Saturday, September 19, 2020

Game over for the USA

I would like to think that Ruth Bader Ginsberg's untimely passing is not the catastrophe that it appears to be.  I would like to think that Mitch McConnell is a man of principle, and having once said that the Senate should not confirm a Supreme Court justice in an election year he will not brazenly expose himself as a hypocrite and confirm a Supreme Court justice in an election year.

I would like to think these things, but I can't.  My ability to suspend disbelief only goes so far.  Of course McConnell is not a man of principle.  Of course he will ram Trump's third Supreme Court nomination through the Senate in the next few weeks.  That much is absolutely certain.

What is only a little less certain is what happens after that.  If you eliminate the totally unrealistic scenario that Biden wins the election in an overwhelming landslide and Trump concedes, what are we left with?  Either Trump wins outright, or he loses on the margins, and we have a replay of Bush v. Gore, except that this time it will be adjudicated by a Supreme Court with a conservative majority, and three of nine justices appointed by the very president whose fate they are deciding.  If you think they will rule against Trump, well, I wish I shared your ability to suspend disbelief.

So the legitimacy of the government of the United States of America after January 2021 is now very much in doubt (if it isn't already).  The legitimacy of the Supreme Court is already very much in doubt, and has been ever since Mitch McConnell exercised his extra-Constitutional veto power over Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.  We are facing the very real prospect of a second Trump term even if Biden wins, to say nothing of losing 70 years of social progress.  Roe v. Wade is already as good as dead, as is the separation of church and state, and we are now we are looking at the very real prospect of also losing Obergefell v. Hodges, possibly even Griswold v. Connecticut.  LGBT rights, worker's rights, minority rights, immigrant rights, gone, squished under the new Christian theocracy thinly disguised as "religious freedom."

Fundamentalist Christians voted for Trump because he promised them power.  Some have speculated that they might be having buyers remorse but I'm pretty sure today the opposite is true.  Trump has delivered what he promised.  In spades.  His legacy will last generations.  It may never be possible to undo the damage.  The United States of America may soon be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization.


16 comments:

Publius said...

If It's Good For The Goose, . . ."

@Ron:
> I would like to think that Mitch McConnell is a man of principle, and having once said that the Senate should not confirm a Supreme Court justice in an election year

You left out the last part, ". . . when the White House and Senate are opposite parties."

>Of course he will ram Trump's third Supreme Court nomination through the Senate in the next few weeks. That much is absolutely certain.

Of course, if the White House and the Senate were controlled by Democrats, they would ram through a nomination in the next few weeks.


we have a replay of Bush v. Gore, except that this time it will be adjudicated by a Supreme Court with a conservative majority, and three of nine justices appointed by the very president whose fate they are deciding. If you think they will rule against Trump, well, I wish I shared your ability to suspend disbelief.

With Democratic leaders spreading theories that President Trump will refuse to leave office if he loses, that Biden "should not concede under any circumstances," democrats demanding mail-in voting so they can commit voter fraud more easily, demanding ballots delivered after election day be counted, and hiring 600 lawyers to contest election results around the country, it's clear the Democrats are planning on contesting the results of the election (and rioting) if President Trump wins. It is therefore essential we have a full Supreme Court in order to avoid a divided decision by the Court.

>So the legitimacy of the government of the United States of America after January 2021 is now very much in doubt (if it isn't already).

Been our rioting, Ron?

The legitimacy of the Supreme Court is already very much in doubt, and has been ever since Mitch McConnell exercised his extra-Constitutional veto power over Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.

Simply false. Mitch McConnell exercised the advice and consent power of the Senate written into the Constitution.

We are facing the very real prospect of a second Trump term even if Biden wins, to say nothing of losing 70 years of social progress.

ah ... there's the issue. Liberals have consistently failed to get their policies approved by the democratic process, so instead they concentrated on corrupting the judiciary and legislating from the courts.

squished under the new Christian theocracy thinly disguised as "religious freedom."

Incredible. Afraid of Christians.

Ron said...

I don't fear Christians, I fear Christian theocrats. I fear dominionists.

goody said...

>democrats demanding mail-in voting so they can commit voter fraud more easily

Ah, the fruits of the Trump / Republican propaganda machine. "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."

Ron said...

> Ah, the fruits of the Trump / Republican propaganda machine.

I've been mostly ignoring publius lately because he's clearly just a right wing troll. (In fact, he's so consistent and predictable that it would not surprise me a bit to learn that he's being paid to stir the pot here at RR. I can't imagine anyone doing this year after year on their own volition.) But this has inspired me to put in the effort to debunk the rest:

> You left out the last part, ". . . when the White House and Senate are opposite parties."

I left it out because that was not part of his rhetoric in 2016. He added that this year in a lame attempt to make it sound like something other than what it is: Supreme Court nominees should only be considered when they are right wing ideologues.

> With Democratic leaders spreading theories that President Trump will refuse to leave office if he loses

It's not Democratic leaders spreading these theories, it's Donald Trump. *He* is the one who refuses to say on the record that he will leave if he loses. He has also spoken of a third term. Democrats are not making this shit up out of whole cloth, they are taking Donald Trump at his word.

> Mitch McConnell exercised the advice and consent power of the Senate written into the Constitution.

No, he did not. He exercised a unilateral veto by refusing to even schedule confirmation hearings, let alone a vote. Mitch McConnell is just a senator. He represents the people of Kentucky. It is not the Constitution that gave him the power to veto the Garland nomination, it's the fucked up rules of the Senate.

> Liberals have consistently failed to get their policies approved by the democratic process

We got Obamacare approved by the democratic process. It's conservatives who have been trying to tear it down using the courts ever since.

Conservatives are hypocrites through and through. The only principle they adhere to nowadays is: victory by whatever means necessary. To hell with democracy, to hell with decency, to hell with civility, to hell with liberals, to hell with anyone with brown skin, and to hell with the United States of America. Hail Trump!

Publius said...

You have it backwards

@goody:
>Ah, the fruits of the Trump / Republican propaganda machine. "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."

Except the Democrats are the liars, and you are the rube who believes their lies.

Confessions of voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots

Michigan Rejects 846 Mailed Ballots ‘Because the Voter Was Dead’

goody said...

>Except the Democrats are the liars, and you are the rube who believes their lies.

Two anecdotal examples don't make any sort of trend or prove the outlandish claims Trump is making. He's been claiming widespread fraud, on the order of magnitude of millions of votes. There's simply no evidence of it. Trump, even with the huge resources of the federal government and many agencies at his disposal, has never provided any proof to back up his claims. It's simply BS to sew uncertainty and chaos . That's what fascist authoritarians do, and you and the Republicans are OK with that.

goody said...

>I've been mostly ignoring publius lately because he's clearly just a right wing troll

I've been a casual visitor / follower of this blog for a few years. Maybe that actually makes me a lurker. Anyway. I thought in the past that he was educated and perhaps a reasonable conservative. I had to respond to the Democratic voter fraud claim. It's just lunacy that no human being with an ounce of critical thinking can believe or support with a straight face.

It really shows how badly our democracy has gone off the rails when a large portion of the population is against making voting accessible, especially in the face of a pandemic and facilitating technology that has been around since the Pony Express.

Publius said...

Wrong Again, Part 1

@Ron:
>I've been mostly ignoring publius lately because he's clearly just a right wing troll. (In fact, he's so consistent and predictable that it would not surprise me a bit to learn that he's being paid to stir the pot here at RR. I can't imagine anyone doing this year after year on their own volition.)

I decided many years ago that I would never troll you. Now, I am somewhat of a mirror, in that my rhetoric will match the intensity of yours.

Try to remember: you are wrong about everything

> You left out the last part, ". . . when the White House and Senate are opposite parties."

>I left it out because that was not part of his rhetoric in 2016. He added that this year in a lame attempt to make it sound like something other than what it is: Supreme Court nominees should only be considered when they are right wing ideologues.

Yet you don't address: would democrats do anything different? Would a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate wait until after the election? Surely not.
That's just politics and your just upset because you're on the losing side.

Joe Biden in 1992: Delay SCOTUS nominee until after election
Fiery Joe Biden Says 'There is No Biden Rule,' 'It's Frankly Ridiculous' | NBC News
Joe Biden On Supreme Court Nomination Process: 'Every Single Nominee Got A Vote' | Speakeasy | CNBC


> With Democratic leaders spreading theories that President Trump will refuse to leave office if he loses

>It's not Democratic leaders spreading these theories, it's Donald Trump. *He* is the one who refuses to say on the record that he will leave if he loses. He has also spoken of a third term. Democrats are not making this shit up out of whole cloth, they are taking Donald Trump at his word.

Now that is President Trump trolling the democrats. They take the bait every time.

Pelosi says Trump might have to be 'fumigated' out of White House

> Mitch McConnell exercised the advice and consent power of the Senate written into the Constitution.

No, he did not. He exercised a unilateral veto by refusing to even schedule confirmation hearings, let alone a vote. Mitch McConnell is just a senator. He represents the people of Kentucky. It is not the Constitution that gave him the power to veto the Garland nomination, it's the fucked up rules of the Senate.

The rules of the Senate that made him majority leader to plan and organize their activities? Those are bad rules? There was no way Garland was going to be approved by the Senate; having hearings is just a waste of time.

President Obama could have gotten a nominee through if he had consulted with Republicans to identify an acceptable candidate, which likely would have been a centrist / moderate. Instead, President Obama stupidly put forward a liberal nominee. Obama needed to strike a deal.

Publius said...


Wrong Again, Part 2
> Liberals have consistently failed to get their policies approved by the democratic process

>We got Obamacare approved by the democratic process.

Not really. If you recall, Ted Kennedy died during the process, and the people of Massachusetts elected a Republican Senator to replace him -- in order to stop Obamacare.

But Harry Reed and the Democrats wedged the conference committee Obamacare legislation through the budget reconciliation process, which by Senate rules, couldn't be filibustered.

>It's conservatives who have been trying to tear it down using the courts ever since.

You're surprised the conservatives join the battle at the Democrats chosen venue? Or that conservatives object to unconstitutional laws passed by Democrats?

Conservatives are hypocrites through and through. The only principle they adhere to nowadays is: victory by whatever means necessary. To hell with democracy, to hell with decency, to hell with civility, to hell with liberals, to hell with anyone with brown skin, and to hell with the United States of America. Hail Trump!

This can be corrected by remembering you are wrong about everything:

Democrats are hypocrites through and through. The only principle they adhere to nowadays is: victory by whatever means necessary (including riots, arson, and murder). To hell with democracy, to hell with decency, to hell with civility, to hell with conservatives, to hell with anyone with white skin, try to subvert the Electoral College to overturn an election, spread conspiracy theories and launch investigations based on the lies you tell, impeach the President without cause in try and overturn an election, oppose every policy action in court, cancel anyone who disagrees with you, riot and set fires if you lose, defund the police and prevent them from protecting the public, murder police, raise funds to bail out murderers and rapists, and to hell with the United States of America. Hail Satan!

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Publius said...

Failure To Engage In The Details

@goody:
Two anecdotal examples don't make any sort of trend or prove the outlandish claims Trump is making.

So, you've never done any research on the question? Those two "anecdotal examples" expose the methods of fraud, not the frequency.

The Big Lie you peddle is that voter fraud is rarer than getting hit by lightening. You oppose investigation of voter fraud to avoid discovering the amount of it -- so you can claim it is rare, and hence no investigation of it is needed. Convenient: we claim it doesn't exist and refuse to look for it because we know it doesn't exist.

Here is a centralized collection of voter fraud cases from across the United States:
A Sampling of Recent Election Fraud Cases from Across the United States

I had to respond to the Democratic voter fraud claim. It's just lunacy that no human being with an ounce of critical thinking can believe or support with a straight face.

It really shows how badly our democracy has gone off the rails when a large portion of the population is against making voting accessible, especially in the face of a pandemic and facilitating technology that has been around since the Pony Express.


This is failing to engage in the details.

Two systems of vote by mail are obfuscated in the debate and headlines.

Method 1 is a registered voter requests a mail-in ballot, perhaps permanently; they have to sign the outside of the envelope and that signature is checked before the ballot is counted. This is still susceptible to fraud, as democratic ballot harvesters will collect up large number of ballots, open the envelopes, and replace the ballot. However, the potential numbers are smaller.

Method 2 is where every voter on the registration list is mailed a ballot, without having requested it. This is what Democrats are proposing for this year's "mail in balloting." This has many fraud problems:
1) Voter registration lists are horrendously bad. Why are they bad? Democrats want them that way. Whenever a state attempts to clean up the list (say, by removing people who haven't voted in 5 years, people known to have moved to other states, people known to be no longer at that address), Democrats sue in court to stop it. Why do Democrats do this? It gives them more opportunities for fraud.
2) Therefore, a generalized mailing of ballots will result in a tens of thousands of loose ballots available all throughout the state. These are the materials for fraud.
3) Democrats are also pushing this year -- and have succeeded in Pennsylvania -- to have mail-in ballots counted that arrive after election day. Democrats lose an election? No problem for Democrats, "We just found 20,000 ballots and we demand they be counted!"

Democrats want opportunities for voter fraud. You want voter fraud.

Why? Democrats don't think they can win in an honest, fair, election.

Texas Democratic Party Leader Funded 'Voter Fraud Ring,' Says AG

Fraud: How the Left Plans to Steal the Next Election

Discovery and Cover-Up of Non-Citizen Registration and Voting in Virginia

Study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes

Publius said...

Speaking of Hypocrisy

Ron 2016: President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, should get a hearing and be voted on by the Senate.

Ron 2020: President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court should not get a hearing and be voted on by the Senate. We should wait unit the Presidential election is decided.

Ron said...

There is no moral equivalence between my change in position and McConnell's because McConnell is making the rules and I'm not.

Of course, the rule that really needs to change is that Supreme Court justices serve for life. That just leaves too many important decisions in the hands of fate. Justices should have long but fixed terms. I think 18 years would be a good number, with terms staggered so that one terms ends every two years. That way every president would get to appoint two new justices each term.

Actually, if I were king of the world, I would change the whole process and take the power to appoint and confirm justices away from the president and the Senate and give it to some kind of non-partisan commission. (Hey, a boy can dream.)

Publius said...

McConnell has corrected his error and adopted your position. Yet you are still not satisfied.
Funny that.

Ron said...

> McConnell has corrected his error

No, he hasn't. To correct his error he would have to remove Neil Gorsuch and appoint Merrick Garland.

McConnell can never "correct" his error. The best he could possibly do at this point is to be consistent with his original rationale for denying Merrick Garland a confirmation hearing: "The next Supreme Court justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the court and our country for a generation, and the American people deserve a voice in such a momentous decision."

If the American people deserved a voice then, then they deserve that same voice now. But if it wasn't clear then it is surely clear now that McConnell's denial of a hearing for Garland never had anything to do with giving the American people a voice, it had to do with seizing power for right-wing ideologues by whatever means necessary, even at the cost of potentially undermining the legitimacy of the government of the United States of America. In fact, undermining that legitimacy is McConnell's *goal*, not per se, of of course. But there can be no doubt that McConnell is doing this in no small measure because he believes -- with good reason -- that the Supreme Court he is about to create will hand the White House to Donald Trump on some Trumped-up pretext (pun very much intended), just as they did in 2000.

Publius said...

Liberal Court Corruption and Subterfuge

@Ron:
>But if it wasn't clear then it is surely clear now that McConnell's denial of a hearing for Garland never had anything to do with giving the American people a voice, it had to do with seizing power for right-wing ideologues by whatever means necessary, even at the cost of potentially undermining the legitimacy of the government of the United States of America.

The people were given a voice -- they elected Donald Trump; for some, having President Trump choose Supreme Court nominees was a decisive factor.

What are you afraid of? Trump appoints originalists, who interpret laws and the Constitution as written. They should give you assurance that any programs that a Democratic Congress passes would be fairly interpretted and judged.

In fact, undermining that legitimacy is McConnell's *goal*, not per se, of of course. But there can be no doubt that McConnell is doing this in no small measure because he believes -- with good reason -- that the Supreme Court he is about to create will hand the White House to Donald Trump on some Trumped-up pretext (pun very much intended), just as they did in 2000.

So "your side" lost the court case in 2000, and, just because of that, makes it a "political" decision instead of a "legal" decision.

Pro Tip: try losing less.

Ron said...

> What are you afraid of?

This.