 2018, California Democrats captured House seats with the votes that were tabulated days after the election, including two in which Republicans were leading the day after the election.

The scenario that could play out on the night of the election is simple. In the hours after the polls close, Trump could appear to be winning in some of the states that will decide the election, even though tens upon tens of thousands of ballots will not have been counted.

At that point, as he did with a tweet during the 2018 U.S. Senate race in Arizona, Trump could attempt to call a rhetorical halt and claim that whatever happens next is a sign of fraud or evidence of a rigged count. The tabulating will continue, but how will his loyalists react if he cries foul?

To suggest this is all just mischief-making by the president is to understate the potential maliciousness of what he is attempting to do. He seeks to disqualify voting in states where all voters are being sent mail-in ballots, which he claimed, without evidence, in a recent tweet means they are open to “ELECTION INTERFERENCE by foreign countries” that will lead to “massive chaos and confusion.”

Facing possible defeat in November, the president also recently tweeted that this year’s election “may NEVER BE ACCURATELY DETERMINED” because of mail-in ballots. In another tweet he claimed, “RIGGED ELECTION in waiting.” At a rally in Wisconsin last month, he said, “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.” On Friday night in Virginia, he said, “We’re not going to lose this except if they cheat.”

If Trump loses the election and then moves to discredit the results in the face of no evidence of widespread fraud, the country will be confronted with one more crisis of his presidency-- one that will have been unfolding in plain view.

Donald’s announcement of his Supreme Court nominee drew about 150 guests to the White House and, appropriately enough, according to Washington Post reporter Seung Min Kim "most of [them] declined to wear masks or social distance because of the coronavirus pandemic. Notable in the Rose Garden crowd were former campaign aide Corey Lewandowski, Faith & Freedom Coalition Founder Ralph Reed and Fox News host Laura Ingraham. Folding chairs were set close together for the event. Among the lawmakers in attendance were Republican senators who will be voting on the nominee-- Josh Hawley (MO), Thom Tillis (NC), Deb Fischer (NE), Ben Sasse (NE), Kelly Loeffler (GA), Mike Lee (UT) and Marsha Blackburn (TN)." If you could pick one of them to not die, who would it be?

I caught up with New Jersey congresswoman and progressive icon Bonnie Watson Coleman at church this morning. After the services, she told me that she had two problems with what was happening here, first "The hypocrisy of nominating a replacement of this ilk, or any person to the Supreme Court at this time, and second This particular nominee, Amy Barrett Coney. First, we are at the end of the election season when an important decision about the direction of this country is being considered. Trump has made a mockery of our values, made our citizens less safe and divided this country with his inciting and racist words and deeds. McConnell refused to consider Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court with 400 days left in his administration, yet he promises to force this upon us in less than 40 days left before an election and at a time when some states are already voting. Sheer hypocrisy and evil and it pisses me off. Regarding the second point, this candidate does not deserve to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She represents a direct threat to access to health care, a woman’s autonomy over her body, protection of civil rights, LGTBQ+ rights and voting rights. She’s wrong for the job."

Adam Christensen, the progressive Democrat aiming to replace Ted Yoho in north-central Florida by beating some shady character from Yoho's orbit, noted that "Amy Coney Barrett stands against everything we fight for: Medicare, civil rights, climate legislation, LGBTQ+ rights and women’s rights to choose. Mrs. Barrett would be on the bench for decades and would prevent any meaningful change from occurring. If she is nominated before this election we must expand the Supreme Court to allow for fair justices who will stand for the issues that matter to all Americans, not just the few." It'll be great seeing him and Mondaire Jones working on this together.


Nate McMurray is running for Congress in western New York, a rural/suburban district between Buffalo and Rochester that is the reddest district in New York and a district McMurray, running as a progressive with no help-- to put it mildly-- from the DCCC came within a third of a percentage point (1,087 votes) of winning in 2018. Presumably because he did so well, the vile, progressive-hating Blue Dog Cheri Bustos, who heads the DCCC, is again actively sabotaging McMurray's campaign. Meanwhile, the DCCC and it's corporate candidates can take a lesson from McMurray in how to talk with their voters about Trump's Supreme Court power-grab. McMurray to NY-27 voters today:

A mere week after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing, the Trump administration speeds forward with its plan to install another extremist ideologue on the Supreme Court by Election Day in November, flouting the Constitution yet again in the process.

All this so the Republican party can cruelly do away with protections for preexisting conditions and go after women's health and protections for minority communities. Over 204,000 Americans are dead, seven million more infected and at risk of long-term effects of COVID-19. Over 40 million Americans are out of work and 12 million lost their health insurance since March. It is unconscionable that President Trump would choose a nominee who will deliver the death blow to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and rip health care away from millions of people during a deadly pandemic.

After Justice Ginsburg’s passing, I said that Trump’s choice for nomination would unravel Justice Ginsburg’s legacy of protecting choice and equality. Sadly, I was correct. And the hyper-political nature of this moment puts on full display his utter contempt for the American judicial system and the confirmation process.

There is no doubt that Trump will, if allowed to stack the highest court in the United States, ask them to overturn the ACA, including its protections for people with pre-existing conditions. If Trump has his way, complications from COVID-19, on top of conditions like cancer, diabetes, and pregnancy, will become pre-existing conditions that allow families to be denied healthcare coverage.

My opponent, who has only known a life of wealth and privilege, including lifelong access to excellent healthcare, has already signaled his support of Trump’s nominee. Chris Jacobs has no idea what it is like to be unemployed or struggling, without health insurance, in a health crisis. I do. The voters do. God help us.

How Many Republican Senators Will Lose Voters Over Amy Coney Barrett

 

A few days ago, writing for The Atlantic, Peter Nicholas noted that by moving forward so rapidly with the Supreme Court confirmation of a hardcore extremist like Amy Coney Barrett, Donald is "giving lawmakers little space to carve out an independent identity that could help them win reelection... [He] demands loyalty, but isn’t so quick to return it. Republican members of Congress have passed his bills, rationalized his behavior, kept him in power. Now, with a new Supreme Court vacancy, some of the GOP senators who risked the most in tethering themselves to Trump sorely need his help keeping them in power. He isn't guaranteed to deliver." It's an especially bad scene for senators in states with large numbers of independent voters, like Maine, Alaska and Colorado (Susan Collins, Dan Sullivan and Cory Gardner) but it could be harmful for Joni Ernst (IA), Thom Tillis (NC) Martha McSally (AZ), Steve Daines (MT) and even Lindsey Graham and the two Republican senators in Georgia as well.

Did you watch that ad the Lincoln Project released yesterday? It isn't about defeating Trump per se. It's about defeating his allies and enablers in the Senate. Watch it. I hope they run it in the appropriate states.

I think Dan Sullivan is especially in jeopardy. Alaska is a state with a massive number of independents and Sullivan has been a Trump lapdog. He has two opponents-- an actual independent, Al Gross, running with the backing of the Democratic Party, and a an even farther right kook, John Wayne Howe, who is likely to win 5-10% of Sullivan's base. Sullivan is going to vote for Barrett. Alaska's senior senator, which admired by independents, will not. It makes Sullivan look even more connected at the hip to Trump-- and you can't win a statewide race in Alaska without significant independent support.

Ben Jealous, the new president of People for the American Way, noted yesterday that PFAW knows a lot about Barrett. "We know she passes Trump's anti-health care litmus test with flying colors and would surely vote to end protections for people with preexisting conditions... even in the middle of a global pandemic. (And the ripping away of millions of Americans’ health care could come soon, as the Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to the Affordable Care Act in its upcoming term that starts next month.) She’s also a nominee whose confirmation – giving Trump his THIRD Supreme Court justice and the Far Right a 6-3 majority on the Court-- could spell the end of Roe v. Wade and countless environmental protections, and imperil voting rights and social safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare. Amy Coney Barrett has been the Radical Right’s preferred nominee ever since she became an appellate court judge and was seen as a contender for the Supreme Court. The Far Right will be more fired up than ever to back this nominee… Anti-choice groups have already launched a 'Reverse Roe' tour in Senate battleground states…"

Lawless Zone by Nancy Ohanian

Dianne Feinstein To Head Up Democratic Effort To Stop Trump's Court Pick: She's "Lucid Sometimes"

 

Does Nana forget directions-- the way The Donald does?

FDR moved into the White House for the first time a couple of months before Dianne Feinstein was born. When she graduated from Convent of the Sacred Heart High School, Truman was president. Feinstein was first elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1969, long before I moved there. I was living in Afghanistan was she was elected and never heard of her. Two years later she ran against Mayor Joseph Alioto from the right and lost with 21.8% of the vote. Four years later, with Alioto retiring, she ran for mayor as the conservative again, and again came in third, this time with 18.7% of the vote. San Francisco voters had gotten to know what a piece of crap she was. And then George Moscone, the mayor (along with Harvey Milk) was assassinated by a Feinstein ally and, as head of the board of supervisors she assumed the mayoralty and was able to run as an incumbent. Her top challenger-- Quentin Kopp-- was even further right than she was. I was a San Francisco resident at the time and the most plausible progressive in the race was Dead Kennedys' lead singer Jello Biafra, who I actively supported. He came in 3rd in a 9-way race.

I'm old. She's older, much older. In fact, she's the oldest member of the Senate. That doesn't matter. What does matter is that she's senile. California voters were out of their collective mind to reelect her in 2018. But in a race without a Republican that pitted her-- still a rotgut conservative-- against a progressive, Kevin de León, Republicans and conservative independents backed her and she won 5,976,440 (54.2%) to 5,047,268 (45.8%), her worst performance since 1994 when oil billionaire Michael Huffington spent a fortune against her.

No one in DC likes talking about senile members of Congress-- and there are plenty; we're looking at you, Pat Roberts (who at least has the good grace to be calling it quits now) and you Jim Inhofe, the snowball climate change denier from Oklahoma, Don Young, a month older than Feinstein and supposedly the first American-- as a trapper --to ever set foot in then Russian-Alaska. But yesterday John Bresnahan and Marianne Levine put a toe over the line: Democrats worry Feinstein can't handle Supreme Court battle. Her colleagues are saying someone sharper needs to head the Judiciary Committee effort on behalf of the Democrats. No shit!

Bresnahan and Levine tiptoe around the senility question, using claptrap like she's "widely respected by senators in both parties, but she has noticeably slowed in recent years." They leave it for readers to figure out what this means: "Interviews with more than a dozen Democratic senators and aides show widespread concern over whether the California Democrat is capable of leading the aggressive effort Democrats need against whoever [The Donald] picks to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg... Some Democrats privately fear that Feinstein could mishandle the situation and hurt their chances of winning back the majority."

Feinstein sometimes gets confused by reporters’ questions, or will offer different answers to the same question depending on where or when she’s asked. Her appearance is frail. And Feinstein's genteel demeanor, which seems like it belongs to a bygone Senate era, can lead to trouble with an increasingly hard-line Democratic base uninterested in collegiality or bipartisan platitudes.

...Feinstein relies heavily on her ever-present staff to deal with any issues, frequently turning to them for help in responding to inquiries. Feinstein had to be coaxed into wearing a mask around the Senate during the early days of the pandemic, despite being part of the most vulnerable age groups for the disease. She’s only made two floor speeches in the last nine months, her last being in early July, although she remains active in committee hearings.

And then there’s the lingering fallout over Feinstein’s role in the hugely controversial Judiciary Committee hearings for Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, an issue that factors deeply into the questions about her suitability for this latest nomination fight.

Feinstein waited for several weeks before disclosing allegations by Christine Blasey Ford that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers. The bombshell accusations nearly sank Kavanaugh’s nomination, and senators in both parties questioned why Feinstein didn’t move more quickly to disclose Blasey Ford’s statement.

A Democratic senator, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said a group of Feinstein’s colleagues want Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) or Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) to serve as the top Democrat on the Judiciary panel for the upcoming nomination hearings, which are expected to be extraordinarily contentious. This senator is worried that potential missteps by Feinstein could cost Democrats seats.

“She’s not sure what she’s doing,” the Democratic senator said of Feinstein. “If you take a look at Kavanaugh, we may be short two senators because of that. And if this gets [messed] up, it may be the same result.”

I couldn't find anyone to talk on the record and no one even felt discussing this with me at all. One Senate staffer said she's "lucid sometimes... [and] confused sometimes." He said it could "easily turn into a disaster with her" leading the attack... She's the wrong person for the job, mentally impaired or not." He also told me the chance of Schumer removing her " is exactly zero." Democrats play nice-- they don't play for keeps-- except, of course, when they're eviscerating progressives.

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!

Will Schumer And The Senate Democrats Go To The Wall To Stop An Illegitimate SCOTUS Appointment?

 

AOC: "We need to make sure that we mobilize on an unprecedented scale to ensure that this vacancy is reserved to the next president, and we must use every tool at our disposal."

Early yesterday, Alisyn Camerota hosted Jeffrey Toobin on CNN's New Day and I guarantee you, establishment Democrats did not like what they heard. She spoke with him about what the congressional Democrats can do if Trump and his enablers ramrod through an extreme-right Supreme Court justice. "Democrats are great about talking big," said Toobin, clearly referring to Chuck Schumer, "but we’ll see if he has the-- if he and the other Democrats have the guts to do anything. If they retake control of the Senate, will they really add the two seats on the Supreme Court? ... Because they’re weak and they’re wimps and they’re afraid. We think about Bush v. Gore and, which David [Boies] argued. In 2016, Al Gore said no street protests. This is just a legal process, while David saw in Tallahassee and Washington the Republican forces massing against them, literally on the streets. There is a difference to how Democrats and Republicans go about these fights, and we’ll see if Democrats learn anything from Republicans here. Yes, it’s interesting that Chuck Schumer said nothing is off the table, but that’s not a commitment to do anything."

The Democrats are not without weapons in this battle, just without leadership that  has the heart and the guts to wield them. Schumer should tell McConnell in no uncertain terms that if the Democrats win back the Senate in November, he will propose legislation to make Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia states, something the GOP dreads. It would probably pass but even if it doesn't, Marco Rubio, Rick Scott and Pat Toomey will put their reelections in jeopardy by voting against Puerto Rican statehood. Then there's the much discussed concept of going back to 9 judges (1837), although I have a tip for Schumer, In 1863, Congress passed a law establishing a Supreme Court with 10 justices. He should threaten 10 and then compromise on 9. It wasn't until 1869 that the 7-judge court was established.

Writing last week for the New Yorker Toobin himself reported on a less-discussed threat conservatives would find unpalatable. He wrote that Demand Justice, founded by Christopher Kang, who helped run judicial selection for Obama, and Brian Fallon, a former Schumer aide, "argue that the next President should not nominate any judicial candidates who come out of the world of corporate law. As Kang and Fallon, two insiders to the process, point out, even in Democratic administrations, there is a recurring pattern among nominees to the federal bench: 'A typical nominee might have an Ivy League degree and clerkships with one or more respected federal judges,' they write, in a new article in The Atlantic. 'But perhaps no qualification is more prevalent than prior work at a major private-sector firm, representing the interests of large corporations.' As they note, roughly sixty per cent of federal appellate judges come from corporate firms."

It would be hard to imagine Schumer backing anything like that-- not to mention Biden, but if it's part of an informal, off-the-record package of threats to throw at McConnell...

Toobin claims that "The moment is especially ripe for this proposal. The story of the Roberts Court is its embrace of corporate power. The court has consistently ruled against labor unions and for big-dollar campaign contributors, polluters, and other wealthy interests. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s appointees to the court, have embraced this agenda and appear likely to push the Court even more dramatically in this direction. Both showed a particular interest in limiting regulations during their time as circuit-court judges. Sheldon Whitehouse, a senator from Rhode Island, has been one of the few Democratic politicians to focus on this issue of corporate power in the courts; he’s even written a book about it. By 2021, it will be especially important to establish some sort of counterweight to this trend, because Trump will have made so many appointments, and because of the possibility of Supreme Court vacancies... Kang and Fallon write, 'There are plenty enough highly qualified individuals with other backgrounds-- civil-rights litigators, public defenders, and legal-aid lawyers-- that the next president can afford to make identifying new kinds of candidates a priority.'"

On Friday, the New Yorker published an essay by Jane Mayer, suggesting that McConnell cares more about keeping the GOP Senate majority than about putting another rightist on the Court. McConnell, she wrote, is as immune to shame as The Donald is. Norman Ornstein told her that "McConnell will do anything that serves his interests. We know that."

A former Trump White House official told her that "McConnell’s been telling our donors that when R.B.G. meets her reward, even if it’s October, we’re getting our judge. He’s saying it’s our October surprise."

But now that the moment is here, the calculation isn’t quite so simple. On Friday night, McConnell released a statement vowing that a Trump nominee “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.” While McConnell’s obstruction of Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, made him the bane of liberals, he has regarded it with pride as the single “most important decision I’ve made in my political career.” He and many others believe it handed Trump his victory by motivating the politically powerful evangelical bloc to vote for Trump, despite their doubts about him, because he promised to fill the Court vacancy with a social conservative. It’s entirely possible that the same scenario will play out again this November, with Trump and McConnell offering another enticing gift to evangelicals.

But McConnell is also what Ornstein calls “a ruthless pragmatist,” whose No. 1 goal has always been to remain Majority Leader of the Senate. He’s made the conservative makeover of the federal court system his pet project, but if he faces a choice between another right-wing Justice or keeping his control of the Senate, no one who knows him well thinks he’d hesitate for a moment to do whatever is necessary to stay in power. In fact, back in the summer of 2016, when it looked like Trump would lose to Hillary Clinton, far from being distressed at his party’s dim prospects, McConnell was savoring the probability of being the single most powerful Republican in the country, according to a confidant who spoke with him then.

The problem for McConnell now is that it may be impossible for him to both confirm a new Justice and hold on to his personal power as Majority Leader. A power grab for the Court that is too brutish may provoke so much outrage among Democrats and independents that it could undermine Republican Senate candidates in November. As he knows better than anyone, polls show that Republican hopes of holding the Senate are very much in doubt. If Joe Biden is elected, enabling a Democratic Vice-President to cast the deciding vote in the Senate, Democrats need only to pick up three seats to win a majority. And, at the moment, according to recent polls, Democratic challengers stand good chances against Republican incumbents in Maine, Arizona, and Colorado. Democrats also have shots at capturing seats in South Carolina and Iowa. [She's leaving out North Carolina, Montana, Alaska and Georgia.]

No one knows for sure how the politics of the Ginsburg seat will play out in close Senate races. But the issue likely puts some of the most endangered Republican candidates in very tough spots. In Maine, for instance, Susan Collins can’t afford to either alienate the Trump base by voting against a conservative Court pick or to alienate moderate Republican women, who don’t want a radically right-wing judiciary. Late on Saturday afternoon, Collins contradicted McConnell’s line, saying in a statement, “In fairness to the American people, who will either be re-electing the president or selecting a new one, the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the president who is elected on November 3rd.” Hours before the news of Ginsburg’s death on Friday, Lisa Murkowski, an independent-minded Republican senator from Alaska, said that she thought it was too late for a confirmation vote, telling a public-radio interviewer that “I would not vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee.”

Given those complications, Ornstein predicts, McConnell may “use some elements of delay.” McConnell conspicuously laid out no timetable when promising a Senate vote for Trump’s nominee. Ornstein speculates that he may hold off on a vote until after the election to provide cover for his members but, meanwhile, obtain private pledges of support from them. It would mean he’d have the votes to ram a confirmation through the Senate during the lame-duck period after the election, regardless of who has won the White House.

Senate watchers suggest that the first thing that McConnell probably did after learning of Ginsburg’s death was to call every member of his caucus, in order to make an assessment about whether it would help or hurt his members to force a Supreme Court confirmation vote. On Friday night, he also issued a thinly veiled warning to his caucus members to shut up, or, as he put it, “be cautious and keep your powder dry.” According to the Washington Post, which obtained a copy of the McConnell letter, he warned, “For those of you who are unsure how to answer, or for those inclined to oppose giving a nominee a vote... this is not the time to prematurely lock yourselves into a position you may later regret.”

Keeping the Republican senators in line was also among the top concerns McConnell had when Antonin Scalia unexpectedly died, in February, 2016. McConnell immediately coördinated with Leonard Leo, then the executive vice-president of the powerful conservative legal group the Federalist Society, to plot a path forward that would avoid what Leo reportedly called “a cacophony of voices.” To keep control, they came up with a plan. Although eleven months remained in the President’s second term, McConnell immediately announced he would block a vote for any Obama nominee because it was an election year, and so he argued, “the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.” The speciousness was breathtaking. Since the nation’s founding, the Senate had confirmed seventeen Supreme Court nominees in election years. Moreover, the “American people” had made a choice-- they had elected Obama. But, despite declaring themselves as conservatives who respect precedent, McConnell, in consultation with Leo, simply invented a new rule to cover their radical defiance of past precedents and accepted norms.

Facing the same kind of unconstrained power play by McConnell again, the Democrats have few procedural weapons at their disposal other than taking radical measures themselves. For more leverage, Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice, a liberal group, says that if McConnell forces a confirmation vote before the election, Democrats need to threaten to expand the size of the Supreme Court if they win control of the White House and Senate in November. He believes there may be support for this even from unlikely moderate Democrats, if McConnell tries to strong-arm a vote. Senator Tim Kaine, of Virginia, who is ordinarily a mainstream Democrat, has said he could support enlarging the court as a tactic, if the Republicans force a confirmation vote. The Democratic senator Ed Markey, of Massachusetts, and Congressman Jerry Nadler, of New York, have also embraced the idea. Fallon also suggested that if a Trump nominee has yet to be confirmed after the election, and if Biden wins the White House, he, as President-elect, should name his own nominee, creating a scenario in which there are two nominees backed by opposing parties simultaneously duelling for confirmation. The Democratic members of the Senate, he argues, should decline to attend any courtesy calls, or confirmation hearings meanwhile, for any lame-duck Trump nominee.

ACB by Chip Proser

David Cole, the national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, also called on Democrats to fight rather than fold. He told me, “I think we should demand that the Senate respects her dying wish,” referring to a statement from Ginsburg released after her death by her granddaughter Clara Spera, which said, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new President is installed.” He argued that although what the Senate did to Garland “was wrong, if they have a shred of consistency, they should hold off until after the Inauguration. And if not, progressives should take to the streets.”

Ornstein foresees the potential for a historic political rupture if Trump, who lost the popular vote in 2016, and McConnell successfully seize a Supreme Court seat for a second time. “If McConnell gets away with this again, this will be a Court like none we have ever seen in our lifetime. We will be back to the pre-New Deal era,” Ornstein said, referring to one of the most conservative courts in the last century. He predicted, “If McConnell does this, it’s not just an act of hypocrisy, it’s one of the most dangerous breaches we’ve seen in our lifetime. There will be consequences. I think there would almost be revolution in this country.”