Isn't that Durkan recall news from like last Thursday? Pretty sure it was already in a couple slogs lol. Mondays, amiright?
"... we haven’t seen the end of this wet weather yet. It’ll likely continue through Wednesday," --M.B.
Yep, being that this is Warshingtron -- wet weather Will continue, thru Wednesday -- of next April, or so -- with scattered periods of Sunny Days, and perhaps a few Snowy Days tossed in, as well.
We're conveniently located in probably one of the Luckiest locales in the States, Catastrophic Climate Change-wise. Enjoy!
@1 -- it's ALL News
till ya read (or Hear) it.
Happy cloudy and drippy Columbus/Indigenous day
Are you sure it's a Scrub Jay and not a Stellar's Jay?
They're screaming at you because you feed them.
There's plenty the Democrats could do to stop Serena Joy Barrett from unleashing Gilead on us--like boycotting all Senate business and denying the Republinazis a quorum--they're just too cowardly to try any of it.
They're just innocent bystanders in our living nightmare, dutifully playing their roles as the pathetically feckless, corrupt, and incompetent opposition endlessly dickering over rules and procedures that only they care about until we're all rounded up and either gassed or shot.
Eating Palolo worms for lunch? No thanks!
OTOH, the Vikings are eating crow today.
They shoulda kicked that field goal.
On behalf of the effort to recall CM Sawant, I laud The Stranger for legitimizing the concept of recalling a sitting elected official. (Bonus points for not being able to see the charges against Mayor Durkan lacked merit, but the charges against CM Sawant were valid.)
6 - I have to admit - you have a point.
You can recognize the flickers because they are the little bastards pecking big expensive holes in your siding. Perhaps they are delicious if roasted?
And a tornado in Grays Harbor County is nowhere near Seattle. Have all of your editors been fired?
@6 -- There are enough Republicans to form a quorum without any Democrats. As far as avoiding all other business, that is pretty much a given. The Senate hasn't done anything for weeks, and likely won't do anything until after the election. Except, of course, try and confirm Barret.
The Democrats should focus on ObamaCare, not abortion. That should give them the Senate, and likely the presidency. They would control all three chambers, and the next thing to do is pack the Senate, not the court. Give D. C. statehood. Try and convince Puerto Rico to become a state. Pass a new, strong voting rights act. It is possible that the Supreme Court would prevent it, but probably not. Expand the court as a last resort (and only after the new states have been admitted into the union).
Yes to all of the above, and I've been donating munnie til it hurts to make that a reality.
I pray to the FSM that you're right and that the Dems don't instantly downshift into Cletus Appeasement Mode even after winning a trifecta. That's why getting actual progressive candidates into the Senate is so critical and replacing the existing "leadership," such as, is critical.
If they can, Democrats should expand the court to 11 or 13 immediately. And all the circuit courts too. There's no reason to wait for USSC to complete the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act, Roe v Wade et al to act as an excuse. If they take the senate this year, the chances of losing it again in 2022 are pretty high and then the opportunity is lost.
This will set events down a path that will lead to the complete collapse of legitimacy of the courts and good riddance. They have been nothing but an implement of reaction and oppression since Marbury v Madison. A couple anomalous rulings 50-60 years ago notwithstanding.
Durkan recall dead - here's the court thinking:
'...failure of Mayor Durkan to prohibit use of chemical crowd control agents by SPD based on the early conduct before she can be said to have been aware, are legally and factually insufficient.... Durkan is alleged to have become aware of and opposed to their alleged use on peaceful protesters as a means of crowd control....'
A full opinion will be issued on due time.
15 - RBG was opposed to expanding the court. I think her wisdom should be heeded.
No, the 2018 Senate election cycle was bad for the Democrats, but the 2020 and 2022 cycles are much better. Per Ballotopedia, the Dems are (currently) defending only 12 out of 34 seats in 2022, while the GOP is defending 22 seats.
If they win the Senate, obviously the Democrats will not pack the court. The votes to change a 150 year tradition will not be there. Remember, your candidate is Joe Biden, not Bernie Sanders. And many of the hopefully new (and old) Democratic senators are quite conservative by Progressive standards.
You might - just maybe - get a majority to do away with the filibuster rules. Less likely, but still possible, would be statehood for DC and Puerto Rico.
The Super Bowl is being played in Florida, so will have 80,000 maskless fans in the stands. President Biden will not attend.
I don't know what they will do, but they should expand the courts. Events of the last few years have transformed the courts into an unelected super-legislature - John Roberts literally re-wrote the PP/ACA on the basis of a set of novel legal theories invented for the purpose. If that's how the Republicans want to play it - fine. Authority to organize the courts and define jurisdiction is black letter law in Article III. Precisely the same authority McConnell used to blow off Merrick Garland.
RBG has the benefit of being dead and not having to endure the consequences of living under this sadistic, illegitimate, Republinazi Ku Klux Kourt that promises to make 1930s Germany look like a kindergarten Christmas pageant.
Legalize gay murder? IT'S WHAT JEEZUS CRAVES PRAISE BE!!!
If only it would wash you and your vacuous, toffee-nosed, cretinous ilk down the storm drains as well...
be a damn 'Shame' should Fake 'prez' hafta go from leading his maskless Nuremberg Rallies to leading his Nuremberg Trials whilst (hopefuly -- he's a Carrier) well-muzzled -- which makes our dear hair Furor, with his yeller back against The Wall* Exceedingly fucking Dangerous.
*MEXICO WILL PAY FOR IT!
ya got trumpf's Worrd on it
"But -- I had the Bonespurs!"
Original Andrew dear, a senate quorum is 51. The Republicans hold 53 seats, plus VP Pence in the case of a tie. Even if the Democrats were to filibuster, I believe it only takes 51 votes to end the filibuster.
I'm quite certain RBG would also be strongly in support of a court that was proportionately representative of the citizenry, and that this would (perhaps begrudgingly) outweigh her opposition to court expansion. Particularly in light of the blatantly craven and immoral means by which the current judiciary was conceived.
Honestly, I'd probably be leery of the idea as well, but don't think we've any other choice if we're hoping to preserve some semblance of relative and functional normalcy within the branch.
@21 The Supreme Court has always been an unelected super-legislature. Have you ever read Roe vs. Wade? They pulled that right out of thin air. Emanations from the penumbra - that would be very thin air. And the economically convenient fiction we call a corporation has the the same constitutional rights as a flesh & blood person? Really? You're spot on about John Robert's opinion on ACA.
Yes, Congress has the constitutional authority to pack the court but there is no political consensus to do it. Biden/Harris won't talk about about it because they can't afford to totally piss off the Progressives.
I am aghast at the pitiful defeatism of the weaksauce Democratic leadership. Mitch can make shit up and we just shrug? They simply change the rules and everybody shrugs? What the fuck kind of dumbass pieces of shit have we elected that can't even fight? They just shrug and hang their heads? Why the hell do people enter politics if they aren't willing to fight against people who are actively killing our citizens while smiling through their teeth? Un fucking believable. It's time for some new blood and term limits to get these festering ghouls the hell out of power. Unfuckingreal.
@28 emanations and penumbra weren't the legal argument. You're just mouthing wingnut polemic.
But ok, so if it's political then let's do politics and expand the court when we get the chance. That's politics.
What I am aghast at is the ridiculous urge to always blame Democrats, always attack Democrats, from people who don't have a basic understanding of how Congress works.
If none of the Democrats showed up to the hearings, ACB would still be confirmed. The Republicans own the Senate. Under Mitch's rules, that means they can do whatever they want and Democrats have no power. If you want to change that, go donate to Theresa Greenfield, Cal Cunningham, Gary Peters, Steve Bullock and Jaime Harrison.
It like if you attacked the Seahawks for not walking out of the stadium after the TOV to stop the Patriots from winning Superbowl XLIX. Just the sheer arrogance of having no idea how things work yet believing you're so much smarter than the Democratic Party, and that "both sides are the same" or the Democrats are some feckless "controlled opposition" party, like we live in a fantasy book. It's astounding and incredibly frustrating for those of us on the ground day in and day out trying to defeat the Republican Party and make the world a better place.
Also, way to go Stranger for shitting on the Recall Sawant effort again. You'll note they don't put a link to the website on this article. They also delete any comment that includes the link. I won't even post it in this comment because I don't want it to be deleted. But it's so obscene that The Stranger takes an openly partisan stance on this issue and writes about it like a petulant teenager.
@33. I'm aware of how Congress works, but I want them to be livid and angry, not passive and defeatist, even if they are going to lose. Otherwise, how can they represent the people they serve?
@36. It feels like shit!!
@36. Anyway, thanks for finding reason in this mess.
@39 -- if every single Obama-nominated judge was blocked in the US Senate, and trumpfy waited for an R before filling all those Vacant Seats, and then Did fill them, would That to you be Packing the Courts?
Stupid question -- NOT in a Republican Utopia.
@30: Of course you think Trump is going to win. Not because of any inside insight over political dynamics, but so that you can take delight in inundating everyone with 'I told you so' admonitions. And of course, if Biden win you can say you were pleasantly surprised.
@40 no, not trumpfy
that'd be 'Moscow
and it's been just fine
with Rs for four years.
*e pluribus unum
Amy Klobuchar in an explosive vest offering to give every Republinazi Senatard a much-deserved late, late, late-term abortion on live television or GTFO.
Ha ha, just kidding. He’s to praying that COVID-19 wipes out all of those sleazy, sadistic, GOPnazi psychopaths.
Keep your thumb on the deadman’s switch, Amy!!!
@43 They should go right ahead and do that if they can. For sure if the Democrats do it, GOP will do something in response should they get the opportunity. That's what I meant about starting down the path that leads to the complete collapse of the court: an outcome I think would benefit the country.
On balance, the courts have been a force for evil. For every Miranda there's a Dred Scott and a Lochner. Take the courts out of American history and you get more justice.
Harris, at least, made a compelling and lucid case.
Yes, either party undertaking a relatively radical proposal such as this would surely qualify as a violation of established "norms." The difference, which you really shouldn't need to have explained to you but here goes, is that the Dems would be doing so in a morally sound and justified response to the GOP's hypocritical and wholly undemocratic actions of the previous four years.
@48 Just so. Putting a term of service on the courts is the only thing that makes any sense. The courts do have a useful function, but they need to be in tune with broader political trends. Filling up the court with a bunch of 40 year old cranks so they can interfere with progressive legislation until the tricentennial is the opposite of justice.
The current batch of kooks is dusting off the non-delegation doctrine from 100+ years ago. To arrogate to the courts the power to arbitrarily rule on legislation without the inconvenience of any legal basis at all. That would be intolerable.
@39 No more a violation of norms than eliminating the filibuster on judicial appointments, eliminating blue slips, holding a Supreme Court nomination for 9 months, confirming a justice to the Supreme Court despite clear evidence of perjury (not to mention sexual assault), and finally turning around and saying that confirming a Supreme Court justice 10 days before an election is totally OK. I'm pretty sure it's all the Democrats' fault though in the norm-busting department.
If the Republicans had confirmed Merrick Garland, I would have no problem with them confirming Barrett. But they change the rules whenever it benefits them. At some point, it should come as no surprise that the Democrats will change the rules to suit themselves as well.
@46 - the Federal courts have been the only thing in the country willing to even try to reign in the worst Mango-colored ideas and actions. Without judges, we'd be 1000 miles further down the railroad to hell.
@17 "wisdom" forsooth. Its her fault we're in this mess. If she had retired as an 80 year old cancer survivor in 2014 like she should have, this could all have been avoided.
The worm just turned a bit more on Kshama. Matt covers the silly gossip girl aspects...if you want the substance, check out Seattle City Council Insight.
Ladies and gentlemen, mainstream Democrats are not going to add justices to the Supreme Court. I know how mainstream Democrats think. I are one. Adding term limits might have some traction. That idea makes sense to a lot of people.
If we get another blue wave in a few weeks - and that might very well happen - you should read up on Joe Manchin. He (and a few of his ilk) will decide what legislation moves forward in the Senate.
@59 You can't add Term Limits without an Amendment. So as a practical matter, that's less likely than court expansion. You're never going to get Joe Manchin to support a drastic action in a hypothetical context - there is no angle in that for him at all. But changes in circumstances produce changes in opinion.
You can call yourself whatever you like, but I don't know what kind of Democrat quotes "emanations and penumbra" to sneer at the Roe decision. The quote is from Griswold, so its pure dipshittery in this context. Griswold gave married couples the legal right to buy contraceptives - do you object to that as well?
@54 the situation with Trump's whacky executive orders illuminates an even deeper problem. Get one more wingnut on the court and those would all have sailed through.
The core problem is that Congress has lost the ability to pass legislation without single-party control of Congress and the White House. Even that isn't always enough as demonstrated by the fiasco of 2017. This produces a power vacuum into which Executive action will inevitably flow.
So. That's out future: presidents gravitate towards rule by decree. Wingnut court rubber stamps when its a Republican and summarily quashes when its a Democrat. Like that until some crisis blows it all up.
A republic if you can keep it.
@60 I think that it's quite possible to obtain consensus for Supreme Court term limits. We did that for the Presidency. Conservatives tend to like the idea of term limits generally. It's the liberal side of the divide that is new to the table on this particular issue. 18 years?
Yes, originally from Griswold to uncover the "right to privacy" in the Constitution. Subsequently that newly discovered right was used as part of the rationale for Roe vs. Wade.
I think that there should be a right to privacy but I don't see that one exists. Perhaps another amendment is in order. Using the amendment process is how we keep the Constitution from turning into silly putty. We've changed the Constitution lots of times. Your arguments just have to be good enough to convince lots of people. Process is all we have.
Dr. Nelson Salim sounds like almost enough of a quack to be on Trump's medical staff.
@43 -- fuck off
and answer mine
if you dare.
As we all know the Supreme Court only has meaning if other courts agree that it does.
There's nothing in the US Constitution about Lifetime appointments, how many Justices are on the Supreme Court, or even if OTHER COURTS AND STATES NEED TO ABIDE BY ITS RULINGS.
Happy Thanksgiving, as my people call it, or Indigenous People's Day.
Oh, and Voting doesn't 'start in a few weeks'
WE're VOTING RIGHT NOW.
as far as "too close to an Election"
You can fuck off too Moskow Mitch.
@66 Well, the Constitution "implies" lifetime appointments. I guess I assumed that because we used a formal amendment to limit the Presidential term. Do you know if the issue has ever been litigated?
Whatever else it says about length of service, you can't cut their pay while in office.
I've seen people proposing regular legislation that would limit time on the bench, so I guess that's all it would take. Should do it for sure. But should also, ahem, re-balance. There's just no downside - Mitch McConnell has proved over and over that voters don't give a crap about "norms".
@63: "I think that there should be a right to privacy but I don't see that one exists."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
(Also, in Washington State: Initiative 120, enacted in 1991.)
I guess I can see why Trump wants to push this nomination through quickly. He was obviously confused by all the talk about "handmaid," and thinks he's somehow going to get a hand JOB out of it.
@69 - the Washington constitution (and I suspect other states' as well) is more protective of individual rights than the Federal one. Once Roe gets tossed (and this has been coming for decades; the RepubliTaliban just needed to have the stars line up right), people who want to live in the 21st Century will have yet another reason to get out of the Bible Belt. Driving educated people out of your state is not a recipe for building a modern economy and will ultimately bite the South.
It's not like Mississippi and Alabama are leading the country in economic opportunity for their people even now.
@71: In case it wasn't obvious, I quoted the initial clauses of the Fourth Amendment to our Federal constitution.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.