Too Many Unknowns to be Gleeful About Trump

Like Amanda Marcotte I share a happy anticipation at the prospect of Hillary Clinton running against Donald Trump, even in the lousy and constrained American democracy she should easily smash him, an enjoyable experience with enormous benefits for the country. There are a number of factors, however, that constrain the natural glee from that evolution and ultimately reveal that Trump as a candidate is a negative outcome overall.

When Trump is officially declared be prepared for an excruciating episode of embarrassment, the rest of the civilized industrialized world will be looking at us and absolutely know something has gone terribly wrong, on some levels it’s funny but mostly there will be vastly grave concern that the United States of America has become sick and broken. We have the potential for great leadership, but it will be forever dimmed if we can’t be trusted, of course we can’t be if we’re so dysfunctional.

Stop the Enthusiasm/Turnout Nonsense

For the umpteenth time, members of the media should stop yapping about an enthusiasm/turnout problem for the Democrats based on this primary season relative to the GOP’s turnout. Such concerns are only valid if you assume that all Republicans will actually vote in November for Donald Trump as their nominee. Not only do we already know they won’t (a Rubio or Kasich voter will not vote for Trump), but we also know it isn’t even clear Trump will be getting the nomination without a gory spectacle this spring or in Cleveland at the convention.

Yes, Hillary is a known commodity for better or worse, and does not inspire millions to come out during the primary season. And it should also be pointed out that unlike Republican crazies and racists, who are angry at everyone else out of a false sense of victimhood being fed to them by a treasonous right wing media, Democrats are largely content and not storming the polling places this spring. Having said that, Bernie may still get the nomination for any number of reasons (a campaign cash advantage, and the FBI investigation of Hillary’s email stupidity).

But if you really think millions of African Americans and Latino voters will be disillusioned by a choice between Hillary and Trump and simply stay home this November, then you are nothing more than a 1) member of the media; or 2) a Hillary hater.

Stop Worrying About Benito Trump

There’s been a lot of hand wringing of late amongst the Sanders’ supporters at MSNBC and the Nation about how bad a Hillary-Trump matchup will go for the Democrats this fall. Namely, we’re told that Trump will destroy Hillary over her email mess and how badly he’ll take the blue collar vote from her because of her Wall Street ties, and his promises to bring back jobs through tougher trade policies.

Really? Tell me first how Trump gets past the GOP convention with a nomination and support from a unified party after he, Rubio, and Cruz smear each other over the coming weeks. Do you really think the GOP will unite behind Trump as their nominee, without seeing significant numbers of Republicans stay home or vote for the Democrats? Do you really think Rubio and Cruz supporters will simply forgive and forget?

Do you really think blue collar Democrats will switch sides this fall to vote for a man who intentionally avoids hiring Americans job seekers here at home so he can hire eastern European visa slaves at his domestic enterprises? And that’s assuming there are that many racist blue collar Democrats who will look the other way and ignore Trump’s obvious bias against people of color.

Please stop with the hand wringing and defective analyses.

Cowardice and Confidence

It has been correctly noted that Republican Senate obstruction to President Obama’s next Supreme Court nomination is an act of obvious cowardice, no Party confident of its mission and ideology would so childishly, churlishly hide behind such useless lies and rationalizations.

Well, Supreme Court and other Executive judicial appointments were never considered the crown jewels of Republican power for positive implementation of an agenda, their primary purpose is to hold the authoritarian, capitalist line and squash down any liberal legislative progress.

Nullifying the Constitution and SCOTUS for Secret Society Cultists

The Senate GOP’s refusal to hold hearings or a vote on any Obama nominee to replace Antonin Scalia not only serves to shine a brighter light upon the Republican Party’s efforts to nullify the United States Constitution, but also endangers several GOP senators up for reelection this year.

Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire)
Roy Blunt (Missouri)
Richard Burr (North Carolina)
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Johnny Isakson (Georgia)
Ron Johnson (Wisconsin)
Mark Kirk (Illinois)
John McCain (Arizona)
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Rob Portman (Ohio)
Tim Scott (South Carolina)
Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania)

Yes, some of these GOP incumbents would be immune from general election pressure, but Ayotte, Johnson, Kirk, Portman, and even Grassley and Toomey can be targeted over the coming months for participating in an effort to undermine the Constitution and the third branch of government.

Then it is a separate question why all the GOP Senate incumbents and presidential candidates talk up their love for the recently-deceased Scalia, and would want another secret-society unaccountable elitist to replace him.

I suspect the more we find out about Antonin Scalia and those he associated with, the more uncomfortable it will be for the GOP's chances this year the longer they block a replacement and demand another like him.

Enabling the Crime

The standoff between Apple and the FBI over getting access to the IPhones of the San Bernardino mass murderers is a fairly simple issue to me. Apple is cloaking its concern for its cash machine and profits in a bullsh*t cape of privacy. No company, even darling technology companies have an inherent right to endanger society by protecting murderers and terrorists. Sorry, plain and simple.

Apple can control the process used by the FBI to gain access to the phone, and Apple can destroy the program used to search for the passcode right after the FBI is finished, all under specific judicial review and approval. If there are concerns about hacking and penetration by other governments, then Apple needs to deal with its own employees and leverage those business relationships with those governments. And for all my Edward Snowden supporters who scream about the government trampling over your privacy by trying to get into your phone, they aren't trying to get into your phone here.

If you are one of the good progressives who reject the NRA's dubious argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people", it is because you believe that those who make and sell the tool that enable the crime should bear some of the responsibility, which is a perfectly plausible argument. But didn't a cellphone enable mass murder here? And who else is among us ready to do the same? Does Apple's proprietary profit model trump collective safety? Since when did society agree to give up such safety to this notion of privacy? I must have missed that election or that disclosure on my phone's documentation.

The Republican Neutron Bomb

"Ted Cruz is a totally unstable individual. He is the single biggest liar I’ve ever come across, in politics or otherwise, and I have seen some of the best of them. His statements are totally untrue and completely outrageous. Cruz has become unhinged and is lying with the hopes that his statements will go unchecked until after the election and he will save his failing campaign."
--Donald Trump, today

Donald Trump threatened Ted Cruz with a lawsuit today for telling lies about him. Seriously. Trump says that if Cruz doesn't pull down his attack ads against him, he wants the Republican National Committee to intervene, which of course isn't happening. So what will Trump do after several days of mockery by Cruz and inaction by Reince Priebus?

Trump said one way he can fight back is to bring a lawsuit against Cruz "relative to the fact that he was born in Canada and therefore cannot be President."

What Trump is really doing here is setting the stage to bolt the GOP and run as an independent.

Trump also called on the Republican National Committee to intervene, saying the RNC would be "in default of their pledge to me" if it doesn’t act.

This in essence is the GOP's Neutron Bomb. Trump makes a demand that even he knows neither Cruz nor Priebus can or will meet. When the RNC fails to defang his chief competitor for him, he revokes his pledge to stay inside the party. He then sets fire to the GOP on his way out the door towards an independent bid (pre-empting Michael Bloomberg) by launching a legal challenge to Cruz's candidacy that jumbles the remaining Republican race even more.

Don't laugh about this. Trump has the money to get on the ballot across the country, and to take 15-25% of the GOP electorate with him to a third-party candidacy, and in doing so, he undercuts Bloomberg. The remaining GOP candidates are left to fight it out for the 30% of the GOP electorate that represents the establishment, and the evangelicals who aren't with Trump and who already distrust the establishment.

And over on this side are Bernie and Hillary laughing their asses off.

The President Gets to Make His Choice

[The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,
--Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U. S. Constitution

Not that the White House needs any advice, but the moment Antonin Scalia is laid to rest, the president should put forward a centrist nominee, preferably a woman, Latino, or African American nominee who has undergone one or several judicial background checks already at lower courts. And there are many good choices out there. In doing so, he should point out that as president who won two elections he gets to do this. He should also point out that there is no constitutional requirement that corporate conservatives control at least 5 votes on the court.

Obama should point out that for all their whining about his operating outside of the Constitution, the Senate GOP is in no position to operate outside of the Constitution themselves in refusing a vote on that nominee. Despite the moronic blathering from the GOP clown car last night at their debate, the Senate cannot demand that a president not make a constitutionally-empowered appointment simply for political purposes, nor can that Senate refuse to act on that nomination.

He should point out that if the Senate Judiciary Committee doesn't act and vote on that nominee by May, he will spend the summer heading into the conventions browbeating the GOP for usurping powers not granted to the legislative branch, namely the power to block actions expressly granted to the executive. And with that, the GOP fall narrative about Obama's imperial power grab goes kaput.

And Obama should also not be shy about attacking the GOP every week starting in June for blocking a woman, a black, a Latino, from even getting a vote. And yes, he should pointedly ask if the GOP would block a white male from getting a vote.

Of course the Senate GOP has a right to reject any nominee he puts forward; they are under no obligation to affirm his nominees. But they also have no constitutional right to block any vote through inaction. And taking no vote on a centrist who has undergone a judicial screening already is clearly a vote to usurp the powers they themselves blame Obama for exceeding. Obama should make it clear privately, just as George W. Bush did publicly with the eventual Alito selection, that a rejection of a centrist nominee would only lead to him nominating someone more leftist, and forcing them to openly block that selection in the midst of the campaign.

Regarding political leverage, can the White House pressure Senate Republicans into holding a vote on a choice? Well, Grassley would be under pressure by those in his caucus to keep the choice bottled up in committee, so that GOP 2016 incumbents could avoid not only a floor vote but pressure from their right wing at home. Yet in looking at those up for reelection this year, in a year where the GOP is already at risk of losing the Senate, how difficult can the White House make it for some of these GOP senators to avoid a vote on a well-qualified woman or African American?
Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire)
Roy Blunt (Missouri)
Richard Burr (North Carolina)
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Johnny Isakson (Georgia)
Ron Johnson (Wisconsin)
Mark Kirk (Illinois)
John McCain (Arizona)
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Rob Portman (Ohio)
Tim Scott (South Carolina)
Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania)

My choice, as I said almost six years ago, is Chief Justice of the 7th Circuit Diane P. Wood, a highly-regarded jurist by all sides, who is known for building consensus and who has experience working well with both Justices Posner and Easterbrook in that circuit, thereby undermining any arguments from Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley about her being a non-consensus pick. If she can work well with Posner and Easterbrook, and has their respect, nothing the airheaded Grassley could say matters. The only real downside to Wood, sadly, is that she is 65 and would serve far shorter than the typical conservative choices of the last thirty years.

Again, just my thoughts. This is a political process, and it needs to be handled as such.

What Scalia's Passing Means

I realize it is crass to already be talking about the political impact of a man's death before he is even buried, but Antonin Scalia was a larger-than-life political ideologue who wore a robe. His death today at age 79 is unfortunate, and I pray for his family in their time of need. It would have been appropriate for the body politic to withhold commenting about how his death affects the 2016 campaign, but Mitch McConnell has already walked over Scalia body, as will the GOP candidates at tonight's debate. So what does his death mean?

Barack Obama will never get to fill this vacancy.

The Court will now hear and address several high-energy issues this session like abortion and affirmative action evenly split 4-4.

Scalia’s death and resulting vacancy on the Court does what the GOP Republican establishment couldn’t do: stop Donald Trump or Ted Cruz from getting the nomination. There is no way the party will let Trump or Cruz get the nomination if it costs conservatives and Corporate America the Supreme Court. John Kasich and Jeb Bush just got a boost they couldn’t get for themselves. Get ready for a brokered convention, and the GOP civil war that follows.

Mike Bloomberg can forget about running, because his likely murky comments about who he would nominate to the Court are no longer workable. Partisans on both sides will demand clarity on this issue from this day forward until the election is decided in November.

The Supreme Court just became a large issue in the campaign, now perhaps larger and more focusing than economic and national security issues would have been. The gun lobby will go into overdrive the remainder of this year to make this election a referendum on the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court. For their part, liberals now have in their sights the first 5-4 center-left court in four decades, and the Democratic Party will have more energy now to get out women, young people, and persons of color to invest them in the outcome.

Obama should nominate someone anyway, and make the GOP amp up their hateful rhetoric in opposition. He probably has many good choices, and I would go with Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson or my choice years ago. But no matter how good these choices would be, they'll never see the Court.

Looking Closer

I’m not asking people to support me because I’m a woman. I’m asking people to support me because I think I’m the most qualified, experienced, and ready person to be the president and the commander in chief.
--Hillary last night, undoing some of the damage done by her surrogates

Last night's debate in Wisconsin between Hillary and Bernie did little to change minds or get one side's supporters to switch to the other side. The main purpose for Hillary was to stop Sanders' momentum and any further erosion in her support. For Hillary, she succeeded. Yes, she knocked Sanders around on foreign policy and went a little far on questioning his support of Obama. But last night was a good night for her, especially when she showed how clueless Bernie is on foreign policy. Voting "no" on Iraq doesn't demonstrate you are Commander in Chief material.

Sanders for his part made his economic arguments again with relish, and scored again in his attacks on Wall Street's influence over our government. But if politicians are compromised by getting corporate money, what does it say about Sanders and Google, or Elizabeth Warren's receipt of Wall Street money? And Sanders' feeble responses on foreign policy weren't helped by his fib about Hillary on meeting with our enemies. He scored with his attacks against Henry Kissenger, but then most of his supporters have no idea who the hell he is.

We're at the stage of the campaign where both sides will be treated now to the same level of scrutiny that Hillary has experienced since Day One. It will be asked why no one questions Sanders' elevated voice yet Hillary is "screaming". The price tag for his revolution on health care and college, or his immigration proposals will hopefully get the same attention she has gotten on, well, everything.

Relative equals get the same treatment, or at least they should.