32 thoughts on “News/Politics 9-19-20

  1. Democrats wouldn’t wait, so neither should R’s…..

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/09/how-does-ginsburgs-death-affect-the-race.php

    “HOW DOES GINSBURG’S DEATH AFFECT THE RACE?
    As Steve has noted, Ruth Ginsburg died today. Steve said that we would be back tomorrow with more thoughts, so I am jumping the gun. Here are some preliminary observations:

    1) I think President Trump will nominate Amy Barrett to fill the vacancy, and will do so quickly.

    2) I think Mitch McConnell will schedule hearings to take place soon.

    3) The Supreme Court has always been a winning issue for conservatives. That will be true again. The Democrats will have a hard time attacking Barrett (or, I assume, anyone else Trump might nominate). The issue will be a net plus for the president, unless Republican senators betray him.

    4) Republican senators may betray the president. Lisa Murkowski, for example:”

    Liked by 2 people

  2. McConnell says there will be a vote. Without the disloyal RINO faction, Pence would be the tie-breaker.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/517178-mcconnell-says-trump-nominee-to-replace-ginsburg-will-get-senate-vote

    “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) vowed Friday night that Republicans will move to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

    “Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise,” McConnell said.

    “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” McConnell added.

    McConnell’s decision comes roughly an hour after news broke that Ginsburg had died at 87, and before President Trump has weighed in on her passing and if he plans to try to fill the seat this year.

    But Republicans close to the White House said they expect Trump to put forth a nominee to fill her seat in the coming days. Trump was holding a rally in Minnesota as news spread of Ginsburg’s death, and appeared to be unaware of the news.

    A person familiar with discussions added they expect Trump to put forward a nominee and Circuit Judges Amy Coney Barrett and Amul Thapar are among the front-runners. They noted his other nominees were both white men, and there is some added pressure to pick a woman or person of color.

    Democrats and progressive outside groups quickly called on Ginsburg’s seat to be held open until next year, similar to McConnell’s decision to not hold a vote for then-President Obama’s final Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Obama nominated Garland after the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in 2016 but Republicans held it open until 2017 when they confirmed Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee.”

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Old Joe will be shocked….

    No one else is though….

    https://freebeacon.com/2020-election/hunter-biden-offered-d-c-access-to-chinese-company-in-exchange-for-investments/

    “Hunter Biden Offered D.C. Access to Chinese Company in Exchange for Investments”

    “Hunter Biden touted his family’s political clout to solicit a $5 million investment from China for his U.S.-based financial advisory firm, according to a court filing by a white-collar convict who claims he had an inside view into Biden’s murky foreign business dealings.

    John Galanis, 77, argues that the younger Biden used his businesses as a “pay-to-play influence peddling operation” by offering access to influential people in Washington, D.C., in exchange for investments. Galanis, who was convicted in 2018 of defrauding investors and the Wakpamni tribal community, states in the affidavit that his son, Jason Galanis, provided him with details of Biden’s offshore deals after befriending Biden’s longtime business partner Devon Archer.

    In the affidavit, Galanis says that Biden and Archer worked to secure $15 million for their financial advisory company from the Chinese investment fund Harvest Fund Management in 2015, which agreed to provide them with $5 million after Biden reached out directly to the firm’s chairman and said it would be important to the Biden family.

    “To induce Chinese, Biden sends email to Henry Zhao, Chairman/founder of Harvest,” said Galanis. “[Biden] says investment would be important to his family. Chinese agree to $5 million investment in Burnham Asset Management alone.”

    At the time, Archer and Biden’s investment advisory firm, Burnham Financial, was facing significant financial problems and needed the $5 million investment to stay afloat. The company’s independent trustees told Archer that they had “very grave concerns” about “the solvency of Burnham” and were considering moving the funds to a different adviser, according to minutes from an October 2015 board meeting that were included in a previous court appeal by Archer.

    Archer reassured the trustees that he had a “relationship with various persons and entities based in the People’s Republic of China,” including Zhao, “and it was hoped that Harvest or its various affiliated parties would make a contribution through a business relationship to be developed to the working capital of Burnham in the amount of $5 million,” according to a copy of the board minutes.

    Around the same time, Archer and Biden put together a financial proposal for Burnham to pitch to Harvest that promised “Washington, D.C., access” for investors, according to a copy of the presentation that was introduced in the trial. Biden was listed in the presentation as the vice chairman of Burnham & Co. and the CEO of Burnham Advisors.”

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Word.

    ——–

    Liked by 1 person

  5. RBG’s “dying wish”, if honored, could leave eight justices for the next four years. No. They need to move forward. That is how it is set up.

    Like

  6. Depends on how you read her comment, I took it to mean the “new” president (elected in 2020). Of course, her hope and expectation undoubtedly would be that it wouldn’t be Trump. But I think the intent was to say it should not be filled until after the election.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Kathaleena nails it at 8:47PM.

    Same goes for Democrats. They keep referring to a lame duck president, yet Trump isn’t yet. He’s still the president, there’s not been an election. They might have a point had she lasted 2 more months. She didn’t, and this is still his job, and he should do it.

    They would.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I’d say do it anyway. The riots will continue either way. Don’t cower to cowards making threats.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/after-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-death-people-are-already-calling-for-riots-and-court-packing

    “People already calling for riots and court-packing following news of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death”

    “It has not been even six hours since news broke of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing, and ostensibly left-wing activists, politicos, pundits, and journalists are already calling for court-packing and riots.

    “If they ever TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire @#$%$#$ thing down,” threatened former CNN staffer and part-time cannibal Reza Aslan.

    Later, after the office of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement saying that “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” Aslan added in a note that is almost certainly all talk: “Over our dead bodies. Literally.”

    Sure, Aslan. You go first.”

    ————

    As for what RBG wanted….

    Liked by 2 people

  9. History is on the side of Trump and Republicans. From August….

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    “History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020”

    “Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament.”

    “If a Supreme Court vacancy opens up between now and the end of the year, Republicans should fill it. Given the vital importance of the Court to rank-and-file Republican voters and grassroots activists, particularly in the five-decade-long quest to overturn Roe v. Wade, it would be political suicide for Republicans to refrain from filling a vacancy unless some law or important traditional norm was against them. There is no such law and no such norm; those are all on their side. Choosing not to fill a vacancy would be a historically unprecedented act of unilateral disarmament. It has never happened once in all of American history. There is no chance that the Democrats, in the same position, would ever reciprocate, as their own history illustrates.

    For now, all this remains hypothetical. Neither Ruth Bader Ginsburg nor any of her colleagues intend to go anywhere. But with the 87-year-old Ginsburg fighting a recurrence of cancer and repeatedly in and out of hospitals, we are starting to see the Washington press corps and senators openly discussing what would happen if she dies or is unable to continue serving on the Court. Democrats are issuing threats, and some Republicans are already balking.

    They shouldn’t.

    History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic. Republicans should not create a brand-new precedent to deviate from them.

    Power, Norms, and Election-Year Nominations

    There are two types of rules in Washington: laws that allocate power, and norms that reflect how power has traditionally, historically been used. Laws that allocate power are paramount, and particularly dangerous to violate, but there is no such law at issue here. A president can always make a nomination for a Supreme Court vacancy, no matter how late in his term or how many times he has been turned down; the only thing in his way is the Senate.

    Twenty-nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration. (This counts vacancies created by new seats on the Court, but not vacancies for which there was a nomination already pending when the year began, such as happened in 1835–36 and 1987–88.) The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases. George Washington did it three times. John Adams did it. Thomas Jefferson did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Ulysses S. Grant did it. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. Dwight Eisenhower did it. Barack Obama, of course, did it. Twenty-two of the 44 men to hold the office faced this situation, and all twenty-two made the decision to send up a nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate.

    During the 1844 election, for example, there were two open seats on the Court. John Tyler made nine separate nominations of five different candidates, in one case sending up the same nominee three times. He sent up a pair of nominees in December, after the election. When those failed, he sent up another pair in February (presidential terms then ended in March). He had that power. Presidents have made Supreme Court nominations as late as literally the last day of their term. In Tyler’s case, the Whig-controlled Senate had, and used, its power to block multiple nominations by a man they had previously expelled from their party.”

    ————

    Too bad, so sad, now get to the hearings. Dems will have to do this the old fashioned way, the way they did Kavanaugh. Thru character assassination and slanderous mud slinging.

    Like

  10. We can’t let chaos make our decisions.
    I really feel that the timing of Ginsburg’s death was Divine intervention. I don’t know what will come of it. but it is significant.
    We have to make a choice like never before. Are we going to be judged by the rule of law, or by the noise someone makes.
    Serious issue here.
    Think about it: Someone is brutally killed in Minnesota, so protesters destroy Portland Oregon.
    Our nation is on a precipice. I’ve said before, “I don’t LIKE Trump, but I fear for the alternative.”

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Only an idiot would want to impeach a president for doing his constitutional duty. Only a partisan hack would even ask.

    ———-

    Like

  12. The people are for Trump putting up his nominee and for confirmation hearings.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/people-favor-confirmation-hearings-for-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020-poll

    “A new poll conducted shortly before the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed that an overwhelming majority of U.S. adults of all political stripes supported holding hearings for a nominee if a vacancy opened on the nation’s highest bench.

    Marquette University released the survey results on Saturday that showed 67% of adults believed the Senate should hold a hearing if a vacancy occurred during 2020’s race, with only 32% opposition — and similar strong numbers across Republicans, Democrats, and independents, who supported holding confirmation hearings at 68-31%, 63-37%, and 71-28% respectively. The poll was completed three days before the death of Ginsburg, the 87-year-old liberal icon who was nominated by President Bill Clinton and confirmed in 1993. Ginsburg earned praise from Democrats and Republicans upon news of her death.”

    ———–

    Que the sad trombones…..

    Like

  13. From the Armageddon Axios article:

    https://www.axios.com/democrats-supreme-court-ginsburg-options-871f3e66-e7a4-4f40-9691-d20de1f4be61.html

    ~ Furious Democrats are considering total war — profound changes to two branches of government, and even adding stars to the flag — if Republicans jam through a Supreme Court nominee then lose control of the Senate.

    On the table: Adding Supreme Court justices … eliminating the Senate’s 60-vote threshold to end filibusters … and statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico. “If he holds a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021,” Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.) tweeted.

    Why it matters: Democrats are enraged by GOP hypocrisy of rushing through a new justice for President Trump after stalling President Obama’s final nominee.

    Dems aren’t optimistic about blocking the nominee. But they have many ways of retaliating if they win Senate control — and are licking their chops about real movement on ideas that have been pushed futilely for decades. ~

    Like

  14. As for that packing the court idea….

    Even Ginsburg saw it as a rank political move, and a bad one.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.