I'm not talking specifically about the SCOTUS nomination. My comments on that topic are more observational than prescriptive. If Democrats want to oppose Gorsuch, that's fine by me, but I still think they should give reasons other than #FreeMerrick. And the few people that have argued that Democrats should oppose Gorsuch with Trump-style fake news are scary. Maybe they were joking.

Deliberately feeding misinformation to voters (and I'm talking about demonstrable lies, not spin or puffery) is a strategy I will never endorse, no matter how many times Trump does it and no matter how effective it is.

He's a standard right wing theocrat. That's more than enough reason to oppose him. This idea that the senate simply must confirm anyone with a minimally appropriate resume is nonsense. Gorsuch has written legal opinions and his legal opinions suck.

Should the US start a massive, government-sponsored doping program for Olympic athletes because Russia does it? That's far from obvious. (I'm obviously not trying to start a debate about the stupidity and ineffectiveness of drug testing in sports.)

Maybe your answer is that no measure is off limits given the stakes. I might agree if the world were going to end after the Trump presidency. But it's not, I hope. And if the Democrats adopt the tactics of the GOP just to combat Trump, I'm not convinced that the they will ever get the genie back in the bottle.

It's a better analogy than the school bully. I never want to be led into war by people who believe you must fight every battle.

They have a reason: they don't want him to be a SCOTUS justice. Needing reasons beyond that is decency for decency's sake. Just stop those kinds of thoughts. Those kind of decency-as-morality-tale fictions and unspoken rules may have governed during a different era but no longer.

Maybe we're talking past each other but I'll note yet again that not granting Gorsuch an up-or-down vote is not some grand misinformation campaign for voters. That we need some high-minded reason to dispose of some old gentleman's' agreements in the Senate chamber about the appropriate use of the filibuster *that the GOP already dispensed of* is madness.

We don't want Trump to have his nominee. Why the **** do we need some grand, ethical reason beyond that? To maintain fidelity to a standard that isn't followed? That's insanity. It's decency for decency's sake. WHY?

Why is Free Merrick not sufficient for you, an ardent advocate of norms? Should we not say that we cannot even begin to consider Gorsuch until the person nominated a year before him receives consideration and a vote. If Rs go through the trouble of considering Garland and end up voting against him then maybe norm folks like you could say that you are displeased with the actions of D when they do the same to Gorsuch. But as of today I believe norm folks should be up there shouting and screaming Free Merrick! themselves.

If I have erred in my judgment, please do put forth your arguments to the contrary, good sir.

I have the honor to be your Obedient Servant.

Flynn speaking on Iran. Yipes.

IRAN IS ON NOTICE. (whatever that means).

It really makes me wonder how Supreme court picks can be so politicized as in the USA. Division of powers normaly doesnt work quite that way.

It started when a certain party decided to block a legitimate, very moderate nominee for nine months for no other reason than they felt they could get away with it.

can't wait for war on iran and chicago to start this month.

Oh please. You're talking about senators, Jerry Brown crushes the **** out of whatever you schmucks have in NY.

It may not be that well known now, but 13.5 years after Watergate I doubt people in the Senate forgot that Bork was a political hack.

Anyone else get a Spin City Michael J. Fox vibe from Sean Spicer during these briefings?

I think we are talking past each other. I am arguing that Democrats should explain why they don't want Gorsuch, and point 1 should not be "Merrick Garland", and point 2 should not be "because Trump nominated him." Points 1-5 should relate to whether he, in fact, would be a good SCOTUS justice.

I don't mind if Democrats oppose him. I don't mind if they filibuster. But I want them to explain it and do it on policy grounds, not retributive grounds.

Would you ever be open to revolt? When do you decide that the jackboots are too strong for you?

Spicer just pretending like Garland never happened. Constantly referring to 'the 2 justices that got through under Obama' and how they expect the same treatment those 2 got.

The year was 1987.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert...urt_nomination

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/op...with-bork.html

That should be the D talking point for the next few weeks. Garland has patiently waited his turn for a year and we will consider Gorsuch after Garland has at least received an up or down vote on the Senate floor. If Rs believe that Garland is not qualified then we need to hear exactly why. So far they have not even extended him that courtesy.

Until then, all the evidence points to Rs making a blatant attempt to politicize the Court in order to rubber stamp Trump's unpopular and dangerous agenda.

Yeah. A tiny part of me wants to think we still have a chance that some of it is bluster and pandering to the base or calmer heads will prevail, but Trump just restricted travel for something like 90000 people in practice* and potentially many hundreds of thousands** and they won't obey court orders and their slappies just say "show me where non-citizens have a right to travel in and out of the US, legal resident or not." WAAF.


*https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f21a2d44d71b

**https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-somalia-yemen

Fox is funny

I'll turn the question back around to you.

If Republicans in 2024 are campaigning on literal Nazism including mass genocide and polls showed a 50-50 split, and also you were aware that they have successfully restricted the black vote over the last 8 years even more than they already have, would you support a magical way to restrict the vote for rural white men?

To put it mildly, you and differ about whether offering non-retributive reasons for opposing Gorsuch is capitulation to jackboots.

I certainly don't think that capitulation is required. Had I been Sally Yates, I would have done the same thing she did in response to the immigration EO. I would like to think that I would have walked off the job rather than enforce it had I worked for Customs, DHS, etc. If I were nominated for SG, I would like to think that I would have withdrawn the moment Bannon was put in the NSC.

Widespread civil disobedience in response to the Trump administration doesn't bother me in the slightest because it is motivated by principle, not just a desire to win.

This opinion piece asserts that Gorusch's view that executive power is limited might be a gift to the Dem's. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.465f738b459f

True, Brown is much better than Cuomo.

Also, pls defend Pelosi, Mr. San Franciscan.

I guess I would do most anything if I knew that it was the best way, and the only effective way, to prevent mass genocide.