Senate panel approves Trump judicial nominee who has never tried a case

[Skroe]

What exactly was Reid supposed to do in the face of such blatant and rampant obstruction? When an opposition has made it clear that they aren't going to engage in good faith (and hold the majority hostage), would you honestly expect one to just roll over and take the losses?

Yes. Because the principle of protecting a norm that protects the minority party and acts as a check on the runaway power of the majority is more important principle than any short term political agenda.

Nothing is EXACTLY what he should have done, because although Republicans were certainly misbehaving, upholding the norm was more important in my view, than breaking the logjam. It is about long term versus short term.

Harry Reid got his few appeals court justices through. And now how exactly is that norm supposed to be repaired?

- - - Updated - - -

It's just one of Skroe's logical dissonances.

His loyalty to the Republican party(leading to that so oft-seen Democrat bashing) having this tug-of-war versus his acknowledgement that his party self-destructed due to it's own malicious ways and is in unsalvageable shambles for the foreseeable future.

I see a lot of posts every day, but this one is particularly ridiculous. And I'm going to explain precisely why.

Over the last few years - really since 2010 - I've held the Democratic Party to a higher standard of behavior than the deeply dysfunctional, opportunistic, and immoral Republican Party I am a part of.

How many times over the last decade and change has the Democratic Party put aside their political agenda in the name of the greater good of the country? I can count, off the top of my head, about half a dozen times. I'd say the first instance that brought me to this opinion is when they retook control of the House in the 2006 and didn't immedietly end the Iraq War, as many of them wanted to. Rather they held hearings, demanded answers and then partnered with the Bush Administration to initiate the surge to try and end the war without, as Bill Richardson wanted, ditching our equipment in its place and fleeing Vietnam style. And then they did it again during the Financial Crisis, when they voted to bail out banks to stabilize the economy... not exactly democratic platforms.

Democrats have done this, and more, while Republicans have been deeply sick since at last 2010. Republicans failed to fight off the Tea Party infection. It failed to fight off the crazies, the hostage takers. It failed to fight off Ted Cruz. It failed to prevent his Government shutdown. It took hostages in government finances what... 3 times in the Obama years? At least? Where Democrats have, in my view, done immense honor to themselves and credit to our country by *actually* putting country first time and time again, the Republican Party has grown more desperate, more vile and more immoral as its desire to win at all costs debased any and all higher principles.

Democrats have been legitimately the only adults in the room, and the only defenders of non-partisan principles *for years*. And thank god for that, because at least one pillar of defense against Donald Trump's authoritarianism is in place.

You call it "one of Skroe's Logical Dissonances". Bull-fucking-shit, and I want an apology for that. I simply hold the not-sick political party that has, even though I disagree with them, far more patriotic than my own deeply sick one, for years, to a far higher standard. I, in other words, EXPECT Democrats to be better than Harry Reid's violation here, which is what makes it so egregious in my view. This was a bad on, instituted by one man, and deeply out of character with how Democrats have acted for years.

I am a conservative before I am a Republican. I am an American before I am a conservative. Traditions and slow, moderated change are an important part of my political philosophy. So tell me again, how the hell are we supposed to go back to the extremely reasonable and bar-raising 60 vote standard being the norm again? Thy only idea I've heard was from Hugh Hewitt who said that Republicans should strike a deal with Democrats whereby REpublicans get to live in that world for as many years as Democrats did, before it reverting to 60 votes and staying at 60 votes.

Do you want me to hold Democrats to a lower standard? I can do that. If your politics is so devolved that you want to get down into the muck of the immoral and opportunistic Republican Party, then sure, it'll make for an easier, more tribal argument, but I strongly believe our country would be far worse for it. Our country is in a far more defended spot against the extremism of Trump and his crazies, in general, because Democrats have acted with restraint when they easily could not have.

Look at the names I named in my original post: Pelosi, Reid, McConnell, Bohener. Do you understand why I named those four names? Because by the testament of THEIR OWN PEERS, those four individuals were largely responsible for the legislative slowdown of the Obama years.

Pelosi got a taste of power and started to like it. She has gotten so completely lost in the fight against Republicans, she's lost her reason for fighting. Go listen to interviews of her in 2016 versus 2002. It's a different person. It's an angrier person. Privately so many Democrats want her and her septugenarian leadership gone, but they can't do it, because of her vice like grip over fundraising.

Reid and McConnell's PERSONAL dysfunction lead to the "world's greatest deliberating body" breaking down. Do you know when the Senate really went to shit? Actual Senators know. It is when one was percieved as having violated a standing Senate tradition to not actively try and unseat the other during an election, and took it personally. Their relationship got so bad they didn't talk directly for months on end and relied on other Senators acting as intermediaries... Senators who were appalled by both theirs behavior. Their relationship got so bad they started making what amounted to oblique personal attacks (oblique because explicit is forbidden) against each other's character on the floor of the Senate, another thing that wasn't supposed to happen. The Majority/Minority leader are usually two Senators who work together the most consistently, even if they can't find a common position. And these two wouldn't even be in the same room that isn't the Senate chambers, for months on end. That is not normal, and that was, by attribution of their own peers, due to their personal feud. It got so bad, that at one point, Tom Daschle and Trent Lott staged an intervention (that didn't work).

And John Bohener. Everything about John Boehner, newly liberated and mowing his lawn, is bullshit. That guy can go fuck himself. We're in this mess, in part, because in early-to-mid 2011, instead of using his powers, as his predecessors did, to bring order to the extremist wings of his new majority (in this case the Tea Party) and make them kow-tow to the company line, he rewared and enabled them. He single handedly allowed for the rise of the Freedom Caucus, something he could have strangled in its crib. Do you think he was the first Speaker of the House / Party leader of the House, to have to deal with an organizing insurgent group that wanted things different than "the establishment". Hell no. It is one of the oldest stories in politics there is. What was different is that instead of moving to crush it by denying Committee positions to those he perceived as even slightly disloyal, he allowed seats, then allowed, them to play games as to his future as speaker of the house. in other words he was a willing hostage. And his sequel, Paul Ryan, has done the exact same thing, showing weakness that Dennis Hastert, Newt Gingrich, Tom Foley, Tip O'Neil, Dick Armey, Tom Delay, Dick Gephardt and yes, Nancy Pelosi (keep in mind we're discussing internal party, rather than external, behavior, now) would never have allowed.

If Democrats cease to be the only adults in the room, then we're right and truly fucked. So ask yourself, again - logical dissonances? Only if I hold the two parties to the same standard, which I don't, because one has, objectively, not put party before country for years while the other does so routinely.

And I just want to follow this up with one more thing. Right now, McConnell, by his own words, will not touch the legislative filibusterer, a change that would make politics in this country incredibly destabilized. Should he use the nuclear option to advance the Republican agenda? Fuck no (so much for your logical dissonance accusation). And neither should Democrats when they retake the Senate next time, whenever that is. With the legislative filibusterer in place, the way back to 60 votes for nominees is still there.

Try being less partisan. It'll be good for you.

[Xeones]

Is there any method through which this guy can be removed from the bench?

[Skroe]

Wait, hold on Skroe. Can you point to any other conservative appointments that are as indefensible as the one that is the subject of this thread?

Rex Tillerson is an absolutely abysmal Secretary of State... easily the weakest and most disliked in its post-War history. 60% of Professional (non-political) Ambassadors have quit since January. Talent overall has fled the department. It will take a decade to repair the damage to the State Department he's done in 10 months.

Jeff Sessions never should have been Attorney General.

Ben Carson. At HUD. It's fucking cynical he is in that job.

Scott Pruitt at the EPA. I have an extended family member who is a laywer at the EPA. It's as bad as you think.

Nikki Haley, whom I like, as our UN Ambassador is a crock of shit. Want to see who UN Ambassador's typically are (except-Susan Rice?). She isn't qualified.

Mick Mulvaney and his bizarro understanding of budgets shouldn't be within a light year of OMB.

Lina McMahon, former CEO of the WWE, as head of the "Small Business Administration" is a joke. Nice small business.

Mike Pompeo isn't trusted or liked even within the walls of the CIA, which think that he's Trump's lackey (boy do I have a lot to say about this one).

Congressman Jim Bridenstine at NASA... I'm not sure if you read what I wrote about his pick in an older thread. This would be the first ever "political" appointment to NASA, for someone with no engineering experience. There is an EXCELLENT argument for the fact that former Astronauts, Scientists/Engineers and Bean Counters have been worthless NASA Adminsitrators (something else I've written extensively about here) and picking one of those might not help. But equally, for an "out of the box" pick, this guy has no business being it. Zero qualifications besides having an interest in space. Even Marco Rubio is skeptical of his appointment.

And that's off the top of my head.

--------------------------
Conservatives want small government. Lean, efficient. Not doing too much, but being highly effective at what it DOES do. Putting Taxpayer dollars to work optimally and acting as a clearing house for the States and as a force multiplier when necessary. The Federal Government isn't the solution. The FederalGovernment can and will be a part of the solution, preferribly from the private sector or from the States. But where that isn't possible, it should be nothing but the best.

Look at the list above, and tell me it's nothing but the best. Most people there wouldn't be in the top 10 choices of anyone in their respective area of focus. And for the sake of redundancy I didn't even name Rick Perry, because the thought of him at the helm of the direct successor of the Manhattan Project and Atomic Energy Comission is a fucking parody.

I'll tell you how that list came about. Many so-called conservatives (they aren't) have become pathological in their understanding of government in the Age of Obama. Maybe even before. It's paranoia mixed up with ignorance mixed up with frustration that they can't always get their way. That *gasp* they share the country with "liburlz" who sometimes win elections too, and want to do things.

Small efficient government has been replaced in the minds of these lunatics with anti-government fundamentalism. That list makes sense, and their actions make sense, if you want to SHORT CIRCUIT what the Departments do. And you know what isn't on the list? The unqualified people Trump attempted to put into the Pentagon, but didn't happen because Mattis said "fuck no" and McCain put a hold on nominations he didn't like, and then instituted a "no more industry people" rule.

To anyone who wants the United States government to not be functionally terrible at what it does, which no legitimate conservative actually wants, the Reign of Tillerson at State should be exhibit A in the destructive appointments of the Trump era. True. The Bi-Partisan Foreign Policy Establishment rightfully has embargoed the Trump Administration. But those 60% of Ambassadors who quit? Many were forced out. For no reason. These are subject matter experts and career professionals. It's going to take years to replace that. China and Russia will gain enormously in that time.

Government should not be expansive. But it should get the best bang for the buck, and to do that, it must be staffed by the best people. Donald Trump has not even tried to name anything remotey resembling the best people.

His drone army will excuse it of course, because, as stated, they ARE those anti-government nutjobs.

[Ripster42]

Is there any method through which this guy can be removed from the bench?

You can impeach judges just like presidents. Unlike impeaching a president, impeaching judges has actually happened.

[Lenonis]

Rex Tillerson
Jeff Sessions
Ben Carson
Scott Pruitt
Nikki Haley
Mick Mulvaney
Lina McMahon
Mike Pompeo
Jim Bridenstine

Oh Skroe -- how could you forget Betsy DeVos?!? She's one of the worst of the bunch!

[Skroe]

Oh Skroe -- how could you forget Betsy DeVos?!? She's one of the worst of the bunch!

Intentional omission. She's deeply unqualified and another Trump nut, but the Department of Education is already more of a show piece than anything meaningful. States and Local run education. The feds will never get it out of their hands. Not in a million years. The departments I mention, by contrast, have significant practical impacts and little-to-no State level redundancy.

I used to be on the other side of that, but time and watching things change has moved me on the issue. If people in Arkansas want their kids to get a third world education, that's on them. Massachusetts' ranks with the best in the world. If they don't want to be dragged up by States that are doing it better,and want to Federalize their approaches, then let them drown.

A fight over Betsy DeVos is fundamentally a fight over principle, not, by in large, a fight over the effectiveness of a department that id intrinsically and historically ineffective.

[Gestopft]

Yes. Because the principle of protecting a norm that protects the minority party and acts as a check on the runaway power of the majority is more important principle than any short term political agenda.

Nothing is EXACTLY what he should have done, because although Republicans were certainly misbehaving, upholding the norm was more important in my view, than breaking the logjam. It is about long term versus short term.

Yet the same Senate norms that check the majority and keep the body moderate also allow the minority party to wield disproportionate power when they stop operating in good faith- I guess I don't disagree about the long-term implications, but on the other hand, letting a bad-faith minority party (that in all likelihood would break the norms in the majority, as they have) walk all over the process doesn't seem acceptable to me either. When one kid can't play nicely with the others, you don't let that kid keep the toy.

Is there another way, within the Senate, to keep the norms without rewarding bad behavior? Changing Senate rules is bad precedent, but the minority party throwing hissy fits and getting what they want is too.

[Halicia]

This is pretty much legitimately terrifying given not only the power the judicial branch has, but the inability to reverse these appointments after Trump is gone.

What if Trump gets convicted ?

Not to jump off the deep end and sound like some 24 ripoff, but if a government official was discovered and convicted of being in a secret terrorist cell, wouldn't his nominations be necessarily reversible, otherwise the country would be stuck with whatever cancer he'd inflicted in the process of his crimes.

[Masark]

What if Trump gets convicted ?

Not to jump off the deep end and sound like some 24 ripoff, but if a government official was discovered and convicted of being in a secret terrorist cell, wouldn't his nominations be necessarily reversible, otherwise the country would be stuck with whatever cancer he'd inflicted in the process of his crimes.

Nope. There is no provision for such in the constitution.

The only possible solution would be to get the support of 2/3rds of the House and Senate to impeach and remove them one at a time, which is rather improbable.

[Brubear]

Absolutely nothing. But it may have been in steps (as in, they wouldn't have used the nuclear option on court appointments) with them the initiator. Regardless, that doesn't let Reid off the hook.

Democrats should not have thrown the first punch. One my hopes, as a conservative, was that when Republicans took the Senate, McConnell would refrain from utilizing the nuclear option on any candidates in order to illustrate why the 60 vote threshold was and important safeguard. A hope, but a small hope.

Donald Trump has debased countless American norms. But that practice didn't start with Donald Trump. Democrats and Republicans have been doing it for years. Reid finally utilizing the nuclear option, pre-Trump, in my view, was by far the most egregious.

I do not think Republicans would have gone nuclear for cabinent appointments, had it not happened already. The Supreme Court? Probably. Still, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry is a thing because Harry Reid failed to lead by example.

There is zero doubt in my mind that, had the current crop of GOP members serving at the federal level faced the same level of obstruction from the Democrats, would have done the exact same thing. We've seen that they are willing to sacrifice the country to get a win (see: Cruz and the multiple shutdowns, Ryan/McConnel and their current efforts to force a tax cut for their friends through under the guise of "tax reform", etc).

The argument of "well Reid invoked it first" when the GOP didn't hesitate to do it at the first sign of opposition to a SCOTUS appointment, despite SCOTUS appointments where specifically left out shows that the current crop of GOP leaders lost their desire to put the country before party pretty much as soon as Obama was elected (See: "our goal is to make Obama a one-term president"). You really want to say that the party which let the government shut down, threatened to shut it down again multiple times despite the effects of it, stonewalled a SCOTUS appointment for over a year (then went nuclear just so they could force through a guy that would rule in their favor) wouldn't have gone nuclear if Reid hadn't done it first?

[Lenonis]

What if Trump gets convicted ?

Not to jump off the deep end and sound like some 24 ripoff, but if a government official was discovered and convicted of being in a secret terrorist cell, wouldn't his nominations be necessarily reversible, otherwise the country would be stuck with whatever cancer he'd inflicted in the process of his crimes.

I don't know if there is a process in place to reverse these short of impeachment (I'll admit my understanding of this below the SCOTUS level is shaky at best). The main problem being that Trump doesn't just put people in place by himself. Trump appoints, Senate confirms. Two branches of government are involved which, in theory, should be protection against one of those being compromised. But we live in bizarroland so.....we're likely stuck with it.

[BrerBear]

Oh hey, look.

Turns out this same guy is married to a lawyer in the White House counsel's office and conveniently forgot to mention that on his conflict of interest disclosure.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/u...omination.html

So...
1) Unqualified
2) Conflict of interest
3) Lie on application

It's a Trump administration hat trick. He'll be confirmed for sure!

[Lenonis]

conveniently forgot to mention that on his conflict of interest disclosure.

Golly they are just so bad with those pesky forms!

[Gestopft]

1) Unqualified
2) Conflict of interest
3) Lie on application

It's a Trump administration hat trick. He'll be confirmed for sure!

That is hilarious!

Trump knows the "best people."

[cubby]

In today's edition of "the GOP will rubber-stamp almost anything in order to make sure they have power"...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...-never-tried-a



The man has only practiced law for 3 years, and has only even participated in one federal hearing where he was merely part of the legal team and didn't actually have to argue in front of the judge. Yet somehow he is qualified to become a federal judge based on his...extensive legal background?

Deplorable continues to get more and more deplorable. The GOP is stacking the judicial branch with dozens of nominations, all conservative, some barely qualified. How this one got past the panel is beyond logic, but par for our current course.

#deplorable45
#decadestorecover

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. Because the principle of protecting a norm that protects the minority party and acts as a check on the runaway power of the majority is more important principle than any short term political agenda.

Nothing is EXACTLY what he should have done, because although Republicans were certainly misbehaving, upholding the norm was more important in my view, than breaking the logjam. It is about long term versus short term.

Harry Reid got his few appeals court justices through. And now how exactly is that norm supposed to be repaired?

You argue this as if the GOP wouldn't have done this themselves in their current situation. They would have unlocked the nuclear option first - arguing that Reid is to blame only works if you can also argue that the GOP would have "taken the higher ground". Which of course they wouldn't.

[Kujako]

That is hilarious!

Trump knows the "best people."

He knows them! They're the ones that can't stop laughing when Trump tries to hire them.

[Toogoodman]

But he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I actually laughed way too much at this.

[Edge-]

Oh hey, look.

Turns out this same guy is married to a lawyer in the White House counsel's office and conveniently forgot to mention that on his conflict of interest disclosure.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/u...omination.html

So...
1) Unqualified
2) Conflict of interest
3) Lie on application

It's a Trump administration hat trick. He'll be confirmed for sure!

Only. The. Best. People.

Why is it that so many of the Trump appointees suck so much at filling out disclosure forms?

[Kujako]

Why is it that so many of the Trump appointees suck so much at filling out disclosure forms?

Low literacy rates?

[Edge-]

Low literacy rates?

Whatever it is, it should be disqualifying. If you can't fill out basic fucking paperwork honestly, why the hell should the people trust that you can perform an infinitely more complex role in the government?