Politics-What's on your mind?

[homoe]

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a trailblazer for women’s rights, a fierce champion for equality, and an extremely accomplished American who broke countless barriers in the field of law,” Collins said in a statement. “Throughout her life, Justice Ginsburg surmounted discrimination and sexism through her brilliance, tenacity, and wit, becoming one of the most prominent legal luminaries of our time.” Collins added that she "had the great honor of getting to know Justice Ginsburg personally when the women Senators twice had dinner with her and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She has been a role model to generations of women, and her legacy will live on in the countless people she inspired.”


A representative for Collins declined twice to give an answer on whether she would vote for a Trump nominee, according to the Portland Press Herald in Main.

Sidebar: It does no good to try and lock the barn door after the horses have been stolen! You've made your bed Collins now lay in it!

[homoe]

Susan Collins: "Whoever Wins The Presidential Election Should Fill SCOTUS Vacancy"

Lets see if she sticks to her guns once Mitch starts pouring dark money into her campaign fund!

[homoe]

Lindsey Graham sides with Trump on filling Supreme Court vacancy: 'I fully understand'


Of course he flip flopped, all of those surprised raise your hand!

[C0LLETTE]

Originally Posted by homoe

Lindsey Graham sides with Trump on filling Supreme Court vacancy: 'I fully understand'


Of course he flip flopped, all of those surprised raise your hand!

I suspect that if he didn't side with Trump he'd be shoved out of the closet before he took his next breath.

[homoe]

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

I suspect that if he didn't side with Trump he'd be shoved out of the closet before he took his next breath.

Correct AND of course he'd never be invited to golf with Trump again.....

[homoe]

~~
In my humble opinion what does it matter what they have said in the past! With the exception of a perhaps one or two, few have the backbone to stand up to Trump or live up to the courage of their convictions!



https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-senat...212231780.html

[homoe]

PHOENIX (AP) — If Arizona Democrat Mark Kelly wins a seat in the U.S. Senate, he could take office as early as Nov. 30, shrinking the GOP’s Senate majority at a crucial moment and complicating the path to confirmation for President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

Kelly has maintained a consistent polling lead over Republican Sen. Martha McSally, who was appointed to the seat held by John McCain, who died in 2018.

Because the contest is a special election to finish McCain’s term, the winner could be sworn in as soon as the results are officially certified. Other winners in the November election won’t take office until January.

Trump has pledged to nominate a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon who died Friday, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed that Trump’s nominee “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

If Kelly wins, the timing when he formally takes office could be crucial in determining who replaces Ginsburg. It could eliminate a Republican vote in favor of Trump’s nominee — the GOP currently has 53 seats in the 100-member chamber — or require McConnell to speed up the nomination process.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/arizona-s...050916130.html

[Cin]

This whole idea of stacking the supreme court seems to go against the spirit of what the supreme court supposedly does, which is constitutional review. When the Supreme Court justices' rulings reflect the party that simultaneously controls the presidency and the senate at the time of the justices' appointments, it says that the supreme court will allow or disallow laws according to the views of the party that was in control at the time of the appointments, not according to the constitution. It reminds me how some religious leaders use the parts of the bible that fit their agenda to interpret God's laws. Supreme court justices use the parts of the constitution and interpret those parts to fit their liberal or conservative agenda. Adding 2 more justices when a democrat gets in the White House, as I've heard proposed as a possible solution to the conservative majority problem, won't do a thing to address the sad state of constitutional review. Just the fact that at one point the Supreme Court decides that campaign spending regulations are allowed (McConnell, 2003), and then at another point that they are disallowed (Citizens United, 2010) shows there is more going on than simply trying to best of one's ability as a Supreme Court justice to interpret the Constitution fairly and accurately. It might make more sense to have Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality be merely advisory and non-binding. I doubt that will ever happen though. We will continue to battle for the right to stack the Supreme Court with like minded individuals, true and honorable constitutional review be damned.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by Cin

This whole idea of stacking the supreme court seems to go against the spirit of what the supreme court supposedly does, which is constitutional review. When the Supreme Court justices' rulings reflect the party that simultaneously controls the presidency and the senate at the time of the justices' appointments, it says that the supreme court will allow or disallow laws according to the views of the party that was in control at the time of the appointments, not according to the constitution. It reminds me how some religious leaders use the parts of the bible that fit their agenda to interpret God's laws. Supreme court justices use the parts of the constitution and interpret those parts to fit their liberal or conservative agenda. Adding 2 more justices when a democrat gets in the White House, as I've heard proposed as a possible solution to the conservative majority problem, won't do a thing to address the sad state of constitutional review. Just the fact that at one point the Supreme Court decides that campaign spending regulations are allowed (McConnell, 2003), and then at another point that they are disallowed (Citizens United, 2010) shows there is more going on than simply trying to best of one's ability as a Supreme Court justice to interpret the Constitution fairly and accurately. It might make more sense to have Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality be merely advisory and non-binding. I doubt that will ever happen though. We will continue to battle for the right to stack the Supreme Court with like minded individuals, true and honorable constitutional review be damned.

I wholeheartedly agree. It is short-sighted in the extreme to even suggest it. If we add justices every time there is a power shift, aren't we going to end up with like 37 justices eventually?

It just sets a terrible precedent. If anyone is going to try to pull something like this, let it be the GOP and we will take the high road against it.

[homoe]

IF ONLY! Too bad he's such a liar....

[homoe]

R E A L L Y... after the way he treated Col Vinmar, one of just many?

[Cin]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

I wholeheartedly agree. It is short-sighted in the extreme to even suggest it. If we add justices every time there is a power shift, aren't we going to end up with like 37 justices eventually?

It just sets a terrible precedent. If anyone is going to try to pull something like this, let it be the GOP and we will take the high road against it.

Yes, it is a terrible precedent.

I'm also uncomfortable with packing the court with justices who will allow or disallow laws according to the views of the party who appointed them instead of according to the constitution. I get that interpreting the constitution allows for a bit of manipulating/maneuvering just like interpreting the law in general does. But I think a judge needs to start the interpreting from a place of integrity, openness and honesty. There needs to be a willingness to be impartial and uphold the spirit of the constitution even while understanding that it was a different time so things change, meaning becomes obscured or irrelevant, allowing for dispassionate review and interpretation.

Of course justices are human beings and human beings have prejudices and personal belief systems but one is not on the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution according to one's beliefs. Once that becomes the norm we may as well remove constitutional review from the job description. Again I know it happens, it can't be helped. justices can't remove their beliefs from their motivations. But when it is not only accepted as a given, but is the exact reason the particular person is chosen to be a Supreme Court justice then I question the validity of the rulings the Court makes. Even the idea that the American people choose a president and through that choice should expect the Supreme Court justices appointed by that president to allow or disallow laws according to the views of the party that controlled the presidency and the senate at that time and not according to constitutional review is to my mind bizarre. A judge at least should give lip service to being impartial. Judges should judge with impartiality. I know democrats are expected to appoint liberal justices and republicans conservative ones. I get that. But lately this seems to be a bit more than that, extra as the kids say. I am probably being naïve here but I don't believe there was always this deep intractable split with Supreme Court justices. I mean I know justices always leaned to the right or the left, but this is ridiculous.

[homoe]

There you go Susan! See where all your loyalty got you!









https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-att...024428657.html

[homoe]

(CNN)GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah signaled on Tuesday that he is on board with the Senate's taking up a new Supreme Court nominee during the current election year, an announcement that all but ensures a nominee put forward by President Donald Trump will be confirmed barring any potential missteps by the nominee during the confirmation process.

In a statement, Romney did not raise any objections to holding a vote on a Trump nominee this year and said, "If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications."

[kittygrrl]

Vote

[homoe]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) re-election campaign is facing scrutiny from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and he is now being required to answer questions regarding suspected accounting errors.

The letter and a 60-page report, written by FEC campaign analyst Susan Worthington to McConnell's Senate Committee, were sent to McConnell's campaign treasurer, Larry J. Steinberg on Monday. The committee pointed out "Apparent Excessive, Prohibited, and Impermissible Contributions" regarding donations recorded in McConnell's July quarterly report that suggests multiple contributions may have exceeded the legal limits.

Worthington also pointed out that there were contributions "received after the 2020 primary election that are designated for the 2020 primary.

"These contributions may only be accepted to the extent that the committee has net debts outstanding from the 2020 primary election," Worthington wrote.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mitch-mcc...143605136.html

[Cin]

I don't know why the democrats won't even try to stop the SCOTUS pick. Maybe they won't be successful, but they certainly won't be if they don't even try. Why throw your hands in the air and say there is nothing to be done, when there are certainly several things that can be tried. I truly don't understand. Here's an article about a memo circulating Capital Hill outlining ways in which the dems could try to stop or slow this farce. What is in it for the democrats to just roll over? It's so frustrating.

You can bet your life if this was happening to the Republicans, capitulation would not even be considered as an option. Regardless if they had a chance in hell of being successful they would put everything they had, all resources available to them, into making it as difficult for the Democrats as they possibly could and like as not they would end up stopping them.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...p-rush-confirm


'Capitulation' Not an Option: Memo Details How Dems Can Stall or Stop GOP Rush to Confirm Trump SCOTUS Pick
"Hill Democrats and MSNBC pundits have been saying there's very little Dems can do to block Trump's illegitimate Supreme Court pick. False."

Warning against "mere capitulation" to the unpopular effort by President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans to rush through another right-wing Supreme Court justice right before the November election, a memo circulating on Capitol Hill outlines a number of ways in which Democrats in both chambers of Congress can gum up the works and delay the advance of Trump's nominee.

First reported by The Daily Poster on Thursday and later published in full by The Intercept, the document was compiled by people familiar with the nuances of congressional procedure, which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has frequently used to further his party's aims while stifling those of his Democratic counterparts.

The memo details a number of procedural maneuvers available to congressional Democrats, including the introduction of privileged War Powers Resolutions—an idea floated this week by Kate Kizer of Win Without War—and House passage of impeachment resolutions against Trump or other administration officials, which the Senate would be required to consider before moving to other business.

Acknowledging that their list of possible delay tactics is "far from exhaustive" and not guaranteed to succeed, the authors of the memo maintain that they "have reason to believe that not all potential options have been thoroughly explored" by Democratic leaders, who are facing pressure from advocacy groups and progressive lawmakers to pull out all the stops against Trump's pick to fill the vacancy left by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Thus far, as Bloomberg's Steven Dennis reported Thursday, Senate Democrats not been doing all they can to slow activity in the chamber.

"As a threshold matter," the document recommends, "congressional Democrats must enter a war-room posture and convene a group of the people most knowledgeable of Senate (and House) procedure who can work together and be mutually generative of relevant tactical ideas."

The memo authors note that on top of the potentially disastrous confirmation of another right-wing justice—who the president has vowed to name Saturday—failure by Democrats to do everything in their power to slow Trump's Supreme Court pick could "be viewed by many as abandonment of the Democratic base and could undermine enthusiasm."

"Much of the broad electorate will want to see congressional Democrats fighting to protect the court and their constitutional rights," the document says.

Read the full memo:

Re: Safeguarding the Court

Democrats must act to delay action by Leader McConnell to fill Justice Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat. Denying action before the election could markedly increase the probability that the results of the election would change the vote in the Senate and thereby allow for the seating of a more progressive Justice. Failing that, moving forward with confirmation during a lame duck session, if consent of the governed had been denied, would buttress the case for structural Court reform.

Moreover, much of the broad electorate will want to see Congressional Democrats fighting to protect the Court and their Constitutional rights. Mere capitulation to what Washington insiders see as the inevitable will be viewed by many as abandonment of the Democratic base and could undermine enthusiasm.

At least two contextual considerations make the current circumstance more favorable to the use of dilatory tactics than were the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh confirmations, both of which took place during the 115th Congress: 1) The electorate might vote to change control of the Senate and/or the White House in a matter of weeks and 2) Democrats control the House of Representatives, which can play a part in compelling certain action in the Senate.

Engaging in such dilatory tactics would also likely force McConnell to keep the entire Republican Conference in the vicinity of the Senate, in order to maintain a quorum and to win various votes. This might become increasingly untenable because up to a dozen sitting Republicans are defending their seats in close races and will want to return home to campaign — including to participate in debates and other events they will be loath to miss.

As a threshold matter, the Congressional Democrats must enter a war-room posture and convene a group of the people most knowledgeable of Senate (and House) procedure who can work together and be mutually generative of relevant tactical ideas.

Suggestions contained herein, even if all acted upon in good faith, might not be dispositive of the outcome of the confirmation process — but we have reason to believe that not all potential options have been thoroughly explored.

Actions Congressional Democrats should consider include the following — but what follows is far from exhaustive. We do not purport to have considered every possibility, and this document intentionally omits discussion of certain creative tactics that rely upon the element of surprise.

Exercising Rights To Delay Senate Action Generally

Speaking at Length — In the absence of a unanimous consent agreement governing time to debate or cloture, a Senator who gets recognized to speak can speak at length.

Objecting to Routine Consent Agreements — Any Senator may object to routine unanimous consent agreements, such as those to adjourn, to recess, to approve the Journal, or to dispense with the Morning Hour. Forcing roll-call votes on routine motions to adjourn or recess would require Senators to come to the Capitol and also prevent the Senate from taking other action during the time that it would take for Senators to come to vote.

New Legislative Day — If the Senate adjourns without a unanimous consent agreement providing for the handling of routine business at the beginning of a new legislative day, a new legislative day starts with the morning hour, a 2-hour period with a number of required procedures. As part of the morning hour, any Senator could make a non-debatable motion to proceed to an item on the Senate calendar.

Objecting to Lifting Quorum Calls — Any Senator can object to unanimous consent to lifting a quorum call, forcing a recorded vote that would require Senators to come to the Capitol and also prevent the Senate from taking other action during the time it takes for Senators to come to vote.

Motions to Adjourn and Recess — Any Senator can move to adjourn, to adjourn to a day certain, or to take a recess. All of these motions take precedence over a motion to proceed to the consideration of a nomination. Senators could make a series of motions of this sort to force roll-call votes.

Layover Requirements — Senators can raise points of order if measures have not lain over sufficiently under Rule XIV or XVII.

Raising Points of Order — Any Senator who gets recognized by the Presiding Officer can raise a point of order making a procedural objection. Once the Presiding Officer rules, a Senator can appeal the ruling of the Chair, and Senators can demand a roll-call vote. One could imagine an extremely large number of procedural questions on which to vote.

Filing Cloture — If the Senate is not governed by a unanimous consent agreement or post cloture, a Senator who got recognized could move to proceed to a measure or series of measures and file cloture on the motion(s) to proceed. Two days later, the Senate would be required to vote on the cloture motion(s). The number of these motions is limited only by the number of items on the calendar.

Fast-Track Vehicles — Several fast-track statutes, including the Congressional Budget Act, the Congressional Review Act, the War Powers Act, and the Arms Export Control Act, give any Senator the right to move to proceed to a vehicle and force a roll-call vote and sometimes a period of debate. For example, any Senator could submit a concurrent resolution on the budget, and by precedent, if action has not yet been taken on a budget resolution for the coming fiscal year, then the resolution would be immediately placed on the calendar. Once on the calendar, any Senator could move to proceed to the resolution, forcing a roll-call vote on the motion to proceed. Meanwhile, resolutions of disapproval under the CRA can be petitioned out of committee with 30 signatures after 20 calendar days. Such measures could be filed en masse now.

Utilizing Rule XIV — Any Senator can have any legislative measure placed on the calendar in two legislative days under Rule XIV. Leader Schumer could ask every Democratic Senator to introduce bills on their favorite subjects en masse and seek to put them on the calendar via rule XIV. Once they were on the calendar two legislative days later, if Schumer could get the floor, he could move to proceed to each in turn, file cloture, withdraw his motion to proceed, move to another, file cloture, withdraw his motion to proceed, and continue to repeat, stacking up an almost endless series of votes on motions to invoke cloture on motions to proceed to Democratic priorities, until the Majority Leader shut the Senate down.

To prevent this strategy, the Majority Leader would have to keep the Senate locked down post cloture at all times and prevent the Democratic Leader from getting recognition, or continue to recess the Senate to prevent there ever being another legislative day. If the Majority Leader did the latter, the Democratic leader could still file serial motions to proceed to bills already on the calendar, so long as he could gain recognition to make the motions. This strategy requires there being an opportunity for motions to be made.

House Measures Requiring Senate Action

Impeachment — If the House of Representatives exercised its impeachment power, then the rules of the Senate require the Senate to immediately address that matter.

Amendments Between Houses — If the House of Representatives passed amendments to Senate-passed bills now pending in the House and sent those over to the Senate, those messages between Houses would be privileged in the Senate. Thus, in the absence of cloture or a unanimous consent agreement governing the Senate floor, a Senator could ask that such a message be laid before the Senate and make motions in connection with the message that would require immediate roll-call votes or offer a motion to concur (or concur with an amendment) and file cloture, once again forcing a roll-call vote after two days.

Short-Term Funding — The House of Representatives could insist on very short-term funding measures until the Leadership of both Houses came to agreement on proceedings for the balance of the year. Short-term funding measures would then require more-frequent roll-call votes.

War Powers Resolutions — Generally, within a certain number of days, the Senate has to take up WPRs or any Senator can move to proceed.

There are likely additional measures available that, if passed by the House, would demand action in the Senate.

Exercising Rights in the Judiciary Committee

Time for Review and Hearing — The Judiciary Committee customarily takes time to review the record of Supreme Court nominees. Democrats should demand that the Committee take this time before a hearing commences.

Objecting to Committees Meeting — Any Senator can object to unanimous consent for committees to meet more than two hours after the Senate convenes on a day in which the Senate is in session.

Full Hearings — Democratic Members of the Judiciary Committee could try to continue the proceedings of any hearing that the Chairman calls.

Hold Over Committee Action — Under Judiciary Committee rule I, paragraph 3, “At the request of any member . . . a . . . nomination on the agenda of the Committee may be held over until the next meeting of the Committee or for one week, whichever occurs later.” A Democratic Senator on the Judiciary Committee should demand that the nomination be held over for the week.

Denying a Quorum — Republicans need to produce the presence of a quorum of Judiciary Committee Senators to report out the nomination. Democrats might choose not to help produce the necessary Senators.

[BullDog]

Why are you assuming the Democrats aren't going to try to do anything? Unlike Trump, they don't telegraph their every move. Schumer already used the 2-hour rule at least once.

I think these are just stall tactics and even if they manage to hold them off until after election (I'm really not sure if they can), the Republicans will ram this nomination through after the election even if they lose in a landslide across the board.

I think the Democrats will make efforts. Let's wait and see and not assume the Democrats will do nothing.

[homoe]

With Collins trailing in the polls to Democrat Sara Gideon, Politico dispatched Kathryn Miles to the state to interview voters and what she found was an assortment of voters who have become disenchanted with the formerly popular senator — mainly due to her bowing to the whims of President Donald Trump.

According to Merlene Sanborn of Skowhegan, who has voted for Collins in the past, "There's such an atmosphere of disrespect in the campaigning. I feel like both candidates have forgotten about what matters to Maine."

Sanborn pointed to the Republican rush to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — while noting Collins has given no assurances about a vote after the election but before a new Senate is seated — saying, "It's just too important to rush the process. The Senate needs to take the appropriate amount of time to really consider the candidates. I want to see Susan Collins be a true leader and publicly advocate for that."

One-time Collins voter Cheryl Staples, 63, echoed Sanborn's comments about the Supreme Court vacancy, stating: "We expect Collins to go with her conscience — not her party. It's going to take more than saying she won't vote until the election to demonstrate that."

The Politico report notes that a recent polls shows that 59% of Maine voters want Collins to "delay voting on the nomination and approval process until a new president is sworn in in January," with one Maine resident saying he doesn't trust her after she voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

"He's a bad person and not fit for the court. I trusted her to take a stand on his fitness," explained retired Air Force medic Dick Enright who said he supported Collins until the Kavanaugh vote.

https://www.salon.com/

[Cin]

What's on my mind this morning is the upcoming election. Quelle surprise!

I was reading an article in The Hill about how Biden has a ten point lead on Trump. Information which I find very encouraging. But then the article goes on to say that "Biden leads Trump 54 percent to 44 percent in a head-to-head match-up, but his lead drops to 49 percent to 43 percent when the Libertarian and Green Party candidates are included." Then it goes on to note that Trump's overall approval is at a fairly steady 44 percent. Also important information is that the majority of voters, 52 percent (who are these fucking idiots?) continue to approve of Trump's handling of the economy. "More supporters of Trump say they are strongly enthusiastic about their candidate than supporters of Biden by 20 points. However, 59 percent of non-Trump supporters say Trump's reelection would be a crisis for the country versus 50 percent of non-Biden supporters who said a Biden victory would be a crisis." Seriously? How can sane people in numbers like 50 percent think like that? This feels like it will be a close race that will go down to the wire therefore subject to vote tampering and other shenanigans. I would be a lot more comfortable if the general population would show a degree of intelligence and an ability for critical thought, regardless of the reality that they have never even shown any indication that they possess that ability in the past. I was hoping everyone could sense danger and respond accordingly. But it seems many think very differently. 52 percent of the voters, not of Trump supporters, but of voters think Trump has done a good job with the economy. It's pretty disheartening.

Maybe everyone should mail in their vote and then go and vote in person at the polls. Then they can say their president told them to.

Here's the article. It's fairly good news I guess. It's just that I'm afraid in order to win the election considering everything that is stacked against the democratic candidate and the expertise the Republicans have at cheating, making it difficult for dems to vote and outright voter intimidation and the new ways they have come up with screwing with mail in ballots we need to win by a huge margin. We need a win that can't be denied. I just feel that not enough of the general population feel the sense of urgency that I do and that waaay too many people find Trump acceptable. It's very scary to me. I feel maybe I'm living in a bubble surrounded by like minded people and I just don't realize how many supporters Trump actually has. And that even if someone doesn't support Trump exactly, they just don't care enough to vote him out of office. Hopefully this isn't so. This is not the time for apathy. But I can't make that mean anything to someone if it just doesn't register for them.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...ead-over-trump