Here's a quick look at the federal judiciary as of today:
Aside from the Supreme Court, it's pretty close to 50-50 even after Mitch McConnell's four-year demolition derby. By the time Joe Biden's first term comes to an end Democrats will probably control a majority of the seats at all levels of the judiciary except the Supreme Court.
But that's the rub, isn't it? The Supreme Court. Still, I'm not sure the story of the highest court in the land is quite what most progressives think it is. Here's what's been filling up my Twitter feed today:
- Democrats don't care as much about the judiciary. This is true, and yet judgeships are split pretty evenly despite Democrats holding the presidency for only nine of the past 21 years. Caring more doesn't really seem to matter that much.
- Democrats aren't ruthless enough. Mitch McConnell's refusal to hold hearings for Merrick Garland was surely a new level of ruthlessness. But when Republicans continually blocked Democratic nominees in 2013, Harry Reid nuked the filibuster. I'm not so sure Democrats lack ruthlessness.
- We have to expand the Court. Sure, except we don't have 50 votes to do it. This is just pointless jibber jabber at the moment.
Here's what I'm not hearing:
- We need to do whatever it takes to keep control of the Senate. Like it or not, this means moderating some progressive views in order to win seats in purplish states. We don't seem willing to do that.
- More of us should have voted for Hillary. I don't care if she doesn't quite tick all your boxes. If there had been less Hillary loathing among liberals she would have won the presidency and the Supreme Court would currently be majority Democratic.
- We are now paying the price of not doing these things. You can carry your AR-15 openly anywhere you want. The government can't mandate COVID vaccinations in the workplace. Women in red states have lost control over their own bodies. And God only knows what's next.
So that's that. You may now all proceed to get pissed off at me.
If you knew what was at stake -- and really, we wasted vast amounts of time educating the bros on what exactly was at stake -- but did not vote for Clinton anyway, then you're at best a fool who's opinion should be discounted out of hand, or you're a spiteul fool and no friend of the United States.
Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
52% of white women voted for Trump against Hillary.
Tell me something I don't already know. Or at least tell me what your point is, since it utterly escapes me.
I just figured as long as we're pointing fingers...
Um, what? If you have something to say, say it.
Don’t feed the troll
Dr. Jill attacked The Hill
And carried Donnie's water
Hill fell down and lost the crown
And Greens were scum thereafter.
Suck it up Alexandria. You and your squaddies have royally effed up the nation.
This 'discussion' omits the issue Michael Hudson brought up earlier this week:
The Party’s identity politics address almost every identity except that of wage-earners and debtors. That does not look like a platform that can succeed.
Well, he can say that. But that makes him either a fool or a liar. Or both. Basically he's saying 'Blue lives matter too', which is just so much mischief-making.
No, I don’t think it’s that at all. There’s a reasonably good chunk of the middle and working classes who are focused on economic issues. By and large, the Democrats unrestrained enthusiasm for globalization has done these people considerable damage. Worse, they see a darker future for their children and grandchildren.
The mainstream neoliberals in the party offer these people nothing. At the same time, they see the left wing of the party being obsessed with “micro-aggressions’ or inauthentic bánh mi or pronouns or other weirdness. Yes, in the overall scheme of things it’s just trivial culture war bullshit being hyped by Republicans but it’s also undeniably self-indulgent at a moment of extreme stress for the liberal state.
The problem is that if the Democrats aren’t going to alter their fundamental economic thinking, there’s nothing to offer these people except culture war. And the Republicans are always going to be better at that, and racism, and all forms of evilness and bigotry.
Which is also the fundamental flaw in Kevin’s thinking. When offered a choice between a faux Republican and a Republican, people tend to chose the Republican.
"The problem is that if the Democrats aren’t going to alter their fundamental economic thinking, there’s nothing to offer these people except culture war."
I would agree with you if I could understand what you think is the Democrats "fundamental economic thinking" is. Please enlighten me. Is it just about trade? President Biden a single tariff on Chinese important that Trump establish and a lot people think he should because inflation is so high? What else? Biden is probably the most pro-Union president since Nixon and has encouraged labor organizing. He's encouraged anti-trust measured both from the Eaxecutive Branch and the Congress. Don't you think such ""fundamental economic thinking" has already changed or certainly is different than a Hilary Clinton administration would have been? I don't think a two trillion stimulus plan would have been the corner stone of her economic team, do you?
Don’t feed the troll
Oh, my, I've acquired my own stalker! Isn't it precious?
Democratic policies should be focused on improving the material well-being of the majority of hourly wage earners and debtors. Without this policy emphasis, Republicans are able to sway these voters with the culture wars/identity politics Democrats have centered their platform on.
The biggest beneficiaries of ACA were the added Medicaid recipients and the working poor, many of whom don’t have employer-subsidized healthcare coverage. The only party talking about any kind of debt relief is the Democratic Party (student loans). And inflation favors debtors over creditors (pay back with cheaper dollars). Can more be done? Sure! Will Republicans do any of it? Ha!
The Senate should censure Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett for lying during their confirmation hearings. It would be purely symbolic, but it would lay the foundation for a sustained offensive against this radical court.
And it will take a sustained effort. It might take decades. Republicans are hoping that this will blow over in a few months. We can't let that happen.
My two cents is that it won't.
And the house could hold a thousand hours of hearings which would be the functioning equivalent of a political commercial before impeaching them. But neither thing will happen. There was a moment but, yet again, the democratic leadership failed to seize it.
Schumer is less than useless. Pelosi’s good at congressional maneuvering but she really isn’t a wartime consigliere.
The Senate should censure Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett for lying during their confirmation hearings.
Censure? In any reasonable universe they'd be impeached.
And the USSC is just getting started. Thomas and his ilk have wanted to drag us all back to the 18th century for years. Now's their chance.
Hang Mike Pence? Ok… and a few others too!
One of the few things in which I am in total agreement with Donald Trump.
too bad he didn't do the right thing on jan. 6. is that what you're saying?
Not exactly. I just it would’ve been richly ironic if Pence had been lynched for lacking the courage and integrity to do the rift thing before January 6th. It’s worth remembering that his response to being invited to join a criminal conspiracy to overthrow the government was to consult with his political cronies about which course of action would be most beneficial for him personally rather than calling the FBI.
So, yes, I’m with Trump on this. There wouldn’t have been a mob invading the capital, looking to lynch the little worm but for Pense’s cowardice and dereliction of duty. To be honest, I’m sorry they missed him.
Think this through a bit more. If Pence had been strung up, Trump could have declared martial law, appointed a new VP who would do exactly what he wanted, or just let Grassley preside and reject the electors. Still think that should have happened? JFC.
Maybe yes and maybe no. It’s hard to know what Trump would do. One of the things we’re learning in these hearings is just how close we came to a disastrous of biblical proportions on Jan 6th.
But an interesting thread runs through it all: there were multiple occasions where others were willing to do a coup for Trump and he went right to the edge but lost his nerve. My point being that if Trump had wanted, he could’ve done the coup at the DOJ and probably would have been kept in office by the Supreme Court or he could’ve declared a state of emergency and deployed the military (he wanted the military to mount a coup on his behalf but without being asked). Even if they’d hanged the worm we still don’t know if Trump would have gone all the way.
A narcissistic sociopath but also an incompetent coward.
Hillary Clinton, bless her heart, was a terrible choice for the nomination. I know this because, well, she fucking lost!
The fact is that a good 70-80 million American adults are trump loving freaks. This is just a fact of life. We shouldn’t pretend they are our fellow citizens or the loyal opposition. They are the enemy. And you can’t expect an enemy to do anything but attack and oppress you.
They keep telling us they want to kill us and we keep not believing them. Well, I believe them. I abhor violence and I’m too damn old to give a crap. But I’d really like to whack the SOBs. Good luck.
She won the popular vote by 4 million and lost the EC by, what, 77,000? That's crazy. And there are consequences to having this happen over and over again.
I don’t like the college or the system any more than you, but… she ducking lost. The fact is, it was close enough that these other factors mattered. It was close because 80 million Americans suck. And Clinton too!
Let America fail. It sucks.
If I would say to you that the road to the White House runs through Wisconsin, how would you reply?
Nuke Wisconsin? See that’s the problem. I don’t think of them as worthy of consideration. Why should the welfare of people living there be of concern to me? The notion that we are somehow connected has been discredited. You might as well tell me that my fate is tied to the opinions of people in some place half way around the world. I don’t give a fuck about them. I don’t know them. Don’t want to. Why should they have a say?
The Union is, for me, essentially, dissolved! Good luck.
Well, Wisconsin gets a hefty number of votes in the electoral college. It went from a Democratic firewall to a battleground state to a Republican state. I appreciate your feelings but it still would’ve been nice if Hillary could’ve found the time to visit the state and actually make an effort to win there.
Everyone here is crying about how the Supreme Court ruling is terrible. They should be asking why the so called “Supreme” court has any relevance at all.
They are all still trying to make the current political system work when they should be trying to imagine how to bring about a new one!
But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
It is our duty! Let us get about doing our duty. Or maybe we don’t really care all that much. Yeah… that’s it. 😂
Um, it's not the job of the Supreme Court "to bring about a new [political system]". It just isn't. Their job is to decide whether lower court rulings were in concord with the EXISTING political system.
How can you be so stupid?
Oh, I get it. The "They" in the second paragraph jumps over the Supreme Court justices to "Everyone here". My apologies.
Oh brother:
I'll leave this up as a reminder of the troll's reasoning abilities. Even worse, unfortunately, is the fact that he obviously thinks he's being clever when in point of fact he' merely parroting what he has read somewhere else.
She didn’t lose? Who is the gaslighting troll? Did I imagine that period from January 2017 to January 2021?
Let me help you… why was it close? Because Hillary Clinton, bless her heart, was a terrible choice. But you know… maybe no one could have beaten trump. That doesn’t let Clinton off the hook. She really was the worst of no good choices. She didn’t understand the country at all. It seems like you don’t even now.
Good luck. Don’t ask me for help. You deserve to suffer.
Don’t feed the troll
Oh Pooh on you. You don’t want to admit the Democratic Party (and you and me personally) failed. Miserably. Total fucking failure. Worse than useless. And I’m the troll. Good grief. You all need to get a grip.
There is only one way out of this. And none of us have the stomach for it. So appeasement it is. Good luck.
I was posting a warning for the person who replied to you. You’re good
amen
Face it, they've just have a better army willing to sell its orcs cheaply.
Well said Kevin. Now, if the Dems would just get off their dime and get out and vote, we could walk all over the repulsive. They simply must get out there or we are doomed!! Vote like there is no tomorrow!!!
They did vote. It didn’t matter.
I think “vote harder” has already reached the end of its usefulness. The Democrats have made immense appeals for money but without offering any way forward. No plan, no commitments about what they’d do if they keep the House and the White House (except no expanding the court, no pressuring the two assholes, no limiting the court’s jurisdiction, and no adding PR and DC as states—very firm commitments there, but not so much on abortion rights, birth control, voting rights,etc).
There is no plan. They shall maintain the status quo and stave off catastrophe. But since many 10’s of millions of Americans are jonesing for catastrophe, there is little chance catastrophe can be avoided. Good luck.
you know how you can pressure the two assholes? expand the democratic majority by at least 2 seats so that they become irrelevant assholes.
But surely the Democratic Party itself is supposed to do something besides ask for money and implore people to “vote harder”. The glaring absence of a way forward makes it unlikely that people who are not otherwise chronic voters are going to exert themselves when Democratic politicians and the party’s leadership are offering no way forward and are resisting any form of changes or a commitment to act
It’s just striking that there’s condemnation and fundraising but no commitment to eliminate the filibuster if the Democrats get the votes in the senate. Biden already said he’s opposed to expanding the Supreme Court, stripping it of jurisdiction, or adding new states.
So the bottom line is you should vote for the Democrats and give them money but they won’t even pledge to do anything specific, no matter what. The Democrats seem to be going out of their way to actually mobilize the base to win an election. They just want money, which, by the way, I’m not going to give them.
One adult citizen, one equal vote. No exceptions, no excuses.
I argued until I was blue in the face….Roe is gone if trump wins….now I’m saying I told you so to the same people( who are still not getting it….you’re going to have to get active)…I’m pissed at Ruth Bader Ginsburg too.
Hard to get pissed off when you're right. Also, RBG should have retired while Obama still had a chance to replace her.
Since we're apparently relitigating 2016, here's my (usually not very welcome take): Hillary Clinton was neither a particularly good nor particularly bad candidate. My sense is we humans tend to prefer stark, black and white conclusions in such situations, but that's my honest interpretation. Hillary Clinton normally did pretty well at contesting elections, and she arguably performed reasonably strongly. But we needed JFK that year and we got Humphrey.
Clinton had been a perfectly respectable politician (in the sense of "competent at winning elections") prior the general election six years ago. She muscled out any serious competition for the 2000 NY Senate nomination. By no means a foregone conclusion (Google "Caroline Kennedy"). She beat a popular moderate Republican of the kind New Yorkers regularly used to elect statewide. Again, no gimme (polls were very close only a few weeks prior to that election in 2000). She had an easy reelection in 2006, but that was partly because she had done the work it takes to become a popular incumbent. And she absolutely crushed the Republican that year, performing unexpectedly well in Upstate GOP strongholds. Then in 2008 she went the distance against one of the more talented natural politicians the country has ever produced, and very nearly won. And then in 2016 she fought another brutal nomination battle, and this time prevailed.
Also, while her 2016 opponent, Donald Trump, can be slagged off as a weak candidate if you like, the fact is that cycle was highly favorable to Republicans. Parties in America don't usually hang onto the White House for three consecutive terms (1988 is the sole exception since WW2), and a serious economic downturn had descended on the Upper Midwest, to the detriment of the Democratic brand. In other words, the White House was the Republican Party's to lose that year.
And they very nearly did.
Did Hillary perform brilliantly that year? No, obviously not. She lost. Was she a disaster? Again, no: she won the popular vote by several million votes. It just wasn't enough.
You are correct in all particulars here.
The Democrats’ biggest problem in 2016 was that for years, everyone had expected Hillary Clinton to run for President again, and the Republicans had years to grind out propaganda against her. The second biggest problem was that prominent mainstream media figures disliked the Clintons and passed up no opportunity to bash them. So we had endless ‘questions’ about the Clinton Foundation, for example, about which no wrongdoing ever was found. The Trump foundation’s violation of tax law, a matter of public record, got fewer column-inches than John Podesta’s risotto recipe.
Pingback: Ein verletzter Biden baut mit Habeck für 50 Euro kommunistische Denkmäler auf dem Kartoffelacker auf - Vermischtes 27.06.2022 - Deliberation Daily