They did not confirm Merrick Garland because they KNEW the fix was in

[LaydeeBug]

Every time you heard of a weird 35 million dollar Senate PAC money bundle, via Moscow Mitch...it was an infiltration of Russian slush.

Each time you heard about Twitler's bragging about money raised...it was Russian slush.

This is the biggest story of our lifetime. BY far.

And it was an act of war. Cyber war *IS* war.

[LakeVermilion]

1. Absolutely correct!

Lots of random information, when pulled together, points to a fix between the Republicans and the Russians. We are too naive. They are way ahead of us. They don't even need to worry because they spent 40 years branding us, and we let them!

[Roy Rolling]

65. Know your target

Russians exploited the GOP electorate's hate of Democrats. They knew GOP devotees would team with Russia. In a choice between Hillary or Russia, they chose Putin. Putin hated Hillary and Obama as much as they did. We are living with Vischy Republicans.

[LaydeeBug]

92. YAS!! This right here. They've been treating us like their enemy and we've been reaching out to them

[we can do it]

2. You got that right!

[Initech]

3. What Russia did was an act of war.

And Mitch McConnell is complicit in carrying out this act of treason.

[LaydeeBug]

6. aided and abetted. straight up. nt

[Moostache]

13. The definition is TREASON.

The penalty is DEATH BY HANGING.

I volunteer my services as the hangman and I will work for duty to country and no money.

[RVN VET71]

69. "Treason doth never prosper/ What's the reason?

When treason prospers, none dare call it treason!"

Harrington writing back in the 17th (I think) century, had in mind, presciently and precisely, the vermin leading today's GOP and their supporters.

There will be no hangmen, no trials, no public humiliation as McConnell, Ryan, Priebus and the rest are slowly carted to the tree, because the GOP rules the airwaves, the courts, the legislature and the White House -- and, also, the military, in case we peasants get too feisty.

[Amaryllis]

41. They knew the fix was in WAY back...by the time Obama nominated Garland. Look at

how long ago Kobach started pushing Crosscheck and IC started investigating Russia. I believe that is why they are completely unresponsive to constituents. They don't need them to get "elected" in states with GOP SOS who are also complicit. 30 states using Crosscheck. Oregon refused because it gave them unreliable data.
Then put Russia on top of that.

[not fooled]

79. Yep

And that's why they don't care that dumpcare is wildly unpopular. They think they can ram it through because they have 2018 and 2020 in the bag through election theft.

[chimpymustgo]

82. And why will they stop in 2020? They have our country, and we will never get it back.

We MUST do more than protest. We need our best minds working on a strategy.

[not fooled]

85. Oh, yes

As many posters on this thread have commented, pukes have been stealing elections for decades. The difference now is that they are getting better and better at it, and they are less concerned with what people think because they can sense there are no real repercussions. No one is stopping them.

Truly we are living in a fascist oligarchy that is forcing itself and its agenda on the American people. Or more precisely--let's not mince words--in a radical right dictatorship that is completely unconcerned with the needs of anyone other than the wealthy.

If things work out, I will be leaving this country within the next five years. The kochs and religious crackpots can have it.

[Amaryllis]

83. Obvious to us...but the Dems will analyze how they need to change their message. Although

SChiff and Feinstein seem to be waking up to it.

[onenote]

107. Normally the response to an act of war is to declare war on the attacking country and defend oneself

Are you saying Democrats should be introducing declarations of war against Russia? That we should be urging the US to seek regime change against the Putin regime by force of arms? Because that's the way war is conducted.

We're not "at war" with Russia by any of the indices that reflect a state of war. We have diplomatic relations with Russia. We have trade and travel between the US and Russia. If Russia is shown to have engaged in unlawful acts in pursuit of its effort to influence the outcome of our election, then it and any US persons or entities that aided and abetted those acts should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

But hyperbole about treason is just that -- hyperbole.

[LaydeeBug]

115. This isn't *normal*, and pretending that you get to frame the narrative is fucking insane.

you're welcome.

[onenote]

116. I'm sorry if you think I'm "fucking insane"

Is it alright if I suggest that I think the same of you or will you run off and alert on me?

[LaydeeBug]

118. I said the pretense that you get to frame the narrative is fucking insane.

But shit, why don't you just go on and frame some more shit? lol

[onenote]

120. Okay. If we're going to split hairs, AI think the pretense that I'm framing the narrative more than

you are is fucking insane.

And if you ever want to offer a substantive response to my post, I'm interested in seeing it.

Cool.

[LaydeeBug]

121. For that to happen, your post would first have to have been substantive.

[malaise]

4. Correct

The elections were stolen - history is already absolving me.

Off to the greatest page

[LaydeeBug]

7. You have said it since jump, and I was happy to join you...truth will out. nt

[shenmue]

5. Yes

[3catwoman3]

8. I have been saying this since McTURDle first refused...

...to schedule hearings of Garland. He absolutely KNEW the fix was in, which gave him the instrasigent confidence to hold things up. I despise this POS excuse for a human being..

[Amishman]

34. you really think that crowd of 200+ brain damaged idiots (and their staff) have kept this secret?

They were being partisan shits and gambling, and lucked out.

[Wellstone ruled]

9. So agree with all of the above.

Mitch McConnell's Presser about Garland told me there was a fix. Many of my old Colleagues from back in the Organizing Days,said the same thing. On fellow said it best"Did Mitch Fix the Elections with Putin's Money",most agreed.

[Alice11111]

48. So why didn't Obama make a Recess appt when MM said

that Garland wouldn't even get a hearing?????

[SammyWinstonJack]

57. We should ask him that.

[Fla Dem]

63. It would have been a futile gesture. See article from Washington Post.

The real reason President Obama won’t recess-appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court
By Jonathan H. Adler December 29, 2016

Some progressive activists and commentators are understandably frustrated that the Senate refused to consider President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Some sued (making borderline frivolous claims). Others argued that Obama could simply appoint Garland without Senate consent. The problem, in both cases, is that the Senate has no constitutional obligation to consider a president’s nominees. While prior Senates largely used this power to withhold consent for lower court or executive branch nominees (leaving some judicial nominees in limbo even longer than Garland), there is no constitutional reason to treat a Supreme Court nomination differently.

Since the election, some are advancing a new strategy to place Garland on the high court: a recess appointment. This idea was floated by David Dayen in New Republic in November and endorsed this week in New York magazine by Ed Kilgore. The problem with this idea, however, is that it is clearly precluded by Supreme Court precedent and, even were this not the case, would be entirely fruitless (although not for the reasons Dayen and Kilgore suggest).

Some progressive activists and commentators are understandably frustrated that the Senate refused to consider President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Some sued (making borderline frivolous claims). Others argued that Obama could simply appoint Garland without Senate consent. The problem, in both cases, is that the Senate has no constitutional obligation to consider a president’s nominees. While prior Senates largely used this power to withhold consent for lower court or executive branch nominees (leaving some judicial nominees in limbo even longer than Garland), there is no constitutional reason to treat a Supreme Court nomination differently.

Snip>>>>

Since the election, some are advancing a new strategy to place Garland on the high court: a recess appointment. This idea was floated by David Dayen in New Republic in November and endorsed this week in New York magazine by Ed Kilgore. The problem with this idea, however, is that it is clearly precluded by Supreme Court precedent and, even were this not the case, would be entirely fruitless (although not for the reasons Dayen and Kilgore suggest).

Dayen rightly notes that it would be difficult to quickly arrange a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of Garland’s appointment (though such suits have been brought before). Yet such a suit would not be required. All that the Senate would need to do is end its next session by adjourning sine die and Garland’s term would end. This is because, under the Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause, such appointments terminate at the end of the next Senate session. Adjourning sine die would require the cooperation of the House and a president’s signature, but that would be no obstacle come Jan. 20. In other words, Congress could terminate any recess appointment made by Obama in less than three weeks.

More>>>>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/29/the-real-reason-president-obama-wont-recess-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.a5725e5d140a


Much more complicated and complex than one would think. Three dimensional chess as they say.

[Amaryllis]

95. The Constitution was written for very different times. No way they could have foreseen anthing

like what we are facing now. Unless they could get into a time machine and go forward and then back. In many ways, the constitution is no longer relevant, in the sense that there is not much that applies to the situation we find ourselves in. THere was no way to predict how far down the line of succession could be corrupted. No computers, internet, hacking back then and that has opened up a whole new world of corruption and power grabbing which the Constitution was never set up to deal with.

[Alice11111]

103. Yes, agree. They did expect it would be reinterpreted

as times changed though. The problem is the courts. It is the RW who are the activists...Bush v Gore, Citizens United.
I don't see any interpretation from them to allow a recall election, and the Constitution clearly implies we will have fair elections, and one person, one vote.
The damn EC is a relic from slavery. It needs to go.
They already have a Senate advantage based on the red states lesser population.

[Scarsdale]

55. His REAL name

is ADDISON McConnell. Everything about him is FAKE.

[Wellstone ruled]

75. Yes he seems to be a fake.

Understand his Marriage was a Financial as well as a Political Arrangement. Ms.Chow's Family was Nixon's entry into China.

Noticed the Chow Family Shipping Business received a major protected Shipping Contract from the US Government in late February or March.

[ghostsinthemachine]

102. Also busted for smuggling drugs

Not too far back.

[Wellstone ruled]

109. But what the Hey,

All in a day of GOP Senator.

[Skittles]

10. ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

THEY KNEW THEY WOULD "WIN"

[dem in texas]

11. Amen!

WaKe Everyone!! This is a new kind of war, no guns, no soldiers, no tanks, no jet fighters, etc. Think ahead and out of the box and you can see that Russia can accomplish their goal of the takeover of our country using cyber warfare.

We need a President and staff that gives this threat a top priority. Sadly Trump, Session, Tillison are all asleep at the wheel; they are clueless.

There is already data that is showing that the 2016 election results were corrupted by Russia and Trump did not really win. This would explain the large difference between the popular vote and the electoral college win. When Hillary won the popular vote by more than 3,000,000 votes, this should have jumped at as too big a difference. Something is rotten here. .

[Amaryllis]

42. Disagree they are clueless. THey are complicit. Big difference.

[Alice11111]

49. !!! I was about to say that...not clueless, complicit

[LaydeeBug]

12. They are also not very concerned at the unpopular shit

they're doing now (because they know the fix is in)

[davekriss]

17. Yup. That's why I believe...

...they're coming after social security and Medicare next. To them, it does not matter what the majority of Americans think. They don't care. They have the means, the motive, and the technique to retain a stranglehold on power. We truly need to resist this taking of our nation.

[LaydeeBug]

39. This is exactly right. nt

[Amaryllis]

43. How do we do that?

[diva77]

52. "Breaking Through Power" has guidelines & success stories re: David v. Goliath battles against power

In Breaking Through Power, Nader draws from a lifetime waging—and often winning—David vs. Goliath battles against big corporations and the United States government. In this succinct, Tom Paine-style wake-up call, the iconic consumer advocate highlights the success stories of fellow Americans who organize change and work together to derail the many ways in which wealth manipulates politics, labor, media, the environment and the quality of national life today. Nader makes an inspired case about how the nation can—and must—be democratically managed by communities guided by the U.S. Constitution, not by the dictates of big businesses and the wealthy few. This is classic Ralph Nader, a crystallization of the core political beliefs and commitments that have driven his lifetime of advocacy for greater democracy.

Excellent discussion here:

I am going to order this book and read it...

[LiberalLovinLug]

94. Thanks for posting that

Careful though, you may be alerted on for simply having a positive post about Ralph Nader.

To some it doesn't matter how much they may actually agree with him, or conversely are hard-pressed to find anything they don't agree with. He did the greatest sin anyone could ever do.....he felt compelled to run for President in order to address issues like this.

While other democracies have three, four, sometimes 10 or more parties running, here we are conditioned to think that two is quite enough thankyou. We like choice in every other aspect in life, but anyone that runs as a third party candidate will be tarred and feathered, especially if they dare have even more FDR type Democratic ideas than the establishment Democrats (and the corporate executive dominated DLC at the time), because that is just plain embarrassing. How dare he run on such solid principles!

Ralph is a great man, a brave person, who ran despite the hatred from both the Republicans and the more authoritarian Democratic voters. We need more people like him to push the conversation towards the unbridled truth about the abuse of power and money. It us up to Democrats to stop simply stamping their feet and whine about some other party encroaching on their self appointed territory, and address these same issues and in so doing, make other third parties look redundant.

[Amaryllis]

113. Just put the book on hold at the library. Good sign that they have it. I am in a very blue city....

[Amaryllis]

45. I have been convinced of that for a long time. Don't say it to many people because it's too

much of a downer for them to believe and they think we are conspiracy theorists. I read an article in the Nation in summer 2004 called "How they could steal the election this time" that laid it all out, and I knew they were set up to steal it. I spent a number of months being really depressed because i could look down the timeline and see that meant they would get SCOTUS, and that would impact election reform...and so on, and then I watched the "red shift" on election night; the same one we saw in 2016.

ANd oh yeah, they gutted the Voting Rights Act.

[yurbud]

14. I wish establishment Dems were as worried about the fix when it was just the GOP doing it...

then the Republican Party wouldn't have survived long enough to get help from any foreign powers.

[SHRED]

15. Illegitimate election.

[Crash2Parties]

16. This was a non-violent coup by a foriegn, hostile nation.

And one of our political parties was their agent.

I use "was", past-tense b/c I don't quite know how we can change it at this point. And even if we could, somehow magically undo it, the repurcussions such as Supreme Court seats (maybe two, if Kennedy retires tommorrow or soon, maybe three if Ginsburg does too) are not likely to be undone even if the Dems gained control of everything.

[broadcaster90210]

18. Absolutely.

SCOTUS, like our gov't, is illegitimate. But I ask again ...

Now what?

[diva77]

53. check out my post above (#52)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9254089

[rurallib]

19. The shot is up and it is good!

Yep that is the only thing that makes sense.
Plus Garland wasn't the only one they sat on. IIRC they slow walked all of Obama's court nominees after the 2015 congress went in.

[JoeOtterbein]

20. We need to repeat, over and over: "ALL elections must be with paper ballots and MUST be audited"

again, again, again......

[INdemo]

22. So what do we do because its gonna get worse?

Democrats are afraid to act because they fear an all out revolt by the 36% ?

[triron]

26. Yeah, and why didn't they act before the election??

[WinkyDink]

23. MY theory: Trump was in debt unto death to Russia, from decades ago. Then the light bulb

went off over some powerful Russian's head, and hey, kids, let's grab the US government! We'll get paid back via the US Treasury!

Make certain that the utterly beholden and cowardly Trump is first candidate and then POTUS.

Simultaneously, bribe bigly key Republicans (Pence, McConnell, Ryan, Nunez, etc.).

Sit back and collect.

[Alice11111]

50. I said it a year ago...glad u see it too...so obvious.

Putin getting a little pissed off though because DT hasn't rolled back the sanctions yet. He risked a lot to pur DT thete, and now all of this nrw is getting through to his restive Russian populace.

[WinkyDink]

67. GMTA! Maybe Trump is a wee worried, too, given his latest "tactic" to Tweet "Don't blame ME! Blame

Obama!"

[Alice11111]

101. Yeah, don't Repubs ever see through that?

A rhetorical question really. They don't give a damn what he does. They will support him because he is torturing rhe left and Dems. They LOVE that.

[pirateshipdude]

24. You are probably right. Eom

[triron]

25. Methinks you got it right!

[Tatiana]

27. Yep. They knew it. That act was unprecedented. They KNEW.

F them all.

McConnell is involved. He got dirty Russian money too.

I wish our party would hire some former foreign intelligence agents to help us get to the bottom of this and respond to these hostile actions.

[WinkyDink]

29. We aren't on a jury; we're on a Discussion Board.

[VOX]

30. Right *bleep*ing on, damnit!

Word-for-word on the money. Thank you!

[MoonRiver]

32. Yes, POS Chump, and his SCOTUS nominee were shoved down our collective throat!

[diva77]

33. I believe the fix has been in for years with or without Russian interference

[Amaryllis]

44. Got that right. KAtherine Harris FL 2000, Ken Blackwell 2004. Kris Kobach , KS SOS created

INterstate CRosscheck. Paperless voting machines as a result of the Help America Vote Act, referred to by many as the Hack America's Vote Act. All that brought us the Bush SCOTUS which brought us Citizens United. Etc. Etc.

[loyalsister]

61. And yet, Obama

Hyperbolic rantings without direct hard evidence does us no good. Although, it does enable the GOP to claim that the fix is in when they lose, and to push greater voting restrictions.

[harun]

93. Totally agree. Russia is just a distraction.

[vkkv]

35. Gawd I hope yoou are wrong.

[burrowowl]

36. I don't think so

and with Gerrymandering and voter suppression we might be cooked for awhile.

[First Speaker]

37. I agree. It took me a long time to reach this conclusion...

...I mean, whatever one thinks of people like McConnell...do we really want to think they're capable of this? Just to get power, money, the Supreme Court? Then I remember Nixon in 1968, Reagan/Bush in 1980, the Court in 2000. Yes, they're capable of it. And if it keeps going on, sooner or later the Constitution will break apart in our hands, the way it did in 1861.

[Gothmog]

38. I fear that you may be right on this

[old guy]

40. Thought this same thing.

Oh, and I do not have two heads as repubs suggest.

[Amaryllis]

46. Two heads???

[old guy]

70. They look at me as if I had sprouted a second head, as if I'm very strange.

[onenote]

47. How many countries are we at war with?

There have been a number of state-sponsored cyber attacks, on us, and by us.

If we're at war, why do we still have diplomatic relations? Why is travel between Russian and US still allowed? Why is there still billions in trade between the countries?

And why isn't everyone on this board not demanding that their Democratic representative introduce a declaration of war against Russia?

[UCmeNdc]

51. I agree

The GOP leadership was in on the Russian Spy situation. They wanted to win this election.

[bucolic_frolic]

54. "Do your job" was too weak a response

It was about trashing the Constitution and violating their sworn-on-the-Bible
Oath of office

No one held them to a high standard

[Botany]

56. Both McConnell and Ryan knew

Both McConnell and Ryan knew

God only knows how wide and deep this corruption goes. Ryan is in a
CYA mood right now.

How did McConnell know if he waited until after the election he would have
somebody else to vote for for SCOTUS?


https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028671176 (NY Times Article)

Paul Ryan & Republican Establishment Used Hacked Info From Russia Against Democrats:

Let's not forget that a super PAC tied to Paul Ryan used material provided by Russia's hacking of the DNC and DCCC.

It was known that Russia had stolen material from the DNC and DCCC and a Paul Ryan Super PAC and as well as other Republican groups used it.

It wasn't just Hillary Clinton being attacked. It wasn't just Trump benefiting. There's potentially more collusion than just that between Trump's team and Russia.

********
It was a coup and we had and still have treason

[LaydeeBug]

58. absolutely. They committed TREASON. nt

[Botany]

59. "they" have been flipping races for years and this time it was w/Russian help

"they" know that they have taken the chance out of elections so now "they" can
kill public education, health care, the post office, and so on. The rule of law means nothing
to these people just look @ Mitch McConnell who violated the law by blocking
President Obama's pick of Merrick Garland to be on the Supreme Court.

[Honeycombe8]

60. I think so. This should be shouted from the rooftops. nt

[lapucelle]

62. I often wondered why the RNC

was not opening field offices for general election GOTV purposes. It seems like they knew they didn't need them.

[Botany]

74. Good point

BTW "they" did have field offices in MD and NY.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/on-the-eastern-shore-a-mysterious-45-acre-russian-compound-is-being-shuttered-by-the-obama-administration/2016/12/30/b6a69c32-cea4-11e6-a747-d03044780a02_story.html?utm_term=.e43e5e850830

[lapucelle]

108. I'm so glad I clicked your link.

[IronLionZion]

64. Treason

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/Submit
noun

the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
"they were convicted of treason"
synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More

the action of betraying someone or something.
plural noun: treasons
"doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"
synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; More


I certainly feel betrayed by elected representatives of the Republican party who aided and abetted a foreign military attack on my country in order to influence our election and install a government of incompetent buffoons who got less votes. Trump is probably just the tip of the iceberg. There are a hell of a lot of guilty people who are no doubt benefiting somehow from this.

[onenote]

68. Treason: Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution

Dictionary definitions are meaningless when it comes to establishing what is or isn't treason in the United States.

[IronLionZion]

71. Constitution:

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec3.html

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

[onenote]

76. Yep. That's the language

And despite what some people might think or wish, there is zero chance that Trump or anyone else is going to be charged with treason. Why? Because of the way the provision has historically been interpreted, which is very narrow. We aren't at "war" with Russia despite what folks might claim. None of the indicia of a state of war exist: we still have diplomatic relations, we still allow trade and travel, our NATO allies do not consider anything that has occurred an act of war that would trigger the NATO common defense obligations.

And rightly or wrongly, it is not unlawful for foreign governments to attempt to influence the outcome of a US election (or vice versa). Indeed, some foreign leaders publicly endorsed Hillary during the 2016 election. However, if the means by which a government seeks to influence an election include illegal activities, then that government and any US individuals or entities that aided or abetted those illegal activities should be pursued to the fullest extent allowed under the law.

[onenote]

66. No. They didn't confirm Garland because that decision worked for them politically

Last edited Mon Jun 26, 2017, 11:53 AM - Edit history (1)

There was no "fix in" that influenced the decision. Hell, the Repub leadership was announcing that they weren't going to consider an Obama-nominated replacement for Scalia within hours of Scalia's death in mid February 2016 -- well before it was known who the repub nominee was going to be. In fact, around that time there were polls showing Clinton trailing several of the repub contenders (and Sanders doing better than Clinton in some contests). The decision to block Garland was motivated simply by a decision to play to the repub base. If and when it there was enough of an outcry for the repubs to re-think that strategy, they would have. But it never came -- there never appeared to be an electoral downside for them blocking Garland. Essentially, Democrats were outraged, but the repub base supported it. And independents seemed not to give much of a damn.

[LaydeeBug]

89. EXACTLY. No matter the nominee, they KNEW they would win and be replacing Scalia.

The kGOPee Party took RUSSIAN money and went along.

[onenote]

90. No, they didn't need to KNOW a repub would win

They did it because there was a chance that would happen, which meant there was no downside it stonewalling Gorsuch. If a Democrat won the white house they would be no worse off than if they'd confirmed an Obama nominee. But if a repub won, which was certainly not improbable in February 2016 when they made the decision to stiff whomever Obama nominated, they'd come out ahead.

It really was a no-brainer for the repubs, not because they knew they'd win, but simply because they'd be no worse off if they lost and much better off if they won.

[LaydeeBug]

91. They didn't NEED to know, because they fucking ALREADY knew

There has never been a bigger lag with no nominee before, and all that Russian slush start well before hand.

[onenote]

97. And why do you think they'd have done anything different had they not already known?

What benefit would they have gotten from confirming Garland rather than wait until after the election to see what happened?

[LaydeeBug]

104. Oh, nothing, just every year that any POTUS has appointed a Justice, but please proceed.

[onenote]

106. You're being awfully generous in your view of repubs.

You seem to think that they could be expected to adhere to traditional norms. Well, I for one wasn't surprised in the slightest that they immediately announced they would stonewall any Obama selection made to replace Scalia. I'd have been shocked if they would have done anything else.

The repubs haven't followed the norms when it comes to judicial appointments for years. Why wouldn't they take the next step and apply their obstructionist tactics to the Supreme Court? It played to their base and had no real downside from their perspective. Just as going nuclear to confirm Gorsuch was a break from past norms. That's the way they roll and they didn't need some inside knowledge that they'd win the WH nine months after Scalia died (and eight months after Garland was nominated, with less than four months left in the SCOTUS term), to do exactly what they did. Hell, if Clinton had won, would you really have been surprised if as Cruz threatened, they stonewalled her nominations for as long as they could get away with?

And for what it's worth, I would have hoped the Democrats would have had the spine to do the exact same thing had the shoe been on the other foot.

[LaydeeBug]

110. And you're awfully generous with your ability to normalize them and this.

Why should we expect them to do what every other GOP or Dem caucus has done since our nation's inception? Oh *sure*, I should, or we should just EXPECT them to do something they've never done before.

And the DID...because they fucking knew the fix was in. It's funny how you postulate that we shouldn't expect them NOT to try something new, but that RIGGING THIS MOTHERFUCKER is beyond your pale.

O-kay.

[onenote]

111. Its not a question of me normalizing it. As I said, it's how they roll.

I wish to hell they'd paid a price for it. But they didn't. Not because of the Russians, but because the electorate as a whole let them get away with it. Apart from Democrats and editorial page writers, was anyone screaming about it? No. And apart from editorial writers and Democrats is anyone screaming about the repubs going nuclear to confirm Gorsuch? No. If you didn't expect them to go nuclear to get Gorsuch confirmed even though that had never happened you're being very naive.

The fact that I'm mad as hell about it is anything but my normalizing it.

And you've yet to explain why they wouldn't have done it without some advance inside info on the outcome of an election 9 months away.

[LaydeeBug]

112. Ok then. Thanks.

[broadcaster90210]

72. So now what?

nt

[aikoaiko]

73. Maybe. Maybe not.

[gademocrat7]

77. This is treason.

[lordsummerisle]

78. k&r n/t

[NastyRiffraff]

80. I've thought that from the beginning

Republicans kept saying that it should be up to the "next president" to nominate a SC justice. That makes absolutely no sense UNLESS they fully expected a Republican to win, a year before the election. They didn't count on Trump being their nominee at the time, but hey, he's a Republican so that's all right.

The Russians have been planning this for a long time, and they found Republicans willing to help them, to gain power. When will we dare call it treason?

[onenote]

87. Why does it make no sense for the repubs to have refused to confirm Garland?

If anything it would have made no sense for them to confirm Obama's nominee.
When Scalia died, they had two choices: confirm an Obama nominee (and they announced they wouldn't the day after Scalia died) or roll the dice and see if a repub won the white house. They didn't have to know the outcome to figure that by blocking Obama's nominee they moved from a 100 percent chance that the nominee would be from a Democratic president to at least the possibility that the nominee would be from a repub president. And given that at the time there were polls suggesting that repubs would be competitive with Clinton, why wouldn't they do exactly what they did.

The only reason not to do it would be if the strategy offended enough voters to make them question whether it was going to hurt them. There never was that much of an outcry about it to make them reverse their strategy.

[Amaryllis]

96. Nasty said it makes no sense not to confirm him UNLESS they fully expected a Repub to win.

WHich they did.

[onenote]

98. I disagree

Nasty said: Republicans kept saying that it should be up to the "next president" to nominate a SC justice. That makes absolutely no sense UNLESS they fully expected a Republican to win, a year before the election.


Wrong. It makes perfect sense whether they "expected" a Repub to win or just hoped one would. What benefit would they get from confirming Garland instead of taking a wait and see approach? What harm would they suffer from taking a wait and see approach. And it wasn't a year before the election. Scalia died in February. The election was less than nine months away. It was less than 8 months away when Garland was nominated. And the Supreme Court term was going to end in less than four months and Congress would be in session for less than three months between the Garland nomination and the end of the 2016 Supreme Court term. (By way of comparison, the Kagan nomination took three months from nomination to confirmation).

I hated that the repubs stonewalled Garland. I had hoped that the electorate would be so offended that it would cost the repubs. But the electorate (other than Democrats) seemingly didn't care. If it wasn't going to hurt them, why would anyone think the repubs would do differently.

And to be bluntly honest, if the shoe had been on the other foot, with the same facts, I would have hoped like hell the Democrats would have the spine to stonewall a repub president's nominee.

[Amaryllis]

100. We are saying the same thing. THey had only to gain by not giving him a hearing.

[onenote]

105. Right. But they didn't need to know how the election would turn out go get that gain.

At very least, they scored points with their base and the chance (uncertain at the time) to have a repub name Scalia's replacement. They didn't need to be certain or otherwise know that they'd get the latter benefit in order to have the incentive to give themselves that chance.

[defacto7]

81. yes indeed...

It's nothing I didn’t figure out from the git go....
Keep the story out there.

[chimpymustgo]

86. AND DU was taken down election day. This was NOT a coincidence. n/t

[BSdetect]

84. And because they knew there would be nothing we could do about it until after the worst SCOTUS

stooges were in place.

[moondust]

88. One could speculate

that 8 years of obstructionism was because the GOP knew they no longer had to compromise or pay any attention to The People. Was their midterm blowout of 2010 partly due to rigging? Of course rigging wouldn't explain the 2012 Presidential race but it might explain some of the other races.

[Mr. Ected]

99. Are we a nation of laws, or are we not?

The adjudication of this conspiracy will answer that question once and for all.

Ball is in your court, US of A.

[hughee99]

114. They didn't confirm Garland before the election in hopes that Trump would win.

If Clinton had won, the could have still confirmed him AFTER the election, as a preference over the person Clinton would have nominated instead. What did they have to gain by confirming Garland before the election?

[onenote]

117. Exactly right. They had nothing to lose by rolling the dice

The idea that they would have done anything different gives the repubs, who have been pushing the limits of obstruction when it comes to confirming members of the judiciary for years, far more credit than they possibly could deserve (and reflects a rather high level of naiveté.)

[Sunlei]

119. This topic is really making the view count. Republicans along with their Russian hacker

hacker buddies did attack our democracy and election.