All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[JackDaw]

The thing is, he literally might not have any choice.

What Republicans are doing right now is "taking off all the gloves" and the Democrats will have to respond. The current situation is extremely unusual because there's a real possibility of a GOP blowout in November and with states like Arizona and Texas turning "purple", the GOP knows it could be a very, very long time before they get another situation like this. i.e a Republican Senate and Presidency.

The GOP are going to completely move the Supreme Court towards the right meaning that longstanding "settled" laws are under legit threat. The only way the Dems can counter this is to pack the Supreme Court. If ACA, Gay Marriage and other "progressive" laws are in play and the Court continues to play solely by the right's playbook, then Biden might not have a choice but to the pack the court if he wants to be successful as President.

If the President and the 2 houses continued to pass a series of laws to ensure all people have equal rights, then the Supreme Court would need to be completely dysfunctional to try to swim against the tide of justice...

If they did that...then I agree with you...then would be no alternative to “packing the court”...though I guess if that time comes it might be phrased differently. (Something like “making the court more representative of America’s ideals”.)

[Tami]

Trump campaign used image of top military general in ad 'without his consent'

Donald Trump has become embroiled in another row over a political campaign ad - this time the president's team has been accused of using an image of a top military chief without his consent, in a potential beach of Department of Defense (DOD) guidelines.

The online ad features a picture of Mr Trump, his vice president, Mike Pence, secretary of defense, Mark Esper and military adviser, general Mark Milley, sat in the Situation Room at the White House on 29 October last year watching the raid on ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

"President Trump wants you to request your ballot," the ad reads, with a click-through button at the bottom taking users through to Mr Trump's voter sign-up website. "Paid for by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc," says a message at the bottom of the ad.

But a defense source told Politico that no one from the president's campaign team reached out to general Milley to ask for his permission to use the image.

[Tami]

215,000 dead Americans and he’s out there doing this...

[WestPhillyPunisher]

215,000 dead Americans and he’s out there doing this...

I guess we can safely say Trump learned absolutely nothing from his harrowing experience with the virus. No matter, I never expected him to have a come to Jesus moment, sociopaths don’t work that way. I’d rather Trump be healthy for when he gets loses the election next month, followed by that inevitable trial in New York.

[The Cool Thatguy]

215,000 dead Americans and he’s out there doing this...

He does the most pathetic dance in American history and his followers swoon.

[worstblogever]

215,000 dead Americans and he’s out there doing this...

Well, he's too lazy to travel to 215,000 individual graves to dance on them all. Besides, he's also got a busy schedule of personally spreading the virus to more people to up his total death count.

[Tami]

Well, he's too lazy to travel to 215,000 individual graves to dance on them all. Besides, he's also got a busy schedule of personally spreading the virus to more people to up his total death count.

What you said made me think of the kind of video the Lincoln Project might make. Taking that clip of Trump dancing and overly it on top of a graveyard representing all those who died this year.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, as well as 2019, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published profiles of U.S. Senator [SIZE=4]Rand Paul/SIZE] of Kentucky, the heir apparent to his father, Ron Paul’s political legacy and generally demented views. He’s a board-certified ophthalmologist*, has been repeatedly caught plagiarizing from other sources for speeches (including from Wikipedia articles), and has hired Neo-Confederates to serve on his campaign staff, which shouldn’t be too much of a surprise because Rand also once told Rachel Maddow in an interview that he wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights Act. Rand’s also discussed conspiracy theories like the Bilderberg Group, the American Union, the Jade Helm conspiracy theory, and even some 9/11 Trutherism, and experts who analyze the speeches of Congressmen determined he speaks roughly at about the 8th Grade Level. A fine example was in 2014 when he blamed “political correctness” on people being afraid to declare a travel ban because of the Ebola Virus outbreak in Africa, as opposed to the actual doctors and epidemiologists who said a travel ban would only make things worse. Instead, he tried accusing the Obama administration of deliberately exposing 30,000 American troops to the disease. Rand Paul once sponsored a Personhood bill that would apply the 14th Amendment to fetuses, as well, showing he’s not exactly the libertartian “hands off” type he portrays himself as. After a long pattern of Rand Paul shushing female journalists emerged and was noted by political commentators as evidence of sexist behavior, Paul responded by telling critics that it was “sexist to call him sexist”, which is similar to how racists insist their accusers are the real racist ones. in June 2017 he compared National Health Care to "the gulag". (Which is amazing, because the gulag is where Stalin sent millions to DIE whereas healthcare does the EXACT OPPOSITE FOR PEOPLE).

There was a point when Rand Paul was considered a potential front-runner for the Republican nomination for president, since the Tea Party was originally fomented with the help of his father, Ron, and their “outsider” group of ultra-conservatives. But having a daddy like Ron Paul “helping” isn’t always as much of a benefit as one might like, as the scandal surrounding Ron Paul’s 2012 bid for president where adviser Jesse Benton handicapped Paul’s chances early on. Then, the Tea Party got hijacked over time by even more outspoken bigots than Rand, who was pulling punches, like Ted Cruz, and eventually Donald Trump, who whipped them up into an anti-immigrant frenzy before Rand even realized what happened. Paul lost so much heat that when he published a book to hype on the campaign trail, it sold only a few hundred copies. He couldn’t escape the bottom tier of the GOP, ending up polling somewhere around tenth and barely qualifying for most of the primary debates, and using what little time he had on stage to bicker with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who made it his own personal mission to destroy Rand with every opportunity given in the debates. In the midst of Rand Paul looking visibly depressed about his failed presidential campaign all year, he managed to prove n the rest of the year that he's the same libertarian wing lunatic, voting against the permanent approval of The Zadroga Act, talking about getting rid of the Postal Service, voting to make sure anyone found to be on a terror watch list during a background check should still be allowed to purchase a firearm or explosives (which they could use to carry out a terror attack) and reintroduces his own Personhood bill, the "Life at Conception Act", which would grant Constitutional rights to zygotes from the moment of fertilization. In November of 2018, he annoyed senators on both sides of the aisle by holding up military aid to Israel, because he will never miss an opportunity to grandstand about his isolationist bent.

Rand Paul staggered out of the 2016 GOP Presidential Primary in February of 2016, inexplicably hanging in far longer than he should have, after polling always down near 1%, and raising virtually no money from donors for his doomed campaign. He instead focused on defeating Jim Gray, the openly gay mayor of Lexington, Kentucky, to reclaim his U.S. Senate seat with 57% of the vote, which he now will not have to defend until 2022.

Rand is more partisan than ever, and not just because he voted to approve every member of the Trump cabinet, or to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, or even that he voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act back in 2017 and would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those pesky kids Murkowski, Collins, and McCain. His "smaller government" heartless principles also saw him vote against disaster relief for Houston after Hurricane Harvey.

We can’t emphasize this statement enough, Rand Paul’s image that he is somehow not a reliable Republican vote, and that he’s an “outsider” because of his Libertarian views? HE IS FULL OF S***. Sure, he’ll have “doubts” about Republican nominees and go on cable news shows to vaguely talk about them, but he still goes out and votes for them anyway and hopes no one notices his actual voting record. He’s done this on some of the worst candidates for nominations, like say when Mike Pompeo is up for Secretary of State, or when torture-enthusiast Gina Haspel is up for CIA Director. Even more galling is that when an accused rapist, widely regarded drunk, and partisan hack is up for a Supreme Court seat, like say Brett Kavanaugh, he doesn’t even HAVE a doubt.

Back in mid-February of 2017, the Trump administration had its first, and not last ties to the Trump campaign being tied to Russia, after General Michael Flynn resigned after it was revealed he failed to disclose several meetings with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the campaign and the transition. And while the Democrats thought that warranted an investigation and several Republicans like Sen. John McCain agreed... Rand Paul deemed such a move "excessive" and "it makes no sense for Republicans to investigate Republicans", proving that he views oversight as a partisan matter completely.

...

Rand Paul, at this point, is moving into “ride or die” territory when it comes to Donald Trump, as after Trump’s “s***hole countries” remarks in January of 2018, Sen. Paul actually chastised people for calling the president a racist because “it hurts immigration talks”. You see? Trump isn’t the problem. It’s all the people rightly pegging him a racist that are the problem. Can’t say I’m shocked from the guy who wouldn’t back the Civil Rights Act, though.

[worstblogever]

How much of a spineless toady is Sen. Paul? At this point, he’ll hand deliver letters to Vladimir Putin from Donald Trump (really) that the public don’t get to ever learn the contents of, while claiming that the Mueller investigation and people upset about Russians hacking the 2016 election are just “Trump Derangement Syndrome”. His support of smaller government principles flew right out the window after a member of the Trump administration wrote an anonymous opinion editorial in the New York Times in July 2018, when he demanded that White House staff should have to begin taking lie detector tests to determine who actually wrote it. And Rand Paul was trying to root out the identity of the CIA whistleblower who revealed Trump tried holding up military aid to Ukraine in exchange for their assistance in smearing Joe and Hunter Biden, indicating he has no issue with Trump openly breaking the law. Well, that and continuing to look like a Russophile by recommending that we abandon our ally and just don’t give Ukraine the military aid they need to fend off the Russian army in Crimea.

We have to cover the plain weird factor. In January of 2018, one of the more bizarre and mysterious news stories broke… Rand Paul was attacked by his elderly neighbor, and actually suffered six broken ribs and other injuries in the assault. A lot of folks wondered if the beat-down was politically motivated… but no. Apparently, and this might come as a shock to those who have never met Ayn Rand fans… but Rand Paul is a s***ty neighbor, because he’s a selfish d*** who just throws his lawn trimmings and leaves wherever he wants, i.e. right along the property line. (That neighbor’s last name was Boucher, and we keep picturing Adam Sandler from The Waterboy tackling Rand Paul. It is… soothing to picture.) As a result of that attack, Sen. Paul had to have a portion of his lung removed.

The past several months have shown that Rand Paul is an ignorant, trollish twit more than usual, as last year, he was one of only two Senators to vote against the Zadroga Act to provide healthcare to 9/11 First Responders, and in June 2020, he held up an Anti-Lynching Bill unilaterally, because again, his “libertarian principles” matter so much to him that they matter more than punishing racists who want to hang minorities.

Really, though, the main issue impacting the country is, obviously, Covid-19. And Rand Paul has been drawing headlines for being a dumbass through all of the crisis. Early in the days of the pandemic, Paul tested positive for Covid-19… and then went to the Congressional gym to work out, utterly not giving a f*** if he got anyone sick. His colleagues, were obviously, enraged. But as hearings continued in the Senate to try and come up with solutions with public health experts, Rand Paul has constantly ignored the science, and actively spread misinformation about Covid-19. So much so that only a few weeks ago, he was called out on it by Dr. Anthony Fauci during his testimony.

We'll keep an eye on Aqua Buddha, still, because he's apparently going to milk his dad's legacy for far longer than should have ever been possible.

[worstblogever]

What you said made me think of the kind of video the Lincoln Project might make. Taking that clip of Trump dancing and overly it on top of a graveyard representing all those who died this year.

Give 'em a few hours.

And if I had to pick a song... let's go with Disturbed's "Down with the Sickness".

[Gray Lensman]

Give 'em a few hours.

And if I had to pick a song... let's go with Disturbed's "Down with the Sickness".

Considering where the lead singer of that band is now...

My wife follows news of the band, he has COViD, and apparently it reacted badly with a pre existing autoimmune disorder. He has lung damage from the complications, hopefully not permanent, or at least not too heavy..

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Jamelle Bouie in The New York Times presented a solid case for court packing. Reposting via Register Guard reprint:
(https://www.registerguard.com/story/...ce/5943796002/)

Bouie says there are several technocratic and institutional reasons for court-packing, he also says that Republican blowback and counter and so on can in fact lead to more bipartisanship in time, and generally presents the best case for it.

(Emphasis by me)

Having said all of that, there are actually several straightforward, nonpartisan reasons for increasing the entire federal judiciary and adding additional Supreme Court justices. The last major expansion was 30 years ago with the Judgeship Bill of 1990. Since then, the population of the United States has grown from roughly 249 million to just over 330 million. With ever more litigants and ever more cases, the country needs more judges.

The judiciary itself said as much in a report released this summer as a statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The effects of increasing caseloads without a corresponding increase in judges are profound,” wrote Judge Brian Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

He continued: “Delays increase expenses for civil litigants and may increase the length of time criminal defendants are held pending trial. Substantial delays lead to lack of respect for the judiciary and the judicial process. The problem is so severe that potential litigants may be avoiding federal court altogether.”

Using a formula tied to caseload per court, Miller recommended an additional 65 district judgeships. This, he said, was “far fewer judgeships than the caseload increases and other factors would suggest are now required” but would represent a substantive improvement over the status quo.

In addition, a growing and diversifying country should see itself reflected at every level of the federal judiciary. More judges means more opportunities for representation, both for district and appellate courts and for the Supreme Court. With two or four or even six additional justices, lawmakers could shape the court to look a little more like America as it is.


[...]

There’s an obvious concern here — tit-for-tat. What is to stop a future Republican majority from expanding — or shrinking — the courts in turn? The answer is nothing. And I’m not sure there should be. If Republicans win the White House and control of Congress, then they should have the right to govern, and if governing means changing the composition of the court, they should have the right to do so. Much more important than somehow constraining future Republicans is working to make our democracy more fair, with equal representation, where one person means one vote. Winning power in Washington should require as close to a popular majority as possible. If Republicans can win one, then it’s their ballgame, as long as the public sticks with them.

It is also not clear that an 11- or 17- or even 27-member Supreme Court is necessarily a bad thing. With more members, individual confirmation battles would be less heated and consequential. And tied even tighter to ordinary politics, the court might be more circumspect about striking down laws by duly elected lawmakers. The promise of tit-for-tat may actually be the thing that lowers the temperature of court battles, which might make it possible for both sides to find a new equilibrium.

In India, the Supreme Court has 34 Judges. In the UK, the Supreme Court has 12 judges for a population that's about a quarter of US.

USA decided on 9 SCOTUS in the aftermath of the Civil War (where Abe Lincoln packed the Court big time during the war), when the population of America was far lower than it is now. If you were to take an originalist view, then you can't say the Founders were against court-packing either. So I think adding more justices is long overdue.

And as for Republicans will add justice next time the control houses...let them have at it, knowing fully that it's not going to lead to juridicial supremacy and dominance in any sense.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Of course, there's also Plan B, or something for Dems to use alongside court-packing. Lucian K. Truscott describes it here, basically limit the Judicial Review altogether:
(https://www.salon.com/2020/09/26/the...to-fight-back/)

It's time for Democrats to grab a proverbial can of gasoline and a pack of matches. McConnell and Trump want to pack the courts with obedient little Republican replicants? OK, let's put them to work. The Constitution won't allow the Congress to cut the pay of judges, but a Democratic House and Senate and a Democrat in the White House can reduce the pay of everyone else on the federal payroll in a courthouse. Most federal district court judges have one or two clerks. How about this: How about zero money for zero clerks? Let Trump's 300 judges do some work for a change. Same thing for the Supreme Court. Each justice currently has four clerks. How does providing pay for one clerk sound? And how about that Supreme Court gym? Close it. Write some rules constraining the justices' ability to accept gifts like invitations to private golf clubs and lunches at country clubs, invitations to give speeches or to accept rides on private jets. Supreme Court justices make $255,300 a year, but they live the lifestyles of corporate CEOs who make millions. Make them live within their means.

But just because we're nice, let's give them less work to do. Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, enumerating the powers of the judiciary, contains this little gem: "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." That gives the Congress the power to limit which laws are subject to judicial review, and "under such regulations," how they are reviewed. I personally see a lot of opportunity for congressional meddling in the powers of the judiciary — as in, stripping away its powers.

Here's the fallacy of the Republican Party's strategy of converting the courts into a political battleground. The legitimacy of the Supreme Court and every other court depends on its decisions being respected by the Congress, the president and the people. Let's try withholding our respect for a change.

Judicial Review changes means that the Dems can restrict what cases come to the desk of the SCOTUS so, abortion cases and voting rights cases or any pet right wing causes or anything pertaining to legislation they are going to pass simply won't come to the desk of the SCOTUS.

The catch is that Judicial Review as with anything is conditional on the Dems being in power, and is subject to the Republicans countering back and coming back and putting all of it on table again. As for cutting funding of SCOTUS to force the judges to do more work and so on...that will punish the Liberal judges (including Stephen Breyer current oldest member of SCOTUS--obviously gonna retire when Biden takes office and Dems take senate) as well as Conservative ones.

I think fundamentally court-packing is what needs to happen, make it 6-5, and then use Judicial Review and that will intimidate Roberts enough.

[wjowski]

Biden's not answering questions about packing the court because he doesn't want to feed Fox News talking points.

It's definitely getting packed.

[shooshoomanjoe]

215,000 dead Americans and he’s out there doing this...

He's celebrating that the trump administration has reached their goal of 200,000 COVID deaths.