March 6, 2020 6:01 AM
Morning Reads for Friday, March 6, 2020
- Thank you, Baby Jesus, for the rain. You can stop now.
- Corona virus testing in Georgia.
- Athens-Clarke Co. rejects new voter machines.
- This is so funny, on so many ruffley layers.
- Quick, to the drive-thrus!
- So helpful, they are.
- Things are bad in Iran.
- This is really cool.
- Prayers for Nashville.
About Author
Ginny
Get off my lawn.
7 Comments
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Schumer went over the line yesterday with comments about the Supreme Court, but at least a new rule was further clarified.
Thank Mitch McConnell, who said Schumer’s words “at the very best were astonishingly reckless and irresponsible” and “clearly dangerous”, for the clarity:
Senior level partisan attacks Impugning the federal judiciary shall be admonished in strong language, except those of a Republican President.
After all, it’s not reckless, irresponsible or dangerous when Trump does it about nearly everything he disagrees with, or thinks he will disagree with.
Let’s see here. On one hand you have Trump criticism and call for obviously biased justices to recuse themselves. On the other hand, you have one of the leaders of the Bolshevik party threatening physical violence again 2 sitting justices if they rule in a way he does not like.
And it’s not remotely surprising that you cannot understand the difference.
C’mon- raise the standard of discourse here.
Firstly, all judges are biased. Sometimes it’s a partisan bias, sometimes it’s more like they were a prosecutor or defense attorney, or whatever. In any event, you could argue that every appointed justice ever has some obvious bias towards the administration that appointed them. The question is not whether bias exists, but whether good jurisprudence backs up the decision. And guess what, Supreme Court justices are all professionals, and every decision will have jurisprudence to support it.
So- you don’t recuse because you even hate someone. You need to have an actual conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of a conflict, which is not a conflict of opinion, but a conflict of interest– like a financial interest. Something more significant than a golf club membership, too.
The next low standard is that you criticize DB for not distinguishing between the comments, but don’t care to distinguish Democrats from Bolsheviks. For a second, I was pretty sure you’d be directing readers to the Communist Party of America link. Such low standards undermine the credibility and strength of your position, so I guess the question is whether you care about that or not.
And, for the record, Schumer’s comments were obviously misstatements and errors, but I hardly believe he was talking about physical threats. Political threats, that makes actual sense.
And Trump’s comments on the judiciary have a whole different level of tenor and potential issues impacting the rule of law. That’s not for today for me, though.
Laughably ridiculous post- but again, not surprising coming from you. Flat out lying while telling me to raise the level of discourse. LOL! And yes, your claim that it was not a physical threat is a flat out lie. Read the statement. There is no doubt it was physical threat. Schumer only partially retreated after being called out.
1- so quit lying.
2- all democrats are bolsheviks as far as I can tell.
I tried to find a complete transcript of Schumer’s rally remarks, but couldn’t. Please share the quote that is the basis of your remarks if it’s other than the quote from National Review below, the only Schumer words that NR quoted.:
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,” Schumer inveighed. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Here text and video of Schumer: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/03/04/schumer_to_kavanaugh_gorsuch_you_will_pay_the_price.html
I doubt NR quoted this: “The bottom line is very simple. We will stand with the American people. We will stand with American women. We will tell President Trump and Senate Republicans, who have stacked the court with right-wing ideologues, that you’re going to be gone in November, and you will never be able to do what you’re trying to do now ever, ever again. You hear that over there on the far right? You’re gone in November.”
Schumer’s comments were made at a rally, and he promptly distanced himself on the Senate floor from violent interpretation. When has POtuS ever distanced himself from anything for more than a day?
My first words expressed disapproval of Schumer’s rally comments. Many other Democrats including prominent ones have done so too. It’s among the primary differences between most Dems and the POtuS cult.
The Supreme Court was hearing arguments on an abortion matter that has not been before it for a long time, the standing of medical professionals acting on behalf of women to sue. Republicans complain about activist courts, but GOP hypocrisy will be on display should SCOTUS overturn the long-standing ability of medical professionals to sue.
I have no issue with Gorsuch, other than the shady means used in his getting nominated and that that emboldened the Trump to nominate, and the GOP to unanimously approve, liar Kavanaugh.
Devil’s triangle a drinking game? Pffffft. An ostensibly long clean guy when under oath getting indignant and refusing to acknowledge alcohol abuse in high school and college 30 years ago, after being gifted with a friendly weak investigation of alleged sexual misconduct, wasn’t qualified for the seat and doesn’t deserve respect.
Trump selected Kavanaugh because of Kavanaugh’s robust view of presidential powers and immunities. I anticipate we’ll see more of Kavanaugh’s character in with respect to that should cases involving a Dem President make it to the Court.