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.
You need to credit Ace for that.
The Progressive Left has taught me that FACTS, civility, politeness and balance will get me nowhere. I have observed these Leftist tactics in the slandering and demeaning comments about former Presidents Jefferson, Jackson, and others. I have observed these tactics on University campus' where even the founders of the University were accused of wrong think and racism. All without context or balance or civility or politeness. There are many, many examples I could cite.
I know it's wrong. I know I that it's anti-intellectual. But sometimes one just has to stoop to that level to make a point. On the other hand, I ask you, would Coretta Scott been as influential as Coretta Scott KING. We'll never know. But I have my doubts. Oh, and her infamous letter ......... true or not true?
While he is probably going to run for reelection, the paperwork filed was strategic policital manuevers designed to control fund raising and negative advertising. If it isn't Trump, someone on his political staff continues to play chess while others struggle with checkers.
The other aspect of this, Mitch McConnell isn't exactly a Trump Deplorable.
What a disgusting term. Who talks like that?
Wait a second. We can't have historical criticism of Presidents Jefferson and Jackson now either?
I thought the use of the rule was procedurally valid just with some risk of blowing back at them, which clued me in that there's an underlying message here going on here. I see this as the GOP in the Senate starting to push back at the crap they have been enduring from across the Aisle. I listened to Warrens speech on the CSPAN website and found none of it all that credible. Its fine to quote somebody but her reading aloud the words of others was haphazard and hard to follow because you couldn't tell if she was quoting from somebody or interjecting herself, it really showed lack of professionalism. Had she not be censured, she her rambling would have made her look really awful and the controversy would have died right then and there.
There's really not much difference between what Obama and Trump in regarding criticizing the judges, but while Obama got a pass from pretty much everybody for doing it, Trump is just facing the double standards we seem to be continuing to perpetuate when a Republican is in the White House.
The appropriate thing here is to let it play out and see if Trump really loses it upon final appeal in the Supreme Court.
Your comment indicates that you are either a troll or this is way over your intellectual level. The Yahoo comments section is more appropriate for you. I'm done.
Obviously you haven't read the book. It talks about people on the right ignoring the hypocrisy of the left and spending their time firing on their allies on the right for lack of purity. Here is a case in point.
The lack of paper work excuse is a bit over blown. Also agreed, nothing to go nuclear over, except Justice Gorsuch.
I will full admit I have not read the book. I question your summary though, when it seems like most of the time someone is being called a "cuck" if they do not agree with 100% of whatever one of the President's surrogates is selling, regardless of what conservative principles apply or their own take on the situation.
The aim, at least in theory, ought to be to consider what one thinks is best for the nation. Not some kind of tribal warfare in which one is insulted with such a disgusting term for failure to sufficiently demean the other side.
Thank you. That's what I don't get. Why make a huge deal out of this? She could have said her peace, it would have been relegated to the department of things nobody cares about like 99.999% of all things said on the Senate floor, and Sessions could have been confirmed as everybody knew he would be. I'm not sure why anybody gained by making this a giant cause instead of just getting on with the nation's business.
Although it is a term of derision, it is apt, especially if shifting from a dielectric to rhetorical modes. However in this case it fits-- the issue under discussion at that point in the comments was calling the political and apostate judge "so-called judge-- a perfectly reasonable description considering how far from the mainstream of legal thought and precedent the judge went without giving any legal reasons. Getting upset at Trump and supporters for not falling down and accepting whatever wisdom falls from the throne of a judge when it was legally speaking crap-- a power play far far outside of the legal mainstream was a good comment.
I understand Coyote's concern on Ellizabeth Warren, but there are other considerations. Media expects Republicans to follow the rules, but not Democrats. The howling would be intense if a GOP senator violated this rule. Second, Senator Warren was warned about her violation. She continued to violate the rules. She was asked to stop. She did not stop violating the rules. Either rule violation have consequences, or you should get rid of them.
Coyote -- Warren was acting like a complete asshole. She has a long history of acting like a dishonest asshole. Sometimes the only way to deal with a bullying asshole is to give the bully a taste of her own medicine. Ordinarily, I might agree with you that the leadership of the Senate should give some latitude to a senator to bring up something that might not be very nice, but necessary to the process. But she wasn't. She hasn't earned the trust and respect of the other side of the aisle because she is a constant source of slander and lies. She wasn't acting in good faith. And her party has not been acting in good faith. Context matters. Context matters big time.
So they smacked her back a little. Good. She deserved it. They wouldn't have done it to a Sam Nunn. They wouldn't have done it to Bob Kerrey. They wouldn't have done it to Mondale or McGovern. But they were absolutely right to do it to her.
Because context matters.