Playing coy with Gorsuch will get McCaskill nowhere

28 Tuesday Mar 2017

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:

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)

Will Humpty Dumpty Blunt have a great fall?

03 Tuesday May 2016

Posted by willykay in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Jason Kander, Merrick Garland, missouri, Roy Blunt, Senate elections

Oh, please let it be so. I know that we’re all at the mercy of bought-and-sold politicians everyday, but GOP Senator Roy Blunt has so little respect for the people who vote for him, that he doesn’t even try to hide the sold sign. What it would it be like to have a Senator who worked for us and not for Montsanto-AT&T-Exon-etc.? At least ostensibly.

For that matter, if we (the people) manage to get Hillary Clinton (the assured candidate, I am assured by all) into the White House, she’ll need a few more Democrats in Congress and those in the know say that the Senate is the place where it can happen – only five Senate seats need to be flipped. (I know – Clinton could use lots more Democrats in the House as well, but that’s likely a fever dream.) And best of all would be if one of the Democratic Senate upgrades could be Jason Kander, Roy Blunt’s challenger. I’ll be more than happy to see ol’ Roy to slink off to lobbyist paradise to reap the rewards for his untiring efforts on behalf of his heretofore unofficial clients.

So it is with real delight that I read this little NPR snippet from an article which identifies the nine most vulnerable senators. And number eight is:

8. Missouri (R-Blunt): This contest in the Show Me State might be the dark-horse contest to watch. Democrats got one of their best recruits this cycle when Secretary of State Jason Kander jumped in the race. Even Republicans privately admit that the 34-year-old Afghanistan veteran worries them running against Sen. Roy Blunt, whom Democrats are eager to paint as too much of a Washington insider. If Missouri comes in play in the presidential race, this one could quickly give Republicans a huge headache.

Our job, it is clear, is to do whatever necessary to help move ol’ Roy even higher on the list. And to help us, we have Roy Blunt himself who is steadfastly refusing to do his constitutionally mandated job and meet with, fairly consider, and vote on Supreme Court Nominee Judge Merrick Garland. Republican truculence over the Supreme Court is not going unnoticed and, since over 60% of Americans disapprove GOP of obstruction on this matter, attracts unwelcome attention to already vulnerable pols:

Obama appeared on several local TV stations Monday afternoon making the case for Garland. No surprise, they were in markets with vulnerable Senate Republicans who Democrats are trying to pressure to move on the nomination — or pay a steep electoral price. […] Obama also sat with stations in Phoenix; Manchester, New Hampshire; Cincinnati; Kansas City, Missouri; and Des Moines, Iowa. [Bolding added]

There’ll be lots of corporate money in the mix this year, and we know that Blunt’s client base will probably put up to keep Blunt up, but now that he’s been identified as a weak link, the pressure to topple him will also escalate. And what a lovely sight Humpty Dumpty’s fall would be.

President Obama: on the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court

20 Sunday Mar 2016

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Barack Obama, Merrick Garland, missouri, nomination, Roy Blunt, Supreme Court, U.S. Senate

President Obama’s weekly address:

The White House transcript:

Remarks of President Barack Obama as Delivered
Weekly Address
The White House
March 19, 2016

Hi, everybody. One of the most consequential responsibilities our Constitution grants a President is appointing a Supreme Court Justice. The men and women who sit on the Supreme Court safeguard our rights. They ensure that ours is a system of laws, not of men. And they’re given the essential task of applying the principles written into our founding documents to the most challenging questions of today.

So this is a duty I take very seriously. It requires me to set aside short-term politics in order to maintain faith with our founders. And on Wednesday, after weeks of consultations with Republicans, Democrats, and leaders across the country, I selected a nominee whose unmatched experience and integrity have earned him the respect and admiration of both parties – Chief Judge Merrick Garland.

Judge Garland grew up in my hometown of Chicago, with parents who taught him to work hard and deal fairly. As a young lawyer, he left a lucrative private firm to work for half as much in public service. Eventually, he oversaw the federal response to the Oklahoma City bombing, working side-by-side with first responders, victims, and their families to bring justice for an unspeakable crime. And everywhere he went during that investigation, he carried with him in his briefcase the program from the memorial service with each of the victims’ names inside.

For the last 19 years, Judge Garland has served on what’s known as “the second highest court in the land” – the D.C. Circuit Court – including the last three years as Chief Judge. On the bench, he’s shown a dedication to protecting our basic rights. A conviction that powerful voices must not be allowed to drown out those of everyday Americans. An understanding that justice isn’t simply abstract legal theory; it affects people’s daily lives. And a spirit of decency, modesty, and even-handedness in his work. Judge Garland is admired for his courtesy, his devotion to family, and his civic-mindedness – for the past 18 years, he’s served as a tutor for young students at a local D.C. elementary school.

During my time as President, through three separate Supreme Court appointments, in conversations with Republicans and Democrats alike, one name came up more than any other – Merrick Garland.

I understand that we’re in the middle of an especially noisy and volatile political season. But at a time when our politics are so polarized; when norms and customs of our political rhetoric seem to be corroding – this is precisely the time we should treat the appointment of a Supreme Court justice with the seriousness it deserves. Because our Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics, not an extension of politics. And it should stay that way.

So I ask Republicans in the Senate to give Judge Garland the respect he has earned. Give him a hearing. Give him an up-or-down vote. To deny it would be an abdication of the Senate’s Constitutional duty. It would indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair. It would make it increasingly impossible for any President, Republican or Democrat, to carry out their Constitutional function. To go down that path would jeopardize our system of justice, it would hurt our democracy, and betray the vision of our founding.

I fulfilled my Constitutional duty. Now it’s time for Senators to do theirs. I hope that they take the time to reflect on the importance of this process to our country. I hope that they’ll act fairly. And I hope they’ll work in a bipartisan fashion to confirm Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. That’s how we can uphold our pledge to liberty and justice for all – for our time and for generations to come.

Thanks everybody. Have a good weekend.

###