Beautiful. Six, or is it seven? Police zip-tying a submissive, dark-suited protestor.
Now we have two Justices on the Supreme Court who have been accused of improper behavior toward women.
Maybe droit du seigneur will now become Federal law?
This article makes it clear - Democrats don't have a platform to run on to win elections and instead are resorting to anarchistic means to achieve their objectives. Strategically undermining institutions in this manner is even beyond Trump's verbal attacks on the media and FBI.
All I can ask - what in God's name are they thinking?
2
If by any chance the Democrats gain the majority in the Senate the McConnell Rule should be put in place.
1
Not to change the subject here, but as this issue of Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is now, ipso facto, a dead issue...and not all the Kings Horses and All the Kings Men would would change the outcome... I'd like to bring to the fore another topic that I think merits our attention.
Has anyone noticed how the President has spent a lot of time talking to authoritarian despots and leaders since he has become our unfortunate president? He met with Vladimir Putin and had a very warm and friendly visit during which a great deal of tactical information was likely passed... not from Trump but from Putin to Trump. He went to North Korea and had a chummy little visit with Kim Jung Un, and came back with NO agreement to remove the nukes, but lots of friendly nods, and now he's calling Kim Jung a very fine fellow. He visited the Chinese President (who is now the "emperor in perpetuity, collecting yet more strategic pointers. Basically, Mr. Trump is building up a portfolio of tactics that he is already using to shred our constitution and our democratic state, as I am sure he feels that we are an unruly people, an impoverished people, with out a few white men of surpassing wealth (such as himself) who merit their freedom....the rest of us do not). Donald Trump is intent on turning this nation into an authoritarian's dream... a country where he can have himself declared the Emperor of America, He's got all the good ideas he needs to do this!
1
So many years after Roe, and still so many on both sides of the aisle are terrified that it will be retained or eliminated. Perhaps this is the time to revisit Roe. If it’s tempered sufficiently, perhaps Evangelicals and others will consider changing political parties. If it’s not, the fever it’s engendered might dissipate. If this is the deepest fear of a conservative court, then the elephant in the court should be entertained. A conservative majority has historically meant favoring business interests and ignoring pressing societal conditions.
Roe would be the most profound reexamination this now conservative court could ever deliberate.
1
There’s little point in warning Democrats again some potential “extraordinary violation of constitutional and political norms” when Republicans have already proven themselves guilty of such violations several times over. When senate Republicans vowed never to consider any nominee President Obama might choose to make, that was an extraordinary violation of norms that pushed the Supreme Court nomination process into explicitly partisan territory. When they rewrote the procedural rules to appoint Justice Gorsuch, that was another.
Now, the process is irrevocably broken. All incentive for compromise and bipartisanship has been eliminated. We will never again in our lifetimes see a president appoint a justice while the senate is controlled by the opposing party, and we will never see a president appoint anyone other than a young ideological extremist. Republicans changed the rules of the game, and we shouldn’t expect Democrats to do anything other than play by them.
Impeaching a justice (or two) would indeed be unprecedented, but that doesn’t make it impossible, or wrong. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which the Mueller investigation produces evidence of multiple crimes committed by the president, and the Supreme Court is called upon to decide whether he can be indicted. If Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh did not recuse themselves from such a case, then impeachment would be not only possible, but just.
1
Mr. McConnell, and to some extent The Times, has framed this "partisan" divide as being over the sexual assault allegations. However, hundreds of people known to me believe the ultimate issues are Mr. Kavanaugh's temperament, partisanship, veracity and lack of a judicial demeanor.
Then there is the question of the 90% of Kavanaugh's papers that the Senate never saw. What was being hidden?
This is not just partisan. These are real questions that should be answered for the American people.
2
References to historical efforts to change the court seem off the mark, as none involved justices suspected of serious crimes. Unlike a sitting president, there is no doubt a sitting justice can be indicted for a felony, and ultimately jailed if guilty. If Kavanaugh has committed a serious crime, he like everyone is not above the law. This goes for Justice Ginsburg or any other justice as well. It’s a potential criminal justice issue that has nothing to do with whether his judicial temperament is suited for the court, or whether his ideology will replace legal judgment with subservient loyalty to the causes of a political party.
before expanding the court Democrats need to out McConnell, McConnell. Eliminate the filibuster completely. Democrats have never used it effectively. Republicans use it ruthlessly. Once gone, the Senate becomes a functional body once again, and the power is taken out of the hands of an obstructionist minority.
2
Republicans and their supporters have declared war on the rest of us. It is time to stop being nice. We must fight back or be buried.
1
The Democrats continue to head toward the gutter, and their only real remedy is to win elections.
After their ugly behavior in the Kavanaugh hearings and continued harassment of conservatives in public places, I'm fully energized and will vote straight Republican next month.
2
The Republicans have stolen at least two presidential elections with Bush v. Gore and Russian interference and stolen two court seats with gerrymandering and Citizens United to pack the Senate with more thieves. And yet we are encouraged to unite as a nation and engage in dialogue because “Democrats do it too”. No, we don’t. Stop the false equivalency. Vote to restore at least a partial return to a congressional check on the power of the executive and now, regrettably, the court. Blue wave in the midterms.
5
I understand that Samuel Chase, a Supreme Court Justice, ( 1800's) was impeached but not convicted.
This article brings to mind the "alter or abolish" sentence in the Declaration of Independence. Not an easy prospect to be sure. The last major alteration & abolishment came in the form of the Civil War. What we have now is an "Un-civil War" led by the least civil President.
1
An “institution that stands apart from politics”? How can she say that with a straight face after the new pretend Justice lashes out against opposition senators and basically threatened to get even with those (categories of people) who accused, questioned or criticized him?
THAT was your "best" choice, Republicans? You somehow managed to even give BEER a bad name.
1
What makes you all think President Trump is going anywhere? If FDR served three terms many wonder why a man of President Trumps caliber and business acumen shouldn't serve at least four, God willing.
2
Certainly, progressives should be considering various tactics to try to advance important issues and to resist the fascist oligarchical takeover of the government.
But while voter drives and position papers are important, they are unlikely to be effective on their own. Power has never given itself up voluntarily; it must be forced into doing so--and, unfortunately, the emphasis may have to switch more to "force".
Too often progressives have marched and yelled and gnashed teeth but have not gone the further step of putting their life and limb on the line. To a great extent their lives are still too comfortable and they fear losing that comfort, so they have not Occupied or risked arrest or jail and yes, given that the other side does have a lot of firearms, risked their own safety and lives.
And yet, the lessons of the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 60's, and of Gandhi's push for Indian independence before that, indicate that while no one has to promote violence, one has to risk being the target of violence. And yes, some people unfortunately can lose their lives in the cause. This, unfortunately, seems to be one of the few ways to generate support among the large swath of people who otherwise pay little attention and thus give silent consent to the forces of repression and reactionary-ism.
Yes, voter drives/media blitzes are the rest are all essential. But until more people are ready to put their comfortable lives on the line . . .
3
How can anyone complain that impeachment or increasing the number of justices would be "an extraordinary violation of constitutional and political norms" when all we see coming out of today's Republican party are violations of constitutional and political norms? But I'm not confident that the Democrats have the spine to stand up to those bullies.
3
Just one question for the Trump-pets in the Republican Senate.
So, since Kavanaugh was the "best" nominee you could do in getting a Supreme Court nominated - one you kept referring to as "your" Supreme Court judge - why should any patriotic American NOT run you out on a rail.
It would seem we have citizens in this country who know nothing, and care nothing, for our constitution or laws. That became obvious during the Ford/Kavanaugh 'circus' that was brought by a few Dems that leaked Dr. Ford's letter of accusation. Her letter that, merely because it accused Kavanaugh, was held to be legitimate, without evidence. Even after the FBI investigated and found nothing, this sub-group of the Dem party claimed he should not be confirmed. He was 'guilty' because some women (many) have been harassed and he was solely to pay. But, after reading this article, I believe we need to arrest these traitors to our liberties and rule of law. I do not care one iota if the court is not to 'their' liking. I do not care that they believe that DC and the courts should all be liberal - they do not reflect the majority of this country. And that the Dem party embraces them, the media exalts them, and they are given even a sentence towards legitimacy is an outrage. Just as the far right has too much say on the Rep side, this side of the Dem party is ugly and not to be tolerated.
It's clear that the left, at least the far left, does not like democracy.
If things do not go their way - on any subject, they simply wish to ignore the decision and go about their way, their program, etc. It matters little what the majority in an institution, a city, state, or country prefers.
6
With Ginsburg and Breyer in their 80's, Trump may well be able to appoint two more justices before his first term is over. How illegitimate will the Court be then?
4
As I have argued previously, the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court power to judicially repeal Acts of Congress by declaring them "unconstitutional." In the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court effectively sought to amend the Constitution without going through the prescribed process. What conservatives are hoping and liberals are dreading is that any legislation they may pass to solve serious problems facing our country and the world will promptly be nullified by the Roberts wing of the Supreme Court, rule by unelected oligarchy. A future Democratic president (or even a Republican president) should do his/her duty to faithfully execute each law unless and until it is repealed by Congress. The constitutional requirement that the president take care that the laws be faithfully executed does not contain a qualification "subject to Supreme Court approval."
I also wholeheartedly agree with the featured comment that Democrats could possibly have prevented Gorsuch and Kavanaugh from attaining seats on the Supreme Court by making a concerted effort to win senatorial elections in 2016, when more Republican than Democratic incumbents were up for re-election. Instead, they sat back and said, "We expect to win back the Senate," while failing to work to make that happen.
5
What is this...right wing comment fest? To you right wingers...pendulum of public opinion swings. So as you gloat after that disgrace on the weekend, you are already starting your downward swing. People get sick of one group being in power too long. And as the saying goes: you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
2
I want those Democrats to keep this in the news and don't stop. That way I am assured they won't get any votes!!!!!
7
Trump is 72. With his pattern of almost daily right wing demonsteations one would think he will become tired...perhaps stress illness..CVA or MI develops. He is not immortal although the devil is supposed to be. I am hoping statistics wins out.
1
Associate Justices on the left made a mistake welcoming Thomas to the court; they will be making a far greater mistake welcoming Kavanaugh to the court. Kavanaugh, beyond being a right-wing political hack, will diminish the integrity and the viability of the Supreme Court.
If I were RBG, Sotameyer, and Kagan, I would in no uncertain terms tell him he should have withdrawn his name, and having failed to do that, he should now resign. They would be supported by the vast majority of the legal profession.
As long as Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court, every decision will be called into question. He's as illegitimate as trump. He on the court to only represent the will of wealthy white American males!
38
@OldLiberal
From one white "Old Liberal" to another, well said!
The fact that you wrote this column discussing such radical measures to defend an ideology shows how badly we have failed as a nation. It is ironic and sad that anyone would stoop to taking such measures as you describe since, to do so, would destroy the function of a critical branch of our government. Demonization of conservatives in the media, and especially by the New York Times, has stirred an emotional backlash by liberals, fueled by half-truths and factually baseless attacks on individuals and conservative organizations. We have entered an era where society no longer needs facts to support its claims; whoever has the attention of the media is believed just because it’s obviously the majority view. Let’s hope there are enough intelligent people left to reject this dangerous and destructive trend and get this country back on track.
5
As much as I opposed the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh, I view it as a direct result of partisan politics. The same goes for any ridiculous measures to meddle with the current construct.
6
It is not unlikely that Trump will make one, possibly two, more nominations in the next six years. Will the Democrats consider those future Justices illegitimate as well?
7
Perhaps Congress could baffle a politically hostile Supreme Court by using the equivalent of naval "swarming" tactics: keeping new legislation coming so fast that the will of Congress would constitute the law of the land, in one incarnation or another, almost constantly.
I'm prepared to hear what's wrong with that idea, and also how it might be made to work.
1
Replacing the dead wood in Congress would be a better way to insure they do an effective job on our behalf. We don't need more legislation, we need better legislation that serves our needs. And if Congress did its job, the SC controversy would disappear because they would be able to return to the function intended by the Founders.
Not a fan of Kavanaugh and certainly feel he should have removed himself. it's not so much his right wing privileged demeanor and inability to provide judicial unbiased opinion. it's his lack of understanding the federal supreme court role and the fact he lied under oath. i fear Dems (which I am) relataliting to stack the court will be a band-aid. Conflict on both sides will never end. Our Republic as we now will be a sham. let's see what rolls out.
But as those before me wrote we (Dems) need to win elections. we need to resonate with everyone and stop just going for low hanging fruit. be consistent, listen, don't be dismissive. we can do it. We are the party of doing what's right for all Americans and for those who come to want a better life. We will need to rise up and be proud of our vision and how we are going to accomplish our goals.
Kavanaugh get ready. All eyes are upon you and will be there for your entire life time term. If it feels unsettling it's meant to be. Be human and do the right thing. Oh and if you really love and respect your daughters please let them choose their own path. Maybe you will surprise the country it's happened before.
And by the way we will stand our ground with heads held high and not go away. okay you're in thats what you wanted. Now do the right thing.
2
@Wendy Kavanaugh didn't lie under oath, he was evasive. Conversely, Ford DID in fact lie under oath. When is the NYT going to print what has been factually uncovered? I anxiously await a full investigation of this woman, but I fear it will never come now that BK has secured his seat as Chief Justice.
It's always good to enrage extremists... On both sides. The middle ground needs to fight for dominance. Enraging the extremes is the mark of reason... Wisdom...
Self-declared "liberals" (what does that mean? That they believe their opponents are against liberty?) should present news ideas instead of threatening to break stuff. Look: after 8 years of Obama, inequality had never been higher. In one sense, then, Obama's rule was worse than Bush's. From a failure of thought.
Breaking stuff, such as good manners in US politics, can go too far as the Roman civil war which started under the Gracchi brothers showed. It started politely. Yet, the Gracchi and their followers may have been too keen to break conventions and consensus (although they were right; but their rashness gave an opening to greater violence from the other side...)
Instead of going personal (Trump! Kavanaugh!), and leaving their "thinking" at that, personal name-calling, so-called self-declared "liberals" should figure out how to implement real democracy, that is, direct democracy: instead of having a few hundred people taking all the decisions, making all the laws, let's vote directly on proposals, using the Internet (as California and Switzerland do). No need then for as much importance imparted to SCOTUS, the US president or US Congress... This is what true progressives should push for.: direct democracy, direct legislating. Such a system functions very well already in Switzerland, reducing inequality!
6
It would not take 60 votes in the Senate to expand the court. The current precedent is for the Senate to change its rules when the filibuster stands in its way. The Senate can and should expand the court with a simple majority.
This is a factual error that should be corrected, even in an opinion piece.
I think the court delegitimized itself as far back as Bush v. Gore but yes it is completely beyond the pale of the country right now, and Kavanaugh is completely onboard with Trump’s insanity or acting it.
1
We know that the DNC establishment figures are poor learner due to having mirrors in front of their nose and hands on their bank accounts. However, if they could squeeze in One New Message, it's that screaming, whining, and only thinking as far as the last slogan will get them exactly what we just got with Kavanaugh.
Aren't there any minds left anywhere? Some competence. An honest group of politicians? Somewhere? The 2-string fiddle of gender and LGBT didn't/doesn't cut it. Doesn't anyone grasp that we have set the world afire and the talk is all about more oil to add to it? Neither Bernie or Warren talk foreign policy.
2
"Either step would be an extraordinary violation of constitutional and political norms."
I took the oath of office when I worked for the Department of Defense. This is the same oath that Mitch McConnell and company swore. It means something to speak these words.
"...that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same"
"...that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."
McConnell's hubris and hypocrisy have blasted constitutional and political norms out of sight already. Now it's time to work out what the new norms are.
31
@Scott Miller Remember, neither the filibuster nor the number of justices is written into the Constitution. Both can be changed by simple votes of COngress.
Kavanaugh was Trump's nomination to make. There is a constitutional remedy for Kavanaugh's transgressions and it is impeachment. As noted here, it is extremely unlikely unless 'smoking gun' evidence is revealed. And even then, in today's environment I doubt the Republicans would accept it as such. One unlikely possibility is that with such evidence, a deal might be struck to nominate a conservative judge in his place. This is nearly inconceivable in our current climate but would show both sides working together to repair our institutions.
But in my view, the real issue is Merrick Garland. Denying his nomination WAS court packing. It was done as a gamble but is nevertheless undoubtedly an attempt to pack the court. The remedy is to add a justice named Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It can be debated whether two should be added but adding one is certainly symmetrical and, importantly, constitutional. It will no more delegitimize the court than the denial of Garland's nomination did. In fact, I believe it restore it.
It will be hard to do but worth the effort.
4
As I read through the comments as well as many of the articles in the papers, everyone is talking about impeachment, court packing, legislative shifts, etc as a means to fix the issues at hand. Are those ideas truly the best way forward?
The rules of decency and civilty are broken. This is truly a nightmare. But if we just continue to react —Instead of hitting the pause button and thinking through all the complications and ramifications — I fear we will go nowhere as a civilization. This will continue on in perpetuity if we don’t figure out how to work together? Isn’t that truly the question we need to be asking?
There is so much hate and pain right now, that I am not sure we can even begin to process what we have experienced as a nation. It feels like a personal violation on so many deep and profound levels.
Maybe the journalists ,citizens and government officials need to spend some time figuring out some positive ideas how to help heal this great divide.( We know we can’t count on Trump) Perhaps one small baby step suggestion is that we begin to work from a place of ideas we share ( concepts of commonality) instead of those we don’t.
I don’t have all the answers. All I know is that we have entered dangerous territory and perpetuating hate and lies, screaming empty threats, not fulfilling promises, are not going to help us move forward.
7
"Delegitimizing" is what you do when you cannot win elections but want to remain relevant. In the progressives' perfect little world, everything would be perfect if their opponents could just be stopped. Problem is they are willing to destroy anything or anyone to achieve that end. That's hardly a path to utopia.
4
So many scary and irrational thoughts here. None based on fact or logic. This is why the democrats don’t win elections — the average person doesn’t subscribe to their shrillness and hate.
7
@Dan Denisoff
There is a highly self-delusional aspect to progressives' approach to politics. It will be the ruin of democrats. The media, however, will gladly milk it financially.
6
@Dan Denisoff- Excuse me? The dems? Is not Trump the KING of shrillness and hate?
1
What absoluter twaddle. The Court is hardly impartial and this latest addition to the Court has emphatically stated that he has a venomous hatred of all those who identify with the Democratic party.
Kavanaugh must be impeached. Given that the 2016 election was engineered by the Russians , Trump must go along with the rest of a traitorous GOP that has brought this country to its knees with its collusion , lies , and a base that caters to the super rich and the corporate oligarchy. The 98% are drowning and the 2% are gloating. VOTE
2
@Laurence Voss
This post provides an insight into why the democrats are in serious trouble.
- Kavenaugh said no such thing (venomous hatred? Really?)
- The Russians engineered no such thing. Please, Hillary spent 3/4 of a billion. She was a lousy candidate, get over it
- If you have evidence of traitorous behavior by all means share.
- The super rich include the Clintons, Soros and a bunch of liberal silicon valley types as well as senators and congressmen. Do you hate them too?
You are why Trump will win in 2020
6
On the chance that you’re not a troll, Kavanaugh claimed it was the Clinton’s revenge and a Democratic hit job neither supported by any evidence . The entire intelligence community verified Russian intelligence interference. Clinton certainly wasn’t the best candidate but please correct your other misinformation.
1
Just a little change in the filibuster rule to be able to pass the 51 vote margin, then Voila! 15 SCOTUS seats. Easy Peazy. There are no rules, only whatabouts. Sure the Republicans can get in and create 21 seats, and at some point it will be so absurd that it won't matter anymore and maybe that is best.
Its time for the Democrats to take a look inward and ask themselves what has happened to their Party. The anger and scorn shown during the Kavanaugh hearing was not very good for their Party. The use of Natifa and ACCORN in the demonstrations is disgusting. The actions of Senators like Booker, Hirono were appalling. Is this the direction that the Party is taking for its future? My belief is the Party will learn a lesson in November that this direction will not be tolerated. No-one needs the hate and discord being shown by some of it's Party members!
9
The battleground is now the senate, starting with Mitch McConnell. Do not assume he is invulnerable. He needs donors; most donors need their customers or clients. Let's start with KFC---Kentucky Fried Chicken. KFC sponsored an inaugural bash for Mitch McConnell after Trump was elected and McConnell took kudos there for thwarting Obama's moves, including blocking Merrick Garland. The NYT published a picture of Colonel Sanders grinning with McConnell. Americans, put down the chicken and let KFC know why.
This type of boycott should be particularly resounding to all African Americans reading this. KFC could not exist with African Americans buying their product; Martin Luther King taught us a long time ago the power of a boycott.
I don't eat fried chicken in general, but even if I am tempted, I NEVER set foot in KFC, after seeing that picture with McConnell.
Get the picture at the Times website and make that a rallying call in every email you send to a friend. Stop McConnell in his tracks. Cut off his money.
4
@Sierra "This type of boycott should be particularly resounding to all African Americans reading this. KFC could not exist with African Americans"
Did you really just write that?! Oh my gawd! That is the epitome of stereotypical racism! This is absolutely baseless!
I'm stunned. And you call yourself a liberal.
@sandy
First, I never once used the word that I was liberal. I think it is you who is doing the stereotyping.
Secondly, I am African American, have spent my life growing up in many poor African American neighborhoods that have a KFC on almost every corner. There is no question that the fast food industry---McDonald's, KFC, etc. locate in and cater to poor, black neighborhoods.
KFC advertises heavily in Ebony, Essence and other periodicals and media outlets designed to reach the African American consumer. We index high on their sales.
So don't confuse facts with prejudice...indeed that is only what true racists do.
With the new religious Supreme Court, we're headed for thirty years of backward evolution toward what will become the Second Dark Ages. It looks gloom, but there is hope. In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer, which will be based on a "survival" algorithm. This model brain will provide irrefutable proof as to how we have tricked our survival program with our ridiculous beliefs about just what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. When we see this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity. See RevolutionOfReason.com
2
Stating that we will return to sanity implies that we are presently insane. Yes Virginia, the world is truly crazy (i.e. self-destructive)
1
Remaking the court would be a mistake. The only thing Democrats need to do to protect our laws is to LEGISLATE. As long as new legislation is thoughtful and does not violate the Constitution, it shouldn’t be a problem. The reason the court has grown so powerful is because Congress refuses to do its job - they are much more focused on stoking partisan flames and remaining in the pockets of the super wealthy than in the tough, tough work of compromise and consensus building.
6
Less talk...more action. The kids from Parkland are still doing amazing things, but who gets the headlines? Trump.
Democrats have to get noisy. They need to review what make the demonstrations of the 60's that moved our nation out of Southeast Asia and the Vietnam war.
We DO have voices. Let them be heard.
And don't forget the power of the vote. When polls show that that the MAJORITY of Americans want gun control, humane immigration regulation, NO Kavenaugh, real health care protections, freedom for women to own their bodies, then why to we have a government that doesn't listen? Because almost half of American voters don't exercise their right to vote, which is both a gift and a responsibility.
Speak out. Don't relent. Don't move on to the next shiny object.
VOTE!
3
Liberals are interesting. They are so obsessed with forcing the rest of us to accept their agenda that they really don't seem to see what they are doing to themselves.
The mid term elections might bell be bad for them, due exclusively to their own antics. Which raises the question: given that court packing seems to be acceptable to them on principle, why would the Republicans not engage in the exact same practice? "Because, because ..." Because why exactly?
8
@Michael James Cobb
How was denying Merrick Garland's nomination not 'forcing the rest of us to accept their agenda'?
And 'exclusively' --- the Republicans did nothing untoward in Kavanaugh's nomination? The timing of the release of documents, the fast pace, etc.? In your view, was any of this inappropriate?
2
These interesting and generally point-on comments prove that the first step is to vote Republicans out of Congress.
What else is immediately before us?
3
From supremecourt.gov: The number of Justices on the Supreme Court changed six times before settling at the present total of nine in 1869. Since the formation of the Court in 1790, there have been only 17 Chief Justices* and 101 Associate Justices, with Justices serving for an average of 16 years."
Packing the court to 11 will just result in retaliation. Make the number, say, 23 justices. This is just retaking what was stolen by McConnell and a President "elected" by a minority of voters and Senators representing a minority of voters. Also Republicans have done a much "better" job of gerrymandering so that they can tie in the House by getting about 8% fewer votes than Democrats. California, alone, could be gerrymandered to remove all, or nearly all (14?) Republican representatives as 2/3 of the voters vote Democratic. They don't gerrymander now. Every time people site Democratic gerrymandering they site Maryland. Republicans gerrymander everywhere they can.
2
The best thing to do would be to give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt. He may rise to the occasion and prove himself to be a decent member of the court. All of us are improved versions of who we were in high school, some of us, like about 98% of men, continued to mature and become better persons well into our forties. He seems to be a pretty good example of this. We’ve treated the guy horribly, and it might be us who benefits the most from not gearing up to undermine him before he’s even done anything. Of course, if he proves partisan and ultra conservative, we need to get him off the court, but let’s pause for a moment and give him a chance. We elected the man whom put him there, the best solution is to use the vote to turn this disaster around.
6
As usual the Democrats having lost this fight now are talking of impeaching Kavanaugh or packing the court .A shrewd attempt at bringing the divided country together.The Democrats on the judiciary committee should be in prison for what they tried to do.
9
"And a previous attempt at court packing, by President Franklin . . . is broadly seen as having been misguided." Broadly seen by whom and for what reasons? And what should we think of the Republican refusal to act on Obama's Court nomination, ultimately leading to packing the court with conservatives?
1
Let the Dems waste their time on a lost cause while we continue with our agenda.
If they weren't so emotional and easily distracted they'd be much tougher to beat.
9
Why all of this fear? The media...
If newspapers and television news outlets continue down this destructive path (with articles like this or politically biased news), they may make some money initially with all of the hysteria. However, in the end, we will all lose. We will lose everything we consider normal including freedom of the press.
News media outlets needs to report the news, real news, accurately.
10
I think the dems need to put this aside for the time being and focus on winning the elections in November. I think they need a clear set of principles and proposals focusing on ending war and economic justice. These are the only issues they can win on in certain states. And they need to be loud and clear on this--and leave the Kavanaugh business for later.
In the last campaign, Bernie Sanders knew how to talk to people in the red states. He showed respect and didn't call people deplorable. They LIKED him. And even though everyone was saying it was unrealistic and naive, his proposal of a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is now common. I think the dems should take a page from his playbook and bring it to the elections. They must prove to the people that the current administration is not working in their interest. Then, if they gain a majority in the senate and house, there will be a counterbalance to the reactionary court. That will be the time to advance the progressive cultural agendas. But if people focus on that now, I fear all will be lost. The republicans have figured out how to elect candidates with a proven history of sexual harassment so I don't think it will work to focus on gender in the coming elections.
7
“We’re going to get those documents that are shielded from view, and they will provide further proof that he lied,” Mr. Fallon said.
Hey, I know where they are!
The are underneath Hillary's 33,000 missing emails.
In the basement.
On the shelf above the server.
7
Funny! I wonder if Merrick Garland is down there too?
@GCE
Nah, I looked.
Merick is hanging with Chuck Schumer who once declared in the Senate that he would not permit lame duck George Bush's appointment pick to the Court.
What goes around, comes around. I think Kavanuagh just said that.
2
An easier way if there is a Democratic president.
Presidents have retained the right to make signing statements saying they can ignore what Congress decides. Why can't they also ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court if they disagree with them.
If the SC is going to become just another political body without even the merest veneer that it is nonpartisan, it should be treated with the lack of respect it deserves.
3
If you want a Banana Republic, you want a party formerly out of power putting all their political opponents on trial when they get into power.
I thought we were better than that.
11
Politics aside, I am horrified by what our country has become. Civilized discourse has given way to partisan babble. We are allowing the Russians and others to influence us because we are consumed by hate. No matter what party you belong to or for whom you voted, this is a sad time for the USA. G-d bless America..we surely need it now.
9
Another so-called journalist venting and making threats under the guise of journalism. No wonder Trump makes fun of them.
13
Did Mr. Savage not study history, or did he just take this article from a conservative think tank? FDR's attempts to pack the court were very successful. His goal was not to add justices for the sake of adding justices - it was to prevent the courts from striking down his new deal programs. While the article manages to get to this by the end, it still frames FDR's actions as an unsuccessful.
8
Democrats would do well to ask themselves how many impeachment inquiries they can reasonably mount at once—assuming of course that investigators give them grounds to mount any at all. Even if they were to impeach both Kavanaugh and Trump, they would most likely find themselves with replacements who were no better on policy. They need to win elections. That is the only real way out of our present nightmare.
68
You democrats call down the rain ,then complain when you get wet! If you're going to start a fight go start it within you're own party!,that's where the real villains are located!!
6
@UCB Parent
Yeah, I'm really excited to vote, knowing that the vote of some guy in North Dakota has 2.5 times the weight of my vote.
1
I hear North Dakota is a beautiful place.
3
It should be obvious to the most causal observer, the only people talking about impeachment are republicans and the press.
Also, no one should consider what any person associated with Miss Hillary as gospel. They didn't speak for the base before and sure don't now. They brought the disaster trump to the White House by simply refusing to listen.
If Democrats do secure the House and Senate, they should look earnestly at every court decision and create legislation to take the wind out of the court's sails.
For instance, corporate personhood can easily be defeated by legislation addressing the issues the court used to make their decision valid. Remove the pillars the justices issued and the support for their decision falls.
Remember, Congress writes the laws and the court interprets their meaning. So Congress needs to make bullet proof legislation that the justices can't draw conclusions supporting a conservative agenda that the Congress did not intend.
That means Democrats need to be legislators of the first order.
90
@Coyote Old Man - Does your problem with corporations being allowed equal constitutional rights also include unions and their political machinations?
1
@Coyote Old Man I fully agree. Congress' legislative power is the constitutional check on a Supreme Court's partisan bias. Flawed decisions, like the Hobby Lobby and AFSME decisions, and certainly Citizens United, can be corrected with tightly written legislation, including protection of a sensible immigration reform. On to the election and the end of a do-nothing Trumpian House and Senate!
1
@Coyote Old Man
There is nothing wrong with your suggestions about the need for good legislation. But the gang of five on the Supreme Court, starting with when it operated under Scalia's "leadership," has been happy to throw precedent and Constitutional interpretation under the bus to get to their unprecedented interference with American norms to justify their pro-reactionary right wing and big corporate and big wealth and Republican pronouncements and things have only gotten worse with the appointments of Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, much worse. Those fearing that they will ignore legislation just like they did with campaign finance restrictions in Citizens United, legislation separating church and state with Holly Hobby, and the Civil Rights Act, and will interfere in what should have been political decisions as they did in Bush v. Gore, have good reason to be concerned that they will demolish any legislation enacted by Democratic majorities.
The reactionary right wing, like present day Republicans, are most noted for their adamant hypocrisy. While saying legislation is paramount, they do the opposite when it pleases them to do so.
At this point our biggest hope is Roberts, and that is nothing anyone should feel comfortable about relying on.
1
More radical ways to fight Kavanaugh?! Whoa....ok....
Dear Democratic Senators, Congressmen, Tom Perez, ET AL., where’s the creativity? The Dems must do an about face. Enough Weltschmerz.
Republicans are strangling, suffocating, destroying, devouring our democracy. Ok, that we know. So, where is the Democratic Party’s response via head’s on bull horn rebuttal, but via mostly creativity?
The Democrats need to broadcast the 21st century because the Republicans are heading us back to 1950. Show people how they do not want to go back there. Persuade. We must appeal with humor and cool creativity. People love humor.
Recently the Dems have been stuck in head hanging, intellectual high-brow analysis, complaining about how awful the Republicans are. Yeah, they are. Are we just trying to show Republicans how smart we are compared to them? Yeah, we are. So? That’s a waste of time.
Ok, now what? Ari Melber on MSNBC is really making a very strong statement with his invitees. Terrific! Take note. Try a new jig!
Let’s get to it. We have no time to lose.
7
I find it interesting that the Democrats want to follow in the footsteps of Victor Orban and Anderzej Duda in deligitimizing the judiciaries of their respective countries. Apparently it is not Trump that wants to fashion America in the mold of authoritarian European regimes but the Democrats!
9
Enough is enough.. No excuses.. All House Democrats, Senators and anyone else out there throwing stones at Kavanaugh, need judged by the same processes.. Let's start all the investigations now, going back to birth!! Each and every one of you!! My bet is none of you pass muster!!!
Any women out there know of any Democrats in power that may have any less than perfect behavior, in high school or college, or even now?? Speak up please.
10
@Enough I went to an elite East coast University. I graduated in 1980. I doubt any of my graduating class, male or female, could pass muster under these new rules we seem to play by these days. We were partying fools, leaving the campus littered with beer cups every weekend. Somehow, we stopped doing that after graduation and became reasonable citizens... growing up does that to a person. Where are the rational folks out there. We need a new movement #sorryIwasanadolescent
7
@La Bollila - The drinking isn’t the problem. It’s the sexual assault and lying-under-oath parts that are, you know, less than acceptable.
1
We can't go on with any hope of being considered a world leader and democratic society with Trump in power, nor can we allow Mitch McConnell and his minions to run rampant over our Constitution. The Constitution does make it tough for progressives to take power in the Senate, but not impossible. It is time to quit pretending that any of this is normal. The last two Republican presidents were installed with less than the popular vote and interference from outside powers: the Supreme Court and Russia. 65% of the country wanted Merrick Garland on the Court. Increase the seats on the Court to 11 (which is Constitutional), and get on with the Russia investigations, clean up our pathetic systems of voter suppression, educate our kids and rejoin the world community. For starters.
10
I agree with Mr. Savage for one additional reason: Kavanaugh is a gift.
Mr. Kavanaugh may very well represent the high water mark of repressive and authoritarian politics masquerading as social conservatism and expose it as such. How can that be?
1) We now have a Justice representing the embodiment of a political party willing to a) corrupt the (perceived) impartiality of the SCOTUS, and b) overtly ignore and belittle women's right's to life, liberty and happiness. Said party's ability to claim the Constitutional Originalist mantle or place a woman on a political ticket as cover is over.
2) The Republican confirmation of a privileged white male when the nation will be minority Caucasian in 2045 (2027 for the 18-29 year old demographic) and is already minority male, ensures an ability to rightfully tag the party as out of touch for 25+ years. Doubtful of this? Consider that Nike would never have made Mr. Kaepernick the centerpiece of its latest ad campaign if it weren't the case.
3) Consider that Roe v. Wade has been the glue holding the political-right together for the past 40 years. Its likely overturn will return the debate to the state level, and cease to unify a disparate national Republican caucus.
The battle has been lost. Re-fighting it only serves to undermine the overall effort and ceases to recognize the gift that has been given to populist activists nationwide. Don't attempt to topple Mr. Kavanaugh...prop him up!
30
To characterize the SCOTUS majority as “… justices who were appointed by presidents who achieved office despite losing the popular vote…” is a lame excuse and an irrational claim. A field goal kicker can kick as many goals he can but he will not be rewarded if the ball does not go through the goalpost with stipulated dimensions, 10.5 feet to be exact. No appointee sits on the Supreme Court bench who is appointed by a President who failed to get a majority in the Electoral College. And, that is the goalpost that presidential candidates need to clear.
Why limit the rules to legal voters? California not only has the largest legal voters but it has the largest illegal population larger than its legals. If they voted, Jerry Moonbeam Brown would have become the President beating Clinton in a heartbeat.
The apparent plurality of conservative leaning judges in the SCOTUS is marginal and unreliable in the long term. President Trump must work diligently on impeaching Ruth Bader Ginsburg for lack of judicial temperament and appointing a truly conservative justice who will give a more comfortable margin in reversing Roe v. Wade and stop terrible traditions like affirmative action. (After all, at least all 'men' are created equal, right?)
3
What about simply doing what is done in Canada, and most other countries with functioning court systems within the context of a democratic government, and selecting judges by means of a merit-based process that is less nakedly political?
7
Two out of the last three Presidents were put in place by a minority of voters and went on to appoint Supreme Court Justices to lord and rule over the majority that do not support them or their views. European countries know how this ends (not well) and that minority rule - especially by ideological extremists - must be avoided.
7
US Supreme Court "balancing" has always been a part of the American political fabric.
In 1863 the Radical Republicans with President Lincoln in Office added a seat to the Supreme Court making it a 10 member court, and not 9. This was to make sure the North continued success in the Civil War.
After Lincoln's assassination, a Republican Congress reduced the US Supreme Court from 10 to 7 members. Thus, President Andrew Johnson was prohibited from making any new appointments. During President Grant's administration, the Supreme Court went back to 9 members by an act of Congress.
But go back to the original Judiciary Act of 1789, when there were just 6 members of the Court. President Adams and Congress cut it back to 5, thus prohibiting President Jefferson from making a new appointment.
Then President Jefferson and Congress increased the US Supreme Court to 7 instead of 5 in 1807.
The current Republican controlled US Senate denied President Obama's nomination of Federal Circuit Justice Merrick Garland a hearing, much less a vote. This Constitutional wrong can be remedied by the addition of 2 Justices to the Supreme Court in 2021 with a Democratic controlled House and Democratic President.
Contrary to Mr. Savage's analysis, this would not be a "step [that] would be an extraordinary violation of constitutional and political norms."
Balancing and rectifying the number of Justices on the US Supreme Court has historical precedent. And it is American as Apple Pie.
99
@AHM California
How about limiting the tenure of any Supreme Court justice? Provide them lifetime income from their swearing in date, but limit their time to 20 or 30 years or 90 years in age? The justices would have staggered time in office (would require grandfathering the current justices), so not more than 2 justices would or could be sworn in any 4 year period. If a justice leaves before their tenure date (such as from death or disability), a justice could be nominated and confirmed to full fill the term of the justice who is leaving. And the US Senate should restore the 60 vote confirmation requirement. Compromise and decency plus mutual respect is required, eh? Alter Senate rules, so ignoring a nomination such as Merrick Garland would not be permitted.
1
@AHM California I would disagree. When someone proposes "if Democrats were to retake control of Congress and the White House in 2020 or after — expanding the number of justices on the court to pack it with liberals or trying to impeach, remove and replace Justice Kavanaugh" we are talking about an extreme violation of the constitution. We are not talking about increasing or decreasing the members on the court by one or two justices. Please, read again. Of course I sense you don't care as long as the courts are stacked with 'liberals' but it is worth caring about.
Battling on the wrong field, the Democrats need to decide who they represent and develop legislative proposals that will draw the voters back who see little attraction in their existing appeals.
There is a diminished damaged Middle Class still in need of help and hope many of whom fell for Trumps promises and are waiting for leadership. Find them – lead them as you once knew how to do. Elect the young progressives they have a vision.
7
Former Chief Justice Rehnquist's recommendation of the "right way" to determine the composition of the Supreme Court -- by electing the presidents one wants to appoint its members -- was rendered moot when the Senate refused to even grant a hearing to Merrick Garland (or to any other nominee then-President Obama might have put forward). The Democrats would be entirely justified in adding two Supreme Court justices when they next take power, in order to right the wrong of Senate Republicans' abrogation of their Constitutional duty.
But American politics as a whole increasingly fails to reflect the will of the people. Aside from the inordinate influence of money in politics, the ongoing population shift to cities means that the Constitution's mandate of two senators for each state -- regardless of population -- runs more and more afoul of the concept of "one person, one vote." The Senate itself risks losing legitimacy as a democratic institution when there is such a huge population disparity between states such as California and Wyoming.
The same could be said for an electoral college that allows a president into office with less votes than the opponent. And extensive gerrymandering of Congressional districts effectively disenfranchises many Americans in determining the composition of the House of Representatives.
Our political problems may manifest themselves as "polarization," but more deeply they reflect disaffection with a system that doesn't truly represent the people.
17
I think it is more than likely that Kavanaugh's past discretions will still do him in. I don't believe we have heard the full scope of what he has done and I have no doubt that there is an on-going search for factual evidence by the Democrats and others. After all, the FBI "investigation" was a set-up and a sham, so there undoubtedly is more to know.
I trust the truth will eventually set us free from this improper appointment.
99
@Marty You heard lies. But did you hear proof? Did you see evidence?
5
Not yet. Yes sir, not just yet.
3
@Marty
There is little doubt that Clarence Thomas perjured himself during his hearings and has been serving for 25 years. Don't bet on Kavanaugh going anywhere for a long, long time.
I recall how the mouths of our fourth estate went collectively agape during the 2016 election when Donald Trump said that he might not accept the outcome of the vote if it showed him losing, because he knew that it was being rigged in Hillary's favor. This attitude was decried, appropriately, as a threat to democratic norms.
Please explain to me how we have not been seeing, for the past almost two years, complete and total hypocrisy on this issue from the "resistance" and their mouthpieces in outlets like this paper, WaPo, CNN, NPR, all three major networks.
Self-righteous cries of "not my president!" or "not my scotus!" and all of the amplification that they will get in op-ed pieces written by columnists like Michelle Goldberg and Charles Blow will accomplish far more in the way of inflaming political division and civil disorder than Russia could ever have hoped to cause by opening up some fake Facebook accounts.
11
@Middleman MD
The media and pundits are now financially dependent on divisiveness. They will work diligently to keep the Ford vs. Kavanaugh issue alive. It's called "job security."
With all of this talk of impeaching Kavanaugh, I wish that the NYT would note that it does not even seem possible. The US Constitution states that Supreme Court justices shall serve "during good behavior...." How can one argue that one can impeach a justice for pre-confirmation conduct under this clause?
The fact is that the Senate considered the allegations against Kavanaugh - for assaulting and for lying - and confirmed him. Any attempt at impeaching him for pre-confirmation conduct would be unconstitutional.
8
"a previous attempt at court packing, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt after a conservative-dominated Supreme Court rejected important parts of his New Deal initiatives during the Great Depression, is broadly seen as having been misguided."
Yes, in a previous era, 80 years ago, this was "misguided". After McConnell refused to even consider, much less vote on Merrick Garland, and the removal of a 60 vote requirement to confirm a LIFETIME appointment to the Supreme Court, the "rules" and the world has changed and I don't think that "misguided" is a word I'd use when trying to restore the balance in the supreme court to reflect the people of the USA, not the gerrymandered minority that elected Trump and confirmed Gorsuch and Kavanauch.
5
FDR’s court packing - far from “misguided” - saved the New Deal. Stop uncritically accepting things you read in the media.
9
@LG
I’m all for it. Of course you’re going to need a Democratic President and House plus at least 66 Democratic Senators. How about we work on that first?
2
The obstruction by Mitchell to putting Garland to a vote and then changing the votes needed to confirm a Supreme Court nomination from 60 Senators to 50 seem like the twin attacks that started the war and will be viewed in hindsight as both corrupt and penny wise and pound foolish. Demographics are of the Democrats side (not to mention the fact that Republicans stand for nothing on principle but for “party-first” and eventually their voters will figure it out). And when the Democrats inevitably take over Congress, Republicans will have earned every under-the-table trickery the Dems throw at them. I say this as a registered Independent of 20 years.
6
I guess it’s pointless to remind the commenters that it was Harry Reid who broke senate precedent by changing the 60 vote mandate for the judiciary......
But who cares about facts. Certainly not liberals.
9
@Jonny
Liberal history only goes back to the last fact that corroborates their position. All others are ignored or simply dismissed as "lies."
Their decades-long unbridled greed for money and power has resulted in a hollowed-out Republican party with nothing but moral rot at its core.
Fortunately for the country this rot makes unsustainable their tyranny-of-the minority efforts to dismantle brick by brick the institutions that form the bedrock of our democratic republic.
The country will right itself by fine-tuning the efforts of the founding fathers by, for example, doing away with the hopelessly anachronistic electoral college, and removing the determination of legislative districts from the political parties.
4
First these are not "conservatives". Conservatives conserve, these are far right wing political agents chosen to be reliable far right wing agents of the Trump Party of which they are but one part. They appointed their way into dominance in 2000 with the worst ruling since Dred Scott. They gleefully accepted nominations from the second Presidential loser of the 21st century.
Most of all their party machine has already packed the court. They blocked the previous administration from its rightful choice of nominee. They claim they will go ahead in 2020 if they have a Senate majority. So their established McConnell precedent is that the ruling party can do anything it wants. When in control of the Senate but not the Executive they can block anything they want. In other words an new justice can happen if and only if one party (theirs) controls both the Senate and the Whitehouse.
This is not how the original Constitution works but it is the amendment McConnell passed without authorization. So I say Democrats, pact the hell of the Court which has lost most meaning anyway. Let the Supreme Court go back to being what it was originally meant to be at the time of signing, simply the highest trial and appeals court in the land. Full stop.
5
@DanielMarcMD:
As you know from the Hippocratic oath, Truth is the fundamental and sacred basis of the practice of medicine. Right? You should surely know, having surely professed it...
I regret your perception of “the left”. We, the majority, call us what you will, absolutely oppose railroading a Supreme Court Justice through the system. As it was managed by anxious and self serving Republican Senators, the proceedings were obvious breaches of fundamental democracy.
The majority of Americans will seek, and will find: the truth. The truth always prevails. The truth may appear now, later or even much later: but there it will be. Make no mistake about that. Read your history books. The truth never fails to be revealed.
Winston Churchill, who suffered no fools, said: “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
6
Get over it and stop all this talk of impeachment, it's pitiful. You got out maneuvered yet again and this whining doesn't do anything but delight the opposition.
Start focusing on the future and that begins with voter turnout this November. Millennials, immigrants, Hispanics and black voters better turn out in record numbers or it will get a lot worse over the next two years. Lay off the identity politics and focus on issues that all people value; health care, education, income inequality, Social Security and Medicare.
Stop pouting and step up. There's a dangerous demented fool in the White House and, so far, he's winning.
14
@Lou Good - “Millennials, immigrants, Hispanics and black voters better turn out..”
Because they only vote Democrat? Can you paint my basement with that broad brush?
6
Stop! Enough Americans feel there are times when abortion is not a “sin.” Let’s focus our generational legacy on a constitutional amendment to protect the individual right to decide when the Conceptus becomes a life. That is possible, and the soundest recourse to preserve our Democracy!
1
Once one party holds up a nomination that legitimately belongs to a sitting president, I’d say the boundaries have already been broken. If the legal elites don’t like the current trend toward court packing or impeachments, they should have lined up to prevent the damage that has already been done.
Yes, I’m very much in favor of court packing as a response. It’s called stand your ground. May be the threat of it will clear the heads of the legal elites and force them to fashion a better, more fair selection process that avoids dueling extremism. Until that happens, I’m not in favor of unilateral disarmament.
55
@Jazz Paw "Belongs" to a President. What belongs to the President is the right of nomination. There is no guarantee of confirmation. Boundaries. That and read your Constitution.
1
@Jazz Paw
I trust the legitimate nomination you have in mind was Obama's of Garland. Surely you do not mean Trump's minority presidency and his nomination of the criminal just certified by congress. Or do you?
@Jazz Paw But that nomination was held up because of Biden years ago. It would seem what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. Court packing is NOT legitimate.
Kavanaugh lied under oath. Impeaching him wouldn't "turn the law upside down."
6
A large problem with our government is that people who exert tremendous control over our government frequently represent a minority of the voters. President Trump lost the popular vote by over 2 million. The Republicans in the Senate do not even begin to represent a majority of the people. California has about 30 million citizens, Maine has less than a million. A citizen of Maine has more than 30 times the power than a citizen of California. There is a movement in California to leave the US.
5
Until we get rid of gerrymandering and the electoral college, most everything that happens politically is illegitimate as it does not reflect the will of the majority. How can we get rid of those two things? Ideas? Anybody?
5
@H
It's quite simple. Refight the Civil War,.
Whoever wins this time, either cuts the other side loose, or has the staying power to complete reconstruction.
1
It is time to end the lifetime appointment for the Supreme Court. New Justices should be appointed for 8 years subject to confirmation and can serve an additional 8 by re-appointment without confirmation. 16 years is plenty.
I would also suggest we rotate the Chief Justice position among the sitting members a term at a time.
These two actions could, over time, lessen the hyper partisan aspect of confirmation.
14
If the filibuster is retired at the beginning of the congress, wouldn’t it only require a simple majority to increase the number of SCOTUS justices?
Regardless of party there are too few justices now, and our SCOTUS suffers from a form of regulatory capture. Doubling or even tripling the court will make it far more costly for any party to create a coherent anti-democratic voting block. Picking these additional justices will have to be done in a bipartisan manner or it will be as illegitimate as the present SCOTUS.
1
Please consider qualifying all mention of “Liberals” and “Conservatives” with a small but important word: some. We can’t make things seem even more divided by generalizing the actions and opinions of a few.
7
@Michael Very wrong choice of word. It should be "most", not "some". Let's at least not be in denial.
Democrats sure are sore losers.
Couldn't defeat Kavanaugh with uncorroborated, evidence-free charges of sexual assault, rape, gang rape, pedophilia, etc.? Well, then, let's stack the Supreme Court. Or send more Soros-paid minions to pound on the doors of the Supreme Court or confront Senators in elevators. Or maybe stamp our feet.
As a life-long Democrat I am disgusted with the so-called Democratic leaders and their phoney-baloney attempt to derail Kavanaugh's confirmation, a blatant exercise in political theater rather than a sincere search for truth and justice.
We must face it, Kavanaugh has been confirmed and is now a Justice of the Supreme Court; fighting him is a waste of time. Let's stop the nonsense, get serious and focus our efforts on getting out the vote next month and in 2020, the best way to exercise--and achieve--Democratic power.
18
@Ro Ma
How can there be any corroboration when 8 out of 9 interviewees (excluding Deborah Ramirez) are Kavanaugh's friends? When the FBI won't investigate the other claims? If you don't look, how can you know?
It's not a waste of time to remove a stain.
7
@Tedj Those interviewed were named by Ford as witnesses. When Ramirez’s story first broke, she herself admitted that she wasn’t sure if it had been Kavanaugh, but that after a week thinking about it and talking with lawyers, she felt she could publicly accuse Kavanaugh. It’s ugly stuff, no matter your political stripes, and does nothing to advance our society.
I hope that Ford’s story (even though its insertion in this hearing was misguided) will nevertheless empower current or future victims to come forward immediately.
@Ro Ma Well said—thank you.
Enough with breaking mos maiorum or this country will fall apart.
2
A minority of Americans is now imposing their view on the majority. And on top of that, these Red Staters are being financially supported by the Blue Staters. Something will have to give. And it won't be pretty.
13
I cannot believe the comments from republicans. Grow up, this is not about winning or losing. This is about dishonest, debased principals expounded by this republican government. This quote says it best, 'Holding onto anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.' Never have I seen such a deluded bunch of republicans take the reins of government in this country aided by a singularly blinded swathe of voters who seem empowered by hatred and nothing else.
16
This reeks of sore loserism and victimhood. Run better candidates and win some elections.
Some advice, Kamala Harris isn’t your first best option.
26
@Midwest Josh As a general rule I do not accept unsolicited advice from republicans. I will make an exception this time. You are 100% correct.
Kamala Harris would be a bigger disaster than the Hillary Clinton fiasco. The advantage democrats have is the rank and file are no longer willing to accept an insider-elite appointed candidate. They will stop her from being nominated.
To paraphrase Trebek (my boy!) ---So sorry, republicans. You are not going to get to run against another anointed candidate.
As if we need more proof that Democrats are willing to sacrifice all in the the naked thirst for power. Disgusting.
20
The problem is, that liberals did things the "right" way and got screwed over by a party that cares for nothing but power. We had the Presidency for 16 of the last 24 years - that should have been enough to get a few years of liberal majority on the courts. But that opportunity was stolen by Mitch McConnell.
Add to that a President who is probably only President because he encouraged a foreign power to hack and subvert our democracy - which they did quite successfully. So two justices seated by an illegitimate President one seat was basically twice stolen.
And when people get angry about this, do the conservatives offer anything approaching an olive branch? No they go on taking advantage to the hilt of their minority power. The only power this government has over me anymore is force, it is illegitimate almost from top to bottom. (At least the Senate can claim history and tradition as the source of their minority rule.)
10
@Mark Yes, Dianne Feinstein certainly did things the "right" way.
7
The Supreme Court is apolitical. period.
3
Quite the opposite. It is an extension of the two parties
Just watch Kavanaugh’s “rebuttal” to Blassey Ford’s testimony, and you’ll see hyper partisanship at its most blatant. “What goes around comes around.”
7
@cA327
It is more apolitical than democrats want their voters to know. There's a reason they jumped over decades of experience, including 12 years of unblemished judicial decisions and writings, to Kavanaugh's emails during the Bush Administration. They desperately needed to make this partisan. No surprise, they've had to go back decades in their efforts.
Oh, for the love of Pete. Americans need to know when to quit. You want to rip and shred at the fabric of our country...go ahead and make this a goal and add to the damage done by Trump. Seems like each side is striving for the Pyrrhic victory: a victory that is offset by staggering losses. WAKE UP PEOPLE. We have a country to preserve or we will end up like a third rate autocracy.
12
I think the Republicans have done a pretty good job of it already.
5
The mistake that every one of America's institutions that uphold ethics, morality, and the law made after that other deviant, Clarence Thomas, was confirmed to the Supreme Court, was determining that they had no recourse against him.
In the case of the Senate Republicans' miscarriage of justice in voting Brett Kavanaugh to the Court, those judicious institutions -- the F.B.I., the American Bar Association, the Supreme Court itself, and many others -- must not repeat the Thomas mistake.
In every ethical measure, Kavanaugh is an Undeserving Supreme Court Justice. Yes: As this article makes clear, every legal step to remove him would, indeed, "face steep odds."
However, the U.S., starting with the Revolutionary War, has, in its history, faced many steep odds -- and conquered most.
The U.S. can also conquer this oddest of Supreme Court confirmations.
10
That the court could become (further) delegitimized in the event the Dems succeed in any plan to expand the court or remove Kavanaugh is redundant.
We are at such intractable political polar opposites in this country that any decision handed down by the SCOTUS that is contrary to ones views already delegitimizes the court. So what difference does it make?
Furthermore, the court already has final authority, so any "delegitimization" is in the eye of the beholder. It certainly doesn't affect the Justices. They are not elected and they serve for life. That's pretty much inoculates them from consequences.
8
To those who understood the law, the injunction in Bush v. Gore proved that the SCOTUS was just a wing of the Republican Party. Citizens United and other cases overturning long -standing precedent ( but furthering Republican goals) gave hints to the general public, but the installation of Kavanaugh proves to all the world that the SCOTUS majority is just an illegitimate partisan gang. At the first opportunity, the Democrats should add two members to the Court, just to add balance. They should do this even if it means abandoning the filibuster in the Senate.
14
Even if impeachment is unlikely, Congressmen Gutierrez, Lieu, Nadler, et al. nevertheless need to initiate an investigation into the Ford & Ramirez allegations. They will have subpoena power. They can at least interview the women’s corroborating witnesses. They can accept into evidence Kerry Berchem and Kathleen Charlton’s texts with former Yale classmates. And all those classmates who decided to go along to get along by speaking “no bad” about him, well, maybe “I don’t recall” just won’t cut it this time around.
On page 18 of the Senate Judiciary Committee interview transcript from 9/25, he testified as having no knowledge about Ramirez’s allegations prior to the 9/23 publication of the New Yorker article. A similar claim was made under oath to Orrin Hatch’.
However, Berchem exchanged text messages with Karen Yarasavage, his ex and Deborah Ramirez’s college friend about the allegations starting in July until September. And Kavanaugh seemed to have used the extra time to personally ask his obliging friends like Yarasavage and others to discredit Ramirez.
And if Kavanaugh’s found to have sexually harassed Ramirez as an adult, then he would have also lied to Senator Hirono under oath.
Abe Fortas was forced to resign for taking money from a party with a case pending in the federal courts so why would sexual assault and/or perjury be any less worthy of such a punishment?
9
@Tedj
Yes, let's start efforts to impeach every SCOTUS justice we dislike. That sounds like it will be good for the country, and not something that will be a tool used by both parties.
Elections have consequences. Trump was woefully unqualified and should have lost. The DNC needs to think harder about why they lost, and change so it doesn't happen again. Then they can appoint whomever they like to the Supreme Court. The country is more important than any one party.
5
@Tedj
A full investigation would also necessitate investigating Dr. Ford's background, including of her yearbook and associations with drinking and drinkers.
Give it up, libs. It’s over.
16
Liberalism is exhausted, the left has run out of ideas, they can no longer field a winning team. What to do--how to win? Try to delegitimize the game itself--accuse the umpires of bias and corruption and demand changes to the rules. Some democrats, those Dems. I suppose they think nobody notices what they're up to or what it says about their commitment to democracy.
29
@Ronald B. Duke Wow, sounds like they're learning from the Republicans.
2
Mr. Fallon ran the worst campaign in modern media history for the worst campaigner in modern media history.
Mrs. Clinton is the perfect example of incompetent elitist nepotism.
The democrats are responsible for President Trump and his band of maniacs.
34
@JMAN
"The democrats are responsible...." or: "The Democratic National Committee are responsible...". I am a registered democrat and I used to be a dues-paying member of the Democratic Party. I am still a registered democrat, mostly because I did not take the time to go to City Hall and change my registration to "independent". If it had been Clinton vs. Kasich, I would have voted for Kasich without hesitation. Remember also that it was the Republicans who first nominated Trump; they are the ones who gave him to us.
1
@JMAN No the voters who demand purity in politics and stayed home or voted for Jill Stein (Putin's friend) or Gary Johnson are the ones to blame for the Liar in Chief and now the Associate Justice Liar we now have.
1
Yes, as Michelle Obama said, when the Republicans go low, the Democrats should go high.
But that does not mean allowing the Republicans to bully, lie, and steal their way to creating an autocracy that favors big corporations and the wealthiest Americans.
A recent NYT article suggested that the Russians may have elected Trump by hacking into our voting machines. And some journalists did not cover the story sooner for fear of alarming us. It's time to be alarmed.
In fact, I'm now terrified for our democracy, which many of us love more than having lower taxes and fewer regulations (that are there to protect ordinary citizens). And many of us are nauseated by the growing misogyny, racism, and anti-minority bigotry at the rotten core of today's Republican party.
When facing a bully, we need to push back--hard.
When considering how aggressive to be in dealing with a criminal, I'm inspired by the apocryphal story of the (pacifist) Quaker who found an intruder inside his house in the middle of the night. "Brother," he told the burglar gently, "I would not harm thee for the world. But thou standest where I am about to shoot."
23
@Richard M. Waugaman, M.D.
There has been no evidence of hacking of voting machines, even though the Times and virtually every other news outlet that reports DNC talking points as news claimed in November 2016 that the Russians "hacked" the election.
They "meddled" by spending about $50k on advertisements on Facebook, a number vastly eclipsed by by the Clinton campaign spent on advertising and promotion. Repeating untruths will not undo Trump's 2016 victory. Want him out of office so that liberal SCOTUS justices get appointed? Then recommend that the DNC field better candidates, and re-think their platform.
4
Here’s an idea for the Democratic Party going forward: stop sowing hysteria and chaos. It’s not serving the country’s best interests.
38
@Shenoa
Due diligence would have served the country's best interests.
5
@Shenoa I don't suppose you have words for those upstarts who rebelled and started the Revolutionary War?
1
@Tedj
Due diligence was satisfied. Regarding what Dr. Ford claims to have occurred 36 years ago: no one could corroborate her accusations. Hence, end of inquiry.
2
If Democrats gain control of the House, increasing the number of justices or impeaching Kavanaugh --"Either step would be an extraordinary violation of constitutional and political norms." Excuse me, but have you been asleep at the wheel? From refusing to give Garland a hearing to pushing Gorsuch through to this sham of a nomination process (and all of their attendant bad behavior) to push a proven liar through to the Court, the Republican party has performed nothing BUT extraordinary violations of constitutional and political norms. And let's not even get started on Trump's daily violations...
It's difficult to maintain Rule of Law, and constitutional and political norms when one party insists on violating them at every turn. The Dems are still trying to play a gentlemen's game and the GOP has long since ceased to care about honesty and honor.
189
@Blue Girl
You are exactly right. We have to go in playing hardball at this point. Mitch McConnell will long be remembered for bringing this country nearly (hopefully) to the brink of destruction. He certainly paved the way for a 2-bit con man to sit in the world's most powerful seat.
1
@Blue Girl: maybe Obama shouldn't have lost the house & senate. Ever heard of representing the people that elected you?
1
@Blue Girl Yes the Dems are playing parlor games with those who are street fighters. They have been outplayed, out foxed, out fought, since 2016 and do not seem to understand the error of their ways. Better get real soon or hunker down for another 4 years from 2020.
Such irony in Lindsey Graham's question: Do you want an outcome so badly that you would basically turn the law upside down? Apparently that is exactly what the GOP Senate did. Ignoring blatant perjury to install their pick on the highest court in the land is indeed "turning the law upside down." Vote the bums out.
27
Is it just me, or is it becoming quite clear that more than anything, the left are sore losers?
30
I'm not a sore loser! I'm incensed that the right wing GOP feels entitled to impose its nominee on half the country to achieve its retrograde agenda. Undo affirmative action, voting rights, women rights, elevation of evangelical religious beliefs. Where is the respect for different beliefs?
7
Is it just me, or is it becoming quite clear that more than anything, the right are proto-fascists?
17
@DanielMarcMD
Supreme Court nomination's not Fortnite, it's not a game.
4
"hoping that Republican voters’ passions aroused by the Kavanaugh fight will fade ahead of the midterm elections."
Ha ha too funny. Sorry liberals, this isn't going to be forgotten.
21
Democrats must not allow Republicans to control the narrative that this is merely sour-grapes over Justice Kavanaugh's appointment. Republican's shameless intransigence over President Obama's judicial nominations is the original, disgraceful sin, and must not be allowed to go unanswered. Republicans under McConnell abandoned any pretense of regular order long ago, and Democrats frankly need to respond in kind.
143
Hyperbole, hyperbole, hyperbole. Whether it is television or print media, the headlines, the extremist politics, the stress and tension bull horned. When will there be a backlash against the divisiveness in our society which the media breathlessly promulgate by their
over-the-top hyperbole headlines and, yes, false news. Who needs the Russians when we have the New York Times and ABC, NBC, etcetera. Or maybe it is the Russians feeding this madness.
26
Complains about media hyperbole, mentions everyone but Fox. The projection is strong
1
Wow! Just "Wow"! So Kavanaugh was wrong. He thought "advice and consent" had turned into "search and destroy". It had, but now it's going forward as "scorched earth". Let's just bring down the Supreme Court and maybe the entire government. Let's "delegitimize" it all. We didn't get what we wanted so we're going to throw a temper tantrum of epic proportion.
I think Orrin Hatch had it right when he told a group of demonstrators, "Grow up!".
Democrats are becoming the party of the tantrum, not the people. It will disgust enough people that the Republican party may become the larger of the two parties.
Impeachment. Court packing. Sure - bring it on, and you will go down in flames as being the most unreasonable bunch of poor losers in the history of this country.
37
@India
Two words: Merrick Garland
20
@India Sounds as though you personally have much to gain from others seeing their personal rights eroded by a conservative court that also will help let Trump and his crime family off the hook (re: Gamble), pad the already-fat bank accounts of people like McConnell (how does someone with the LOWEST approval rating of any Senator keep getting re-elected. Koch Bros, anyone?) Me thinks thou dost protest too much about people PROTESTING (exercising their Constitutional right) the likelihood of a cultural reversion to a "simpler" time 50 years ago when rich white men unequivocally ruled American society. "Grow up?" You might consider trying that sometime. "Poor losers." Get back to us after the mid-terms.
11
@India
Where have you been? The epic temper tantrum(s) of the year were those well-scripted ones by Kavanaugh and Lindsay Graham, whose fast rise in the party can only be the result of showing his ugly little teeth and yapping like a Chihuahua.
Now we have notice from the White House that this is the year of the White Male Victim. Glory be! There is one way not to be accused of sexually assaulting women, and that is not to do it. It might help if you don't drink like a fish. Blackouts, you know!
Anyway, maybe it's time for white males to be victims. We women have carried that burden for far too long, and we're tired of it. Keep your hands to yourselves, guys, and don't touch that belt buckle, and there will be no trouble. Thought you would have scoped that out for yourselves by now.
BTW, "impeachment and court packing" may be the expected result of continuing cheating by Republicans to enhance their power and take it away from anyone who doesn't toe their party line. This is still America, and protesting is legally allowed.
Stealing Supreme Court seats, power, and anything else that isn't nailed down, not so much, but hey, it happens. And guess what? We don't have to pretend to like it just to suit you.
When the pendulum swings, and it will, let's see how gracefully you incorporate the same inequitable power plays into your daily schedule. We also will be glad to add insult to injury, in memory of what you deal out to us.
1
If the executive refuses to enforce illegitimate court rulings that attempt to overturn duly enacted laws the court rulings will be ignored. The judiciary is a co equal branch of government—it is not the preeminent branch.
What can the Justices do if their decisions are ignored? Come out and attack wearing black robes and brandishing gavels?
8
Liberals would do well to remember that eliminating the filibuster for the confirmation of federal judges was the "clever" solution implemented by Senator Reid.
Move the clock just a couple of years forward and what do you see?
The newest wo members of SCOTUS have gotten their jobs without the filibuster rule. The Republicans expanded and applied the Reid rule to the confirmation of justices of the Supreme Court.
The liberals may try to delegitimize SCOTUS, and if they succeed, you can rest assured that the time will come when the consequences of that action will get around to bite them in their proverbial derieres.
But you can bet that the consequences will be more severe, and more thorough.
Repuplicans, like good elephants, are slow to move, but they never forget, and when they step on you, you'll certainly notice.
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for because you may get it.
33
@PotniaTheron
The Constitution doesn't say how few or many justices there needs to be so the more the merrier.
1
@PotniaTheron Yeah, since this two party joke was started by the Republicans (for a good reason too)!
The reason the Republicans aren't trying to impeach Justice Kagan is because they know she did not lie under oath. There is unfortunately no such certainty where Justice Kavanaugh is concerned. His credibility is tarnished to say the least.
If perjury is an impeachable offense--something all Republicans (including in particular Kavanaugh) firmly believed when they were trying to impeach President Clinton-- then it seems appropriate to undertake further investigations and, if there has been perjury, to take appropriate action.
Talk of impeachment may be premature. But talk of further investigation is if anything overdue. To take the position that we cannot afford to learn the truth because it would make Republicans unhappy is Orwellian. But let's put our cards on the table: the reason the Republicans do not want further investigation of Kavanaugh is because they are afraid that there is something to hide.
52
What a bunch of poor losers! They, Marxist Democrats, will really howl within the next 6 years when President Trump replaces one or two more of the Olde fossils on SCOTUS with even more conservative judges as payback for the disgraceful Ford fiasco....Losers all.
18
@Moe Def
Justice John Paul Stevens is a Marxist? I thought he's a Republican.
4
@Tedj “they” being the the Democrats in general. Geez!
I do not believe trump will live 6 years...natural causes. He does not come across as healthy...plus his apparent mentation as witnessed by his speech is very low functioning. Demented people have a shortened life span.
It takes 67 votes in the Senate to remove a judge or president from office. There are only 49 Democrats in the Senate and not all of them would go along with such a hair brained scheme.
Based upon age alone, the next two Court vacancies will be democrat appointees meaning The Donald could get two more Justices since the Republicans seem set to expand their Senate majority in November there could easily be a 7-2 conservative majority in a few years.
Math cares not about the lefts political problems. Rather than inventing silly schemes it would be better to win a few elections.
29
@Jesse James And it would be good if those who want to vote for Democrats showed up at the polls in midterm elections. Take a look at Andrew Hacker's recent article in the New York Review of Books. The numbers do tell it all...
4
@Jesse James
What makes you think Kavanaugh will be impeached? If the Democrats win back either house of Congress they can investigate him in depth, and if they can show that he did perjure himself in any of his congressional testimony then he can be indicted, charged, arrested, and imprisoned. Unlike presidents, Supreme Court justices have no protections against indictments whatsoever.
No impeachment is necessary.
3
Where does Mr. Savage get the idea that “Either step would be an extraordinary violation of constitutional and political norms”? Clearly what he means is that impeachment of a Supreme Court judge and trying to expand the court are very rare. And, on this understanding, his claim of “extraordinary violations” seems the actually extraordinary thing here. What could be more characteristic of the stick-in-the-mud nay-saying conservative than espousing a rule “don’t do rare things”? By this rule we would still be going to the toilet out in the backyard, and going to the store on horseback.
13
There's no reason for the Supreme Court to have nine justices. They enjoy lifetime appointments and no real accountability to the people. It wasn't always nine. And it can be changed. I say expand it to at least 11.
11
@Mark Pepp The the Democrats can go to 15!
How about 1,100?
1
@Lyndon
I'll see the Republicans' 1,100 and raise 'em 100.
As another of Kaiser Trump’s “all the best people,” Kavanaugh’s lifetime place on the bench is all but certain, given the historical reluctance the Senate has had to remove bad actors. Of course, the only reasonable possibility is impeachment and removal not because of Ford’s testimony (which I believe), but because lil’ Bret lied throughout the 2018 hearings and blatantly lied to Congress in his grab for Appellate court. But, as a Democratic supporter, I am afraid the party will choose the same Machiavellian strategies the Pubs have used to such benefit since Newt Gingrich and which have been outlined in this excellent article. Dems, hampered by an idea of “fairness,” continue to lose to Pubs who have no such inconvenient scruples and have grabbed power by morphing into whatever malevolent being they need to be to win. So far, Dems haven’t learned this disturbing lesson. What sorry view lies ahead for America’s future? That this country is heading into the dark realms of Orwell...fast.
7
The left can only blame themselves. They are the ones that started the ball rolling on rule changes. They are the ones who stupidly decided not to nominate a justice before Obama left office. Now they're acting all third-world. What's next, a general strike?
9
@Mannyv -- A justice was nominated, derrick Garland. The Republicans refused to move the nomination forward and thus stole a seat. That is how this started. Ignorant people don't know this. They believe the liberals are at fault for everything as per Fox News.
8
@Mannyv
Yes, precisely...thanks to McConnell upon winning back the Senate and the White House, the next president can easily expand the Supreme Court to 11. Palindromes making America great again.
@Mannyv Actually, a general strike sounds pretty good right about now. Let's see how much US Oligarchs like it when they don't have anyone to drive their cars, wash their clothes, fix their computers or clean their houses for $10/hr or less.
I, however, would prefer just a good old-fashioned non-gerrymandered election. You know, one where the Russians don't interfere, corporations aren't people, money isn't speech and every eligible person gets a vote.
4
Clarence Thomas already HAD the first asterisk next to his name,,,, how quickly we forget!
13
Democrats need to concentrate on winning some elections
65
"Some [Democrats] have gone as far as proposing — if Democrats were to retake control of Congress and the White House in 2020 or after — expanding the number of justices on the court to pack it with liberals or trying to impeach, remove and replace Justice Kavanaugh."
This is possible because the make-up of the Supreme Court is controlled not by Article III of the Constitution, but by Congress, in the form of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Congress my amend this law, and has indeed done so on many occasions.
It was FDR, a Democrat, who last tried to increase the number of Justices, so he could control the Court. He did not succeed; his "court packing" scheme was so unpopular, that it did not become law.
What's notable is the hypocrisy of the Democrats. They are forever hawking the failure of the Republican Senate to grant a hearing to Merrick Garland as irrefutable evidence of the malevolance of the Republicans in their approach to the Supreme Court. In fact, it was Democrats Charles Schumer and Joe Biden that first explicitly established the doctrine that lame duck presidents should not nominate Justices.
It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, that first ended the use of the filibruster for judicial appointments, the so called "nuclear option."
It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, that invented "borking" and character assassination of nominees. which they unsuccessfully tried to use against Judge Kavanaugh.
Perhaps the Democrats should learn better manners.
16
Robert Bork was against Civil Rights, and Dems only removed the filibuster for lower courts because McConnell refused to seat any Obama appointee. Don't employ bothsiderism when the facts don't back it up
18
@Alex
Yes, same for Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch.
@Alex You mean better manners like those of Trump?
1
Kennedy voted to the riight way more times then the left. We all know that the left has been taken over by the far left but wow!! It’s just crazy mow!! Who are these people? The leader of the pact pretended to fight in Vietnam? I thought that was a lie but it is true? And the left is okay with this? How can this guy call anyone a liar?
8
Has anyone asked Roberts what he thinks can be done to save his court? I'm a liberal but I believe he would do anything to save the integrity of the Court. He did save the ACA and who could have seen that coming?
5
@adrianne Word is out that Roberts sat on at least a dozen judicial complaints about Kavanauagh, making them now moot.
8
Something tells me that Justice Kavanaugh* is going to be the Supreme Court’s first ‘asterisk’.
While Neil Gorsuch was only seated because of dirty politics, Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment is an historically problematic precedent for entirely different reasons.
13
“And a previous attempt at court packing, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt after a conservative-dominated Supreme Court rejected important parts of his New Deal initiatives during the Great Depression, is broadly seen as having been misguided.”
Who saw it as “misguided”? The future of the New Deal hung in the balance and the ends justified the means.
Even if the Democrats start advocating and passing pro-worker legislation, the Republicans will overturn it via the SCOTUS.
The Democrats surely understand the damage this court will do to the environment and workers rights. Unions will be crushed as the court extends the Janus decision to all unions.
If they don’t take decisive action against this court, they never took “resistance” seriously.
26
@Ed Watters "...the ends justified the means."
The refrain of actual and wannabe Communist mass-murderers for over one hundred years.
9
@Ed Watters The ends never justify the means. Never, ever, ever! That's the problem with the Dem party today. And it started in 2009; captured famously by Pelosi when she told us the Congress would have to pass the ACA before we (she) could read it.
I would love to see Democrats try to impeach Kavannaugh or pack the court. They would, once again, shoot themselves in the foot by riling up the Republican base and get Democrats voted out of office. The Democrat’s were a slam dunk to win the House majority in November, until they snatched victory from the jaws of defeat with Feinstein’s lies and their attempted manipulation of the process and the public.
25
@Scott “attempted manipulation” has been and continues to be the game that Republicans play now by using the Propaganda Arm of the Trump White House Fox media. Making this claim about the Dems is just another message from Fox.
5
@Scott K
Demography, who's friend?
@Scott K Slam dunk? Trump has been talking about the "red wave" for the last several months, even before Kavanaugh's name was in the news. So what, he was lying before? But now he's right? Sheesh.
Okay, I too would love see the Democrats pack the court. I don't think Kavanaugh should be impeached. If Democrats are in a position to pack the court, it means they were elected to do so. Just like Trump was elected to nominate someone to SCOTUS.
1
The weak-kneed reactions to the idea of packing the Supreme Court should the Democrats control the Executive and Legislative branches after 2020 illustrate why the regressives always win. Democrats don't know how to deploy power. Worried about the filibuster? So what? Get rid of the filibuster. Everyone needs to accept the fact that this is a Cold Civil War. A tiny minority of Fascists are calling the tune, and they must be defeated through any means necessary.
103
Someone finally gets it. The barricades are calling
4
@Stephen Love Sorry, the "fascists" were elected in a democratic election. Problem is that American society has been stuck in adolescence via the boob tube and electronic games and the only democratic "process" they know is yelling and screaming like immature, unschooled partisans.
5
@Stephen Love
You said, “They must be defeated by any means necessary”. This type of reasoning by you and your like is why Clinton got nominated, and why Trump won. This type of reasoning as evidenced by Feinstein’s sleazy tactics and your support of these tactics and evidently your support of guilty until proven innocent (since it fits “by any means necessary” logic) are why Kavannaugh survived to become the next Supreme Court Justice.
8