Spare Me Your Pseudo-Moral Outrage, Ted Olson!

I had to laugh heartily when I spotted former Solicitor General Ted Olson's polemic ('A Disgraceful Process') in the latest issue of TIME Oct. 1, p. 27).  First it helps to jog readers' memories on just who this asshole is, in case they forgot.   He was the chief lawyer for the Dumbya side in the now historic case of Bush v. Gore in 2000.   This was yet another case of the archaic Electoral College playing a major role in grabbing a presidency for a Repuke - in this case George Bush Jr.  But maybe the bigger picture - as spelled out by Vince Bugliosi in his book, 'The Betrayal of America'-  was how the then Supreme Court basically chose the president.

As Bugliosi writes (p. 41,  Chapter: 'None Dare Call It Treason'):

"In the December 12 ruling by the Supreme Court handing the election to George Bush, the Court committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law."

As an accomplice to this perfidy we find one Ted Olson, taking the side for BushCo.  Now this villain of the piece (an accomplice to "treason" by Bugliosi's reckoning), wants us to get all worked up over the terrible deed being perpetrated on Brett Kavanaugh. Olson writes to start:

"HOW LOW WE HAVE SUNK. the DEMOCRATS have demanded an FBI investigation into an alleged drunken assault from 36 years ago, between teenagers, at a party in a private home."

How low have we sunk? Before you go into that, you'd do well to ask that question of Sen. Mitch McConnell who happily kept Obama's SC pick (Merrick Garland)  on ice for the better part of a year, to deny ANY process. And now Olson has the nerve to insist on Kumbaya - and Kavanaugh confirmed with zero impediments?  Note also Olson's parlance: "an alleged drunken assault ....between teenagers"  thereby cynically conflating victim (Dr. Ford) with alleged perp (Kavanaugh)..

And then, predictably, Olson trots out the usual canned attacks perfected by the Reepos:

"The accuser doesn't remember exactly when the offense took place or exactly how she got to the house. And she allowed her name to be publicly associated with the accusation only after the completion of a two month investigation into its subject, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, by the U.S. Sente Judiciary Committee and two days of questioning by 18 senators."

Ok, back up here a bit. The "investigations" were bogus because they were partisan and that is why Dr. Ford called for the FBI investigation (something done as a matter of course, especially if new information comes to light).  It was clear Christine Ford didn't trust the bullies and buffoons of the Senate GOP to do any proper investigation, and by the end of the two months that was obvious. Hell, the pair of  elderly GOP Senate Judiciary Bozos  - Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch- didn't even pick up on Kavanaugh's assorted lies.  So why the hell would Dr. Ford feel any confidence in the process up that point?   Yes, Olson mentions the FBI did its own investigation too, but now he disallows a further one that new information from Dr. Ford has some to light.

As for as the bit about not being clear on details, anyone who's taken a Psychology 101 course knows this is standard for a sexual trauma survivor.  Nearly all specific details are lost in a protective "limbo" (the victim is protected by her mind's own impaired memory from re-living them, as my newly minted Ph.D. (in Psychology) niece Shayl has made clear.).  As Dr. Shayl also added: "It's incredible to me Olson wouldn't know that as he appears not to be a stupid man. And yet he writes with full -on steroids stupidity"

He also whines a lot, emulating other Reepo whiny bitches, e.g.

"Today's confirmation proceedings are characterized by acrimony, political grandstanding, nasty charges, protests, mischaracterizations and quite possibly defamatory innuendo."


So what did you expect? That for a guy specially selected by the nation's number one admitted pussy grabber, things would be all sweetness, light and decorum? Hardly! Given the polarization of the nation and a budding tyrant and traitor left with no checks on his own behavior we have already entered the era of constitutional crisis and political warfare. Only a rank imbecile or naive fool would fail to see that, and Michael Moore's new film makes that clear. (See my review two posts earlier).

The beginning of the last paragraph of Olson's petulant screed is almost laughable given how he summarily dismisses the fact the same Dr. Ford has been mercilessly bombarded by hate emails, death threats, and hacking (impersonating her online) from deranged Trump cultists.  This has forced her and her family from their home and even forced them to hire security.  WHY,  Mr. Olson, would any woman bring that upon herself and her family just for a lark, or made up story?

Anyway, Olson scribbles:

"It is surprising that anyone of the character, integrity and standing required of our highest court would allow their names to be submitted for such deplorable treatment."

Yeah well, maybe - like Kavanaugh - they believed they could get away with their crimes and attempted rapes. Want me to believe your boy is all in the clear and the model of morality being portrayed? Then let him take a lie detector test like Christine Ford did, and also allow and actively encourage the further FBI investigation.

Unless, of course, he has something to hide!  We now know, for example, that Kavanaugh's sexual misconduct continued beyond high school to Yale where a Colorado woman - Deborah Ramirez - has now accused Trump's fellow pussy grabber of gross, indecent exposure.  E.g.

Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct ...

Then, there's also been the titanic response (720,000 tweets on  #WhyIDidn'tReport) to Dotard's tone deaf questioning of Dr. Christine Ford, i.e. in not reporting Kavanaugh's attempted sexual assault earlier.

Let's get it clear that the deprivation of Kavanaugh’s life or liberty is not at stake, but rather the privilege to hold one of the most important positions in the nation, for which good character and fair treatment of others is necessary.   We may be able to excuse the fact this guy was nominated by the nation's number one serial sexual assaulter, but we cannot have his confirmation if there's even a whiff of  extreme sexual impropriety, as there appears to be.

It's time that Ted Olson and his fellow moralizing  hypocrites wake up, and stop treating the victims of Kavanaugh's assaults and misconduct as the perps wreaking "disgrace" on the SC confirmation process.


See also

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/john-grant/81230/awesome-uncontrollable-male-passion-meets-its-match

And:

Alex Henderson

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

Republicans

These 5 Far-Right Republicans Just Proved They Don’t Take Sexual Assault Seriously

Why Democrats May Soon Have To Embrace Political Warfare To Stop Trump And the GOP.

How our Founding Fathers settled political disputes - the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton - with the latter shot dead for his effrontery.(From The New Republic, March, 2018)


"The way democracy is conducted today may have hit a new low in the lifetime of most Americans—but not in the life of the republic. The United States has been here before. For almost the entirety of the country’s first century of existence, politics was a zero-sum game—and often a blood sport. All fights were to the death, and those parties that lost were eliminated. The Federalists ceased to exist. So did the old Whigs, after losing their battle to the death with the Democrats. " -   Kevin Baker, 'The Myth Of Normal America', The New Republic, March 2018, p. 14.

"At their heart, appeals to moderation willfully ignore an obvious and indisputable aspect of our presidential system: the ahistoric procedural tactics marshaled by the Republican Party to accomplish their objectives are adopted because they usually work. And despite brief episodes of political blowback when the party reaches too far, Republicans have done incredibly well for themselves by pushing the limits of acceptable political behavior to their advantage." - Tim Donovan, 'Dems Fighting Words',  The American Prospect, Aug. 26, 2006

"Unpleasant as it may be for Right wingers to think about, their articles of faith are essentially spinoffs of wrong ideas about baboons. ...The baboon model, of course, fits hand in glove with the idea that humans are killer apes who have always hunted and eaten flesh. Wrong or not this theme works well in the dog-eat-dog culture of industrial capitalism...Put together in a package they make up a political outlook known as Social Darwinism." - Jim Mason, 'An Unnatural Order: Uncovering The Roots Of Our Domination Of Nature And Each Other, p. 79.

Let's get real here: the hope of many Democrats - like my wife,  Janice- that Trump and the gangster GOP will be stopped by Robert Mueller or elections in November ( and two years hence), may be no more than a pipedream. This is because the tacit assumption made is the Ds' political opponents will act as rational and responsible actors - as opposed to rats using Russian hacking, voter suppression, rigged electronic voting machines  or other vicious tactics -  i.e. to stay in charge of the current rolling national disaster.  The point? It may be necessary for the Dems - to survive as a viable party, far less win elections - to go "nuclear" in terms of political warfare at multiple levels. 

 As long ago as April, 2010, I wrote about the message in Michael Tomasky's American Prospect piece,  'Dems' Fightin' Words', in which he observed the extent to which Democrats had devolved to become political Caspar Milquetoasts. That is, deliberately eschewing hard nosed, no -holds barred  partisanship for a debate style emphasis on "reason and temperance",  based on invoking policy points.

Little wonder from that point the Dems have been thumped time after time (especially in governorships)  until now they have almost been gerrymandered out of existence by the Repukes. Oh, even as the lower federal courts are being stacked with right wing nuts.  Without the will to fight, and by that I mean bringing a metaphorical "Uzi" or anti- aircraft gun to the proverbial "gunfight", they likely will go the way of the Dodo ….or the Whigs.

This is also the theme of Kevin Baker's New Republic article from March, 2018,  'The Myth Of Normal America'.    E.g.
https://newrepublic.com/article/146915/american-politics-has-never-been-normal

A myth, sadly, that the Democrats largely appear to be operating under.  But for context let me provide a few quotes from Baker's article, starting with the genesis of what I will call the political war state:

"Republicans’ pursuit of the “Southern strategy” to scoop up Wallace voters, followed by the Clintons’ largely disastrous effort to reshape the Democrats from a culturally diverse party with shared liberal economics into a center-right economic party with shared cultural values, have pushed our politics back to the winner-take-all past. Can we expect the results to be any different after Trump than they were the last time around, if we find ourselves back in the old-school, antebellum political system? Well, what’s the popular definition of insanity again?"

The point about the Dems' "center right economic party" - leading to the DLC  or "Democratic Leadership Council" - is a solid one because it was suggested by Tomasky (ibid.) that this is what turned the Dems away from partisan fights to Milquetoasts- and losing.  This also led to "a diminution and loss of an overarching and motivating vision".  Not surprisingly, the Dems moved toward corporate elitism (and Neoliberalism) - effectively becoming "Republican lite".

The problem is that this pose simply emboldened the GOP  - which went on a tear to destroy the Dems totally - using propaganda of whatever form, as well as bare knuckle tactics such as gerrymandering on steroids, voter suppression (including in the 2000 general election in FLA) and  reaching their apex (nadir?) with the blocking of any Senate hearings for Merrrick Garland. Oh,  and the more recent total capitulation to the traitor Trump - thereby becoming his de facto henchmen.  To  fix ideas, just look at the recent mouthings of the trio of Reepo quislings:   Lindsey Graham, John Kennedy (Louisiana backwoods inbred - no relation to JFK) and Orrin Hatch - denouncing John Brennan after Trump stripped his security clearance.

Another timely, excellent Baker point to ponder:

"Democracy is a system designed for human beings to exist in and prosper under, together and indefinitely. As in any successful means of living, it depends to some degree on mutually agreed-upon forgiveness (if not forgetting). War, on the other hand, is meant to achieve a set objective, for as long or as short a time as that takes. Its aim is to break the will of an opponent to resist, and it builds momentum—and often morale—by dwelling more and more on the perfidy of the enemy. Atrocity builds upon atrocity, propaganda replaces truth and objective analysis, “winning” surpasses any other objective, and all rules that exist are the more likely to be discarded the longer the war continues, with each blow that follows the next falling harder and more heavily. 

The politics-as-war we live under now escalates steadily, with each transgression inviting another. The Democrats who finally unseat Trump, or merely succeed him, will have to respond in kind to him and his ilk, no matter how superior they may feel in ethics and motivation. It’s the logic of war rather than the logic of democracy."

 

 
The last point is a critical one to process which is likely to blow away many Dem centrists, moderates  or "powderpuffs". I.e. those who cling to the use of "civility" or civil tactics and strategies to oust the human pustule in the White House and his retinue of lesser pustule enablers.  Hence, the theme needs to transform to the "logic of war"  rather than the "logic of democracy". Why? Because for all intents the Repukes have demonstrated by their actions they've no interest in democratic institutions or processes. Hell, they will not even provide a constitutional check on the powers of the pretender occupying the White House.   So hence Baker's admonition for the Dems to "respond to Trump in kind". In other words, become just as vicious and unforgiving, striking back as he has. Oh, and even go beyond that to altering the system itself. How ?


Again, we go to Baker for specifics:

"Democrats will have to become more partisan and more ruthless just to survive. Let’s say Republicans do add another 60, or 250, or 300-plus seats to the federal judiciary. Democrats will have no choice but to add even more, if they hope ever to pass a program that will not be struck down by the rabid new partisans filling our courts. 

 

For that matter, the best way for Democrats to make certain that Republicans never duplicate what they just did with Merrick Garland and Neil Gorsuch—refusing even to consider the Supreme Court nominee of a sitting president for months on end and then installing their own party’s ideologue instead, as soon as they won an election—would be to expand the Supreme Court by appointing two new justices, as soon as they have the opportunity.... It would be easy to say that this way madness lies, but this is the way America used to do business. 

As Richard Primus points out, before most of our modern federal judiciary existed, it was much easier for the party in power to manipulate the law by simply changing the number of seats on the Supreme Court, up or down. Why not? There is nothing in the Constitution that says they can’t—any more than there’s anything saying that Mitch McConnell can’t have the Senate wait until “the people have spoken” in a distant presidential election"

Will the Dems have the cojones to add more Supreme Court seats? How about more federal judiciary seats?  My take is most of the current Dems in power - namely Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi  - will not go that route because they will regard it as "extreme".  In this case, we can only expect more Dem losses because the two dem leaders regard our politics like a college debate society as opposed to political war. This is also precisely the criticism leveled at the last generation of D leaders by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber in their book, Banana Republicans | PR Watch

Baker has this further warning for any Dem leaders, including Schumer and Pelosi, prepared to tolerate more GOOpr ruthlessness as opposed to taking the bastards to the mat.

"Lawlessness, long tolerated, has a way of coming back on one’s own party. Democrats, ruminating upon what meat doth our Caesar feed, may be dumb, but they’re not stupid. They understand that the Gorsuch coup was another escalation, another coarsening of democracy. They get that McConnell’s silence and McCain’s pledge about not approving a Hillary nominee, period, was a clear suggestion that any Democratic president would be considered illegitimate—and that should one be elected, we can expect a four-to-eight-year Republican blockade of any Supreme Court nominees, and nominees to other vital government posts as well. "

So, in other words, Trump and the GOP have already declared a state of war- against the Dems. The latter perforce will now have to muster the will to fight like rabid Tasmanian Devils to stop the further destruction of our Republic and its devolution into a One Party state that Rampton and Stauber have warned about.

But again, is there the will?  My bet is the Dem party will need to tilt far more leftward in Antifa-style to mount the will to fight on the scale and intensity needed.

Baker again:

"Judging by the events of the last year—and the last 30—that crisis may soon be in the offing. The tactics formulated by the right, and eagerly adopted by Trump, have proved so successful that their opponents would be foolish to forswear them. And if Democrats still don’t happen to possess more than a knife to bring to this gunfight, they seem at least to recognize that it is a gunfight."

Fine. But I still want them to not only recognize the "gunfight" but to bring an Uzi and an anti-aircraft cannon or two.

Finally:

"Just three days after this column appeared, Trump sandbagged a meeting with Republican and Democratic senators to devise a bipartisan immigration bill, by bringing in some of the worst anti-immigration bigots in the Congress and announcing before them all that he was for more immigrants from nice countries like Norway, and not from some “shithole countries.” In short order, all the president’s men were insisting that they had heard nothing, nothing at all; other Republicans were denying he had said anything bad or claiming that he had actually said “shithouse countries” (a befuddling distinction); and Trump himself was insisting, once again, that Democrats wanted to let murderers and drug dealers into the country to kill us all in our beds.In one fell swoop, the president had inflicted on Americans a vulgarity that we had never before seen in our daily newspapers or heard on our newscasts and followed it up with his usual tsunami of lies, coerced perjury, and lethal smears. The sad truth of the matter is that it was years ago that one political movement in this country obliterated the “rules”...…. What the United States is immersed in now is not politics as usual but something much worse, with as venal, as vicious, and as openly racist a group of individuals as have ever controlled its government."

 In other words, we are in the midst of a political upheaval, a war for all intents, and every manjack who wants to see the end of Trumpism and the GOP quisling enablers - needs to act like it's a war - not a college debate.

Why I'm Not Getting Hysterical Over The Anthony Kennedy Retirement

The closest thing Janice came to being hysterical over a political event was yesterday afternoon on learning that Justice Anthony Kennedy was retiring. "What are we going to do?" she sobbed. "Everything is down the drain now! They will have a permanent conservative majority, all our gains rolled back!"   Trying to calm her down was near impossible and we had to wait until the evening when the usual trio of MSNBC political analysis shows came on.

But sure enough the guest talking heads had solutions for why it wasn't time for a melt down ...yet.  For example, an NAACP guest on 'All In' pointed out that obsession with the numbers was counterproductive given the Dems could block any movement on a new pick by using procedural obstruction. For example, preventing the majority from getting a quorum. But this means all Dem Senators have to be on board.

Then there was Rachel Maddow who expostulated at length on the numbers game, and  the Dems merely having to keep their 49 number strength and picking just one Reep off, probably Susan Collins. (Given Sen. John McCain will be out of the mix still dealing with treatment for brain cancer).  Thus Democrats still have a chance to block the nomination, as long as they can stay united and pick off at least one wavering Republican.  Of course, that could be a huge 'ask'.

According to Maddow:  

"What that means is that if Democrats hold together in one big 'We're not doormats' caucus, the only thing they need to block President Trump from installing his chosen nominee is precisely one Republican vote," she said.

Every single Republican senator — including the pro-choice ones — will have to decide if they want to go down in history as the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and make abortion legal in the United States. And I know that seems nuts! But is it more nuts than what happened in freakin' Alabama being the thing that got Democrats to 49 seats? I mean, this is America! Weird stuff happens."

See her solution presented here- with her usual long prep intro:

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/democrats-face-day-1-of-winnable-fight-for-supreme-court-s-future-1265723971591?playlist=associated

Let's not panic or hit the chicken switch until we see the Dems in action. They ought to know that winning both Houses in the mid terms may depend on how they respond to this fascist attempt by Mitch McConnell to diverge from the standard he himself employed to block Obama's pick of Merrick Garland .

'Nuff said!

Repukes Will Pay Dearly For Their Arrogance In Trashing The Filibuster

The Repukes have done it, as most of us thought they would. They changed the dynamic of the Senate rules forever - and put themselves at risk when a future minority - by killing the filibuster. Gorsuch was approved by a vote of 54 to 45 after a marathon three-day hearing, a floor debate that included an all-night protest by Democratic senator Jeff Merkley and a historic rules change that allowed his nomination to go forward on a simple majority. The White House said on Friday that Trump would swear in Gorsuch on Monday morning.

Mike Pence presided over the Senate chamber as senators filed in to cast their votes. In the final tally, three Democrats joined Republicans to confirm Gorsuch: Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Joe Donnelly of Indiana. One senator, Republican Johnny Isakson of Georgia, did not vote.

Gorsuch is from Colorado and for the past decade, he has served on the 10th circuit court of appeals, after being appointed to that seat in 2005 by George W Bush,  His most controversial case on the 10th occurred following the death of a 22 year old kid with a hear condition who was aggressively tased by cops near an MJ grow. His parents  filed a lawsuit asking for a trial based on excessive force but Gorsuch tossed it out. He invoked what he called "holofied immunity"  which protects all law enforcement from civil liability for damages. So even if the cops were to crash into your home  in a patrol car while on a chase, and accidentally killed grammy sitting in her rocker, Gorsuch would dismiss the case.

Gorsuch later achieved infamy as the guy who put forward the whacko argument for the Hobby Lobby case, in which the company's owners were entitled to exemption from the ACA's contraception provision based on their individual religious beliefs.  The outrage at the time was upper decibel level, with one Philly-based federal appeals court pithily objecting that:

“Businesses do not pray, worship, observe sacraments or take other religiously motivated actions.”

This was important, given historically  the Court has never recognized a for profit corporation's "religious rights" under federal law or the Constitution.  But Gorsuch's ruling took no account of that at all, apart from the nonsense of referring to corporations as "people"- which only a madman would do.

Gorsuch also presided over a ruling for the Little Sisters of the Poor.   The Little Sisters yelped about being "forced" to provide artificial contraception to public employees of theirs against their conscience. This was via the Affordable Care Act. They were then offered a way out where all they had to do is simply sign a form to be granted an exception and they pitched a fit about that too. They claimed the very act of signing the exemption form would also detract from their "religious freedom" - and in his ruling in their favor Gorsuch concurred.

Even though he kept mum during his confirmation hearings, Gorsuch showed by his past rulings a background we don't want and can't afford - especially as he's only 49 years of age, and could be on the Court decades. So we could see one dastardly ruling after another including: further undermining worker protections and turning corporate employees into indentured servants, expanding the basis for even more corporate welfare, and enabling money to totally dominate and corrupt our politics for a generation.

Another reason for energetic Dem opposition - much of it fueled by an angry base-is the prospect that only one more change in the court is needed to directly threaten Roe v. Wade. As it is, Anthony Kennedy is considering retirement within the next 1-2 years and now it is a certainty another hard right justice would be appointed. At least Kennedy, say what you will - did side with the liberals some of the time.

The other  filibuster driver was Merrick Garland's Supreme Court seat having been "stolen" by the Repukes. They sat on their asses for nearly a year after Obama's nomination of  Garland and didn't even have the grace or courtesy to allow a hearing. Not even a hearing. Some Reepo Senators went so far at the time to insist that even if Hillary won they'd hold off any Supreme Court hearings for her picks - whether 4 years, 8 years, whatever. In other words, the unspoken new rule was that Democrats didn't get to make SC picks.  Moreover, to add insult to outrage, Sen. 'Bitch McConnell and fellow reptiles had threatened to block any Hillary SC picks had she won the election.

Hence, liberals have been justly enraged and not prepared to see the Senate Dems allow anyone to get through a Supreme Court nomination. Gorsuch, nice guy though he may  be  - and even relatively "mainstream" as extremists go-  is simply caught in the crossfire of political  polarization. Which is too bad, but then Merrick Garland was too, and at least Gorsuch will get his hearing.

Another issue that got liberals' dander up was the false argument that "Dems started it  by shelving the filibuster" back in 2013 to get Obama lower court nominees through. But we're talking chalk and cheese. Dozens of lower, appeals court picks being obstructed gums up the entire judicial system  - it's not any remote parallel to filibustering one SC pick. But try to explain that to dumb repukes.


Sen. Elizabeth Warren delivered one of the most articulate objections to Gorsuch condirmation:

"President Trump had a chance to select a consensus nominee to the Supreme Court but to the surprise of absolutely nobody he failed that test. Instead he kept a promise to select a nominee from a list drawn up by far right activists and groups that were financed by big Business interests.

Judge Gorsuch has been on this list for four months. His public record, which I have viewed in detail, paints a clear picture of his record. Before even joining the (federal) bench he advocated for making it even easier for public companies to defraud investors.

As a judge he twisted himself into a pretzel to make sure rules favored giant companies over workers and individual Americans. He sided with employers who denied wages for improperly fired workers and retaliated against whistle blowers for 'misconduct'.  He's ruled against workers in all manner of discrimination cases.

He's demonstrated hostility toward women's access to basic health care. For years, powerful interests have executed a full scale assault on our federal judiciary, trying to turn the Supreme Court into one more rigged game that works only for the rich and powerful. 

They spent millions to keep this seat open and Judge Gorsuch is their reward."

Flash forward to McConnell's travesty yesterday. The narrow R-victory, split mostly along party lines, illustrates the entrenched political polarization in Washington and an indicator of how future battles over supreme court nominees might be decided. Republicans’ decision to “go nuclear” to bypass a Democratic blockade could actually come back to haunt them. This is assuming the Dems take back the Senate in next year's midterms, as I predict they will (along with the House).

Then it will be time for payback, and payback is always a bitch. Enraged and activated liberals will be pushing Senate Dems - in any new Trump SC appointments post 2018 - to put on a full on blockade and even to deny hearings for his picks. Especially if hard-righters.   Rachel Maddow asked last night "Is this the new normal?" and I am convinced it is given that is what the Repubs established by their crass and punitive actions, both by denying Merrick Garland and killing the filibuster.

As Dahlia Lithwick, Slate senior editor and Justice correspondent put it in answer to Maddow's question:

"Yes, I think this happens now forever. I think something fundamental broke. What we learned and it was from Mitch McConnell, is when he said 'obstructing Merrick Garland was one of the proudest moments of is career' so this is about power now. It's not about putting up a centrist or mainstream judge the Senate can agree on. It's not about Senate norms that suggest Supreme Court justices are different. Now it's just about power after winning elections and putting the most extreme person up knowing you just need 51 votes to get them in. I don't see this unrolling."

And, on the flip side, if the party lacks those 51 votes, it's abut stuffing that nomination dead in the water - as the Dems will be required to do if they get a majority - or face payback from the base. Ms. Lithwick justifies this strategy when she referred to the Dems having been extraordinarily "moderate" in allowing the likes of Roberts, as well as Alito to get through (thanks to the 'gang of six' traitors).  But now it is no more Mr. Nice Guy Dem.  Time to bring Uzis to the Senate "gunfights" instead of Robert's Rules of Order.

Welcome to the new world order and thank Bitch McConnell for bringing it.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/marjorie-cohn/70999/trumps-choice-of-gorsuch-endangers-civil-human-and-environmental-rights

And:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/70973/trump-s-supreme-court-pageant-a-silly-show-to-fill-a-stolen-seat

Neil Gorsuch Needs To Be "Borked" - Along With Every Other Trump SC Nominee

The Donald crawled out of his chaotic rat warren last night to make his first Supreme Court pick. As predicted, it was a conservative extremist albeit straight out of central casting. The guy named? Neil Gorsuch whose trail of judicial terror was revealed last night in the course of several Dem Senatorial comments. 

Before I get to them, let's go through a few of Gorsuch's recent cases to show what a pathetic loser he is and why he needs to be "Borked" - the term derived from when Robert Bork was advanced in 1987 as a Reagan nominee and he had to be jettisoned by the Gipper.

1) Ryan Wilson excessive force and wrongful death case:

In maybe the most infamous, young Ryan Wilson, 22, was tasered in the head and side by aggressive cops in Lafayette, CO after an MJ grow was discovered near Hecla Lake and Wilson ran from the scene. The death came as a result of the kid having a heart condition and his parents subsequently  filed a lawsuit asking for a trial based on excessive force in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Judge Neil Gorsuch tossed the case out on the basis of "holofied immunity"  which protects all law enforcement from civil liability for damages. So even if the cops crashed into your home  in a patrol car while on a chase, and accidentally killed grammy sitting in her rocker, they'd get off. This is the putz the Reepos put up.

2) Hobby Lobby case:

Gorsuch was the guy who put forward the initial whacko argument for the Hobby Lobby case, in which the company's owners were entitled to exemption from the ACA's contraception provision based on their individual religious beliefs.  The outrage at the time was upper decibel level, with one Philly-based federal appeals court pithily objecting that:

“Businesses do not pray, worship, observe sacraments or take other religiously motivated actions.”

This was important, given historically  the Court has never recognized a for profit corporation's "religious rights" under federal law or the Constitution.  But Gorsuch's ruling took no account of that at all, apart from the nonsense of referring to corporations as "people"- which only a madman would do.

3) Little Sisters of the Poor case:

This howler of a case was also ruled on by Gorsuch. To quickly summarize: the Little Sisters yelped about being "forced" to provide artificial contraception to public employees of theirs against their conscience. This was via the Affordable Care Act. They were then offered a way out where all they had to do is simply sign a form to be granted an exception and they pitched a fit about that too. They claimed the very act of signing the exemption form would also detract from their "religious freedom" - and in his ruling in their favor Gorsuch concurred.

Apart from these cases which clearly show Gorsuch has a background we don't want and can't afford (especially as he's only 49 years of age, and could be on the Court decades) there is the other matter of that Supreme Court seat having been "stolen" by the Repukes. They sat on their asses for nearly a year after Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland and didn't even have the grace or courtesy to allow a hearing. Not even a hearing. Some Reepo Senators went so far at the time to insist that even IF Hillary won they'd hold off any Supreme Court hearings for her picks - whether 4 years, 8 years, whatever. In other words, the unspoken new rule was that Democrats didn't get to make SC picks.

Hence, liberals now are enraged and not prepared to see the Senate Dems allow anyone to get through a Supreme Court nomination. Gorsuch, nice guy though he may  be  - and even relatively "mainstream" as extremists go, is simply caught in the crossfire of political  polarization. Which is too bad, but then Merrick Garland was too, and at least Gorsuch will get his hearing.

Anyway, Sen. Elizabeth Warren had this to say about Gorsuch last night, with which I totally concur:

"President Trump had a chance to select a consensus nominee to the Supreme Court but to the surprise of absolutely nobody he failed that test. Instead he kept a promise to select a nominee from a list drawn up by far right activists and groups that were financed by big Business interests.

Judge Gorsuch has been on this list for four months. His public record, which I have viewed in detail, paints a clear picture of his record. Before even joining the (federal) bench he advocated for making it even easier for public companies to defraud investors.

As a judge he twisted himself into a pretzel to make sure rules favored giant companies over workers and individual Americans. He sided with employers who denied wages for improperly fired workers and retaliated against whistle blowers for 'misconduct'.  He's ruled against workers in all manner of discrimination cases.

He's demonstrated hostility toward women's access to basic health care. For years, powerful interests have executed a full scale assault on our federal judiciary, trying to turn the Supreme Court into one more rigged game that works only for the rich and powerful. 

They spent millions to keep this seat open and Judge Gorsuch is their reward."

This is why the Democrats must now put aside all memes or fantasies that they are engaged in a "debate" with Marquis of Queensberry rules. No, this is now full throttle political combat and requires them to go all out, not only denying this nominee but the next as well.  And if the Repukes are stupid and brazen enough to remove the filibuster - which they might be, knowing "Bitch" McConnell -then all out blockage, and procedural sabotage must be used - as well as huge protests from the base -including in front of Republican Senators' homes.

See also:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/marjorie-cohn/70999/trumps-choice-of-gorsuch-endangers-civil-human-and-environmental-rights

And:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/70973/trump-s-supreme-court-pageant-a-silly-show-to-fill-a-stolen-seat

Update:

Now that we've learned Gorsuch helped found "Fascists Forever" at his Catholic High School, we have much additional fodder for the Dems to do some "brain" surgery probes into his background. One thing we know, they must not be deterred by media editorials taking them to task.