Liars. Trump's embracing the liars. Two sides. Same coin.
James O'Keefe has exactly the kind of history of credibility you'd have expected Trump to embrace. [UPDATE: Bannon's situation seems no longer news? A contractor who built a wall segment for the Bannon team? Busted by career U.S. Postal Service Investigators?
Money went into all that wall prancing out of Trump - funds shifted out of a prior budget commitment into MY WALL MY WAY. Spending for that ego trip has dwarfed in expense the Bannon show and tell and feel-good segment - and the big money that got spent had to go into some pockets. Contractor overlap? No longer news?]
Who'd do better, next four years. Trump's served the wealthy, and that tax thing he and the Republicans engineered is obscene.
Who's better on healthcare, weaning us from fossil fuel dependence into green job growth, or in stemming combustion related global warming?
Who's had the chance in the White House, running things, and done poorly?
Who is more concerned with ego than service?
That last one is a tough one because Biden's ego exceeds his talents as much as Trump's.
Who stiffed banks for millions and used the bankruptcy code to his personal advantage.
?
On the other hand who jiggered the bankruptcy law to fuck students and those suffering grinding medical-related debt when the rest of advanced nations have public health plans recognizing health care is a right and not an employment related privilege? (Staying alive and healthy differs from driving a car; one licensed and regulated, driving, and the other left to a brigand market where Big Pharma and the health-industrial complex exploit having people over a barrel.)
WHAT A STINKING CHOICE THE TWO-PARTY STRANGLEHOLD ON POLITICS IN OUR NATION HAS GIVEN VOTERS, AND DONE AND BECOME, IN TERMS OF A GOVERNMENT THAT MOCKS US WHILE SERVING DONATING ULTRA-WEALTHY CREEPS? ASK CLYBURN WHO HIS DONORS ARE, AND WHO HIS CONSTITUENTS ARE. HE WILL NOT TELL YOU THE TRUTH, THAT THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME.
FIX THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM BY PICKING THE PARTY MOST LIKELY OPEN TO CHANGE, AND THEN CHANGE IT. BECAUSE NOW BOTH PARTIES ARE BEHOLDEN TO WEALTH AND REPUBLICAN JOHN ROBERTS PRESIDES OVER A COURT THAT KNOWS WHO'S BOSS IN THE NATION (OR ELSE THAT BUNCH OF WEALTH SERVANTS IN BLACK ROBES WOULD NEVER HAVE FOBBED CITIZENS UNITED OFF ON US).
A WEIRD NATION - BLACK LIVES DON'T YET MATTER, BLACK ROBES ARE A BADGE THAT MATTERS A LOT, AND THOSE WEARING THEM DO THEIR JOBS IN A NASTY WAY UNFRIENDLY TO WAGE EARNING WORKERS.
IT IS DONE IN LOCKSTEP WITH TWO HOUSES OF CONGRESS WILLING AND READY TO DO WHAT WEALTH COMMANDS OF THEM, (MOST OF THEM BENEFITING FROM WEALTH BEING SERVED BECAUSE THEY ARE EACH WEALTHY).
A right-wing Minnesota blog has posted this video.
It is unfavorable to Biden, but true. It is the fault of the Dem inner party for shoveling Biden out as if Presidential.
In comparison who's killed 200,000 Americans by being unready, inept, and deceitful about the pandemic?
Who would you buy that proverbial used car from, Trump or Biden?
Try the site, and understand some objectives are short term, some long term. Also, understand the Republicans - think, Mitchell McConnell, think Paul Ryan - and then decide which party is the more rapacious or beholden to and most willingly serving the 1% and not US. Which party puts the more egregious servants of wealth onto the Supreme Court, appointments for life, and not open to being voted out if a public awakens and acts in its own interests.
Try that nothimus.org site. Also, go onto YouTube and seek out Bernie's content.
Bernie stands against his party's current bosses, his vision is NOT theirs, but he has known all along which party holds the most promise of being successfully pushed into becoming reasonably responsive to actual citizen wants and needs.
In effect, vote Biden because the other choice is Trump, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan, and we've seen the nation screwed over by that threesome, so give Biden and Harris a chance to be better than we'd sanely expect. We know how bad Trump, and pals have been in unerringly serving wealth in . . .
For someone who has escaped substantial tax payments while touting personal wealth and business acumen, losses and expenses are apparently under audit, and that is where people expert in the tax code and tax law will judge legitimacy concerns of filings.
Learned Hand wrote that nobody has to pay more than owed, and tax avoidance alone is not unlawful, and that under tax law everyone is free to arrange affairs to pay less, legitimately; however, tax evasion, is a breach of law.
Let Trump stall releasing tax returns while possibly questioning the truth of NYT data, and VOTE HIM OUT FOR OTHER REASONS THAN HIS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF TAX LAW JIGGERED TO FAVOR THE WEALTHY IN THAT THEY HAVE MULTIPLE OPTIONS IN ARRANGING AFFAIRS, WHILE WAGE EARNERS DIFFER.
Congress passes the tax laws, and courts make judgments about disputed questions of what the laws mean, in terms of tax minimization effort of some citizen.
The Code is thick. The Regulations thicker. And then there are the published cases. Let the audit proceed. Let voters decide on each candidate's merit. By whatever criteria each voter holds most crucial.
In that sense, this year is not any different. Getting a majority of electoral college votes determines a winner. Last election, Trump won. Grover Cleveland won one too. Trump is coarse, but he won. Biden-Harris vs. Trump-Pence should not be decided because the NYT wrote about Trump tax detail, where Trump could release returns if wanting to prove the NYT reported facts stand in error.
In the tax things, blame the system more than you blame Trump -- for conforming his reporting of affairs to extremes the system invented. NYT reported Trump in some years paid an alternate minimum tax and paid tax on The Apprentice show contract earnings.
IF YOU BLAME THE SYSTEM, THEN WORK TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM. "WORK" IN THE BROADEST SENSE OF THE TERM - DEDICATE TIME TO IT.
AND REALIZE THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO WORK.
LAST: Read the NYT report at NYT, or at the Strib link. See what you think.
Well, well, well! It's the $750 Man! President Deadbeat paid a whole
$750 in taxes in his first year as president. He gamed the IRS and, by
extension, all of us. I'm shocked I tell ya! Shocked and, definitely
appalled and pissed, really pissed. Here's what our 6 most recent
presidents paid in their first year in office. Compare and Contrast:
1. President Ronald Reagan- $165,202
2. President H. W. Bush- $101.382
3. President Bill Clinton- $62,670
4. President George W. Bush- $250,221
5. President Barrack Obama- $1,792,414
6. Herr Trump, aka Dear Leader- $750
Yep, everyone I know paid more taxes than Trump did. Oh, and what we've
seen so far shows that Trump is no billionaire but we already knew that.
He just plays one for the suckers and fools. He's a hoax, a hoax, a
hoax, a hoax! From any angle Donald Trump and [...] a detailed record of where all that COVID relief money
went would be nice. That's where it gets tricky though. There's just too
many people involved in that one so I'll settle just for how much went
to his syndicate of associates and we'll see where that leads. We need a
wiki-leaks for Swiss bank accounts.
Indeed, that was a lot of money, a lot of outstretched hands, some from people who know other people and got treated well, others with more merit got hung out to dry.
Hat tip to another DWT post about Trump tax avoidance, for linking to a Bloomberg published item, here. titled: "Trump's Taxes Show He's a National Security Threat - What trade-offs would a president with this level of indebtedness be willing to make to save face?" By Timothy L. O'Brien - September 28, 2020.
That Bloomberg titling basically tells the story, report text fleshing things out this way:
The Times, in a news story published Sunday evening
that disclosed years of the president’s tax returns, also put a lot of
clothing on things we didn’t know. Trump paid just $750 in federal
income taxes in 2016, the year he was elected president, and the same
amount the following year, when he entered the White House. In many
years recently he hasn’t paid anything at all. He has played so fast and
loose with the taxman that he’s entangled in an audit. He paid his
daughter Ivanka lush consulting fees that he deducted as a business
expense even though she helped him manage the Trump Organization. And
he’s taken questionable tax write-offs on everything from getting his
hair coifed to managing his personal residences.
Step away from the tragicomic tawdriness and grift that the
tax returns define, however, and focus on what they reveal about Trump
as the most powerful man in the world and occupant of the Oval Office.
Due to his indebtedness, his reliance on income from overseas
and his refusal to authentically distance himself from his hodgepodge
of business, Trump represents a profound national security threat – a
threat that will only escalate if he’s re-elected. The tax returns also
show the extent to which Trump has repeatedly betrayed the interests of
many of the average Americans who elected him and remain his most loyal
supporters.
[...] According to the Times, Trump has about $421 million in debts which he
has personally guaranteed and which are coming due over the next several
years.[...]
Trump has been bloviating about being worth $10 billion ever since he
entered the 2016 presidential race, a figure that simply isn’t true.
He’s worth a fraction of that amount, and the larger his indebtedness
becomes, the more strain it puts on his assets. The Covid-19 pandemic
has taken a particularly brutal toll on the sectors in which the Trump
Organization operates — real estate, travel and leisure. [...] So if he’s tempted
to save himself by getting a handout, that makes him a mark.
[...] If Vladimir Putin, for example, can backchannel a loan or a
handout to the president, how hard is Trump going to be on Russia? Not
that we should worry about Trump’s relationship with Putin. That’s just a
hypothetical question.
Trump’s own history of avoiding tax
payments – and often paying nothing -- is the other issue that should
alarm the president’s supporters. Trump and the Republican Party
engineered a massive tax cut in 2017 that
largely benefitted the most affluent Americans and the largest
corporations in the U.S. Now we learn that the president who pushed a
tax cut that didn’t deliver the economic stimulus he claimed it would,
but feathered the nests of the most privileged, has rarely paid taxes in
recent years.
Trump paid $750 in taxes the year he was elected! That’s way less than the $130,000 in hush money he paid Stormy Daniels. [...]
That last sentence, over 130 times more to the porn actress for a roll in the hay, than he paid our nation in the year he won the presidency. He has priorities, That "how many times more" analysis of things also touches his death rate per pandemic ineptitude and deceit vs all U.S. warfare death tolls since WW II.
TRUMP - the President who pays less and kills more.
Reelect him? Fools may want to. I do not. Do you?
Yes, even with the extreme insult of Biden thrown at us by inner party Dem power people along with long-time Republican multi-billionaire Mike Bloomberg, mocking US.
Joe Biden. And Kamala Harris.
We do have best and brightest - and it ain't them.
___________FURTHER UPDATE__________
AP coverage of the cantankerous debate spectacle/circus, ending paragraphs as carried by Strib:
“Violence in response is never appropriate, “Biden said. “Never appropriate. Peaceful protest is.”
The attacks turned deeply personal when
Trump returned to a campaign attack line by declaring that Biden's son,
Hunter, had inappropriately benefitted from his father's connections
while working in Ukraine. Biden rarely looked at Trump during the night
but turned to face the president when he defended his sons, including
Beau, an Army veteran who died of cancer in 2015, after the commander in
chief's reported insults of those who served in the military.
A new report from two Republican-led
Senate committees alleged that Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine at the
same time his father was vice president raised conflict-of-interest
concerns for the Obama administration, but the report did not link Joe
Biden to any wrongdoing or misconduct. Trump was impeached for pushing
Kiev to investigate the Biden family.
The debate was arguably Trump's best
chance to try to reframe the campaign as a choice between candidates and
not a referendum over his handling of the virus that has killed more
people in America than any other nation. Americans, according to
polling, have soured on his leadership in the crisis, and the president
has struggled to land consistent attacks on Biden.
In the hours before the debate, Biden
released his 2019 tax returns just days after the blockbuster
revelations about Trump’s long-hidden tax history, including that he
paid only $750 a year in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017 and
nothing in many other years. The Bidens paid nearly $300,000 in taxes in
2019.
Trump, in the debate, insisted he paid
millions in taxes — but refused to say how much he paid in federal
income taxes — and insisted he had taken advantage of legal tax
incentives, another angry exchange that led to Biden declaring that
Trump was the “worst president” the nation has ever had.
Do you believe Trump "paid millions in taxes" yet is hiding his tax returns which would prove or disprove his bald assertion? Are you a fool? Are you an entrenched Republican? (Same question posed three ways.)
BuzzFeed reports Sept. 21, 2020. Presume Jones takes the district in the general election. Presume he pushes hard to expand the Court. Presume both houses of Congress go Dem, the Senate enough so that Joe Manchin and other GOP-lite Senators who vote with Dems on organizing might push against it but not be able to quell the vote in the Senate for it.
Would Biden get a mandate on his desk to raise the number of Justices, and how would he handle it?
Those around when it happened likely are deceased now, but Roosevelt in the Thirties had a recalcitrant Court that struck down some New Deal measures.
The mere threat of Court expansion when Roosevelt floated the idea changed the pattern of intransigence into one of greater reasonableness.
Different people make up the Roberts Court than in that period, but people are still people and the chance of a new majority by expansion might strike reason into the minds of the current dominant majority.
If Citizens United is not gutted legislatively, by defining limits of corporation powers in the political arena, a fine thing since corporations are legislative creations anyway and not inherent extential beings, would the Roberts mob draw back from the craziness of that opinion to avoid court packing?
All such questions come with a current probability of becoming actual after the November election, while only hypothetical now.
Jones is on the verge of becoming Representative Jones. Nita no longer being there for Pelosi and Natanyahu. If nothing else, that would be improvement.
In closing, a link from April of this year, authored by Jones and published by Salon.
Readers have this link for "MN lege: Loving these DFL pickup opportunities, Part 1."
Multiple districts are discussed, so that excerpting is inappropriate since a mentioned district an individual reader might live in and care most about may be left out in excerpting.
Suffice it to say my vote is constrained to SD 35, Jim Abeler the entrenched Republican incumbent, who has been better than past dredged up GOP primary opponents (faint praise).
Meanwhile, Dan Burns in posting the item did write, "I see no reason not to add some reaches beyond that, and to maybe be a
little more skeptical in some other cases. Especially where there is a
long-time GOP incumbent who has just seemed impossible to give the boot,
regardless of how great that would be."
See, he lists my district, (indirectly). In a sense, that is an excerpt. However, there is no Crabgrass excerpt beyond the above, so check the item.
UPDATE: In fairness to Abeler, he is no Drazkowski, but Draz sets the bar lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut. Abeler is better than that bar setting. Let it be that Abeler has more wisdom than Abigail Whelan, a past 35A House rep., where faults and all she set a higher bar than Draz; even with her burning trans-phobia.and promoting Jesus during a debate of a State taxing of tax haven money stashes.
Whelan - Long gone. Married an Englishman, believed to have moved to Britain, may they be blessed with atheist Antifa children.
Yes, the same Bloomberg wrapping himself in a Democratic Party flag, and not being chastised enough except by Elizabeth Warren, who has courage.
That item - and why I have no love for the Chamber of Commerce - or as much love for it as the NRA, both Republican infested things - per this excerpt:
High Court Poised to Aim at Regulatory Power With New Trump Pick
Sept. 22, 2020, 1:51 AM
The Roberts Court has been good for business. With a third Trump appointee, it could be even better.
The
prospect of Republicans increasing their majority to 6-3, after the
death of liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, could make the court more
favorable for business on issues including arbitration and employment.
It
also boosts conservatives’ quest against the so-called administrative
state, shorthand for the tangle of New Deal-era regulations and ones
that followed that Democrats see as protecting workers, the environment,
and more while Republicans see it as unduly burdening free enterprise.
Oil and gas drillers, utilities, management interests, and small
businesses are among those who stand to benefit as the justices could
end up reviewing disputes over federal environmental regulations,
employment, and other protections.
Business interests have had an
ear on the high court long before Trump was elected. The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce has won 70% of the cases in which it filed briefs at the high
court since 2006—a win rate much higher than during comparable periods
in previous decades, according to analysis by the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center after the just-completed term.
“Significantly,
in recent years, Justice Ginsburg was the justice most likely to reject
corporate-backed positions in business cases and to vote instead in
favor of workers, consumers, or the government,” said Brian Frazelle, the center’s appellate counsel.
The
court’s record in business cases, with Ginsburg on the bench, means her
replacement “is unlikely to change the outcome in many of these cases
in the near future,” but that “doesn’t mean her absence won’t be deeply
felt,” he said.
The chamber didn’t return a request for comment on the newly constituted court’s impact on business cases.
You can read the whole thing to see where it goes from that beginning. The point here is that a Repubican-leaning outlet sees the Chamber for what it is. A political force, whatever its taxed or tax exempt status is - it is political and adversarial to progressive ideas and aims. In that sense - It sucks, but not as much as the NRA because it has better manners and is less uncouth.
_________UPDATE_______
The post could be left there, but is not. The Bloomberg item presents the simple truth that a single sentence spans: A corporatist will be selected.
That and there will be Dem rhetoric about inconsistent rhetoric of the Republicans.
There are but two simple truths:
First, McConnell had the votes at the end of Obama's term to stymie the Obama choice and now still has the votes, this time to pass Trump's late-in-the-term choice; and being who he is he will do so.
Second, most Senate Dems are each a corporatist millionaire and will be happy with Trump's choice of one of their own, but will bleat loud and long over inconsistent Repubican rhetoric - Obama's choice vs Trump's. Nobody believed Mitch saying anything high sounding back then when the message was "Today I have the majority and there will be no floor show vote," and it is only to be expected that he now is saying, "Today it is a cramdown, I have the votes."
Paragraphs and paragraphs more can be written.
But truth often is much simpler than rhetoric. Rhetoric is shaped and aimed to distort and channel and most often to confuse. Truth is existential.(Too often the effort is to hide truth behind rhetoric; e.g., Schumer, Pelosi and "respect" for big donor will fobbed off as something else.)
Respect for "rule of law" has correctly been differentiated from pursuit of justice. Law can rule well or badly, from any individual's or bloc's perspective. Rule being the keyword, law the adjunct. "Rule of power" is the actual and entire story. Power makes the law; e.g., McConnell's power yields Kavanaugh's law. Ditto for the new clone to be replacing Ginsberg's studied holding actions.
DWT picked up on a Strib item which drew an earlier Crabgrass focus. From DWT:
Thursday, September 24, 2020
In Minnesota, The GOP Is Running On Bigotry And Against Masks And Wayfair
Minnesota is closing in on 100,000 COVID cases and will get there before election day.
Despite a significant and ongoing investment in the state by the Trump
campaign, the margin between Trump and Biden continues to grow-- against
Trump. The Real Cleat Politics polling average shows Biden up 10.2%--
51.6% to 41.4%, which has got to be a big letdown for Trump since
Hillary barely beat him in 2016-- 1,367,716 (46.44%) to 1,322,951
(44.92%). On the kind of electoral map Trump understands better than
numbers, he looks like he could have won the state because he did so
well in rural areas and the map is pretty red:
The Minnesota poll by Langer that came out yesterday-- from the Washington Post and ABC News-- shows Trump losing spectacularly among likely voters-- 41% to Biden's 57%. That's a 16 point margin.
Maybe Trump thinks the way to flatten that curve-- since he sure
ain't flattening' the other one-- is to use his own brand of bigotry,
racism and misogyny to attack Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.
Minnesotans, however, enjoy a good fight and Ilhan sure bested Trump on their latest match.
She delivered a pretty devastating comeback to The Donald after his
dog-whistle attack on her Somali origins at his Pennsylvania rally
Tuesday night. Trump’s racist fans jeered Omar’s name when he mentioned
it outside Pittsburgh, apparently making him feel bold enough to say:
"She’s telling us how to run our country. How did you do where you came
from? How was your country doing?"
Minnesota elected a Democratic governor and a Democratic state House,
where they told 75 seats to the Republicans' 55. (There are also 4 "New
Republicans.") But the State Senate is a problem. The GOP has 35 seats
to the Democrats' 32. The state party's and the DLCC's efforts to flip
the Senate are being helped by the Minnesota Republican Party is veering off-track and into conspiracy theory and fascism territory.
Writing for the Star-Tribune, Stephen Montemayor reported that
"At least a half-dozen Minnesota Republicans running for state
legislative seats in November have promoted the sprawling, false QAnon
conspiracy that claims Satanists and pedophiles run the government and
that COVID-19 is part of a plot to steal the election. Once a fringe
fiction, QAnon is quickly seeping into mainstream Republican politics as
scores of GOP candidates across the country express support for it.
Among them are six candidates endorsed by the Minnesota Republican Party
for state House and Senate seats from the Iron Range to the metro
suburbs. In some cases, Minnesota candidates have used official social
media pages for their campaigns to post slogans in support of QAnon,
which the FBI has warned is a conspiracy theory that could inspire
domestic terrorism or violence. Some posts include references to a
'Great Awakening' or 'The Storm,' a prophesied reckoning in which
elected officials, journalists and other members of 'the Deep State' are
rounded up for imprisonment or execution."
Incumbent Matt Look is opposed by challenger John LeTourneau.
Voters should know both. Each has been active in local politics over the last few years.
Besides being mayor and former councilmember of Ramsey's council, LeTourneau has sought the Republican Party's nomination for a State legislative seat.
In the past, in general, I have endorsed the more progressive candidate when I could see a major difference, endorsements cutting against Look on that score.
I seldom support Republicans for any public office, although when LeTourneau ran for the legislative seat he was the better candidate on the Republican side, in my view. My ultimate support was with the Democrat running. I believe I would do the same, again, if presented with the same circumstances.
Years ago I supported Look, against Todd Cook, for Look's first successful run to be on Ramsey's council. I believe I would do that again.
This cycle, District 1 has two chasing the paycheck, I endorse neither, the chips may fall where they may.
I believe due diligence in appropriating funds is an essential function of office holders, and I believe avoidance of any wrong appearance of undisclosed conflict of interest also requires due diligence, but of a different kind. Kind and not degree is the distinction I draw. That is not to tell anybody much else than that.
Ultimately, I shall vote for one or the other, secret ballots being a fine idea.
Each a Republican. Each with a public service record over the last several years. Each having a story to tell of achievements and aims.
Each having ample opportunity to stress their positive aspects to voters who care to learn and decide carefully.
May the best candidate win.
_________UPDATE________
Earlier, Terry Hendriksen ran against Look for the Ward 1 seat. Both Republicans. I endorsed and voted for Terry. Now deceased, while he lived he was a person whose integrity I respected greatly. He did honor to Ramsey by serving diligently and wisely on its council. He was my main Republican exception.
_______FURTHER UPDATE_______
Jason Tossey had integrity and while serving a public duty in Ramsey he kept a skeptical mind about spending and like Terry, he never had to be held to a "knew or should have known" standard - the "should have" part - because he was diligent enough in his job to have known. Hendriksen phrased things as "I never buy something unless I know what it is and what it costs." That is a concise way to say due diligence, when spending other peoples' money, where one knows or should have known the deal. It is doing the job. Doing it correctly. He is my second Republican exception. Both Hendriksen and Tossey had a libertarian streak, and did the job. Knowing who is who and what is what before casting a spending vote.
It is an organized effort, many participants and supporters listed in the top banner "about us" pull-down menu options; the website's about us page, itself, explaining intent. From the about page:
Our Mission
The Mission of Twin Cities Nonviolent is to: reduce violence in all
its forms; increase awareness and engagement in nonviolent policies and
practices; bring together local community organizations, including
nonprofits, religious institutions, educational institutions, and
government agencies; and dismantle the structures and systems that lead
to violence throughout the Twin Cities and beyond.
We envision a Twin Cities community that is free from violence.
“Our intention is to reduce suffering in the world by challenging
the unjust and oppressive social structures and by promoting peace with
justice, equality and dignity for all.”
– Fr. Harry J Bury, creator of Twin Cities Nonviolent
With all the names of individuals and organizations posted as sponsors or other affiliates, I had to check.
Bob Kroll is not yet involved.
Those who are should actually try an outreach to Kroll. See if the heavy badge has enough weight to avoid taking a dare. Or, if Kroll has a degree of openness of mind it might be interesting to have Kroll study the effort.
The one name that stood out to me, a former Dem candidate I supported:
In his book Brave New World Order (first published 1992, reissued 2017), Nelson-Pallmeyer provides a definition of "national security state".[a]
He describes seven defining characteristics, starting with the military
exerting influence over economic and political affairs and progressing
through maintaining an appearance of democracy while ultimate power
rests with the national security establishment; concentration of capital
by elites; obsession with enemies; and restricting and distorting
information, among others. He summarizes how this found expression in El
Salvador and discusses "similar dynamics" within the United States.[5]
"Similar dynamics" being real, loathsome and fearsome. Pallmeyer has written a lot. As a pacifist he has much to say which is being ignored by the DC crowds.
Two items on corporatist jurists as a problem in a pluralist society; The Atlantic and The New Yorker expanding on the theme. Read both. Understand why Schumer will not be putting anything on the line to stop Trump putting another corporatist onto the Court in filling the Ginsberg seat, his way. McConnell and Schumer know donors, and without taking time to check, the bet here is that the Venn diagram of donors for one and the other will have a large overlap segment.
No justice, no peace, seems to have more spunk than Schumer.
_________UPDATE________
Sirota posts on the same foreseeable outcome of another Trumpster on board:
One huge question now is: How would adding another Donald Trump
appointee to the court potentially change the judicial system’s attitude
towards corporate power?
Bloomberg News
reports that “the prospect of Republicans increasing their majority to
6-3, after the death of liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, could make the
court more favorable for business.”
For a deeper look at the situation, I spoke with UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, the author of the book We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights. He has also written a seriesof articlesfor The Atlantic about corporations’ winning streak at the high court.
What
follows is an edited transcript of my discussion with Winkler about the
current situation on the court and how the judicial system could
ultimately be reformed.
Q: In general, how much is the high court dealing with business and economic issues?
A:
While the high profile, controversial cases over issues like abortion
or gay rights take up all the headlines, most of the Supreme court's
docket is focused on ordinary business disputes and disputes that affect
businesses and business people. They're not all corporate power cases
directly in the sense that they're not like Citizens United
(and) about whether corporations can spend money on elections, but
they're issues like how do we read employment discrimination laws.
The Supreme Court just this past year
narrowly read federal employment discrimination laws to make it harder
for employees to bring an employment discrimination action. You don't
necessarily read that when you read it in the newspaper as a corporate
power issue, but it's clearly a corporate power case. It's giving powers
to corporate management and corporate employers and making it easier
for them to discriminate without the threat of significant legal
liability.
Then there are cases that don't seem like they touch
upon corporations at all, but have a huge impact on the ability of
government to regulate corporations.
So for instance, if the
court has what seems like a rather esoteric case about whether Congress
can structure a federal agency in a particular way so that it's
commissioners are appointed... there's a move afoot among conservatives
to outlaw appointments so that every executive appointment should be
subject to being fired by the president at the president's whim. That
doesn't seem like a business case, but the effect of it is to make it
harder for government agencies that regulate businesses to function.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would be a good example.
The director can't be fired by the president (and) serves a certain
term of years. If you call that into question, it makes it easier for
businesses to escape regulation by the CFPB.
Q: You’ve
written about the Supreme Court’s rulings on speech issues have
strengthened corporate power. How does that matter to regular people in
their daily lives?
[... the link is above so follow it] In terms of no justice, no peace, Sirota is on record, cogently, calling out sophistry:
In the modern vernacular, that word “looting” is loaded -- it comes
with all sorts of race and class connotations. And we have to understand
that terms like “looting” are an example of the way our media often
imperceptibly trains us to think about economics, crime and punishment
in specific and skewed ways.
Working-class people pilfering
convenience-store goods is deemed “looting.” By contrast, rich folk and
corporations stealing billions of dollars during their class war is
considered good and necessary “public policy” -- aided and abetted by
arsonist politicians in Washington lighting the crime scene on fire to
try to cover everything up.
To really understand the deep
programming at work here, consider how the word “looting” is almost
never used to describe the plundering that has become the routine policy
of our government at a grand scale that is far larger than a vandalized
Target store.
Indeed, if looting is defined
in the dictionary as “to rob especially on a large scale” using
corruption, then these are 10 examples of looting that we rarely ever
call “looting”:
1. The Fed Bailed Out the Investor Class:
“Thanks to this massive government subsidy, large companies like Boeing
and Carnival Cruises were able to avoid taking money directly -- and
sidestep requirements to keep employees on.”
BOTTOM LINE: Trump's appointee will favor "looting" in the sense Sirota derides, and will therefore be confirmed with Dem lip service to opposition, not burning any political capital, whatever the dimensions of "political capital" is these days in DC.
For all I know, "political capital" might be what, out of office, you use to get Martha's Vineyard key housing, acreage and a mansion. Just saying . . .
__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Does "political capital" mean that unlike Italy, Spain and Germany in the '30s you can have effective two-party fascism in long running lockstep control of a nation?
It is passionately argued that our very democracy is at risk if Trump finagles replacing Ginsberg on the Court; "Next President Must Fill Ginsburg Seat - If our democracy is going to survive, Trump must not be allowed to pick her successor to the U.S. Supreme Court, unless he wins the next election." by Bill Lueders - September 21, 2020
Survivalist Alarmism? The item states early:
Now McConnell and the Republicans are saying that the forty-six days
between Ginsburg’s death and the November 3 election is not too short a
time to move forward with a new pick. They want to be able to fill
Ginsburg’s seat with her ideological opposite no matter who wins the
presidential contest in November.
In 2016, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told
the Senate Judiciary Committee: “I want you to use my words against me.
If there’s a Republican President in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the
last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, ‘Let’s let
the next President, whoever it might be, make that nomination.’ ”
Graham, who went on to become the committee’s chair, now says he will support Trump “in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg.”
The hypocrisy is beyond sickening. It is dangerous.
Yeah, and we all know what will happen. They've got the votes. This 2020 Progressive item is NOT the point.
All Crabgrass readers should read Zinn's item from Oct. 2005, "Don’t Despair about the Supreme Court - It would be naive to depend on the Supreme Court to defend the rights of poor people, women, people of color, dissenters of all kinds."
It is realism more than rhetoric; in cliche wording, telling it like it is.
Something for which many in our nation hate Zinn.
He wrote:
John Roberts sailed through his confirmation hearings as
the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, with enthusiastic Republican
support, and a few weak mutterings of opposition by the Democrats.
Then, after the far right deemed Harriet Miers insufficiently
doctrinaire, Bush nominated arch conservative Samuel Alito to replace
Sandra Day O'Connor. This has caused a certain consternation among
people we affectionately term "the left."
I can understand that sinking feeling. Even listening to pieces of
Roberts's confirmation hearings was enough to induce despair: the joking
with the candidate, the obvious signs that, whether Democrats or
Republicans, these are all members of the same exclusive club. Roberts's
proper "credentials," his "nice guy" demeanor, his insistence to the
Judiciary Committee that he is not an "ideologue" (can you imagine
anyone, even Robert Bork or Dick Cheney, admitting that he is an
"ideologue"?) were clearly more important than his views on equality,
justice, the rights of defendants, the war powers of the President.
At one point in the hearings, The New York Times reported, Roberts
"summed up his philosophy." He had been asked, "Are you going to be on
the side of the little guy?" (Would any candidate admit that he was on
the side of "the big guy"? Presumably serious "hearings" bring out idiot
questions.)
Roberts replied: "If the Constitution says that the little guy should
win, the little guy's going to win in court before me. But if the
Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy's
going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution."
If the Constitution is the holy test, then a justice should abide by
its provision in Article VI that not only the Constitution itself but
"all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land." This includes the
Geneva Convention of 1949, which the United States signed, and which
insists that prisoners of war must be granted the rights of due process.
A district court judge in 2004 ruled that the detainees held in
Guantanamo for years without trial were protected by the Geneva
Convention and deserved due process. Roberts and two colleagues on the
Court of Appeals overruled this.
There is enormous hypocrisy surrounding the pious veneration of the
Constitution and "the rule of law." The Constitution, like the Bible, is
infinitely flexible and is used to serve the political needs of the
moment. When the country was in economic crisis and turmoil in the
Thirties and capitalism needed to be saved from the anger of the poor
and hungry and unemployed, the Supreme Court was willing to stretch to
infinity the constitutional right of Congress to regulate interstate
commerce. It decided that the national government, desperate to regulate
farm production, could tell a family farmer what to grow on his tiny
piece of land.
When the Constitution gets in the way of a war, it is ignored. When
the Supreme Court was faced, during Vietnam, with a suit by soldiers
refusing to go, claiming that there had been no declaration of war by
Congress, as the Constitution required, the soldiers could not get four
Supreme Court justices to agree to even hear the case. When, during
World War I, Congress ignored the First Amendment's right to free speech
by passing legislation to prohibit criticism of the war, the
imprisonment of dissenters under this law was upheld unanimously by the
Supreme Court, which included two presumably liberal and learned
justices: Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis.
It would be naive to depend on the Supreme Court to defend the rights
of poor people, women, people of color, dissenters of all kinds. Those
rights only come alive when citizens organize, protest, demonstrate,
strike, boycott, rebel, and violate the law in order to uphold justice.
Can you say "Black Lives Matter?"
Zinn continues:
The distinction between law and justice is ignored by all those
Senators--Democrats and Republicans--who solemnly invoke as their
highest concern "the rule of law." The law can be just; it can be
unjust. It does not deserve to inherit the ultimate authority of the
divine right of the king.
The Constitution gave no rights to working people: no right to work
less than twelve hours a day, no right to a living wage, no right to
safe working conditions. Workers had to organize, go on strike, defy the
law, the courts, the police, create a great movement which won the
eight-hour day, and caused such commotion that Congress was forced to
pass a minimum wage law, and Social Security, and unemployment
insurance.
The Brown decision on school desegregation did not come from a sudden
realization of the Supreme Court that this is what the Fourteenth
Amendment called for. After all, it was the same Fourteenth Amendment
that had been cited in the Plessy case upholding racial segregation. It
was the initiative of brave families in the South--along with the fear
by the government, obsessed with the Cold War, that it was losing the
hearts and minds of colored people all over the world--that brought a
sudden enlightenment to the Court.
The Supreme Court in 1883 had interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment so
that nongovernmental institutions hotels, restaurants, etc.-could bar
black people. But after the sit-ins and arrests of thousands of black
people in the South in the early Sixties, the right to public
accommodations was quietly given constitutional sanction in 1964 by the
Court. It now interpreted the interstate commerce clause, whose wording
had not changed since 1787, to mean that places of public accommodation
could be regulated by Congressional action and be prohibited from
discriminating.
Soon this would include barbershops, and I suggest it takes an
ingenious interpretation to include barbershops in interstate commerce.
The right of a woman to an abortion did not depend on the Supreme
Court decision in Roe v. Wade. It was won before that decision, all over
the country, by grassroots agitation that forced states to recognize
the right. If the American people, who by a great majority favor that
right, insist on it, act on it, no Supreme Court decision can take it
away.
The rights of working people, of women, of black people have not
depended on decisions of the courts. Like the other branches of the
political system, the courts have recognized these rights only after
citizens have engaged in direct action powerful enough to win these
rights for themselves.
This is not to say that we should ignore the courts or the electoral
campaigns. It can be useful to get one person rather than another on the
Supreme Court, or in the Presidency, or in Congress. The courts, win or
lose, can be used to dramatize issues.
Zinn wrote more and it all is worth reading, so, again the link.
Indeed, Roe v. Wade can be said to stand for black-letter delineation of when abortion providers can and cannot act as they might choose; i.e., it basically was a roadmap for doctors, not a landmark for knocked up women wanting relief. That right was won by organizing and fighting against dark, evil, headstrong forces.
Abortion haters know that if they can pressure the doctors, availability will contract so that only the wealthy can arrange to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
That has been their strategy all along; including some doctors getting killed by crazy idealogues. Zinn concluded his essay:
Let us not be disconsolate over the increasing control of the court system by the right wing.
The courts have never been on the side of justice, only moving a few
degrees one way or the other, unless pushed by the people. Those words
engraved in the marble of the Supreme Court, "Equal Justice Before the
Law," have always been a sham.
No Supreme Court, liberal or conservative, will stop the war in Iraq,
or redistribute the wealth of this country, or establish free medical
care for every human being. Such fundamental change will depend, the
experience of the past suggests, on the actions of an aroused citizenry,
demanding that the promise of the Declaration of Independence--an equal
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--be fulfilled.
All the multitude of pages of sophistry the Barrett woman's written as referenced in an earlier post (as if she was being paid by the word) is not worth reading and taking to heart nearly to the same degree of the single [and nicely terse] Zinn item.
And that's the truth about Ginsberg dying less than two months before election day.
Joe Biden is such a conservative tool of donor will, and Harris is such a climber.
How could a person in good conscience cast a vote for the pair?
Trump, per the reporting, makes it not only an easy decision, but a necessary one. We have to remove hate and divisive meanness at the top. Before it trickles down anymore than already. Every person at that speech should have walked out.
He convinced me to fill my ballot out Biden-Harris.
Unwillingly, given the low quality of that ticket. But necessarily so given the likely alternative of the amount of scorn and mischief and sheer mean divisiveness four more Trump-Pence years would mean.
LESSER EVIL SUCKS. LESSER EVIL IS EASILY SEEN.
end of story - the ballot has been requested online - - -
- - - and then there is Tina and her scorn for the planet's well being vs. whoring for Iron Range votes.
AGAIN, LESSER EVIL RAISES ITS UGLY HEAD. There is nothing to cause any degree of enthusiasm to voting Tina again. Except - Jason Lewis and his whoring to Trump. Easy call to make.
Holding the nose for the entire ballot top-down. Long term, the corporate owned Dems need to be overwhelmed by US to gain a better nation for US. In due time.
Today has today's needs. The Republicans are beyond hope. Beyond any reasonable buy-in cause. More fascist than even the Clintons.
WORSE THAN SCHUMER EVEN!
NOTHING SCHUMER HAS DONE FOR FASCISM IN AMERICA EQUALS TRUMP'S PRAISE OF NATIVE AMERICAN GENOCIDE, AS "GOOD GENES" OR ANYTHING ELSE. PERHAPS TRUMP BELIEVES NETANYAHU HAS GOOD GENES, PALESTINIANS LESS SO. AS JUSTIFICATION FOR PALESTINIAN LAND BEING STOLEN. YET MORE THAN ALREADY.
VOTE HATE-FUELING DONALD J. TRUMP OUT.
YESTERDAY IS NOT SOON ENOUGH - NOV 3 BEING THE DEADLINE.
SO DO IT.
(GETTING BARR OUT VIA THE SAME VOTE IS A TWO-FOR BONUS.)
The man sells hate. Revels in it. Note: the opening Strib link was local-authored, not a web feed carried by Strib. The websearch was to see how widespread knowledge has been of what Trump said at a Bemidji airport hanger to a white crowd. Later in the Strib item:
Bemidji, a town of 15,000, is 80% white and surrounded by the Red Lake, Leech Lake and White Earth Indian reservations.
It is the seat of Beltrami County, where commissioners voted 3-2 in January against
allowing refugee resettlement after the Trump administration instituted
a policy giving local communities a say in whether to take new
refugees. Beltrami County was one of the few localities in the nation to
vote against permitting new refugees, though a federal judge soon
blocked the White House from enforcing the executive order.
[...]
Trump has attributed his own success over the years to good genes, even well before he became president.
But Veena Iyer likened
Trump’s comments in Bemidji to eugenics advocates, including Nazis and
U.S. policymakers, who about 100 years ago built an immigration system
based on racial quotas.
“This statement
hearkens to eras both in our own country and in other nations’ histories
that we do not as a nation, as a state, as a community want to go back
to because they don’t reflect our values,” said Iyer, executive director
of the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota. “…At the end of the day,
there’s no reason that we should have any leader in our country in
whatever context rallying a group of people based on their ‘good
genes.’ ”
Opponents of refugee
resettlement in Beltrami County pointed to the financial burden as a top
reason. They noted that the county must first take care of its own
residents in need before tending to outsiders. While commissioners who
voted against refugee resettlement did not return phone messages Monday,
Commissioner Tim Sumner pointed to racism as a deeper reason.
“I think it goes
further than financial,” said Sumner, who voted to allow refugee
resettlement and is a member of the Red Lake Nation. “Let’s be honest,
it’s racism is what it is. And for the president to come to Bemidji,
which is surrounded by three tribal nations, to spew hatred and racism
is uncalled for, especially when we’re a county and a community that’s
still dealing with racism and still trying to move forward from this
refugee [vote].”
Race baiting is not nice. Nor is Trump. Race baiting has no place in American politics. Nor should Trump, any more. Vote him out. Bite the Biden bullet. Yes, the Biden cramdown was obscene. Yes, it deserves scorn what the Democratic Party inner operatives along with Bloomberg did. Yes, the obscenity of Trump is greater, while both obscenities are galling to the core beliefs of the level, cultured soul.
Even though we knew from the beginning that we were dealing with an
essentially authoritarian leader, our awareness of it has sometimes been
subsumed amid the sheer chaos of daily news over the past five years.
But if you look at the various issues Trump is most obsessed with,
whether it was the lurid obsession with terrorist violence and refugees
during the 2016 campaign or his preoccupation with immigrants, the
pardoning of war criminals, his flirtations with dictators, the endless
threats to jail his political opponents and muzzle the press, the
valorizing of the Confederacy and the openly racist “law and order”
campaign of this year, it’s pretty clear what gets him excited — along
with his devoted following.
But wait, you say: Donald Trump only cares about himself! He’s not
interested in anything as abstract as “issues.” But these are not
mutually exclusive things. You see, Donald Trump genuinely believes he
is scientifically superior to all those “others” and that they must be
kept in check, with whatever level of violence may be necessary.
That video takes a range of comments from different times and venues, and shows a thread of unquestionable racism. Eugenics may have had an early anchor in Planned Parenthood's history, but after the second world war it came to be universally viewed as poisonous means toward "untermenschen" policy killing millions. As un-American as things get in today's U.S. of A.
The prior post, here, with it appearing that Trump will insult Ginsberg's memory with Amy Coney Barrett much as John Danforth working with Biden et al. insulted Thurgood Marshall's memory with Clarence Thomas.
Two follow-up posts by Sirota, in temporal order, first his linking here and then his posting here. The earlier Sirota idea was Schumer needs to be challenged with a primary contest when his seat's up again and then this second follow-up is titled,
AOC to Schumer: “We Must Use Every Tool At Our Disposal”
As
Trump tries to install a Supreme Court justice, Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez says Democratic lawmakers must use all their power to
prevent that from happening.
It's early to pop the popcorn since primary time for Schumer is years
away; but who better to primary and remove this pompous arrogant
impediment to progress?
The House does not review and approve Court nominations, so it is AOC not having any hammer except to be telling Schumer, simply put, to not fuck around.
Barrett is the subject of an AP item. Read it to see who to expect from Orange Man.
She probably loves Citizens United, giving corporations powers meant, originally for humans, who cannot exist "in perpetuity." As an "originalist." She should be asked about corporate huministic rights and powers, and where in original texts she'd point for such a plain dumb decision. AP says:
Barrett was raised in New Orleans, the eldest child of a lawyer for
Shell Oil Co. She earned her undergraduate degree in English literature
in 1994 at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn. She and her husband, Jesse
Barrett, a former federal prosecutor, both graduated from Notre Dame Law
School. They have seven children, including two adopted from Haiti and
one with special needs.
Trump personally does not care a rip about abortion, but feeds red meat to the crazies.
Barrett looks to be one of the crazies. The fan is going to load up, Trump likely loving every minute of discord he can sow and shall be that way up to his being replaced in the White House, and then, after that until he croaks.
Besides being Notre Dame output having dad lawyering for the oil barons suggests that she has no conscience toward people, vs corporations or people vs. government - Trump keeps Roberts and McConnell happy with that checkbox on the application. Publicity over embryo politics, dead set to see that government and business interests prevail over individuals, workers in particular need to worry. After all, minimum wages are not specified in original documents - so is a minimum wage constitutional?
-------------------
She's written a slew of stuffnobody reads, and seems averse to brevity being wit. But all Law Review stuff is tediously long, so she goes along to get along.
This is the item the AP authors noted as Barrett leaving Roe v. Wade out of her aura of binding precedent. Her being dismissive of it because controversy burns on, she says. (In whose heart and mind it burns brightest can be inferred.) Only 28 pages, one of her shorter things.
The threat this mind poses to Roe v. Wade is seen in footnotes 78 and 141. She does not knife the decision until her f.n. 141, which stands 3 pages from the end. The item is turgid enough that few would get that far before stopping. Web word search to the rescue. I didn't have to plow through all that stuff to find Roe knifed, per the pdf you can download from the SSRN link.
Because of the dynamics, Biden, if elected, will oversee the biggest split of the Democratic party since the Clintons took it into the corporatist camp. Bernie was only a warning shot across the bow. It will be an inner-party civil war.
The
death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg will almost certainly transform the
remaining weeks of the campaign — but also has the potential to reshape
constitutional government in the United States.
Ginsburg’s
death from cancer, 46 days before the presidential election, comes four
years after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spent nearly a year
blocking a vote on Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
Barack Obama appointed Garland, a moderate judge on the D.C. Circuit
Court, for the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia in
February 2016.
Shortly
after Scalia died, McConnell put out a statement. “The American people
should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court
Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a
new president,” said the Kentucky Republican. The result was a
historically unprecedented blockade.
[...]
The
stakes in 2020 are entirely different. A justice appointed by Trump
would likely solidify the court’s conservative majority at 6-3 and end
Chief Justice John Roberts’s role as an institutionalist swing vote.
This would put Roe v. Wade and other high-court decisions
cherished by the left and broadly supported in public polling at risk of
being overturned. It also occurs only weeks before November at a moment
when over 100,000 Americans have already cast their ballots and with
McConnell’s precedent from only four years ago looming over proceedings.
Within
minutes of Ginsburg’s death being announced, Schumer put out the exact
same statement that McConnell did after Scalia’s death in February
2016. However, unlike McConnell, Schumer is not the majority leader.
McConnell
announced in a statement Friday night, “President Trump’s nominee will
receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” effectively
dismissing any precedent from four years ago. [...]
Assuming
McConnell holds the remainder of his caucus together to jam through a
nominee under those circumstances, it would cause a constitutional
crisis. The appointment of a Supreme Court justice under these
circumstances would transform ending the filibuster and expanding the
size of the Supreme Court from a niche issue on the left to a
fundamental litmus test.
Already, Democrat Ed Markey of Massachusetts made clear in
a statement on Twitter, “Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme
Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when
Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the
filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.”
In
other words, if Joe Biden is elected and Democrats take control of the
Senate, there could be a constitutional clash of a magnitude not seen
since the New Deal, when a right-wing Supreme Court took on Franklin
Delano Roosevelt before eventually buckling under the threat of
court-packing.
Markey, a progressive is clear. But is Biden?
Biden likely would prefer Trump-McConnell to do the dirty work, having it to run against, and relieving him of any burden of flak over his naming a corporatist, which is precisely what he'd do. As a corporatist, happy with one more on Court, similar to Schumer. The pair of Biden and Schumer would resist, not assist the expansion of the Court to better reflect the mood of the people as against the mood of the wealthy donor class which has for years maintained class warfare against the people.
So, Trump-McConnell get their cramdown, Biden gets off the hook, somebody wins the election, and things will not fundamentally change.
Somebody even said that as if a campaign promise to wealth.
Meanwhile the Lincoln Project huffs and puffs, and Bloomberg spends.
Great Again? A very difficult target, but greater would be the Lincoln Project being laughed at as all show without substance, buying a voice if there is a Biden win, and no matter how much Bloomberg spends he has left over more wealth than any single human needs.
Status quo Joe will not put out a strong objection to Trump-McConnell further moving the Court to corporation friendly lengths, but he and his people will propagandize it as if they truly objected to a stronger corporatist tilt happening to the Court. All show. No conscience. Not having to do the dirty work post election by letting Trump-McConnell now or during the lame duck period do their thing absent Biden having to participate.
Harris will agree. Whatever, she'll agree. You don't immensely upgrade a career by starting to make waves when never doing so previously but always taking the easy way. She'd agree with that, . . .
UPDATE: The betting here, Trump-McConnell's choosing? Another Catholic. Bolster that Court majority via one more. Biden could live with that, yes/no? Over two terms it would entrench a status quo and we know how Biden values the status quo. It got him where he is, and he's never bitten the feeding hands of plutocrats or his Church.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg’s aides have continued asking around
for intel on what Biden will do, believing there’s likely only room in
the race for one of them.
Bloomberg suggested as much
himself when the two appeared together at the National Action Network
breakfast in Washington on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
“Whatever
the next year brings for Joe and me,” Bloomberg said at the breakfast,
“I know we’ll both keep our eyes on the real prize, which is a Democrat
winning the White House in 2020 and getting our country back on track.” [The Atlantic - a year-and-a-half ago]
Perhaps Biden, if elected, would do largely what Bloomberg, if President, would do.
Mammon sets the course Biden sails. Mammon is the goal Trump embraces. This election, Mammon is going to come out okay.
--------------
FURTHER: As to who Trump may nominate, DailyMail in its gaudy fashion headlines:
Who will Trump pick to replace RBG? Frontrunner devout Catholic
Judge Amy Coney Barrett will battle it out with 20 others on the
President's Supreme Court shortlist including senators Ted Cruz and Tom
Cotton
President
Trump may have the chance to appoint another Justice to the Supreme
Court following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday
Earlier in September, Trump revealed his shortlist of 20 names
The current frontrunner is U.S. Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett, 48, a devout Catholic and pro-lifer
Trump's list includes three sitting senators: Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley
President Trump already knows who he wants to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, according to a report.
Trump told confidants he was “saving” Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the
seat last year during deliberations over who should replace retiring
Justice Anthony Kennedy, according to Axios.
“I’m saving her for Ginsburg,” Trump reportedly said about Barrett.
Barrett, a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, was a
popular choice among conservatives at the time. The 47-year-old has
strong ties to her Catholic faith and signaled an openness to
overturning Roe v. Wade.
Ultimately, Trump’s pick, Brett Kavanaugh, was nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court in October.
Catherine Glenn Foster, president of Americans United for Life, is urging
President Donald Trump to “move quickly to nominate Judge Amy Coney
Barrett,” who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, to fill the High Court’s vacancy.
[...] “We are confident that if appointed to the Supreme Court, Judge
Barrett would prove herself a trusted caretaker of the Constitutional
protections extended to every human person in America, including human
lives in the womb,” Foster said.
This might be Trump's Hail Mary. Barrett is the right faith for a Hail Mary. And those little embryos, each voting Trump . . . snatching victory . . .
Joe Biden Resisting Calls to Unveil List of Potential Court Picks
Drew Angerer/Getty
(AP) ATLANTA — Joe Biden is resisting calls
from President Donald Trump and even some fellow Democrats to release
his list of potential Supreme Court picks seven months after he pledged
to name the first Black female justice.
Some on the left suggest that outlining potential picks would help
Biden build enthusiasm in the final weeks of the campaign, particularly
after he already selected California Sen. Kamala Harris as his running
mate, making her the first Black woman on a major presidential ticket.
Trump, meanwhile, is eager to comb through a list to find possible
nominees who would bolster his false depiction of Biden as an extreme
liberal.
Trump helped insert the Supreme Court squarely into presidential
politics in 2016 by taking the unprecedented step of releasing a list of
potential nominees before he was elected, a move that helped rally the
conservatives who ultimately carried him to victory.
But some of Biden’s allies say a list won’t provide the same payoff
for him and could hurt him by distracting voters from Trump’s handling
of the coronavirus and give the president fuel to suggest Biden’s
choices are too far left.
“Why play into Trump’s hands?” asked Karen Finney, a prominent Black Democratic strategist.
Ms. Finney as quoted might have added, "Why do a list when Joe's happy with Barrett, or presumably so since he declines to interject anybody else's name."
Joe, the Ghost who walks. The anti-Trump, choosing to not offer himself as much more than that. Much as John Kerry ran as the anti-Bush.
FURTHER: Barrett's Wikipedia page - from Indiana, JD from Notre Dame. "Barrett was born and raised in New Orleans.
She is the oldest of seven children, with five sisters and a brother.
Her father, Michael Coney, worked as an attorney for Shell Oil Company;
her mother was a homemaker."
" At Notre Dame, Barrett served as an executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review. In 1997, she graduated first in her class, which earned her the Hoynes Prize, the Law School's highest honor.[16]
"A hearing on Barrett's nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee was held on September 6, 2017.[29] During Barrett's hearing, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein questioned Barrett about whether her Catholic faith
would influence her decision-making on the court, [...] Worried that Barrett would not uphold Roe v. Wade
given her Catholic beliefs, Feinstein followed Barrett's response by
saying, "the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern".[31][32][33][34]"
" Several Republican senators came to Barrett's defense,[43] including Chuck Grassley,
who said, "Professor Barrett is a brilliant legal scholar who has
earned the respect of colleagues and students from across the political
spectrum. She's also a committed Roman Catholic and has spoken
passionately about the role that her faith plays in her life. This isn't
inconsistent with being a federal judge."[44]
-----------------
Biden, if elected, would be the nation's second Catholic president. However, Biden is no John Kennedy, by anyone's honest measure.
As Republicans are already promising
a vote on a nominee from Donald Trump, the obvious question is: What
can be done to stop conservatives’ full takeover of the nation’s high
court for the rest of our lives?
We don’t have all the answers,
but we have one answer among many: A serious New York Democratic
candidate needs to step up and announce a 2022 primary challenge to Sen.
Chuck Schumer — who already has a record of helping fast-track Donald Trump’s judicial appointments.
That primary challenge needs to be announced right now — and it needs to be clear that the primary challenge will be a referendum on Schumer’s record on Trump judges.
[...] Schumer needs to face maximum pressure every single day to use all
possible power that his caucus has — and it has power — to stop a Trump
appointment.
Not just pressure as in phone calls and protests — pressure as in you-will-be-voted-out-of-office pressure.
[...] You could argue that there was nothing Schumer could do to prevent
conservative Democrats from voting the way they did, but that’s
bullshit. Schumer controls the party apparatus and its fundraising
machine — if his excuse is he can’t do anything, then he shouldn’t be
the leader.
Schumer and Democrats have chronically mismanaged
judicial appointments. Obama left office with a Supreme Court seat open
and far too many district and court of appeals vacancies.
Republicans have rushed to fill those seats, and Democrats have
rubber-stamped most of their nominees with little fight. While House
Democrats and Senate Republicans haven’t managed to agree on a new COVID
relief bill since March, Democrats this week helped confirm eight new district court judges this week.
It’s
true that if Republicans hold together, then they can vote a Supreme
Court nominee through with a simple majority — that is, if they are able
to force a vote, and it’s not a given they will be able to if Democrats
use all of their power.
Grinding The Senate To A Halt
[...] if Arizona Democrat Mark Kelly wins his race against GOP incumbent
Martha McSally (to fill the remainder of John McCain's term) he would be
seated
at the end of November, rather than in January. But continued
obstructionist tactics might yet be needed to prevent them from using
the lame duck session to ram a nominee through.
If Republicans
still go forward with an appointment, then all of this becomes the
justification for Democrats to immediately pass legislation in the new
Congress to expand the court.
It would certainly be
unprecedented, but we are living in unprecedented times — and this is
what a Democratic leader must be forced to try to do, and the best way
to force a senator to do something is to make clear they are risking
their job if they don’t do that thing.
New York Has Plenty Of Dems Who Could Primary Schumer
[...]
[italics added] (Expanding the Court is NOT an unprecented idea. Roosevelt having New Deal counter-Depression steps voided step-after-step floated an intent to pack the Court; Justices noticed, and behaved better.) Credibly pushing to pack the Court if needed would require a new President with balls:
Biden?
Another Sirota post - by photographic implication - suggests women politicians may be the answer for progressives, at least short term, (and that does not mean Pelosi, but rather women with actual not feigned progressive consciences), Sirota posting:
This
week was a long year, and now there are less than seven weeks until one
of the most important elections in our country’s history.
Everyone
is on edge from everything — climate disasters, a pandemic, an economic
emergency and Trump’s endless effort to sow anxiety. We should
acknowledge that things will get more turbulent before they get better.
But I fear that we are reaching a point where too many are starting to
conclude that things can never get better — and ignoring signs that things can get better, and in some cases actually are getting better.
I
see the despondence in my own email box everyday: In the last month,
some readers have suggested that there is no reason for any hope,
because even if Trump is defeated, there is no way to ever move our
government to do anything good at all, ever.
It’s an
understandable feeling — year after year, decade after decade, it has
felt like our country cares less and less about us, and that we are all
on our own. Those feelings are backed up by cold, hard numbers: A new
RAND Corporation study this week found that since the 1970s, about $47 trillion of national wealth that should have gone to the bottom 90 percent instead went to the top 1 percent. As New York Magazine
put it: “If income had been distributed as evenly over the past five
decades as it was in 1975, the median full-time worker in the U.S. would
enjoy annual earnings of roughly $92,000 a year. As is, that worker
makes just $50,000.”
There’s no way to sugarcoat those figures —
they illustrate a breakdown of the basic social contract in America, a
breakdown deliberately created by the oligarchs, politicians and
corporations that are building their gilded careers and palaces atop the
rubble of a once-vibrant economy. And day after day, the propaganda
propping up this avarice is blasted at us by the corporate media, which indignantly tell us that a new president must represent Wall Street arsonists, not just the millions of people being set on fire.
