Chuck Schumer

Are There Any Red Lines in a Hyperpartisan World?

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

We are increasingly operating in a hyperpartisan world in which competing camps of partisan politicians, activists and voters yell at each other across an ideological chasm. This is not likely to be good for institutional norms.

Particularly concerning is the possibility that traditional red lines in American politics that responsible politicians understood could not be crossed might no longer be inviolable. Political limits in a democratic system ultimately depend not on the parchment barriers of constitutional texts but on the tolerance of political elites and the mass public for violations of those limits. It is easier to sustain such limits, however, if we share a common political culture that recognizes the same red lines and the importance of holding them sacrosanct, if there are recognized political incentives for staying within bounds, and if there are few political incentives for straying out of bounds.

As we divide into hostile and polarized political camps, those conditions start to fray. We hold less in common, including a sense of the appropriate boundaries on political action. Political leaders are increasingly cheered on when they fight the other side, and they are increasingly jeered when they seem to be pulling their punches. The more threatening the other political camp seems, the easier it becomes to rationalize using extreme measures to prevent the enemy from succeeding. Charles Evans Hughes once observed that "the power to wage war is the power to wage war successfully." In a hyperpartisan world, politics looks much more like war, and the kid gloves come off.

I would once have thought that mainstream politicians would think that standing on the steps of the Supreme Court building in front of a crowd and yelling that individual justices would "pay the price" for voting the wrong way in a pending case was outside the bounds of acceptable political practice. Sharp criticism of judicial behavior is a familiar feature of American political rhetoric. Even presidents have indulged in it, sometimes in particularly provocative ways. Judges have been called wrong, activists, and politicians in robes. They are not normally threatened. That an experienced Senate minority leader would indulge in such tactics, and enjoy the cheering of the crowd for doing so, suggests that the red lines that help protect the independence and authority of the federal courts are not what they once were.

Defiance of federal judicial orders has long been one of those red lines as well. As Alexander Hamilton promised, the courts exercise neither force nor will. They possess only judgment. The strength of the institution depends on the willingness of political leaders to defer to judicial pronouncements. The political leaders of the federal government have generally had reason to be willing to defer to judges, even when they think the judges are wrong and even when deferring to them has costs.

There are those who worry that President Trump, with his notorious affection for norm violations and his unusual willingness to attack judges in personal terms, would be willing to step over the line and actually defy a judicial order. I have thought that unlikely. But worries are not unreasonable. Not only is Trump personally unconventional and unpredictable, but the larger political system itself increasingly rewards unconventional behavior. If Trump defied a judicial order, would the personalities on Fox News and the Republican leadership in the Senate rush in to condemn the president—or would they rationalize or equivocate? Would Republican voters think the president had gone too far and express their dissatisfaction at the ballot box—or would they reluctantly, or gleefully, go along?

It so happens that in the American constitutional culture, congressional subpoenas have carried different weight with the executive branch than judicial orders. Our practices could have developed differently such that defying a congressional subpoena would be a red line, the violation of which would provoke a political uproar appropriate to a usurpation of power. Instead, we treat congressional subpoenas as part of a process of interbranch negotiation and accept some executive intransigence as within the rules of the political and constitutional game.

We have not tended to treat judicial orders so cavalierly. Presidential defiance of a judicial order would raise a specter of lawlessness that would push the system toward a point of crisis. But courts have been appropriately cautious about testing the issue. Judges would prefer to have some confidence that presidents would in fact comply if they were to issue a directive, and judges have frequently found ways to avoid issuing such an order when they did not feel the requisite degree of confidence. Perhaps a panel of the D.C. Circuit was feeling such doubts when it refused to weigh in on whether former White House Counsel Don McGahn had to comply with a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee. If defiance of a judicial order is no longer a red line that will not be crossed, federal judges would prefer not to expose that fact.

In a hyperpartisan world, the old ways of doing things can no longer be taken for granted. Behavior that was once off limits will come to be tolerated and even rewarded. Politicians on both sides of the political aisle seem to be testing the strength of traditional boundaries, and they may be discovering that the fences are down.

Advertisement

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: March 7, 1965

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You keep saying “on both sides” but in fact it’s only been on one side.

    1. And there’s a reason for that.

      Liberals want government to work, conservatives don’t. So conservatives do what they can to sabotage it. That way, not only is it harder for government to work, but they can then say “See, we told you it doesn’t work.”

      There are some, including some here, who would love nothing better than for Trump to completely destroy the federal government on his way out the door. They view his flouting of democratic norms as a feature, not a bug. To the extent that he makes it harder for the government to function, both now and in the future, they don’t see a problem.

      I saw a news article earlier this week in which someone told Trump the budget deficits he’s running aren’t sustainable and will eventually crash the economy. His response was that he didn’t care since he wouldn’t still be here when it happens. That about sums it up.

      1. The Democratic House writes the spending bills, so I guess its them trying to crash the economy.

        1. And the Republicans pass tax cuts without spending cuts.

          1. You may be shocked, since you to not know anything, but tax revenues still increased both years after the tax cuts.

            1. I don’t want to shock you, but you might want to take a look at whether the revenues increased in constant dollars, rather than actual dollars.

              1. I don’t want to shock you, but you must make the same correction to both revenues and spending.

                Then explain why Truimp, in only 3 years, has added as much new 8-year debt (CBO forceast) than Obama added AFTER 8 years … and Obama started from the second worst recession since WWII … then handed Trump the longest recovery EVER for an incoming President.

                Ah, you say, but Trump says Obama’s recovery was weak … but Trump’s is WORSE! GDP growth DECLINED in 2019, and Trump’s 3 years are WORSE than Obama’s final three! And on that same 3-year vs 3-year comparison, Obama also created more jobs.

                That means Trump has already FUCKED the economy handed to him, by Obama, 🙁

            2. JesseAz : “You may be shocked, since you to not know anything, but tax revenues still increased both years after the tax cuts”

              Ya know, I sometimes think I’ll never meet a Right-type even remotely literate in basic economics. The “revenue increased” canard has been with us since the days of Reagan voodoo economics and is as ignorant now as then. Sure, tax revenues went up – because they almost ALWAYS go up. They do so after tax cuts, tax hikes, and no change to the rate. They do so in the middle of economic expansions and recessions. In fact, the only time revenues DON’T increase is just after a major economic shock, then they just reset lower and begin to climb again. The last time I checked tax revenues had increased 46 out of the last 50 years. The population grows, the economy expands, tax revenues increase. Finding that bare fact significant is like trumpeting the discovery water is wet. The real question is HOW MUCH do they increase.

              Because government costs rise just as surely. They rise if the scope of government increases, if the scope is reduced, if there is no change to the scope at all. The population grows, the economy expands, costs increase.

              So why does Supply Side magic-unicorn fairy-dust economics always bring an explosion of debt? Because it reduces the growth of revenue against costs. Reagan, W Bush, Kansas, Trump: Always the same failure. Always the same ocean of red ink. Always the same stupid excuses…..

              1. Right. There is no better example of the right being out of touch with simple reality than the repeated claims for thematic of tax cuts.

                It’s been going on since Reagan, and they refuse to believe simple arithmetic.

                Wasn’t the Divine Mr. Trump going to reduce the deficit with his magic touch?

                Don’t remind Jesse. He has his hands over his ears.

              2. Government spending almost always goes up because the scope of government almost always goes up, and because the cost of things the government does, even in a steady state, always goes up much faster than in the private sector, because the government lacks the cost disciplines of the private sector.

                But there’s no economic law that government spending has to go up. It can go down, but typically it only goes down in a crisis, when the government is actually running out of money.

                Likewise tax revenues almost always go up because the economy is almost always growing. But this isn’t a law either. Many governments over the years have managed to collapse tax revenues by inducing economic collapse.

                “Supply side magic-unicorn fairy-dust economics” is no more than the obvious microeconomic observation that increased taxes – costs imposed on economic activity by productive actors (the private sector) – tend to reduce economic activity relative to base line. And consequently reduced taxes do the opposite.

                There is certainly no economic law that lower tax rates always increase aggregate tax revenue, relative to the base line. But tax revenue from some economic actors will almost always rise as a result of a tax cut, even if aggregate tax revenues fall, relative to the base line.

                Which brings out the more important point, which is that whether or not aggregate tax revenues rise or fall, the effect of tax cuts is to increase productive economic activity. The measure of success is not the maximisation of tax revenue, it is the maximisation of economic welfare. If tax cuts cause aggregate tax revenues to fall below the base line, that’s fine. If there is an increasing deficit, the economic solution is to reduce spending.

                The problem with pursuing higher economic welfare by tax cuts is not economics but politics. The politics of reducing spending. Or even slowing its growth.

                1. Oh for God’s sake, are you really so determined to be counter-factually clueless, Lee Moore?

                  (1) Government costs go up even if the scope of government doesn’t expand, just from the growth of population and the economy. Government costs go up even if the scope of government is cut, because as a practical matter any real (not theoretical) scope cuts are still less than the normal growth of costs. As I noted, the same is true of tax cuts. Reducing the tax rates by a few percentage points is only going to cut the normal growth of revenue, not overwhelm and negate it.

                  (2) Your “cost of things the government does, even in a steady state, always goes up much faster than in the private sector” is really childish nonsense. Apparently you need a pet boogeyman in lieu of the plan simple fact of an expanding population and economy. And pray tell, when has the cost of government actually reduced? As I noted, increased revenue is almost a universal truth, but hasn’t occurred in a handful of times this past half-century because of a depressed economy. But depressed economies actually increase the cost of government. I welcome the opportunity to hear you give an example of costs reducing. Maybe looking for one will cut thru your ideological fog.

                  (3) Yeah, taxes suppress economic growth; tax cuts promote economic growth. But where you play willing dupe is pretending the economic growth from Trump’s cuts, or Brownback’s, or W’s or Reagan’s stand a snowball’s chance in hell of creating so much economic growth they don’t lower revenue.

                  Not. Even. Close. Not within shouting distance of close. Not anywhere remotely near close. And I think you’ll find 95% of economist will explain that to you, if you’re willing to hear there’s no Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny. But maybe you prefer to have politicians give you bullshit promises of free stuff instead. That seems to be the preference of today’s Right……

                  1. Government costs go up even if the scope of government doesn’t expand, just from the growth of population…

                    Sure.

                    …and the economy.

                    Eh ? Why would the growth of the economy cause government costs to go up, independently of the growth of population ?

                    Government costs go up even if the scope of government is cut, because as a practical matter any real (not theoretical) scope cuts are still less than the normal growth of costs.

                    You think “Your “cost of things the government does, even in a steady state, always goes up much faster than in the private sector” is really childish nonsense.”

                    In inflationary times the price of everything goes up for monetary reasons. But when the CPI is nearly flat, and if as you imagine, government costs have no tendency to rise faster than private sector costs, – what is this “normal growth of costs” of which you speak ? What is its cause ?

                    In the private sector, costs often go down over time as productivity increases. This is not readily observable in the government sector. Moreover it is in those parts of the private sector which are most heavily regulated in which costs most stubbornly refuse to fall.

                    As I noted, the same is true of tax cuts. Reducing the tax rates by a few percentage points is only going to cut the normal growth of revenue, not overwhelm and negate it.

                    Here you make more sense. Both growth in population and growth in the economy will tend to increase tax revenues. But since tax cuts tend to generate growth in the economy, the effect of tax rate cuts in reducing aggregate tax revenues is mitigated by the extra revenues coming from the extra growth.

                    And pray tell, when has the cost of government actually reduced?

                    The federal budget was halved between 1920 and 1923. This was the result of deliberate budgetary decisions. Meanwhile in Germany government spending (in constant dollars) fell by something closer to 90% as a result of hyperinflation. Spending typically falls when governments run out of money. Occasionally as in the Harding administration it’s done deliberately.

                    But it’s very difficult politically, which is why fiscally conservative governments tend to reduce government spending as a proportion of the economy by restraining the rate of growth of spending to below the rate of growth of the economy, rather than by imposing actual reductions in spending. Ireland and the UK in the 1980s are obvious examples. Sweden in the 90s. And all three because prior explosions of spending required a reversal.

                    As I noted, increased revenue is almost a universal truth, but hasn’t occurred in a handful of times this past half-century because of a depressed economy. But depressed economies actually increase the cost of government.

                    Yes. Which makes your earlier suggestion that government spending increases as the economy grows, independent of population, all the more puzzling.

                    Yeah, taxes suppress economic growth; tax cuts promote economic growth. But where you play willing dupe is pretending the economic growth from Trump’s cuts, or Brownback’s, or W’s or Reagan’s stand a snowball’s chance in hell of creating so much economic growth they don’t lower revenue.

                    I pretend no such thing. Whether a cut in tax rates increases tax revenues overall depends on the circumstances, eg how high the tax rates are to start with. In a typical case, such as you mention, the cuts in the highest rates of tax tend to generate increases in net tax revenue, but the accompanying cuts in tax rates on middle income folk generate net tax revenue reductions. But politically, you can’t just cut the top tax rates, however economically sensible that might be.

                    But mostly I am objecting to the absurd notion that maximising aggregate tax revenue is a sensible economic objective. It isn’t. The tax rates which maximise aggregate economic welfare are certainly lower than the tax rates that maximise aggregate tax revenue.

                    And simmer down, or you’ll have a seizure.

                    1. Very well said, Lee.

                      It’s just another example of the left’s lack of principles. They know that they should tax what they want less of when it comes to drinking sugar or emitting carbon, and subsidise what they want more of – for example electric cars and wind farms.

                      But when it comes to economic activity they forget everything.

                      Instead they discourage productivity and promote waste by taxing producers to subsidise government. And then jump into their preferred comboxes to accuse the right of bad faith.

                    2. But it’s TRUMP who’s the worst President EVER on adding new debt. The CBO 2024 forecast shows Trump has already added as much new 8-year debt as Obama added AFTER 8 years.

                      Plus, slower economic growth, AND fewer jobs. That’s the very definition of failure! (Starting from Obama handing him the longest recovery ever for an incoming President)

                      Left – Right = Zero

              3. Dear Economic Genius,

                The deficit is calculated as “spending – revenues” which gets added to the debt, if revenues increase and debt increases, what is the remaining component of that equation that is the most likely culprit?

                This is what blows me away bout the modern Left. They believe people in government can spend whatever they want however they want and if our debt explodes it’s because they didn’t generate enough tax revenue.

                That’s immoral. The people in government are supposed to work for us, we’re not supposed to work for the people in government’s lavish spending and lavish lifestyles and six-figure retirements.

                1. Pretty sure you lot have forfeited the right to make national debt arguments forever.

                  1. Well then i guess that takes the whole issue off the table because your lot is certainly no better on the subject. When your lot is in power you hand wave away deficits by saying that the percentage of deficit spending is below the growth in GDP, as if that closes the subject. And besides you say our lot just wants to starve children and give tax cuts to billionaires. When our lot is in power we say that you gutted the military and we have to build it back up, and we also need a tax cut to raise revenue, or something.

                    1. Yeah. Our argument is consistent. Yours changes depending on who is in office because it’s made in bad faith.

                    2. Consistently bad vs only bad when in power. It’s a tough choice.

                      Seriously, it’s almost pointless discussing the deficit at this point. As I’ve pointed out before, once buying votes with borrowed money is on the table, it’s politically impossible for any party to be serious about spending restraint; The people who are genuinely serious just get outbid for votes by the ones who aren’t.

                      Republicans pretend they’re going to restrain spending, but they never do. Democrats pretend they’ll balance the budget by raising taxes, but they always spend any extra revenue and borrow anyway, to run a deficit at higher levels of spending.

                      And so it goes until somebody overestimates how much they can get away with borrowing at one time, and hyper inflation sets in.

                      The last real chance we had to balance the budget was Gingrich promising a balanced budget amendment back in 1994, and then he stage managed the votes to make sure there wasn’t any chance it would pass.

                    3. No, Brett.

                      Partisan and inconsistent is always bad, no matter the underlying substance. It always shows bad faith.

                      Your evaluation of the underlying substance is a subjective evaluation (even if you are particularly bad at the distinction). Bad to you is not bad to everyone.

                      Your argument that Dems are also budget hawks but for tax hikes is risible. The use of the national debt as a partisan cudgel is not a thing on the left at all.

                      Your side showed itself on the debt and when it inevitably turns back to debt scaremongering when next a Dem is in office they will be laughed at and deserve to be.

                      Your attempt to argue a nihilist twist on ‘both sides are bad; I’ve always believed the debt is super important’ is a great example of how weak this now sounds.

                    4. Brett’s latest LAME excuse

                      Seriously, it’s almost pointless discussing the deficit at this point.

                      Seriously, because Trump’s GOP has humiliated you!
                      Promised to pay off the entire debt in 8 years .. instead the worst President EVER on ADDING new debt!

                      Obama handed Trump the longest recovery EVER, for an incoming President, and Trump PISSED IT ALL AWAY.

                      TRUMP’S New Deal 🙁

                      1) First President to EVER increase the deficit by over 35% … in a single year … during a recovery! OMFG

                      2) ALREADY added more new 8-year debt, in only three years (CBO 2024 forecast) than Obama added AFTER 8 years.

                      3) SLOWER GDP growth than he inherited from Obama (final three years) GDP DECLINED IN 2019.

                      4) FEWER jobs created than Obama (ditto)

                      Left – Right = Zero
                      Two parties, backed us all into a corner, with no clue how to get us out of the mess they conspired to create.

                    5. OOPS

                      2) ALREADY added more AS MUCH new 8-year debt, in only three years (CBO 2024 forecast) than Obama added AFTER 8 years

        2. And the Republican Senate and Republican President have to pass and sign the legislation, respectively, also. Are you really suggesting that neither Trump nor the Senate Republicans bear any responsibility for the trillion dollar deficits during a good economy while they control all branches of government except for half the legislative (i.e., the House)?

          Republican rationalizations have no end. Always, somehow, a Democrats fault when things go wrong, no matter how much power Republicans have, and always Republicans get credit when things go right, no matter how little their policies had to do with it.

          I have a hard time believing these arguments are made in good faith. But maybe GOP psychology is like that, no argument is too specious for Republicans when it pushes forward their preferred narrative. They are simply that willing to actually believe dumb arguments. Be smarter.

          1. I’m clearly making two arguments:

            1.) Spending is an integral part of any deficit/debt calculus.

            2.) Democrats always ignore spending when assigning blame.

            I made both of those in good faith, one is a mathematical fact, the other is an empirical one.

            1. Republicans controlled all of government and then all of government except the House as Trump spent us into deficits that are ridiculous for good economic times.

              And the comment I responded to did not make the point you are now making, it simply tried to assign the blame for spending on the Democratic House. That is dishonest on several fronts, including because the biggest increase in discretionary spending was defense with an increase of 9% from 2018 to 2019 and that is driven by Trump and prior Republican-initiated endless wars. Also, obviously, Republicans controls the Senate, without which the House can do nothing, and the Presidency, without which the Congress as a whole can do nothing without a supermajority.

              Republicans have convinced themselves that Democrats are the spenders, but the data do not bear that out.

              Stop blaming Democrats for what Trump and McConnell & Co. are doing.

              1. Yeah, like that piece of shit, Trump, is already the worst President on deficits EVER … added more new debt in three years (CBO 2023 forecast) than Obama added AFTER eight years. As pathetic as Dubya. … and he promises ANOTHER unpaid tax cut!

              2. Yeah, maybe you recall that Trump, first year in office, proposed a budget with cuts? And Congress came back with mandatory spending increases, passed on bipartisan majorities that were big enough to override any veto?

                Sure, he should have done the principled thing, and threw away some political capital on a futile gesture, and vetoed it anyway. But let’s be clear about this: When that big a majority in Congress want cancerous growth in spending, no President can refuse to spend the money. It’s literally illegal for them to not spend it!

                1. There was after all an impeachment specifically regarding not paying something on time (yes there were other details such as the request for political gain) that was in the spending required.

                2. hahahahaha … Brett is STILL the absolute worst Trumpian bullshitter!

                  DID *YOU* FORGET REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST THE 2-YEAR BUDGET AGREEEMENT … WHICH TRUMP NEGOTIATED WITH DEMOCRATS???

                  Trump’s UNPAID tax cuts exploded the debt … now he wants another unpaid cut!!

                  ***Democrats borrow trillions to pay for free stuff.
                  Republicans borrow even more trillions to pay for free tax cuts
                  (Supported by the blatant moral hypocrisy of Rand Paul)

                  Did you forget how Bush2 “paid for” Medicare Prescriptions … BY LOOTING THE INCOME TAX?

                  Bush’s GOP now steals over $300 billion per year, 20% of the entire personal income tax.

                  Medicare deficits are still covered by borrowing … but now charged to the General Fund, NOT the Trust Fund. GOP FRAUD!

                  The Medicare Trust Fund is LESS than $300 billion, so would otherwise be bankrupt.

                  Prescriptions are less than half that amount. They needed Democrat votes … and got their asses whupped!

                  And Trump conned you TOTALLY on his first budget … which would have INCREASED total spending … the spending cuts were smaller than the INCREASES!!!!

                  https://money.cnn.com/2017/05/22/news/economy/trump-budget/index.html

                  Trump’s economic and budget teams assume a higher economic growth rate than others. They also assume that tax reform won’t add to deficits and that the controversial House-passed version of Obamacare repeal will be law.

                  (smirk)

                  See Part 2

                3. Did you also “forget” Trump’s claim of 4-6% GDP growth … which is actually LESS THAN WHAT HE INHERITED — NEVER OVER 3% — AND GDP GROWTH DECLINED FOR 2019 …. AGAIN!!! OMFG

                  Trump’s GDP growth
                  2017 = 2.9%
                  2018 = 2.3%
                  2019 = 2.1% (est)

                  Per FORBES!!!
                  https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/02/10/trumps-economic-scorecard-3-years-in-office/#12206ff27847

              3. Notice how with my statements I never mentioned Republicans and they very well could be at fault too?

                P.S. It is an absolute fact that appropriation bills originate in the House.

                That’s a simple fact.

                P.P.S. Discretionary spending is less than 1/2 of the total spending. Stop cherry-picking.

                1. P.S. It is an absolute fact that appropriation bills originate in the House.
                  That’s a simple fact.

                  Also a fact that the very worst deficit bills were passed in the two years when Republicans controlled the House.

                  1. TLTT, Provide evidence to support your assertion.

                2. Sam,

                  The comment you made that I replied to was:

                  “The Democratic House writes the spending bills, so I guess its them trying to crash the economy.”

                  You are trying to argue that, because you didn’t mention Republicans, you could have meant they were at fault “too.”?

                  If you meant Republicans are to blame, you could have said that initially. If you mean it now, you could say it now. But you don’t. This is what makes honest argument impossible.

                  Your P.S.: The President first proposes a budget. Fact. No matter what bill originates in the House, the Senate has to pass it. Fact. More importantly, the Republicans controlled the House and Senate and the Presidency when the FY 2018 budget was proposed and passed, it increased the deficit (both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of GDP). Same for FY 2019 budget.

                  Although to be fair, Congress was unable to get an appropriations bill past the President during the 115th Congress because he wanted to spend more money. (The specific issue was his request for more money for a border wall, so they shut the government down costing the US economy at least $11 billion and achieved nothing but an eventual appropriations bill that still did not include the wall funding.)

                  The President and Senate have continued to accelerate the growth of the deficit during what they describe as the best economy ever. What do you think that deficit is going to look like during the next recession? Republicans own this.

                  When the next recession comes and we have no room to cut taxes, increase spending, or reduce interest rates to pull the economy out of that recession, we know who to blame. Republicans and only Republicans.

                  P.P.S. From the CBO: “Mandatory spending is generally governed by statutory criteria; it is not normally set by annual appropriation acts.” We have been talking about appropriations bills, hence you being very impressed by where those bills originate. Discretionary spending is what generally changes through the appropriations process, which is why it is significant that the biggest increase in discretionary spending is defense. Stop being obtuse.

                  P.P.P.S. “he should have done the principled thing, and threw away some political capital on a futile gesture, and vetoed it anyway” Well, he didn’t do that over reducing the deficit, you are right. He did do that and shut the government down over border wall funding. Obviously, fiscal responsibility is not a priority, spending on unpopular, symbolic, special interest projects is a priority because he made it part of his brand.

      2. Liberals want government to work, conservatives don’t.

        This is of course nuts.

        Conservatives think government tends to work poorly, not at all or counterproductively, outside the traditional domains in which it is indispensible. Liberals think it works well in all sorts of other domains, or would do if only [insert whatever].

        Liberals are consequently frequently either disappointed or in denial about the performance of government.

        Conservatives meanwhile are seldom disappointed when government performs poorly even at those tasks they think it ought to be doing. Not because they hope it will fail, but because they expect it to fail.

        1. And they then do everything they can to make their expectations a self fulfilling prophecy

          1. If it hadn’t been for those dadgummed Russian Republicans, the Soviet Union would have prospered. We’d have experienced the true “Red Plenty.”

            https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1555976042/reasonmagazinea-20/

          2. You have those talking points down. They are uneducated, but man do you repeat them nicely.

        2. Lee,

          Republicans actively have been sabotaging the ACA (Obamacare) since they regained control of Congress and did it on a state level before that. Yet, they want it to fail, but they lack the cajones to repeal it. They would rather sabotage the program so they can say it failed, rather than either try to make it work as well as possible or repeal it and face voters with their absence of an alternative solution.

          This example flies directly in the face of your “Conservatives [do not] hope it will fail, but….expect it to fail.” They not only hope it will fail, they are actively trying to make it fail. They won’t make policies that make it as effective as possible because, actually, they expect it will achieve some good and thereby become entrenched, much like SSA or Medicare. Despite voters seeing those as successes, Republicans don’t. So they actively sabotage the ACA rather than offer any alternative solution.

          You are just wrong.

          1. Republicans actively have been sabotaging the ACA (Obamacare) since they regained control of Congress and did it on a state level before that.

            The ACA is a government program which the Republicans think is a bad idea. Opposing particular government programs, whether because you disapprove of the ends or the means or the cost or the practicalities, is not the same thing as wanting government to fail. Nobody wants government to fail at those things that they want the government to be doing. And everyone wants the government to stop doing the things it shouldn’t be doing.

            Moreover, when you demand that the Republicans offer an alternative program, they did. They said all along that the status quo ante was better than Obamacare.

            And while we’re on cojones, sure the Republicans lack sufficient cojones, not to mention votes, to end Obamacare directly. But this is precisely mirrored by the Democrats having to settle for Obamacare as a stepping stone to single payer. Politics is largely a cojones free zone. Get over it.

            btw are we allowed to associate cojones with courage these days ? Although I have no objections to the expression myself, I feel sure that there are hordes of folk out there who would find it very objectionable.

            Yet, they want it to fail, but they lack the cajones to repeal it. They would rather sabotage the program so they can say it failed, rather than either try to make it work as well as possible or repeal it and face voters with their absence of an alternative solution.

            1. You don’t like a program, you end it. You don’t sabotage it.

              1. Oh, come on, Sarcastro, that’s stupid.

                Let’s say you’re in Germany in the early 1940’s. You don’t like the Holocaust, but you’re in no position to end it. Does that mean you can’t sabotage it?

                OBVIOUSLY it’s sometimes appropriate to sabotage a program you can’t end. So it all depends on how bad you think the ACA is. Just because Democrats think it’s a good idea doesn’t mean Republicans are forbidden to think it’s a bad idea. Just because Democrats think that it will do good things, doesn’t mean Republicans are trying to get rid of it to prevent good things, because they’re not obligated to agree with Democrats about what it will accomplish.

                1. Brett – Sarcastr0’s comment above is especially rich, since that’s all the Democrats in Congress have done in the past year is sabotage Trump in any way they can.

                  1. Whataboutism (yawn)

                  2. Preventing bad logic is not the same as sabotaging good policy.

                    1. Bad policy that is.

                    2. Yeah, that’s why I pointed out that, just because Democrats think the ACA is good policy doesn’t mean that the Republicans are somehow obligated to agree.

                    3. True. But the GOP isn’t trying to repeal it or preventing it from growing, as the Dems are doing with Trump’s agenda.

                      They’re trying to ensure it is badly executed. That’s not a policy disagreement, that’s sabotaging the game because you lost.

                      It’s no way to run a country.

                2. Brett,

                  Because universal health care coverage is like genocide?

                  But we all know Republicans were dishonest because they had the power to kill it and didn’t.

                  By your analogy: Rather than stop the holocaust when they had the power to do so, in other words, they would have just made it less efficient so they could continue to use it as a political cudgel. I really don’t think that’s an analogy that does what you think it does, Brett.

                  1. Everyone ignores that, if Trumpcare had passed, the Democrat rout of 2018 would have been 2-3 times larger.

          2. I work in the healthcare industry as a data analyst. Over 30 years in that discipline. Will you name a single example of Republicans “sabotaging” the ACA? The ACA was DESIGNED to sabotage itself.

            Here is the thinking: the ACA was going to make the whole system so messy that people would scream to their congresspeople to demand a purely public system like Medicare for all or something like it. That backfired because the Republicans POINTED THIS OUT. If anything, the GOP are guilty of putting the ACA on life support instead of letting it die the death it deserves (thanks, John McCain). After all, most of the provisions of that law are still being followed by hospitals and health plans (both of which I’ve worked for, and where I saw the ACA government mandates first hand).

            So if you’ve got an actual argument instead of a knee-jerk emotional response to your narrative that the mess would have worked if it weren’t for those rascally Republicans, make it. Because nowhere in your screed above do you make one.

            1. Paranoid psychotic. And ignorant. And how useless is a “data analyst” in describing legislation.

              Now to your massive ignorance,

              Will you name a single example of Republicans “sabotaging” the ACA? Will you name a single example of Republicans “sabotaging” the ACA?

              WITH SOURCES, vs your … nothingburger,

              You are totally ignorant of how the GOP screwed up Obamacare … when Obama

              Obama won the nomination as a MODERATE on health care. He opposed the mandate, strongly, CRUSHING Hillary and Edwards with a better argument than ANY Republican. “If a mandate could work, we could end homelessness by mandating everyone buy a house.” KAPOW!

              He also opposed universal coverage!!!! Said we cannot afford that until we first lower the COST of CARE … which his original bipartisan Obamacare DID propose, but Republicans FUCKED UP BIGLY.

              Stop laughing! (smirk) Proof of those two campaign promises is captured in dozens of video snippets, in a 2012 campaign ad for Gary Johnson. Do a YouTube search for “Barack Obama Was Against Healthcare Mandate Before He Was For It.”

              Even worse for you … the original BIPARTISAN Obamacare included a PRIVATE alternative to the public option demanded by his hard left … ENDORSED on Daily Kos!!! … that would have killed single-payer forever … THE cheapest coverage structure on earth … TOTAL control by CONSUMERS (not fucking politicians, both left and right) …. AND COMPETITION!!!

              Based on Seattle’s Group Health Co-Op, an HMO co-op … controlled by members … has nearly a million members (I was one) .. AND A LOWER-COST COMPETITOR!!

              WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED?
              DUMBFUCK McCONNELL REFUSED THE DEAL .,. EMPOWERING THE FAR LEFT … FUCKING AMERICANS … AND REFUSING TO KILL SINGLE-PAYER!!!!

              (Educate yourself. Kennedy’s tax cuts were strongly opposed by his own far left in Congress and the AFL-CIO, but HE DIDN’T NEED THEIR VOTES — no dumbfuck McConnell to screw up the deal, tax cuts later copied by Reagan)

              Doctors are salaried employees of their patients. They run their own hospitals and own their own pharmacy. NO costly reimbursements. And prepaid CREATES the structure for lower costs across the board,

              Here’s one summary of the deal McConnell rejected.
              http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/health/policy/07coop.html?_r=1

              So if you’ve got an actual argument instead of a knee-jerk emotional response to your narrative that the mess would have worked if it weren’t for those rascally Republicans, make it. Because nowhere in your screed above do you make one.

              Now …. wipe the egg off your puss.

        3. This is of course nuts..

          If it’s nuts, Lee, why do they keep appointing incompetents?

      3. You know, Krycheck2, I’m glad you posted this, as it helped me locate you on the Conservative/Republican/Trump derangement spectrum. It’s shame you apparently can’t see for yourself how wacky your position is.

        1. Your idiotic comments here are quite an insult to the person who originally wrote under that pseudonym.

          1. Well said, Alpheus.

          2. Your comment is dopey. What, exactly, is idiotic about my comment? Why don’t you attempt to substantiate your comment, rather than just hurl invective?

            1. Um, your comment had only invective, The[Fake]Publius. What substantive response is there? That you double down really just proves the idiocy of your comments.

            2. The Publius,
              Pot Kettle Black.

      4. Well that’s an idiotic take.

      5. I saw a news article earlier this week in which someone told Trump the budget deficits he’s running aren’t sustainable and will eventually crash the economy. His response was that he didn’t care since he wouldn’t still be here when it happens. That about sums it up.

        Did Trump really say that? “Après moi, le déluge” is a phrase that doesn’t exactly have a good reputation. Someone needs to remind Trump of that (or explain it to him for the first time, translating as necessary). Does Trump only want America to be “great” for as long as he is President?

        1. Someone saw a news article. You didn’t see it, but “someone” saw it. And of course because it fits your narrative, you don’t even question it.

          Has it occurred to you that Trump either didn’t say that, or it was taken entirely out of context?

          1. It suits your narrative to “forget” the most obvious facts on this.
            1) Trump was elected to pay off the entire debt in 8 years.
            2) Instead, Obama gifted him the longest recovery EVER, for an incoming President … but Trump has instead been the worst President on NEW debt EVER … with slower GDP growth and jobs creation,

            Are you aware that GDP growth DECLINED last year?
            Or would that spoil your narrative.

      6. Liberals want government to work? Which is why the lead-in to this post was a democrat attacking the structure of government…

        Take your rose colored glasses off. All politicians want is power. Both liberals and conservatives want the power to dictate how we live our lives.

        Only libertarians support a system in which people are free to live their own lives and not be constantly subject to government coercion. Probably why libertarians make such terrible politicians – they don’t actually want power, they want strict limits on power.

        And FYI, government never ‘works’. Everything government does is purely conceived, inefficient, and not tailored to serve the interests it gives lip service to. The primary purpose of bureaucracy is to expand bureaucracy.

        1. *poorly conceived, sigh no edit.

      7. I would suggest that it is the Left that wants government to work (as they believe that 51% should tell 49% how to act), but ONLY if THEY are controlling the government. You might be missing the point here, which is an example of the Left (Schumer) who is attacking the norms and crossing red lines involving restraint, and NOT the GOP, at least in this case. The attacks on our Institutions (talk of packing the Court, eliminating the filibuster for approving judges) are either exclusive to or eliminated originally from the Left. As far as a possible refusal by the President to follow a judgement from the Court, I think the GOP has shown they would stand up. I wonder about Leftists in regard to the so-called Sanctuary districts/states that eefuse to follow Federal law. Are they standing up?

    2. I’m glad to see you call out Schumer for going way over any line that is acceptable in our political culture.

    3. That’s absolutely true. No conservative has ever tried to get a foe deplatformed or fired.

      1. Is this sarcastic?

        The right has a huge amount of envy on this tactic, and keep trying to replicate it.
        They have teams digging through liberals’ twitter histories to try and deplatform them.

        It’s like saying that there is no political correctness on the right or that the right never demands a safe space. The constant complaining in these comments provides a counterexample to that.

  2. “There are those who worry that President Trump, with his notorious affection for norm violations and his unusual willingness to attack judges in personal terms, would be willing to step over the line and actually defy a judicial order. I have thought that unlikely. But worries are not unreasonable. ”

    Those worries weren’t unreasonable 3 1/2 years ago. It’s generally reasonable to project that what’s happening will continue, and the previous administration was pretty bad in that regard.

    But, now he has a track record, and it’s a very good one. Those worries are now fairly unreasonable, because if Trump started defying court orders, it would be a change from his current practice.

    1. If Trump wins a second term and no longer has to worry about facing the voters, he may continue to obey court orders or he may not. That he has an election this November is probably providing some deterrence. I’m not willing to gamble on how much his ignoring norms would increase in a second term in which even that deterrent would be gone.

      1. The only norms President Trump has bucked is not letting the Left get away unscathed their biases and manipulations.

        1. You know, Sam, I’ve given up arguing with people who can’t see what’s directly in front of them. I think a second Trump term is likely to be catastrophic, not just because I disagree with his policies, but also because of the damage he’s doing to our democratic institutions, our norms, and our civil discourse. You don’t think so. We’ll find out soon enough which of us is right.

          Though for that matter, if he loses the election, we also don’t know how much damage he’ll do on the way out.

          1. Didn’t you just earlier respond to a comment that none of the parade of horribles has passed since Trump took office 3 years ago with something to the effect of “I just know in my heart of hearts it will next term!”

            You people are deranged.

            1. That’s not even a reasonable paraphrase of what I said.

              1. Seems to me it was a reasonable paraphrase. You think he’s going to behave differently in his second term than he has in his first, but your only basis for this is the assumption that he wants to do all these awful things he hasn’t actually been doing.

                1. None are so blind as those who refuse too see … even the most obvious facts.

                  Make a supported argument or shut up and sit down.

                  How could Trump’s failures possibly be any worse than inheriting, from Obama, the longest recovery ever for an incoming President ,… BUT
                  1) Adding as much new 8-year debt, in only 3 years (CBO forecast) ,than Obama added AFTER 8 years,.
                  2) Have SLOWER average GDP growth than what Obama handed him. (3 years vs 3 years)
                  3) Creating FEWER jobs than Obama did (3 vs 3)

                  We already know why you REFUSE — for well over a year — to admit Trump’s PSYCHOTIC LIE that the Charlottesville riots and assaults were launched by the left! OMFG

                  Yes, we know why you defend lying to defend neo-nazis and white supremacists … yet feel no shame in doing so.

                  1. Obama added $10T.

                    The House Democrats have not added that much since President Trump took office.. You live in an alternate reality.

                    1. (Boldface to optimize the ridicule, and in self-defense from a drive-by shooting)
                      You’re full of crap … AND illiterate!!! READ IT AGAIN!

                      THIS is what I said

                      1) Adding as much new 8-year debt, in only 3 years (CBO forecast) ,than Obama added AFTER 8 years,.

                      Here’s you French-kissing Trump’s lard ass.

                      The House Democrats have not added that much since President Trump took office..

                      Lemme ‘splain it for you, Lucy.
                      1) Take the CBO forecast for 2024.
                      2) Subtract actual debt for 2016.
                      3) (Trump) has added as much new 8-year debt, in only 3 years, AS Obama added AFTER 8 years. And Obama gifted Trump with the longest expansion EVER for an incoming President. FAIL FAIL FAIL

                      You live in an alternate reality.

                      Now wipe the egg off your puss.
                      And find a 4th-grade teacher to address your severe reading deficiencies

                      P.S. Hello? Hello? THE HOUSE WAS REPUBLICAN FOR HIS FIRST TWO YEARS (gasp) …. WHEN MOST OF THE NEW DEBT WAS CREATED. 🙂

                      P.P.S. IT’S TRUMP WHO PROPOSED YET ANOTHER UNPAID TAX CUT … NOT DEMOCRATS!

                      P.P.P.S. HOUSE REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST THE 2-YEAR BUDGET AGREEMENT. TRUMP WORKED WITH DEMOCRATS TO EXPLODE DEBT
                      ***WELCOME TO TRUMP’S NEW DEAL!

                      Anything else?

                  2. Your lies are a perfect example of Whittington’s point. YOU shut up.

                    1. HEY. GOMER. BE SP[ECIFIC ON WHERE YOU SAY I LIED ,… SO I CAN JAM THE PROOF UP YOUR LYHIG’ ASS

                      I’m waiting. 🙂

          2. I feared a second Obama term would destroy the country. I’m still not sure I was entirely wrong.

            1. He did better than Trump!

              1. Did he?

                1. Almost across the board … to the informed, non-tribal voter.
                  1) MUCH better on debt. (CBO 2014 forecast)
                  2) Better GDP growth. (Obama’s final 3 years, vs Trump’s 3)
                  3) Better jobs creation (ditto)

                  Plus, Obama started from the second worst recession since WWII … but handed Trump the longest recovery EVER for an incoming President, which intensifies how bad Trump’s economic and fiscal failures are.

                  Are you even aware that GDP growth declined in 2019??

                  1. FIX TYPO 🙁

                    (Obama was)
                    “1) MUCH better on debt. (CBO 2024 forecast)”

          3. A lot of what you think seems to be idiotic.

            1. That was brilliant! 🙂

          4. Christ, what utter knee-jerk drivel. WHAT damage? What has Trump done that’s so hurt the fabric of our system that it either can’t be undone, or has such long-lasting effects that you’re going to suffer for it?

            This is the kind of paranoia that always leads me to believe the same thing: the left belongs nowhere near the levers of power in any way. You people are genuinely insane.

            1. Translation:
              “Yes, Trump has screwed up damn near everything, but the damage is mostly short-term, and his biggest screwups can be undone by a later President and Congress!”
              (Except the absolute worst President on debt, ever.)

              Trump’s base has so many lame excuses … as bad as Bernie’s and Elizabeth’s bases.

              Left – Right = Zero

          5. “because of the damage he’s doing to our democratic institutions, our norms, and our civil discourse” — GUESS WHAT krychek_2!!!

            Destroying the Nazi Camp (National Socialism) is EXACTLY the goal of Republicans. It’s the GOAL of the U.S. Constitution. It was the goal when we went to war with Hitler….

            Ya all on the left has inherited a false narrative… The U.S. isn’t a democracy (its a Republic). It strictly isn’t socialist. It’s not about [WE] dedications its about Individual Justice and Liberty.

            Deal with it or get out of our country.. You don’t get to be ‘founders’ of this one; it was already ‘founded’.

            1. AUTHORITARIAN THUG says American values include … deporting anyone who doesn’t kiss his pathetic ass.

              A disgrace to all we hold dear, self-righteous bigotry.

      2. “I’m not willing to gamble…..” — you’re not gambling at all. You could say the country is gambling, but you have no control over that, so your willingness for the country to gamble is a meaningless sentence. You may as well be willing for birds to migrate.

        Then there’s the question of why Trump? Were you just as unwilling for the country to gamble with any other President’s second term? If not, then you have TDS, and have bigger problems than whether you are willing for the country to gamble on Trump’s second term.

        1. Trump is different from previous presidents in his willingness to violate norms. For example: slighting the DOJ as the Department of “Justice”, admitting he would accept foreign help in an election if offered, siding with Putin over all U.S. intelligence agencies and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to conclude that Putin hadn’t interfered, discussing pending criminal matters against his close associates and calling some (Cohen) rats and saying others were being treated “very unfairly” all while juries were deliberating, trying to steer lucrative government contracts (G7 summit) to his own businesses, obstructing justice as laid out in the Mueller report, asking a foreign country to announce an investigation of his political opponent in exchange for military aid. Etc., Etc. It doesn’t require TDS to realize that his second term is more dangerous than any prior president’s second term with respect to whether he will adhere to important norms like respecting court decisions, not interfering in investigations into his friends, family, and business associates, that he won’t hand out pardons to those same people if necessary, and on and on. He is a man who believes might makes right and who, as Ted Cruz put it: Trump is utterly amoral, a pathological liar, and a narcissist the likes of which we’ve never seen before.

          1. You are no different from any other partisan hack in your focus on Trump and amnesia concerning other Presidents. What was that Obama said in his State of the Union address about Citizens United? His AG refused to cooperate with Congressional hearings into his Fast & Furious gun running operation. There’s quite a list. To single out Trump shows partisanship.

            1. Once again, the defense of Trump:
              -Obama did it too.
              -You are partisan.

              Pathetic. The defenders of Trump aren’t partisan? And why wouldn’t he focus on Trump, he’s currently the president. Remember?

              1. NO, Alpheus, that’s not an argument. YOU guys are making the argument that Trump is going beyond norms. Others argue that prior presidents did the same thing. Therefore, Trump is NOT destroying norms.

                1. No, Spanky, yours is not an argument either.
                  Denial is not an argument, even when puppets of both tribes do it.
                  And you did exactly how he described you. So you managed to lose a non-argument!

                2. I Callahan:

                  Yes, we made an argument that Trump violated various specific norms. You argued that Obama did some other thing which may or may not have been a norm (it’s not like he is the first President to criticize a Supreme Court decision). Therefore, your entire argument is a non sequitur.

                  Trump is destroying norms that indicate he has no respect for the rule of law or separation of powers or, as he has explicitly stated, limits on executive authority. This is different.

                  Saying Obama did something that some people found shocking, whether disagreeing with Citizens United or wearing a tan suit, is not a response or refutation.

            2. Criticizing Citizen’s United is no different from Republicans criticizing Roe or Lawrence v. Texas or other decisions they don’t like. That is not the same as talking about “Obama judges” or saying the Roger Stone judge is biased or saying the jury foreman was compromised. You either can see the difference and you are dishonest, or you cannot see the difference and, well, not so smart. In either case, it is rather pointless to engage.

              His AG refusing to cooperate is not remotely analogous to anything in my Trump list and not different from the actions of multiple prior administrations, though I don’t agree with it. We are talking about norm violations. Your list includes none.

              1. I’m so old, I remember when another president criticized the US Supreme Court IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS. That was ALSO beyond norms. Therefore, Obama set a NEW norm that Trump followed.

                You guys made the rules, live by them.

                1. Left – Right = Zero
                  Only subservient puppets choose either tribe, these days.

                2. The rule you cite is criticizing specific Supreme Court decisions after the fact. Trump actively commented on ongoing trials of his friends and associates in ways that cast aspersions on the DOJ prosecuting the cases and on the judges and juries hearing the cases. The two things are entirely different.

                  You need to practice your whataboutism if that’s your rhetorical tool of choice.

          2. Holy shit nova, you seem ignorant. Foreign help… so Clinton’s never got money from china? Democrats dont proudly accept foreign endorsements? Kennedy dodnt go to Russia to ask for help? The partisan DoJ.. you’re defending them after fast and furious and the FISA abuse report?

            In fact most of what you wrote is divided bullshit.

            1. Please cite your evidence that Kennedy solicited election help from the Soviet Union.

              1. He will probably cite Limbaugh’s dishonest telling of the story. Kennedy did not solicit help and coordinated with the Reagan administration in talking to the Soviets. The Reagan administration was kept fully apprised and considered the contacts useful for promoting U.S. policy. JesseAz is quite ignorant.

              2. Here is a 2009 Forbes article that recounts the claim, but the original claim was made by the London Times in 1991 based on a 1983 KGB memo:
                “Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

                “On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

                1. Complete silence by Alpheus and Nova. That comment apparently didn’t fit the narrative those two bozos wanted to believe.

                  1. The Forbes article has been debunked and the facts are known and are not what Limbaugh has pushed.

                    “This isn’t the first time we’ve seen a claim like this, and it’s not the first time this Kennedy-KGB story tracked back to that Forbes story.

                    So is it true?

                    Hardly.

                    There’s not much to back up the tale under any circumstances, but Gutfeld went overboard even relative to the Forbes article. He said Kennedy met with the KGB, something the Forbes piece doesn’t even mention.” https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jul/18/greg-gutfeld/fox-news-host-cites-ted-kennedy-kgb-meeting-never-/

                    Again, Kennedy wasn’t running for President, didn’t have a meeting, and kept the Reagan administration apprised of the contacts. The article concludes:

                    “The memo gained attention when it was the basis of a news report published in the London Times in 1992, after the Soviet Union dissolved. When the report came out, Tunney told the London Times that it was “bull—-.” We reached Tunney in 2015, and he emphatically repeated that.”

                    1. From the same article linked above:

                      In his memoirs Entering New Worlds, Kampelman wrote that the Soviets liked working with Kennedy as a back-door conduit of information, and Kampelman welcomed the arrangement.

                      “I learned that the senator never acted or received information without informing the appropriate United States agency or official,” Kampelman wrote.

                      In 1985, Reagan himself approved using Kennedy this way, and a working relationship grew between Kampelman and Kennedy.

                      While it is possible that the administration never caught wind of any contacts Tunney had with the KGB, it is worth noting that when the archivists at the Reagan Library searched the White House files on Kennedy, no episode involving the USSR in 1983 popped up.

                  2. Kazinski and I Callahan,

                    Stop spreading lies, please.

                    1. Robots cannot control their own “minds.”
                      Only their programmers, the political elites.

          3. ^^THIS!!

      3. Even when there are facts and and established pattern of behavior, guys like you choose to disregard all that and make up a dramatic story instead.

        1. Trump has dealt with more national injunctions than any president… by far. He has patiently waited until those cases were overturned by the USSC before acting. He is well within the norms, more so than memo writing Obama ever was.

          1. I think that’s a slight exaggeration. He has impatiently waited. But the essential point is that he has waited.

          2. Trump has dealt with more national injunctions than any president… by far.

            BECAUSE HE HAS VIOLATED SO MANY MORE NORMS!!! (duh)

    2. The Trump administration does have a track record, which includes defying at least one court order after Barr decided the court was “incorrect” and so its order was dispensable:

      https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/12/a-conservative-judge-draws-a-line-in-the-sand-with-trump-administration-114185

      1. There is a also a track record of lower court Federal Judges increasingly issuing expansive “universal” injunctions which are well out side past norms.

        1. Trump’s judiciary!

      2. You’re argument is pathetic, it truly is

        1. I’d hang myself immediately if you ever offered a rational, intelligent response based on facts to anyone.

          Unfortunately for you, everyone who sees your posts knows you’re a few thousand years of evolution behind the rest of us.

        2. Have you converted to pure contentless insults now?

          Engage or don’t post. This just makes you look angry and small online.

    3. Of course Trump Now has SCOTUS on call to issue a stay against any court order he doesn’t like and would not otherwise obey.

  3. If Roberts does not wish to be seen as a partisan politician, he should not act like a partisan politician

    Wait, defying judicial orders

    If cannot find it but prior to Barr overrulling his own pseudo judges, I think they already deported at least one person against the orders of a real judge, but cannot find a link quite yet
    Seriously, trump has no respect for the judiciary,or anyone, or anything

    1. What is there to respect? Our judges are as partisan as our politics. E.g. everyone knows the conclusion of any particular politically charged case merely by knowing which court it’s being tried in.

      And 90% of the time, everyone is right.

    2. Yeah, Barr decided the court was “incorrect” so its order was dispensable and the Trump administration deported a guy in violation of the order. Earning a smackdown by the 7th Circuit.

      https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/12/a-conservative-judge-draws-a-line-in-the-sand-with-trump-administration-114185

      1. How many 0-9 cases did obama lose again?

        1. JesseAz,

          Obama’s administration lost 44 unanimous decisions in 8 years. This works out to 5.5 per year. (Counting cases argued after his inauguration in 2009 per Cato Institute.)

          Trump’s administration has lost 15 so far, which includes a partial 2016-2017 (counting cases argued after Trump’s inauguration, again adopting Cato’s methodology), two full terms, and then the cases decided so far in 2019-2020 term. (i.e., in just over 2.5 years, basically) which works out to 6 unanimous defeats per year if you assume 2.5 years or, being generous, 5 unanimous defeats per year if you assume 3 years. Basically, Trump is losing unanimously at a rate very similar to the rate at which the Obama administration lost unanimously. Also, his overall win rate appears to be similar (though I didn’t take the time to count that).

          So, is that supposed to prove something about Trump or Obama?

          What’s your point?

          Cases as I counted them:

          2016-2017 term (argued after Jan. 20, 2017): Maslenjak; Kokesh; Honeycutt: Esquivel-Quintana; Dean; (5)
          2017-2018 term: Byrd; Lagos; Nat’l Ass’n of Mfgs.; Dimaya; (4)
          2018-2019 term: Weyerhauser; Kisor; Iancu; Dept. of Commerce v. NY; (4)
          2019-2020: Rodriguez; Holguin-Hernandez; (2)

    3. Did the “real judge” decide he was above the law: “the statute expressly states in § 1252(e)(5) that “[t]here shall be no review of whether the alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal.””

      If we are going to have a system where judicial orders are sacrosanct then judges themselves have a special obligations to make sure they themselves confirm rigorously to the law. When Congress tells the judiciary that certain cases are unreviewable then the judges have to respect that they too are subject to the law.

      Ideally the higher courts should rigorously police rogue judges that think they are above the law as in this case and national injunctions, but ultimately ensuring that judges know their place in our system might sometimes require they be put in their place occasionally, just as judges rightly do to the legislature or the executive when they forget what there place is.

      1. Is such a provision itself Constitutional? If the Congress were to include in the text of a blatantly unconstitutional law the words “This Act shall not be subject to judicial review”, would that make it so? That such questions are being asked is exactly what this article is talking about. I will await the Supreme Court’s decision in the Thuraissigiam case.

  4. So, balance is comparing the awful things actually done by the Democrats (while ignoring the Mueller attempted coup) with things that Presdent Trump has not actually, you know done?????
    When you talk about hyper partisanship, you miss what is going on.
    President Trump is responding to those who violated these norms by trying to use the DOJ and the CIA to remove him from office. This is the norm that has been broken. Respecting the duly elected President!!!!!!

    1. baloney

      coup? paranoid delusions

      1. A military officer on the NSC leaked a classified phone call over a policy disagreement and then instructed a foreign government to ignore the President’s policy.

        Like the people at the DOJ and the DOJ coup plotters, the people at the Pentagon have declined to investigate or prosecute.

      2. You say baloney to perceptions of an attempted coup. I say baloney to perceptions that Trump is some rogue actor defying constitutional norms.

        Perhaps we both should consider how it is that half of America thinks so differently from how each of us thinks. Why is that so? How can we continue to function together when we do not perceive the same reality? Is there a future for America as we have known it or should it divide?

        Progressives scoff at suggestions of civil war. I’ve always assumed that’s because the term “civil war” brings to American minds confrontations such as Antietam and Gettysburg. But civil war can also mean Belfast.

        If Bernie gets elected and puts his agenda into effect, the right may turn some places into Belfast. If he doesn’t get the nomination, the left will assuredly make Milwaukee into Belfast. If Bernie is nominated but loses the election, again, I expect the left to turn many cities into Belfasts.

        I’m old enough that I can just lie low unless Bernie starts confiscating property and setting up camps on the North Slope. But I fear for the world my grandson will enter when he becomes an adult.

        1. Open wider, Pettitfogger.

          The liberal-libertarian mainstream has plenty more progress to shove down your whining, bigoted, disaffected, all-talk throat.

          As has been the case throughout your life, your compliance with the preferences of your betters is greatly appreciated.

          Carry on, clinger.

          1. Do you always have to be such a moron?

            1. Do you always have to be so childish?
              While typing, did you also stick your tongue out?

              Left – Right = Zero

        2. “Belfast”, huh?

          Maybe then Republicans would turn around on gun control.

          That said, I do not share your fears. Republicans have been threatening “2nd Amendment Solutions” since Obama was elected. Y’all haven’t got the guts.

    1. So you think that’s the first time the judicial branch has ever scolded the executive? LOL

      1. Did he say that, Mr. Strawman?

        1. The argument by liberals throughout these comments is that Trump has defied norms and damaged the country in the process. So when Jesse (or anyone else) makes an argument that prior presidents were also called out, it defeats the argument that liberals are making throughout the comments.

          1. Depends what they were called out for. (smirk)
            And his link scolds the DOJ, not a President.
            Shoulda read it first!!

  5. Politicians on both sides of the political aisle seem to be testing the strength of traditional boundaries, and they may be discovering that the fences are down.

    Or perhaps the fences have already been knocked down by some of the judges.

  6. A decade late, and a trillion $ short.

  7. In short,

    “They ruled this way because ORANGE MAN BAD”.

    In a hyperpartisan world, I’ve come to the conclusion that modern liberals are the enemies of the people, of my family, and of my way of life. And I’m not speaking rhetorically or figuratively, but literally.

    They are enemies of freedom and liberty and material threats to me and my family.

    As I told some abortionist push-poller, I don’t want to share my house, my neighborhood, my community, my county, my state, my country with those people.

    1. You REALLY proved Reason correct here. As manipulated by the power elites.

      Have somebody explain our Constitution for you. And MAYBE learn that a fetal child’s unalienable Right to Life is precisely equal to the woman’s unalienable Right to Liberty … which is what “unalienable” means! So we have two tribes of extremists, each trying to force their preferred right over another equal right, by government force.

      “I don’t want to share my house, my neighborhood, my community, my county, my state, my country with those people.”

      So you’d kill them? And who wants to share your house????

      “They are enemies of freedom and liberty and material threats to me and my family.”

      Team Blue and Team Red. Hysteria, and so self-righteous.

      Left – Right = Zero
      As libertarians have known for over 50 years, and a growing majority now agrees. But we’re voiceless. For now.

    2. Exactly, and more conservatives need to recognize that. They are not good people with the same goals as us, but with different ideas as to how to achieve those goals. They are evil, amoral people who seek to destroy the West, including the family and our culture. They need to be exterminated.

      1. And yet here you are, whining like an impotent bitch.

        Waiting for someone else to do the exterminating because you’re a coward? Step up to the plate, son. Let’s see how tough you really are without a keyboard.

        I say 1% chance you actually have any balls, and 99% chance you’re living in mommy’s basement scared to go outside.

        1. We know who you really are, Mr. President.
          That attitude can only be you

  8. You describe the screechers well, Keith. But missed the Voiceless Majority. Justin Amash is correct, both parties are in a death spiral, with no alternative yet visible.

    A growing majority of Americans reject blind loyalty to both parties. As they leave the extremes get a louder voice, which drives away more voters, which makes the extremes even louder, which …. a death spiral.

    Hate is all they have, since neither party has a clue how to get us out of the mess they created together. So they both compete by scaring the crap out of their base … as the power elites have done for thousands of years. Chicken Little, “THE SKY IS FALLING AND ONLY I CAN SAVE YOU FROM THE END OF HUMAN LIFE ON EARTH. So here’s some slogans to memorize and troll …. ”

    The Silent Majority had champions and defenders. The Voiceless Majority has … nothing.

  9. Perhaps a panel of the D.C. Circuit was feeling such doubts when it refused to weigh in on whether former White House Counsel Don McGahn had to comply with a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee.

    WTF are you talking about? They “refused to weigh in?”

    No. They said he didn’t have to comply if he didn’t want to. That’s not refusing to weigh in.

    If I sue Whittington, and the court says it won’t make him pay they have, outside of legal Fantasyworld, ruled in his favor.

    1. WTF are you talking about? They “refused to weigh in?”

      Umm, they dismissed the appeal. Said they have no jurisdiction = refused to weigh in.

      They said he didn’t have to comply if he didn’t want to

      Umm, they dismissed the appeal. Said they have no jurisdiction = refused to weigh in.

      There was no “decision/ruling” in the sense you described falsely..

      If I sue Whittington, and the court says it won’t make him pay they have, outside of legal Fantasyworld, ruled in his favor.

      But that’s not what happened here.
      Here, the 3-judge panel (NOT the full District) ruled 2-1 that the court has no jurisdiction. That ruling can be appealed to the full District or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court which rejected Nixon’s claim of executive immunity, which then forced his resignation,

      My turn. If Congress has no authority to subpoena witnesses, then how can they perform their Constitutional duty? The Constitution gives the House “sole power” here, literally. That means the judiciary has no power at all on this.

      1. If Congress has no authority to subpoena witnesses, then how can they perform their Constitutional duty? The Constitution gives the House “sole power” here, literally. That means the judiciary has no power at all on this.

        IANAL but this sounds like an overreach to me. “Sole power” does not mean unlimited power. If the House tries to, say, unilaterally cut the budget or declare war as part of its “sole power”, surely the judiciary has the power to stop them.

        The only real question is where the two powers meet, and that is what is under discussion.

        1. Sole power” does not mean unlimited power.

          It means the only power, which is my point.

          If the House tries to, say, unilaterally cut the budget or declare war as part of its “sole power”, surely the judiciary has the power to stop them.

          This is about impeachment, the only place “sole power” exists in the Constitution. The House for impeachment (indictment), and the Senate for the trial.

          The only real question is where the two powers meet, and that is what is under discussion.

          Again, “sole power” excludes “two powers”

          Sole = only,

          1. Yes, and your “the judiciary has no power at all on this” is still wrong. You skipped my saying the judiciary gets to define where impeachment ends and overreach begins.

            Just as “freedom of speech” does not include slander, libel, military secrets, trade secrets, and a whole pile of other exemptions, so impeachment has limits, and courts have the duty to define those limits.

            1. You skipped my saying the judiciary gets to define where impeachment ends and overreach begins.

              Impossible. Judges are among the people Congress can impeach!

              Checks and Balances. SCOTUS can declare Congress’s laws unconstitutional. Congress can restrict what SCOTUS is allowed to hear. (Ron Paul sponsored a bill that would have forbidden the Judiciary from even considering any challenges to DOMA.)

              And … again … “sole power” resides in the House

              Article 1, Section 2

              The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

              Of 20 impeachments in our history, 80% have been … judges … including a Supreme Court Justice (Samuel Chase (1804). Here’s the proof:

              https://history.house.gov/Institution/Impeachment/Impeachment-List/

          2. Again, “sole power” excludes “two powers”

            This is where you are getting yourself confused. No other person, besides the House, claims any power of impeachment. The powers that may, in some circumstances, conflict with the House’s sole power of impeachment are different powers.

            If a court determines that the House’s impeachment power does not give it power to enforce subpoenas, the court is not attempting to exercise a power of impeachment, it is exercising its power to decide cases and controversies.

            This is such an obvious point that it would hardly need to be mentioned but for the current overexcitement about impeachment.

            I have the sole power to decide who to marry. Nobody else can usurp that decision. It’s mine. Solely mine. But I don’t have unconditional power to decide who to marry. The object of my affections has the power to say no. Moreover, even if the object of my affections says yes, the law may say no in all sorts of circumstances. She could be 11 years old. She could be my mother. She could be a parrot. My sole power to decide who to marry is not absolute, it is conditional.

            Sole power and unconditional power are not the same thing.

            1. Sole power and unconditional power are not the same thing.

              Sorry, I can’t make it any simpler for you.

              Sole power means the only power.

              1. Whether its sole or only is not really important. What’s important is does “sole power” mean the House can conduct impeachment hearings in any fashion they like? Can the House vote to start impeachment hearings on Kagan, and then say, “well we really need all the jurors to be in a good mood for this, so we are gonna outfit all of them freshly tailored suits free of charge, cater in sushi, get them all gold gavels, brand new furniture in their offices, and 5 lbs of cocaine per member.” And this doesn’t have to go through the normal budget (or course) because its part of the “sole” power of impeachment? I don’t think this is reasonable. What if impeachment requires an investigation of Incan ruins in Peru? Can the House order the military to go there and investigate?

                No, sole power merely means the courts, executive, and Senate can’t declare an impeachment invalid even if tomorrow the House drafts articles to impeach Clarence Thomas and the articles say, “Impeached for being black” if 218 vote yes, Thomas is impeached and the Senate now has jurisdiction to remove. If 67 then vote to remove, he is removed, and the judiciary and executive can do nothing to stop that. The removal is legit regardless how stupid the reason.

                1. What’s important is does “sole power” mean the House can conduct impeachment hearings in any fashion they like?

                  Yes!

                  Can the House vote to start impeachment hearings on Kagan, and then say, “well we really need all the jurors to be in a good mood for this, so we are gonna outfit all of them freshly tailored suits free of charge, cater in sushi, get them all gold gavels, brand new furniture in their offices, and 5 lbs of cocaine per member.”

                  Constitutionally, of course.
                  Politically? Fucking stupid. It IS a political process … THANK GOD.

                  <blockquote<No, sole power merely means the courts, executive, and Senate can’t declare an impeachment invalid even if tomorrow the House drafts articles to impeach Clarence Thomas and the articles say, “Impeached for being black” if 218 vote yes, Thomas is impeached and the Senate now has jurisdiction to remove. If 67 then vote to remove, he is removed, and the judiciary and executive can do nothing to stop that. The removal is legit regardless how stupid the reason.So … you agree with me!

                  Your examples are irrelevant because impeachment/removal IS political. As we saw with Nixon’s resignation, BOTH parties were willing to convict … which, to me, is the same as “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal trials, but MUCH weaker, If a criminal verdict is overturned, as so many are … the original jurors cannot be punished. If either political party goes insane on impeachment, they’d be voted out of office. Voters are indeed sovereign.

                  We have the final word. Our Founders knew what they were doing!

                  1. Fix typo!!

                    No, sole power merely means the courts, executive, and Senate can’t declare an impeachment invalid

                    That’s what I said. Maybe a dozen times. Sole power resides in the House.

                    even if tomorrow the House drafts articles to impeach Clarence Thomas and the articles say, “Impeached for being black” if 218 vote yes, Thomas is impeached and the Senate now has jurisdiction to remove. If 67 then vote to remove, he is removed, and the judiciary and executive can do nothing to stop that. The removal is legit regardless how stupid the reason.

                    So … you agree with me!

                    Di

                2. Allutz : No, sole power merely means the courts, executive, and Senate can’t declare an impeachment invalid even if…

                  No. The House having the sole power of impeachment has literally nothing to do with whether the courts, using their own constitutional powers to decide cases and controversies, can impede or restrict the House in the exercise of the House’s sole power of impeachment.

                  The soleness of House’s sole power of impeachment simply means that nobody else may do any impeaching. The constitution provides an absolute block on the Supreme Court, or the German Ambassador, or the Senate, or the Board of CNN impeaching a federal official.

                  But that is quite different from the question of whether the House’s power of impeachment is subject to any constraints or limitations. If the constitution provided, say, that neither House of Congress could conduct any business in August, then that would fetter the House’s power of impeachment. They could not do impeachments in August. But it would have no effect at all on the House’s power of impeachment being “sole.” Whether or not the House can conduct impeachments in August is a competely separate matter from whether anyone else has the power to conduct impeachments.

                  Sole power and unconditional power are not the same thing, however difficult that may be for TLTT to grasp. Different words, different meanings.

                  1. If the constitution provided, say, that neither House of Congress could conduct any business in August, then that would fetter the House’s power of impeachment. They could not do impeachments in August. But it would have no effect at all on the House’s power of impeachment being “sole.”

                    As you just admitted, the House does have absolute power to impeach … unless the Constitution is amended … so TODAY their impeachment power is absolute

                    Per your “logic,” NOBODY has unalienable (absolute) rights, because … the Constitution can be so amended, or even repealed (like the Articles of Confederation).

                    Sole power and unconditional power are not the same thing, however difficult that may be for TLTT to grasp

                    (lol) Only if the Constitution is amended, per your own words.

                    On checks and balances, Congress has the sole power to change what SCOTUS is allowed to consider (jurisdiction) … just as SCOTUS has the sole power to declare Congress’s laws unconstitutional … and to recognize explicit rights among the many unenumerated rights we possess, which NO level of government may deny or disparage.

                    Despite Trump’s crazy bullshit, SCOTUS CANNOT HAVE any say on impeachment, because … Judges are impeachable! …
                    There have been 20 impeachments in our history, of which 16 (80%) have been judges … including a Supreme Court Justice!. (Samuel Chase, 1804)

                    Here’s MY proof.
                    https://history.house.gov/Institution/Impeachment/Impeachment-List/
                    Samuel Adams alone exposes the bogus power you (and Trump) invented out of thin air. (top of page 2)

                    And, the Supreme Court has ruled that the judiciary cannot be involved in impeachments! My emphasis

                    In Walter L. Nixon v. United States (unrelated to President Richard Nixon), the court held that the judiciary could not review impeachment proceedings. According to the constitution, the House has the “sole power of impeachment” and the Senate has the “sole power to try all impeachments.” The Supreme Court considered this sufficient evidence that the framers did not want the judiciary involved.

                    ***Further, because judges themselves can be impeached, it would violate separation of powers to allow them to review such cases.

                    The ruling also states that impeachment is a political matter, not a legal matter … thus no role for Judiciary at all.

                    Now … where’s your proof?

      2. If two judges on a three judge panel reviewing bernard11’s suit rule it’s not in their purview to make Whittington pay, outside of legal Fantasyworld, they ruled in W’s favor. Absent a successful appeal, that stands.

        1. That’s not a ruling. It’s a dismissal. A refusal to even consider the case. Exactly as Whittington stated, for the McGahn subpoena, they declined to weigh in..

          1. What is the effect of a court declining to take a case, grant cert, dismissing a case or declining to hear an appeal, In this system of ours? I think the OC’s comment holds up because those are the mechanics of how the system works.

            1. No, it does not work that way.
              A dismissal is not a ruling. It’s a refusal to even consider a ruling. How can there be a ruling if there is no trial?

              And if you check the thread, this is what I challenged (and quoted)

              WTF are you talking about? They “refused to weigh in?”
              No. They said he didn’t have to comply if he didn’t want to

              Both are false.
              1) They did refuse to weigh in.
              2) They “said” no such thing,

              And I explained both in what you responded to.

              1. I hope you’re kidding. When a court declines to hear a case, that is the non-prejudicial decision. The ruling is, “we don’t think this has merit”. In this case you had the extra benefit of a written opinion about why they did what they did (which isn’t always the case). Nothing prevents someone from trying to bring the case again, but they now have a new hurdle to overcome – explaining a novel angle or why the Court erred. Not insurmountable, but it is what it is. It is indeed a fantasy to think the Court has no opinion on this. They literally expressed it in writing.

              2. Here, read: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/29F7900862BA6CD68525851C00784758/$file/19-5331-1831001.pdf
                Page 7 or 8, if you need a place to start.
                Until it’s successfully appealed, this is the ruling

                1. It would be an appeal of the dismissal.
                  And you AGAIN ignore what I responded to.

                  1. I think you’re ignoring reality or are refusing to acknowledge the weakness of your position here. The court issued an opinion (88 pages) about why they did not consider it appropriate for the judicial branch to grant relief to the legislative committee. They declined to grant relief. That’s their ruling. Until it’s appealed, that’s where the courts stand. It’s quite accurate to say they weighed in and told the legislature to get stuffed. They even enumerated the remedies the legislature had in the constitution to resolve their problem with the executive branch.

                    1. They declined to grant relief.

                      They declined to even consider it.

                      It’s quite accurate to say they weighed in and told the legislature to get stuffed

                      They told that to both sides. Explicitly.

                      You seem to be trying to invent a victory for the Trump attorneys’ legal argument … much like the lie that Mueller “exonerated” Trump. Or, shamefully worse, that the mass violence in Charlottesville was launched by what he called “the alt-left.”

                      Where was Obama born?

          2. Of course it’s a ruling.

            Me: “You can’t do that. I’m suing.”

            Court: “We can’t make him.”

            Call it what you want. It says Whittington can do that.

  10. If Chuck Schumer is your go to example of hyperpartisanship, maybe you’re better off writing about a different topic.

    1. If you think he used it as a “go to,” maybe your better off reading simpler arguments. And Trump has been far worse, dozens of times.

      His Charlottesville lie may be tbh worst ever by a President.
      Or his musing that a President Hillary might be assassinated.
      Or offering to pay the legal fees of anyone who beat the crap out of protesters. That’s three, ACTUAL violence, just off the top of my head.

      Four: “Lock her up.”

  11. Back when the liberals were clutching their pearls, worried that Trump would not accept a loss in 2016. This basically describes to a “T” the democrat reaction since Jan-2017:

    What’s at stake in this election isn’t just a Clinton presidency or a Trump presidency. It’s America’s long political tradition of graceful losing. “I’ve always believed that U.S. election campaigns are, at the end of the day, incredibly civil,” the Indian journalist Chidanand Rajghatta, who’s been covering U.S. politics since 1994, told me earlier this year. “When it’s all over, there’s this remarkable healing that takes place on all sides. At least so far there’s been a lot of grace . . . I don’t know whether that will apply to this election,” Rajghatta continued. “I wonder if this is a pivotal moment where grace goes out the window in U.S. politics.”

    1. And, remember, their basis for saying that Trump would not accept a loss, was simply his refusal to commit in advance to not demand a recount.

      NOBODY gives up their right to a recount in advance of an election!

      1. False

      2. No, their basis for saying that was Trump repeatedly claimed the election was rigged before the election. It wasn’t about a recount, it was about his baseless claims of voter fraud (repeated after the election to falsely claim he won the popular vote too).

        For example: https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/politics/donald-trump-rigged-election/index.html

        Lying to yourself is one thing, but repeating those lies on a public forum…..argue the facts not what fantasies you have to reinforce your preconceived narrative that Trump does no wrong and Democrats and responsible Republicans (Amash, Flake, Romney, pre-election Ted Cruz, pre-election Lindsey Graham, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, etc.) are just delusional.

        1. He also lied about the mass assaults in Charlottesville, and literally thousands of other lies, both large and small. He’s likely embarrassed that he won the Electoral College by a teeny-tiny 39,000 voters — in three states combined. And got a record number of “anti” votes (means they voted against Hillary, NOT for him. How much influence did Russia, Wikileaks and Comey NEED … to flip 0.03% of the voters?

          Said he’d pay off the entire debt in 8 years — instead he’s already added as much new 8-year debt than Obama added after 8 years (CBO forecast). Remember, Obama inherited the second worst recession since WWII … but handed Trump the longest recovery ever for an incoming President.

          Trump ridiculed the economy under Obama, but GDP and jobs growth have both declined from Obama’s final three years.

          Fiscally, this administration is even worse than Dubya’s, which was a disaster … STILL adding to the debt, 11 years after Dubya left office (looting the income tax to “pay for” Medicare Prescriptions.)

          1. Exactly right. Trump is a pathological liar and a fiscal disaster. Why the GOP continue to support either of those aspects of Trump, I will never understand. It is a disastrous failure of moral and political judgment.

          2. Look, lying about what Trump said about Charlottesville doesn’t make Trump a liar. Seriously, if he was that bad, you people wouldn’t have to make things up.

            1. WHY DOES BRETT KEEP DEFENDING NE0-NAZIS AND WHITE SUPREMACISTS????

              4 men charged in violent Charlottesville rally described as ‘serial rioters’

              Three members of a white supremacist group were sentenced to prison Friday for kicking, choking and punching multiple people during the 2017 “United the Right” rally in Charlottesville and other rallies in California. The three were members of the California-based militant white supremacist organization “Rise Above Movement.” …

              A fourth defendant, Cole Evan White, will be sentenced at a later date, the attorney’s office said.

              “These defendants, motivated by hateful ideology, incited and committed acts of violence in Charlottesville, as well at other purported political rallies in California,” U.S. Attorney Thomas T. Cullen said.

              “They were not interested in peaceful protest or lawful First Amendment expression; instead, they intended to provoke and engage in street battles with those that they perceived as their enemies.”

              WHY DOES BRETT KEEP DEFENDING NE0-NAZIS AND WHITE SUPREMACISTS????

              See part 2 🙂

            2. HEY BRETT …. Here’s VIDEO PROOF of Trump’s BULLSHIT about Charlottesville ….. You lose AGAIN! (sneer)

              ACTUAL VIDEO … Trump states a PROVEN LIE at a press conference …. SHAMELESLY and “BULLYINGLY”

              “What about the alt left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt right? Do they have any assemblage of guilt? What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do.”

              Trump lied … to defend Nazi and racist assaults. SHOUTS DOWN news media – as he always does when guilty. Calls them LIARS. “I watched it all on television … SO DID YOU.”

              BULLSHIT. Nobody watched it. NO news cameras at the point of assault. News reports later broadcast what they called “personal videos” (cell phone videos?). None recorded the actual assault.

              NEXT: UNDENIABLE PROOF…. private videos surfaced only later … Trump is a lying sack of shit …. For any who may need proof

            3. MOAR VIDEO PROOF!!! BRETT LIES … AGAIN

              The initial assault. … (Private video found on an alternate news twitter feed)

              “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
              Alt-Right Fascists/Racists charge en masse, swinging clubs.
              Fascists carrying police-style riot shields. The assholes CAME for violence.

              TRUMP LIE: Alt-left led the assault
              PROOF: Alt-RIGHT did that

              TRUMP LIE: Alt-left attacked swinging clubs.
              PROOF: Alt-RIGHT -right DID … and had the ONLY clubs.
              Alt-LEFT standing peacefully, arms locked (like the 60s), not possible to carry ANYTHING

              TRUMP LIE: Alt-left wearing black helmets
              PROOF: Alt-RIGHT wearing black (NAZI) helmets, carrying NAZI flags,

              ****SHAME ON EVERYONE who LIES about the truth, to defend a morally debased President, over country and honor.

              TRUMP MUST BE REMOVED … FOR ABUSE OF POWER (lies, shouting down dissent) … AND DISGRACING THE PRESIDENCY.

              AND SHAME ON BRETT … FOR REPEATEDLY DEFENDING NAZIS AND RACISTS
              (vomit)

              P.S. I did NOT lie, chump.

  12. I’d like to contrast the ideas of worry about what someone _might_ do and worrying about what someone _did_. To justify or somehow balance the behavior of Shumer this week against a concern that Trump may possibly someday cross a different red line is pitiful stuff. The transaction you are unintentionally endorsing is for Trump to cross that line _because_ of what Shumer did, or the bucket of things done that were somehow justified by anxiety of what Trump _may_ do. If they pay it all forward and it turns out there was no debt, when (and how) does reconciliation happen?
    Further, comparing Trump’s comments about liberal justices having naked opposition to him worthy of recusal considerations (when said justices are on record publicly airing personal biases against the President – equally criticized by this blog as well) to a senator making a hardly veiled threat of violence against justices is an exercise in unhealthy rationalization.

    1. (when said justices are on record publicly airing personal biases against the President ..)”

      Prove it. Your distortion of Sotomayor is so massive as to be shameful. And Ginsburg apologized for calling him a “faker” for refusing to release his tax returns, which he promised to do.

      I must have missed Trump’s 2-3 dozen apologies for much worse.

      1. I shouldn’t have included Sotomayor in the comment about airing public bias. that was RBG alone.
        RBG said more besides calling him a “faker”
        https://reason.com/2016/11/07/justice-ginsburg-fails-an-impo/
        Presumably you understand the difference between a judge poisoning the well and a President’s rhetoric – and aren’t rationalizing the judge’s indiscretion. It’s a little hard to tell from your final remark.
        None of this takes away from the larger criticism here of rationalizing Schumer’s comments with worries over a red line the President may – but has not – crossed.
        It’s okay to call Schumer out on this without couching it in sidelong glances to feeble justifications.
        One must recognize that many interests want to keep you in a constant state of worrying and panic, and to make decisions in that state – a state of concern over what might happen. One should be prudent but not give concerns over what might happen undue influence over what they do today, least of all let it justify wrong action.

        1. DIVERSION. You’re wrong on both judges, for the reasons I stated (which you FAILED to address).

          (I double-checked REAL sources for my comment)

          True or false, Trump refused to release his tax returns, AND said that he would after the election, if he won.

          Again, she apologized (as confirmed at your own link). He never does — despite FAR worse behavior (His Charlottesville lies to defend neo-nazis and white supremacists)

          1. I gave you a link explaining the breadth of her comments in 2016.
            She was back at it in 2019: https://reason.com/2019/12/18/justice-ginsburg-opines-on-biased-senators-and-president-trumps-knowledge-about-the-constitution/
            RBG’s history of unguarded commentary is on the record, I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue here.
            Again, it’s okay to call Schumer out without complementary excuses. It would actually make your position as a critic of rhetoric stronger.
            Right now you’re scrambling to reply to every blessed comment on this article – it leaves one with the impression that you’re scrambling to restore your own sense of cognitive consonance.

            1. STILL DODGING!!!

              I gave you a link explaining the breadth of her comments in 2016.

              I read it!!! Even commented on it!
              That’s HOW I could say “Again, she apologized (as confirmed at your own link).

              Right now you’re scrambling to reply to every blessed comment on this article

              (smirk) STILL dodging … and skip the childish insults, please.

              As I type this, there are 79 comments.
              I have only 17 — 6 of which respond to people (like you) who respond to me.

              Correction. This makes 18 for me — 7 of which are within a dialog.

              You get NO MORE direct responses from me, unless you stop running away from the inconvenient facts. Most recently:

              Again, she apologized (as confirmed at your own link). He never does — despite FAR worse behavior (His Charlottesville lies to defend neo-nazis and white supremacists)

              I now add this.

              His Charlottesville lie may be tbh worst ever by a President.
              Or his musing that a President Hillary might be assassinated.
              Or offering to pay the legal fees of anyone who beat the crap out of protesters.
              Or “Lock her up”

              That’s four — ACTUAL violence, just off the top of my head.
              YOU are the hyperpartisan, RUNNING from Trump’s far worse actions, and he NEVER apologizes.

              This will prove you wrong again.

              “They are enemies of freedom and liberty and material threats to me and my family.”

              Team Blue and Team Red. Hysteria, and so self-righteous.

              Left – Right = Zero
              As libertarians have known for over 50 years, and a growing majority now agrees. But we’re voiceless. For now.

              That’s called NONpartisan. I prefer ANTI-partisan.

              1. Yeah, your comments are illustrative of your analytic abilities and mindset alright.

                1. Well, thank you!

                  1. Oh it wasn’t a compliment of your reasoning skills, but I’m not surprised that escaped you in context. My comment about you seeking cognitive consonance wasn’t an insult, just an observation based on your written communication. It’s evident the only thing childish is your civics and legal education. Okay.. maybe that was an insult. But by all means keep testifying to it. 😀 I’m sure it’s cathartic.

                    1. That was ridicule. So is this.

                      FIFTH REPEAT. Ginsburg apologized. Trump never has, for any of his vile acts.

                      And despite all your bluster, you TOTALLY FAIL to show ANY bias by RBG. And your second cite was a bigger lie than the first one! Proof that you lied so shamelessly is in boldface.

                      Ginsburg: The House indicts, and the Senate tries. Should a trier be impartial? Of course, that’s the job of an impartial judge.

                      FACT .. NOT BIAS

                      Iqbal: You will be very aware that there are Senators who are already saying before the impeachment gets to the Senate or the trial in the Senate. They’ve already made their minds up. That’s problematic.

                      Ginsburg: Well if a judge said that, a judge would be disqualified from sitting on the case.

                      FACT .. NOT BIAS (She ducked the question!!)

                      Iqbal: But it’s about the level of accountability. So if a Senator says I’ve already made my mind up and the trial doesn’t even exist at the moment, there is no accountability is there?

                      Ginsburg: My old Chief, Chief Justice Rehnquist put it very well. He said, “The day a judge stops being impartial, and starts to do things to please the home crowd, whatever your home crowd is, that’s the day that judge should step down from office.”

                      NO BIAS! REHNQUIST WAS A REPUBLICAN … AND *VERY* CONSERVATIVE, WORKED ON THE GOLDWATER CAMPAIGN

                      Iqbal: What’s your reading of the Constitution in the context of the President of the United States saying that the Supreme Court of the United States should stop this impeachment. Is there a reading that you can present–

                      Ginsburg: Well the President is not a lawyer, he’s not law trained.

                      YOUR link. NO bias.
                      And the author, Josh Blackman, lied about his own reporting..

                      “Justice Ginsburg exercised terrible judgment in this interview. First, there is no reason for Ginsburg to inject herself into debates about whether Senators should be disqualified.” (Blackman)

                      She responded to a question! Her response on disqualifying Senators was “Well if a judge said that, a judge would be disqualified from sitting on the case.” (She DUCKED it! Per Blackman’s own reporting)

                      **And you STILL deny that the House has “sole power” for impeachments … now defending the bat-shit crazy Trumpism that SCOTUS can end an impeachment.

                      AGAIN:WHERE IS THE BIAS YOU HAVE *NEVER* EVEN *TRIED* TO SUPPORT?

                      (Boldface and caps to highlight your repeated failures to show bias … just like Trump does it! … “It’s at this link” proves nothing. .. and even your link fails!)

    2. “a senator making a hardly veiled threat of violence against judges”

      Seriously, his words were inappropriate but the most rational reading is that he meant a political whirlwind, which echoed Kavanaugh’s statements at his hearing. Again, inappropriate to be criticizing judges and promising political payback when they are a considering a case, but definitely not a threat of action violence (though such intemperate words can inspire kooks which is one reason such words are inappropriate).

      Now, what was your opinion about threats of violence when Trump said:

      “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

      Are you going to claim that wasn’t a threat of violence against Clinton and/or the judges she would have picked?

      Or attacking a judge and a juror in a case against his friend:

      “There has rarely been a juror so tainted as the forewoman in the Roger Stone case. Look at her background. She never revealed her hatred of ‘Trump’ and Stone. She was totally biased, as is the judge. Roger wasn’t even working on my campaign. Miscarriage of justice. Sad to watch!”

      You think that doesn’t carry a similar risk of violence against the judge and/or the juror? Like Schumer’s statement, it isn’t an actual threat, but, also like Schumer’s, the more unstable among us might decide things need to be rectified with violence.

      Anyone criticizing Schumer but defending these statements as the real Trump Derangement Syndrome, which manifests as servile rationalization of all of Trump’s conduct, no matter how obviously wrong or inappropriate.

      Schumer was wrong, he apologized. Trump famously brags he has never apologized. Who has character and who doesn’t?

      1. WOW! Great lawyering!

      2. No they aren’t the same as Schumer’s comments. Do you need me to walk you through the comparison? Re: Clinton’s court appointments, the comment is speculation about others, three eventualities removed vs Schumer’s statement of intent and commitment on his behalf and that of those he was purportedly speaking for in response to the immediacy of one direct eventuality. Re: jury forewoman, there’s no threat even vaguely implied in what you quoted.
        Schumer apologized after refusing to apologize, and that’s good. He was backed into it by people telling him this was a new line he was crossing. Good we agree On that point.
        Tell Hodgkinson about parsing calls for action against officials.

        1. Hodgkinson has been memory-holed.

          You can’t hold them responsible when one of their supporters actually believes the stories they made up. Partly because they can willfully forget whatever events they want and they all support each other in that tactic, every single time. But mostly because you can never hold them responsible, under any circumstances, no matter what.

        2. Caphon,

          So raising the specter of actual violence against Clinton and/or her SC appointees is okay with you? Or are you just avoiding admitting it was an actual invocation of violence?

          Please, Trump claiming a trial was unfair and that the judge and a juror were biased does raise a threat, as does his repeated efforts to out the whistleblower, particularly where others whom he has similarly “called out” received death threats. In fact, given that death threats followed his similar statements about others, his intention to threaten seems likely. Also, he pretty explicitly threatened Cohen not to turn states evidence against him.

          No one who pressured Schumer say he crossed a new line. Don’t make stuff up.

          They told him it is not okay to be like Trump, when they go low, we go high.

          That’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Trump has crossed the line, Democrats are sometimes tempted by considerations of asymmetric warfare to match fire with fire, but they hold themselves to a higher standard or apologize when they don’t.

          Trump never apologizes and the likes of you just make excuses for unquestionably inappropriate behavior.

  13. The comments here are why I comment less these days.

    Even as the OP strains to make this about Dems’ bad words and tone as well as the GOP’s actual acts and policies, the comments lay the rot bare.
    So many posts here are proving the OP correct, making it clear that for them, there is no red line they won’t rationalize away either by pointing to the other side or just rewriting reality.

    Because nullification is a pretty big red line, but many here have blown past it to rationalize even other, more bloody, red lines. And no one really calls them on it.

    I have to remind myself this isn’t a representative sample, even of the GOP. Because otherwise it’s depressing and frightening the poor excuses for humanity some on here have become.

    1. “The comments here are why I comment less these days.”

      Martinned’s defending Chuck Schumer is indeed dumb. But I’ve never been one to look a gift horse in the mouth.

      “the poor excuses for humanity some on here have become.”

      As opposed to you, who has always been one of the worst excuses for humanity to ever post here.

      1. Defending Schumer is what you highlight when Gompers is basically arguing for violence against liberals.

        As always, cut it out with your contentless weirdly personal rage against me.

        1. Random internet commenter on obscure blog = Senate majority leader address in a partisan crowd on the steps of the Supreme Court calling out two individual justices by name?

          You are perfectly illustrating a very astute commenter said above “there is no red line they won’t rationalize away either by pointing to the other side or just rewriting reality.”

          1. You think I’m defending Schumer?!

            Get your tu quoque outta here.

    2. This, Sarcastro, exactly this. And jph12 replies in a manner to prove you correct. It is disheartening.

      This administration will pass, but what it has revealed about the majority of the GOP is frightening. There is no red line too far if power is at stake. Power at all costs, because they are sure enough they are right that they are willing to destroy the country rather than not get their way.

      1. Sarcastr0 was a piece of shit long before the Trump administration.

        And for modern progressives to pretend that they aren’t so sure that they are right and that anyone who disagrees with them is either ignorant or evil is just precious.

        1. And for modern progressives to pretend that they aren’t so sure that they are right and that anyone who disagrees with them is either ignorant or evil is just precious.

          Both sides now.

        2. “And for modern progressives to pretend that they aren’t so sure that they are right and that anyone who disagrees with them is either ignorant or evil is just precious.”

          Says the person who calls someone a piece of shit because they disagree with him. Precious indeed.

          1. ^^^THIS

            Do you think Reason is paying so many of them, to prove Wittington’s point on hyperpartisanship?

        3. There are some who pretend that, but by and large that is not the case. The GOP and its talkers (Hannity, Limbaugh, commenters here) explicitly argue that Democrats don’t just disagree, but are actively evil and trying to destroy the country. See, e.g., Marco Rubio in the 2016 debates essentially claiming Obama was deliberately trying to undermine America rather than that Obama had policy disagreements as to how to achieve a prosperous, safe, and just American society.

          I have spoken to GOPers who say, if they can’t get their way “just burn it down”. I have never heard that sentiment from someone in the center or to the left of center. That level of hate and vitriol is fed by Limbaugh and his ilk and has no equivalent on the left.

          1. I have spoken to GOPers who say, if they can’t get their way “just burn it down”. I have never heard that sentiment from someone in the center or to the left of center. That level of hate and vitriol is fed by Limbaugh and his ilk and has no equivalent on the left.

            Really? You ever hear of James Hodgkinson? Nah, guessed you missed that one.

            1. You mean an actually mentally ill person? Yes, but I am talking about non-mentally ill people in the GOP who openly say they are don’t even care if the country survives if something as awful as universal health care coverage exists.

              But if you want to talk about mentally ill people, there is the Charleston AME Church murderer, the Charlottesville Unite the Right murderer, El Paso Walmart murderer, etc. All with right wing agendas. There have been more right wing political murderers than left wing political murderers.

              But I was not talking about murderers. I mean ordinary people in the GOP who think Democrats are necessarily evil and no means are unjustified by the ends of stopping them. At least, that’s what they express. I know of no centrists or leftists who have the same opinion of Republicans. This is not to say they don’t exist, but certainly not in the same numbers and not as close to the mainstream.

              1. Well, if being a violent, murdering Bernie Bro is indicative of having a mental illness…

                1. Non-responsive, cowardly evasion.
                  He kicked your butt.

    3. Tell Brett Kavanaugh about your red lines.

      1. This is some strong question begging about his guilt.

        1. Presumption of innocence is very, very high on the list of these things called “norms” you guys pretend to care about.

  14. Schumer is always detestable. So calling him detestable certainly provides a plausible-looking basis for a both-sides-do-it rumination. But come on—except for Romney, the entire Republican Senate refused to hold a trial. That is red-line crossing on an epic scale.

    The both-sides scale is not in balance. And it will never be in balance, so long as Democrats prefer to use government as a legitimate tool, but Republicans prefer to discredit government in every way they can.

    And no, congressional subpoenas are not inherently trivial. In fact, in an impeachment, they are an exercise of sovereign power. That puts defiance at the cataclysmic end of the line-crossing scale—as everyone will presently understand, the moment the House acts to enforce a subpoena itself.

    1. “cataclysmic”

      cataclysm noun

      cat·​a·​clysm | \ ˈka-tə-ˌkli-zəm \
      Definition of cataclysm
      1: FLOOD, DELUGE
      2: CATASTROPHE sense 3a
      3: a momentous and violent event marked by overwhelming upheaval and demolition
      broadly : an event that brings great changes
      an international economic cataclysm

      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cataclysmic

    2. “And no, congressional subpoenas are not inherently trivial. In fact, in an impeachment, they are an exercise of sovereign power. That puts defiance at the cataclysmic end of the line-crossing scale—as everyone will presently understand, the moment the House acts to enforce a subpoena itself.”
      This was the most interesting part of the impeachment. Does a President have to lay down for the Congress once a subpoena is issued? Is it the Trump card for everything Congress wants? As for the house enforcing it’s own subpoenas, how do you suggest that happen?

      1. Power of the purse, legislation. Who would enforce such a subpoena with arms? The executive branch? What power does the legislature yield?

        1. What power does the legislature yield?

          They can try, convict and imprison, and have done so, A separate Senate trial is required only for impeachment.

          1. It was rhetorical. The answer is “power of the purse, legislation.” 😉

            1. They are both correct. I added the one you forgot to include.

          2. “They can try, convict and imprison…”

            That’s called a Bill of Attainder, and it’s even mentioned in the constitution.

            1. Wrong on every count. Bills of Attainder are BANNED in the Constitution. They mean a finding of guilt with NO trial.
              So also irrelevant to what I said.
              (???????)

        2. Power of the purse, legislation.

          Right, this is what the panel said, as well. So what happens when the president chooses to spend money in ways Congress hasn’t specifically appropriated, or ignored what the law requires?

          The right answer here can’t be that the only recourse for presidential lawbreaking available to Congress is impeachment, which the president can then undermine by blocking attempts by Congress to learn more about that presidential lawbreaking, in order to build the case for impeachment. The courts must step in to compel the individuals working for the president to comply with lawful subpoenas, because the only alternative is to put the president beyond the law.

          1. These people are so totally clueless on the Nixon ruling.

      2. Does a President have to lay down for the Congress once a subpoena is issued

        Nixon would have had to, if he hadn’t resigned.

        Clinton got around a subpoena by …. haha … agreeing to testify voluntarily.

        As for the house enforcing it’s own subpoenas, how do you suggest that happen?

        Jail.

        1. “Jail.”
          How would that work, logistically? Does the Sergeant at Arms just show up at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and ask to see the President?
          Do the guards just let him in? Does he bring his extensive staff with him?

          1. Read again what I said about Nixon.

            1. And … when was Trump ever subpoenaed?

      3. jst1, give some thought to the recent court decision, which said this kind of dispute is political, so the courts are powerless. Do you suppose that ought to apply against congress only? It must apply alike against the executive, right?

        So assume someone, maybe Bill Barr—who has been defying a House subpoena—gets picked up in his driveway as he arrives home, and he gets taken under guard to the Capitol. There they tell him he faces summary execution if he refuses to testify—execution right then and there.

        So Barr demands a lawyer, demands habeas corpus, demands due process, demands everything he can think of. They tell him none of that applies. They remind Barr that the court says it’s all political, and he has no recourse. Barr doesn’t talk, so they hang him. Which, by the way, would not only accord with the court’s decision that it can’t intervene, but would also be claimed as entirely legitimate. Sovereign power is like that—totally unconstrained. They were merciful not to draw and quarter him.

        Of course that may not sound practical to you, or in accord with the real world, which might include a lawless intervention on Barr’s behalf by the president. But what if the president’s force arrives too late? Can he then go to court to punish the House after the fact. Of course not, that question is already answered. The court would be bound by its own decision to turn the president away.

        All that is inherent in the court’s decision—and nicely founded in originalist theory, too, by the way—not that you are likely to find any lawyers who know enough history to understand that.

        The point is that what you defend amounts to rule by raw sovereign power, with contests among government branches to see which can seize that power first, and most forcefully. That is unwise. It discards the notion of limited powers for government.

        What the example does is illustrate the advantages of instead keeping disputes within bounds which limited government powers customarily manage, so that more sweeping and destructive powers don’t get into it. What does that mean? It means the court is mistaken—maybe not as a theoretical matter, but as a practical matter. And it means the president cannot be a king without destroying the nation.

        If the president cannot be called to account by congress, there is nothing left of government but a continuous contest of force. It is unwise to let that happen, and worse than unwise to invite it

        1. You’re exactly right. Unfortunately, Trump’s supporters get all that. They want politics to be no more than a contest of force. They want that, because they believe they’ve already won the upper hand.

          They’re traitors.

          1. We all learned those behaviors from Obama.

        2. “The point is that what you defend amounts to rule by raw sovereign power,”

          I made no such defense. I just wanted an opinion on how the subpoena would be enforced. Barr is under protection at all times. So I think your example is more extreme than would ever play out.

          Congress can impeach if the President refuses. In fact it did. I just don’t see force as an option. This is true whether I agree with the President or not.

          1. Why do you think Barr’s protection is a problem? The Sergeant at Arms arrives with sufficient force (20 guys or so? Whatever it takes.), and a warrant from Congress. It authorizes Barr’s address as the place to be searched, and names Barr as the person to be seized. The Sergeant at Arms presents the warrant to the head of the security detail. The Sergeant at Arms draws particular attention to the language authorizing him, commanding the security detail’s cooperation, and saying, “Disobey him at your peril.” The head of the security detail (3 or 4 guys, max, right?) gets on the phone for help, while the Sergeant at Arms breaks into the house, seizes Barr, and hauls him off. Probably goes pretty smoothly.

    3. Exactly why this “norms” talk is disregarded by anyone paying any attention.

      The House Democrats took a Schiff all over the norms and you are complaining that the Senate Republicans wouldn’t eat it up.

    4. But come on—except for Romney, the entire Republican Senate refused to hold a trial.

      As a factual matter, this is wrong. There was an impeachment trial. POTUS Trump was acquitted. Now we are dealing with the aftermath. Just remember, you (personally) wanted the trial. Don’t be surprised when people react to it.

      lathrop, you and your ilk made the bed. Now you will lie in it.

      1. Sure, you and Lincoln’s 5-legged dog.

  15. I would once have thought that mainstream politicians would think that standing on the steps of the Supreme Court building in front of a crowd and yelling that individual justices would “pay the price” for voting the wrong way in a pending case was outside the bounds of acceptable political practice.

    The “politician” used the words — nearly quoting actually — as those used in the confirmation hearing by a judge now sitting on the court. Guess which one. So just why does that judge get promoted to the supreme court (and by whom) for that speech while the “politician” gets accused of threatening somebody?

    1. “Guess which one.”

      Judge Wapner?

    2. “The “politician” used the words — nearly quoting actually — as those used in the confirmation hearing by a judge now sitting on the court.”

      Yes, if by quoting you mean taking words and rearranging them into a completely different context.

      “During his confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh told Democratic senators that they had “sowed the wind” in an effort to block his confirmation, and “I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwind.”

      That’s not remotely how Schumer used the words. Notice that Kavanaugh’s concern was the damage that the Democrat’s hyperpartisan behavior had done to the country, while Schumer childish rant (I won’t dignify his claptrap by calling it a threat) was about some mysterious damage to two justices if they disagreed with him.

      And why did Schumer only go after the two new guys? Last time I checked it still takes five votes to win.

  16. Whose “norms”? Seems only the Right is supposed to police their activities by “norms” while the Left can do whatever they want to do and it is justified. Now the Left is mad that the Right is just playing by the same rules the Left has always used. As a teacher of mine always used to say “turnabout is fair play”.

    1. That’s an odd comment to make about an article calling out Sen. Schumer for violating a norm.

      1. Point is the media is hardly “calling him out”. They are largely giving him the pass or just failing to cover it. If a Republican stood in front of the Supreme Court and said something about gun rights targeting the “liberal” justices, there would be cries for their head.

  17. DACA was very far outside the norms. Did you criticize that?

    Selling Obamacare using a lie and then passing it using reconciliation, against the will of a clear majority of the voters, after the voters of Massachusetts specifically elected a Senator to stop it was outside of democratic norms. Did you criticize that?

    Tell us you defended norms after Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas. Tell us you defended norms during the Kavanaugh nomination circus of lies. Tell us you defended norms when Biden told black voters that Romney would “put them back in chains”.

    Are sanctuary cities a violation of these so-called “norms”? Or is the whole “norms” idea completely phony, a way to fool weak-willed short-memory moderates?

    Every discussion of so-called norms has many hurdles to jump before people will accept it as genuine. No hurdles jumped here.

    1. You’re wrong on DACA. What Obama really did was move dreamers to the lowest priority. And since Obama did set a record on deportations …..

      1. He “set a record on deportations” by calling turn backs at the border “deportations”, which no prior administration had done. Cooked the books, IOW. He didn’t remotely set a record for “deportations” as previously defined. Even Snopes called BS on it.

        1. NOW BRETT LIES ABOUT SNOPES!

          NOT AS BAD AS HIS TOTALLY SHAMEFUL DEFENSE OF HIS NEO-NAZI AND WHITE SUPREMACIST HEROES … THAT TRUMP LIED ABOUT, DISGRACING THE PRESIDENCY *AGAIN*

          https://reason.com/2020/03/07/are-there-any-red-lines-in-a-hyperpartisan-world/#comment-8159607

          Trolls don’t give a damn how many times they humiliate themselves … for their holy cause.

        2. P.S. Brett was also called out as a liar on DACA.

          1. You spend more time and effort in attacking the individual posting than you do refuting what they say. Says quite a lot about you.

  18. Yeah, I remember back when politics was dignified and civil.

    LOL

    Everyone just has to believe they’re living in a special time, and it’s just never been like this before.

  19. “The strength of the institution depends on the willingness of political leaders to defer to judicial pronouncements.”

    The courts dont even defer to themselves. See how the liberal district courts openly deny Heller as a ruling.

  20. The sales pitch for these norms is the preservation of a civilized society. Democrats’ version of society was shown this week in a video of a homeless Pelosi constituent standing on the street eating out of his own butt.

    1. What a wonderful specimen of humanity you are.

      1. The type of human who can observe conditions in Democrat-run cities?

        1. No, the type who denies major cities run by Republicans are just as bad. But fewer. It’s the poverty and conditions.

          1. Is that really true though?

            1. To any and all educated Americans (especially those who never suck up to either tribe)

              P.S. I assume he meant large cities, or he’d be dead wrong.

          2. You mean like cities in Utah? Or NYC when Giuliani was mayor?

            Cite the data that indicate “just as bad”. (Obviously you will never cite any data.)

    2. Their version of society is one homosexual man exploding inside another man’s rear end inside a women’s bathroom stall while a Christian photographer is formed to film this “wedding.”

      1. For anyone who does not know what “hegemony” means, it’s blatant bigotry, typically imposed by government force.

        hegemony
        [həˈjemənē, ˈhejəˌmōnē]
        NOUN
        leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group over others. “Germany was united under Prussian hegemony after 1871”

        The word applies directly to Trump’s neo-nazi and white supremacist supporters (I’m thinking of Charlottesville) … among others (like homophobes).

  21. This is the inevitable outcome of mass democracy. The more power the mass of people have to determine how others should live, the more vitriolic political discourse will become.

    1. Especially when that mass of people grows with the addition of third world aliens who don’t share our culture, beliefs, norms, or anything else.

      1. The value you keep shitting on is called “individual liberty” — at its core are “equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights.”

      2. Shared culture, belief, norms?

        America has been progressing against your preferences — and against the wishes and efforts of conservatives — throughout our lifetimes.

        Backwardness, superstition, old-timey intolerance, unearned white and male privilege, ignorance, backwater education, and rural America are losing — perhaps more accurate, have lost — the culture war.

        Reason, science, education, modernity, inclusivity, progress, strong universities, and modern, educated urban and suburban communities have won and are positioned to continue to win.

        You get to whine, mutter, rant, offer your delusions of political relevance, and attempt to persuade America to reverse the tide of the culture war, though, as you await replacement.

        1. I’m looking forward to razzing you mercilessly on November 4th. Better mark the date.

          I think it is time for your alter egos to make an appearance.

          1. Well, THAT was a cowardly diversion! (on top of the evasion)

  22. Threatening to vote for a Democrat if Trump crosses some “red line” is like the scene in Blazing Saddles where the guy threatened to shoot himself if his demands weren’t met.

    1. Umm, no. It’s called “voting for the lesser of two evils” — quite rational to seek the least risk to one’s liberties and values — where both major choices are … terrifying (like 2016)

  23. There are grownups, who care about the kids, especially those who need help on hard things, and who have to make tough choices, and there are spoiled kids.

  24. I cannot help but notice that the biggest change is that Trump violates civility norms that the Left got used to most of the Mainstream Right following. The Bushes, McCains, Doles of the world Right were perhaps to civil for the GOP base.

    1. Why would educated, sensible, decent people counsel the culture war’s losers to choose civility?

      Perhaps they recognize the likely circumstance of belligerent failures.

      1. Because “civility” USA prisoners dilemma.

      2. *is a prisoner’s dilemma.

  25. I checked this thread early on Sunday, then later in the afternoon and saw 50 new comments. “Oh,” I thought, “some new discussion, maybe something of interest.”

    I was wrong, of course, because it was it was 50 comments from Hiln’s sock puppet “liberty(un)truthteller” replying to every thing possible when everybody’s already moved on, making it seem like he was getting the final word in.

  26. You pathetic, lying, sack of shit.
    Anyone can prove you bat-shit crazy in 10 seconds.

    Do a page search for my name. The TWO-DAY TOTAL is only 2 more comments than your half-day bullshit. (Not counting this) And nearly half are in defense of dumbfuck aggression by Authoritarian Right Thugs — like this one.

    He is NOT the brightest bulb on the tree.
    And he often whines like a pussy (sneer)

    1. That’s in defense from the assault by the crazedkulak.
      The eternal chicken shit FAILS to challenge a single word. (snort)

      1. Yepper skipper. What’s funny, is you can’t help yourself, you respond EXACTLY to type. It’s almost like I baited you on purpose. Or maybe I did. Even funnier is that your ASD ass can’t tell hyperbole either. Man, o’ man, you’re so sad.

        Response with some boldface type and capital letters, off target insults, and misunderstandings of logical fallacies, I double dare ya.

        1. 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
          HAHAHAHAHA …. CAN’T TAKE A JOKE!
          CONFUSES *OBVIOUS* SATIRE AND HYPERBOLE WITH INSULTS.

          Do that word search for my name. (snort)

          1. You’re such an autistic spaz…literally cannot help yourself and do not understand normal social interaction.

            1. whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh
              I repeated his tactics and words … intentionally … to ridicule him,
              but whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh

              REPEAT

              He is NOT the brightest bulb on the tree.
              And he often whines like a pussy (sneer)

              LYING, INSULTS AND UNPROVOKED VERBAL ASSAULTS = “Normal social interaction” … TO A PSYCHO LIAR, WHEN PROVEN A PSYCHO LIAR

              I checked this thread early on Sunday, then later in the afternoon and saw 50 new comments. “Oh,” I thought, “some new discussion, maybe something of interest.”

              I was wrong, of course, because it was it was 50 comments from Hiln’s sock puppet “liberty(un)truthteller” replying to every thing possible when everybody’s already moved on,

              Everybody had already moved on … except HIM! 🙂
              And 33 comments when I got here TODAY, after everyone had moved on. (sneer)

              NOW 48 TODAY, AFTER EVERYONE HAD MOVED ON!!!

              P.S. Also full of shit that I made the only comments between Sunday morning and afternoon.

              P.P.S, I say all this ONLY so he can prove me right AGAIN … by whining like a pussy AGAIN.

  27. I’m old enough to remember when President Obama actually ignored decisions by the court. I don’t recall any particular outrage by the mainstream media or legal academia.

    A tip for Mr. Whittington: simply because you post on the Volokh Conspiracy doesn’t mean you have to embrace every weird conspiracy theory to bubble out of the fevered minds of the DNC.

    1. I’m old enough to remember when President Obama actually ignored decisions by the court.

      I’m educated enough to know you’re a psycho.
      Prolly also beleeb he’s a Muslim from Kenya.
      Did you have fun in Charlottesville???
      How large is your Klavern?

      1. No response to the actual statement other than to attack the speaker? I guess you just don’t have anything valuable to add to the discussion here.

        I remember the left saying ‘it’s law because the court said so’ on anything they won, and ‘but it’s not right and we’ll continue to fight it’ when they didn’t.

  28. “Particularly concerning is the possibility that traditional red lines in American politics that responsible politicians understood could not be crossed might no longer be inviolable. Political limits in a democratic system ultimately depend not on the parchment barriers of constitutional texts but on the tolerance of political elites and the mass public for violations of those limits. It is easier to sustain such limits, however, if we share a common political culture that recognizes the same red lines and the importance of holding them sacrosanct, if there are recognized political incentives for staying within bounds, and if there are few political incentives for straying out of bounds.”

    It’s only wong hhen aTHEIR gyu does it. When OUR guy does it it’s perfedtly normql and there’s nothing wrong with it..

  29. So-called hyper-partisanship isn’t new in American history.

  30. “ultimately depend not on the parchment barriers of constitutional texts but on the tolerance of political elites and the mass public for violations of those limits”
    — I’d gather the left is the, “mass public for violations of those limits” for the [WE] foundation/delusion.

    “however, if we share a common political culture that recognizes the same red lines and the importance of holding them sacrosanct”
    — I don’t see the Republican party playing the Constitution is dead game but I do see the left pretending it doesn’t even exist..

    1. None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

      Your dumbfuck President BELEEBS the judiciary can overturn an impeachment! What’s that make you?

      1. A believer in the Constitution. A witch-hunt that defies the very bases for impeachment in the Constitution is UN-Constitutional and as such could be thwarted by the judiciary department as such.

        https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/396272-alan-dershowitz-the-supreme-court-could-overturn-trumps

        Just because the left likes to label everything in terms that completely contradict the agenda doesn’t mean they can do what-ever they want so long as they pick the right label/term to give it.

        Hey, I didn’t shoot that man dead – “I put him out of his misery” the left would claim. Oh yeah man, okay dude – carry on then…. No crime here; he was just put out of his misery – totally different…

        1. Honestly I don’t know which route I’d choose to side with – but I’m don’t think a non-cause is legitimacy for congress to over-ride an election.

          Is Trump trying to get the judiciary to override the House Impeachment (I’ll need a citation) or is it just something he spouted?

          1. ADMITS that Trump is a PHONY. Is he trying … or just spouting again?… All while evading the issue, despite TWO “responses” (filled with diversions and evasions.)

            (That’s how he manipulates brainwashes and bullshits his puppets, like THIS deluded victim)

            WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?

            – but I’m don’t think a non-cause is legitimacy for congress to over-ride an election.

            CONGRESS?? AN ELECTION?? WTF???
            it’s crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide!

            Is Trump trying to get the judiciary to override the House Impeachment (I’ll need a citation) or is it just something he spouted?

            SCOTUS has already ruled that they have no jurisdiction in impeachment — saying it’s a political issue, not a legal issue.

            https://www.bing.com/search?q=Can%20SCOTUS%20save%20Trump%20from%20impeachment%3F&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=can%20scotus%20save%20trump%20from%20impeachment%3F&sc=0-39&sk=&cvid=96CC41BDD0A34F52997FE857F7FEED7E

            Here’s MY citation on his TOTALLY dumbass assertion. It’s a link to 22 MILLION references to his idiocy! (LOL)

            . A witch-hunt that defies the very bases for impeachment in the Constitution is UN-Constitutional

            BLAH, BLAH, BLAH do you know what a “misdemeanor” is? 🙂

            and as such could be thwarted by the judiciary department as such.

            Where’s YOUR citation? (smirk)
            A sucker …
            a victim …
            and a blowhard.

            1. Actually your 1993 was a court ruling about the proceedings NOT the very cause; and as-if the Supreme Court has never contradicted itself entirely in the past.

              Is doing absolutely nothing wrong a misdemeanor these days?? I don’t even know why we are discussing this since none of it has happened.

              I guess it does give you a chance to make-up delusions and prove to all the readers what Anti-Trump psycho-paths are like.. 🙂

              1. Where’s YOUR citation? (smirk)
                —–
                BLAH, BLAH, BLAH do you know what a “misdemeanor” is?

                NOPE.

                Is doing absolutely nothing wrong a misdemeanor these days??Cowardly evasion
                REFUSES to defend his bullshit.

                I don’t even know why we are discussing this since none of it has happened.

                None of WHAT???

                . A witch-hunt that defies the very bases for impeachment in the Constitution is UN-Constitutional

                You just REFUSED to define those bases

              2. – but I’m don’t think a non-cause is legitimacy for congress to over-ride an election.

                CONGRESS?? AN ELECTION?? WTF???

                ANOTHER cowardly fail!

                HOW ABOUT HIS DISGRACEFUL LIE ABOUT CHARLOTTESVILLE?
                Lies to defend his nazi and racist supporters. Said the rioting and mass assaults were launched by THE LEFT!!!!

                Like Nixon’s tapes … a 10-minute impeachment … no hearings needed … voters can see ALL THREE damning proofs in less than 10 minutes. (smirk)

        2. I’m not the left, blah blah blah, and you’re evading the issue.

  31. What a thread.

  32. I didn’t even read all the garbage down here, but the fact that there are so many dedicated leftists here who honestly believe that the invisible hand is just blind faith and that supply-side economics are something analogous to unicorns is just hilarious. Why the fuck are you people even on a remotely libertarian platform if you can’t accept that free people make the best decisions for themselves and any attempt by government to guide or coerce commerce inevitably results in inefficiency?

    I swear, you VC types disappoint me more and more every day. Thank god the spillover to the rest of the site is minimal. No wonder it always feels like so many of you don’t give ten shits about individual liberty and personal freedom.

  33. Coronavirus: President Donald Trump handed gift by Fabio Wajngarten, Brazilian press secretary with Covid-19

    President Bolsonaro of Brazil’s press secretary, who met and handed a gift to President Trump on Saturday, has tested positive for the coronavirus. Fabio Wajngarten was pictured standing next to Mr Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort …He gave Mr Trump a cap that had the slogan “Make Brazil Great Again”. Mr Trump was holding the cap that he had just been given … Later that evening Mr Wajngarten, 44, attended a party at the resort hosted by Kimberly Ann Guilfoyle, 51, who is working as a senior adviser for President Trump’s re-election campaign, and is the girlfriend of Donald Trump Jr, the president’s eldest son.

    The White House says that Trump and Pence refuse to be tested.
    This leaves two possibilities.

    Likely: Trump and Pence will both be tested, but deny it.

    VERY remote: Nancy Pelosi, the first female President, now second in the line of succession, to the Presidency

    Would Trump risk even death, to avoid admitting he ever made a mistake?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.