HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kag » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Oct 21, 2008, 10:30 PM
Number of posts: 3,042

Journal Archives

Since 1895, GOP senates have NEVER allowed dem presidents to choose a SC pick.

Holy Cow! This article in the Daily Kos is amazing. For 123 years the GOP has NEVER confirmed a democratic SC court pick nominated by a Democratic president.


But the issue, and the answer, is different from what it is reported. The simple fact is that in the modern era Republicans have never confirmed a Supreme Court justice nominated by a Democratic President. Contrary to popular belief, there has never been a bipartisan “norm” that Presidents get deference in appointing Supreme Court justices — that has been a Democratic “norm” under Republican Presidents, but that has never been reciprocated by Republicans.

I wrote about this previously. The last time a Republican Senate confirmed a Democratic President’s Supreme Court nomination was 1895 — which was 123 years ago (and involved a Republican party with little connection to today’s party).


In terms of today’s events, the first order of business is for Democrats to recognize and accept the above. The first result of which is that no Republican President will be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court justice if the Democrats control the Senate — at least not for the next 123 years.

That, btw, is not radical. It is called “parity.” Any Democrat arguing otherwise is an embarrassment.

I highly recommend reading the whole article. It's not very long, and it is fascinating!


So, I wish I could take full responsibility for this, but alas, I cannot. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I first read it, but I wouldn't be surprised to know that the ferret was involved somewhere along the line.

In these surreal times of long discussions about where racists are allowed to eat dinner while the Big Cheetoh throws nine-month-olds in cages and then goes out to play golf, all using our tax money, I think it is important to come up with the right words to describe those who cheer him on. And that word is...


No, it's not my creation, and no, I don't know who DID create it. Hell, it's not even new, but that surprises me all the more because I don't see it used nearly enough.

But I find it so perfectly descriptive that I would just like to propose (to those of us who read DU at 2am...4 eastern) that it be made the new official name for the Republican party. They are clearly struggling to find an identity right now, and this one word contains both their self-proclaimed brand as well as their function in life (to eat shit, and then morph into annoying insects who go around tormenting people).

Just a thought. Good night.

Legal question about separating families.

I need help with this.

I'm not a lawyer, but my ears perked up when I heard something on Rachel tonight. She was reading the transcript from Manafort being sent to prison, and she read something that the judge said--that conditions of bail cannot be used as punitive measures--that I had never heard before, and hadn't really considered. The point is that since he hasn't yet been found guilty of anything, he cannot legally be "punished" by the court.

Now, these kids are being separated from their parents, and the justification the government has given is that the parents are being incarcerated pending trial for breaking the law (assuming they don't/can't post bail), and the government is just taking the kids to "care" for them since their parents now "can't." However, according to public statements by Sessions, the policy was put in place to try to stop people from coming to the border, which is to say, they are instituting punitive measures as a deterrent. But if it's punitive, shouldn't it be illegal to use it as a condition of the bail/jail process since they haven't yet been found guilty of anything?

I understand that government lawyers have said that the kids are just being taken because the parents are incarcerated pending trial, just like any good-old-fashioned American court does every day. But Sessions said in a public speech "if you don't want your kids taken away, then don't try to enter illegally" or something to that effect. Doesn't that take away the government's stated position that these separations aren't meant to be punitive?

I'm sure there are legal issues that I'm missing, and of course there is the simple fact that this policy is immoral and down right cruel, but it seems to me that there is a LEGAL issue here that isn't being argued, and should be.

Any lawyers out there want to tell me what I'm missing?

Go to Page: 1