Hey, there! Log in / Register

Markey: If Trump gets to appoint RBG replacement, Democrats must expand Supreme Court and end filibuster if they take the Senate

Sen. Ed Markey reacted to the news that Senate Hypocrite Mitch McConnell is pledging to bring Trump's Supreme Court pick to the Senate floor for a vote exactly unlike the way he kept Obama's pick off the floor in 2016:

Topics: 

Ad:

Comments

Oh, crap!

up
Voting closed 7

Not exactly. I believe the precedent went along the lines of 'not before an election during a lame duck president's second term'.

So, if you consider President Trump's first term 'lame duck', and I know that you do, then the rule applies.

But in reality...go ahead, burn down more cities. Get more haircuts, Nancy. Eat more $14.00 a pint ice cream out of your $11,000 refrigerators (um, she has two. For her ice cream).

up
Voting closed 43

But sure, let’s talk about elitist refrigerators.

up
Voting closed 78

Then it was installed by the previous administration.

Speaking of which, considering the progress made towards Middle East peace, with several treaties signed (OK, we'll stop teaching 'Death to the Jews' in our schools) and more in the pipeline, maybe the Lightbringer should send his Nobel Peace Prize to Mar-A-Lago.

up
Voting closed 35

A chaotic response to a plague that has resulted in nearly 200,000 deaths and counting.

Every US soldier who died in battle called a loser.

Regarding the Middle East Treaties: They mean very little because they do not resolve the most direct cause of Middle East violence: the constant warm war between Israel and Palestinians, and their role as proxy cannon fodder for Hamas and Hezbollah.

Given that Don the Con supports domestic terrorists, plays the old and stale socialist card, treats anyone he dislikes as though they are scum of less value than scum in the sewers. what do you like about him?

up
Voting closed 45

evangelical christianity. Jesus comes back and the Jews along with everyone who isn't an end timer, Falwell type christian, burns in Hell. Though before that happens, holocaust survivor George Soros is the target of the most vile anti semitism possible. All brought to you by republicans.

up
Voting closed 18

This is like saying that jihad against non-believers is a central tenant of Islam. Do you actually know any evangelicals, or is watching youtube videos of the Westboro Baptist Church the extent of your contact with devout Christians?

Your "protection" is not needed or desired. If you're going to engage in disrespectful religious stereotyping, don't pretend to do it on my behalf.

Sincerely,
A Jewish woman

up
Voting closed 17

Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, is a rapture Christian type, which is exactly what the person you're responding to is getting at. A lot of right wing Christians support Israel (including the embassy move) because they see it as a means to an end. Which is why they can both have "strong support for Israel" while still vilifying George Soros and using other anti-Semitic tropes, as they were also alluding to.

Not all Christian sects believe in this, but it is absolutely central to more fundamental Evangelical ones, and you don't have to go full Westboro Bsptist to get there. The other point is that the are people in significant positions of power like Pompeo who both does believe that and has the capacity to make consequential policy decisions for the country (to our collective detriment because he's an unethical hack).

up
Voting closed 19

...however, the segment of evangelical Christianity that are NOT eschatologists is, shall we say, most noticeable by their absence. When they come get their cousins, I'll #notallevangelicals right along with you.

up
Voting closed 7

@tblade. SOCKS. Translated from Spanish:
It is what it is.

up
Voting closed 9

Hes our President

He has no interest in being President of the whole country. After all, only 40% of it are telling him how wonderful he is. The rest of us are no use to him.

up
Voting closed 13

We can afford to buy ppe that he his son-in-law can seize and sell on the open market.

We also fund the federal government (aka huge trove for crony plunder!).

up
Voting closed 9

There is no difference between Trump now and Obama then. Each was voted into office by the American people, and if anything the case is even stronger now that the nominee should be held back because it is even closer to an election that shows Trump polling behind.

Trump may as well be a lame duck if he loses the election.

up
Voting closed 31

"...shows Trump polling behind."

Polls don't elect the President.

Do you not remember 2016?

up
Voting closed 39

All too well. My point wasn't that Biden will surely win, but that there is no guarantee Trump will either, which means he may in fact be a lame duck right now.

up
Voting closed 6

And worst retconning since the new Star Wars movie

Retcon- revise retrospectively, typically by introducing a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events.

up
Voting closed 18

Just make sure you don't misuse "retcon" when you actually mean revise, revision, reboot, or revisionist history.
The correct usage of retcon - as in "retroactive continuity" - is creating or revealing new content or history that fits in the gaps of already-released content without significant contradiction or distortion. Google a comic book writer named Roy Thomas and a comic book titled All Star Squadron - to an extent, he invented the concept.
-
As to the impending nomination/confirmation fight for Ginsberg's replacement and precedent from the Gorsuch nomination - the proper term is bullshit.
That 2020 is different because in 2016 Obama was a lame duck or because of different circumstances of one party controlling both Senate and Presidency? Bullshit. The actual precedent is "whatever McConnell needs at the moment".
Democrat's faux shock and outrage at McConnell's hypocrisy? Bullshit. Everybody knew this would happen if there was a vacancy this fall.

up
Voting closed 19

"Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."

Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley, 2016.

up
Voting closed 22

I was hoping to see another post of a Great Blue Heron or a pug in JP wearing a big goofy smile after the post before this. Help us Adam. You're our only hope.

up
Voting closed 19

Uncle Tom Thomas will retire. He is tired of being the token for the whities on the bench.

Brett will be impeached. His alcoholism will take him to places no jurist should ever go.

If Moscow Mitch is able to ram through a lackey then he will guarantee the defeat of people such as Susan Collins. He might even guarantee his own and his, ahem, buddy, Screaming Lindsey's retirement from the Senate.

I can see the Supreme Court expanded to balance out the remaining extremists. But with the departure of Clarence and Brett that might no be necessary.

Otherwise the Supreme Court will wind up looking like much of the Trump and McConnell Federal Judiciary. Judges in general already are treated as princes. Given the behavior of Trump appointees in his cabinet it is safe to reason that his most of his judges will act not like princes, but like king controlling satraps that are beholden to the White House emperor.

up
Voting closed 16

but the out of context references to lindsey graham’s sexuality are really unnecessary. he’s a god awful human being on the merit; we can stick to that.

up
Voting closed 48

Roy Cohn was infamous for hating Jews and homosexuals. Yet he was Jewish and homosexual (somehow Gay does not fit him). That is a state of severe psychological conflict. How that deep a conflict is managed varies from person to person.

It is a conflict that easily leads to addictive behavior as well as self-contradictory behaviors. Add that the phenomena of denying one's sexuality which can lead to both direct and indirect violence.

One form of addictive behavior is the lust for power. I believe that was Cohn's primary addiction (although he may have been alcoholic, just as his mentor, Joe McCarthy was). I believe that Graham's extremism is also fueled by his lust for power. A lust or addiction that arises from a fundamental psychological break in him. The cause of his break? His sexuality being at total odds with his upbringing and place in society.

What is ironic though is how often legislators carry these contradictions and the damage they do. Strom Thurmond the noted segregationist was not so sure of his segregationist behavior when he fathered Essie Mae Washington-Williams' mother.

South Carolina produces some odd Senators.

up
Voting closed 5

i’m saying that without the context of his voting record it’s weird to make gestures toward his sexuality.

up
Voting closed 5

Maybe not a good look using that term.

I’m not going to arbitrate who can and cannot use a term used by Black people to criticize other Black people who serve as a disservice to the Black community; some commenters here may have standing to use the term, but I think it is clear that large swarth of the Universal Hub demographic should not.

up
Voting closed 35

There is a video online of a really pasty looking anty-faaa (we don't exist) type looking probably female excoriating an Austin police officer, calling him Uncle Tom and a bunch of vile names, including one she really had no authority to use.

I mean, she went all Quentin Tarantino on him. Of course, she was white and he was Black.

Again, the double standards of the lunatic left.

up
Voting closed 35

But wrong is wrong. I have not seen the video but the behavior you describe is abhorrent.

up
Voting closed 20

It's around. Maybe Google is trying to stomp it out.

Guy walked away. He was pretty big. Take the uniform off, she (and the cinderellas around her) would have been in real trouble.

up
Voting closed 18

Sure it wasn’t frumps good people the boogaloo boys? You know the far right ones that murder police but set it up to look like antifaaaa did it.

up
Voting closed 12

Additionally, it’s funny how people complaining about “riots” rarely mention it was a right-wing terrorist who started the fires in Minneapolis despite this fact being widely reported.

Aryan Cowboys for Trump!

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/us/umbrella-man-associated-white-supremac...

up
Voting closed 15

I disagree with this notion of standing in the use of language. Would it be inappropriate for a person not Jewish to describe Roy Cohn as a Jew hater? How about a straight person identifying Cohn's homophobic bigotry? This gets into the murky mental sludge of cultural appropriation.

Limiting the use of language to one's skin color or sexuality does not make sense. It is a kind of self-censorship that hides instead of reveals. The same reasoning would apply to the sobriquet Barf O'Kavanaugh. It is play on words, including a concious use of and acknowledgement of a stereotype, to emphasize a very uncomfortable fact. In the case of Kavanaugh the fact that he showed up to one of the most important events in his life drunk.

I believe that referring to Thomas Clarence as an Uncle Tom makes an important point. That he is a black man who has no regard for the overall history of being black and American. To use another term from the past, that Clarence Thomas could be described as an Oreo.

up
Voting closed 3

A white person using racially-tinged language to determine which Black people are or are not a part of the Black community seems like clear-cut product of white supremacy.

I am not accusing you of being a white supremacist, but I think by using the term you are using a tool that white supremacists would also use.

This article makes the case clearer than I could, for anyone interested.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/dear-white-people-stop-using-the-...

I also think there is a difference between describing a person’s disposition (homophobic) vs using a epithets considered to be racist, so I think your Cohn analogy is apples and oranges.

up
Voting closed 16

Identifying Cohn's or Graham's homophobic bigotry is NOT the same thing as what you're doing: using the same tropes homophobes have used to tar gay people as Other, regardless of your motives.

And Oreo or Uncle Tom? That kind of racialized name-calling is flat out offensive.

I know you think you're being all edgy by name-calling and gay-baiting but you're not winning any arguments that way. There's plenty of good points to be made sticking to the facts. PLUS, you get to keep your dignity.

Edit (Sorry Tblade, I didn't see you made the same point)

up
Voting closed 12

No apologies required. You make good points.

up
Voting closed 5

Straight folks love to trot out the "oh he must be a closet case" of every homophobic right wing politician. The fact that they're sometimes correct doesn't mean that this isn't a dismissive and harmful characterization. It is said without an understanding of homophobia, or indeed a wish to understand it. It is a lazy, reductionist take on a complex reality. It reinforces the status of homosexuality as a stigmatized identity, as something that must be hidden.

And please, leave out the anecdotes about your gay friend who talks about "Miss Lindsay" and who told you it's just fine to call him a closet case. That's your gay friend, it's not the LGBTQ community. Others feel differently, and if you don't want to step on a landmine, maybe stay away from stuff like this.

up
Voting closed 7

Republicans are indeed disgusting hypocrites. The few undecideds will see what deplorables the republicans are and vote them out starting with the dumb orange fat sack of crap. Any decent person can see that Trump sucks. He has more failed businesses and marriages than he can count.

up
Voting closed 37

I had respect for the late Justice. She brought credit to the Court, and was a liberal voice.

On a bit of a more mercenary note, I wish she would have lasted until after the election, to give more legitimacy to President Trump's next Court nomination.

I have a feeling, opi, that November is going to be a tough month for you, and many others here, in spite of massive ballot box stuffing.

up
Voting closed 28

Wasn't it your Dear Leader who told Republicans they should vote twice?

up
Voting closed 36

Go to the polling place. See if it was counted.

Exact quote, "On your ballots, if you get the unsolicited ballots, send it in and then go make sure it counted, and then if it doesn’t tabulate, you vote. You just vote. And then if they tabulate it very late, which they shouldn’t be doing, they’ll see you voted and so it won’t count. So, send it in early, and then go and vote. And if it’s not tabulated, you vote, and the vote is gonna count. You can’t let them take your vote away. These people are playing dirty politics. Dirty politics."

up
Voting closed 23

presume that the ends justify the means. Zero self-awareness is also useful.

up
Voting closed 9

Send in a ballot, and then go to the polling place in person anyway. And if the polling person doesn't happen to know that your previous ballot was tabulated - remember that the absentee/vote by mail ballot deadline is the same day as in-person polling - the voter is handed a ballot, logically presumes that their previous ballot wasn't tabulated, and cast a second vote.

In other words, the voter ends up voting twice. And the GOP (and Trump) now have an excuse to challenge the election results.

up
Voting closed 15

The envelopes identify the voter and, if I understand correctly, ballot envelopes received on or just before Election Day get counted after polls close on Election Day along with all other ballots. They cross reference the name on the envelope with that on the voter checklist at the polls. If the checklist shows a voter voted in person, the mail-in ballot and envelope is then destroyed. For those who send their ballots in early, their name is marked on the checklist as having voted, so if they go to the polls, the poll workers will know that they already cast their ballot and turn them away.

up
Voting closed 5

You say the mail-ins are cross-checked after the polls close, so they aren't turning away the second in-person voter. My understanding is that at least some jurisdictions will throw out both votes. Republican poll monitors are going to call it vote fraud, and use it to support their claim that mail-in voting promotes vote fraud.

up
Voting closed 8

Election day: after polls close, election staff cross reference the ballot envelope with the check-in ledger from the precinct where the voter lives. If the voter isn't checked in in the precinct ledger, they then feed the ballot into the ballot box and the vote is cast. If the voter is marked in the ledger as checked in, it means they voted in person at the precinct, so the envelope with the ballot is then destroyed and the votes on it aren't cast.

Before Election Day and during early voting: A ballot envelope is received a by the clerk's office and accepted. The voter's name is then marked as already checked in, so if the voter shows up at their precinct, the election staff will inform that they already voted and will turn them away.

up
Voting closed 4

In most places, it's a felony to both mail in a vote and cast one in person (Texas).

“Some of you may have heard that President Trump suggested voters test our election system by voting twice – both absentee and then again in person,” Nessel said in a video. “But let me make this perfectly clear: voting twice is illegal, no matter who tells you to do it. The president’s idea is a great idea only for people who are looking to go to jail.” [Michigan AG]

Here's the MA law (M.G.L 56 §26):

Whoever, knowing that he is not a qualified voter in any place, wilfully votes or attempts to vote therein; whoever votes or attempts to vote more than once on his own name, his name having been registered more than once; whoever votes or attempts to vote in more than one voting precinct or town, his name having been registered in more than one voting precinct or town; whoever votes or attempts to vote in any name other than his own, or knowingly casts or attempts to cast more than one ballot at one time of balloting; or whoever votes or attempts to vote otherwise illegally, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

A double voter knows exactly what they’re doing, diluting the votes of each and every voter that follows the law,” [Georgia SoS] Raffensperger said during a press conference.

“Those that make the choice to game the system are breaking the law. And as secretary of state, I will not tolerate it.”

Local prosecutors and the Georgia attorney general’s office will decide if they will bring charges against the people who voted twice, with double-voting in Georgia a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine up to $100,000.

Advising people that it's OK to do this is irresponsible.

up
Voting closed 5

My understanding is that at least some jurisdictions will throw out both votes.

Can't be done. They can throw out the mail-in that hasn't been counted yet, but they can't throw out the earlier in-person vote because they only know that the person voted, not who they voted for. Impossible to back that person's votes out of the tally.

up
Voting closed 3

Seems to be the plan for the Republican side in 2020. Not like it hasn't been done before.

And don't forget the ballots you could get for your relatives that died of COVID.

If the Republicans could vote the COVID deaths it would be a landslide like never seen before.

up
Voting closed 6

And that will show us how many racists there really are in the US. Guess we’ll be hitting the streets even harder.

up
Voting closed 6

Republicans are indeed disgusting hypocrites.

Yup! And dangerous, to boot!

up
Voting closed 19

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, just days before her death on Friday, shared her last wish: that her replacement to the highest court in the land be picked by a president other than Donald Trump.

"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," Ginsburg said in a statement dictated to her granddaughter, Clara Spera, according to NPR.

up
Voting closed 14

Filibuster should go no matter what though. Already gone for lifetime appointments and progressives benefit from it. They only need to pass Medicare for all once and it is never getting repealed (see ACA)

up
Voting closed 8

...I'll just leave this here for everyone's enjoyment...

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/HOEwHdo.jpg)

up
Voting closed 18

Number of times a judicial nominee was filibustered from 1949 - 2009: 68
Number of times Republicans filibustered Obama's judicial nominees before Reid nuked the filibuster for them: 79
Number of times Dems filibustered before McConnell nuked the filibuster: 1

Any other dimwitted analogies you'd like to make?

up
Voting closed 14

Even if Reid hadn’t done anything with the filibuster McConnell still obviously would have nuked it.

Until Dems get as might makes right as Republicans they are going to get run over.

The best case future at this point is probably whoever is in power packs the court like we are a banana republic until we actually reform how government works or the oppressed majority in America burns it down (possibly literally).

The one positive from this shitshow is we probably accelerate that process. The faster people can’t sit comfortably on the sideline and live a “normal” day to day life, the better. The relative comfort of post World War 2 life rapidly coming to an end (probably ended around March). Some hard and important times ahead, we will see if the citizenry is up for it.

up
Voting closed 5

If this is the case, all hair salons and other closed businesses must be allowed to open immediately. If Nancy can go get a perm, why can’t the rest of us. Fuckin hypocrites.

up
Voting closed 36

If the President of the United States can sexually assault women for decades without prosecution, then why can’t the rest of us!

Also, I got my hair cut - in a salon - in July, so...

up
Voting closed 58

Hey stupid, can you read. I said hypocriteS. Plural. They are all hypocrites. I’m glad you think me shitting on Pelosi can some be confused as a defense of Trump.

up
Voting closed 22

Well, I certainly didn’t confuse your first comment for a cogent argument or coherent thought. But I knew what to expect given the user name; you’ve made low expectations and poor comment quality a brand.

up
Voting closed 45

This user changed his screen name after I posted my previous comment.

I have no idea why one would want to toggle between anonymous handles, but it makes me wonder how many of UHub’s notorious low information posters share not only the same lame talking points, but share the same user behind the name? How many sock puppets roam UHub?

up
Voting closed 28

I control all of them.

AG pays me to generate page hits.

DISCLAIMER: I joke. He has access to IP info. He knows the drill. He knows the truth. If there is more than one name to one IP addie, then maybe there's more than one person that has access to that modem. Doesn't necessarily mean there's a multi personality person there.

up
Voting closed 8

Who’s a right wing sock puppet and who is just being a good footsoldier parroting the same fox/OANN talking points about haircuts like, oh I don’t know, dmcboston

up
Voting closed 18

Don't forget the ice cream.

up
Voting closed 6

Me no smart. Me easily confused.

up
Voting closed 9

...from a grade-school intellect. You excel at living down to expectations. It’s cute that this is the best you’ve got.

up
Voting closed 17

...this is the sort of useless shitposter who ought to be shut down.

up
Voting closed 5

Shitposters can be funny! So long as it's in good humor.

Seems to me like this person is an outright troll who is changing their username/handle and acting in bad faith. Completely agree with you in this regard.

up
Voting closed 3

potato, po-judicial appointments *shrug*

up
Voting closed 16

They eliminated the filibuster for supreme court judges in April 2017. That's what makes it possible to confirm judges with a simple majority.

up
Voting closed 11

he’s saying to go nuclear on the remaining filibuster powers as retribution

up
Voting closed 12

positions in the country should not be decided with a simple majority. Nor should SCOTUS decisions be decided with a simple majority.

up
Voting closed 5

Many decisions go 5-4. If you need more than a simple majority, then, I think, it will totally grind to a halt.

There has been consternation over the years, from both conservative and liberal points of view, how 'their' Justice seemed to stray and go for a different position.

Obama's ACA is just one example.

up
Voting closed 13

SCOTUS decisions are important enough that they SHOULDN'T hang on a simple majority.

up
Voting closed 3

you're also a Constitutional scholar, in addition to your other bona fides. Pray tell, where might I find your treatise on strict constructionism? Or should I just assume that your expertise comes from the back of a box of Cracker Jack, like most of the rest of the things you post here?

up
Voting closed 6

Trump should nominate Biden. He would be so confused that he probably would accept the nomination.

up
Voting closed 39

SCOTUS justice. Ruth Bader Ginsberg fought the good fight for decency and what's good about people and our society and to right the wrongs. Let's hope we get somebody who's at least like her in those respects. Last year, on Mother's Day, I treated my mom to see the really great documentary film, RBG, at the Coolidge Corner Theatre. It was an excellent documentary, which both my mom and I both liked a great deal. My mom was happy that I treated her to the RBG documentary. I'd seen an online trailer of RBG, and it looked good, so I immediately snagged tickets for an afternoon screening of it for my mom and myself, and immediately let her know through a text message. The documentary film, RBG played to a packed house, so it's a good thing that I'd procured the tickets on the Coolidge Corner Theatre's website beforehand.

up
Voting closed 11

Donald Trump can't be trusted, period. He is always willing to throw anyone under the bus at a moment's notice, including the entire population of the country and the planet.There's only one person who matters at all in his world.

Expect the worst, and you won't be disappointed.

up
Voting closed 10

RBG has been physically frail but mentally sharp for years. Already beyond life-expectancy in 2011, she knew very well that if she retired then when Obama was in the White House and Dems controlled the House and Senate, she could GUARANTEE that "her seat" would remain in far-left hands. She declined. Please respect that. Now 82, Justice Breyer probably should have left at that time also.

up
Voting closed 23

The Republicans flat-out refused to confirm an Obama SC nominee for an entirely made-up reason. They would have likewise refused to confirm a replacement for RBG. As usual, you're full of shit.

up
Voting closed 23

...and on this week's (re)reading list: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780805069549

up
Voting closed 2