• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: Supreme Court

115 years ago

07 Monday Dec 2020

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

anti-vaxxers, Corona virus, COVID-19, expertise, Jacobson v Massachusetts, pandemic, Stare decisis, Supreme Court, U.S, vaccination

Stare decisis.

In the U.S. Supreme Court:

[….]
HENNING JACOBSON, Plff. in Err.,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 70.

Argued December 6, 1904.
Decided February 20, 1905.

This case involves the validity, under the Constitution of the United States, of certain provisions in the statutes of Massachusetts relating to vaccination.

[….]

….Looking at the propositions embodied in the defendant’s rejected offers of proof, it is clear that they are more formidable by their number than by their inherent value. Those offers in the main seem to have had no purpose except to state the general theory of those of the medical profession who attach little or no value to vaccination as a means of preventing the spread of smallpox, or who think that vaccination causes other diseases of the body. What everybody knows the court must know, and therefore the state court judicially knew, as this court knows, that an opposite theory accords with the common belief, and is maintained by high medical authority. We must assume that, when the statute in question was passed, the legislature of Massachusetts was not unaware of these opposing theories, and was compelled, of necessity, to choose between them. It was not compelled to commit a matter involving the public health and safety to the final decision of a court or jury. It is no part of the function of a court or a jury to determine which one of two modes was likely to be the most effective for the protection of the public against disease. That was for the legislative department to determine in the light of all the information it had or could obtain. It could not properly abdicate its function to guard the public health and safety. The state legislature proceeded upon the theory which recognized vaccination as at least an effective, if not the best-known, way in which to meet and suppress the evils of a smallpox epidemic that imperiled an entire population. Upon what sound principles as to the relations existing between the different departments of government can the court review this action of the legislature? If there is any such power in the judiciary to review legislative action in respect of a matter affecting the general welfare, it can only be when that which the legislature has done comes within the rule that, if a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution….

….The latest case upon the subject of which we are aware is Viemester v. White, decided very recently by the court of appeals of New York. That case involved the validity of a statute excluding from the public schools all children who had not been vacinated. One contention was that the statute and the regulation adopted in exercise of its provisions was inconsistent with the rights, privileges, and liberties of the citizen. The contention was overruled, the court saying, among other things: ‘Smallpox is known of all to be a dangerous and contagious disease. If vaccination strongly tends to prevent the transmission or spread of this disease, it logically follows that children may be refused admission to the public schools until they have been vaccinated. The appellant claims that vaccination does not tend to prevent smallpox, but tends to bring about other diseases, and that it does much harm, with no good. It must be conceded that some laymen, both learned and unlearned, and some physicians of great skill and repute, do not believe that vaccination is a preventive of smallpox. The common belief, however, is that it has a decided tendency to prevent the spread of this fearful disease, and to render it less dangerous to those who contract it. While not accepted by all, it is accepted by the mass of the people, as well as by most members of the medical profession. It has been general in our state, and in most civilized nations for generations. It is generally accepted in theory, and generally applied in practice, both by the voluntary action of the people, and in obedience to the command of law. Nearly every state in the Union has statutes to encourage, or directly or indirectly to require, vaccination; and this is true of most nations of Europe. . . . A common belief, like common knowledge, does not require evidence to establish its existence, but may be acted upon without proof by the legislature and the courts.. . . The fact that the belief is not universal is not controlling, for there is scarcely any belief that is accepted by everyone. The possibility that the belief may be wrong, and that science may yet show it to be wrong, is not conclusive; for the legislature has the right to pass laws which, according to the common belief of the people, are adapted to prevent the spread of contagious diseases. In a free country, where the government is by the people, through their chosen representatives, practical legislation admits of no other standard of action, for what the people believe is for the common welfare must be accepted as tending to promote the common welfare, whether it does in fact or not. Any other basis would conflict with the spirit of the Constitution, and would sanction measures opposed to a Republican form of government. While we do not decide, and cannot decide, that vaccination is a preventive of smallpox, we take judicial notice of the fact that this is the common belief of the people of the state, and, with this fact as a foundation, we hold that the statute in question is a health law, enacted in a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power….’

….We are not prepared to hold that a minority, residing or remaining in any city or town where smallpox is prevalent, and enjoying the general protection afforded by an organized local government, may thus defy the will of its constituted authorities, acting in good faith for all, under the legislative sanction of the state. If such be the privilege of a minority, then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population. We are unwilling to hold it to be an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the state. While this court should guard with firmness every right appertaining to life, liberty, or property as secured to the individual by the supreme law of the land, it is of the last importance that it should not invade the domain of local authority except when it is plainly necessary to do so in order to enforce that law. The safety and the health of the people of Massachusetts are, in the first instance, for that commonwealth to guard and protect. They are matters that do not ordinarily concern the national government. So far as they can be reached by any government, they depend, primarily, upon such action as the state, in its wisdom, may take; and we do not perceive that this legislation has invaded any right secured by the Federal Constitution….

115 years ago.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

The current majority in the U.S. Supreme Court

28 Wednesday Oct 2020

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

abortion, Supreme Court

Pre 1973 2020 medical equipment.

Joe Biden (D) on Ruth Bader Ginsburg

19 Saturday Sep 2020

Posted by Michael Bersin in Resist

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

#resist, Joe Biden, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court

Former Vice President Joe Biden (D) [2014 file photo].

Last night:

Biden Harris
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 18, 2020

Statement by Vice President Joe Biden on the Passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Tonight our nation mourns an American hero, a giant of legal doctrine, and a relentless voice in the pursuit of that highest American ideal: Equal Justice Under Law.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg stood for all of us. She fought for all of us. As a young attorney, she persisted through every challenge that an unequal system placed in her way to change the laws of our land and lead the legal charge to advance equal rights for women. It was my honor to preside over her confirmation hearings, and to strongly support her accession to the Supreme Court. In the decades since, she was consistently and reliably the voice that pierced to the heart of every issue, protected the constitutional rights of every American, and never failed in the fierce and unflinching defense of liberty and freedom. Her opinions, and her dissents, will continue to shape the basis of our law for future generations. May her memory be a blessing to all people who cherish our Constitution and its promise.

Tonight, and in the coming days, we should be focused on the loss of Justice Ginsburg and her enduring legacy. But just so there is no doubt, let me be clear: The voters should pick a President, and that President should select a successor to Justice Ginsburg. This was the position that the Republican Senate took in 2016, when there were nearly nine months before the election. That is the position the United States Senate must take now, when the election is less than two months away. We are talking about the Constitution and the Supreme Court. That institution should not be subject to politics.

###

Previously:

Fight! (September 18, 2020)

A fight it is, then (September 18, 2020)

Sen. Roy Blunt (r) has already weighed in (September 19, 2020)

Sen. Roy Blunt (r) has already weighed in

19 Saturday Sep 2020

Posted by Michael Bersin in Roy Blunt, social media, US Senate

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Merrick Garland, missouri, Roy Blunt, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, social media, Supreme Court, Twitter, U.S. Senate

From Senator Roy Blunt (r):

Senator Roy Blunt @RoyBlunt
The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president. (2/2)
7:39 PM · Feb 13, 2016

Fancy that.

Roy Blunt (r) [2016 file photo].

Josh Hawley (r): litmus test

26 Sunday Jul 2020

Posted by Michael Bersin in Josh Hawley, social media, US Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

anti-choice, Josh Hawley, missouri, right wingnut, Supreme Court, U.S. Senate

Stare decisis.

Josh Hawley (r) [2016 file photo].

Today, from Josh Hawley (r), in yet anther attempt to set up his next rung on the ladder for 2024:

Josh Hawley @HawleyMO
Before I vote for any future Supreme Court nominee I want to see record evidence that they acknowledge Roe v Wade was wrongly decided as a matter of law
[….]
3:49 PM · Jul 26, 2020

Some of the responses:

When you have a uterus, I will give your opinion careful consideration.

Stop trying to control women!! My body is none of your business!

That should not be how we pick judges. Any judge willing to so brazenly prejudice themself in front of the Senate doesnt deserve a seat on the bench even if I agree with their opinion.

so you want to make sure these hypothetical justices are committed to killing women

As if I needed another reason to actively work against you next election.

How about we move the country forward, not backward?

We will not “win” if we overturn Roe v Wade, and we won’t “lose” because we haven’t. Get over it, Senator, it’s time to stop treating us as a one-issue party. We don’t want litmus tests from the left, and we shouldn’t demand them on our side.

Someone is running for President.

Obvious by his disregard for his constituents and constant political stunts.

How much time and energy do you spend fighting for human life after they are born?

Not so much in Missouri.

God damn it, dude. We’re trying to run a nation here, not a bible school for backwards ass white men. Drop the misogyny.

First of all, NO. Secondly, how is this helpful right now. More authoritarianism from the patriarchy is not what we need to unite this country.

Politicians don’t belong in medicine. You take your religiosity and your judgment to church with you. Let us take care of medical decisions.

Whatever, Commander Waterford.

Can’t wait until Hawley is blocking all noms because the only people who fit his criteria are in jail for blowing up abortion clinics.

YASS! We need the Senate to just dictate to the SCOTUS how to rule on all controversial cases, because we all know how much more qualified politicians are to deliver fair justice.

And Republicans wonder why they’re losing suburban women in droves.

These culture wars are waged so elites like Hawley can pick our pockets for his big money donors. And yet people fall for this con again and again.

And as a supposed pro lifer, do you also want to see if they are cool with keeping brown kids in cages or allowing secret fed police to brutalize moms and vets, and if they hate health care?

Resign in shame, you terrible embarrassment to my state

You fill me with enthusiasm! For voting for your opponent! Can’t wait.

Please explain to us why you were afraid of witnesses during impeachment.

Too much truth about the president you worship?

This is just a tactic to get his base fired up. Distraction.

Fuck You, Josh Hawley.

What else do you do aside from being a shitbag of a human?

You will be replaced.

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

Whatever. You’ll be in the minority soon.

Spouting the same old tired shit

Fascist

In just a few months you will belong to the minority party, at which point you will cease to matter. In 2024 you will be voted out and we will never hear from you again. I look forward to all of this.

“The most dangerous place to stand in Washington D.C. is any place between Senator Josh Hawley and a live microphone” – Charles P. Pierce

Again: “…Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard…”

11 Monday Dec 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in Resist

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

#resist, missouri, sign, Supreme Court, U.S. Constitution

Along U.S. 50 Highway in west central Missouri:

Someone’s opinion.

In 1943, in a time of war, no less:

WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. BARNETTE ET AL., 319 U.S. 624

[….]

….To sustain the compulsory flag salute we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the individual’s right to speak his own mind, left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind.

Whether the First Amendment to the Constitution will permit officials to order observance of ritual of this nature does not depend upon whether as a voluntary exercise we would think it to be good, bad or merely innocuous. Any credo of nationalism is likely to include what some disapprove or to omit what others think essential, and to give off different overtones as it takes on different accents or interpretations. If official power exists to coerce acceptance of any patriotic creed, what it shall contain cannot be decided by courts, but must be largely discretionary with the ordaining authority, whose power to prescribe would no doubt include power to amend. Hence validity of the asserted power to force an American citizen publicly to profess any statement of belief or to engage in any ceremony of assent to one presents questions of power that must be considered independently of any idea we may have as to the utility of the ceremony in question….

[….]

….Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. [319 U.S. 624, 641] As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.

The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism [319 U.S. 624, 642] and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us….

[….]

Previously:

On “patriotic” pearl clutching (August 28, 2016)

“…Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard…” (September 24, 2017)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): jump on that publicity stunt bandwagon (October 8, 2017)

Gov. Eric Greitens (r): high or petty (October 11, 2017)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): it ain’t a slippery slope if we can make it fit our agenda

19 Wednesday Apr 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in social media

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

4th Congressional District, establishment clause, missouri, Missouri Constitution, social media, stolen seat, Supreme Court, Twitter, Vick Hartzler

In the Missouri Constitution, Bill of Rights:

Section 6. That no person can be compelled to erect, support or attend any place or system of worship, or to maintain or support any priest, minister, preacher or teacher of any sect, church, creed or denomination of religion; but if any person shall voluntarily make a contract for any such object, he shall be held to the performance of the same.
Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 6.

In the Missouri Constitution, Article, IX, Education:

Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.
Source: Const. of 1875, Art. XI, § 11.

There’s now a case, taking issue with Missouri’s establishment clauses, before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) [2016 file photo].

Today from Representative Vicky Hartzler (r), via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler‏ @RepHartzler
A playground open to the community shouldn’t be denied grants for safety features because it’s owned by a church #FairPlay #TrinityLutheran
10:11 AM – 19 Apr 2017

The responses:

Does church pay taxes?

Yea it should that tax free church can afford it.

What if it was the Church of Satan you hypocrite???

Yes it should when our Governor is making big cuts in funding for the disabled and elderly, education and not expanding Medicaid

“Over two-thirds of the applicants were rejected.” Open to the community? No. I don’t know why you support this. Sorry to be so suspicious.

But I’m suspecting that this will have consequences that reach much farther than a playground. Why are you supporting this?

Planned Parenthood is open to the public but you want to deny them government money.

I also wonder if the Christian lobby would sing the same tune today if it were a mosque claiming unequal treatment. Thoughts?

why are you wanting to change the Constitution which requires separation of church and state. it’s worked for 200 years

your tweets do not change the Constitution which requires separation of church and state. it’s work for over 200 years

There’s few things that irk me more than…. using children as political props. Very disgusting.

Why is it open to the community? I assume you mean the whole community, not just the church. If my backyard is open to the whole

neighborhood, do I get government funding? How about if I get religious status? Then do I get government funding? Can of worms, here.

This is just baffling to me. All public services should be secular. I honestly don’t get how religious hospitals are a thing.

Something else is going on here. Maybe she&Blunt are expressing support forGorsuch &whatever decision he makes.But it sure ain’t “the kids”.

Kids shouldn’t have to play on Christian, or Jewish or Muslim playgrounds. They should just be playgrounds.

Separation of church and state is there for a reason. If a religious pre school wants tax paid subsidies then the tax exempt status MUST GO.

Wrong! Unless you give those same grants to Muslims, Satanists, Pagans, etc…

Don’t forget the Pastafarians!

Um, actually it should.

If it’s owned by a church then it shouldn’t get tax dollars. Unless it is open to government oversight and regulation

In Alabama they’re granting churches rights to form their own police forces. Don’t be fooled, she’s using children as a tool for agenda.

That scares the shit out of me. Wish we could just split the country in 2 & let the Christians take over the South & leave us the hell alone

Our fate is that of the south. And they’re being victimized & abused by power hungry extremists using religion as a weapon. The @GOP must go

Well, that’s the beauty of the separation of church and state. Would you be crying this loud for Muslims? Nah, I didn’t think so. Hypocrite

Maybe you should be more worried about the impending GVT shutdown in 10 days….. Just sayin’.
#MO4 #DoYourJob #FairPlay

SEPERATE CHURCH AND STATE ALREADY AND FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION YOU CLAIM TO RESPECT.

That one laid an egg. But Neil Gorsuch, occupying a stolen seat on the court, will probably help change it all.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D): doing the right thing

31 Friday Mar 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in US Senate

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

"No", Claire McCaskill, Donald Trump, filibuster, missouri, Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court, U.S. Senate

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) will be supporting the filibuster and voting “no” on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) [2012 file photo].

Senator McCaskill’s (D) statement:

Gorsuch: Good for Corporations, Bad for Working People

This is a really difficult decision for me. I am not comfortable with either choice. While I have come to the conclusion that I can’t support Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court — and will vote no on the procedural vote and his confirmation — I remain very worried about our polarized politics and what the future will bring, since I’m certain we will have a Senate rule change that will usher in more extreme judges in the future.
I cannot support Judge Gorsuch because a study of his opinions reveal a rigid ideology that always puts the little guy under the boot of corporations. He is evasive, but his body of work isn’t. Whether it is a freezing truck driver or an autistic child, he has shown a stunning lack of humanity. And he has been an activist — for example, writing a dissent on a case that had been settled, in what appears to be an attempt to audition for his current nomination.

Then there is Citizens United, the single most corrupting force in the history of politics in this nation. I cannot and will not support a nominee that allows dark and dirty anonymous money to continue to flood unchecked into our elections.

I reject this nomination because Judge Gorsuch would continue an activist position that states that corporations have the same rights as people. The men who wrote our Constitution would reject that nonsense, since they were highly suspect of corporations as the tools of royalty. Corporations don’t cry or laugh or marry or worry about sending their kids to college. Judge Gorsuch’s allegiance to corporations disqualifies him from the highest court in the land.

And finally, this judge does not reflect the promises that Donald Trump made to Missourians. The candidate Donald Trump farmed out this important decision to a right-wing group that fronts for large corporations and special interests. Donald Trump promised Missourians that he would look out for the little guy, for working people, for the forgotten. He promised he would drain the swamp of the special interests, the lobbyists, and politicians who have overlooked the working people in this country. This judicial nomination breaks those promises.

The President who promised working people he would lift them up has nominated a judge who can’t even see them.

You’ve just got to love the comments on social media from right wingnuts asserting that Claire McCaskill has lost their vote because of this. As if they ever have or would vote for her.

Besides, the republicans in the U.S. Senate have already established the precedent that a president shouldn’t nominate an individual to a vacancy in the U.S. Supreme Court during the last year of their term in office.

Playing coy with Gorsuch will get McCaskill nowhere

28 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Claire McCaskill, Merrick Garland, Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court

Missouri’s biggest problem is that her Republican politicians burn red hot while the Democrats run lukewarm at best. That contrast is on full display as the zero hour for Judge Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed approaches and our Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill has to make up her mind about whether or not she is willing to reward Republicans for stealing a Supreme Court seat from a first-rate centrist and giving it to a die-hard radical ideologue with an instinct for affable obfuscation.

And make no mistake, Gorsuch is a rightwing advocate in originalist clothing. Analysis of his votes on the 10th circuit indicate that he “is to the right of both Alito and Thomas, and by a substantial margin.” His tenure will be a disaster for working people, the middle class, women and those interested in separation of church and state.

But his views, although important, are not the main issue. The other Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland is. As Gary Legum asserts in an article in Salon, the Republicans’ exercise of raw power to deny Judge Garland a seat on the court and what it presages for democratic government is the challenge that Democrats are facing:

This is not about grabbing back a “stolen” Supreme Court seat. This is about a principle of republican government that the GOP has smashed. Had the party considered Garland’s nomination and then shot him down in a fair and open vote, Democrats would have no argument here. But the unprecedented obstructionism of the Republican Party makes Gorsuch’s confirmation a proxy in a larger fight that is about the nature of political power, not ideology. And the language of power is the only one the modern Republican Party seems to understand.

Sadly, it doesn’t look like Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill is up to dealing with folks who speak that language. As I write this, she’s coyly flirting with both conservatives and progressives. According to Politico , the lady won’t commit. There are rumors that some centrist Democrats are trying to broker a deal that would let them confirm Gorsuch in return for a few scraps from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Whether or not McCaskill is part of that group – who knows? When it comes to Gorsuch, maybe she will or maybe she won’t, she’s not saying.

McCaskill has, of course, been subjected to enormous pressure to give Donald Trump a victory, and she’s not blind to the fact that Missouri went overwhelmingly for Trump – a fact that Missouri’s GOP waves around like a cudgel. As State Rep. Paul Curtman, one-time* Tea Partier extraordinaire, proclaimed, “Sen. McCaskill can show Missourians she understands the message Missouri voters sent last November by voting to confirm Judge Gorsuch.”

Maybe. Though McCaskill might do better to consider those of us who rejected that message. As well as the fact that we may be joined by more than a few disillusioned Trump voters. Along with some of those who sat out the election to protest the picture of Hillary Clinton painted by Russian provocateurs. Lots of those folks realized what they’d done on Nov. 9. Buyers remorse is a real thing.

One thing’s for sure. No one who voted for Paul Curtman will ever vote for Claire McCaskill. And if she votes to send Gorsuch along his merry, aw-shucks way to the Supreme Court, lots of folks who voted for Hillary Clinton might be of a similar mind.

The real shame, though, is that I’m obliged to cast this issue in terms of realpolitik when it’s the moral dimension that is compelling. Missouri blogger Duane Graham makes the case for what this nomination means for those of us who depend on McCaskill to stand up for our values:

In any case, what we need now is a fierce stubbornness in this fight. But we also need a fierce patience to compliment that stubbornness. John Dryden said, “Beware the fury of a patient man.” Kierkegaard said, “Patience is necessary, and one cannot reap immediately where one has sown.” Today we filibuster an injustice. Tomorrow the filibuster may be gone. And some fine day in the future we will decide, with a simple majority, who sits on the Court.

Or, maybe, just maybe, Mitch McConnell will not want what’s left of his reputation to die on a hill with Tr-mp’s tattered and tainted flag planted on it. Maybe he will keep the filibuster, Gorsuch will go back to the Tenth Circuit, and we will have a more moderate, less Scalia-like nominee. We will never know, though, unless Democrats stand up and fight like hell. …

Why doesn’t McCaskill understand that lukewarm won’t do it this time?

*I say “one-time Tea-Partier” because I’m not sure the Tea Party is a thing anymore. Doesn’t tbe fringe of the fringe now label themselves differently? A little embarrassed because of past excesses perhaps?

Oh sure, everyone thinks they can reason with the Barbarians when they first show up. Then they burn your village to the ground.

08 Wednesday Feb 2017

Posted by Michael Bersin in Resist

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Claire McCaskill, Donald Trump, Merrick Garland, missouri, Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court

Uh, Merrick Garland?

Today on Senator Claire McCaskill’s (D) Facebook page:

clairemccaskill020817

Last April, Claire met with President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Chief Judge Merrick Garland, after strongly urging her Republican colleagues to do their job and consider the President’s nominee. Today, in that same spirit, she met with President Donald J. Trump’s nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch.

As a former Jackson County prosecutor, Claire sat down with Judge Gorsuch to hear from him on his record and views. “I was glad for the opportunity to sit down with Judge Gorsuch,” said Claire. “I’m looking forward to seeing his confirmation hearing.”

In case you haven’t noticed yet, Claire, they’ve already lit their torches.

Previously:

A message for Claire McCaskill (February 1, 2017)

How about a primary challenge? Jason Kander v. Claire McCaskill? (February 6, 2017)

← Older posts

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Democratic Party News
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Josh Hawley
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 412,164 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.