This past week in the US, Amy Coney Barrett appeared before the Senate for her confirmation hearing. President Trump named her to take the place of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. If a majority of senators confirm her, as seems likely, she will be put on the Supreme Court for life. If she lives as long as Ginsburg, she will be on the court till 2059, for the next 39 years.
From Day 2 (October 13th 2020):
SENATOR DIANE FEINSTEIN: On July 30th 2020, President Trump made claims of voter fraud and suggested he wanted to delay the upcoming election. Does the Constitution gives the President of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances? Does federal law?
AMY CONEY BARRETT: Well Senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants, and read briefs, and consult with my law clerks, and talk to my colleagues, and go through the opinion writing process. So, if I give off the cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit, and I don’t think we want judges to be legal pundits. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.
Huh?
Here is what the US Constitution says (Article 1, Section 4):
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.“
In other words only Congress or the states can change the date of an election, not the President.
Barrett prides herself in being an originalist, one who strictly follows the orignal meaning of the text of the law – yet she gave strange, fascist-friendly answers like this one. She also had trouble condemning voter intimidation as illegal (it is) or supporting a peaceful transfer of power (presupposed by the Constitution).
What can originalism – or, indeed, the Constitution itself – mean if something so straightforward is so up in the air?
Was she playing to an audience of one – President Trump, who is pro-fascist – or was it just part of her broader strategy of ducking questions?
The elephant in the room: The only informative part of the hearing came when Senator Sheldon Whitehouse ignored Barrett with her non-answering self and spent a half hour talking about the elephant in the room: dark money. Right-wing groups accept millions of dollars from persons unnamed (why it is called “dark”) to push for judges like Barrett (by way of the Federalist Society and ads placed in states with wobbly senators) and then drive court cases towards such judges to support four main causes:
- Dark money (of course);
- Voter suppression;
- Limiting the use of civil juries in court cases;
- Unregulated pollution.
Polluters for plutocracy! It is why money now counts as free speech and how the Voting Rights Act was gutted.
– Abagond, 2020.
See also:
- VOA: English in a Minute: Elephant in the Room
- Amy Coney Barrett
- David Koch
- Donald Trump
- Federalist Society
- originalism
- dark money
- climate change
- voter suppression
- Voting Rights Act of 1965
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg
- The Southern strategy
538
Abagond 
Why have Democrats not attempted to filibuster the nomination? Even if unsuccessful, it would make a great show.
“The longest-ever single-Senator filibuster was Strom Thurmond’s unsuccessful filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, lasting 24 hours and 18 minutes.[61][62][63]…Under current Senate rules, any modification or limitation of the filibuster would be a rule change that itself could be filibustered, with two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needing to vote to break the filibuster.[58]
However, under Senate precedents, a simple majority can (and has acted to) limit the practice by overruling decisions of the chair. The removal or substantial limitation of the filibuster by a simple majority, rather than a rule change, is colloquially called the nuclear option or, by some proponents[who?], the constitutional option.
On November 21, 2013, the then-Democratic-controlled Senate exercised the nuclear option, in a 52–48 vote, to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of all executive and judicial nominees, excluding Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required.[67] On April 6, 2017, the Republican-controlled Senate did the same, in a 52–48 vote, to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of Supreme Court nominees.[68] A 60% supermajority is still required to end filibusters on legislation. “
LikeLike
@gro jo
The Democrats do not actually want to win so much as they want to maintain the sanctity of the traditional American political process, without which they consider American democracy to be completely impossible. They’d rather lose for the “right” reasons than win for the “wrong” reasons. But the process failed a long time ago, and the Democrats would rather sit around weeping over its dead body and beg for it to return to life than actually try to govern the country and resist Republican takeover.
LikeLike
@ tankermottind
Very. Well. Said.
An even more likely scenario is that the “Do Nothing” Dems pretend to be “weeping over its dead body”. While they make a high decibel show of weeping, they rake in campaign cash from millionaire and billionaire donors to keep things as they are.
Some think the real purpose of the Dems is to co-opt and strangle progressive movements in their cradles. After all, what is the central message of the Dems to the Left [and much of the American electorate]: “Where ya gonna go?”
They know the revulsion many people feel for the open fascism of the Repubs. They use that feeling to keep themselves in power—without doing any real work to resurrect one-person, one-vote fully engaged democracy.
Mountebanks like Obama and Harris have perfected the art of “weeping over its dead body”. They are Kabuki masters.
LikeLike
You guys left out the most important part. The routine works. People on this blog , even Chomsky, are busy justifying why they must, once more, lesser evil-ize. It’s the funniest show on the planet, people who claim to be so free willingly putting on the yoke. At least, in other nations, people can claim their lives are in danger if they resist.
LikeLike
Correction: “While” they make a high decibel show of weeping…”
I go too fast and I make darn typos!
@ gro jo
“…in other nations, people can claim their lives are in danger if they resist.”
gro jo, I fully agree that the “routine” works. It is embarrasing that otherwise intelligent people keep falling for it. I think one reason we keep falling for the “routine” is that we have allowed the range of thinking and discourse about what is possible to be narrowed by media and politicians.
Here we are the wealthiest country on the planet and we have intelligent, educated Americans telling themselves that we can’t have rebuilt physical infrastructure, universal healthcare and free public education (kindergarten to post-grad) because of “the national debt/deficit”. Meanwhile, Dem and Repubs keep increasing the military budget to record highs. No screaming about “national debts our children will have to pay” then. Go figure.
However, activists in this country also face threats to their lives if they are serious about change. From the bloody suppression of the Black Panther Party in the 1960s to Ferguson activists who have been killed over the past five years, the risk of danger and death is all too real.
At least four young Black men and one Arab man associated with the Ferguson protests have been killed under questionable circumstances since 2015. Numerous other Ferguson activists have endured constant police harrassment including surveillance, jailings, beatings and shootings by “unknown persons”. One activist had a six foot live python put in his vehicle.
https://www.blackagendareport.com/fight-justice-takes-its-toll-ferguson-activists
The danger is real.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Afrofem
I wasn’t claiming that the danger wasn’t real, I was contrasting the belief that, unlike the rest of humanity, the USA was/is a place where freedom reigns to the facts that tell a different story. My buddy Origin told me that no way would the US government impose the type of quarantine the CPC imposed on Wuhan because of such freedom. I recall the 2005 New Orleans hurricane and the use of police and other repressive organs to keep the victims of that disaster where they belong but not to get them out of harm’s way. No doubt he’ll accuse me of making sh*t up to earn my fifty cents.
LikeLike
“…no way would the US government impose the type of quarantine the CPC imposed on Wuhan because of such freedom.”
The US government is not reluctant to impose a quarantine due to notions of “freedom”. They drag their feet about quarantines because they feel citizens are expendable. They want Americans to work and go to school no matter the risks to themselves and their families.
If people are not risking their lives to work, the Senate would be forced to provide additional trillions dollars of “stimulus relief” funds to workers and small businesses. As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) said in May of this year, that would happen, “over our dead [Senate] bodies.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/05/11/expanded-unemployment-runs-out-soon—republicans-and-democrats-are-split-about-extending-it/#7a456b366433
BTW, do you get paid by the word or for each outraged reaction? chuckle
LikeLike
@ Afrofem
Yup.
LikeLike
By the word and extra for each outraged reaction.
LikeLike
@gro jo
Ha, ha, Josef Groebbels lying off his skunk-like derriere again!
What else is new?
IIRC, my exact words were “Wuhan’s draconian containment measures are not tenable here …”.
That simply means that they could not hold are could not be sustained in America. I think it’s fairly obvious I’m right given the politicization of simple measures such as mask wearing. However I made NO statement there about WHY.
I’m actually of the opinion that the IDEA of “freedom” is cynically manipulated in America in order to achieve the ends outlined by Afrofem in her post above at 3:41:55. In fact, I stated in a post way back on May 4, 2020 under “The Coronavirus” topic:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2020/03/10/the-coronavirus/#comment-437819
So stop making things up you paltering propagandist.
LIES aren’t LOGIC.
ACUTE MENDACITY isn’t MENTAL ACUITY.
I’m not carrying water for anyone, so I can speak the TRUTH as I see it.
Therefore I’ll be rather consistent unless I changed my mind.
Consequently, you’ll be exposed every time your unholy orifice utters my name!
Keep that in mind. 🙂
LikeLike
It’s also interesting to recall that Taiwan had less severe infection control restrictions than many countries but is a COVID-19 success story.
Despite being barred from joining the WHO due to China’s influence, Taiwan – living with memories of China’s coverup of 2003’s SARS – acted quickly and never buried its head in the sand. It contained its outbreak, leading to only 7 deaths from COVID-19.
So we see here the value of transparency and unhesitant action.
As they say, “A stitch in time saves nine”.
TrumpanXi could learn a thing or two!
(BTW, I’m suddenly inspired to draw a two-headed ape and I don’t know why.)
LikeLike
“It’s also interesting to recall that Taiwan had less severe infection control restrictions than many countries but is a COVID-19 success story.”
“America was totally unprepared for this on so many levels. From the nonexistent federal leadership to the lack of social cohesion and consensus to the economic inequality and healthcare access issues and, let’s not forget, a cultural understanding of freedom that often translates to entitlement. In the absence of a medical breakthrough that renders the disease a non-issue, I think this country will be hurting. ”
Origin is “… lying off his skunk-like derriere again!
What else is new?”
Taiwan, a runaway province of the PRC, did a lot worse than the following territories firmly under the control of the CPC. Prove me wrong, if you can.
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2020/03/10/the-coronavirus/#comment-442060
Your claim that “America” was unprepared is another lie. The masses were thrown to the wolf while the elite was protected Ray Dalio got personal protective equipment from the PRC for his people, I don’t doubt a bunch of billionaires did the same, so your blather about “America” is deceptive bs.
LikeLike
If America had been prepared, the billionaires would have been able to buy protective personal equipment made in the USA, not the PRC. We would not have been competing with other nations for scarce PPE that had to be shipped from overseas.
LikeLike
Solitaire, you are hung up on the nation state thing, so 19th century of you! Capitalism is all about making a profit, it was cheaper to push manufacturing to China, that’s what happened. India next?
LikeLike
U.S. companies could have quickly switched their manufacturing lines, but Jared Kushner nixed it.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09/jared-kushner-let-the-markets-decide-covid-19-fate
That was a failure in federal leadership, which is one of the ways Origin listed above that America was unprepared.
The federal government’s inept response to the PPE shortage has already been discussed at length, including citations, on other threads.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link. I didn’t read the article because the title says it all. The “market” i.e. money rules. THAT. IS. A. FACT.
LikeLike
I had a feeling that was what you were going to say. You ought to read the article, because it’s more complex than that.
But even if you don’t, your reply above doesn’t disprove that there was a massive failure by the federal government to ensure the nation was prepared. Furthermore, your observation about billionaires does not disprove that there was a global shortage of PPE, that the USA did not have an adequate stockpile, and that the federal government failed to quickly take advantage of the manufacturing capability the nation still has to ramp up production.
In other words, your observation about the actions of one billionaire and your hypothesis about other billionaires does not disprove that the USA as a nation was woefully unprepared.
LikeLike
Shoulda, coulda but didn’t, why? The cash nexus. I read your link and find nothing in it that I didn’t already know.
LikeLike