The Senate, Task Two!

[jaF0]

COLUMBIA — U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham used an on-camera interview after the Supreme Court confirmation hearings Wednesday to solicit contributions for his reelection campaign, a move that a congressional legal expert said is a clear violation of Senate ethics rules.

Two formal complaints were filed with the Senate Ethics Committee about the issue Thursday, one by the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center and another by the South Carolina Democratic Party.

Shortly after Graham finished chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, he spoke to reporters outside the hearing room, which was in a federal office building.

Asked how much he could attribute the Supreme Court issue to his recent campaign fundraising haul, which set an all-time record for Senate Republicans at $28 million, Graham said he thinks South Carolina voters are excited about Barrett and then directed viewers to his campaign website.

https://www.postandcourier.com/poli...cle_972f72bc-0efa-11eb-aac1-c3caab88b9f4.html



Lock Him UP!!!!

 

[JackLuis]

Mitch McConnell waited too long to distance himself from Trump — and now it’s going to cost him:

According to a report from USA Today, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and fellow Republican senators waited too long to put some distance between themselves and unpopular President Donald Trump and that will likely cost McConnell his power and GOP control of the Senate.

This go-around it appears that Republican Senators from North Carolina, Maine, Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona and Georgia could be out of a job after election day because they failed to disavow the president — thereby handing control of the Senate to the Democrats.

A big FU to Mitch as the Blue Tsunami sweeps away the Red Tide!

 

[butters]

hey JL... a question (take it at face value, it's asked in good faith):

IF dems get the presidency, the senate and congress, and IF acb is installed pre-election, can the s.c block stuff sent their way in the way of introducing new laws favourable to the democratic view of where things need to go to?

i'm assuming no reversals of roe v wade or gender equality laws would come up, given the votes, but could a rightwing judicial s.c block improvements put before them? can the sc reverse any of those laws on their own, and against the representatives of the voters?

i'm also thinking that the move to install new sc judges will depend on 'the will of the people' being reflected in who holds majorities in the commons and house: if the sc is set to block 'societal upgrades', then consideration of the people's vote will lead to more (or reduced?) numbers on the sc.

 

[KeithD]

hey JL... a question (take it at face value, it's asked in good faith):

IF dems get the presidency, the senate and congress, and IF acb is installed pre-election, can the s.c block stuff sent their way in the way of introducing new laws favourable to the democratic view of where things need to go to?

i'm assuming no reversals of roe v wade or gender equality laws would come up, given the votes, but could a rightwing judicial s.c block improvements put before them? can the sc reverse any of those laws on their own, and against the representatives of the voters?

i'm also thinking that the move to install new sc judges will depend on 'the will of the people' being reflected in who holds majorities in the commons and house: if the sc is set to block 'societal upgrades', then consideration of the people's vote will lead to more (or reduced?) numbers on the sc.

I don't understand your post. The U.S. Supreme Court isn't connected to the "will of the people" in its business. It's connected to the prevailing interpretation within the Court of the Constitution and of existing laws. It doesn't control the cases that come up to it, but it picks and chooses which ones it will rule on. If ACB is installed before the election, she can vote on the ruling on anything coming up after that. A challenge to the ACA has been taken up by the Supreme Court to start arguing on November 12th. If she's installed by that date, she can choose to weigh in fully on that case--and neither she nor any other Supreme Court justice has any obligation to consider the "will of the people" in their questioning or ruling vote.

 

[butters]

I don't understand your post. The U.S. Supreme Court isn't connected to the "will of the people" in its business. It's connected to the prevailing interpretation within the Court of the Constitution and of existing laws. It doesn't control the cases that come up to it, but it picks and chooses which ones it will rule on. If ACB is installed before the election, she can vote on the ruling on anything coming up after that. A challenge to the ACA has been taken up by the Supreme Court to start arguing on November 12th. If she's installed by that date, she can choose to weigh in fully on that case--and neither she nor any other Supreme Court justice has any obligation to consider the "will of the people" in their questioning or ruling vote.

ah, thanks, you clarified some things for me.

so the sc can't just overturn anything on its own but only make rulings on stuff that comes up to them for interpretation.

by 'the will of the people', i'm saying which party (through elections of state representatives) gets voted into majorities to control congress and the senate. at least, that's my understanding of how this works (you KNOW i could be wrong with my usa l-plates still on). Sooo, if the senate and congress AND president were all held by democratic power, and put forward new stuff to the sc that ruled in a republican-strong manner against it (as to block it), wouldn't the sc be ruling against the will of the people? (yeah, i'm still fuzzy on my thoughts here). IF they would be likely to do this (whether or not they SHOULD be doing so rather than acting in a non-partisan, purely judicial manner), i could see that being a deciding factor for the introduction of new judges or the cut-back of judges to, say, 7. Can lifetime-appointed judges seated on the sc be 'cut', or only not replaced should they step down for whatever reason?

 

[JackLuis]

Yeah, what Keith said. However the SC can make any dumb fucking decision they want, but it takes a Rethuglican lawyer to make an argument that they can blame it on.

I'm hoping that a Citizens United case comes up and the SC decides that if a Corporation is people then the Board of Directors is responsible for the Crime and they all individually and in aggregate can go to fucking jail, as well as anyone they try to pin it on.

 

[phrodeau]

I don't understand your post. The U.S. Supreme Court isn't connected to the "will of the people" in its business. It's connected to the prevailing interpretation within the Court of the Constitution and of existing laws. It doesn't control the cases that come up to it, but it picks and chooses which ones it will rule on. If ACB is installed before the election, she can vote on the ruling on anything coming up after that. A challenge to the ACA has been taken up by the Supreme Court to start arguing on November 12th. If she's installed by that date, she can choose to weigh in fully on that case--and neither she nor any other Supreme Court justice has any obligation to consider the "will of the people" in their questioning or ruling vote.

With so many 5-4 decisions, interpreting the Constitution seems trickier than it should be.

 

[KeithD]

With so many 5-4 decisions, interpreting the Constitution seems trickier than it should be.

It's going to be 6-3 decisions (most of the time. Roberts will be a moderate from time to time).

 

[jaF0]

McConnell moves to head off stimulus deal as Pelosi reports progress

The Business Journals|12 minutes ago

Sen. Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, privately told Republican senators Tuesday that he had warned the White House not to strike a preelection deal with Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a new round of stimulus,


https://www.bizjournals.com/tampaba...moves-to-head-off-stimulus-deal-as-pelos.html

 

[JackLuis]

‘Dark money’ PACs dumping last minute millions into GOP Senate races to save McConnell’s majority: report

According to a report from Politico, conservative donors — some using so-called “dark money” political action committees (PACs) — are coming to the rescue of incumbent Republican Senators who are facing ouster because of their close ties to Donald Trump in the hope Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) can hold onto power.

“The GOP’s top super PAC raised nearly $50 million in the first two weeks of October, a huge sum that can help the party defend itself across a broad Senate map with close to a dozen senators in peril. But the total didn’t fix the party’s fundraising problems,” Politico’s James Arkin wrote.

“Democrats held an enormous advantage in candidate fundraising and spending in the third quarter of this year, and they continued to steamroll Republicans in the first two weeks of October,” Arking reported. “In the 14 most competitive races on the map, Democratic candidates raised more than $84 million in the two-week period, more than double the $41 million combined from Republican senators and challengers. Democrats put the money to good use: Their campaigns spent $128 million in that time frame, compared to $69 million for the GOP.”

RCP reporting much redder races now. Is this Hype or poor polling???

 

[KeithD]

I think for this election, it's too late to change the outcome with any infusion of money.

 

[jaF0]

Never underestimate the power of greed ... err green.

Wonder if we'll ever know how many back room deals are being cut in these few weeks, and who will suffer from them most.

 

[JackLuis]

Senate Republicans preparing for ‘potentially catastrophic’ election blowout with 12 seats now in play: report

What was once four or five Republican seats in the Senate that appeared endangered or already lost on November 3rd has grown to a dozen, reports Politico as top GOP officials find themselves on their heels on multiple fronts.

According to the report, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) could be looking at his last days controlling the Senate that has been notable more for packing the courts than passing legislation that helps the country during his tenure.

"Blue Moon over Kentucky, keep on shining!"

 

[jaF0]

If Moscow Mitch survives but enough of the others don't, will those that remain boot him from any leadership position?

 

[Ziggins]

I was leaning away from congressional candidates more than towards any of them, until I realized I was missing the obvious. This is the citizens' impeachment vote. One party will get a kick in the peaches.

 

[JackLuis]

If Moscow Mitch survives but enough of the others don't, will those that remain boot him from any leadership position?

Never forget COngress is all about Seniority, and Mitch is the most Senior Rethuglicunt! Can you say TERM LIMITS yet?

 

[JackLuis]

‘He doesn’t care’: Kentucky residents bury McConnell for jamming through Barrett while millions suffer

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Monday night crowed about jamming through Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court — and then promptly adjourned the Senate until after the election.

The decision to adjourn was particularly striking because it meant that no economic relief would pass the Senate before election day during a time when millions of people are unemployed and under the threat of being evicted from their homes.

Come on Kentucky, put this turtle on a post!

 

[jaF0]

^^^ I wish.

 

[JackLuis]

Mitch McConnell gets torn to shreds as ‘evil’ and ‘cruel’ in Kentucky newspaper column

Even if November 3 brings a major blue wave, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, according to recent polls, is likely to be reelected. McConnell is seeking a seventh term, but veteran progressive activist Ralph Nader, in an op-ed for the Louisville Courier, argues that the last thing the Kentucky senator deserves is to be reelected.

“I have studied and interacted with many members of Congress,” Nader writes. “McConnell is the most brazen evil, cruel and powerful legislator in the last 50 years. His lack of empathy for the vulnerable and disadvantaged is stunning.”

Oh No, not Public Enemy #2!

 

[jaF0]

The Evil Red Bastards have no souls:

Kelly Slaps Right-Wing Outlet With Suit Over Faked Halloween Photo
Using an old playbook of last-minute political chicanery updated with modern photo-editing tools, the right wing of American politics has launched a smear attack on former space shuttle commander Mark Kelly — who is returning fire.

by BRAD POOLE


https://www.courthousenews.com/kelly-slaps-right-wing-outlet-with-suit-over-faked-halloween-photo/

 

[JackLuis]

Trump is not the only one tripping on his dick!

Lindsey Graham tells women: ‘There’s a place for you in America’ if you ‘follow traditional family structure’

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told women over the weekend that they can “follow traditional family structure” if they want to be welcome in America.

“I want every young woman to know that that there’s a place for you in America if you’re pro-life, if you embrace your religion and you follow traditional family structure,” he added, “that you can go anywhere, young lady.”

Well ladies, what do you think of that?

 

[JackLuis]

It now looks like it will be up to Georgia to end the lock on the Senate.

Currently the score is 48-48 with Alaska and Georgia up in the air and Tillis likely.

I read that McGrath spent most of the money the DNC gave her to defeat her progressive primary challenger instead of fucking Mitch.

SO it looks like the run offs in Georgia in December before we now if we can Pitch Mitch!

 

[jaF0]

Post 151 above .... legal possibility to boot Lindsay?

 

[Paul_Chance]

Post 151 above .... legal possibility to boot Lindsay?

Very slim. Ethics violations rarely result in legal charges (though they can and have). Many a senator in both parties have stomped all over the ethics code and emerged unscathed.

 

[Dribble]

It now looks like it will be up to Georgia to end the lock on the Senate.

Currently the score is 48-48 with Alaska and Georgia up in the air and Tillis likely.

I read that McGrath spent most of the money the DNC gave her to defeat her progressive primary challenger instead of fucking Mitch.

SO it looks like the run offs in Georgia in December before we now if we can Pitch Mitch!

My understanding of Georgia law...you must have 50% or more of the vote. Neither Senate race has that. So both races will go to a run off. Georgia has shown they may not be the backward state I thought they were with the presidential race. They may surprise me 2 more times.

As a side note...the fact the Democrats did not come close to taking the Senate...and lost so many seats in the House is not about Trump voters. This is about we need a better platform and Pelosi needs to go