President Donald Trump

[Bernie Brewer]

Spicer, just now, on SCOTUS: "The President has the right to have his nominee taken up." Apparently, this is a recently discovered right.

He also explained that the whole Muslim ban thing was "blown out of proportion" and constituted just an "inconvenience" to those detained. He said that entering our country is a "privilege" and not a "right". While I agree with that statement as a general rule, I'm not sure that is how the green cards work. Driving a car is a privilege, but once you get a license it becomes a right, provided you follow the rules. Anyone know anything about the green cards these detainees held?

Katie Tur just casually used the word "truncated". I love her so much.

I infer from your comment that you believe the GOP was wrong to block the Obama nominee, Merrill Garland. Remember, I'm kinda catching up around here so why was that any different than Harry Reid and Patrick Leahy blocking federal judge appointments of GWB in his last term, with the exception being it was a Supreme Court nominee? Isn't this all just political as usual? And if Trumps nominee gets blocked by Senate Dems, is Ok for GOPers to call them obstructionists, and are they?

[revo]

Trump's latest EO -- for every new regulation signed, two need to be killed off.

Is this a new reality game show idea? Who chooses which regs get 86'd? Maybe put them all in a bingo ball and let's just see what comes out? How about an updated version of "Let's Make a Deal" where a contestant can take the regs to be nixed in hand, or trade them in for what's behind Door #2?

I mean, come on. Republican or Democrat, this is an insanely assinine idea.

[nots]

I infer from your comment that you believe the GOP was wrong to block the Obama nominee, Merrill Garland. Remember, I'm kinda catching up around here so why was that any different than Harry Reid and Patrick Leahy blocking federal judge appointments of GWB in his last term, with the exception being it was a Supreme Court nominee? Isn't this all just political as usual? And if Trumps nominee gets blocked by Senate Dems, is Ok for GOPers to call them obstructionists, and are they?

The other theatre will be whether or not the Dems fillibuster in contrast to their previoisly asking for a simple up or down vote and then whetheror not the Republicans take Harry Reid nuclear option all way and eliminate the fillibuster for SC nominees.
I predict we have outrage from the media on how conservative the pick is, outrage from the Republicans that the Dems fillibuster and outrage from the Dems that the GOP eliminates the fillibuster and confimrs him 52-48 along straight party lines. Something for everyone.

[Hornsby]

Reading the tea leaves from a distance, I think that the Democrats might indeed filibuster if the pick is too conservative for their tastes. Amy Klobuchar, Senator from Minnesota is a fairly moderate, work across the aisle type, and she made sure today to say that they needed 60 votes to secure the nomination. I don't think that Trump helped matters yesterday with his tears of Chuck Schumer cracks. Playground nonsense like that isn't going to help people go along with anything that he wants.

Also, McConnell is seen as a traditionalist who reveres the Senate rules, and has already pretty much ruled out the "Nuclear Option".

“Senate rules are a matter for the Senate and a lot of other people have opinions,” McConnell said [alluding to Trump].

“We’ve already adopted the rules for this Congress at the beginning of the year. Basically we didn’t adopt any because in the Senate rules are permanent, unlike the House which every two year adopts a new set of rules. We don’t.”

McConnell has argued throughout his Senate career that the chamber’s rules can only be modified with a two-thirds vote, a striking contrast from his predecessor, former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who triggered the nuclear-option in 2013 to shield executive branch and most judicial nominees from filibusters.

“It takes 67 votes to change the rules in the Senate. We saw one rather conspicuous exception to that a few years ago but no we don’t have any current plans on the rules,” he said.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/27/mitch-mcconnell-basically-rules-out-nuking-the-filibuster-for-supreme-court-nominees-or-does-he/

There are some other arcane Senate rules that might be able to be invoked, but this could be a big stand for the Democrats.

[DMT]

Reading the tea leaves from a distance, I think that the Democrats might indeed filibuster if the pick is too conservative for their tastes. Amy Klobuchar, Senator from Minnesota is a fairly moderate, work across the aisle type, and she made sure today to say that they needed 60 votes to secure the nomination. I don't think that Trump helped matters yesterday with his tears of Chuck Schumer cracks. Playground nonsense like that isn't going to help people go along with anything that he wants.

Also, McConnell is seen as a traditionalist who reveres the Senate rules, and has already pretty much ruled out the "Nuclear Option".

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/27/mitch-mcconnell-basically-rules-out-nuking-the-filibuster-for-supreme-court-nominees-or-does-he/

There are some other arcane Senate rules that might be able to be invoked, but this could be a big stand for the Democrats.

Counting on Mitch McConnell to stick to his word, really? I fully expect them to kill the filibuster.

[chancellor]

LOL. You're dreaming. The only question is whether McConnell folds immediately or only after being humiliated.

[nots]

Reading the tea leaves from a distance, I think that the Democrats might indeed filibuster if the pick is too conservative for their tastes. Amy Klobuchar, Senator from Minnesota is a fairly moderate, work across the aisle type, and she made sure today to say that they needed 60 votes to secure the nomination. I don't think that Trump helped matters yesterday with his tears of Chuck Schumer cracks. Playground nonsense like that isn't going to help people go along with anything that he wants.

Also, McConnell is seen as a traditionalist who reveres the Senate rules, and has already pretty much ruled out the "Nuclear Option".

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/27/mitch-mcconnell-basically-rules-out-nuking-the-filibuster-for-supreme-court-nominees-or-does-he/

There are some other arcane Senate rules that might be able to be invoked, but this could be a big stand for the Democrats.

What would you think the end game is for Democrats (assuming your hypothesis)

[Hornsby]

What would you think the end game is for Democrats (assuming your hypothesis)

Honestly, I think that Trump is showing them that they really shouldn't be tying their wagons to him, it's going to end up being a losing proposition for all congressional Republicans at this rate. At the GOP retreat in Philly last week, someone taped a lot of the conversations being had, and they really sound like they're scared about 2018, maybe 2020.

Obviously Trump as a year or two to pull it together, but politicians are a skittery sort, and they may bail to save their own skins.

[Redbirds Fan]

I infer from your comment that you believe the GOP was wrong to block the Obama nominee, Merrill Garland. Remember, I'm kinda catching up around here so why was that any different than Harry Reid and Patrick Leahy blocking federal judge appointments of GWB in his last term, with the exception being it was a Supreme Court nominee? Isn't this all just political as usual? And if Trumps nominee gets blocked by Senate Dems, is Ok for GOPers to call them obstructionists, and are they?

Different in several substantive ways. Setting aside the fact that President Bush nominated the most ideological group of judges ever, the nominees did, for the most part, make it through committee and to a Senate hearing. It is true that the Democrats filibustered many of these nominees, which led to the to a compromise whereby certain judges were accepted and others weren't. If I remember correctly, that included Pryor, who probably wouldn't have made it otherwise. The Republican threat which led to the compromise was the nuclear option. Some nominees didn't make it to a hearing, though.

The problem with the Republicans and Obama, though, is that McConnell said the Senate wouldn't give the nominee a hearing 11 months before Obama's term ended, and before Garland was nominated. They don't even have the excuse that he is too little, since he is universally accepted to be a very moderate jurist. So, it was not a repudiation of a nominee, but an unprecedented decision to delay for almost a year the filling of a vacancy on our Supreme Court until a Republican (they hoped) would be elected President.

Leaving other federal judgeships unfilled is inconvenient, but fellow judges can cover and fill in. Leaving a Supreme Court position unfilled, on the other hand, has constitutional ramifications. So, in reality, saying "with the exception being it was a Supreme Court nominee" probably says all that needs to be said.

[nots]

Honestly, I think that Trump is showing them that they really shouldn't be tying their wagons to him, it's going to end up being a losing proposition for all congressional Republicans at this rate. At the GOP retreat in Philly last week, someone taped a lot of the conversations being had, and they really sound like they're scared about 2018, maybe 2020.

Obviously Trump as a year or two to pull it together, but politicians are a skittery sort, and they may bail to save their own skins.

Sorry for not being clearer...I meant their endgame if they decide to filibuster.

[Hornsby]

Sorry for not being clearer...I meant their endgame if they decide to filibuster.

I think that they just need to show their base that they're not going to be run over by the GOP. Simply put, they need to show some backbone, IMO. They watched the GOP play them for 6 years, now I hope they don't go that obstructionist, but they DO have to put up a defense against things they really oppose.

[Sour Masher]

I think that they just need to show their base that they're not going to be run over by the GOP. Simply put, they need to show some backbone, IMO. They watched the GOP play them for 6 years, now I hope they don't go that obstructionist, but they DO have to put up a defense against things they really oppose.

I agree. Fight the fights that need fighting, which Repubs have generally done better than Dems lately. But don't go full blown, black is white, up is down, I won't vote on anything obstructionists like McConnell and his ilk. Never forget the end game is not winning or power, but doing what you think is best for the country and its people. Full blown obstructionism only works for those, like Bannon, who think the government should be brought to its knees.

For instance, if and when Trump moves from bigotry EOs to his promises to improve our failing infrastructure, just make sure it isn't all fat contracts for his friends, and then compromise to get the best version of it done. But the fight for who will be on the SC for the next 20+ years is a fight worth having. The Dems don't have much say, but they can try to force the least bad option to the top of the heap.

[Bernie Brewer]

Having been a Psychology Major a long time ago, every time I watch or listen to the new President, I am convinced that he is a textbook narcissist. Here is the clinical summary for Narassistic Personality Disorder from Mayoclinic.com.

Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism. A narcissistic personality disorder causes problems in many areas of life, such as relationships, work, school or financial affairs. You may be generally unhappy and disappointed when you're not given the special favors or admiration you believe you deserve. Others may not enjoy being around you, and you may find your relationships unfulfilling.

[Bernie Brewer]

The problem with the Republicans and Obama, though, is that McConnell said the Senate wouldn't give the nominee a hearing 11 months before Obama's term ended, and before Garland was nominated. They don't even have the excuse that he is too little, since he is universally accepted to be a very moderate jurist. So, it was not a repudiation of a nominee, but an unprecedented decision to delay for almost a year the filling of a vacancy on our Supreme Court until a Republican (they hoped) would be elected President.

How is this different than in June of 1992 when then Senator Biden, who was serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, threatened to do pretty much the same thing, though only 5 months before the election. Of course, there was no nominee at the time, it was just talk. But, wasn't this essentially what the GOP did when there was a nominee under Pres. Obama.

IIRC, Shumer (not a fan of either him or his niece/cousin, or whatever their relationship is) said nearly the same thing in 2007 when he said he would block any additional Bush nominees because he thought the Court was too conservative. That was almost 18 months before the election of Obama.

To me the only difference was the Dems threatened, while the GOP actually carried out the threat. And both of these Dem leaders openly criticized the GOP for doing just what they threatened.


In any case, today wlll be interesting. The whole Muslim Ban flap will become old news once Trump announces his SOTUS pick. Whether the ban should become old news or not is a completely different story.

[Redbirds Fan]

How is this different than in June of 1992 when then Senator Biden, who was serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, threatened to do pretty much the same thing, though only 5 months before the election. Of course, there was no nominee at the time, it was just talk. But, wasn't this essentially what the GOP did when there was a nominee under Pres. Obama.

IIRC, Shumer (not a fan of either him or his niece/cousin, or whatever their relationship is) said nearly the same thing in 2007 when he said he would block any additional Bush nominees because he thought the Court was too conservative. That was almost 18 months before the election of Obama.

To me the only difference was the Dems threatened, while the GOP actually carried out the threat. And both of these Dem leaders openly criticized the GOP for doing just what they threatened.


In any case, today wlll be interesting. The whole Muslim Ban flap will become old news once Trump announces his SOTUS pick. Whether the ban should become old news or not is a completely different story.

This is one of those questions that answers itself. See the bolded portions. Could there have been any more important difference than talking about it or actually doing it?

I'm not even going to parse completely Senator Biden's remarks. (Suffice it so say there is no "Biden Rule" as McConnell would have you believe.) Biden gave a lengthy address that day. For reasons he explained, Biden urged President Bush to consider not sending up a nominee until after the heated election was over. Within ten minutes, however, Biden promised that a moderate Supreme Court nominee would be considered. He never said, despite what McConnell now claims, that a nominee should never be considered in an election year. Of course, conservatives have taken a very small portion of the tape of Biden's remarks, lacking the context of the remainder, and have used it to further their agenda.


So, not to put too fine a point on it, but its the difference between considering shooting someone and actually shooting someone. And then justifying the shooting by saying that the other guy thought about doing it.