Congratulations Trump Supporters, You Have Me Defending Elizabeth Warren Now

Sorry Trump supporters, your guys are not being "scrappy", they are being stupid.  In the same way that Harry Reid failed to understand that his party might some day be out of power and thus felt free to set precedents that are now helping the Republicans, Republicans will be out of power again some day and the precedents being set now will be used against them.  In fact, both parties are currently setting precedents we will have to live with the rest of our lives.

Two things in particular come to mind.  First is the bullying of judges.   This is just stupid.  Most senior judges are precisely the sort of folks who don't roll over to bullying, and in fact probably have a tendency to bare their teeth and fight back.  It is just simply insane for the Trump administration to make the statements they are making about pending cases and their judges.

Second, the censure last night of Elizabeth Warren was ridiculous.  I actually think the criticisms of racism of Sessions are dated and overblown, but so what?  They are perfectly reasonable criticisms to bring up in a confirmation hearing.  Just because Sessions is a Senator should not make him immune to criticism in confirmation hearings.  The Senate should recognize in their rules that criticizing a Senator in a confirmation debate is way different than criticizing a Senator in the normal course of Senate business. Of course, these Senate rules are exactly why Presidents love to nominate Senators for the Cabinet, because they tend to get a pass from their old colleagues.  Well, no more.


  1. EDM:

    I despise everything Warren stands for, but you are right. This is a huge unforced error. It plays right into the lefty's love of playing the victim.

  2. Joe:

    I concur -
    Saying bad thinks about a judge is realy - realy stupid
    The same as condemning the SC justices at the state of the Union for the upholding a core first amendment principle in CU

    Censuring Warren was also pretty stupid - She was looking pretty pathetic until the censure made the republicans look stupid

    On another note - Trump is doing worse than we thought - We have already lost seven states - what we are down with only 50 left after just 2 weeks of the trump presidency

  3. Mars Jackson:

    I agree that the criticisms of Sessions are overblown, but I think that Warren's attack dog stance and the Republicans' censure of her hurt/helped both in equal measure. Hardcore Democrats will hail her a hero, while Republicans will argue she was out of line. In reality, both views are right and wrong. Senator Orrin Hatch was right in his comments criticizing both sides for letting the Senate devolve into a "jungle". The hard core stances of both sides are just feeding the divide of the parties right now, and I think most citizens are tiring of all of them.

  4. J_W_W:

    Hmmmm, well, no one on the left had one iota of a problem when Obama bullied Supreme Court justices to their face in the State of the Union speech.

    I'm past decorum. The Progressives have bee so risable and so obnoxious and so rude that I don't care anymore. IF THEY WANTED NICE, POLITE REPUBLICANS THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE VILIFIED MITT ROMNEY!!!

    When you vilify everyone than no one is the villain. Progressives made this bed and now they have to deal with Trump.

    Progressives act like they want a civil war, and as much as it makes my heart ache, I don't care anymore, I don't believe my country survives the political fracture that has been manufactured by 40 year of progressive policy bullshit.... It make me sad, but if they're not willing to live in peace with me so be it. We'll have to have this fight they continually keep harping on about....

  5. Dave Boz:

    I suspect that neither Warren nor any other senator actually gives a shit about whether Jeff Sessions is confirmed (a foregone conclusion anyway). It's a game of political theater that must be played. Republicans were stupid enough to play along, so their opponents got a few more minutes of theater than they otherwise would have.

  6. August Hurtel:

    I find it rather timid myself. But then, I'm pretty sure a large chunk of D.C. needs to be indicted.

  7. Daniel Nylen:

    Sorry, but you guys are cucking out. Take a look at the issues and the law in this "judge" issue and you will see political action in the guise of judicial roles. First, even if we disagree on whether or not the law is clear cut--and it is, in today's media driven society we have the right and in fact the need to call out what one side sees as the unfair abuse of power by the judiciary. If one side doesn't call out the abuse, the media goes into overdrive trying to shape public opinion. Second, the era of the wise judges is just as far gone as the era of the wise bureaucracy that you lament.

  8. CapitalistRoader:

    X2. Trump is just using the Democrats' own dirty tactics against them. What's the worst that can happen? The Dem's get the Senate back in 2018? The presidency back in 2020? So what? I don't think Trump's in it for the long haul anyway. Rather, my impression is that he's having a good time yanking Fauxcahontas and her fellow pwogies around like a puppet.

    Reagan firing the PATCO thugs was similar. And it was popular among the "deplorables"; so much so that he won in a massive landslide in '84.

  9. Roy_Lofquist:

    This (the EO and the judge) is clearly an instance where the Executive is obligated to defend its prerogatives. The President is granted plenary power over these matters both by The Constitution and by statute (Black Letter Law). It is especially egregious because it is an encroachment on the powers of both the Executive and the Legislature. A mere reversal by a higher court that does not result in sanctions and/or admonishment of the judge is insufficient. If any of 2,758 Federal District Judges can trigger a Constitutional confrontation by whim without consequences then it's Katie Bar the Door. President Trump MUST crush this miscreant lest chaos and dark night descend upon us.

    James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 58
    February 20, 1788
    An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

    James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 48
    February 1, 1788
    [I]n the next place, to show that unless these departments be so far connected and blended as to give to each a constitutional control over the others, the degree of separation which the maxim requires, as essential to a free government, can never in practice be duly maintained.

    James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 10
    November 23, 1787
    [T]he great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachment of the others.

    James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 51
    February 6, 1788
    To what expedient then shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government, as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.

  10. August Hurtel:

    Trump is planning a full eight years. He's done paperwork and organizational stuff he wouldn't have bothered with if he wasn't planning the long haul.

  11. Freedom:

    But Sen. Warren's speech is clearly hate speech, and we all know hate speech is not free speech.

  12. Joe Blizzard:

    I don't want to sound like I'm defending McConnell, but his spokesperson says other senators were allowed to read the same letter afterwards because "the other Dem speeches were not preceded by a prolonged disparagement of a colleague." I don't know what else Warren said, and frankly I don't care enough about it to try to find out, but I'm hearing accusations of misogyny, based on those other senators being male, which reminds me of your previous post about the left's arguments always being about bigotry.

  13. David in Michigan:

    Maybe he is planning for 8 years and maybe not. I understand that he did file as a candidate in 2020 but I also was lead to believe that this had other implications. I'm not real clear on it (I don't really have that much interest so not following up) but understood that early filing stymied political action groups from using funds against him.

  14. August Hurtel:

    I think Vox Day said something about this, but it seems to me the type of thing you don't want to play with unless you are committed to a run. I just saw Trump's speech to the sheriffs, and he talks about being there for whole time. He could change his mind, but the guy has some sort of internal metric for this Make America Great Again business. He ain't leaving until he thinks it's great again.

  15. David in Michigan:

    I don't know why you think it was foolish to shut down Warren's rant. Quoting the opinion of a black woman whose claim to fame is her marriage to a saintly black preacher rather than actually dealing with FACTS is nothing more than political rhetoric and a waste of every Senator's time. (In spite of it's overuse, 'racism' is still the favorite tactic of the left).

    The only ones who really care about this event are hard core 'progressives' (and maybe libertarians?). No one else gives a you know what.

  16. billyoblivion:

    I believe that the point is that *calling out the judge in public* is a bad tactic, not that the judge was right.

  17. Recovering libertarian:

    Did you read the letter she was citing. It's full of unsubstantiated accusations.

  18. mesaeconoguy:

    Most of Trump’s tactics are louder versions of what Oblunder did, including bullying the Supreme Court during a State of the Union speech,
    with them in attendance.

    It’s long past time for civility - I want Warren permanently muzzled. Shut her up as long as you want, Mitch. She’s a clear and present danger to the country.

  19. Daniel Nylen:

    That is what the disagreement is about. I think that calling out the crazy activist judges is a good thing and not to is suicide politically. Being quiet lets the media frame the narrative and mass of low-information voters absorbs the narrative. If fought, at least the narrative isn't believed.

  20. GoneWithTheWind:

    Bullying of judges.

    This judge in Washington isn't a fool and he knows he is wrong. Not saying that the three judges from the 9th circuit won't agree with him but everyone who knows constitutional law knows the president is 100% correct in his right and reason to do this ban. So the judge chooses to go against his oath and cause the administration some trouble. Like most on the left they believe if they can just raise enough hell maybe Trump will go away or at least they can show their own supporters they are trying to stop him. But the takeaway is that this judge is wrong, wrong, wrong and he knows it. SOOOOOO that means that everything Trump said about the judge is true. Not bullying but pointiing out that the judge is biased. IMHO every case this judge worked on is now dirty and the judge should be impeached. Lets see if these three 9th circuit judges also choose to beclown themselves....

  21. Recovering libertarian:

    Added: Why didn't any of the Republicans bring this up in rebuttal to Fauxcahontas -

    All you got was one distorted side. The Republicans should have let her talk, but responded to her slanderous charges.

  22. herdgadfly:

    The judge has stuck his nose into a national issue that ignores that law and previous presidential actions favor Trump - but I will never defend the narcissistic fool who is our president. As for the judicial review, we are talking about the Ninth Circus here and we all know how dangerous that clowns can be.

    As for Fauxcahontas, nobody can be favorable toward her. She reads from a Coretta King paper full of lies about how supportive Mrs. King was to Michael/Martin's preaching but the facts do not support her claim to actively support the MLK Voting Rights effort. Coretta, you see, was confined to their Atlanta home where she had to raise the children. Meanwhile M.L traveled to do his Civil Rights gig every day while carousing with other women every night.

  23. Bistro:

    I disagree. All the votes in the Sessions matter were effectively cast when he was named as the nominee and there is no reason other than spite to blacken a man's name citing a 30 year old reference read by a woman who knowingly repeats ugly words for no valid or good purpose. She wasn't going to change anybody's vote and nobody needed to hear what she had to say to make up their minds. It was a stupid waste of time and effort and mean spirited.

  24. mlhouse:

    WHile I think it is a mistake to gag Elizabeth Warren, let her speak and reveal herself a fool, the GOP is just plain tired of this BS. Lets get Trump's cabinet appointees confirmed and get rid of this overwrought drama that these morons like Elizabeth Warren keep playing.

    Once the cabinet is in place Trump and the Congress can begin to work on real legislation.

    Let the idiots riot. Let them talk nonsense, non-stop. If you want to "defend" Warren, go ahead. But I dare you to actually support her!!!

  25. KenG453:

    Sorry, Mr. Meyer, but your Coyote batting average so far in 2017 is as bad as my Little League average. (I was a clumsy child.) Trump follows a long line of presidents who criticized members of the judicial branch, from Obama back though Ike, FDR, TR, Lincoln, and Jefferson. He's just the first to use Twitter; Obama used a SOTU address. They are coequal branches, and judges ping the legislative and executive all the time in their decisions. As for the intellectually unprepossessing senator from MA, McConnell went easy in her. She deserved the full James Cagney "Public Enemy" treatment -- grapefruit to the face.

  26. Zekester7659:

    Sorry Coyote, but this is a really weak post.
    1. What Harry Reid did is so much worse than the two trivial items you mention.
    2. The Judiciary, re the EO, is behaving in an obviously political fashion, as this is a simple case where the EO is clearly legal, and the judges are clearly wading into matters irrelevant to the law in this instance.
    3. "Insane?" Really, that is a very strong word. And "bullying?" In what way are they bullying? It seems to me you are way over the top here.
    4. Lizzie. Those are the Senate rules, she was warned, she chose to ignore the warning. The result is obvious and it's idiotic to complain about it. We are done with Obama and his red lines after all.

  27. wreckinball:

    The EO is clearly in line with the law allowing the president the right to restrict alien access to the US. Thus the judge and probably the ninth circuit will follow are way out of line. That's just common sense

  28. CapnRusty:

    And one should note, the book she wrote was released yesterday, so she needed to call attention to herself. What better way to get attention from Leftists than by claiming that she's a victim of that bully McConnell.

  29. Eric S:

    The old civility:

    1). Liberal: Says something.
    2.) Conservative: Politely rebuts statement.
    3.) Liberal: Calls conservative a racist, misogynist, or other unwarranted trendy insult.
    4.) Conservative: Politely explains why they are not whatever they were called.
    5.) Liberal: Not good enough. Starts the "conversation" over again at step 3.

    That's how you got Trump.

    The new civility:

    1). Liberal: Says something.
    2.) Conservative: Politely rebuts statement.
    3.) Liberal: Calls conservative a racist, misogynist, or other unwarranted trendy insult.
    4.) Conservative: Fcuk you.

    I find this change to be very personally satisfying.

  30. kidmugsy:

    We Cherokees agree with heap big Coyote.

    But despite her dishonest way of advancing her career, surely the Law Squaw would have been a far better candidate than Crooked Hillary Clinton?

  31. Titan28:

    Coyote, you are exasperating and preposterous.

  32. herdgadfly:

    Sorry Trump supporters, your guys are not being "scrappy", they are being stupid.

    The big point to be made here is that the Trump train has not really moved the Never Trump rightest crowd - and I do mean "crowd."

  33. BabetheBeagle:

    The Republicans just want to get the cabinet positions filled. They should have just gone nuclear and shut them all out. Their obstruction is getting ridiculous. Obama's picks were already done by this time in his presidency. Warren just drones on and on and on. It's nothing but grandstanding. Massachusetts really picked a lemon. Hope they vote her out.

  34. BabetheBeagle:

    But that was the Senate rule, and has been forever. She was wasting everyone's time. They've been working all night and weekends trying to get these confirmations through so they can start getting things done. I don't blame them a bit.

    Why should a judge be above criticism? The idea that a few employees of a few companies might have "irreparable harm" is more important than the harm the American people face with lax vetting is preposterous.

  35. abe:

    Big Deal. So What. McConnell played "Senate rules" Same as Reid did. Same as the next "Senate Ruler" will. Unless you just like Fauxahontis.

  36. ColoComment:

    I, for one, would like to see a parallel rule in the Senate that prohibits personal attacks on private citizens in a floor speech. (See, Reid, Koch brothers.)

    But perhaps that's too much to ask: that private citizens be treated with the same respect and formal courtesy accorded the members of the Senate.

  37. Bram:

    The Senate is a place of BUSINESS. She was purposely delaying the business, which in this case was against the rules. She was not saying anything useful or relevant. At some point they had to shut her up and move on.

  38. Ike Evans:

    I suspect most self described libertarians don't care too much about Sessions as a racist. There are other issues like civil forfeitures that they care about much more often, and for good reason.

  39. Ike Evans:

    Legally, there should never be such a thing as hate speech.

  40. Ike Evans:

    If you read the column, clearly the Coyote has no love for Warren.

  41. Federal Farmer:

    I am not a Democrat, nor am I saying I am really against Sessions' confirmation (any AG Pres. Trump will nominate will be a Statist) but what do you think the Republicans have been during the previous 8 years? I thought the point of having a minority is to make sure alternative views are being considered, and if necessary, forestall bad policy from being implicated.

  42. mx:

    Surely the purpose of a debate is then to rebut such accusations (or ignore them and vote to confirm anyway if the Senate sees so fit, which is pretty much what happened)? How can one debate the fitness of an appointee for office if criticism is forbidden?

  43. mx:

    A number of nominations have not moved forward because the nominees were never vetted by the Trump transition and many did not submit ethics paperwork or took an exceedingly long time to do so. Puzder's hearings have been delayed time and time again because he just submitted his ethics filing two days ago.

    There's nothing to "go nuclear" over either. There already is no filibuster for cabinet positions, thanks to Schumer's apparent failure to consider that a Republican might be President one day.

  44. mx:

    Coretta Scott King is widely considered a civil rights leader in her own right, and her civil rights work went far beyond her simply being married. There are plenty of criticisms of the letter and plenty of valid arguments in favor of confirming Sessions, but I don't see why you need to reduce an icon of the civil rights movement to nothing more than her marriage to make any of those arguments.

  45. mx:

    Or his attitude toward marijuana

  46. mx:

    There was no waste of time. The Senate had invoked cloture already, which starts (if I remember correctly) a 30 hour clock on debate before the nominee gets a up or down majority vote, with time appropriately split among members. Warren had her time slot and chose to use it to make these arguments against nomination. Others were free to ignore her (indeed, she was speaking to a mostly empty chamber, as is typical) or to find her arguments unpersuasive. Silencing her achieved no particular speedup in the pace of Sessions' confirmation.

  47. mx:

    What does "cucking out" mean?

  48. Recovering libertarian:

    These were false accusations of racism that derailed Sessions' nomination as a judge and, as I pointed out above, they should have been challenged. The purpose of accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia, etc. is not to seek the truth, but to intimidate and win without a debate. Trump and his nominees are simply pushing this harassment aside and clearing the obstructions. It's about time.

  49. Fred_Z:

    Totally agree. Judges should not be immune from criticism. Indeed they should be watched most carefully and criticized early and often.

    Also, a judge who will react emotionally to criticism and slant a judgement accordingly needs to be identified early and removed from the bench if necessary. Their main job requirement is impartiality and a person who will rule against your case because you called him an idiot is indeed an idiot.

    These people are civil servants with a job to do and for too long we have been letting them get away with cheating on the job.