Senate The Supreme Court

They haven't tacked to the "center" for the general since Reagan. The base keeps insisting that the center is "hard-right", which is part of the reason they continue to have difficulty winning the Presidency.

 

Well, this is a major reason why I'm skeptical of the idea that HRC is necessarily fated to be a one-term president. I agree that she'll have a harder time than most in getting a second term, but there has to be a competent Republican who can somehow appeal to both the base and the center. After Trump, it's going to be hard to appease the base with dog whistles-- they're used to a megaphone now.

Democrats won just once between 1964 and 1992, and 1976 was a narrow victory. They got back to winning because they found a candidate who appealed to what the country wanted to hear, among other reasons.

 

Garland's been a good trouper despite being jerked around by the GOP. He deserves confirmation hearings and an up or down vote.

 

LOL @ how this turned out.

Looks like it will be Gorsuch or Hardiman, he invited both to the White House for the 8pm ET announcement. But who knows.

 

I posited that he thinks he's going to West Wing it because it's the most liberal of his picks, and the most conservative of his picks... but he doesn't realize that's not how any of that works.

 

Underestimate him, good idea!

 

Celebrity-Apprentice style, maybe?

He keeps telling everyone to tune into 8pm tonight. I guess because he wants his TV ratings to beat the Governator's.

 

Exactly why I won't be watching. He is like Tinkerbell. Deprive him of his applause and he'll die. Pay attention to what he's doing, but do it from news sources and ensure he doesn't get the high ratings he so craves. That is how we ended up in this mess in the first place.

 

Don't call it religious freedom, because what the Christian Right considers to be religious freedom isn't really religious freedom so much as it is a one-sided favoring of Christians and their beliefs at the expense of everybody else. This is the sort of Fox News and Newt Gingrich style propaganda labeling that's allowed this sort of garbage to gain much more traction than it should have...so we should start by rejecting those labels.

 

That why you put quotes around it.

 

6-2 SCOTUS ruling greatly limits the ability of the President to make recess appointments:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/high-court-limits-presidents-power-141913738.html

And of course, the Gorsuch confirmation hearings have begun.

 

Not a bad quote from a guy who is supposed to be a conservative madman, the impartiality of the judicial process should totally be a thing:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.1c61d9484744

“I have no difficulty ruling against or for any party other than based on what the law and the facts of a particular case require,” Gorsuch told the panel. “And I’m heartened by the support I have received from people who recognize that there’s no such thing as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge — we just have judges in this country."

....

During the presidential campaign last year, Trump said that he would nominate people to the Supreme Court who would overrule Roe v. Wade and return decisions on abortion to the states.
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) asked Gorsuch whether Trump had asked him to do that during his interview before his nomination.

“Senator, I would have walked out the door,” Gorsuch replied.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/05/supreme-court-to-rule-on-cellphone-location-privacy-239136

This will be interesting, in part because I think Alito will be a vote in favor of more privacy.

 

Will Kennedy announcement his retirement today? Place your bets here.

 

They are taking up the baker case. I really don't see him retiring if they are hearing that one.

 

The leave the ***** Travel ban in place. SMFH.

 

i mean just until they hear the case and rule on it, no?

 

But it feels like an indication of what the final ruiling will be, just like not putting a stay on any lower court same - sex marriage ruilings were an early indication of where the court would rule on same - sex marriage.

 

The answer was "no."

 

Eh, yes and no. The travel ban is now reinstated and can't be reheard until the oral arguments in October. As well, three Justices already basically signaled that not only would they vote in favor -- but they'd be okay with indefinite bans and the President's unilateral power to do such things.

So, it's a bit troubling, especially since there wasn't THAT much dissent in the lower circuits.