Federal Judge Appointments

[TahoeHorn 107]

I track the appointment of federal judges mostly using four websites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf

http://judicialnominations.org/

The Trump Administration may have as many as 200 ARTICLE III federal judges confirmed in his first two years, but has has only 33 confirmed to date.  (Obama appointed 329 in eight years.) However, the process appears to be rolling.  There are 70 names in the hopper and 8 more hitting any day.  The hearing process has been slow but it looks like 6 circuit court nominees and 29 district court nominees may come up for a vote very soon, dumping 35 from the hopper and getting the number up to 68 or so.

I am unclear how the midyear election process will affect things.  Maybe things slow down.  And if the Dems win control of the Senate God help us.   If the GOP keeps control then we'll get to 200 easy by the end of 2019.

[David Dennison 18851]

Are you seriously griping about a slow process after what Barack Obama's nominees had to put up with?

Please.

[wildcat09 29347]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Are you seriously griping about a slow process after what Barack Obama's nominees had to put up with?

Please.

When the nominees are qualified center-left candidates, infinite obstruction is perfectly justified. When the nominees are horribly unqualified far-right partisan dipshits, even the scantest review is a horrible affront to democracy. Moose out front should've told you.

[David Dennison 18851]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

When the nominees are qualified center-left candidates, infinite obstruction is perfectly justified. When the nominees are horribly unqualified far-right partisan dipshits, even the scantest review is a horrible affront to democracy. Moose out front should've told you.

It's like they don't know people are on to their bullshit.

Things might move a little faster if the president stopped sending up unqualified nominees.

Edited April 30, 2018 by David Dennison

[softlynow 1813]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's like they don't know people are on to their bullshit.

Things might move a little faster if the president stopped sending up unqualified nominees.

They know. They don't care. Evangelicalism has been politically weaponized, and it is impervious to logic, decency and convention. God's will must be done. If their god actually cared for people, it wouldn't be such a problem.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled only required a steady diet of donuts.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

22 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I track the appointment of federal judges mostly using four websites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf

http://judicialnominations.org/

The Trump Administration may have as many as 200 ARTICLE III federal judges confirmed in his first two years, but has has only 33 confirmed to date.  (Obama appointed 329 in eight years.) However, the process appears to be rolling.  There are 70 names in the hopper and 8 more hitting any day.  The hearing process has been slow but it looks like 6 circuit court nominees and 29 district court nominees may come up for a vote very soon, dumping 35 from the hopper and getting the number up to 68 or so.

I am unclear how the midyear election process will affect things.  Maybe things slow down.  And if the Dems win control of the Senate God help us.   If the GOP keeps control then we'll get to 200 easy by the end of 2019.

At this rate by 2020 we'll be allowed to tell women what to do with their bodies, stop those homos from marrying, bringing back poll taxes and teaching about Jesus in public schools. Hang in there Tahoe we'll get back to the 1950's in short oder and you will safe again. #MAGA 

[David Dennison 18851]

1 minute ago, softlynow said:

They know. They don't care. Evangelicalism has been politically weaponized, and it is impervious to logic, decency and convention. God's will must be done. If their god actually cared for people, it wouldn't be such a problem.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled only required a steady diet of donuts.

I like the "God help us" shtick. It lets you know conservatives are super duper serious.

[Bateshorn 9927]

The joke I heard from a GOP staffer the other day was (actually serious):  The nominee has to be able to get through being yelled at by the democrats for an hour during their nomination hearing.  If they can't do that, we won't move them on the floor. Believe it or not, this has become a problem.  

 

[TahoeHorn 107]

I have almost no interest in the Guns, God and Gays stuff.

[F250 28764]

I randomly selected 3 nominations and was curious if they were unqualified right wing partisans. None of the 3 seem to meet that description. I am not going to go through all of them but I am guessing that the "unqualified right wing partisan" accusations is just a partisan justification for standard team politics.

 

Fernando Rodriguez Jr

Susan Paradise Baxter

Daniel D. Domenico

 

[TwiceHorn 31440]

23 minutes ago, softlynow said:

They know. They don't care. Evangelicalism has been politically weaponized, and it is impervious to logic, decency and convention. Ignorant, evil fucksticks' will attributed to God's will must be done. If their god actually cared for people, it wouldn't be such a problem.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled only required a steady diet of donuts.

Fify.  Also, it's telling about the local GOP whether the unfit judicial candidates are complete evangelical tools (Texas), or stealth evangelical tools (Louisiana), or just plain political tools (Mormon?  Utah?, Petersen).

Edited April 30, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[LongestHorn 759]

10 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I have almost no interest in the Guns, God and Gays stuff.

no one believes you

[TahoeHorn 107]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/10/how-unusual-are-trumps-not-qualified-judicial-nominations/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.49ccfdaa79b6

[David Dennison 18851]

Fake paywall news.

Fuckin' Bezos.

Edited April 30, 2018 by David Dennison

[TahoeHorn 107]

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/378643-dems-refuse-to-recognize-trumps-first-rate-federal-court-picks

[David Dennison 18851]

6 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/378643-dems-refuse-to-recognize-trumps-first-rate-federal-court-picks

Turnabout is fair play.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

11 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/378643-dems-refuse-to-recognize-trumps-first-rate-federal-court-picks

The Dems should wait until 2020 to confirm any judges. Let the voters decide. 

[David Dennison 18851]

Just now, Lagunamadre said:

The Dems should wait until 2020 to confirm any judges. Let the voters decide. 

It's why the GOP is terrified of losing the Senate.

Let's call it the Merrick Garland precedent.

[softlynow 1813]

2 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

I have almost no interest in the Guns, God and Gays stuff.

You didn't need to confirm that you had said interest, but thanks.

[wildcat09 29347]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

I randomly selected 3 nominations and was curious if they were unqualified right wing partisans. None of the 3 seem to meet that description. I am not going to go through all of them but I am guessing that the "unqualified right wing partisan" accusations is just a partisan justification for standard team politics.

 

Fernando Rodriguez Jr

Susan Paradise Baxter

Daniel D. Domenico

 

How about James Ho?

Quote

Judge James Ho has been a federal judge for only a few months. Until Wednesday, he had never handed down a judicial opinion in his life. But the Trump appointee’s very first opinion, a dissent calling for a sweeping assault on campaign contribution limits, is a doozy.

More than just an ideologically radical opinion, Judge Ho’s dissent from the full United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision not to rehear Zimmerman v. City of Austin is a monument to conservative political rhetoric and right-wing historical myths. It’s the sort of commentary one would expect to find in an especially strident political magazine — perhaps one of the publications one of Ho’s current law clerks used to write for. It is emphatically not the sort of writing one expects to find in a judicial opinion.

Newly confirmed judges — or, at least, newly confirmed judges who aren’t named “Neil Gorsuch” — are typically more careful than this. They don’t use their very first opinion to burn down the distinction between law and political myth-making.

The core issue in Zimmerman involves an Austin, Texas ordinance prohibiting candidates for mayor or city council from accepting campaign donations greater than $350. It is constitutional, even after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, to limit contributions directly to candidates — the federal contribution limit of $2,700, for example, is constitutional even under the Roberts Court’s reading of the Constitution.

There are also some Supreme Court decisions suggesting that an excessively low contribution limit might violate the Constitution. But a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit held that Austin’s $350 limit is not too low, and 12 of Ho’s 14 colleagues voted not to rehear this case. Judge Ho was one of only two judges who thought that the panel’s decision needed further review. As it happens, Ho spends much of his opinion arguing that the $350 limit is, in fact, too low.

But then he goes even farther. The newly minted judge suggests that all contribution limits “are simultaneously over- and underinclusive—defects that have been held fatal in other First Amendment contexts.” It appears that Judge Ho would even strike down the much higher federal limit.

The most striking part of Ho’s opinion, however, is his conclusion. There, he steps away from legal argument entirely to launch into a political rant against big government — complete with a gratuitous swipe at Obamacare.

To be sure, many Americans of good faith bemoan the amount of money spent on campaign contributions and political speech. But if you don’t like big money in politics, then you should oppose big government in our lives. Because the former is a necessary consequence of the latter. When government grows larger, when regulators pick more and more economic winners and losers, participation in the political process ceases to be merely a citizen’s prerogative—it becomes a human necessity. This is the inevitable result of a government that would be unrecognizable to our Founders. See, e.g., NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).

There’s a lot to break down here, but let’s start with the citation. NFIB v. Sebeliuswas a mostly unsuccessful attempt to convince the Supreme Court to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It has literally nothing to do with any of the legal issues present in Zimmerman. NFIB claimed that a health regulation exceeded Congress’ authority under Article I of the Constitution; Zimmerman is a First Amendment challenge to a campaign finance law.

The only reason to cite NFIB to support the proposition that our government “would be unrecognizable to our Founders” is to take a political swipe at Obamacare and at the Supreme Court that disagreed with Ho’s view of this law.

(Ho’s implication that the Affordable Care Act is inconsistent with the framers’ understanding of the Constitution is also dubious — to the extent that it is even possible to claim that a group of Eighteenth Century political leaders with divergent views shared a common understanding. The very first Supreme Court decision interpreting Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce provides a great deal of support for the Affordable Care Act.)

Ho’s suggestion that a modern regulatory and welfare state necessarily requires a lax campaign finance regime is also inaccurate. Canada, with its single-payer health care system, has both strict limits on donations to candidates and even stricter limits on campaign spending. In 2015, for example, the Canada Elections Act limited spending by candidates for the most expensive parliamentary race to about $210,000 US dollars. That’s not nothing, but it is far less than the $28 millionraised by competing candidates for a US House race last year.

Great Britain, with its socialized medicine, has a similar regime limiting spending by candidates and parties.

And then there’s Ho’s suggestion that the Founding Fathers would be appalled by Austin’s limit on campaign contributions. Judge Ho begins his opinion with a flourish. “The unfortunate trend in modern constitutional law is not only to create rights that appear nowhere in the Constitution, but also to disfavor rights expressly enumerated by our Founders,” he writes, adding that “this case reinforces this regrettable pattern.”

But Judge Ho’s appeal to the Founders is nothing more than James Madison fan fiction. It bears no more resemblance to the original understanding of the Constitution than a Harry Turtledove novel resembles the Civil War.

For one thing, attempting to figure out how the framers understood the First Amendment is a fool’s game. As Jud Campbell, a young conservative legal scholar, writes in the Yale Law Journal, “after a century of academic debate . . . the meanings of speech and press freedoms at the founding remain remarkably hazy.” First Amendment scholar Rod Smolla is even more pointed — “One can keep going round and round on the original meaning of the First Amendment, but no clear, consistent vision of what the framers meant by freedom of speech will ever emerge.”

Judge Ho, in other words, is claiming a level of certainty about the founding era understanding of the First Amendment that evaded scholars for generations. Ho is either a singular and transformative genius in the field of First Amendment history, or he is letting his political desires get ahead of what anyone actually knows.

But here’s something we actually do know about political campaigns at the time of the founding: Fans of the musical Hamilton may remember President Thomas Jefferson’s dismissive swipe at Vice President Aaron Burr near the end of the play — “Man openly campaigns against me, talkin’ bout ‘I look forward to our partnership.'” One reason this line is so biting is because, for much of American history, the idea that a presidential candidate would actively campaign for their own election was considered a vulgarity. Campaigns were typically conducted by surrogates.

As President Andrew Jackson once said to a friend, “I meddle not with elections. I leave the people to make their own President.”

And here’s something else we know about the founding era: they didn’t have television. Or the Internet. Or anything resembling modern political communications. The Founders and their contemporaries had no concept of what a modern political race would look like, or myriad of ways that contemporary technology allows big spenders to shape elections.

There is simply no way to know, in other words, whether modern campaign finance laws “disfavor rights” that the founding generation understood the Constitution to protect. As Doug Kendall and Jim Ryan once wrote of Justice Clarence Thomas’ originalism, asking how 18th Century figures would have reacted to such a transformed landscape is “as productive as asking an only child: Imagine you have a sister. Now, does she like cheese?”

Nominating partisan and/or ideological hacks like this, regardless of their particular partisan or ideological alignment, does substantial damage to our judicial system. Nothing good can come of attempts to turn ideological screeds with no basis in law into legal precedent. We need look no further than Roberts' dicta in Northwest Austin, in which he essentially made up from whole cloth the "equal sovereignty doctrine" that he later used to justify his decision in Shelby County, to see the harms that result when judges abandon any pretense of being anything other than partisan actors. 

[High Plains Drifter 11034]

46 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/378643-dems-refuse-to-recognize-trumps-first-rate-federal-court-picks

 

If DOTUS wants the Senate to move rapidly on his nominations, then he shouldn't have nominated a bunch of crooks (Pruitt comes to mind), idiots (Perry), and people who bought their nomination (Devoss). But with that list, I would expect the Senate to comb through his lower nominations with excruciating detail. 

 

And yeah, going forward, if opposite parties control the Senate and Presidency, ain't nobody getting nominated. Thanks McConnell!

[TwiceHorn 31440]

20 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

How about James Ho?

Nominating partisan and/or ideological hacks like this, regardless of their particular partisan or ideological alignment, does substantial damage to our judicial system. Nothing good can come of attempts to turn ideological screeds with no basis in law into legal precedent. We need look no further than Roberts' dicta in Northwest Austin, in which he essentially made up from whole cloth the "equal sovereignty doctrine" that he later used to justify his decision in Shelby County, to see the harms that result when judges abandon any pretense of being anything other than partisan actors. 

I actually didn't expect Ho to be such a jag off.

[Brisketexan 105082]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I actually didn't expect Ho to be such a jag off.

Me either.  Wasn't crazy about his nomination, but didn't expect him to make an ass of himself.  Which he did, without even taking a warm-up swing.

[F250 28764]

18 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

How about James Ho?

Nominating partisan and/or ideological hacks like this, regardless of their particular partisan or ideological alignment, does substantial damage to our judicial system. Nothing good can come of attempts to turn ideological screeds with no basis in law into legal precedent. We need look no further than Roberts' dicta in Northwest Austin, in which he essentially made up from whole cloth the "equal sovereignty doctrine" that he later used to justify his decision in Shelby County, to see the harms that result when judges abandon any pretense of being anything other than partisan actors. 

As I said, I randomly pulled three names from the list and none were controversial. Would you say that the majority of the nominees are similar to James Ho or more similar to the 3 nominees I posted?

I don't know the answer and I really am curious if most of the nominations are decent nominations with a handful of ideologically slanted picks.

I get that Trump is a crooked fuck that would sell a nomination, so his picks shouldn't be trusted but I also don't think Trump is actually picking all of these people.

[Gil Bang 25922]

1 minute ago, F250 said:

As I said, I randomly pulled three names from the list and none were controversial. Would you say that the majority of the nominees are similar to James Ho or more similar to the 3 nominees I posted?

I don't know the answer and I really am curious if most of the nominations are decent nominations with a handful of ideologically slanted picks.

I get that Trump is a crooked fuck that would sell a nomination, so his picks shouldn't be trusted but I also don't think Trump is actually picking all of these people.

Did you miss the hearing a few months back with the dipshit that's never taken a deposition, much less tried a fucking case?  

[TwiceHorn 31440]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Me either.  Wasn't crazy about his nomination, but didn't expect him to make an ass of himself.  Which he did, without even taking a warm-up swing.

We should probably both know that 5th circuit appointments without prior judicial experience (and some with) are jag offs.

[Brisketexan 105082]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

We should probably both know that 5th circuit appointments without prior judicial experience (and some with) are jag offs.

Verdad.

Experience matters.  Yeah, yeah, I have heard all the arguments about elitist, deep-state, swamp, blah blah blah.  In positions that require highly specialized knowledge and application of same, experience matters.  I don't want my cardiac surgeon to be "an outsider," I don't want my 737 pilot to be a "fresh face."  And I don't want my Federal Article III judges to be complete newbies to the bench.

[wildcat09 29347]

10 minutes ago, F250 said:

As I said, I randomly pulled three names from the list and none were controversial. Would you say that the majority of the nominees are similar to James Ho or more similar to the 3 nominees I posted?

I don't know the answer and I really am curious if most of the nominations are decent nominations with a handful of ideologically slanted picks.

I get that Trump is a crooked fuck that would sell a nomination, so his picks shouldn't be trusted but I also don't think Trump is actually picking all of these people.

I'm not a litigator so I'm not really familiar with most of the people on the list. And I agree that Trump himself for the most part has no hand in picking these nominees, though a fair number do appear have been selected for no reason other than as thanks for their campaign support. But it seems clear that the people who are being chosen are being chosen first and foremost for their willingness to advance a partisan agenda from the bench. I think the entire concept of judges simply being there to call "balls and strikes" is unmitigated bullshit, and there's certainly always been political/ideological considerations taken into account when nominating judges, but what we're seeing now (along with nominations for executive agencies) is more than a difference in degree, it's a difference in kind. It's one thing for a judge to allow their ideological beliefs to influence their judgment on legal questions with no clear answers. It's another thing entirely for a judge to simply hold that the law is what they want it to be in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary.

[Pods 7551]

2 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/10/how-unusual-are-trumps-not-qualified-judicial-nominations/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.49ccfdaa79b6

Trump has made fewer picks — but a higher percentage of them were determined to be not qualified or received a substantial minority of the standing committee who believed that they were not qualified.

 

 

[Pods 7551]

Did you actually read that article you posted Tahoe? I see a problem with Bush II and Trump repeatedly nominating unqualified candidates and Clinton and Obama almost completely avoiding it. 

That's exactly the allegation you were apparently posting the article to refute. 

[TwiceHorn 31440]

5 minutes ago, Pods said:

Did you actually read that article you posted Tahoe? I see a problem with Bush II and Trump repeatedly nominating unqualified candidates and Clinton and Obama almost completely avoiding it. 

That's exactly the allegation you were apparently posting the article to refute. 

Well, to be fair, neither Shrub nor Trump decided to wait for ABA qualification before nominating.  Strange move.  The article did take some pains to note that Obama apparently had a slate of nominees, but waited for ABA qualification before actually nominating and had to withdraw some on that basis.

 

And Tahoe posted it without comment, so I am not sure he was refuting anything.

Edited April 30, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31440]

15 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm not a litigator so I'm not really familiar with most of the people on the list. And I agree that Trump himself for the most part has no hand in picking these nominees, though a fair number do appear have been selected for no reason other than as thanks for their campaign support. But it seems clear that the people who are being chosen are being chosen first and foremost for their willingness to advance a partisan agenda from the bench. I think the entire concept of judges simply being there to call "balls and strikes" is unmitigated bullshit, and there's certainly always been political/ideological considerations taken into account when nominating judges, but what we're seeing now (along with nominations for executive agencies) is more than a difference in degree, it's a difference in kind. It's one thing for a judge to allow their ideological beliefs to influence their judgment on legal questions with no clear answers. It's another thing entirely for a judge to simply hold that the law is what they want it to be in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary.

Being a litigator wouldn't help.  Who the fuck are some of these people and who in the name of God at the local level decided they should be judges?

[Brisketexan 105082]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Being a litigator wouldn't help.  Who the fuck are some of these people and who in the name of God at the local level decided they should be judges?

This.

I've been in front of Dem appointed judges.  I've been in front of GOP appointed judges.  Sometimes, you can see that they lean one way or the other (right or left).  But that's it -- they LEAN.  And most importantly, they are (by and large) within a band of competence.  Sure, there are a couple of duds out there, but sometimes, even acting on good info, you end up with a dud.

99% of what your local Federal Judge does isn't headline-grabbing ideology stuff.  It's processing a heavy criminal docket (they are LOADED with drug cases), and a varied civil docket.  That's the case with local district judges, too.  It's best to have folks in there who know what they are doing, not bloggers and shit.

[shnsajax 3591]

3 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

I have almost no interest in the Guns, God and Gays stuff.

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

is this a But Gorsuch thread or a But Garland thread?

[Brisketexan 105082]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

is this a But Gorsuch thread or a But Garland thread?

Buttfuckery.

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

 

[TahoeHorn 107]

This will be an interesting week.  There will be votes on six Circuit Court Judges.  The Dems have been dragging the vote out forever.  The whole confirmation process is getting uglier and uglier with each party taking the war to new heights.

Historically refusing to return blue slips killed the nomination.  The Dems are using this aggressively in spite of strong efforts to work with Dems.  In a few cases the White House was able to work things out and get the blue slips, even in Hawaii which is in the Ninth Circuit.   But the Oregon Senators played hardball so the GOP finally decided to go forward without the blue slips for Bounds.  This has the Dems fuming.

[TahoeHorn 107]

We also have a long list of nominations which may get reported out of committee.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/05/10/2018/executive-business-meeting

And we have nine judges which were formally nominated yesterday (Monday).

[Jack Burton 35]

Each party is NOT taking this to new heights. It's one.and it's GOP.

[blackmarketbaby 118]

On 4/30/2018 at 9:24 AM, David Dennison said:

It's like they don't know people are on to their bullshit.

Things might move a little faster if the president stopped sending up unqualified nominees.

There was never a reason who would take the short bus in this thread but it might be a mutiny 

[Pods 7551]

2 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

This will be an interesting week.  There will be votes on six Circuit Court Judges.  The Dems have been dragging the vote out forever.  The whole confirmation process is getting uglier and uglier with each party taking the war to new heights.

Historically refusing to return blue slips killed the nomination.  The Dems are using this aggressively in spite of strong efforts to work with Dems.  In a few cases the White House was able to work things out and get the blue slips, even in Hawaii which is in the Ninth Circuit.   But the Oregon Senators played hardball so the GOP finally decided to go forward without the blue slips for Bounds.  This has the Dems fuming.

Stop nominating and trying to confirm unqualified shitheels and you'll get your judges. 

[Armybrat 40826]

5 hours ago, Jack Burton said:

Each party is NOT taking this to new heights. It's one.and it's GOP.

Surly you jest.

[TahoeHorn 107]

You need to follow the detail instead of the headlines.  See what happens to each nominee.

https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_during_the_Trump_administration

The guy who the Dems are making a big stink about (Bounds) received to highest possible rating (unanimously well qualified).

[TahoeHorn 107]

8 hours ago, Pods said:

...

Stop nominating and trying to confirm unqualified shitheels and you'll get your judges. 

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/GAO/Web rating Chart Trump 115.authcheckdam.pdf

 

Not so, Scooter.  You need to see how the Dems behave with the highest rated judges.

Hey, look at the rating of Gorsuch.  It's the highest possible.

[Jack Burton 35]

5 hours ago, Armybrat said:

Surly you jest.

no

[hpslugga 4058]

17 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Hey, look at the rating of Gorsuch.  It's the highest possible.

So was Merrick Garland's. Stop pretending that whole thing wasn't a gigantic act of political douchebaggery.

[Brisketexan 105082]

So was Merrick Garland's. Stop pretending that whole thing wasn't a gigantic act of political douchebaggery.

Political douchebaggery is the GOP brand.

The problem for the rest of us: there are enough fucking douche bags in this country that it’s a reasonably effective brand.

[TahoeHorn 107]

You all seem to be missing the point:  The war is getting uglier and uglier.

You can't argue that either side is behaving well.  Both sides believe in blocking well qualified opponents.  This will not end well.

[Brisketexan 105082]

You all seem to be missing the point:  The war is getting uglier and uglier.

You can't argue that either side is behaving well.  Both sides believe in blocking well qualified opponents.  This will not end well.

“This will not end well.”

 

You support a party and platform of “this will not end well.” Don’t fucking complain about the poison that you’re happily dumping into the water supply by the gallon. Just don’t. You’re already a pathetic spineless hypocrite, no need to turn it up to 11.