Saturday, September 15, 2018

“Forbidden Fruit” and how a legal doctrine may decide the fate of America


First off, because everyone is talking about it, here at last are signs that a member of Congress was actually able to read (closely) the 25th Amendment. (I still think my approach is more subtle, incorporated in the proposed Fact Act… ) and explained here.  Exit strategies Part II: Surprising aspects of the 25th Amendment." 

Now on to today's topic. But I'll finish with a speculation how America's women -- especially wives -- may pull a gentle Lysistrata... and save the republic.

== Where will you stand, when the devil turns round? ==

Alas. In the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings, there's one line of questioning I'd love to have seen Democratic senators pursue. (Well, we also all deserve to learn more about the possibility of gambling-addiction and mob ties.)

My question is complicated, but might have cornered Judge Kananaugh. Certainly, Sens. Feinstein or Harris etc. could/should have asked Kavanaugh to explain the "fruit" theory. Or "fruit of a tainted tree." What’s that? It'll take some explaining:

We all know if a perp's rights are violated (e.g. no Miranda warning) then any evidence against him that derives from that failure becomes inadmissible. In fact, forbidding fruit from an illegal police act is only one possible remedy to deter such acts and enforce rigorous cop-professionalism. Another option is to punish the police who committed the errors. Either method will work, causing strenuous efforts to reduce error rates. But we know the punishment option would wreck police morale, so it is only used in extremis. Instead, the banishing of "fruit" punishes prosecutors, who presumably can take the disappointment better.

One of my correspondents, Ben Brown, responded to me with both affirmation and clarification in legalese:

The "exclusionary rule" is a judge-made rule that was intended to enforce the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment prohibits most warrantless searches and all unreasonable searches, but is silent as to how this prohibition is to be enforced. To deal with this lacuna, courts invented the "exclusionary rule," which says that prosecutors can't use evidence obtained in a search that violates the Fourth Amendment. As you rightly point out, the "exclusionary rule" discourages such illegal searches without the loss to police morale that a more punitive policy would entail. Also, by using the "exclusionary rule" in lieu of monetary penalties (e.g., allowing victims of illegal searches to sue the government for damages), the courts have preserved public treasuries. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an extension to the exclusionary rule. If a prosecutor obtains a piece of evidence, A, directly from an illegal search, and then uses A as a clue that leads to a second piece of evidence, B, the prosecutor may use neither A nor B. It is important to note that the exclusionary rule is not in the Constitution itself; it is merely a stratagem courts use to enforce the Constitution. So, as you rightly point out again, the Supreme Court could theoretically do away with the exclusionary rule and replace it with an alternative, workable stratagem.”

Now to ironies: the 'fruit of a tainted tree' argument is exactly the straw that the President’s lawyers -- Giuliani etc. – clutch in frantic desperation! They hope to toss the whole Mueller investigation, not due to their client’s innocence (no one even tries to assert that, anymore) but a technicality. That the FISA court search warrant on R Gates that started all the dominoes falling came about from the "politically biased Steele Dossier."

Put aside that it's a lie. The FISA request was already underway for other reasons. And the Steele dossier was originally commissioned by Republicans! And there's absolutely no hint of anything illegal or untoward about the Steele Dossier's process. That is still the thread on which they hope Kavanaugh will work with Gorsuch and Thomas and Alito to toss everything Mueller and end the U. S. republic.

Only then, tellingly, Ben Brown adds: “It is speculated that Judge Kavanaugh is actually not in favor of the exclusionary rule, although he currently enforces it due to binding Supreme Court precedent.” 

Fascinating. In fact, banning the fruit of a tainted procedure is not a matter of reflex necessity! Especially not when the fate of the republic is in balance and the to-be-forbidden "fruit" includes evidence of presidential high crimes and treason.

== By his 'fruit' you shall know him ==

So, which way will Kavanaugh swing?  We all must start preparing now to make these arguments. But the immediate import of the "fruit" standard applies to Kanavaugh himself. 

Consider. If the man who appointed him is later proved to have been a mafiosi and a traitor, does this impugn his appointments? His "fruit"?  Under those conditions, an august and truly admirable justice, like Abe Fortas, might resign. But it cannot happen when the jurist in question was “groomed” by a dogmatic feudalist movement, all his life. (A grooming perhaps reinforced and enforced by methods I describe elsewhere.)

We are in dangerous, unprecedented territory and I am afraid it might wind up being decided in the ultimate court. The one that outranks the SP. To which nations and peoples have gone to confront injustice, when all institutions fail.

I fear this, though I have been warning of it, for more than a decade. We need to keep clear heads. Take deep breaths. Prove to be the cool, thoughtful ones. But also let the Murdochians and their casino/slumlord/mafiosi/KGB backers know that we will remember them, totally, if it comes to that.

== “I pick the best people. I’m a great judge of character ====

The ammo Omarosa Manigault-Newman has given us is not a silly he-said/she-said spat about “n-words,” but utter refutation that Donald Trump is a “good judge of character.”

I wrote those words before we ever heard of the “anonymous op-ed writer” or saw excerpts from Bob Woodward’s book. It seems that every week, people Donald Trump appointed as “special, brilliant, the best” wind up denounced by him as “treacherous, crazy liars… the worst.”

Whatever the merits of any one case, and whoever is lying – (in the case of Trump vs. Omarosa, likely both) – no Hannity incantation can spare your mad uncle from one dissonant truth:

Donald Trump chooses people he later decides to hate.

It’s the central fact that no one can evade. Appointing good people is a president’s #1 job. But he’s absolutely proven to be a lousy judge of character… including that “stable genius” he sees in the mirror.

Tom Englehardt, on Salon, runs through a long list of Trumpian “triumphs” like debasing the national discourse, crashing U.S. science and demolishing our alliances. Then he goes on to say Donald Trump will not be remembered for any of those things. Not even the relentless chain of “betrayals” by his own people:

“He won’t be remembered for the record crew of people who took positions in his administration only to find themselves, within a year or so (or even days), fleeing the premises or out on their noses, including Anthony Scaramucci (6 days), Michael Flynn (25 days), Mike Dubke (74 days), Sean Spicer (183 days), Reince Priebus (190 days), Sebastian Gorka (208 days), Steve Bannon (211 days), Tom Price (232 days), Dina Powell (358 days), Omarosa Manigault Newman (365 days), Rob Porter (384 days), Hope Hicks (405 days), Rex Tillerson (406 days), David Shulkin (408 days), Gary Cohn (411 days), H.R. McMaster (413 days), John McEntee (417 days), and Scott Pruitt (504 days). And White House Counsel Don McGahn was only recently tweeted out of office, too, with others to follow.”

“Nor will he be remembered for the number of close associates who turned on him — from his personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who once swore to take a bullet for him, only to testify against him; to the publisher of the National Enquirer, David Pecker, who had long buried salacious material about him, only to accept an immunity deal from federal prosecutors to blab about him; to the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, who did the same. Nor will The Don(ald) be remembered for his mafia-style language and focus (“RAT,” “loyalty,” and “flipping”), his familiar references to a mob boss, the way he clings to his personal version of omertà, the Mafia code of silence, or for being “a president at war with the law.”

No, none of that. Let me reiterate: the most powerful point democrats could make is this: 


“No matter what excuses you offer for Trump, what’s clear from his own shouts is that he’s been ‘betrayed’ by more appointees than all other presidents, combined. 

"Aside from the merits of any case, what’s proved is that this man is a crappy judge of character.”

Englehardt’s long list of things Trump won’t be remembered for is – of course -- stylistically and intentionally disingenuous. It is a stunningly well-calibrated list that each of you can use as ammo to convert one (that’s your assignment) RASR or Residually Adult-Sane Republican. But the author has his top priority…

…it is the fate of our children in a world semi-permanently wracked by the consequences of human-wrought climate change. And yes, Mr. Englehardt is on-target about that – our kids will hunt down Rupert Murdoch and his shills, for what they’ve done to us. So read his missive. And get mad enough to get active.

Still, I disagree about the “worst thing.” Two Scoops still has a chance to do something that outshadows even environmental neglect. And I bet he’s trying hard to make it happen.

War.

== Lysistrata redux ==

All polls show a plummet in support for both President Trump and the GOP, especially in the Midwest and in the suburbs – leading to a likely surge in desperate cheating, across the next 8 weeks. So encourage anyone you know in an important swing district to volunteer for poll watching, and you can help with get-out-the-vote.

The biggest topic in polling is a massive gender gap. Men approve of  Trump by 50 percent-to-42 percent. But women disapprove 62 percent-to-28. In 2016 Trump won 41 percent of women. "This is an election about gender," said the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, though party identification and race are still major factors. 

Which leads us to a potential maneuver and ingredient that might decide the fate of America and the planet.  

Beer. On election Tuesday, wives and sweethearts across the U.S. should vote early, then bring home sixpacks of his favorite. Offer slippers. Put a game on TV with lots of munchies. Put on something alluring. For the good of the republic. 

There’s a downside?

98 comments:

LarryHart said...

Tim Wolter in the previous post:

Even Ruth B.Ginsburg in a recent interview indicated that this was not the way things should be. She was confirmed iirc 96-3. And perhaps some of the 3 felt she was not progressive enough!


Well, RBG wasn't being nominated specifically to rule on whether the president nominating her was exempt from prosecution for crimes being committed at the time by the very president nominating her. Those were different times.

I also seem to recall a certain Tacitus2 arguing that 41 Republican Senators were justified in doing anything permitted by the Constitution in order to forestall the clear and present danger that they perceived President Obama's policies to be. I suppose that's another of those things that only Republicans are allowed to do.


For instance. In '16 both sides were clear that the election was largely about the Supreme Court. McConnell rolled the dice feeling that the voters would be OK with delaying a SC appointment until the nation decided the Presidential election. The results indicate he called it correctly.


And what do you think McConnell would have done had Hillary won the election, especially if the next Senate was also going to be in Democratic hands? Said, "The people have spoken" and let Hillary fill Scalia's seat? No, I'm sorry, but you know as well as I do that the lame duck Senate would have instantly confirmed Garland and thanked God that Obama hadn't nominated a 30-year-old liberal firebrand in his place.

McConnell wasn't respecting the wishes of the voters--he was throwing a Hail Mary pass which succeeded, keeping the seat open for Benedict Donald to fill. But he'd have also prevented Hillary from filling it, despite the will of the voters.

Do you seriously contend I am wrong? I know it's hard to argue definitively about a hypothetical, but in this case, I don't see any other possibility as being plausible.

Tacitus said...

For David in the current post:

"Uh, honey? Did I tell you I voted early?"

And for Larry.

I'm not saying that the current or previous minority party cannot or should not engage in any political action that they deem important. I am saying that some such actions turn out to be dumber than a bag of hammers and serve to hinder the often worthy goals of said party.

Impeaching Bill Clinton for example. For sure legal. Also a move that backfired. I think ill considered Trump impeachment proceedings from a Democratic House of Reps would also end poorly for them.

I was asking if you thought the current tactics were savory. I guess the protesters were mostly a sideshow but I am offended by Feinstein's actions. Seriously....anonymous accusations of something in high school being sent to the FBI? Do you approve of this sort of stuff?

And, sorry, I don't buy the line of reasoning that because a future SC Justice might be involved in accusations against the President, ergo nobody with political leanings perhaps in harmony with the President may be considered.

If Feinstein's little charade - a Hail Mary pass of a sack of feces - is any indication anybody can be accused of anything at any time.

Cripes, Kavanaugh got the highest qualification rating from the ABA, no mean feat for a conservative justice. What more do you want?

Trump, who I personally loathe, has at least the refreshing tendency to say what he means. On the campaign trail he said "vote for me and I'll appoint judges like __________ (releases list). And the American people elected him.

I sense a degree of disagreement between us, but keep in mind that my original post was about the coarsening of American political discourse and the role that the D party is playing in it. To their detriment and to the detriment of worthy ideas from their side.

TW

Larry Hart said...

Tim Wolter (and apologies to Dr Brin for hijacking the thread) :

I think ill considered Trump impeachment proceedings from a Democratic House of Reps would also end poorly for them.


On this, I tend to agree. When I waver on the efficacy of the tactic itself, I remind myself that it takes 67 Senators to convict, and it is mathematically impossible for there to be 67 Democratic Senators after this election, even if the Dems run the board.

I think Trump deserves impeachment, but it will only happen when Republicans become disgusted enough to be on board. If it's merely a case of Democrats removing their political opponent, the country as a whole will never accept it.


I was asking if you thought the current tactics were savory. I guess the protesters were mostly a sideshow but I am offended by Feinstein's actions. Seriously....anonymous accusations of something in high school being sent to the FBI? Do you approve of this sort of stuff?


What I'd really like to see after a Democratic supermajority in 2020 is for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and anyone else Trump appointed to the courts to be impeached and removed on the grounds that they are fruits of a poisonous tree. Since that's only going to happen in my summer daydream, I approve of anything that delays or prevents a Trump nominee from being in a position to decree what the Constitution really says.

All's fair in war, and it's about time my side recognizes that war is being waged on us. Republicans have been violating norms and rules and decorum for decades while Democrats have tried keeping the old rules alive, and we've been losing so much I'm tired of losing. If it offends your sensibilities when Democrats play by the rules as Republicans establish them, that should tell you something about Republicans.


And, sorry, I don't buy the line of reasoning that because a future SC Justice might be involved in accusations against the President, ergo nobody with political leanings perhaps in harmony with the President may be considered.


That's not the issue. The issue is that a president under criminal investigation should not be allowed to hand-pick one of the judges who will rule on whether that investigation is permitted to go forward. At the very least, Kavanaugh should recuse himself from that decision, and he's already indicated that he sees no conflict of interest.

And you'd be making the same case if it was President Hillary doing the nominating. You'd be defending McConnell's assertion that because the president is under a cloud of suspicion, he's justified in holding up her nominations for four or even eight years.

Tacitus said...

Larry

There is so much smoke, static and stray neutrons eminnating from the Mueller investigation that I may have missed it, but "investigated" which is possible, and charged, which has not happened are two very different things.

The conservative side of America is actually a bit disgusted with some aspects of the justice system. When a judge in Hawaii can effectively block Presidential policy, knowing full well it is only a delaying tactic....well, its legal but not how things should work. In like vein I would imagine you could find a US District Attny somewhere to initiate a "criminal investigation" on any public figure in America if there was political hay - and no personal consequences - involved. I keep trying to convey the message that while a large swath of this country does not like Trump they view the current investigation into..uh, remind me into what?....as dubious.

And no, if Hillary Clinton had won as we all expected I'd expect her to nominate and the Senate to approve qualified candidates.

I know it irks you to no end that the electorate considered that among many other factors and said.....Nope, not gonna happen.

I am dismayed that you think so ill of me in this regard. I voiced no gripes about Sotomayor or Kagan, although I consider the former to be a bit of a lightweight.

TW/T

David Brin said...

TW/T We all love you, here. But we remain amazed at your ability to buy into the nostrum that the parties are alike in misbehavior, by either quantity or quality.

If the dems get both houses they will pass bills removing at least half of the money from politics. The lobbying revolving door. Possibly a lifetime ban of congressfolk ever becoming lobbyists.

Elections nationwide will use auditable paper ballots and gerrymandering will be attacked.

Seriously, is any of that just differences in degree? Or socialism?

How is it excess/cloying regulation just to fully staff the IRS enforcement division that audits the richest individuals and corporations? Or to fully staff the Inspectors General?

All those things SHOULD be part of a DP "Contract With America" along with all 12 provisions of my FACT ACT. But democrats also differ from republicans when it comes to understanding polemic, about which they are utter, utter morons.

Yes, if a Blue Wave puts dems in charge of at least the House, then the House committees will at last do their jobs. (Pelosi could add TEN seats just by saying "I won't be speaker.") But I'd add a reform giving EVERY member one subpoena per year, even members of the minority. And yes, give em to Republicans when they are out!

Not a single thing I've said has anything to do with screaming lefty flakes or socialism. Not one thing is "partisan" in any way except that I am partisan for my children and the United States of America.

Tacitus said...

Because I do hold nearly all politicians in the same degree of, ahem, regard I actually think the specific proposals you list are good ones.

But as usual, we are not perceiving each other's points and are talking past each other.

Can I ask again? Do you approve of anonymous accusations? It seems to me as if Senator F is getting pretty close to Tailgunner Joe territory, waving a list and expecting indignation.

T/TW

duncan cairncross said...

Hi Tim

I do not approve of "anonymous accusations"

But I also do not approve of the way that the Senate prevented Obama from doing his duty

The party that broke all of the rules of fair engagement cannot then be sheltered by those same rules

It's the GOP that has declared that "all is fair" so they need to suck it up

David Brin said...

I kind of despise the anonymous op-ed writer and give him 5 points out of a hundred for his "resistance." But still in plus category. Is that what you meant?

The sex accusations against Kavanaugh should be settled easily: "If they later prove true, will you resign from your life appointment?" Period. Done. I see no reason to give any further attention to a She-said from high school long ago.

But the gambling is another matter. His relentlessly repeated bank over-draws and mentions of bad days at the track. Jesus, this is serious stuff. Sure, Republicans have utterly reversed themselves on almost every point of morality and now see nothing wrong with the GOP being owned by casino moguls. Still, we're talking about a world with ties to organized crime. And any push to confirm the nomination before that is resolved is tantamount to treason.

Arizsun Ahola said...

TW: "And no, if Hillary Clinton had won as we all expected I'd expect her to nominate and the Senate to approve qualified candidates."

You know damn well that had Hillary won what Dr Brin said Senator McConnell would have done is exactly what he would have done. The whole "The people's voice deserves to be heard" was a bullshit excuse to illegitimately deny President Obama's nomination.

President Jefferson, having already lost his re-election bid and being a lame duck in the truest sense of the word, upon having a member of the Supreme Court die, nominated a replacement, who the Senate approved.

What McConnell did was without precedent in our country's history. And now we're supposed to just be lovey dovey as the court system is packed with hardline reactionaries? After eight years of GOP obstructionism to deny, at the cost of massive disruptions to the Federal judiciary, Obama's nominees of even having hearings? And you expect the majority of this country, who do not support this crap, to cheerfully go along for the ride simply because an antiquated system gives disproportionate power to the rural minority?

Hell no.

Alfred Differ said...

Tim Wolter,

It seems to me as if Senator F is getting pretty close to Tailgunner Joe territory, waving a list and expecting indignation.

I don't think you understand our senator very well.

She was sitting on the letter until other Dems said she shouldn't.
She's been in the business a LONG time and understands power plays... and how to respond to them.
She's no lefty flake. She's about as 'right' as they come in CA while still being called a Democrat.

This is about delay. The hope is the person writing the letter will find the courage to step up because that has the best potential for a delay. Delay is the counter-play to what McConnell is doing in his attempt to rush the nomination.

Our senator understands the difference between softball and hardball. Both require skill to play, but one hurts more when small mistakes are made.

Larry Hart said...

Tim Wolter:

There is so much smoke, static and stray neutrons eminnating from the Mueller investigation that I may have missed it, but "investigated" which is possible, and charged, which has not happened are two very different things.


I'm not exactly sure what this is a response to. If it's what I said about Kavanaugh, then yes, he has written that he doesn't even think a sitting president should be subject to criminal investigation. Mind you, this was a change of heart after he helped Kenneth Starr persecute Bill Clinton. He apparently changed his mind when Republicans took the office.

If you're just pointing out that Trump hasn't been charged with a crime yet, doesn't that speak well of the justice system rather than ill of it? They're proceeding methodically and lawfully.


The conservative side of America is actually a bit disgusted with some aspects of the justice system. When a judge in Texas can effectively block Presidential policy, knowing full well it is only a delaying tactic....well, its legal but not how things should work.


I underhandedly changed one word in misquoting you there in order to point out that conservatives are fine when judges effectively block Presidential policy as long as the president is named Clinton or Obama.


I keep trying to convey the message that while a large swath of this country does not like Hillary, they view the Benghazi and e-mail investigations into..uh, remind me into what?....as dubious.


I've got to cut that out, huh?


And no, if Hillary Clinton had won as we all expected I'd expect her to nominate and the Senate to approve qualified candidates.


If Hillary Clinton had won, the outgoing Senate would have confirmed Garland in order to prevent Hillary from filling the position. That's as close to undisputed fact as a hypothetical can be.


I know it irks you to no end that the electorate considered that among many other factors and said.....Nope, not gonna happen.


I know it irks you to no end that the electorate favored Hillary by 3 million votes. I'm not claiming that presidential elections are won that way, but if you're talking about gauging what the voters said, you have to take that into account. Voters also want Democrats in congress instead of Republicans, but they can only vote for the ones in their district, not for "who controls the House or the Senate." Again, I'm not arguing how it works, but what the voters want and who wins elections are two very different things.

continued next post...

Larry Hart said...

...continuing...

What irks me to no end is that only Republican voters reliably vote with the courts in mind. That's why anti-Trumpers who hated him, such as Ted Cruz, ultimately came around. "He's a monster and an idiot, but he'll give us the judges we want." Anti-Hillary Democrats who voted for Jill Stein or stayed home didn't do so with the courts in mind. As my formerly-sane conservative buddy would have put it, "They told me that if I voted for Hillary, I'd have a president who is too close to Wall Street and who is under a cloud of suspicion of criminal activity, and they were right about that."

I am dismayed that you think so ill of me in this regard.


Likewise, that you think so ill of me as to believe I'm just interested in a politically-motivated witch hunt. In reality, I think Donald J Trump is a clear and present danger to our democracy and our country.

I'm trying not to make it personal with you, but I have to respond to your words. This is not just you, but I am done playing that game where Republicans always get the last dig in, and if I respond, then I'm being disagreeably political.


I voiced no gripes about Sotomayor or Kagan,


And therein lies a yawning gulf between us. The way I see it, President Obama gave you no reason to complain about his nominees, while Trump is obviously trying to ram something down our throats. It's a perversion of logic to claim that the act of noticing that Trump is acting the way he would if he's pulling a fast one is partisan politics, whereas pretending that there is a doubt he deserves the benefit of is not.

Again, think of the difference between the accusation that the ACA was passed "without a single Republican vote" as if that is a condemnation of the partisan way it was passed, compared to the notion that last year's tax bill was passed without a single Democratic vote, as if that is a condemnation of the partisan way it was opposed. Democrats get the blame either way. That's why it rankles when you give advice on what Democrats should do, because it sounds to my ear like white men telling black men that they should just follow orders from police in order to avoid getting shot. When they follow orders from the police (say, to reach into their pocket for their drivers' license) they get shot anyway. That's metaphorically what it's like to be a liberal Democrat.

David Brin said...

LH you are being unfair, methinks. Tim appears to be saying:

"I know our only hope is for democrats to rescue the republic. I am still an outsider criticizing. But now I am criticizing how awkwardly and clumsily you are coming to the rescue."

Squint and imagine if dems elected Gary Hart & he turned out to be a commie stooge. How hard it would be to say the same thing about republicans? Not a good parallel: there's no liberal equivalent of fox and uniform hatred of all fact professions and all that. But I can squint and imagine it being a crazed and treasonous left, and I know how hard it would be to admit that it's not parties anymore, but America vs enemies foreign and domestic.

Zepp Jamieson said...

"Squint and imagine if dems elected Gary Hart & he turned out to be a commie stooge."

Did you ever happen to read any of Allen Drury's later books? He had two great books, "Advise and Consent" and "A Shade of Difference" and then he sort of vanished down a weird John Bircher rabbit hole into a world where all liberals were communist stooges if not actual covert commies, and his books had an endless parade of JFK/Gary Hart/Bill Clinton types who assumed power and had America falling to the red menace in a matter of weeks. It got to the point where Time Magazine, no friend to liberals, tiredly asked, "When will he Cease and Desist?"
I no longer consider Republicans to be a loyal American party. Call it treason, call it madness, call it greed, but Trump is the inevitable result of what is wrong with them.

Acacia H. said...

Tacitus, I'm not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. You know this.

There was open talk among Republicans that "we can go another four years without filling Scalia's seat" should Hillary be elected - and that if another Supreme Court justice die or step down, they'd block Hillary from getting that one as well.

This is treason. It is spitting on the Constitution and on the Rule of Law. And Democrats could easily have destroyed any chance of legally getting their new Supreme in place by refusing to show up at all as then there wouldn't have been a quorum. And trust me, if Republicans were in the position Democrats are in, they would have gleefully done this and blamed Democrats. It would have been all "Obama's fault." Or "Hillary's fault."

Tell me. What is so horribly wrong about Democrats? Because it seriously looks like Republicans are all for stripping people of their rights except for gun ownership for white men. Hell, you can see multiple instances of "Stand Your Ground" laws being ignored when the person standing their ground is a woman or other minority.

Your party is not what you think it is. It is this cancerous growth that is destroying the country as surely as a metastatic tumor threatens a patient's life. And this tumor needs to be excised lest our country fail. People like you are needed to stop calling Democrats the Enemy, vote out the Republican Party, and then once the damage is repaired you can rebuild your old party, just as it should have been.

But you won't because of your fear of the Other.

Rob H. who is one to speak seeing the only Democrat I've ever voted for was Obama but hey. Doesn't lessen the truth of what I said.

Tacitus said...

Robert

You do have one of the most thoughtful perspectives here. So I am always puzzled when you put racial issues front and center (..gun ownership for white men...). If I recall you live in the Carolinas somewhere and from visits there I guess I can see how it might be more of a deal there.

But the politics of division, of carving out demographic groups rather than attempting a broader appeal to all Americans....odd that it sometimes seems that I am the naive idealist.

"But you won't because of your fear of the Other."

Now that I do consider unfair. You know me only slightly, and to make me out as as being some species of "-phobe" or an insulated denizen of some virtual or physical gated community is simply not correct.

I am currently going to school with pink haired students who befuddle the German instructor by refusing to be addressed as either Herr or Frau. I am reasonably sure that I have in my day known more felons and archaeologists, more heroin addicts and Amish than would be considered likely.

Hey, all politics really is local. There are at the moment no really competitive contests where I live. My congressman is a responsible D, former military*. The Senate race is not close but I could live with either option. Heck why not have one Conservative and one rather out there Progressive in a state with roughly even division. I have a few opinions on the Governors race but WI has had such a long strange odyssey with that.

Hell, I am not even a registered Republican so it is not "my Party". I have it appears voted for a lot more Democrats than you have.

But our duties as citizens are pretty clear. Engage your fellow citizens in discussion then vote as you deem best. So let it be done.

Tacitus

*oddly I got a call from the Democrats yesterday. They wanted my support but in the next Congressional district over. The nice lady (she was calling from VA) said it looked as if they had mistaken me for a man with a very similar name in a nearby town. I knew him. He's been dead for seven years. I did joke with her a bit on this one!

Larry Hart said...

Dr Brin:

LH you are being unfair, methinks. Tim appears to be saying:

"I know our only hope is for democrats to rescue the republic. I am still an outsider criticizing. But now I am criticizing how awkwardly and clumsily you are coming to the rescue."


Is Robert Mueller a Democrat? Because Tim's initial argument was that there is nothing but naked anti-Trump partisanship behind Mueller's investigation. As for the rest, while I take your point, I don't see how it's up to the Democrats to save the Republican voters from their own party. Republican voters don't listen to criticism by Democrats--it's all "fake news" and partisan witch-hunts to them. Republicans speaking out against their own party's excesses would carry more weight. I'm not buying this whole "I can't prevent the harm my own party is doing, but here's how you should save me from it" bit.

And I did think my analogy is a good one. It's pointless to lecture Democrats on what compromises they should make in order to be considered legitimate. If Democrats did everything you ask of them, you'd find some other reason to dismiss them as partisan. It's exactly the same as the mentality that tells violent rioters that the way to have their issues addressed is through civil, peaceful protest, and then reviles Colin Kaepernick for his civil, peaceful protest.

Tim's complaint seems to be that by sounding the alarm on Trump, Democrats appear absurdly paranoid and partisan. It seems to me a successful strategy of Trump's is to say and do things that are so ridiculously idiotic and dangerous that anyone describing the reality of his actions is made to look absurdly paranoid and partisan.

Larry Hart said...

Tim Wolter (to Robert) :

So I am always puzzled when you put racial issues front and center (..gun ownership for white men...).


If the shoe fits...

I mean, should we ignore blatant examples of institutional racism because pointing them out makes us the real racists?


Hell, I am not even a registered Republican so it is not "my Party".


Well, to that, I'm not even a partisan Democrat, although I am a partisan anti-Republican.

David Brin said...

" Heck why not have one Conservative and one rather out there Progressive in a state with roughly even division."

See, Tim, this truly is the delusional part. You actually think we are in a political era, when that might result in positive-sum negotiation between sides that each have sane positions to contribute. The rest of us here can only blink in wonder at your rosy illusion. We can pray it will come true. We can fight for it to come true!

Als, it won't while the "conservative" party is run by casino moguls, slumlords, foreign and domestic mafia gangs, apocalypse junkies, Foxite haters of all fact-professions and the Kremlin. Even were that not true, the "conservatism" you speak of now extolls gambling, divorce, fact-hating and spite toward every national trait that won the cold war. Subtract tax gifts for the rich, and they have done nothing with all their power other than fundraising and endless clinton hearings.

There will be no conservative party in America till the GOP is utterly wiped out.

Then watch the Democrats split in two. The Blue Dog wing is everything you could ever want.

Tacitus said...

Less likely things have been happening in American politics lately....

TW/Tacitus

Unknown said...

So, does it change anyone's perspective now that Christine Ford has come forward publicly? I mean, this isn't some "anonymous accusation" any more...

David Brin said...

It's still "she said." We desperately need a Grand Council of Feminists to provide the Sliding Scales of (1) seriousness, (2) proof level, vs (3) time elapsed and (4) contrition that could give some guidance in this. I do know Al Franken should not have been hounded out of town. Such scales -- even just as argued and arguable guidelines, would help us navigate this era, while - of course - pushing the balance of belief much closer to the women/victims than before.

Tacitus said...

It makes it a matter to consider, not to dismiss out of hand.

As it happens I tend to agree regards Franken. But he was something of a putz and there was that jarring visual image to process. Neither helped him.

You play by the current rules. It does not bear pondering how long Bill Clinton's political career would have lasted in the current climate.

T

duncan cairncross said...

Hi Tim

I remember reading a series of biographies of the Allied commanders in WW2
By the standards of the times when I read the book they were all monsters

30 odd years had changed the expected standards that much

Clinton was 20 years ago - the standards were different then

As far as Kavanaugh is concerned his financial history is far far more worrying than his time as a teenager

David Brin said...

Seems I might have been (I'm Glad!!) mistaken. Jeff Flake may be finally standing up instead of just making hand-wringing motions. And whatever happens with the me-too, it could give investigators time to look into the gambling.

Larry Hart said...

Tim Wolter:

As it happens I tend to agree regards Franken. But he was something of a putz and there was that jarring visual image to process. Neither helped him.


The mental image of Kavanaugh locking a girl in a room, blaring music to cover her screams, and assaulting her is a lot worse. You seem to think that his accuser is making stuff up and that she must have a political agenda. Do you recall that Franken's accuser is a Republican operative?


You play by the current rules. It does not bear pondering how long Bill Clinton's political career would have lasted in the current climate.


It does bear pondering how long Donald Trump's political career would have lasted in the current climate. Maybe his immunity can be isolated and turned into a vaccine?

Unknown said...

Bill Clinton was accused of having a consensual affair with an adult woman. Nobody was forced into anything.

Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of attempted forcible rape. These are hardly equivalent offenses, any more than a speeding driver is equivalent to a hit-and-run driver whose victims almost die.

(Hell, Franken was accused of "inappropriate behavior" and sexual harassment; "rape" wasn't even whispered. And he was hounded out of office in less than a month. So we can still consider Kavanaugh for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court??)

Alfred Differ said...

Bill Clinton was accused of a bit more than that. What they got him on was lying about the consensual affair.

The rest was dealt with later and with civil settlements.

This gets to the heart of the matter, though, regarding the national reaction to his impeachment. He was impeached for the lies related to the consensual affair with many people knowing he was guilty of other things, but they couldn't nail him in a criminal sense. There was fire behind the smoke, but hard to see. Some think that was enough to impeach. Some don't.

The case is different with Trump and his crime family.

Zepp Jamieson said...

The accusation against Kavanaugh might merit a police interview, but little more.
I doubt much will come of it legally, unless something more solid in the way of evidence emerges.
Politically, however, it's huge. It gives Collins and Murkowsky the shade they need to bolt, and there's rumbles that a couple of Republicans on the committee have broken ranks and plan to ask for a delay in the considerations while this matter is resolved.

yana said...

"Offer slippers. Put a game on TV with lots of munchies. Put on something alluring. For the good of the republic."

With ya in spirit, but just won't happen. Loved the variant on this scheme in the novel Postman, which was obviously a plot point Hollywood had to drop when turning ink to silver. And remain still unworried about the survival of humanity should the fit ever really hit the shan. Because we have women. Utterly resilient, ever surpise you by finding strength even they didn't know they had, women are this species' ace in the hole.

But, combining 2016 voting patterns with chitchats among 18-34 women in 22 months since, best advice is to not rely on female strength as a political backstop. 2018 has been a real eye-opener, hearing things women say when they feel free to talk. The shock, even after MeToo and elevating a cat-grabber, is that so many women truly want to feel dominated by males.

One respondent, very politically aware and wildly liberal, was well able to section off that aspect of personhood from home life, which from the outside sounded very much like slavery. One interview had the self respect to terminate unequal relationships, but vague discomfort when not in one. 50 Shades, they squeezed 3 movies out of that. Not a fluke, now understood.

Honest to god, wish it wasn't true, but there is a sociological element which can not be ignored as a political element: a certain percentage of female voters expressly approve of random cat-grabbing. An equal number of women disapprove. But an even larger portion, in the middle, can sympathize with the cat. In the middle, are those women who have been cat-grabbed, but liked it.

Yes, it's women who pull humanity out of the toughest scrapes, but in between crises they are much more tolerant of male foibles. One extreme calls it Stockholm Syndrome, another calls it cynicism, yet another calls it godly. Some even call it love, but it really sounds like 'resilience'.

Work out why they're resilient, then you figure out the political influence of women voters. But do it quick, this paradigm will not last long. 3rd comm revolution is rapidly eroding feminine mystique, so all bets are off in about 15 years. The concept of "women" as a voting bloc will evaporate fast.

Tony Fisk said...

Bit by bit, liberties are being nibbled.
The attempted rubber stamping of Kavanaugh as SCJ is one symptom of what the US is experiencing.
So is the sudden reluctance to issue passports (this is not an isolated incident).

Larry Hart said...

vignettes on Kavanaugh and #MeToo...

Johnathan Sills:

Bill Clinton was accused of having a consensual affair with an adult woman. Nobody was forced into anything.


Monica Lewinsky wasn't, but other women claimed they were. And technically, Clinton was impeached for perjury.

Alfred Differ:

He was impeached for the lies related to the consensual affair with many people knowing he was guilty of other things, but they couldn't nail him in a criminal sense. There was fire behind the smoke, but hard to see. Some think that was enough to impeach. Some don't.


Clinton was impeached on a technical violation because he didn't do what politicians up until then would have done in his situation--resign rather than allow the tawdry details to be aired in a public forum. It's the equivalent of a defendant receiving a harsher penalty as punishment for forcing the DA to try the case rather than making a plea deal.

Zepp Jamieson:

The accusation against Kavanaugh might merit a police interview, but little more.
I doubt much will come of it legally, unless something more solid in the way of evidence emerges.

Politically, however, it's huge.


And that's the important thing. A criminal prosecution over a "he said/she said" incident from 30 years ago when the guy wasn't legally old enough to drink would be a hard case to make. But "not convicted of a felony" is a very low bar for someone being granted a lifetime appointment to the supreme court--especially for someone whose nomination is obviously being rushed through before something they have to hide comes out.

Larry Hart said...

yana:

But, combining 2016 voting patterns with chitchats among 18-34 women in 22 months since, best advice is to not rely on female strength as a political backstop. 2018 has been a real eye-opener, hearing things women say when they feel free to talk. The shock, even after MeToo and elevating a cat-grabber, is that so many women truly want to feel dominated by males.

One respondent, very politically aware and wildly liberal, was well able to section off that aspect of personhood from home life, which from the outside sounded very much like slavery. One interview had the self respect to terminate unequal relationships, but vague discomfort when not in one. 50 Shades, they squeezed 3 movies out of that. Not a fluke, now understood.

Honest to god, wish it wasn't true, but there is a sociological element which can not be ignored as a political element: a certain percentage of female voters expressly approve of random cat-grabbing. An equal number of women disapprove. But an even larger portion, in the middle, can sympathize with the cat. In the middle, are those women who have been cat-grabbed, but liked it.


One important point is that women might like feeling dominated by specific men, not necessarily by random strangers or workplace managers.

Someone here--I don't remember who now--challenged my assertion that the Access Hollywood tape reveled actual sexual harassment. I finally put it together that he was saying there was no assault because in Trump's words, the women "let you grab them by the p----y."

See, in my mind, grabbing by the p---y is an assault, whether or not the grabee puts up a fight. My ear heard the quote on the tape as equivalent to "When you've got power, guys let you punch them in the face." But there's another point of view which hears "let you" as granting permission.

Further complicating matters is the question of in what sense they "let you" grab them because of your wealth and celebrity. If it's because they enjoy the attention of a powerful man, then that sounds like willing participation. If, OTOH, it's because your power intimidates them from putting up resistance, then that sounds like the textbook definition of sexual harassment.

Larry Hart said...

Tony Fisk:

So is the sudden reluctance to issue passports (this is not an isolated incident).


Is citizenship really something that is revocable after the fact, not for something you did (such as kneeling to a foreign potentate or joining an army at war with the US) but because we're retroactively changing the rules concerning what documents are required to establish citizenship in the first place?

If she's not a US citizen, then what is she? Is she allowed to work here? And if not, where exactly is she supposed to go, and how can she go there without a passport?

None of which makes it surprising that the government is cracking down on citizenship of likely-Democrats. They'll accept a family bible but not a birth certificate? Sounds like Texas accepting a firearms-owners card but not a student ID as acceptable for voting. They have no shame when it comes to Keeping America Republican.

Larry Hart said...

Charles Blow tells us what we already know (emphasis mine) :

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/16/opinion/not-deranged-determined.html

They told us that we suffered from Trump Derangement Syndrome, an emotional and illogical obsession with opposing and unseating Donald Trump.

They saw our principled stand against corruption and criminality, against immorality and hatred, as born of hyper-partisanship and the bruises of defeat.

They were unable to see that our objection to Trump was an achingly particular phenomenon that transcended party tribalism and went to the core of who we are as a people and a country.

...

We know that Trump is volatile, uncontrollable and unpredictable. So, we live a life with nerves frayed and bodies pushed to the edge of our seats. We know that he remains defiant because there are people who support him without hesitation and without question. They are the deranged, not us.

...

Larry Hart said...

In terms of it being a crime to lie under oath or to lie to the FBI, are they allowed to ask anything at all, no matter how irrelevant to the case?

Can an FBI agent ask me if my wife looks fat in that dress, and nail me for a federal crime if I don't answer truthfully?

Tacitus said...

"Can an FBI agent ask me if my wife looks fat in that dress, and nail me for a federal crime if I don't answer truthfully?"

We are entitled to a Jury of our Peers. Make sure your lawyer uses all available tactics to ensure a jury of long time/long suffering husbands.

They'll acquit and take you out for a beer.

Tacitus/TW

Larry Hart said...

@Tim,

That "me" was a hypothetical.

In my personal case, "No" would be a truthful answer, even after 22 years. :)

Troutwaxer said...

@ Larry Hart: "If it's what I said about Kavanaugh, then yes, he has written that he doesn't even think a sitting president should be subject to criminal investigation. Mind you, this was a change of heart after he helped Kenneth Starr persecute Bill Clinton. He apparently changed his mind when Republicans took the office."

I think its fair to imagine that Kavanaugh disliked what happened during the Starr investigation for one reason or another and that this has shaded his thinking ever since - perhaps he learned too much about how "sausage is made" and wouldn't want to be part of such an effort in the future.

But I do think he'd be a disaster for other reasons; the gambling, the possibility that other women will come out of the woodwork during his term in office, a possible failure to understand the difference between what Clinton is charged with and what Trump is charged with, his attitudes towards women/abortion, and his failure to pre-recuse himself from any issues involving Trump's upcoming trial; anyone who believes that Kavanaugh's unwillingness to see a sitting president come to trial wasn't a factor in Trump's selecting him is terminally naive.

Larry Hart said...

Troutwaxer:

I think its fair to imagine that Kavanaugh disliked what happened during the Starr investigation for one reason or another and that this has shaded his thinking ever since - perhaps he learned too much about how "sausage is made" and wouldn't want to be part of such an effort in the future.


That was my first thought, but the more I hear about the matter, the more it sounded like he really had it in for Clinton, but then blanched at the thought of W being subjected to the same rules.

Remember, back early in W's term, circa 9/11 and "Mission Accomplished!", the presumption was that there'd never be another Democratic president again. So it seems as if the thinking on rules mean to constrain a Democratic president was "Their job is done." Republican presidents were meant to be unitary executives and dictators.

Troutwaxer said...

@ Larry Hart:

He would be a disaster regardless. The big problem is not his philosophy about whether a sitting president should be investigated, but that he is being appointed exactly because he believes a sitting president should not be investigated, yet refuses to recuse himself...

And there is the whole matter of Merrick Garland, and there should be payback, and it should be a bitch!

David Brin said...

Tim/Tac, yes, jury nullification is the ultimate recourse for stunningly absurd abuse of power. Alas, in the Jin Crow era it was also used for evil.

Yana/LH: We are talking about reflexes that go back even farther than the “harem effect” -- that we’re all descended from the harems of feudal lords who took other men’s women and wheat, probably reinforcing male desires to accomplish that feat. Throughout all human cultures, the topmost males got “rewards,” and Bill Clinton got snared by those drives, despite remaining married to his first and only love. We live in an era when a male had better exercise self-control over those inherited drives to a degree unexpected across all our evolution.

We CAN do that – many men around us manage it… with the help of fine partners and their occasional forgiveness for minor, drooling lapses. In fact, I think divorce rates (did she forgive his errors?) remain the best moral indicator. And my back-of-the-envelope tracking (non-scientific) suggests that DP pols nowadays have a much, much lower divorce rate than GOP pols. (Anyone care to research it?)

But you two raised a delicate subject… the tendency of many (not all!) women to feel some (perhaps ambivalent) attraction toward (ahem) assertive expressions of male power. Certainly, when I dated long ago, I and my friends were appalled by the tendency of many young women to be drawn toward awful assholes, mistaking abuse for “confidence.” Then sobbing “Why can’t I find a nice guy, like you?”

(“Um? I’m here? Are you aware that you’re saying that to me right now?” Did any of you fellows experience that? I did, too many times to count.)

The obvious theory is that muscular preening and shows of strength DID correlate with meaningful confidence – and ability to protect -- back in Cro Magnon days, years, millennia. Anyway, what choice did most women have, for most of that time? In huts and lean-tos and cottages and castles, often surrender was the only path of survival, for her and for her children.

We hope to change it… all of it. But that must include understanding what the long darkness did to us. Understanding can help us to grit our teeth and keep marching in new directions toward an era when girls rise up into women who stride alongside us into confidence all their own.

(Having said that, the “beer gambit” is exactly what liberal leaning wives can and should do! It leaves them with utter deniability. Especially if, an hour before the polls close and after the fourth beer, while the game is on, she starts nagging him to go vote. While dressed sexy.

Larry Hart said...

Dr Brin:

I and my friends were appalled by the tendency of many young women to be drawn toward awful assholes, mistaking abuse for “confidence.” Then sobbing “Why can’t I find a nice guy, like you?”

(“Um? I’m here? Are you aware that you’re saying that to me right now?” Did any of you fellows experience that? I did, too many times to count.)


Uh, yeah.

Although even at that tender age, I understood the lament to be, "Why am I not attracted to nice guys like you?" And that much as I wished otherwise, she really had no control over that part of it.


The obvious theory is that muscular preening and shows of strength DID correlate with meaningful confidence – and ability to protect -- back in Cro Magnon days, years, millennia.


I wonder how many people--men and women both, though for different reasons--voted for Trump because he stalked Hillary like a gorilla on that debate stage. I also wonder ruefully if she could have turned that one around by spontaneously quoting Princess Leia with, "Will someone get this big walking carpet out of my way?"

matthew said...

So, Tim, now that Kavenaugh's accuser has a name and is white and wealthy and educated. Now that she has passed a lie detector test and her husband has said she told him about Kavenaugh back in 2002, and her therapist testifies that she told him about Kavenaugh in 2012, now will you see this as a credible accusation?

Or is it only Republicans that get the benefit of doubt?

The discussion here over the weekend has been sickening.

The behavior of members of this group over the weekend are why women are afraid to come out with their stories of how powerful men treat them.

Y'all need to spend some time thinking about how you perceive credible accusations of impropriety.

I am disappointed.

Dennis M Davidson said...

Larry Hart
I wonder how many people--men and women both, though for different reasons--voted for Trump because he stalked Hillary like a gorilla on that debate stage.

I wanted Clinton to turn, charge toward Trump and bark, "What the fuck are your doing?" Trump, the coward that he is, would be caught off balance. Clinton doesn't back down. As Trump retreats she deftly uses a typical school-yard stunt by tripping Trump and knocking him on his ass on national television.

Troutwaxer said...

I think, "Excuse me, Mr. Trump, but what are you doing?" would have been enough, followed by "Your podium is over there."

Larry Hart said...

@dennisd,

You're in "Mike Doonesbury's Summer Daydream" territory there, but I like the image.

Larry Hart said...

matthew:

Y'all need to spend some time thinking about how you perceive credible accusations of impropriety.


Hey, any reason to reject Kavanaugh is enough for me. It doesn't have to be credible.

My concern was that the Republican Senate wouldn't care. That they'd just rush through a confirmation anyway. Now that all those things you mentioned have come out, maybe not. Saying so has nothing to do with the opinions or character of this group--it has everything to do with the opinions and character of 51 Republican Senators.

David Brin said...

Matthew take it easy on Tim. He is valued here.

I was skeptical that this me-too would be as effective as the gambling thing... but it's starting to look better. Especially if he refuses a lie detector test.

They 'groomed' him for this, for 20 years, since he worked for Ken Starr chasing a president for lying about skirt chasing. Oh how lovely if all their investment failed.

Tacitus said...

David

Your defense of me is chivalrous but hardly necessary. One does not venture here with unpopular ideas without the expectation of, well, animosity.

Matthew

I continue to be a little off put by the ongoing importance ascribed to melanocytes here. Would the accusations of a poor non white person be deemed less important to you?

My last comment on the matter was that it had moved from anonymous rumor to something that needed to be looked at. I am adopting a 24 hour rule as more information comes in. The Truth, which may never be certain, clearly lies somewhere between two points.

One one extreme a straight up political hit. On the other a hidden monster. Given the time span, the involvement of alcohol and the poorly formed brains of teenagers there are some intermediate points. I can wait a while and see how the picture focuses.

Now, this information could have been brought forward weeks or even months ago. It was held back to the last minute for political reasons. Fair enough, this is a political process.

Now a question for Matthew, Larry and others. Consider this a question separate from the current situation. When you say "any" reason would suffice to sink this nomination would you include (sorry, this is going to sound bad), would you include false ones?

If a plausible lie would attain a goal you consider worthy, would it be justified?

TW/T

David Brin said...

"Now, this information could have been brought forward weeks or even months ago."

Was this bringing forward the job of democrats who responsibly did some due dilligence to explain their delay of some weeks (if that much)?

Or was it the job of the Republican establishment whose knowledge of this "groomed" candidate is decades deep and might include skeletons deliberately tailored to keep him in line, on the bench?

Oh, you fail to include in all this hypocrisy. "An election's coming, let the people decide." Nine months for Merrick Garland and 5 weeks for Kavanaugh. No shame at all?

duncan cairncross said...

Hi Guys
I'm interested in the
"65 women who have known him well since High School and can vouch for him"

Somebody should investigate that claim - I have moved around a lot and lost touch so I'm not an example but I would have difficulty finding two women from High School - and I haven't been in touch for decades

65 seems like such an unlikely number - and making them up seems so sleezy

Tacitus said...

Well, from what I have read so far - and it is still the 24 hour rule - the individual reached out to both the Senator and the Press in July. The details are not complete at this time.

So Senator Feinstein had information relative to a very important political appointment and sat on it. I would say that it was a political move to do so, not a matter of vetting the information.

Contra, you speculate that the Republicans must have dirt on the man.

I think the duty to act lies with those who have actual information above those who might, or might not, have hypothetical info.

And so, with an election always coming up will we ever fill any appointed offices at all? I mean, if all it takes is an allegation, and if the party out of power can stomp and fume and demand a million more pages of documentation, the system collapses.

Admittedly I am projecting the current situation into the future but not, I fear, into ad absurdium range. This by the way is not a comment on the veracity of the present claims, just trying to parse out how much smoke makes a fire. Today. Tomorrow. Beyond.

Tacitus

David Brin said...

Tacitus, sorry, you are acting as if this isn't war that's just short of violence. I pray for a Blue Tsunami this fall NOT for some kind of policy victory or normal political advantage, but because only a decisive, mega trouncing will stop this cynical attempt by oligarchic mafiosi to rile Know Nothing populism against the American enlightenment, exactly as the same clades did in 1930 Germany.

The parallel is exact. It is no exaggeration. And the surest thing to bring us to the brink of hot civil war will be if the November result is ambiguous, in large part due to cheating.

Larry Hart said...

Tim Wolter:

Now, this information could have been brought forward weeks or even months ago. It was held back to the last minute for political reasons.


I'm not sure I see the upside for Dems to holding it back. Wouldn't it have been more certain to damage the candidate earlier in the process, rather than now when he almost might have slipped through? Justice Kavanaugh could easily have been a fait accompli before these charges got legs.

I also just heard on Norman Goldman's show an hour or so ago that the woman who wrote to her congressperson specifically asked for confidentiality. Diane Feinstein pretty much kept that confidentiality, but recently shared the information with fellow Senate Democrats, and one or more of them leaked it to the press.


Now a question for Matthew, Larry and others. Consider this a question separate from the current situation. When you say "any" reason would suffice to sink this nomination would you include (sorry, this is going to sound bad), would you include false ones?

If a plausible lie would attain a goal you consider worthy, would it be justified?


You ask tough questions indeed. If that's meant as a general case, though, the answer is that a lie can be justified for many reasons. Telling stormtroopers that there are no Jews hidden in your basement is a cliche, but it does demonstrate that sometimes, a lie is not only justified but sanctified.

I'm sure we agree that this particular situation doesn't rise to that level. But let me turn it around. If Kavanaugh were to be confirmed because of plausible lies he tells during the confirmation hearings, i.e., that he'd leave Roe v Wade alone or that he'd stick to the wording of the Constitution without engaging in legislation from the bench? If the answers he gives which makes him palatable to Senators turn out to be plausible lies of the type which helped confirm Samuel Alito and John Roberts, do you consider them to be justified?

For that matter, were you ok with Mitch McConnell's "reasons" for sinking Merrick Garland's nomination?

I'm answering the question with more questions, in typical Jewish fashion. :)

Now consider, if the accusation is false, will it stop the 51 Republicans from confirming him? I'd say that the Republicans themselves having second thoughts would be evidence that at least they think there's something there which would become politically embarrassing to them.

Finally, your question presumes that I object to Kavanaugh on the grounds that he attacked a girl in high school. No, I don't want Kavanaugh on the supreme court for reasons that the Republicans in control of the government do want him there. They're not going to refuse to confirm him because of what I want. But if something happens that makes them hinky enough to hold back, and to make it easier for red state Democrats to vote no, then I'm happy with that outcome. Remember, I'm not trying to impose criminal penalties on the guy. I just don't want him wielding the power of a supreme court justice for the rest of my lifetime. And I have precious little power to do anything about that. If God steps in and saves us from him, who am I to argue?

Larry Hart said...

Tim Wolter to matthew:

I continue to be a little off put by the ongoing importance ascribed to melanocytes here. Would the accusations of a poor non white person be deemed less important to you?


No, you miss matthew's point. He's implying that a poor, non-white person's accusation would be deemed less important by the public at large. He's not claiming that's a good thing, but he's pointing out a reality that is hard to dispute. As Dave Sim said, "Sometimes jumping on the bandwagon is the best way to demonstrate that the wheels have fallen off."

If the truth that he's impolite enough to point out bothers you, that's not the fault of the messenger.

IMHO, anyway. Not that I can speak for him.

Tony Fisk said...

@duncan, someone did contact all 65 of those women. Apparently, only 2 are still willing to stand by their support.

Winter7 said...

It seems that the situation of TESLA moves.

Link:

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-saudi-arabia-invests-1bn-tesla.html

Winter7 said...

So, what I see is that Donald Trump appointed the judge who is going to judge him and beforehand, he placed a judge who had an Achilles heel known to the Republican intelligence service. In that way, Donald sabotaged the trial that is about to take place against him. A move without doubt advised by the advisers of the "president". (Donald is too stupid to think of something like that himself)
Let's be clear: Donald Trump is not the president. Everyone already knows that he cheated. But Democratic leaders are like children who keep quiet when the school bully takes away their lunch and their money. But whatever. Who am I to criticize? After all, Mexicans have been governed by thugs since the time of the Aztecs.

Winter7 said...

If the Republicans are efficient spying on the past of the Democrats and any other that is a hindrance (Brett Kavanaugh) then, the democrats must be careful when choosing their candidates to any position of popular election or to bureaucratic positions in the institutions of the state.

Winter7 said...

It just occurred to me, that when the ice of the North Pole melts, it would be much easier for the Russians to invade Canada and the United States. (I do not think the Russians want to invade Mexico, not even honest Mexicans want to be in Mexico)
I suppose that, in that situation, the Americans who escape to Mexico will be welcome. From Mexico, they will be able to initiate resistance actions against the puppet Vichy government ... That is, from Donald Trump ..
Yes. I suppose Donald Trump would agree to be Putin's administrator in the United States under Russian occupation.
¿Is not it strange, that even the climate becomes favorable to Russian plans?

Alfred Differ said...

@winter7 | But Democratic leaders are like children who keep quiet when the school bully takes away their lunch and their money.

Maybe they do that in your country, but not here.
Some of our Democrats know how to be bullies too. 8)

It's not as simple as you portray. That's part of the problem. It takes brain sweat to keep up and the public gets exhausted at times.

Tony Fisk said...

When the ice of the North Pole melts, it would be much easier for the Russians to invade Canada and the United States.

Putting aside the nature of the greeting they'd receive (despite Team Trump's hugs and flowers), the muskeg permafrost would turn to muddy quagmire... on *both* sides of the Arctic Ocean!

David Brin said...

Winter7 you are vivid and smart and imaginative, and very often far too imaginative! For example, Russia is not the USSR+Warsaw Pact. They do not have massive numbers on their side. They know that any overt, open-shooting war would go very badly for them, which is why they are concentrating on "asymmetrical" methods like deniability attacks upon neighbors who have large Russian speaking minority populations... e.g. Georgia and the Donbas.

Demographically they face a nightmare collapse, and imminent loss of Siberia (likely by mafia sale) to the Chinese.

What Putin needs is to be taken seriously as a threat so he can deter the west while he sabotages our institutions and strengths.

As for Trump as president, you must watch SEVEN DAYS IN MAY. The core thing we must preserve is legitimacy. We must stabilize Donald Trump so he can do little harm till we can eject him at the polls. Above all, a way must be found for even a desperately unhappy officer corps to hold onto their religion of obedience to civilian authority. Among my TOP TEN fears is damage to that tradition. We do not need a Rubicon

duncan cairncross said...

Hi Dr Brin
I have just finished reading Mary Beard's S.P.Q.R a history of ancient rome

And I agree the USA DOES NOT need a "Rubicon"

Your Republic - battered as it is - is in a hugely better shape than the Roman Republic

Chris Ladd - an ex Republican - appears to have decided that Democracy is dead and that the only choice is which corporations will rule America

https://www.politicalorphans.com/whats-next-after-liberal-democracy/#comment-14648

Acacia H. said...

Tacitus, the reason why I specified "white men" with gun rights is because the big thing with the Republican Party right now is the 2nd Amendment... but we have seen multiple instances of "Stand Your Ground" not being applied to abused women (or women in general) and other minorities.

A woman can pull out a gun and fire a warning shot and be charged with a crime and thrown in jail, while a white man (or white-enough man) can kill someone else and walk free. A black cop can be gunned down by a white cop and the white cop doesn't lose their job or suffer any repercussion. And while this differs from state to state... that there are blatant situations where this is the case is plain wrong.

And if we don't speak up... then who will?

Rob H.

Larry Hart said...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-republicans-bad-faith.html


Activists in Maine opposed to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court are trying to put pressure on Susan Collins, the state’s Republican senator. If Collins votes for Kavanaugh, they say, they will donate substantial sums to her opponent in the next election.

Whatever you think of Kavanaugh, this is surely a legitimate tactic: Donors and activists try to influence politicians’ votes all the time, often by warning of adverse electoral consequences if the politicians make what the activists consider the wrong choice. Last year, for example, major Republican donors openly threatened to withhold contributions unless the party gave them a big tax cut.

But now Collins, other Republicans and conservative activists are describing the pressure over Kavanaugh as “bribery,” “extortion” and “blackmail.” And some of those claiming that normal political activism is somehow illegitimate are the very same big donors who warned Republicans to pass tax cuts or else.

Calling this about-face hypocrisy is fair, but feels inadequate. We’re looking at something much bigger and more pervasive than mere hypocrisy: We’re talking about bad faith on an epic scale.

...

Zepp Jamieson said...

"...which is why they [Russia] are concentrating on "asymmetrical" methods..."

Interesting note: a member of Pussy Riot wound up in the hospital yesterday. Doctors are confident that he was, in fact, poisoned.
"Asymetrical" includes terrorism, and the poisoning of political opponents certainly falls under that category.
Russia is a terrorist state.

David Brin said...

LH I agree that GOP whining over the attempt to use money to sway Sen Collins is absurd. OTOH, those activists are dumber than rocks, if they think that'll work. The chief effect will be to make it impossible for Collins to vote against K.

donzelion said...

Dr. Brin: "All polls show a plummet in support for both President Trump and the GOP...leading to a likely surge in desperate cheating..."

Very much underway. Hard to process the count, but Youtube/Facebook are serving up Paul Ryan-linked ads (produced, allegedly, by Fred'dog barbecuer" Malek (look him up, exceptionally hard to believe that) are saturating the swing districts in Orange County, alleging all sorts of half-baked bs. Hard to compete with billionaires (even when a millionaire is running). My personal observations (from 1000+ doors knocked in the last weeks) is that none of the dislike for Trump is budging Republicans (but it is bringing an unprecedented spike in the number of volunteers trying to at least build a Congress that can insulate from his messes).

As for the Lysistrata maneuver: Republican incels have nothing to do but run bots spamming filth, but an alternative version would be the same sort of campaign vegan activists have been running through OKCupid/PlentyofFish/Tinder: create hundreds fake profiles of the hottest vegan ladies one can imagine, show the profiles as exceptionally 'dtf' - and then watch as men try to out-vegan the vegans to win their attention. Shucks, even men can play that game...

donzelion said...

Dr. Brin: "We all know if a perp's rights are violated (e.g. no Miranda warning) then any evidence against him that derives from that failure becomes inadmissible."

Technically inaccurate. The evidence is fully admissible to impeach the witness, but not to reach the burden of proof. Many thousands of defendants misunderstand that, but the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine is a narrower defense than most people realize. Police routinely interrogate someone in custody without a Miranda warning (which largely links to the 5th and 6th Amendments, not the 4th), largely for this reason. What they don't do (typically) is torture a confession out of the suspect.

But while the 'exclusionary rule' is one prong of the purposes, the more important one is to actually empower defense attorneys to hold police accountable: it's not enough to set a law that prohibits certain type of police action, it's also necessary to produce incentives for someone to enforce that rule (were it otherwise, we'd have no need for any police at all).

But moving back to Trump: it's important to bear in mind that the exclusionary rule applies to police action in a criminal trial, NOT to civil actions (e.g., impeachment is not exactly a criminal trial, and few of the criminal rules apply).

As for Kavanaugh, "which way will Kavanaugh swing?" His answer to a direct challenge would have been, "stare decisis" - which to any lawyer familiar with the 4th Amendment, means whatever the judge wants it to mean: the 'exclusionary rule' has been tested more than damn near any other concept in 4th amendment jurisprudence (the part about incentivizing attorneys to invoke it worked more effectively than anyone realized), and exceptions have been carved out all over the place. We should expect Kavanaugh will vote 98% of the time with Clarence Thomas - which will please quite a few people in America, and piss off many more. But that isn't the end of the Republic, just the erosion of crucial tools that built the Republic.

donzelion said...

Tim/Tacitus: "If Feinstein's little charade - a Hail Mary pass of a sack of feces - is any indication anybody can be accused of anything at any time."

Hard to tell if this was orchestrated by Feinstein, or one of her staffers (she's running for Senate too, quite old, and may have a few leaks in her ship given the need by some of her staffers to ensure future jobs). She did receive the letter (in July), did forward it to the FBI - as she should. It's a potentially very serious charge: are you saying it should NOT be investigated, because it's so clearly partisan? That sitting for the supreme court should actually insulate a man from close scrutiny, as opposed to jobs like directing/financing movies?

"Cripes, Kavanaugh got the highest qualification rating from the ABA, no mean feat for a conservative justice. What more do you want?"
This does not mean what you think it means. Take a look at how the ratings are generated:

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/GAO/fjcscotusprocess.authcheckdam.pdf

Now, if you ask a conservative justice's friends and others most familiar with his writing how he rules, you'll find a pretty pronounced positive skew from other 'authorities.' The claim that the ABA is liberal is as hilarious as the claim that the media is 'liberal' - seeing as how the lawyers, judges, and 'experts' who get polled on these reports are the ones getting paid the most by the largest corporations, either directly as clients or indirectly as funders for their organizations. In general, a 'well qualified' mark will identify a candidate who eschews 'rogue' theories (e.g., a certain Alabama judge with a history of...well, allegedly sordid behavior and sillier rulings).

"my original post was about the coarsening of American political discourse and the role that the D party is playing in it."
I am not at all excited by the prospect of another Anita Hill episode, even if I'm curious how this will play in a #MeToo era (is anything changed? not much...just the tools). But for now, believing that Feinstein orchestrated this is the precise same assumption as believing that Trump colluded with Russia to win - there are a lot of people who will believe in the collusion/orchestration, but insufficient evidence thereof.

For the few who are sticklers for details, Feinstein acted properly in submitting the letter for investigation. Now, the question is whether the FBI investigated it, or sat on the letter, opting to do nothing. If they investigated it, then the 'surprise' claim is probably a facade (Kavanaugh and Trump surely knew what was coming). If they refused to investigate it, then they were derelict in their duty (most likely, their duty was to investigate QUIETLY - but this isn't quite the sort of thing that can be kept quiet).

donzelion said...

Yana: I think you're right to be skeptical of 'woman power' as a force for political change, at least, any change in a direction that can be predicted by more conventional forecasting. Women, yes, but not feminism per se.

"50 Shades, they squeezed 3 movies out of that. Not a fluke, now understood."
Indeed, and one could go further - #2 highest grossing film in 2017, 'Beauty and the Beast,' is in a sense a g-rated BDSM redemption story (a rather complicated one for feminists or anti-feminists, particularly with respect to how to handle 'beastly' men).

#3 'Wonder Woman,' offered an unusually complex study of 'female v. male' sexual/power dynamics, but again, men 'initiate' the heroic arc in the plot, while women respond 'heroically' to the challenges they create for them.

"One extreme calls it Stockholm Syndrome, another calls it cynicism, yet another calls it godly. Some even call it love, but it really sounds like 'resilience'."
Indeed, and the variety of names reflects the complexity in the force (and invokes the even more convoluted notions of male/female heroism in 'Last Jedi' - the only Star Wars film to invoke 'existentialism' and to directly, implicitly grapple with questions our host has raised...which remarkably played out in the manner I'd anticipated 2-3 years ago - the Jedi must answer, 'Should we exist at all? Probably not...').

"The concept of "women" as a voting bloc will evaporate fast."
Probably not, but the notion that they will vote for 'women' over men should never have been taken seriously. A 'woman', perhaps, but not any woman.

Larry Hart said...

donzelion:

"The concept of "women" as a voting bloc will evaporate fast."
Probably not, but the notion that they will vote for 'women' over men should never have been taken seriously. A 'woman', perhaps, but not any woman.


They're not even going to agree on which woman not to vote for. Some women couldn't stand Hillary, and some disliked Sarah Palin. I doubt it was for the same reasons.

Marshall Boice said...

Just a caution,

"There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil's advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women's Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that's so much fun for them is the stuff of my life."

Read whole article here:

http://www.shakesville.com/2009/08/terrible-bargain-we-have-regretfully.html

Alfred Differ said...

Yah. I get into trouble with my wife that way occasionally. It's not an abstract exercise to her.

Phaedrusnailfile said...

I have been lurking again for a while, but since I've moved to the lovely gold coast of sunny California and have been in a better mood I suppose I'll poke my head up from my usual gopher hole and make a comment.
I totally understand and support the reasons for the Democtats not wanting to confirm twoscoops' nominee. But they are doing it in a typically stupid way. The way they are going about this will possibly motivate their team. It will certainly motivate the anti identity politics male supporters of Trump as well. The Democrats should just be honest as to why they are trying to delay the nomination and not try to be sly. Every comment I have seen made by the people on this panel is correct, and more importantly honest.

Tacitus said...

My 24 hour rule being as it is I've been watching the Kavanaugh circus from a hopefully detached perspective.

I was frankly surprised that when each "side" was offered a chance to testify on Monday there was quick and enthusiastic agreement. It almost looked as if somebody, or maybe everybody, was bluffing.

If Dr. Ford is reneging on that commitment - which in fact was made by her lawyers - it will make the entire enterprise ring false. This by the way is not a comment on whether or not "something" happened, but a cycle back to my previous point that if future nominations can be uniformly vetoed by accusations released at the 11th hour, or as in this case some time after midnight, then we will never fill an appointed position again. Say hello to interim directors of everything and presumably a Supreme court that through attrition whittles down to a very small number. Maybe in twenty years the Roberts Court will be......just Roberts.

This whole peculiar incident has much to say, not just in reference to the "Me Too" movement but more germane to the legal system the right to face one's accuser and to have justice administered in a speedy fashion.

I think Senator Feinstein envisions a Jarndyce vrs Jarndyce proceeding that drags out somewhere a few minutes past the swearing in of a Democrat President.

And if a few more minutes past midnight additional vague accusations come forward it would play very badly with the non partisan middle portion of American politics.

The Democrats play with dangerous tools, having no others left to wield.

TW/Tacitus

ps, given the known issues with Polygraphs, do you really want to march down the path of making them the gold standard? Another topic of course.

Larry Hart said...

Tim Wolter:

The Democrats play with dangerous tools, having no others left to wield.


I think that's the most significant sentence in your missive there. It demonstrates the downside to the party in power by a bare majority openly rigging the system against any influence by the loyal opposition. It's not necessarily good strategy to leave your political opponents no recourse but the guillotine.

Darrell E said...

Shane Mallatt said...

"It will certainly motivate the anti identity politics male supporters of Trump as well."

Two points.

1)Anything Democrats do will certainly motivate Trump supporters. Simply the state of being in the Democratic party, or being supportive of it, or simply saying something about it that isn't sufficiently negative is plenty enough to motivate Trump supporters. It is pointless for Democrats to spend any effort in trying to avoid that.

2) There aren't any anti identity politics male Trump supporters. Though they despise identity politics among their opponents they feel supremely justified in practicing their own identity politics which, finely orchestrated by the propaganda efforts of the Republican Party and its moneyed supporters for decades, is endemic among them and the foremost feature of their political views.

A.F. Rey said...

This by the way is not a comment on whether or not "something" happened, but a cycle back to my previous point that if future nominations can be uniformly vetoed by accusations released at the 11th hour, or as in this case some time after midnight, then we will never fill an appointed position again.

Tim, where did you get the idea that this was the 11th hour, or even after midnight?

The Republican Congress has demonstrated that a 300-day delay is no big deal when it comes to Supreme Court nominees, and we're not even close to that mark. There is no good reason that this confirmation must be completed right away.

The clock's ticking, but there is no deadline looming. It's more like 2 o'clock than midnight.

As an aside, one thing that Ford's accusation has done is completely neutered McConnell's plan of pressuring the Democratic incumbents in red districts from having to vote for Kavanaugh confirmation. Before, they would either look like traitors to their local Democrats (if they voted for it) or partisan obstructionists to the local Independents (if they voted against it). But now they have a reasonable reason to vote against it, by simply stating that they found Ford more credible. And only a thorough investigation of the matter could weaken that position, something that would take too much time for the vote to come before the election. The plan is sunk. :)

Larry Hart said...

Tim Wolter:
but a cycle back to my previous point that if future nominations can be uniformly vetoed by accusations released at the 11th hour, or as in this case some time after midnight, then we will never fill an appointed position again.


Where was this complaint during the Obama/McConnell standoffs, Merrick Garland being only the most visible one?

What you seem to be saying, or at least come off as saying, is that before Kavanaugh, at least one party was able to fill positions, despite blocking the other party from doing so. Now, we might be in danger of having neither party able to do so!

Sorry, but to me that's an improvement. In the sense that "Sometimes jumping on the bandwagon is the best way to demonstrate that the wheels have fallen off."

Phaedrusnailfile said...

Darrell E.
The comment you highlight was poorly phrased on my part, so I will attempt to clarify. As I understand things, one of the demographics that most strongly support twoscoops are non college educated white males. And yes when talking to them they will fully support and defend him no matter what. Now this is pure conjecture on my part so take this for what it's worth. It is my opinion that when this turns into the giant "he said she said who you gonna believe", boondoggle it is sure to become it will inflame the fear and self righteous indignation of the aforementioned group that you accurately describe in point number 2 above. It is my contention that the group as a whole would not have been as motivated had this not come up.
That said. As soon as Ms. Ford came forward it meant that she has a right to be heard and should be. But, asking the FBI, already viewed with skepticism due to propaganda efforts to discredit them in the Mueller probe, to conduct this investigation is just more fuel for that particular conspiracy fire.

David Brin said...

DO add to your mix of possibilities that Dr. Ford is a shy and private person who dreads what's coming and would prefer to be backed up by whatever the FBI can find. e.g. she is cloudy on the date of the "party" where this happened. They could swarm the people listed in the high school yearbooks and save her that embarrassment. They could ask all those people if they remember anything. She can't.

I still wonder WTF re the gambling thing. There are so many peripheral pointers that seem to indicate.

In the end I fear another Clarence Thomas, not just a right wing shill with secret obligations and strings in the hands of moguls, but one who's been traumatized into seething, insatiable hatred toward all things even remotely liberal.

Tacitus said...

David

I am actually sympathetic to Dr. Ford. If nothing else I think we can all agree that she is somebody in way over her head with this. For others, perhaps Feinstein's aides, who have put everyone through this in such a rough fashion I have less sympathy.

I do think allegations that come after the hearings conclude are fair to call 11th hour or later. But if you say it's not until the committee vote, or the general Senate vote, or the swearing in, or the first day of session, well, whatevs.

Larry, the cycle of obstruction and over reach to get past the obstruction has been ongoing. When Harry Read axed the filibuster for Federal appointments I said it was a bad idea. It was flat out stated then that it would lead to an elimination of the filibuster for SC nominees. I opposed that also.

I know the Garland non appointment is a sore spot for you and for many. Fair enough. But McConnell and Trump were up front about it. They said we will delay until there is a new President. It was a political maneuver with the clear invitation to vote for us if you approve or against us if you don't. Both candidates said that 2016 was largely about the Supreme Court. Sure was.

I suspect this furor will peak and recede soon. I hope the next SC opening does not come for several years, that one will make this look tame.

Tacitus/TW

Zepp Jamieson said...

LH wrote: " It's not necessarily good strategy to leave your political opponents no recourse but the guillotine."

Some once asked the Duke of Wellington why England never had a communist revolution, and he famously replied, "Because we play cricket with our men". He may have been referring literally to the game and non-com troops, but it could be equally used to describe fair play for the plebs. If people feel they have a place at the table and at least have their grievances heard, they won't revolt. It's why the upheavals of 1789 or 1848 or 1917-1932 broke on British shores, leaving the government intact.

Phaedrusnailfile said...

Dr. Brin
I am sure you are correct in regards to Dr. Ford's motivations. I just see this as a no win situation for the FBI. If they swarm the people in the high school yearbooks and find something it will be characterized as the FBI is out to get Trump because they spent all of the resources to get Cavenah for political reasons since no criminal charges can be brought. Or if they spend a bunch of resourses and find nothing it will be characterized as giant waste of resources on an unsuccessful political witchhunt. I share your other concerns as well as the salacious nature of this particular will completely overshadow any of the other concerns gambling, classified documents, etc. I have a feeling that people who can remember the party and have had their memory jogged by Dr. Fords story might come forward voluntarily.

Larry Hart said...

Tim Wolter:

Larry, the cycle of obstruction and over reach to get past the obstruction has been ongoing. When Harry [Reid] axed the filibuster for Federal appointments I said it was a bad idea. It was flat out stated then that it would lead to an elimination of the filibuster for SC nominees. I opposed that also.


I also thought it was a bad idea, but that he had no choice, given unprecedented levels of obstructionism.

And looking back, they should have eliminated the filibuster for everything while they had the chance. The argument for leaving the rules in place is that we (Democrats) will want those rules there when we're the minority. So, as soon as we're the minority, the Republicans eliminate the rules anyway. What was the point of not doing it ourselves?


I know the Garland non appointment is a sore spot for you and for many. Fair enough. But McConnell and Trump were up front about it. They said we will delay until there is a new President. It was a political maneuver with the clear invitation to vote for us if you approve or against us if you don't. Both candidates said that 2016 was largely about the Supreme Court. Sure was.


I'm guessing McConnell knew that one side would think about the importance of the USSC more than the other side would. My team was more concerned with the fact that the DNC preferred a Democrat to an Independent, or that Hillary just didn't "inspire" us enough to vote for her. Present company excepted, of course.

Also, maybe McConnell was upfront about the USSC, but a little stealthier about having held up nominations to the lower courts to keep them in trust for the next Republican president. At what point does political obstruction become "Not doing your job"?


I suspect this furor will peak and recede soon. I hope the next SC opening does not come for several years, that one will make this look tame.


The damage is already done no matter who fills the seats from now on. The supreme court (which I no longer capitalize) is no longer plausibly viewed as an objective mediator. It's an unelected legislative body whose decisions depend on which party has a majority, and whose decisions will be overturned with a change in that majority. They've totally ruined Charles Harness's short story, "Probable Cause" for me now that it reminds me only dimly of the reverence it used to be possible to have for the USSC.

jim said...

Tim,

Ginsburg and Thomas are both really old, so Trump may get 2 more choices for supreme court. I don't expect the democrats to get control of the senate in 2018 so Trump may get to appoint 4 justices. And I expect that the court will continue to issue right wing rulings that will piss off progressives.

So if the Democrats win the presidency and senate in 2020 they will have no choice but to pack the court with progressives to prevent the SC from preventing their policies from being implemented. Now conservatives will scream bloody murder and vow to do the same when they take power but the Democrats should ignore them, and make sure their polices get implemented at least for some time. If they want their polices to last, they better make sure that they are damn popular.

donzelion said...

Tim/Tacitus: "I hope the next SC opening does not come for several years, that one will make this look tame."

Ginsburg is 85, Breyer, 80. Another opening is imminent. The Senate is highly likely to remain in Republican hands. The courts are well-stacked, and will become more so. FoxNews is rich and getting richer. The direction the country is set.

"I suspect this furor will peak and recede soon."
Hurricane Florence's floodwaters certainly will, so why not other political floods? But as with this hurricane, so with this furor: peaks rise higher each year, breakwaters erode a bit further. The Supreme Court was the ultimate breakwater against neo-feudal domination. No longer.

jim said...

oops
I should have double checked Thomas' age, he is only 70. I must have confused his age and Breyer's age.

matthew said...

Once again, Tim's argument boils down to "It's wrong when the Democrats do it."

The "last-minute" argument evaporates in the face of the 300 days that Garland waited for a hearing vs. the 50 days planned to nominate Kavenaugh. The Republicans are trying to fill the seat before they can be held responsible in the midterm elections. Period.

The letter given to Feinstein by Dr. Ford's House member requested anonymity. Feinstein felt that the mater should have been handled quietly by the FBI, who can only investigate when directed by the White House, as happened in the Thomas hearings. This White House, not surprisingly, has not asked the FBI to investigate the matter. Trump needs Kavenaugh's 5th vote on the partisan SCOTUS in order to quash a future subpoena. Trump will not allow investigation on the matter. Dr. Ford's reluctance to testify in a 'he said / she said" meeting with no additional witnesses can be seen as a means to force the investigation by the FBI.

BTW, former classmates of Ford remember the incident being discussed at the time it occurred. https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/high-school-classmate-remembers-kavanaugh-incident-says-besieged-media-requests/

Mike Judge (the other assailant) refuses to testify to the Senate. He also says that he does not remember the incident, even though he has written about being blackout drunk in his memoirs. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mark-judge-testify-kavanaugh-hearing_us_5ba15f8ae4b04d32ebfd8c01



donzelion said...

Meanwhile, LA Times (& Monmouth) released this tidbit: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-midterm-house-race-20180918-story.html
Monmouth supplemented the report follows - https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_ca_091818/

"Republican Young Kim holds a slight edge over Democrat Gil Cisneros in the fiercely contested race to succeed GOP Rep. Ed Royce of Fullerton, according to a poll released Tuesday."

'Fiercely contested'? Understatement. Mind you, the California 39th is one of the so-called 'easy win' races: scores of volunteers are coming in from every corner of California. Kim's backers lobbed a 'Hail Mary pass of a sack of feces' quite similar to the Kavanaugh line at Cisneros, saturating FB/Youtube feeds: that set of slurs is fully accounted for in this poll.

Republicans may claim to be a bit annoyed by the attack on Kavanaugh, but that never stopped them from doing the same thing (same as Nixon's team doing its hit on Abe Fortas for 'corruption...' bear in mind, this district is Nixon's birth place).

Alfred Differ said...

Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION.

Having said that, this was a background investigation. Those only happen when the requestor asks. In this case, the requestor is the WH. Basically, Dr Ford is suggesting the WH ask the FBI to extend the background investigation so the Senate hearing has actual facts offered to it. This is the stuff the committee SHOULD want, but they can't be asking the FBI directly. They'd have to has the WH to ask.

If the WH won't ask, the Senate is left with little choice but to investigate themselves which is what they do with committee hearings like the one proposed. It will be done in a political atmosphere, though, with only a few of them trained as actual prosecutors. I'm sure all involved know that.

Alfred Differ said...

Tim Wolter,

I think Senator Feinstein envisions a Jarndyce vrs Jarndyce proceeding that drags out somewhere a few minutes past the swearing in of a Democrat President.

I don't think you get our senator very well. This is much more likely a short-range power play. Tit for tat. She has decent cover in the sense that Dr Ford asked for anonymity. It was the FBI who chose to include the letter in the background material for the WH client. Beyond that, though, I'm sure that for her this is more about Garland and McConnell.

The CA senator you should be watching for the longer battle is Harris. Our junior senator is obviously in a mood to fight and is trained as a prosecutor.

David Brin said...

“ When Harry Read axed the filibuster for Federal appointments I said it was a bad idea.”

Of course it was. But it had become clear that the Republicans had gone mad and would go nuclear anyway, when they had a president. Meanwhile they were blocking the appointments of a president fresh off a landslide election. You seem again and again to quibble over dems rising up to wage a war they tried desperately to avoid, turning their other cheek a thousand time. No more.

“Some once asked the Duke of Wellington why England never had a communist revolution, and he famously replied, "Because we play cricket with our men".


The real root is that the British aristocracy snubbed the king and built their palaces in the countryside, where they went out among their tenants and got to know them. In France the palaces were in Paris and the estates sucked dry by absentee lords. Result, the French have a magnificent capital, after cutting off heads. The British bled and died for their lords over and over and their capital (I’ve lived in both ) is a dump.

“I should have double checked Thomas' age, he is only 70. I must have confused his age and Breyer's age.


If only…

David Brin said...

onward

onward

Jim Lund said...

Russia doesn't have the resources to fight a big war. Russia's economy isn't even in the top ten. It has a GDP the size of South Korea, Australia, or Spain. Further, Russia is an oil power, and conventional (cheap) oil production will likely peak in the next decade, driving down government revenue. Russia does have a lot of expensive oil--shale, Arctic, and will have a long tail of lower production. Russia power and influence is likely at a local peak, and won't recover until late in the century, perhaps when global warming opens new areas to farming and settlement.