Not that I think it will really help, but I’m grateful to Sen. Elizabeth Warren for tearing into her Republican colleagues in the pages of the Boston Globe. Her conclusion is excellent:
For seven years, through artificial debt ceiling crises, deliberate government shutdowns, and intentional confirmation blockades, Senate Republicans have acted as though the election and reelection of Obama relieved them of any responsibility to do their jobs. Senate Republicans embraced the idea that government shouldn’t work at all unless it works only for themselves and their friends. The campaigns of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are the next logical outgrowth of the same attitude — if you can’t get what you want, just ignore the obligations of governing, then divert attention and responsibility by wallowing in a toxic stew of attacks on Muslims, women, Latinos, and each other.
If Senate Republicans don’t like being forced to pick between a bullet and poison, then here’s some advice: Stand up to extremists in the Senate bent on sabotaging our government whenever things don’t go their way. Respect the oath you took to uphold and defend the Constitution. Show some courage and put that oath ahead of party politics. Do your job — and start by considering the president’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
You should really read the whole thing. If she hadn’t become a senator, Warren would have made a kick-ass blogger.
Vituperative? Is that the new word to describe a truth telling female Senator? Or just WaPo-speak?
I have to agree. I can’t see anything vituperative in her article. Calling it so smacks of validating lazy “both sides do it” shibboleths. The truth is she is making an argument, based on facts and actual quotations, which is quite balanced. She says the emergence of Trump and Cruz is IN PART the result of the behaviour of Republicans in the Senate, an argument Booman has also made.
They are free to argue otherwise, but let them debunk her argument first. Would they even deny it (in private)?
‘And all his snakes went hiss!’
I’d call it forceful
Sorry but I’m still holding my breath the Republicans will save us from a Democrat putting a Republican on the Supreme Court.
Is Garland well to the left of Scalia? Yes.
What is Garland’s record of jurisprudence on civil rights, Labor organizing rights, actions by Federal agencies, environmental law, open government principles and other issues? Not at all what we associate with today’s Republican Party, that’s for sure. He’s not a Federalist Society guy, at all.
Here’s a very good primer:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-garland/
I think this point is particularly important:
“He is well known to the Justices and is likely the most respected by them collectively, particularly the more conservative Justices. The fact that Judge Garland is not only extremely intelligent and respectful but exceptionally careful and quite centrist would mean that his views would have particular salience with, among others, Justices Kennedy and Alito.”
We often think of the judges as sitting in their own hermetically sealed spaces when they make their votes and write their opinions. That is not the way the Court works, though. As inferred in this pull quote, if Garland has a greater potential to pull Kennedy into more reasonable positions on reproductive choice and campaign finance laws, for examples, he would be a very worthwhile addition to the Court.
I hope it’s possible to understand why it would have been politically counterproductive for the President to put up a comprehensively liberal nominee, under the circumstances. Also, a comprehensively liberal nominee would have been damaged by the certain rejection and vicious attacks they would have faced from Senate Republicans.
Barry Goldwater was far to the left of Scalia. At least he upheld freedom from Christian Mullahs and had respect for precedent. Scalia had neither.
“…is likely the most respected by them collectively, particularly the more conservative Justices.”
I’m sorry, did I say Republican? I should have said Centrist Republican or maybe Third Way Republican, or maybe to fit the New Democratic Party, Moderate Republican, anything to keep you happy. You have to admit though; it’s a pretty low bar to be to the left of Scalia if that’s all that’s required.
You should be happy Hillary wants to continue Obama’s legacy of only attempting to take what the Republicans are ready to give. All good things do come incrementally; the only way progressives `get things done.’ Obama thought giving them a health care plan originated by the Heritage Foundation as the answer to Hillary Care, something Romney implemented in MA would do the trick but it didn’t. He gave them a Grand Bargain that would weaken the most cherished of our New Deal social programs but they didn’t like that either. Then he tried nominating an outright Republican official but that trial balloon went down in flames. Now we have Hillary’s Golden Standard of trade deals TPP also not looking good. To be honest with you, I’ll be glad when he’s finally out of office so I can breathe freely once again.
Take heart, because in a few short months you might just get all the Third Way, Centrist things your heart desires, that is, unless Trump wins, a far too real possibility.
I’m a far left Democrat who will be voting for Bernie. I also want to win elections and accomplish something. I do not wish to posture, or fail to gather the minimum amount of knowledge needed to analyze policy or politics, because it feels so good to do so.
Please share with us the POTUS nominee President Obama should have put up, the strategy you would use to help the President get your nominee through the Senate, and exactly what the political fallout would be. We want smart answers attached to real life, not binary bullpucky which depends on a fantastical view of the world.
You absorbed nothing meaningful from my post except the half-sentence you used to utterly reject the rest, including the possibilities that might arrive if the highly qualified and respected moderate Garland were to pull Kennedy leftward. You clearly didn’t read the SCOTUSblog summary of Garland’s record because you don’t appear to feel you have anything to learn, a problematic view for anyone.
Your ACA summary fails on many levels, most catastrophically in its ignorance of the fact that the Heritage Foundation proposal you reference said Medicaid should be gutted, while the ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility to tens of millions of low-income Americans. Literally, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Perhaps others might choose to learn even if you continue to choose to remain unequipped to talk about the subject knowledgeably:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/12/the-aca-v-the-heritage-plan-a-comparison-in-chart-form
The rest of your screed is similarly off, up to and including Hillary’s opposition for more than a half-year to the final TPP language:
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/12/in-ohio-hillary-clinton-will-voice-s
upport-for-tougher-trade-rules
These pollutions of our political discourse is our movement’s equivalent to TEA Party stuff. Bring documented facts rather than declarations and we can hash them out. Absent that, we’ll continue to butt heads.
I’m sorry you got your panties is a twist but I just don’t believe you when you say “I’m a far left Democrat who will be voting for Bernie.” It’s clear to anyone here who can read and there is certainly plenty to read that indicates you are a centrist. You are no more a `far left Democrat’ than Hillary is a progressive. You have far too often used that banter, “I’ll be voting for Bernie” so you better be nice to me. That is really getting old.
As far as the Garland nomination goes, Bernie said if he wins the election he’ll ask Obama to withdraw that nomination. I’ll just leave it at that.
You do not dispute that I said; “…a health care plan originated by the Heritage Foundation as the answer to Hillary Care, something Romney implemented in MA” was in fact originated by the Heritage Foundation, a Republican think tank. That’s all I said. If you’re denying that then you’re the one not knowing what you’re talking about.
“Perhaps others might choose to learn…” I ask you once again; who died and left you in charge of the education department?
I said nothing about Hillary’s attempt to distance herself from TPP when she saw a shift in the political winds. Hillary did say without a doubt that TPP was the Gold Standard of trade deals, yes? This is still an Obama initiative that I am hoping beyond hope will fail. Please, get a grip.
“These pollutions of our political discourse is our movement’s equivalent to TEA Party stuff…we’ll continue to butt heads.”
Now that is what I call a straight up attack. I have been leaving you alone unless you chose to attack me. In the famous dialog from Breaking Bad, “maybe your best course…would be to tread lightly.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10czUKzpbgg
I’m pretty sure we went through something like this some months back and you apologized. What happened? Don’t you think it’s time to pull it back a bit?
I’ll admit to feeling provoked by what comes across as a tremendous amount of disrespect for the information and points of view shared by me and others here. We’re in relationship with each other here, so please hear a direct request for a few things which will improve our relationship. Look back at this portion of the comments thread and you’ll see that my tone changed greatly in response to your full dismissal of any of the information I shared.
The ACA is thoroughly different from the Heritage Foundation proposal, a fact that is defined clearly in the link I shared. Your continued inferred insistence that the ACA was essentially launched by the Heritage Foundation’s proposal is baffling.
If you had respected our exchange enough to read the linked post and respond to it, even if you disagreed with the factual summaries and points of view made at the link, that would have been reflected in your response here. Your inferred claim that I did not dispute your essential claim that the ACA was launched by the Heritage Foundation’s proposal is a rejection of any fair reading of what I’ve written.
Upthread, I made a request, a reasonable request stated respectfully, for you to look at Garland’s record. My summary considered the political circumstances the President is facing here and the benefits which could come from a highly respected jurist being placed on the Supreme Court and potentially pulling Kennedy to the left. I also inferred that Garland may make people on the left side of the political spectrum completely happy with some, not all, of the actions and positions he would take on the Court.
None of these proposals, requests and questions were considered; instead, the extremely tired and poorly supported “President Obama is and has been a sellout” claims were forwarded again. It was you who chose to broaden the discussion into a multi-policy attack on Obama and Hillary, leaving far behind the invitation to name your ideal SCOTUS nominee and your plan to get your nominee through the Senate and placed on the Court. This sort of situation is where my rubber meets the road as a self-defined far left Democrat who wants to win elections and get things done instead of posturing.
Your attempt to dispute my political identity and primary candidate choice is disrespectful and poorly supported by the record I’ve laid down here. Your attempt to use my past offer to reduce the temperature of a discussion we had a couple of months ago as a weapon in this disagreement is unbelievably disrespectful.
Respectful discourse and consideration of information is a two-way street, and there is little of either coming from you here.
My entire post was:
“Sorry but I’m still holding my breath the Republicans will save us from a Democrat putting a Republican on the Supreme Court.”
What you did next was attack my decision to hold my breath with a litany of Centrist New Democrat talking points. I did respond directly to what you said even starting with a direct quote from your link. There was no need to read it because you had already made my point, you even highlighted it in bold.
Then you went on another apologist rant about how good it was for Obama to pander to conservatives. I answered that as well but not in the way you wanted. It was more than reasonable for me to suggest you actually wanted all the centrist things you were promoting.
“Your inferred claim that I did not dispute your essential claim that the ACA was launched by the Heritage Foundation’s proposal is a rejection of any fair reading of what I’ve written.”
First thing is, I never said anything about being launched, I said originated. You should try online dictionaries, they’re great. There is a big difference between launched and originated because things always change a lot between being originated and being launched but that does not change their origin. In your ignorance you miss that key point entirely to say in no less that bold print, “Literally, you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
“If you had respected our exchange enough to read the linked post and respond to it…”
Just who do you think you are demanding anyone ever read let alone comment on the links you come up with to support your drivel? If you want to say something, just say it.
“President Obama is and has been a sellout.”
I never said that but if that is the conclusion you want to arrive at, feel free.
“Your attempt to dispute my political identity and primary candidate choice is disrespectful…”
You’re the one who keeps bringing up your political identity and primary candidate choice. In the famous words from `Gone With The Wind’; “frankly my dear, I just don’t give a damn.” If you think that topic is disrespectful then stop talking about it!
Respect is something earned, not demanded. If you want at least the illusion of respect then I suggest you start a small business becoming the boss so you can be around people who are paid to respect you, at least in your presence.
“Look back at this portion of the comments thread and you’ll see that my tone changed greatly in response to your full dismissal of any of the information I shared.”
That is a classic statement a bully would make. When we talked about this months ago I told you I will not be bullied by a person like you. You said you were sorry and I believed you.
I’m truly through with you. I have been mostly ignoring you except when you pick a fight with me. If you should decide to continue, expect a response in kind, maybe to everything you write.
Pocketing another person’s good faith apology to use against them as a weapon later while taking zero mutual responsibility for past and current disputes they have been involved in fits the definition of bully quite fine. It fits the definition of other words as well.
I’m happy to stand on the record of this dustup. People can see what was offered, in good faith or otherwise, as the discussion escalated. I possess enough self-awareness and sense of responsibility to know that I had a role in it.
We’re in relationship here; it’s a community. We’ve all seen comment threads on other blogs which have become unreadable sewers. The tradition here has been better.
You attacked me and I responded, simple as that. End of story.
“We’ve all seen comment threads on other blogs which have become unreadable sewers.”
So tell me, is this an admission you’ve been kicked of other blogs or is that yet another attack on me?
How come people who think they know everything, never seem to know when to shut up?
Don’t worry about it, those were both rhetorical questions.
😒
I don’t know that I’d call that bitter and abusive. That’s truth telling at its best.
Go Elizabeth Warren! We need about 90 more of you.
We need more senators like here. A blog can never have the political clout, the ultimate criterion, a vote in the senate.
yes, agree.
I am reminded of the episode of the Muppet Show hosted by Julie Andrews. At the end the Cookie Monster* presented her with a rose — and she ate it.
“Wow!! My kinda girl!!”
* Muppet Show fans know that C.M. wasn’t a regular cast member. He was a guest star for this episode.
I was curious. Didn’t find Andrews noshing on a flower, but I found this in my rooting around:
Bonus Ethel Merman.
As long as we’re talking holiday variety specials, here’s my favorite Christmas song:
Audacious and soulful.
○ Red Henson: Julie Andrews Muppet Specials
Here’s everything but the flower eating:
“Wow! My kinda girl!!” indeed.
Avoid the Dyan Cannon version on the Muppet Show, inferior musically and in female beauty.
You are catching a little grief with your word choice here, Martin, but I am going to assume you are using the word vituperative in the sense that she is being harshly critical and condemning of Republicans and not that she is simply ranting.
Oh my, what a difference a word makes.
Written at the right time, in the right spirit of anger. It will pull Republicans on all levels away from the party this election if Cruz or Trump are nominated. Good on her!!!
AG
P.S. I like her anger, myself. It’s righteous anger, well directed and well spoken. But…I fear that it will limit her further climb to power. She is involved in “politics.” That word shares the same root as does the word “polite.” The politicians who really make it in this system are the ones who can manage to hide their anger…righteous or not…under a facade of civility. She seems to lack that natural ability. No smiling, back slapping, under-the- table-with-a-swift-shiv to the gut is she…it’s either silence or right for the jugular every time.
So it goes.
Maybe…if we have another 4 or 8 years of total federal failure (and survive them)…that kind of anger will begin to resonate w/the whole American electorate.
We shall see…