Search the Lounge


« Justice Kennedy’s Strange Concurrence in Trump v. Hawaii | Main | Hiring Announcement: Seton Hall University School of Law »

June 27, 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


God help us all


Perhaps the current climate, e.g., "Justice Kennedy’s Strange Concurrence in Trump v. Hawaii," contributed to the decision. A lesson, perhaps, to be careful about hyperbolic attitudes when one doesn't get exactly what one wants? Sometimes, the result is something even less favorable to one's goals.

Perhaps the ultra left needs to rethink its strategy of total demonization of the 50% or so of the people of this country who do not share their views, and work on problem solving instead.

For example, rather than labeling whomever the president nominates as a Nazi-KKK sympathizing, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, immigrant children hating, internment favoring tool of business (all this, before reading the record to discern additional reasons for hate filled tirades) the ultra left might try to shape the process and approach the administration with suggestions.

THis has worked in the past, for both parties, and it is the smart way to go.

Don't count on Democrats to use any common sense, though. Their hate of Trump supersedes any concern for the country. Allowing him any sort of "victory" would be unacceptable in every case, in their view, even those cases that would benefit the interests favored by the Democrats.


As predicted, on MSNBC, "respected" commentator totally unhinged, basically arguing that Democrat leadership will be rejected if it does not prevent the confirmation of any nominee.

Smart. Very smart. Brilliant.


Again, pick the least objectionable person on the list, and offer a deal. THat's the way to make this work the best for Democrats.

But, hate seems to trump all rational thought these days.


Bombshell? He's 81.

Cent Rieker


Leaving aside your assumption that there is a 50% split on the issues in this country, and not actually a vocal minority having a much larger voice in the electoral system due to the disproportionate voting power they get via the Senate, can you point to me this "ultra left" with their "total demonization?" I'd like to join, if such a group actually exists, because there is no evidence indicating as such.

Chuck Schumer (my Senator) was busy speaking more loudly about civility than children being separated from their parents. Richard Blumenthal is already talking about giving the nominee a fair hearing, though thankfully the other Connecticut Senator is showing more of a spine. I'm sure as soon as the nominee is announced, Joe Manchin will offer to do the nominee's laundry for a year. There will also be plenty of vocal support from non-elected, well credentialed members of the Bar. Neal Katyal (despite Trump v. Hawaii), Dahlia Lithwick, or many of these esteemed law professors found here will write some glowing op-eds about how witty, charming and talented musician the nominee is before going on that same MSNBC in a few months saying how shocked, SHOCKED they are when the confirmed nominee does the Federalist Society bidding.



Watch MSNBC tonight. Listen.

Report back tomorrow.

I am hearing the usual: "RESIST" ... just now, a Senator saying that its time to "stop playing by the rules" ...

You say you don't believe there is an "ultra left" that engages in "total demonization" of their political opponents (e.g., Trump, nearly anyone in his administration, his supporters.) You say, "I'd like to join, if such a group actually exists."

I'm sorry you are living in a bubble. That is the only explanation for such an uninformed stance. If you would like to join a group that demonizes Trump, nearly anyone in his administration, his supporters, and nearly anything that they do, may I suggest the Democratic Party? If that is too tame, there are plenty of demonstrations, about which they brag incessantly, that you might wish to attend.

I assure you, you will find plenty of company.


See, e.g., Poll: 59% fear violence from Trump haters, 31% predict civil war, by Paul Bedard | June 27, 2018 10:57 AM.

Chris Matthews is on now saying (transcription as close as possible as he spews): "It is time to fight" "Democrats owe it to their party to do to Mitch what Mitch did to them" "If the Democrats fail to stop [this nomination] there will be a full scale rebellion against its leaders" "This will be an epic battle" ... and on and on.

He is ranting. It doesn't matter WHO it is to him.

Did this happen before, for Garland? Yes. Does that make this conduct correct now? No.

Again, the best strategy for Dems: pick the least bad nominee from the list (from the Dem point of view) and make a deal.


"Bombshell? He's 81."

Ken - And Kennedy indicated last year that he was probably going to retire this year.


I am going to guess that it will be Amul Thapar or Allison Eid.

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

As long as they are fair, impartial, open minded and honest brokers, does a "litmus" test really matter? After all, if our Judges are fair, the system works. I want them to act, think, reason and speak like Judges....That is all I ask. I am proud to be in the same profession as Justice Roberts, Alito....I don't agree with their decisions, but they are fair and honest brokers.

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

What you academics did to Harriet Miers was shameful. She attended a law school that most of us lawyers currently practicing attended and you made shit out of her. It was just like the first poster...."god help us."

Anthony Gaughan

Ken and anymouse, you are absolutely right, "bombshell" was the wrong word for me to use. I just meant to suggest that it was a "big impact" announcement, but the most common dictionary definition of "bombshell" is "stunning" and "shocking," so I should have used a word like "major" instead.

Kennedy's age makes his retirement understandable (and predictable), especially when combined with his 30 years of service on the high court. I also think the fact that Republicans control both the White House and the Senate played a key role in his decision to retire now.

Patrick S. O'Donnell

... Republicans control both the White House and the Senate [and the Supreme Court] ...


"[Harriet Miers] attended a law school that most of us lawyers currently practicing attended"

Most lawyers currently practicing attended SMU? Wow - those must have been some large classes! More importantly, though, it wasn't "academics" that killed Miers' nomination, but far-right Republicans who were worried that she'd "go soft" and not be one of them. It's important to get the story right, even when making joke comments.


Perhaps the Republican/Trump party needs to rethink its strategy of total demonization of the 50% or so of the people of this country who do not share their views, and work on problem solving instead.


In fact, Chris Wallace did a segment last Sunday on the Kennedy retirement. No surprise whatsoever to ANYONE (other than the child-like amazement of the "reporters" on outlets like MSNBC) that he retired. According to a friend of Justice Scalia, Kennedy told him that he would retire under a R President and Senate. The notion that he would retire at the end of this term was openly anticipated by Sen. Grassley.

Watching MSNBC, as I do, I can understand the reason that folks on this site are so woefully uninformed. There is rarely, if ever, on that network, and on others of its ilk and style, a variety of views. Just like this site, most "liberals" cannot tolerate any disagreement with their extreme views, and, therefore, their views become ever more extreme and they become ever more intolerant.

If you only follow news organization sources that engage in "liberal" selection bias (just like this blog), and put a thin or no veneer of "reporting" over a structure of "liberal" opinion, then you will miss out on much information that is important and relevant.

(I put "liberal" in quotes because it is difficult to label the current crop of "democrats." THis is not the party of Kennedy. This is not a "progressive" party, either (though, it bears some elements, as that term is understood). It may be "democratic socialist" in some respects, but this crop do the bidding of Wall Street, big Pharma, etc. so that doesn't really work either. (See, e.g., how the DNC treated Bernie.)

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

Matt at 5:33:
I invite you to Google or Bing Harriet Miers and University of Chicago. The esteemed academic made a laundry list of law schools and said she didn't even attend a top 50 school. No Joke. My facts are correct.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad