Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Photographer

(1,142 posts)
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:08 PM Mar 2016

Mitch McConnell Wakes Up To Nasty Surprise: 16 GOP Senators Defect And Will Meet With Obama’s SCOTUS

Mitch McConnell Wakes Up To Nasty Surprise: 16 GOP Senators Defect And Will Meet With Obama’s SCOTUS Nominee

NBC News is reporting that some Republican senators are starting to change their “tone” about Obama’s Supreme Count nominee, Merrick Garland. In spite of the “wall of opposition” brought about by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell against any nominee President Obama puts forward, a quarter of Republican senators 16 in total – have stated that they will “meet” with Garland about his nomination.


Progress? Perhaps, but only slightly. The fact remains that a majority of Republican senators will not even meet with Garland to discuss his potential nomination. This doesn’t even include putting it to a vote. This is literally just sitting down and talking with the man about potentially filling the vacant seat left by Justice Antonin Scalia following his death. Most remain completely hell-bent on blocking anybody Obama sends forward, no matter who it is.

This opposition is in spite of the fact that, according to recent polling, 61 percent of Americans believe that Republican Senators should do their job and put Garland’s nomination to a vote. The Senators remain firmly opposed to the American people who elected them. Only 31 percent agree that the next president should appoint the new justice.



Mark Kirk, the first Republican senator who has officially met with Garland, is currently up for re-election in Illinois, a blue state. After his meeting earlier today, he told ABC News the following:

‘Obviously, I would consider voting for him. I think we should do our job’

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/03/30/mitch-mcconnell-wakes-up-to-nasty-surprise-16-gop-senators-defect-and-will-meet-with-obamas-scotus-nominee/

82 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mitch McConnell Wakes Up To Nasty Surprise: 16 GOP Senators Defect And Will Meet With Obama’s SCOTUS (Original Post) Photographer Mar 2016 OP
Yertle the Turtle is having issues with this nomination Gothmog Mar 2016 #1
I don't want this guy. He's a right wing nut and Obama should NEVER roguevalley Mar 2016 #14
Really? iandhr Mar 2016 #17
There are other issues. MisterFred Apr 2016 #65
He is also pretty pro labor. iandhr Apr 2016 #66
You need to read more closely. MisterFred Apr 2016 #72
Compared to the justice he would be replacing the guy is a flaming liberal which is part of the cstanleytech Apr 2016 #80
I think you have been misinformed about Judge Garland. Hekate Mar 2016 #25
Judges that are former prosecutors are seldom anywhere near Liberal. Ikonoklast Mar 2016 #34
I don't know if he would be a desireable presence on the Supreme Court, but... RiverNoord Mar 2016 #36
He's a man in his sixties--at the point in life where you start to take stock. MADem Apr 2016 #60
He is not a "right wing nut", Justice Hyperbole ProudToBeBlueInRhody Apr 2016 #74
Some are realizing they must win an election come November liberal N proud Mar 2016 #2
Yay, Obama's right-winger nominee is getting considered by the republicans. arcane1 Mar 2016 #3
And the RWingers might keep the Senate. Iggo Mar 2016 #5
And we are supposed to be happy because we won. zeemike Mar 2016 #16
It's just like throwing the rabbit in the freakin' briar patch. arcane1 Mar 2016 #18
According to people who actually know something... iandhr Mar 2016 #20
That explains why republicans initially recommended him. arcane1 Mar 2016 #22
I never claimed he was. iandhr Mar 2016 #23
I wish I shared your optimism, and I hope you are correct n/t arcane1 Mar 2016 #24
I do as well. iandhr Mar 2016 #28
To be fair, damn near everybody is more liberal truebluegreen Apr 2016 #47
To be fair, Satan would swing the court to the left from Scalia elljay Mar 2016 #30
I echo your comments, esp. "be happy that Scalia is gone and that anyone nominated japple Mar 2016 #37
He's replacing Scalia treestar Apr 2016 #45
As long as dude has a pulse... fullautohotdog Apr 2016 #46
Seriously? Cosmocat Apr 2016 #50
They are screaming that Garland is a left-wing nut. They think Obama is a socialist too. Gore1FL Apr 2016 #67
He nominated the oerfect candidate Cosmocat Apr 2016 #68
Bush replaced Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas Gore1FL Apr 2016 #69
What part of there is not going to be a vote dont you get? Cosmocat Apr 2016 #70
The President should appoint the best person. Gore1FL Apr 2016 #71
And, once again ... Cosmocat Apr 2016 #73
this is good news Mary Mac Mar 2016 #4
A few more 4/4 votes by the Supremes leftyladyfrommo Mar 2016 #6
+ 1 AxionExcel Mar 2016 #7
Great cartoon! Koinos Apr 2016 #77
Love it! BlueMTexpat Mar 2016 #8
And to think, when he went to bed last night, he was fully gruntled. lagomorph777 Mar 2016 #11
Eee-yuuw! BlueMTexpat Mar 2016 #15
Dumbest move by McConnell ever. reflection Mar 2016 #9
But now it'll be a bit harder to use the obstruction mantra against them. Chicago1980 Mar 2016 #10
Wrong Democat Apr 2016 #75
I hope so. Chicago1980 Apr 2016 #79
Trying to save their seats? HuckleB Mar 2016 #12
That's it, in a nutshell, and... Umbral18 Mar 2016 #19
This is just political grandstanding by these right wingers................................ turbinetree Mar 2016 #13
Good rant! ffr Mar 2016 #29
Thanks......................you also gave a good rant also........another rant............... turbinetree Apr 2016 #49
LOL! Mutiny against Mitch!.... Dont call me Shirley Mar 2016 #21
Damn it! TIME TO PANIC Mar 2016 #26
Fcuk you Mitch McConnell!!! ffr Mar 2016 #27
And some folks here thought I was FOS for saying that... blackspade Mar 2016 #31
A wink and a nod ... GeorgeGist Mar 2016 #32
It never ceases to amaze gerryatwork Mar 2016 #33
Senator Kirk from Illinois is only doing it bc of Tammy Duckworth (D) Sienna86 Mar 2016 #35
I'd say common sense, rather than blind Obama hatred (like McConnell), maddiemom Apr 2016 #62
dammit, now Obama's conservative "I dare ya" nominee will actually get on the bench paulkienitz Mar 2016 #38
I have a feeling that those 16 senators are moderate Republicans d_legendary1 Apr 2016 #44
What is wrong with you people? Cosmocat Apr 2016 #51
If these sixteen think that this is going to "C" their "A"s ... Jopin Klobe Mar 2016 #39
Ha ha!!! Initech Mar 2016 #40
Payback's a Mitch Blue Owl Mar 2016 #41
Does this matter if Grassley refused to schedule a hearing for him? NewJeffCT Apr 2016 #42
Don't you just hate people houston16revival Apr 2016 #43
Bork--1992 rememberances kiri Apr 2016 #48
Ruh Roh George! Rex Apr 2016 #52
Too bad. Wish he'd have nominated a real progressive and put the heat on the Rs. Scuba Apr 2016 #53
I'm beginning to think I would rather have President Sanders choose B Calm Apr 2016 #54
The entire court needs to be liberal. Rex Apr 2016 #57
Well this is bad news. MisterFred Apr 2016 #55
Four years ago, I thought some Republicans might end up defecting to the Democrats. randome Apr 2016 #56
61% vs 36%. crim son Apr 2016 #58
It's beginning to look a lot like GARLAND......evvvvv-ry where you goooooo!!! nt MADem Apr 2016 #59
It's pretty clear that the do nothing obstructionism of Republicans...... Sheepshank Apr 2016 #61
Kick Liberal_in_LA Apr 2016 #63
Mitch McConnell Wakes Up To Nasty Surprise ... Jopin Klobe Apr 2016 #64
Defection, or kabuki? As always with DC, it's so hard to know merrily Apr 2016 #76
Kentucky Hillbilly racist cracker Submariner Apr 2016 #78
Don't be encouraged houston16revival Apr 2016 #81
So, roughly 31% of Americans ... are fucking morons ... amazing how CONSISTENT that number is ... brett_jv Apr 2016 #82

MisterFred

(525 posts)
72. You need to read more closely.
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 08:59 PM
Apr 2016

"Squarely in the mainstream"

The article was saying he's pretty normal, as opposed to a total disaster. He has NOT distinguished himself as notably in favor of it, just NOT notably against environmental regulation.

That is not "pretty pro-environment".

cstanleytech

(26,281 posts)
80. Compared to the justice he would be replacing the guy is a flaming liberal which is part of the
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 02:28 AM
Apr 2016

reason why they are stonewalling this because they really want to get as many mini me versions of Scalia as possible on the Supreme Court so as to solidify their hold on the court for the next 20 to 40 years.

Hekate

(90,645 posts)
25. I think you have been misinformed about Judge Garland.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:51 PM
Mar 2016

Read up on him. Once again, Barack Obama is playing the GOP for the fools they are.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/31/supreme-court-merrick-garland-trump-lewandowski-arrest-gun/82475010/
Merrick Garland heard Trump campaign manager's appeal over gun in 2003
USA TODAY? -
Merrick Garland ruled that Corey Lewandowski was not entitled to his gun back after arrest.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/30/new-data-show-how-liberal-merrick-garland-really-is/
New data show how liberal Merrick Garland really is
In many ways, Merrick Garland was a safe choice for President Obama to nominate to the Supreme Court. This is in part because Garland’s credentials — degrees from Harvard University, work as a federal prosecutor and service as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia — are impeccable. But it is also because he has a reputation as being ideologically moderate.

Is Garland’s reputation as a moderate judge accurate? Some have argued that Garland has deferred to administrative agencies when it benefits unions but not when it benefits corporations, suggesting that Garland may be quite liberal.

Our research that measures the ideology of judges based on the ideology of the clerks they hire, though, suggests that Garland is not very liberal, but actually more moderate — technically, center-left. >snip<

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
34. Judges that are former prosecutors are seldom anywhere near Liberal.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 05:20 PM
Mar 2016

They mostly side with the state, and have little problem backing Authority against the individual.

Do Not Want this guy.

 

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)
36. I don't know if he would be a desireable presence on the Supreme Court, but...
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 05:54 PM
Mar 2016

My experience as a lawyer doesn't jibe with your assertion about former prosecutor judges. I found most former prosecutors to be more even-handed toward defendants in criminal cases than former family and, especially, corporate/business lawyers.

I don't like the all-too-common 'District Attorney to Senator or Member of Congress' path, as it does seem to tend toward authoritarianism, but, in the case of judges, at least in my experience, it's typically the other way around.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
60. He's a man in his sixties--at the point in life where you start to take stock.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 02:11 PM
Apr 2016

He's at the "What will be my legacy?" phase of his life.

I think he'll be just fine. Anyone who can take a gun from that TrumpNut is OK with me.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
3. Yay, Obama's right-winger nominee is getting considered by the republicans.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:32 PM
Mar 2016

Not exactly what I'd call a progressive victory

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
16. And we are supposed to be happy because we won.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:22 PM
Mar 2016

They really know how to use triangulation on our heads don't they.

I remember reading here on DU that it was all 3D chess...if it was we just got checkmated again.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
18. It's just like throwing the rabbit in the freakin' briar patch.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:27 PM
Mar 2016

"We have to give in to the republicans, or else they will demand we give in MORE!"

iandhr

(6,852 posts)
20. According to people who actually know something...
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:36 PM
Mar 2016

... Garland is similar to Stephen Breyer.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/30/new-data-show-how-liberal-merrick-garland-really-is


This would be a huge victory.


The President has appointed two Progressives in Sotomayor and Kagan and wants to replace one of the most conservative justices in history with a left of center judge.

Instead of four progressives, one moderately conservative justice (Kennedy), and four conservatives, you will have four progressives, one left of center justice on moderately conservative justice and three conservatives.

Take the environment for example

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18032016/supreme-court-nominee-merrick-garland-environment-clean-power-plan-scalia

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
22. That explains why republicans initially recommended him.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:37 PM
Mar 2016

"Garland is not very liberal" according to your article.

iandhr

(6,852 posts)
23. I never claimed he was.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:43 PM
Mar 2016

He is a left of center justice. Which will swing the court to the left


And for good measure he has deferred to the NLRB benefiting unions.


The WSJ is freaking out about that.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-garlands-inconsistent-deferencejudge-garlands-inconsistent-deference-1458507858



iandhr

(6,852 posts)
28. I do as well.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 05:11 PM
Mar 2016

It's optimism combined with pragmatism.

The pragmatism is that the President had one many battles with the Republicans by just sitting back and watching while they make themselves look bad.


If they cave the President get a political win.


If they still refuse to do their jobs it's a campaign issue. We will have a better shot to take back the Senate and either Hillary or Bernie can nominate a more progressive justice.

If either Hillary or Bernie wins and they decided to reappoint Garland then there will be more oppratunities to get a progressive on the court since RBG will probably want to retire.

 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
47. To be fair, damn near everybody is more liberal
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:14 PM
Apr 2016

than Antonin fokking Scalia.

But I'm not wild about him either.

elljay

(1,178 posts)
30. To be fair, Satan would swing the court to the left from Scalia
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 05:15 PM
Mar 2016

From what I have read, Garland is meticulous about the law. This means that sometimes he will make a decision based entirely on procedural grounds that he may oppose ideologically. This is very different from the activist conservatives on the court, who have shown themselves to be more than willing to stretch the law to support their personal beliefs. While I, personally, would have loved a true progressive on the court, Obama is not a progressive president, so I am not at all surprised by his choice. Garland will likely be fairly socially liberal, maybe a bit less so on business matters and criminal law. Still, let's at least all be happy that Scalia is gone and that anyone nominated by a Democratic president will be an enormous improvement.

japple

(9,821 posts)
37. I echo your comments, esp. "be happy that Scalia is gone and that anyone nominated
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 05:54 PM
Mar 2016

by a Democratic president will be an enormous improvement."

fullautohotdog

(90 posts)
46. As long as dude has a pulse...
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:32 AM
Apr 2016

he doesn't think capital punishment and abortion cases are "easy" to decide, and doesn't think blacks are too stupid to go to college, he's a win.

Cosmocat

(14,563 posts)
50. Seriously?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:25 PM
Apr 2016

BHO has put forward two solid progressives when he actually had the opportunity for an up or down vote/to get them passed.

I hate this $Hit, it is bad enough dealing with right wingers and their stupidity with him.

There is a reason he picked someone Merricks age, he is a toss away, both he and Merrick know it.

But,sure, the progressive movement would be much better served if right now a clearly progressive "nominee" was not even so much as getting a talk from a single R senator and these jackasses were running around screaming about BHO trying to jam a progressive down their throats ...





Gore1FL

(21,127 posts)
67. They are screaming that Garland is a left-wing nut. They think Obama is a socialist too.
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 07:42 AM
Apr 2016

Facts don't stop them. They have an uneducated base that is easy to rile up with buzzwords.

If it's going to happen anyway then let's nominate better candidates.

Cosmocat

(14,563 posts)
68. He nominated the oerfect candidate
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 08:01 AM
Apr 2016

Because it isnt their idiots that he is appealing to.

It is the "middle."

Polling overwhelmingly has the country in favor of having a vote, and that this issue is effecting how people are going to vote senate races in the fall because of them not holding a vote.

Part of it is because he made a right leaning nomination, the MIDDLE sees that.

Had he picked a clearly progressive nominee there would be some substance to their opposition in the minds of moderates, and less supoort for a vote and less impact on the election in the fall.

He knows and anyone w any common sense knows these jackasses would not hold a vote for the reanimated corpse of ron reagan.

So, his choice was to pick a clear progressive that had no chance to be voted on that did nothing for nothing other than allow the right to have some justification to their trying to jam a progressive down their throats bullshit.

Or.

Pick a right leaning cnadidate that had no chance for a vote who tipped public opinion greatly against the rs in this matter and gave the dems a better chance of getting the senate back.

Its pretty pretty obvious what is better ...

Gore1FL

(21,127 posts)
69. Bush replaced Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 08:11 AM
Apr 2016

SCOTUS isn't about appealing to voters. It also is not about who had the seat last.

I submit that much of the "middle" support you describe is coming from people who passed civics in high school and understand the process. I seriously doubt many have really researched Garland.

Cosmocat

(14,563 posts)
70. What part of there is not going to be a vote dont you get?
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 01:06 PM
Apr 2016

So, the bush thomas thing has no relevance ...

People are tuned in more now because the SC is important and it is a POTUS election, the middle havent "reaearched" garland, but he is an older white male, and there is enoigh out there for people to know he isnt a liberal.

My point stands ...

when he had a chance to actually get his nominee through he picked solid progressives.

He know there was no pick he could possibly make that they woild vote on, so he made the best of it used that against them for the benefit of trying to get the senate back.

But, sure ball around about him not picking a progressive who wwould have just died on the vine, THAT would be so much better than maybe helping to get the senate back.

Cosmocat

(14,563 posts)
73. And, once again ...
Sun Apr 3, 2016, 08:58 AM
Apr 2016

the perfect pick ...

Merrick may not share our general orientation on things, but he is a rock solid, well qualified, highly experienced SC nominee with no ethical or moral issues that would jeopardize his candidacy.

So, POTUS Obama did his duty ...

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
11. And to think, when he went to bed last night, he was fully gruntled.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:01 PM
Mar 2016

A few meetings won't save their jobs though. They picked a bad year to abuse the American public again.

reflection

(6,286 posts)
9. Dumbest move by McConnell ever.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:58 PM
Mar 2016

All he had to do was pretend to play the game, and find ways to vote "nay" on whoever the President put forward. But he's so concerned with where his next lettuce leaf to chew on is going to come from, that he managed to screw up basic political gamesmanship. His moronic and reflexive antipathy toward everything Obama does would be hilarious if it weren't so sad and infuriating.

Chicago1980

(1,968 posts)
10. But now it'll be a bit harder to use the obstruction mantra against them.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:59 PM
Mar 2016

At least these 16.

They can say they had a conversation and blame no movement on leadership, thus giving them a 'pass'.

Democat

(11,617 posts)
75. Wrong
Sun Apr 3, 2016, 01:24 PM
Apr 2016

As long as Republicans refuse to vote, all of them are guilty.

The Republican brand will continue to be tarnished.

Umbral18

(105 posts)
19. That's it, in a nutshell, and...
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:28 PM
Mar 2016

if it ever comes to a vote he will be rejected and it will be timed to deny Obama a second choice.

turbinetree

(24,695 posts)
13. This is just political grandstanding by these right wingers................................
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:07 PM
Mar 2016

when this happened, the had the opportunity to say wrong----------------------we are going to meet with this guy and then demand a vote---------------------they didn't do that---------------------------they still aren't doing there jobs-------------------they are not demanding a vote and upholding the Constitution, that they harp on that they want to abide by----------------------really---------------give me a break.

If, I were to go into a job lets say in the Airlines as a mechanic and decide today to do just a half a*s job, and something were to happen because I knowingly did a half a*s job and the FAA and the company were to find out do you think, that they would just tell me that's alright--------------------nothing going to happened , but don't do it again------------------ -------------------not happening, I more than likely would get fired and lose my paycheck.

And this clown McConnelL is making over $223,000 a year as the worthless majority leader, he is just a right wing jerk, who helped set up some right wing "Dark Money" interests---------------to hurt this country and this government

And the other clowns are making $174,000 being hypocrites and having it both ways when it comes to double standards, then to top it all off they have there "Dark Money " interests basically saying wait or else--------------------do your job------------- earn your damn paycheck-------------and if you can't do your job--------------------resign---------------so that someone will do the job ---------------------------end of story



Honk--------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016



ffr

(22,669 posts)
29. Good rant!
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 05:13 PM
Mar 2016

And what we need are more democrats showing up to vote these hypocrites and Dark Money water carriers out of office. We could do that in any election. It's simple and yet it rarely happens for some unknown reason.

Democrats need to make a pledge to vote in every election as if their futures depended on it...because all of our futures depend upon it.

turbinetree

(24,695 posts)
49. Thanks......................you also gave a good rant also........another rant...............
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:22 PM
Apr 2016

if the democrats had this "pledge" there wouldn't be this "stuff" going on right now, I agree,

If democrats --------------we cannot think in terms of pie in the sky politics anymore.

We have to really focus on the next census (2020)------------------we need to get some states back into our collective column

The right wingers and there backers aren't, they are going for the juggler----------------and they have been doing it for over thirty five plus years, because of this former right wing court majority---------------it always goes back to the courts--------------every time....................economic, voting, racism, pollution, you name it it ends up in a court----------and presently there are more right wing judges on these courts

This "Dark Money" that these billionaires and multi-millionaires are writing off as deductions is just amazing, they can actually get tax deductions to start some 501c(3) or (4) foundation and get away with attacking everything and everyone, except themselves, there power and wealth, while we the taxpayers bankroll this stuff, because they can get away with it, because they are classified by law as a "social welfare foundations", more semantics, more Citizens United-------------more semantics.

When they start for example, Koch's American for Prosperity....................if people were to look at how the semantics of those three words mean and what they really mean---------------------it does not include us/we/you/me----------------it means two right wing hypocrite AYN RAND brothers (ONLY /THEM) and whoever they can buy off, with there lackeys, sitting in these offices in Congress.

David Koch (from the Book "DARK MONEY by Jane Mayer) on the 2010 election went into the Energy Committee and Ways and Means Committee headed by some newly elected jerk chairman from Texas by the name of Griffith, (golly gee-------from Texas--------------the same state where there EPA has been decimated, and to top it all off, they had an explosion in so many cities, and sites, that it is the death capital of the country when it comes to lacking of oversight and job safety, having people getting killed, because OSHA / EPA is now almost completely gone because of no funding to protect workers or the citizens in the state) and that's he is still there, getting his re-election seed "Dark Money" from with the help and encouragement you might say from David Koch's Enterprise PAC.



But his first order of business after speaking with this Koch's buddies, from him was to de-fund the EPA by 27% of the funds to operate under, but when it got to the senate they only cut 16% of the funds) now we have the crap coming out from Newark, Flint, and other parts of the country, on the lead in water because these a***sholes are de-funding agencies, and then going and saying see government doesn't work---------------------really, they use to work until you got into power and now your killing people and poisoning people-----------------------2+2 = 4 here folks, there is a connection, it's not the AYN RAND math of 2+2=5.

Ever hear of the EPA Superfund Clean up-----------------bet you haven't heard about any major clean-ups like let's say is Saltville , Virginia, or the Love Canal fiasco, in where people are dying because of lead poisoning, cancer and other "stuff", because there is no more EPA SUPERFUND, the money is gone.
The agency (EPA SUPERFUND) spent it last 3.5 billion from the oligarchies that had, were forced by the courts, to put money into the fund to clean-up there cr**p) it is gone, from like's the Olin Corporation, Koch Enterprise.

So the state taxpayers are left holding the bag, and the Koch's, Olin , Werhauser, Exxon Mobil don't have to pay now for the clean-up , because there hasn't been a major EPA SUPERFUND Committee hearing in over three years, prime example the Gulf of Mexico disaster, BP / Mobil did not repair the damage, completely, they idd not put any money into the EPA Superfund--------nada, nil, zero, zilch.

When they ("DARK MONEY&quot willy-nilly decided all upon there libertarian tin foil head AYN RAND heads, to say hell with abiding by regulations, we'll just get people bought off and get them into Congress, gut the regulations, so we don't have to clean -up our mess, then attack the EPA like the dog and pony show, which was presented about the Snyder , Flint Michigan Cr**P, with that right wing lackey Chaffetz from Utah blaming the EPA, and then saying basically leave it to the state taxpayers----------------how's that state rights going for everyone----------------look at Flint-------------front and center, look at the schools in Michigan Chicago, Newark, Philadelphia, just to name a few---------------republican controlled state houses, decimating the very core infrastructure to protect the citizens of the country.

It's like some of these parents changing there kid diapers on airplanes and leaving them in the back seat, instead of going to the airplane bathroom and putting the Cr**ppy disposal diaper in the airplane trash area in the bathroom-----------nope--------------- put it in th back seat, same concept---------------------no accountability or common sense, (not knowing or caring that the fecal matter in the disposal diaper is contagious), but just greed, libertarian greed, for just them and there other libertarian friends in this "Dark Money" money stuff.


And like you said if democrats and independents don't see what is going on in this election----------------it's about the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and State and Local elections, its is the aftermath that middle america, Indigenous People , people of any color, are getting this "DARK MONEY " Corruption shoved into there face-------------------and its not a elected form of government-----------------------------but it is about money and the power of that money crippling this country-----------------we need a political revolution-------------------


Thank you for my ranting again.....................this "DARK MONEY" by Jane Mayer and other books, like What's the matter with Kansas, and books by David Cay Johnson, Naomi Klein, Thom Hartmann, etc................is giving me more cause to fight and win this election----------------we need this win .....................

Honk----------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

TIME TO PANIC

(1,894 posts)
26. Damn it!
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:52 PM
Mar 2016

I was hoping they would obstruct until next January, then either Sanders or Clinton could appoint someone more progressive. Although I might be naïve to think Hillary's choice would be any better.

ffr

(22,669 posts)
27. Fcuk you Mitch McConnell!!!
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 05:05 PM
Mar 2016


Hopefully 16 and counting. And hopefully Harry Reid and PBO are working on building on future alliances for the next democratic president and (dem) majority leader.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
31. And some folks here thought I was FOS for saying that...
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 05:17 PM
Mar 2016

Garland would be confirmed.
The repigs like him and will ultimately vote for him.
A terrible pick on Obama's part.

gerryatwork

(64 posts)
33. It never ceases to amaze
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 05:19 PM
Mar 2016

me how out of touch and plain stupid Republicans are. For one a clear majority of Americans are for the Senate acting on the nomination, in an election year with 10 Senate Democrats and 24 Republicans up for re-election. Many in purple states. Unless the Republicans are sure they are going to win the Presidency either Sanders or Clinton will shove a much more Liberal judge down their throats. Not to mention a much younger one. As the actual election gets closer and it becomes clear the Democrat will win you can be assured they will not only put him up for election but pass him. When this happens it will be like them waving the white flag.

Sienna86

(2,149 posts)
35. Senator Kirk from Illinois is only doing it bc of Tammy Duckworth (D)
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 05:42 PM
Mar 2016

He normally wouldn't budge. He may well lose his senate seat to her in November.

maddiemom

(5,106 posts)
62. I'd say common sense, rather than blind Obama hatred (like McConnell),
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 04:33 PM
Apr 2016

and a finger to the wind as to the mood of your constituents is a GOOD thing if you're concerned about reelection. Isn't that what it's supposed to be about for a politician? I hope Duckworth wipes him out, because the politics of obstructionism and personal hatred on the part of the Republicans has to stop. It started with Bill Clinton, a white southern boy. With Barack Obama---Holy S---! In sixty years of following politics, I've never seen such disrespect for a sitting president as the Repubs have shown Obama.

paulkienitz

(1,296 posts)
38. dammit, now Obama's conservative "I dare ya" nominee will actually get on the bench
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 05:58 PM
Mar 2016

I can't help wondering if maybe he didn't quite dare nominate another liberal when it could actually tip the balance.

d_legendary1

(2,586 posts)
44. I have a feeling that those 16 senators are moderate Republicans
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:08 AM
Apr 2016

who wouldn't mind getting a third way Democrat in the SOCUTS since it helps out their corporate masters. I smell a set up coming.

Cosmocat

(14,563 posts)
51. What is wrong with you people?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:26 PM
Apr 2016

seriously?

Merrick ain't so much as sniffing a vote.

But, sure the progressive movement would be so much better served with the Rs screaming about BHO "TRYING TO JAM A LIBERAL DOWN OUR THROATS!"

Jesus ...

Jopin Klobe

(779 posts)
39. If these sixteen think that this is going to "C" their "A"s ...
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 06:05 PM
Mar 2016

... they are - and will be -- sadly, sadly mistaken ...

NewJeffCT

(56,828 posts)
42. Does this matter if Grassley refused to schedule a hearing for him?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 09:16 AM
Apr 2016

Or, can the other Judiciary members override Grassley?

kiri

(794 posts)
48. Bork--1992 rememberances
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:17 PM
Apr 2016

THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIALS/LETTERS FRIDAY, JULY 17, 1992
Court Again Upholds Rights of the Individual

To the Editor:
In "Again, a Struggle for the Soul of the Court" (Op-Ed, July 8), Robert H. Bork has presented a carefully contrived argument that the Supreme Court has "usurped" the democratic prerogatives of the people and their elected representatives in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, on abortion, and in Lee v. Weisman, on school prayer. He suggests that the Court has misread both the Constitution and our history, and “trespassed upon the rights of democratic majorities."

It is Mr. Bork, however, who has ignored the very essence of the American constitutional principle, that there are some human rights so fundamental that they are put even above majority rule.

The framers of the Constitution were only too aware of the dangers of mob rule and majorities that might be assembled in passion. They had seen how quickly the elected representatives of the Massachusetts Bay Colony - established to find religious freedom - turned to an orthodoxy that severely punished all dissent. Their fears were borne out by the excesses of the French Revolution. The framers recognized that popular majorities cannot be altogether ·relied on to protect our freedoms.

The essence of the Bill of Rights is that no simple majority is allowed to take away fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech, of religion, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to a fair judicial process.

Roe and Weisman simply recognize that a woman's right to decide to terminate a pregnancy and a student's right to a spiritual outlook uncolored by official pressures are outside the purview of majority whims. What Mr. Bork decries as the Court's "radicalism" is the Court's faithfulness in prohibiting government by unrestrained majoritarianism. His tortured position that the Court should defer to elected representatives is the most radical attack since Robespierre on reserved rights of citizens and limitations of majority rule.

It is, indeed, a peculiarly inconsistent argument that the Reagan-Bush­Bork forces aver: That the regulations of "big" government are evil and a burden on the rights of the people to make a dollar and, at the same time, that government regulations and prohibitions are essential to the public welfare and heaven blessed if directed toward controlling sexual and reproductive behavior.

Rather than "taking the abortion issue from the people," the Court has affirmed the people's right to live as each believes moral and best. Mr. Bork's quarrel with the Court and his masquerade as a strict constructionist represent less legal scholarship and more a mischievous attempt to cloak his fervent hopes that an absolutist majority can be formed for his visceral prejudices.

Regarding the Weisman case, there are few clearer ideas in the Constitution than that governments·”shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." If Mr. Bork were genuinely enamored of historical precedence, he might have recalled that in the days before the self-appointed censor Anthony Comstock (1844-1915) there were no laws restricting abortion in the United States.

ELLERY SCHEMPP
Watertown, Mass., July 9, 1992





 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
57. The entire court needs to be liberal.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:50 PM
Apr 2016

Conservatives cannot rule or run the government. Their core values clash against society.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
56. Four years ago, I thought some Republicans might end up defecting to the Democrats.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:49 PM
Apr 2016

I was wrong then but if Trump is their nominee, we may finally see some of that. The level of frustration from representatives who truly want to do their jobs must be immense.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.
[/center][/font][hr]

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
61. It's pretty clear that the do nothing obstructionism of Republicans......
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 02:28 PM
Apr 2016

....has played into their disgusting Congressional poll numbers. It plays in to the dissatisfaction of the constituency that they are just not doing their jobs.

I wonder when Mitch will realize that the cumulative effect of the last 8 years of accomplishing nothing, is what has bred the likes of Trump. In contrast to the rest of the Do nothing Republicans, Trump has ensured that he seems like a guy that at least will get something done, and is anti establishment enough to avoid being stuck with the label that is dragging down the rest of the Republicans. Talk about unintended consequences!!!! Not sure if I should laugh or cry.

Submariner

(12,503 posts)
78. Kentucky Hillbilly racist cracker
Sun Apr 3, 2016, 05:25 PM
Apr 2016

Murika gots to be proud to have this cracker turtle as head of its Senate.What an embarrassment.

houston16revival

(953 posts)
81. Don't be encouraged
Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:30 AM
Apr 2016

GOP is trying to have it both ways

Blocking while appearing flexible and reasonable

Voting NO! without actually voting on anything

Nothing will happen from this

Purely stage managing for the general election passive voter
who understands little politically - the margins - who ultimately
decide close elections, like Senate elections

brett_jv

(1,245 posts)
82. So, roughly 31% of Americans ... are fucking morons ... amazing how CONSISTENT that number is ...
Wed Apr 6, 2016, 05:13 AM
Apr 2016

Ain't it?

There's always about 30% of UN-patriotic knuckleheads, with no REAL concept of how the FF's designed our Government to ACTUALLY function ...

And what's even more paradoxical, is that these very same 30% are the VERY ONES who'll be the FIRST to claim they 'believe in the CON-STIT-UUUUU-SHUN over ALL else' ...

Bunch of Faux-watchin' knuckle-draggin in-breds ...

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Mitch McConnell Wakes Up ...