JFK Assassin's Son to be Next Supreme Court Justice?

[lpetrich]

Remarks by President Trump on Judicial Appointments | The White House
Who wrote that speech for him?

His speech has a sizable list of candidates in it, including Senators Tom Cotton of AR and Ted Cruz of TX.

 

[Elixir]

....you are saying Trump's base would never forgive him for lying to them.

BWAHAHAHA ... *gasp* HAHAHAHAHaaaa

The Bubbas and Karens still sticking with Trump consider lying to be an artform, and one that demonstrates Trump's mastery and artfulness. That is what they admire about him.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The same Bubbas and Karens -- trust this -- will never wonder why a guy their hero once labeled Lyin' Ted (along with attacks on Lyin' Ted's wife and daddy) is now being considered for the tribunal of all tribunals.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Republican hypocrisy has always been a thing. We see values of Honor, Authority, etc when we look at value categories, but we always said they are lying about Honor and it turns out they are. Not every Republican...but A LOT. One of the things I have to wonder is how do role models like JFK assassin's son impact the conservative base into being hypocrites, too...

I mean, Ted Cruz was called Lyin' Ted by Trump...called very dishonest constantly. Trump attacked Cruz's marriage and his wife. His wife!



So JFK assassin's son responds with "Donald, real men don't attack women. Your wife is lovely, and Heidi is the love of my life." But now that Ted Cruz follows Twitler around like a dog and they all publicly get along, does that allow the base to just accept quickly changing stories and lies? It's not like this was the only thing...either, the most bizarre being the claim that Cruz's father helped to assassinate JFK in some vague way. National Enquirer and other rumor mills also spread this message because the wealthy owners are besties with Trump.

Now that Cruz follows Trump around like a pet dog looking for scraps to be thrown to him, Trump gives him the best praises. Cruz returns the praises. Here was Trump at a rally before he allegedly knew RBG had died:
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ0EUcfdTWk[/YOUTUBE]

I guess if 80% of the base worships Trump and 20% worships Cruz and then that 20% sees Cruz worshipping Trump, there's some kind of transitive property of worshipping that transfers the 20% to also worship Trump. It's not about logical consistency of analyzing lies so much as Authority and right-wing alpha mentality.

 

[marc]

....you are saying Trump's base would never forgive him for lying to them.

BWAHAHAHA ... *gasp* HAHAHAHAHaaaa

The Bubbas and Karens still sticking with Trump consider lying to be an artform, and one that demonstrates Trump's mastery and artfulness. That is what they admire about him.

Is it an ‘art form’ when it is completely blatant and obvious, but gets praise from his worshipers for every word? The kind of worshipers who would declare any random tweet of his as better than Shakespeare’s sonnets? Hell, sock-puppet accounts that aren’t that fawning.

 

[marc]

What if he did get it. Then, being in a lifetime position, he decides it is payback time for Trump’s insults and humiliation?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Allegedly.

It seems very improbable that he'd lie about this. Nothing to gain from it, and it would hurt with his base for no good reason.

I don't think he's lying, but I don't think it would hurt with his base.

To change his mind and appoint a man? Maybe you're right. Maybe depends on whom he picks, but that would seem like a blatant lie to them, and for no reason. At any rate, many of his supporters were disappointed that he pick Kavanaugh and not Barret (until the Senate fight, when they rallied behind Kavanaugh, but that's for different reasons).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Allegedly.

It seems very improbable that he'd lie about this. Nothing to gain from it, and it would hurt with his base for no good reason.

It is entirely plausible that this first nominee is just for show to counter a charge against being misogynistic by nominating a super fundamentalist pro-life radical, conspiracy-theory-loving Qaren. A faux nominee, a fauxminee if you will. This will keep many of the suburban white women from leaving his base that they fear will leave to Biden.

Democrats will plausibly reject the nominee, not just because she may be a crazy person, but also because of the precedent that was established not to do a nomination during election months. Then, Trump may say, "See? It's the Democrats that are sexist. I nominated a woman and they rejected her. But I do have someone in mind to be the next nominee."

I don't think that's plausible, because the Democrats will reject his real pick anyway. His plan is to get someone confirmed by Republicans. Now, if he sends a woman he does not want to actually get appointed, the only way that that
can happen is with enough Republicans saying 'no', and that would be a defeat for him. He does not want to be defeated. And I do not think so many suburban White women want a conspiracy-theory-loving person. If they are also radically pro-life, Barret would be a perfect choice.

 

[Jayjay]

It is entirely plausible that this first nominee is just for show to counter a charge against being misogynistic by nominating a super fundamentalist pro-life radical, conspiracy-theory-loving Qaren. A faux nominee, a fauxminee if you will. This will keep many of the suburban white women from leaving his base that they fear will leave to Biden.

Democrats will plausibly reject the nominee, not just because she may be a crazy person, but also because of the precedent that was established not to do a nomination during election months. Then, Trump may say, "See? It's the Democrats that are sexist. I nominated a woman and they rejected her. But I do have someone in mind to be the next nominee."

I don't think that's plausible, because the Democrats will reject his real pick anyway. His plan is to get someone confirmed by Republicans. Now, if he sends a woman he does not want to actually get appointed, the only way that that
can happen is with enough Republicans saying 'no', and that would be a defeat for him. He does not want to be defeated. And I do not think so many suburban White women want a conspiracy-theory-loving person. If they are also radically pro-life, Barret would be a perfect choice.

I completely agree with you that such machiavellian intrigue is beyond Trump's ability. But I also don't think that Trump saying he might appoint a woman is any kind of ironclad promise, or that it would hurt him if he were to renege on that promise. I think it boils down to whether Trump prioritizes optics over having someone in the court he can personally trust to vote in his favor if the election is contested.

 

[lpetrich]

 Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination - that's the best case for us.

On October 3, 2005, Harriet Miers was nominated for Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by President George W. Bush to replace retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Miers was, at the time, White House Counsel, and had previously served in several roles both during Bush's tenure as Governor of Texas and President.

The nomination almost immediately drew criticism, much of it from within the President's own party: David Frum castigated an "unforced error",[1] and Robert Bork denounced it a "disaster" and "a slap in the face to the conservatives who've been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years."[2] Hearings before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee had been scheduled to begin on November 7, and members of the Republican leadership had stated before the nomination that they aimed to have the nominee confirmed before Thanksgiving (November 24). Miers withdrew her nomination on October 27, 2005, and Bush nominated Samuel Alito four days later.

Her professional experience was very limited.

Miers had clerked for the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, but had never served as a judge. She had neither taught nor written to any substantial extent on law. In private practice, as a corporate litigator at the law firm Locke Lord, Miers had courtroom experience, but a scant and undistinguished track record of litigating in federal court (almost none litigating constitutional issues), and had never argued a case before the Supreme Court.

Speaking to Miers's lack of credentials, the White House quickly advanced the defense that 41 of the 110 Supreme Court Justices appointed to date had never served as a judge prior to their nomination. ... The White House's attempt to use this to placate opposition was at best ineffectual, and at worst, backfired: offering the comparison to Fortas or particularly Warren further inflamed opposition among conservatives, who do not look upon either as a great exemplar of the kind of Supreme Court justice desired.

Hardly anyone liked her.

Liberals and many conservatives also charged that her nomination was the result of political cronyism. ...

...
Conservatives complained that there was no written record to demonstrate that she was either a strict constructionist or originalist in her approach to constitutional interpretation.

Why Miers Withdrew as Supreme Court Nominee : NPR
George Bush II on her resignation:

I nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court because of her extraordinary legal experience, her character, and her conservative judicial philosophy. Throughout her career, she has gained the respect and admiration of her fellow attorneys. She has earned a reputation for fairness and total integrity. She has been a leader and a pioneer in the American legal profession. She has worked in important positions in state and local government and in the bar. And for the last five years, she has served with distinction and honor in critical positions in the Executive Branch.

Seems to me that GBII nominated HM because he liked her. Seems to me that Trump might do that also.

 

[lpetrich]

Ted Cruz on Twitter: "After Ginsburg -- 3 reasons why Senate must confirm her successor before Election Day. https://t.co/TUa4cmVjE3" / Twitter
noting
Sen. Ted Cruz: After Ginsburg -- 3 reasons why Senate must confirm her successor before Election Day | Fox News - "The Supreme Court has become the preeminent arbiter of our constitutional rights"

First, this nomination is why the American people elected Donald Trump as president and this confirmation is why the American people voted for a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate.

Second, twenty-nine times in our nation’s history we’ve seen a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year or before an inauguration and in every instance, the president proceeded with a nomination.

And finally, as we approach what is likely to be a contested election that hangs in the balance of the Supreme Court, our nation is at risk of a constitutional crisis without nine justices on the bench.

Notice that he went along with Mitch McConnell's obstruction of Merrick Garland. Also his praise of someone whom he has called a "pathological liar".

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "3 Reasons the GOP want to take RBG’s Supreme Court seat:

1. To gut your healthcare
2. Take away your birth control & control of your body
3. To further dismantle our civil rights" / Twitter

Rep. Val Demings on Twitter: "Republicans are now saying "we can't have a 4-4 court on election day." But that's exactly what they did when Merrick Garland was nominated. Any reporter who takes this bad-faith argument seriously should be rightly shamed." / Twitter

People for Bernie on Twitter: "@AOC 3 more:
4. To stop a Green New Deal
5. To stop an increase in the minimum wage
6. To stop labor law reform" / Twitter

Doug Aus on Twitter: "@People4Bernie @AOC One more:
7. To stop the Judiciary system from convicting Trump of his crimes and sentencing him to prison." / Twitter

Blair Leggett #BLM on Twitter: "@dougaus @People4Bernie @AOC
8. To decide a close 2020 presidential election." / Twitter

HSIC 🐿 *️ on Twitter: "@blair_leggett @dougaus @People4Bernie @AOC
9. To invalidate same-sex marriages." / Twitter

susan on Twitter: "@bmoresquirrel @blair_leggett @dougaus @People4Bernie @AOC
10. Legalize torturing immigrants" / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

Furious Democrats consider total war if McConnell jams through Supreme Court pick - Axios - "Adding Supreme Court justices ... eliminating the Senate's 60-vote threshold to end filibusters ... and statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico."

Axios on Twitter: "Furious Democrats are considering total war — profound changes to two branches of government, and even adding stars to the flag — if Republicans jam through a Supreme Court nominee, then lose control of the Senate. https://t.co/H7RV446zdW" / Twitter

Then
Mark Joseph Stern on Twitter: "Granting congressional representation to the roughly 700,000 American citizens who live in DC (including me) is not “total war.” It is a vindication of the most basic principles of democracy." / Twitter

Acyn Torabi on Twitter: "AOC: Our reproductive rights are on the line. Our labor rights are on the line. Our right to healthcare is on the line. Labor and union protections are on the line. Our climate is on the line... https://t.co/AILacPUkvl" / Twitter
With video of a press conference with her and Sen. Chuck Schumer

Then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "All our rights are on the line.

To protect them, everyday people must mobilize in unprecedented ways to keep the SCOTUS vacancy open & win back the White House + Senate.

Meanwhile, the House & Senate must consider using every procedural tool available to buy the country time." / Twitter

Kyle Griffin on Twitter: ".@AOC: "And to Mitch McConnell, we need to tell him he is playing with fire."" / Twitter

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is entirely plausible that this first nominee is just for show to counter a charge against being misogynistic by nominating a super fundamentalist pro-life radical, conspiracy-theory-loving Qaren. A faux nominee, a fauxminee if you will. This will keep many of the suburban white women from leaving his base that they fear will leave to Biden.

Democrats will plausibly reject the nominee, not just because she may be a crazy person, but also because of the precedent that was established not to do a nomination during election months. Then, Trump may say, "See? It's the Democrats that are sexist. I nominated a woman and they rejected her. But I do have someone in mind to be the next nominee."

I don't think that's plausible, because the Democrats will reject his real pick anyway. His plan is to get someone confirmed by Republicans. Now, if he sends a woman he does not want to actually get appointed, the only way that that
can happen is with enough Republicans saying 'no', and that would be a defeat for him. He does not want to be defeated. And I do not think so many suburban White women want a conspiracy-theory-loving person. If they are also radically pro-life, Barret would be a perfect choice.

I completely agree with you that such machiavellian intrigue is beyond Trump's ability. But I also don't think that Trump saying he might appoint a woman is any kind of ironclad promise, or that it would hurt him if he were to renege on that promise. I think it boils down to whether Trump prioritizes optics over having someone in the court he can personally trust to vote in his favor if the election is contested.

He did not say he might. He said he would.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...an-for-us-supreme-court-vacancy-within-a-week

But maybe you're right that it wouldn't hurt him with his base. At any rate, I think it's very probable that he'll pick either Barrett or Lagoa.

 

[lpetrich]

In AOC's official account:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "“We need to mobilize on an unprecedented scale to ensure that this vacancy is reserved for the next president…We must commit to using every procedural tool available to buy ourselves the time necessary.” - @RepAOC with @SenSchumer tonight discussing the Supreme Court vacancy. https://t.co/XtD6iRWm7o" / Twitter

AOC's speech:
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez on Instagram: “On Sunday evening, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Schumer addressed the urgency of protecting the Supreme Court vacancy from outside of the high school where Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduated in Brooklyn.”

Chuck Schumer's speech:
Chuck Schumer on Twitter: "“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” —RBG

I’m standing with @AOC at James Madison HS—RBG’s alma mater and mine

Dems are united in fighting to honor RBG’s last wish and all that’s at stake for health care and Americans' rights https://t.co/C3dqm0So8J" / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

Trump fires back after Dems indicate impeachment could be used to block court nominee: ‘If they do that, we win’ | Fox News
On Fox & Friends:

“I heard if I [nominate], they’re going to impeach me,” Trump said Monday during an exclusive interview with “Fox & Friends.”

“So they’re impeaching me for doing what constitutionally I have to do,” he said. “If they do that, we win all elections.”

The president added that he thinks that if House Democrats move ahead with impeachment of any kind, his “numbers will go up.”

“I think we’ll win the entire election,” he said. “I think we’re going to win back the House, I think we’re going to win the House anyway.”

Provoked by what Nancy Pelosi said in a recent interview by George Stephanopoulos in "The Week":

“We have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now, but the fact is we have a big challenge in our country,” Pelosi said. “This president has threatened to not even accept the results of the election.”

She added: “Our main goal would be to protect the integrity of the election as we protect the people from the coronavirus.”

Pelosi was pressed again on whether she would employ impeachment tactics, to which she said the Constitution requires that Congress “use every arrow in our quiver.”

“We have a responsibility,” Pelosi said. “We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people.”

She added: “When we weigh the equities of protecting our democracy, it requires us to use every arrow in our quiver.”

I think that Trump deserves a huge defeat. Something that he doesn't get bailed out of.

 

[lpetrich]

The price for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat can’t be democracy itself - Vox - "When did good governance become an “armageddon option”?"

(packing the court, abolishing the filibuster, and statehood for DC and Puerto Rico)

This is disturbing. Not that Democrats are considering these options, but that they’re being framed as “armageddon” and “total war.”

Statehood for Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico, for instance, isn’t a punishment Democrats could mete out against Republicans. Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico is the right thing to do because US citizens deserve political representation.

I’d make a similar argument for ending the filibuster; the Senate’s 60-vote threshold is a recent procedural anomaly that has made routine legislating functionally impossible ...

I’ll note, by the way, that Republicans ended the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in 2017, just four years after Democrats ended the filibuster on non-Supreme Court judicial nominees, and executive branch appointees, in 2013.

Author Ezra Klein expresses concern that

Democrats — in a desperate attempt to convince four Republicans to side with them in the Court nominee fight — trade away overdue reforms to enfranchise the disenfranchised; make the Senate a functional legislative body again; and solve the problems they’ve run for office promising to address. Or, even worse, they present those reforms as a political crisis, and then they both lose the Ginsburg fight and find that they’ve turned their own agenda toxic by presenting it as some kind of armageddon plan.

 

[lpetrich]

To Conservatives, Barrett Has ‘Perfect Combination’ of Attributes for Supreme Court - The New York Times - "Judge Amy Coney Barrett is regarded as the leading contender to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

 

[lpetrich]

Rush Limbaugh encourages Senate to skip hearings for Trump's SCOTUS nominee | TheHill

"I want the Judiciary Committee — that could be great if it were skipped," Limbaugh said Monday on his daily radio program. "We don't need to open that up for whatever length of time, so that whoever this nominee is can be Kavanaugh'd, or Borked, or Thomas'd. Because that's what it's going to be, especially when it's not even required."

Referring to what happened with Brett Kavanaugh, Robert Bork, and Clarence Thomas.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

WASHINGTON — A ceremonial resolution honoring the life of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg failed in the Senate on Tuesday after U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz JFK's assassin's son objected to language his Democratic counterparts added noting her dying wish that a successor not be chosen until after the presidential inauguration early next year.

The war of words on the Senate floor is likely a preamble to a coming brawl to replace Ginsburg. The liberal justice died Friday, leaving a vacancy that, if filled by a conservative, could have sweeping ramifications on several American policies and civil liberties.

"Unfortunately, the Democratic leader has put forth an amendment to turn that bipartisan resolution into a partisan resolution," Cruz JFK assassin's son said in his floor remarks, referring to U.S. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer.

"Specifically, the Democratic leader wants to add a statement that Justice Ginsburg's position should not be filled until a new president is installed, purportedly based on a comment Justice Ginsburg made to family members shortly before she passed.

...

Capitol Hill observers are bracing for the nastiest fight in at least a generation in the Senate over Ginsburg's successor. President Donald Trump is expected to announce his nominee late this week, and Cruz JFK assassin's son is urging his colleagues to confirm that person before the November election.

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/22/ted-cruz-supreme-court/

Never forget.