quadtetra
quadtetra's JournalDemocrats should have threatened boycott once investigation was suspected to be rigged
When word got out that the FBI investigation was being rigged, Feinstein wrote a public letter to FBI asking Director Wray to explain in writing once and for all the actual scope of the investigation and the exact directive it was following. At the time there were conflicting reports.
AFAIK, Wray never replied.
But Democrats just waited until the "investigation" completed before calling it a sham. But it was too late. The Republicans had their "cover" and Democrats unwittingly participated in and provided legitimacy to the sham investigation.
When Feinstein wrote her letter she should have added:
1. Need for response in 24h. If no reply, declare the investigation rigged and threaten boycott it. Dems won't even bother reading the rigged report and won't partcipate further.
2. If Wray responds and gives an unsatisfactory reply, again declare the investigation is rigged and threaten to boycott it similarly.
Once the Dems threatened to boycott it, call out Flake, Collins & Murkowski. Say that the the "investigation" is a sham as Wray either refused to reply or gave a reply that clearly shows it to be a sham. Ask the three holdout Republicans to either support a real investigation with an adequate scope spelled out in writing by Director Wray or call them out as collaborators in a sham investigation and Democrats walk away
Once Dems boycott, they will have nothing further to do with the nomination. All Dems go home and boycott further votes. Let Republicans vote 51-0, whatever.
The point is to make clear that the investigation was rigged as early as possible rather than wait for it to complete. I'm not claiming a threat to boycott can stop the nomination! But what I'm saying is don't participate in an obvious sham.
Manchin's Cowardly Yes Vote Fooled No One
I understand the thinking that he is in a Deep Red State whose electorate is mostly pro-Kavanaugh. But the way it played out fooled no one, especially these pro-Kavanaugh people he thinks he can win over. It was extremely obvious that he waited till the Republicans had the votes and announced literally his Yes vote one second later.
The pro-Kavanaugh people aren't THAT stupid. They know it was Kabuki theater!
If he had voted No like Heitkamp with a strong principled stance, at least a few of the pro-Kavabaugh people will respect him and those for whom Kavanaugh isn't a top issue might overlook it.
Meanwhile, a strong No might motivate the Democratic base to turn out!
If he really felt like he needed to vote for Kavanaugh, he should have staked his position early. He could still have changed his mind but when actually voted Yes, it doesn't look like a cowardly last second Kabuki theater vote.
Is SCOTUS too powerful?
SCOTUS is too powerful. It has unelected members that serve for life and have the power to strike down any law almost on a whim. It has no accountability whatsoever. It's only limitation is that a case needs to be brought before the court.
Once Kavanaugh is seated, Breyer & RBG are replaced with FedSoc justices, and SCOTUS strikes down law after law, only then will people understand the need to completely reform this institution.
But would Democrats be willing to confirm in lame duck?
Consensus so far suggests that "Schneiderman" would be dropped and someone else nominated. But here is the thing. What if Dems lose the Senate in midterms? The Republicans would go all out to delegitimize a lame duck confirmation.
Now McConnell would just ignore the criticism and confirm in lame duck anyway.
But would the Dems have the same resolve?
Would Democrats confirm a "Kavanaugh"?
Suppose Obama or Hillary Clinton nominated a progressive version of Kavanaugh, (someone like Eric Schneiderman comes to mind). The Senate was under Dem control with midterms coming up. It is just like the current situation but with parties reversed.
Then right after being nominated, serious allegations came up regarding Schneiderman. What happens next?
Note that if he fails, the Democrats can only confirm in lame duck session and that nominee's legitimacy might be questioned if the upcoming Senate is Republican controlled.
So what should happen next?
FBI Background Investigation Client Should Be Senate
IIUC, the FBI background investigation is ordered by and done on behalf of POTUS. In situations like this, it is a huge conflict of interest. Since POTUS nominates someone with confirmation in mind, the incentive is to rig the investigation if a nominee has "issues" rather than investigate for truth.
(It would be like having the NTSB conduct a airline crash investigation paid for and on behalf of an airline!)
Therefore, if possible, the Senate should be able to order FBI background investigation with itself as the client. The FBI should follow the directions of the Senate on the parameters of said investigation and take no direction from the POTUS whatsoever.
Maybe from a legal standpoint, this isn't possible, I don't know. Maybe we need a new law for this. But my point is that the Senate should be able to order an FBI background investigation answerable only to the Senate.
Roy Cooper for POTUS?
I have no idea if he is interested or even viable but one name that doesn't get mentioned for POTUS is Roy Cooper.
Elected NC governor in 2016, he has been reasonably effective and reasonably popular and fairly progressive.
But here are reasons where I think he might be a good choice.
1. He could help deliver NC's 15 EVs.
2. He could help tip some key Southern States, especially FL and GA.
3. He could stem the tide of "white flight" from the Democratic Party, especially in the South.
Here's the thing. If only NC and FL voted for Clinton but the election results from all other states stayed the same in 2016, Clinton wins 276 EVs to Trump's 262!
Roy Cooper could be that centrist third way type candidate that can appeal everywhere like Clinton did in 1992. Perhaps he needs to be considered instead of more leftwing candidates like Elizabeth Warren who will have zero appeal in the South.
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Sep 22, 2018, 01:15 AMNumber of posts: 46
