Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, May 12, 2018

The Senate voted Thursday to confirm Michael Brennan to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit - a vacancy that Republicans prevented President Barack Obama from filling for six years. The vote, 49 to 46, was entirely partisan. Until now, the seat was the nation's longest circuit court vacancy. It was empty since January 2010, and it had been up to Wisconsin's two senators to work with the White House to fill it.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

There is no difference between the parties, example 157,426....

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-05-10 05:20 PM | Reply

Republicans are such POSes.

Soon their gerrymandering won't even be up for challenging because they've stacked the courts with loyalist toadies who will be partisans first and judges second.

The right is such scum. Their ideas fail in the open market so they turn to force via the judiciary and no faith governance to get there.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2018-05-10 07:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

But OBAMA failed to get it ratified!

Harrumph

JJ

#3 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-05-10 08:00 PM | Reply

Musta been that Filled Tree that was holding things up.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-05-10 08:08 PM | Reply

Winning

#5 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-05-10 08:40 PM | Reply

Winning

#5 | Posted by -------

Seriously, why does it seem that the ones yelling "PATRIOTISM" the loudest are the ones most adverse to our countries founding principles?

#6 | Posted by jpw at 2018-05-10 09:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

About time you douches realize that judges are nothing but politicians. They don't deserve our respect. The solution to this, like the solution to most things government, is to strip away government power so their reach is limited.

#7 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-05-10 10:19 PM | Reply

No Rex, everyone isn't as cynically corrupted as you apparently believe. This nation has never seen such blind partisanship than that which has evolved from today's Republican Party and its supplicants. Most people have always believed that a jurist nominated for the federal bench would likely respect that the nation is made up of different people with different viewpoints with the understanding that law's goal is to maintain an ordered society adhering to laws adjudicated equally amongst both the richest and the poorest.

The people who pervert this notion should have their influence minimized for it isn't government that is broken, it is broken people running the government. Everyone should stand against such naked power grabs, but the right continues to wallow in their zero sum beliefs. Life isn't zero sum unless one forgets that others have liberty too that needs to be respected.

#8 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-05-10 10:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Most people have always believed that a jurist nominated for the federal bench would likely respect that the nation is made up of different people with different viewpoints with the understanding that law's goal is to maintain an ordered society adhering to laws adjudicated equally amongst both the richest and the poorest.
#8 | POSTED BY TONYROMA
=============
Oh, your naivety is so cute. Google Midnight Judges under Adams. This was how the courts were set up from the beginning.

#9 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-05-10 10:51 PM | Reply

#9

It's how they've been perverted by the human condition. Remember the Founders were not stupid. They knew that it would always be a struggle to "form a more perfect union." We'd been doing a fairly decent job up until very recently. Most people aren't clamoring for radical change, they only wish to see the arc of history bending towards King's arc of justice. That shouldn't be hard for all sides to agree to, yet it is.

#10 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-05-10 11:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

Remember the Founders were not stupid.
#10 | POSTED BY TONYROMA
==============
Ummm, hate to break this to you but Adams WAS A FOUNDER. Also, how do you define 'recently' because I got this too:

"On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a controversial plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics immediately charged that Roosevelt was trying to "pack" the court and thus neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his New Deal."

#11 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-05-10 11:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

C'mon Rex, I didn't say each and every Founder was inviolate. They were human too and each fallible. My point was about their prescient charge about the constant need to "form a more perfect union." This is an admission that the then-status quo was flawed, not perfect. Thay admitted their shortcomings and their inability to foretell the future, leaving it up to their progeny to make whatever changes necessary.

#12 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-05-10 11:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"form a more perfect union."

More Perfect, you say.
That's just code for "Less Evil."
--SheepleSchism

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-05-10 11:29 PM | Reply

I can't resist....Winning!

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-05-11 12:46 AM | Reply

This seems like retribution for Miguel Estrada.

I have ZERO sympathy for your preferred candidate being held up for 6 years only to have the seat filled by a Trump nominee.

You know what else I have ZERO sympathy for?

Let me create simply hypothetical - Trump wins re-election in 2020 but the GOP loses the Senate and a few months later a SCOTUS jurist retires. Dems have the majority (keep the Senate 2 years later) in the Senate and due to inaction, block every Trump nominee for that vacancy, for as long as they have power...and do so unapologetically.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-05-11 12:53 AM | Reply

#15...If Dems escalate the whole 'Garland-thing', in no way do I begrudge them.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-05-11 12:54 AM | Reply

block every Trump nominee for that vacancy, for as long as they have power...and do so unapologetically.

The howling from the pinheads on the right would be deafening including from those that regularly post here.

#17 | Posted by 726 at 2018-05-11 07:39 AM | Reply

"This seems like retribution for Miguel Estrada"

YEAH!

Cause that's how successful "businesses" are run in right wing dingdong derpy-der land!

#18 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-05-11 10:37 AM | Reply

#7 I love it. Break something intentionally, then claim the best way to fix what you broke is to just get rid of it.

You realize the central problem here is you, right?

#19 | Posted by jpw at 2018-05-11 10:41 AM | Reply

"This seems like retribution for Miguel Estrada"

What is a compulsive excuse making asshat supposed to do under these circumstances but dredge up some victimization from 17 years ago.

the perpetual victim just wants an "honest" discussion, don't you know

#20 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-05-11 10:46 AM | Reply

Man, payback indeed will be a female canine.

#21 | Posted by e1g1 at 2018-05-12 08:37 AM | Reply

Ignore the obvious Russians they pretend to be Americans because in reality the little cowards fear us.

#22 | Posted by Tor at 2018-05-13 06:28 PM | Reply

Seriously, why does it seem that the ones yelling "PATRIOTISM" the loudest are the ones most adverse to our countries founding principles?

#6 | POSTED BY JPW

Because they have so weaponized the English language to the point that words don't mean what they used to mean. Take "liberal" for example:

lib·er·al
ˈlib(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: liberal
1.
open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
"they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people"
favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
"liberal citizenship laws"
synonyms: tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened; More
antonyms: narrow-minded, bigoted
(in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.
"a liberal democratic state"
synonyms: progressive, advanced, modern, forward-looking, forward-thinking, progressivist, enlightened, reformist, radical
"a liberal social agenda"
antonyms: reactionary, conservative

Somebody, please explain what is bad about being "open to new behavior/opinions", "unprejudiced, unbigoted", "progressive, forward-looking". How do all these concepts come to identify as negative?

Answer: deliberate propaganda propagated by ideologues backed by big money:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.4 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
--D. Eisenhower
Problem is, they were able to use their money to convince the gullible to vote for policies that mostly benefit the rich at the expense of everybody else. As much as it was ridiculed at the time, Hillary was right: there was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" out to get the Clintons (and all other "liberals"). They're still after them to this day.

#23 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-05-14 12:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Somebody, please explain what is bad about being "open to new behavior/opinions", "unprejudiced, unbigoted", "progressive, forward-looking".

nothing at all and the way you present this is a good way to get folks to see how "liberal" shouldn't be a negative term in any way.

"How do all these concepts come to identify as negative?"

I don't think "all these concepts" identify as negative...I think the word "liberal" does because folks don't know the definition. If it were possible to eliminate the word "liberal" and replace it with the definition then the negative identification would be reduced significantly. Hard thing to do.

We've tried "progressive" but that was a lazy mans way to change the perception of the term....eventually we ended up in the same place.

I think folks are so tribal which is why they refuse to be "open to new behavior/opinions". Folks on both sides are guilty of that, BTW.

#24 | Posted by eberly at 2018-05-14 12:26 PM | Reply

Answer: deliberate propaganda propagated by ideologues backed by big money:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.

There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things.

Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.

Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

--D. Eisenhower


Problem is, they were able to use their money to convince the gullible to vote for policies that mostly benefit the rich at the expense of everybody else.

As much as it was ridiculed at the time, Hillary was right: there was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" out to get the Clintons (and all other "liberals"). They're still after them to this day.

#23 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

Great post -- in fact, post of the century ~

#25 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-05-14 12:33 PM | Reply

Folks on both sides are guilty of that, BTW.

Not really. Conservatism doesn't provide any new behavior/opinions. It defends the status quo or even the status quo ante. Ideas that are actually new (like representative self-government with no King) are inherently liberal.

#26 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-05-14 12:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort