…as if we expected anything different.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health issues have raised speculation about whether the United States Supreme Court might have another vacancy before year’s end.
When such a vacancy occurred in 2016, Senator John Thune took the position that a sitting President cannot appoint anyone to the court during an election year and that the voters must be given the chance to elect a new President before the Senate considers any such nominee:
For the last seven years, President Obama has attempted to circumvent Congress and the will of the American people with unconstitutional, overreaching regulations. The Senate Republican majority was elected to be a check and balance to President Obama.
The American people deserve to have their voices heard on the nomination of the next Supreme Court justice, who could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court for a generation. Since the next presidential election is already underway, the next president should make this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court [Senator John Thune, press release, 2016.03.16].
Luckily for Senator Thune, his ethics are only situational—meaning he doesn’t really have any ethics—leaving him free to cheer for RBG’s demise and the chance to nominate another Trump judge:
Senate Republican leaders, undeterred by the scathing criticism leveled against them for blocking President Barack Obama’s election-year Supreme Court nominee in 2016, are signaling that they are prepared to confirm a nominee by President Donald Trump even if that vacancy occurred after this year’s election:
“We will,” said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the second-ranking Republican leader, when asked if the Senate would fill a vacancy, even during the lame-duck session after the presidential election. “That would be part of this year. We would move on it” [Ted Barrett and Manu Raju, “Republican Leaders Vow to Fill a Potential Supreme Court Vacancy This Year, Despite Some Apprehension,” CNN, 2020.07.21].
Don’t try reasoning with Thune or any other Republican on this issue. Thune’s hypocritical embrace of Trump’s valueless corruption and incompetence demonstrates that he and his party care only for power, not for logical or moral consistency. We will not reason such morally bankrupt politicians into good governance. We can only show up in numbers in November to vote and take power away from them.
Thune was one of 8 traitor republican senators who sold us and the UK out to Russia, so why wouldn’t we expect him to be as much of an arse today as he was when we went to Moscow. Hey, did he warm up the Red Sparrow for Dirty Johnson?
“http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/seven-gop-lawmakers-make-misguided-trip-russia
Sort of like his stand(s) on impeachment, eh. ?
So awesome isn’t it? I hope all of you are just burning inside.
I know I’m not. My heartburn will soon be over in January of 2021.
For you Steve, trumpfeld/thunefeld https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=104&v=gsaO3v4SvwA&feature=emb_title
There names and actions are interchangeable, both Russian traitors and unfit to lead.
The good Senator is against budget deficits when a Democrat is in the White House, but is for them otherwise. Same with Supreme Court appointments. Such a hypocrite. Hypocrisy seems to be his only guiding principle.
Shameful for Thune to even comment on this…looks like the republicans are hovering like vultures to me…of course they can hardly wait to nominate their next right wing puppet judge.
Marlboro Barbie lied. Certainly earned the Clinton deplorable label.
It’s not even worth pointing out Republican hypocrisy anymore. You can’t shame someone who’s shameless. They don’t care about integrity or cheating or double-standards. Oh sure, they’d care if something unjust happened to them, and then they’d throw a screaming sh*t-fit like a toddler in the Walmart parking lot. They already do it every time they don’t get their way, let alone when they’ve actually been wronged. But otherwise they’ll just smirk and taunt like “Steve” above.
It’s no wonder Trump is their cult leader. He gives them permission to be their worst selves. Be the bratty third-grader you always wanted to be!
It has become so apparent that no appeal to logic or consistent behavioral principles bears any weight with our federal delegation that it is redundant to reference it. “Reason” is a word without meaning in their lexicon.
In November it’s likely the nation will elect Joe Biden, while SoDak will hold with the twitterpate45. Joe will be better, I hope, but he, by all indicators, will still be a poseur, not understanding most of what he will face and be required to dictate and persuade on.
I am less than jubilant.
As Chris S said, “You can’t shame someone who’s shameless.” You can’t get any lower than that either.
Evidently Thune’s unexpected break to SD for r & r last year did not give him time to grow a spine, heart or brain.
Thune sux. What does that have to do with Russia?
Republicans like Thune have no shame. They are nothing but boiler room salesmen, who will say whatever and do whatever to make a sale, and in this case, stay in power.
The Thune who now believes a Supreme Court nominee can be approved in an election year is the same Thune who both disowned and reclaimed Trump during the week of the Access Hollywood tape disclosure some four years ago. This is also the same Thune who rode the wave of fear concerning ObamaCare and the so called “Death Panels” in 2010, but is now silent as leaders like Noem allow grandparents to die, due to Covid-19, so that bars and restaurants can stay open.
The only difference between the Republican Party and used car salesmen is that used car salesmen can at least sell you a lemon, which will give you cover during a downpour, while the Republicans will always leave you exposed to the whims of a power few, who own the GOP and its contradictory, and self-serving policy positions.
Thune sux. What does that have to do with Russia?
Jason, read ’em and weep….. https://tinyurl.com/y58mkhua
Let’s be clear that the hypocrisy is not limited to the GOP. Those in the Senate who were in favor of appointing a justice under Obama during an election year will vociferously adopt the previously-held Republican argument against it. If you think team Blue is any different from team Red in this regard, I have certain bridges on the register of deficient structures list to sell you.
I think the Blue Team would “adopt” that philosophy only to point out the utter hypocrisy. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Senate is to “advise and consent.” Nothing in there about delaying.
Wayne, you must be speaking of Garland and what your team red did to that nomination, shameful. First off, there should be more Justices. I do like this idea. I also like the idea that at 70 they retire.
““What if there were five justices selected by Democrats, five justices selected by Republicans and those 10 then pick five more justices independent of those who picked the first 10,” O’Rourke said. “I think that’s an idea we should explore.” https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/434620-supreme-courts-size-was-once-subject-of-division
Wayne, you have a point (although I believe the evidence shows overall a hypocrisy tilt toward the GOP) there is a substantial difference on this issue: the GOP is not just talking opinion but policy and procedure. Then they had control of the Senate and decided a procedure, as they are still in control of the Senate, that same procedure ought to be followed. The ONLY thing that has canned is that it is their guy doing the nominating now, and that ought not factor into the rule making (in fact, ti should not have made a difference with Obama/Garland).
I don’t think the issue is that President TRump should not be able to nominate a Supreme Court justice, the issue is that President Obama should have been able to.
I heard this and thought – in the middle of a pandemic, THIS is what Thune decides to issue a public statement about? It’s sort of like when Clarence Thomas broke ten years of silence on the SCOTUS bench to question a ban on guns for men convicted of domestic abuse.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/02/clarence-thomas-breaks-10-year-silence-domestic-violence-gun-ban/
Total Spineless COWARD is his new Name.
Thune and Rounds and Dusty probably all 3 got worked up and excited watching Trump’s goons beat and gas hell out out that Navy Vet on the streets of Portland!! Oohhhh–for the Law and Order of it All!! Trump’s my man! He’s got a plan!! South Dakota’s trio of GOP cheerleaders backed by a suck-up governor can only be silenced and sent back to oblivion thru the VOTE!!!!
The fact that others might resort to similar power plays does not change the odious and hypocritical nature of Thune’s power play.
It’s bad enough to stymie normal procedure and refuse to carry out constitutional duties. It’s even worse, as O suggests, for Republicans to dress up their naked power play in thin, stretched fabric of false philosophical justifications which they shed the moment the political winds change.
I would contend that Democrats could accept the Merrick Garland rejection standard in 2020 with zero hypocrisy. They could say, “You know what? The Republicans were right in 2016. They enunciated a new and better principle to provide for a judiciary that better reflects the will of the people. That isn’t what the Founders had in mind, but the Constitution is an evolving document, and this policy of not appointing new judges during an election year makes sense.”
The hypocrisy lies in the fact that the Republicans tried to persuade us of this principle in 2016 but now are abandoning it for no consistent reason.
Wayne’s suggestion sounds attractive on its face but simply does not stand up to analysis. Instead, logic seems to be on Cory’s side of the hypocrisy issue.
It is one thing for a group, such as Democrats, to oppose a change in law or rules, but quite yet another to submit to that change and comply with the new rules. That is not hypocrisy, but reflects respect for our system of government. So if Republicans have changed the rules for selecting and approving a SCOTUS nominee over the objection of Democrats, the latter’s adherence to the new rules cannot logically be labeled hypocrisy any more than compliance with any new law or rule can be labeled hypocrisy.
For Republicans like Thune to assert they will not follow the new rule that they adopted for the Senate claiming the new rule was required to satisfy a moral obligation to permit voters to select a new Senate and/or President in an election year before the Senate even votes on a nominee, however, simply because they now think it might be to their advantage to jettison the rule, falls squarely within the normal meaning of hypocrisy: “the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.”
Cory -1, Wayne – 0.
If memory serves, McCTurtlefartface made up a lie about Biden having done a similar act on a nominee as the reason wingnuts would break precedence on Garland.
Biden gave a speech at a time when there was no vacancy, no nominee and McCTurtlefartface completely blew it out of context to justify stealing a Scotus seat.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/
Marlboro Barbie is certainly living down to his designation as the Senate’s Number 2.
Thune is a self anointed christian so his hypocrisy is no surprise.What concerns me more are the hired guns that trump is placing around the cities.Two reasons: one to intimidate voters and second to quell the riots when trump loses the election and refuses to leave the white-house.His loyal army will be in place and democracy will die.
Is trump this smart? No,but his loyal subject miller is the cruel architect of disinformation to some of the most devious plans administered by trump and barr.
cibvet, you’re absolutely right about Stephen Goebbels Miller. He is evil and smart, a terrible combination.
Debbo – evil, smart and has found a useful idiot to hitch his wagon to. Evil also needs the right medium in which to grow.
Trump’s SCOTUS may, after the smoke clears, interpret legality Of Homeland Security “acting” director ASHE’s interpretation of his militarized extrajurisdictional Police’s abuse of federal “investigation and arrest” of protesters in Seattle as despite intimidation of voters andTrump’s rejection of the election results. Steve Vladeck Esq, Natl Security Law Podcast (7.21). Thune’s GOP has no other move. In the meantime Trump’s “v
ery fine” heavily armed right wing extremist militias and Boogaloo Boy friends of LEOs will reap mayhem. Daryl Johnson, Wapo (Aug 21,3017). Aided by McConnell’s Russia.
Bearcreek, you are mistaken. There is no “rule” for Dems to follow in the position – it’s all philosophical arguments. McConnell proffered an argument to accomplish what he wanted. No rules were changed. Besides, this isn’t about keeping score and winning arguments. It’s about being able to smell when you’re holding a turd of an argument and not pretending it’s potpourri.
Cory is absolutely right that Thune is flip-flopping like a fish out of water, and I’m not going to pretend otherwise, nor will I defend it. I find it especially repugnant to be having this conversation while RGB is still alive and scrappy and serving her country.
But to watch the mental gymnastics required for Dems to pick up the argument so vilified just a scant few years ago is just as repugnant to me, and oh-so-common for politicians.
Cory, you can dress up the rationale any way you see fit, but if you can’t see that it would be the same thinly veiled power play then I weep a little for your abandonment of logos.
Wayne seems to be right about the lack of rules. I stand corrected. (I guess I was thinking of the Senate closure rule change on nominees to the SCOTUS – the nuclear option, which was well after the Garland fiasco). My earlier argument is based on an incorrect premise. Mea culpa.
Well, then let’s just drop any pretense of philosophical talk. Let’s have both parties admit that they are just going to do whatever gives them more power.
I still advocate for rule of law and principle. When there’s a vacancy on the court, justice is better served by a full panel. The President should appoint and the Senate should hear and, if given a qualified nominee, confirm new justices to vacancies as soon after they happen as possible. Anyone from any party who does not adhere to that principle is acting against the interests of good government and should be replaced.
McCTurtlefartface was dishonest and disingenuous as he always is when it comes to allowing GOP to have their way after blocking Democrats.
A couple points:
First, Cory’s suggestion that there ought to be a rule requiring timely Senate hearings, followed by an up or down vote on a nominee makes the most sense.
Second, a legitimate complaint about John Thune’s hypocrisy stands on its own two legs. Pointing out hypocrisy by another person or group does absolutely nothing to defend Thune. Instead, it seems to simply be a meaningless distraction from a legitimate criticism of Thune by attempting to create a counterattack and focus attention on the critic and away from Thune. In addition, one might ask whose behavior is more deserving of close scrutiny – someone elected to high office with the moral or legal duty to act in the public interest, i.e. a Senator, or an unelected layperson with no such duty.
Wingnuts have proven they are going to do what is in their party’s best interests in maintaining power over making the legal and ethical choices allowed them by the constitution. Examples are, McCTurtlefartface changed the rules on confirming all justices so they could be passed without any interference from the opposition party. And they were even open to shutting down all debate before they push through more underqualified judges for lifetime seats. When Obama was first elected, Grassley and other wingnuts on the Senate judicial committee stated opposition to filling all the vacant seats with liberals because he said there was not enough of a caseload for the current judges. So they were able, under rules of those days, to prevent Obama from stacking the courts, like wingnuts are doing and have managed to do, this year.
You need to pay particular attention to the the complete waste of time and mockery McCTurtlefartface, Marlboro Barbie and others made of their constitutional duties during impeachment when it came time for the alleged trial in the Senate. Moscow Mitch announced clear back on December 13th (correct me if the date is wrong) that the Senate would not remove drumpf from office no matter what Dems accused him of for impeachable crimes.
And don’t forget the rule Moscow Mitch dusted off so wingnuts could pass their taxcuts for the wealthy and, I believe, attempt to remove the ACA with majority only votes, instead of two thirds vote required to pass legislation.
Bearcreekbat, I’ll reiterate I’m not defending Thune. It was uncouth of him to open his trap and a failure in strategy to open his mouth (especially as the person waiting in the wings for McConnell to retire or get sneezed on).
But this conversation wasn’t just about Thune. Cory explicitly stated “Don’t try reasoning with Thune or any other Republican on this issue” which is pretty darn disappointing, and I would posit is a problematic statement when you think about casting generalized aspersions about groups of people. It’s also a failure to do his homework, because Grassley was explicit in his distaste:
https://qctimes.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/grassley-ernst-split-on-how-to-proceed-if-supreme-court-vacation-occurs-before-election/article_539416db-0cf9-57bd-8204-110e764a2b49.html
I’ll also argue that one can walk and chew bubble gum. We can criticize the behavior of our elected officials while still ensuring that we mere plebeians are acting consistent within the bounds of logic, reason, and respect. While obviously not of the stature of Thune, Cory’s public presence as a political blogger / quasi journalist and his multiple runs for office do make his words heftier than yours or mine, but even we humble laypeople should be constantly striving to check our assumptions and worldviews.
Wayne, I am not sure that anything in your comment at 08:12 disputes the content of any of my prior comments, but I do appreciate your additional thoughts. I acknowledge that your earlier comments stated you were not trying to defend Thune, although, in my view, one could have concluded otherwise from the redirected suggestions of hypocrisy.