Antonin Scalia School of Law, Update

 Last week, we posted the news that George Mason University -- a growing hotbed of right-wing "academics" in Northern Virginia -- had decided to name its school of law after the late "Justice" Antonin Scalia. When the name was announced, the Antonin Scalia School of Law, widespread laughter ensued (and not just because a law school was named after the reactionary, jiggery pokery judge). The acronym was an unfortunate (but fitting) reflection on the late Mr. Scalia: ASSoL or ASSLaw.  Bwahahaha. Now, the school wants to tweak the name.

There's also a move afoot to reject the school's naming plan altogether.

Here's a folksy law that applies: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

(h/t to SSBC Brian, TCIITM)

BREAKING NEWS: Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

The ramifications are absolutely huge:

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.

Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa.

According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.

Think of every terrible decision over the last 25 years that Scalia had his prints on that now, maybe, we can get overturned sooner rather than later, if we take back the Senate and hold the White House.  And for cases this term?

This SCOTUS term was already a blockbuster. Cases on immigration, voting rights, unions, & much more. Now Rs no longer have a majority...WOW

— Stephen Wolf (@PoliticsWolf) February 13, 2016

Rather than speak ill of the dead, we'll leave it at that for now.

There's this, too, of course:

The people who are about to block the President from appointing a new SCOTUS judge remind you not to politicize the death of Scalia.

— John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) February 13, 2016

Scalia Post Mortem Quote of the Day

"Antonin Scalia, who died this month, after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy. Fortunately, he mostly failed. Belligerent with his colleagues, dismissive of his critics, nostalgic for a world where outsiders knew their place and stayed there, Scalia represents a perfect model for everything that President Obama should avoid in a successor." -- (emphasis added) Jeffrey Toobin, writing in the latest issue of The New Yorker, saying what needs to be said about the "legacy" of Antonin Scalia. Perhaps now, post funeral, the puffery and misty, sugar-coated memories of the late Justice and his "wit" will give way to an honest assessment of the damage that he did (or tried to do) to the lives of so many Americans.

It's Why We Call Them Rethuglicans - Supreme Court Edition

From today's oral arguments in Shelby County (Alabama) v.  Holder, which will decide whether the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is upheld or struck down in part or in full, we have this from the smug reptilian Rethuglican "Justice" Antonin Scalia regarding why the VRA's reauthorization has been passed by increasingly larger votes in the Senate each time it comes up:

"I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes...[snip]

"Even the name of it is wonderful: The Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?"

Even the attorney representing Shelby County wouldn't agree with Scalia that the VRA was a "perpetuation of racial entitlement."  But judging from the questions the five activist right-wing Rethuglican justices posed at the orals today, the VRA is hanging by a thread. Should it be struck down, it will be open season for Rethuglican legislatures in the South and elsewhere to proceed with their plans to disenfranchise as many minority voters as they can before the next election, through bogus voter i.d. and onerous voter registration laws.

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.ruRvAtZF.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.8DhZOVOn.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.8DhZOVOn.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.MVW9AcKC.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.8DhZOVOn.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.MVW9AcKC.dpuf

"First it was a five-year term, and then an eight-year term, and then a 25-year term and I don't think that happened because the problem got worse," Scalia told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "I think it is something we can call the perpetuation of a racial entitlement. And history has shown that once a racial entitlement is established, it's very hard to eliminate it legislatively unless a court steps in and determines that it conflicts with the Constitution. "I don't think there is anything to gain by any senator by voting against this Act. This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress. They're going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act. Even the name is wonderful." - See more at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Arguing_About_Race#sthash.MVW9AcKC.dpuf

The War Over Scalia's Replacement

Nobel Prize laureate Paul Krugman's column in today's New York Times looks at the Republican threat to not only block any nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, but to deny President Obama his Constitutional role in even nominating a replacement for Antonin Scalia:

"Once upon a time, the death of a Supreme Court justice wouldn’t have brought America to the edge of constitutional crisis. But that was a different country, with a very different Republican Party. In today’s America, with today’s G.O.P., the passing of Antonin Scalia has opened the doors to chaos."

The "very different Republican Party" that Krugman notes was on vivid and vulgar display in last Saturday night's debate in South Carolina: the lies, the attacks, the extremist rhetoric, the belligerent poses.  It's also a Party,  as Krugman observes, that has denied the legitimacy of the past two Democratic Presidents (ironically while the last Republican President was handed the 2000 election by a Republican-majority Supreme Court).  Indeed, it attempted a Constitutional coup by impeaching President Clinton, and has aggressively and dishonestly obstructed and undermined nearly every piece of legislation -- some of it theirs in years past -- proposed by President Obama (while the Beltway media placed the problem on Obama for not having cocktail hour with the Rethuglican vandals).

Krugman also rejects the punditocracy's simplistic dodge about "partisanship" causing the problem that ignores the decades-long march by Rethuglicans to the extreme right:

"But simply pointing to rising partisanship as the source of our crisis, while not exactly wrong, can be deeply misleading. First, decrying partisanship can make it seem as if we’re just talking about bad manners, when we’re really looking at huge differences on substance. Second, it’s really important not to engage in false symmetry: only one of our two major political parties has gone off the deep end." (emphasis added)

All the more reason to elect a Democratic Senate and President next fall.

BONUS:  As you would imagine, there are lots of good reads about the Republican obstructionism, here, here, and here, for starters.  Andy Borowitz, too.

Anti-Labor Lawyer Nominated for Labor Secretary

Sociopath and bigot Donald "Very Fine People" Trump never tires of selecting the proverbial fox to guard the hens to his Cabinet. Or, think Dracula put in charge of the blood bank.  Following the ignominious, forced resignation of child trafficking enabler Alex Acosta from his post as Labor Secretary, Trump looked for the most right-wing, anti-labor clown he could find, and he did: Eugene Scalia, son of the infamous right-wing Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he has nominated for the post.

Scalia, much like his far-right father, has no use for organized labor or the regulations that protect labor from abuses and exploitation from their corporate employers. His Social Darwinist view that workers should fend for themselves without the types of protections big business receives marks him as the perfect nominee in Trump's government vandalism project. Scalia is coming from a law firm that is known for suing on behalf of business interests over those of working Americans:

"His most prominent labor case helped undo an Obama-era rule to put stricter requirements on professionals who advise retirement savers on investments. He also criticized a Clinton-era rule to protect workers from repetitive stress injuries that was ultimately repealed early in the Bush administration. Scalia defended Boeing from a labor union lawsuit and fought on behalf of Wal-Mart against a Maryland law aimed at improving workers’ health care." (our emphasis)

"Improving workers' health care!?" Shameful, taking money out of the pockets of the makers and putting it in the pockets of the takers.

Scalia will face a rough confirmation hearing from Dems after summer adjournment, and hopefully will have little more than a year in office to continue the dismantling of regulations protecting workers. As with so much, that depends on every one of us voting in 2020 to make it happen.

Obama's SCOTUS Nominee: Merrick Garland

The President has announced that Merrick Garland, 63, the highly regarded chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, will be his nominee to fill the vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia's death:

Settling for a centrist candidate with nearly two decades of judicial experience, President Barack Obama will nominate Merrick Garland, a federal appeals judge in Washington, D.C., to the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, according to The Associated Press and congressional sources.

If confirmed, Garland, 63, wouldn't bring diversity to the court as much a lengthy résumé in public service, including stints in the Department of Justice and on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where he has served since 1997 and is now the chief judge.

Though considered a judicial "moderate," the chances of Garland getting a hearing, much less a vote, by the obstructionist Republican Senate this year are 1) slim and 2) none, to the everlasting shame and discredit of those knuckle draggers.

BONUS:  Not that anyone should care, but here's what "voice of Republican yoot" Meghan "Baby Walnuts" McCain had to say in a chat with Fox Business' Stuart Varney:

“The average person at home probably doesn’t realize all these intricacies happening,” Meghan McCain told Varney. “Because it’s exactly why people hate President Obama because he will possibly sacrifice this man’s career simply for his own political benefit.”

“I don’t think they hate President Obama,” Varney speculated.

“Okay,” McCain sighed. “A lot of people dislike President Obama strongly. How about that?”

Mmm.  Still upset about Obama kicking your daddy's ass?  How about you STFU!? Okay?  How about that?

BONUS II: Here's a good read on the Rethug reaction to Judge Garland's nomination, and their flawed gamesmanship.

The Supreme Court and Obamacare

Most observers expect the Supreme Court to render its opinion this week on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"). Adam B. at Daily Kos lays out the various issues the Court will be deciding.

What is almost a certainty is that the one man most responsible for giving us 8 years of Dumbya, slithering Justice Antonin Scalia is willing to reverse himself in order to deal a blow to Democrats and President Obama, with fellow reactionaries "Long Dong Silver" Thomas, Sam "That's Not True" Alito, and John "I'm the Leader, Where'd They Go?" Roberts likely to join in opposing the individual mandate provision. Anthony Kennedy? The justice who wrote the execrable opinion opening the floodgates to unlimited corporate money in campaigns? Don't expect him to do anything other than support the reactionaries whenever possible.

As usual, whatever the outcome, the role of the "mainstream media" will be to assess political "winners and losers" rather than explain the ramifications of the decision.

(Image: Human meatball Antonin Scalia, via thepeoplesview.net)

Climate Change Deniers "Educating" Judges

 

In the coming months and years, if you wonder why more judges are questioning climate science and siding with the fossil fuel industry, ProPublica has a likely reason: 

"For many months, conservative lawmakers and political operatives have been targeting the scientists and lawyers behind the Climate Judiciary Project, a program meant to educate the courts about climate science, alleging that their effort constitutes a conspiracy to influence federal judges and persuade them to rule against the oil industry.

Now, just as congressional investigators are escalating a formal inquiry into the project, a separate program closely aligned with the fossil fuel industry and free-market conservatives is hosting a symposium for 150 judges in Nashville, Tennessee. The program, run by the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, also aims to educate judges, but in a way that prioritizes American business interests and questions climate science. 

The dueling efforts come as a number of significant lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate damages are making their way through the courts and as oil-industry-aligned attacks on climate policies, and the legal arguments supporting them, have been sharply increasing."  (our emphasis)

So what this right-wing program is peddling are the same canards that the fossil fuel industry has spread for five decades, despite overwhelming climate data and research that points to a warming of the climate, perhaps now irreversible.  The fact that the program is run by the "Antonin Scalia School of Law", named after the late, far-right Justice, is a sure sign that the judges are going to get pseudoscience from the fossil fuel industry, rather than facts from an independent, science-based group (say the National Academy of Sciences).  In any event, we're certain that the judges attending are sympathetic to the industry and are looking for "alternative facts" from them to use in environmental cases.

 

"Justice" Scalia: Bigot

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, which involves affirmative action case at the University (more specifically, the return of a $100 application fee to the plaintiff ---yes, really). The case could have far-reaching impacts on affirmative action, which was created to "level the playing field" for disadvantaged minority students and bring needed diversity to college campuses. But apparently right-wing "Justice" Antonin Scalia has a different take on those minority students.  Smell the rancid condescension and bigotry, cloaked in his judicial smugness:

"There are those [Ed. note: "Me!"] who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school ... a slower-track school where they do well...most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that ... they're being pushed ahead­­ in classes that are too fast for them…..I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible."(emphasis added)

These aren't observations meant to elicit a thoughtful response -- indeed, Scalia cut the Solicitor General off several times when he attempted to interject. They are meant to play to the far-right mouth breathers who have been vigorously fighting opportunities for minorities for the past 60 years. This is not a fair or in any way decent man, but thanks to St. Ronnie of Hollywood, we're stuck with him.  Another reason why we must elect a Dem for President and take the Senate back, so that future Justices can oppose this horrid excuse for a human being.

(tip of the hat to dear friend and reader P.E.C.)

BONUS:  Sen. Harry Reid weighs in, and puts the boot in this clown.

BONUS II:  Gene has a good read on the silence of Clarence "Long Dong Silver" Thomas, beneficiary of the affirmative action he's now looking to end. 

(photo: Just-turd Scalia, giving the Italian gesture "no me fa niente", meaning I don't care.)

Today's Cartoon And Retrospect On SCOTUS Obamacare Oral Arguments

(click on image to enlarge)

(Jack Ohman, The Sacramento Bee)

The four deciding words, in fact, are "established by the State," as in exchanges. In oral arguments before the Court in King v. Burwell yesterday, there were some surprises, as well as the usual malicious input from "justices" Scalia and Alito.  Here's Ian Millhiser's take on the somewhat positive turn things took yesterday:

The most important moment in the argument, however, was probably a concern raised by Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of five Republicans that the Justice Department needs at least one of in order to win its case. If tax credits are cut off in states with federally run exchanges, premiums will spike, and healthy people will likely drop insurance that they can no longer afford. Once that happens, however, the insurance companies will no longer have enough revenue to pay for sick peoples’ costs, so they will have to raise premiums even further. That, in turn, will cause more healthy people to drop care. The result is a “death spiral” where higher premiums beget fewer customers, which beget higher premiums, which beget fewer customers. 

This threat of a death spiral raises constitutional concerns, because the Supreme Court’s first Obamacare decision forbids Congress from coercing states into taking certain actions. If states are forced to choose between setting up their own exchange or watching their individual insurance markets collapse, that could amount to unconstitutional coercion. 

Justice Kennedy appeared to believe that it did. There’s “something very powerful” to this coercion argument, Kennedy said, adding that Carvin’s interpretation of the law raises a “serious constitutional problem.” Later in the argument, he indicated that the Court may have an obligation, under something known as the “constitutional avoidance doctrine,” to read the law in a way that does not raise constitutional doubts.  [snip] 

Obamacare is not out of the woods yet, and neither are the millions of people who will lose coverage or the thousands who will die if this case goes badly for the government. After Wednesday’s argument, however, those individuals have good reason to be optimistic. At least one of the Court’s Republicans appears to have come to work wearing his judicial robe, and not his partisan hat.  (our emphasis)

As for Scalia and Alito?

Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito were the only certain votes to strike down the credits, but their arguments at times painted them as political naifs. Alito, at one point, harped on the fact that only six states that refused to set up their own exchanges joined a brief urging the Court to uphold the tax credits — a fact that can be explained largely by partisan politics. Scalia asked: “won’t Congress fix” the problem if the Court breaks the law? 

Verrilli had a sharp response to that later question: “This Congress, your honor?” 

Verrilli's response was greeted with laughter in the chamber, a sign that whatever the partisan right-wingers on the Court might have thought, people were probably on to the "we'll fix Obamacare" charade Republicans were floating to give cover to a fatal blow to affordable health insurance.

Tiny Right-Wing Heads Exploding Over Obamacare Affirmation

Savor, as Ed Kilgore does, the schadenfreude of seeing right-wing Republican dead-enders in their agony over the Supreme Court's John Roberts' betrayal of their Noble Cause.  Here's an appetizer:

At National Review’s The Corner, Quin Hilyer had this to say about the Chief Justice:

With today’s Obamacare decision, John Roberts confirms that he has completely jettisoned all pretense of textualism. He is a results-oriented judge, period, ruling on big cases based on what he thinks the policy result should be or what the political stakes are for the court itself. He is a disgrace. That is all.

The headline was: “Chief Justice Roberts Has Officially Gone Native in Washington.”

There aren't enough pixels to capture all the agony - real and fake - that Republicans and small-bore people everywhere are experiencing over the King v. Burwell decision that, as President Obama said, means "the Affordable Care Act is here to stay."  But you'll be hearing "Apocalypse now!" from all the candidates in the Republican presidential clown car, Congressional hacks and the mouth-frothing grifters at Fox "News."  Feel free to roam the internet and get warmth from wingnut volcanic rage (after Kilgore's piece, you can go here for more unhinged reactions - hee hee).

And, you know what?  It doesn't matter anymore.  They lost, and the American people won.

BONUS:  There's a lot out there about human pus sac "Justice" Antonin Scalia's raving dissent, but a few discerning observers noted that Chief Justice Roberts used Scalia's previous argument against him in King v. Burwell.

To defend making the subsidies available to consumers everywhere, Roberts cited a line the dissent to the 2012 decision in favor of Obamacare, in which Scalia said, "Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all."

Roberts used the line to argue that it "is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate" in a manner to limit the subsidies only to those states with state-operated exchanges, as the challengers in King v. Burwell argued.

Who said a raging crackpot has to be consistent?  Nicely played.

Supreme Quote of the Day

"Justice Antonin Scalia needs to resign from the Supreme Court. He’d have a lot of things to do. He’s a fine public speaker and teacher. He’d be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician — and that’s the problem." -- E.J. Dionne, in a hard-hitting piece that notes Scalia's frequent ventures into partisan politics and events. While Clarence "Long Dong Silver" Thomas prefers to keep his political profile somewhat lower (even with his wife's aggressive Rethuglican advocacy), Scalia flaunts his political views. He's one bad character.

Jiggery Pokery Classes Now Forming At Scalia School Of Law

No joke (it's April Fool's Day)!  George Mason University (GMU) in Virginia is fast becoming the Mecca for the institutionalizing of right- wing loons.  Already home to the Mercatus Center (a project of the ultra- right libertarian Cato Institute to see how far you can shrink government for easy bathtub drowning), the University announced yesterday that its law school will be renamed for the late Justice Antonin Scalia (again, no this is not an April Fool's joke).  The sweetener, if any was needed?  Thirty million dollars in combined gifts, the largest in GMU's history.  Twenty million dollars was from an anonymous donor, and $10 million was from (wait for it)... the Koch brothers, who incidentally have now poured $58 million into GMU since 2011.  Think of it as the Falwell- run Liberty University without the Bible thumping and chastity belts.

How unironic that the law school will be renamed in honor of Scalia, a defender of corporations as people, by right- wing fat cats ponying up $30 million.

Give us some help in the comments on possible course listings for this school named after a jurist with a mission for making America "a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy." We'll start off with "Jiggery Pokery 101."

"Folksy Sycophant" Neil Gorsuch (UPDATED)

Credit where due:  Dana Milbank, among others, noted the demeanor of neo- fascist judge- basher Donald "Rump" Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch during yesterday's hearing.  It reminded him of someone:

The nomination of Neil Gorsuch presents the Senate with a constitutional dilemma: Is this nation prepared to have Eddie Haskell serving a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court? 

The most noteworthy thing to emerge from Gorsuch’s testimony Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee wasn’t his judicial philosophy (conservative), his credentials (considerable) nor even the likelihood of confirmation (virtually certain). What stood out was his aw-shucks, good-golly manner: Gorsuch played a folksy sycophant straight out of the 1950s. 

No fewer than eight times he punctuated his testimony with “Leave It to Beaver” exclamations of “goodness” — “goodness, no!” “oh, my goodness!” — and, though only 49 years old, spoke in archaic phrases: “since I was a tot,” “a fair and square deal,” “doesn’t give a whit.”  (our emphasis)

"Eddie Haskell," for anyone not familiar, was a teenage character in the '50s-'60s television series "Leave It To Beaver," who's seen as the "archetype for insincere sycophants."

If it's possible to be a sycophant and condescending at the same time, that was Gorsuch yesterday. But more important than his oleaginous persona is his obnoxious, far- right judicial philosophy, said to mirror that of the late, unlamented Antonin Scalia. He certainly has the patter of the movement conservative down (our emphasis):

In a 2005 article published by National Review, Gorsuch argued that "American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda" and that they are "failing to reach out and persuade the public". Gorsuch wrote that, in doing so, American liberals are circumventing the democratic process on issues like gay marriage, school vouchers, and assisted suicide, and this has led to a compromised judiciary, which is no longer independent. Gorsuch wrote that American liberals' "overweening addiction" to using the courts for social debate is "bad for the nation and bad for the judiciary".

This is the insincere sycophant who, in the hearing yesterday, was bemoaning a politicized judiciary - selectively ignoring why he was sitting in the hearing room yesterday =cough= Merrick Garland =cough=, and eliding his long history of right- wing conservative writing and activism. Apparently, a politicized judiciary is golly- gee super when it's a right- wing politicized judiciary, but not when it's a liberal one.

Make no mistake, if this Eddie Haskell is confirmed he'll be just as viciously reactionary as was Scalia. And he's just 49 years old.

UPDATE:  The Supreme Court just unanimously rejected the premise of an opinion Gorsuch wrote on a case involving the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, in which he took a cramped, narrow view of the responsibility of school districts toward disabled students (surprise surprise).

Barrett's "Tracks" Lead To A Scalia-Like Outcome

Aside from the effective tutorial by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse on the corrupt right-wing dark money machine behind Amy Coney Barrett and other Republican-nominated judges (see post below), the questioning of Barrett by Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, using a "follow the tracks" metaphor, showed Barrett's deceptiveness in answering questions about key rulings like Roe v. Wade and the upcoming decision about whether the Affordable Care Act should be struck down. In particular, Barrett took the position that Roe v. Wade was not a "super precedent" that couldn't be challenged, despite overwhelming support by the public, because it was still "controversial" among her theocratic right-wing cohort. Similarly, Barrett was disingenuous when answering questions about her opposition to past Supreme Court decisions upholding the popular Affordable Care Act affecting the lives of millions of Americans. She went further in saying in her hearing that previous rulings by the Court in favor of the ACA would not protect the law from being challenged by the Trump "Justice" Department.

In what should have been an obvious answer from a self-proclaimed "textualist," Barrett was asked by Klobuchar about whether she believed voter intimidation is illegal (it is; see 18 U.S.C. 594), she regurgitated her pat answer about reviewing the evidence, not opining, etc. This is after her patron, demagogue and neo-fascist Donald "Mango Mussolini" Trump, has openly encouraged his "army" of armed thugs to "monitor" the voting in an attempt to suppress Dem votes. 

But the biggest "tell" as far as these "tracks" are concerned was the most obvious of all and offered by Barrett herself.  Barrett has described herself as a disciple of far-right Justice Antonin Scalia, her "mentor" and someone who wrote in dissent regarding the ACA, for example, that the entire law should be struck down, no "carve out" for people with pre-existing conditions, etc. That's who the Court will get with Barrett: a doctrinaire, right-wing theocratic jurist who, despite her equivocation and evasion in the hearings, will be a zealous force to overturn the progress that's been made on women's rights, health care, voting rights and more.

Are You Sh*tting Us? (UPDATED)

(Ed. note 2/25):  Well, so much for that.  Looks like Sandoval has taken himself out of the mix.)

There are reports that one of the candidates being vetted by the Obama Administration to replace Supreme Court "Justice" Antonin Scalia is Republican (!!) Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada, who endorsed secessionist dope Rick "Oops" Perry in 2012, before settling for Willard "Mittens" Romney.  Also, soon-to be-former (thankfully) Senate Minority Leader Harry "Thin" Reid has met with Sandoval and given the White House his nod to the Republican. Hard to believe the utter cynicism and spinelessness on display, even from this crew.

Whether this is just a trial balloon to excite the obstructionist Rethugs in the Senate or whether the Obama Administration has lost its collective mind remains to be seen. But the fact that any Republican politician would even be whispered as a potential replacement for Scalia is showing the white flag to Republican obstructionists in the Senate. For shame, if this is in any way a serious trial balloon.

UPDATE:  Apparently, the Rethugs are not treating it seriously, saying that a rejection of any Obama nominee is pro forma. Once again, the Rethugs are shown to be obstructionists for the sake of obstruction (which was likely the point of this trial balloon exercise).

UPDATE II:  Anne Laurie assembles evidence that this is multi- dimensional election year pranking of Republicans.

UPDATE III:  David Bernstein, too.

UPDATE IV:  Charles Pierce makes it a consensus.

From the Rethug Crime Blotter...

Troglodyte Justice Antonin Scalia's daughter, Ann Scalia Banaszewski, was convicted of driving under the influence yesterday in Illinois. Ms. B. had 3 of her children in the car when she was stopped on February 14, 2007. Remember that the next time the Rethugs bring up Kennedy tippling.

Don't Reward Them For The Stolen Seat (UPDATED)

Last night, in an East Room filled with Rethuglican politicians, and right wing operatives, neo-fascist fraudster and sexual predator Donald "Rump" Trump announced his Supreme Court nominee to be Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch. Rump fumbled through his introduction of Gorsuch, at one point identifying him as a Supreme Court justice, and awkwardly embraced the judge's wife planting a kiss on her cheek (how would any woman with self respect let that happen?). Gorsuch thanked President P*ssygrabber, who just last month settled a fraud lawsuit over his bogus Trump University and whose executive order detaining Muslim travelers is likely to be found un-Constitutional...for now.

Gorsuch is a clone of the late Antonin Scalia, whom he's modeled his judicial philosophy after, and an extreme conservative. He's opposed to Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood, collective bargaining and union rights, gun safety measures, and protection of voting rights for minorities and the disenfranchised. At 49, he could impact Court rulings for another 35 years.

This is also about a stolen seat on the Supreme Court. Last year, when corrupt human/turtle hybrid Sen. Mitch "Missy" McConnell blocked even a hearing on Obama's nominee, Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland, he denied a President (who had won in 2012 with a significant majority of the popular and electoral vote) the right to appoint Scalia's replacement. In doing so, he cynically provided a rallying point for every wingnut to get out and vote. As Scott Lemieux notes in his article in The New Republic,

"Gorsuch is a bad choice to fill a vacancy that should never have been Trump’s to fill in the first place. Democrats probably can’t prevent him from being on the Court, but they should make his nomination as difficult as possible. McConnell’s Supreme Court blockade played a significant role in Trump’s upset win, and Senate Democrats should act to help liberal voters adopt a similar focus on the Court in 2018 and 2020."

Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer will often stick his finger in the wind to see which way it's blowing, and last night a huge crowd of demonstrators gathered outside his Brooklyn apartment building to tell him to block this and other Rump nominations. This should serve as notice to other Dems who might be weak in the knees that their careers are on the line, too, if they don't show some spine. For starters, they should follow Bob Schooley's suggestion:

Every Democratic senator should just pin this photo to their lapel for the next few days of GOP whining. pic.twitter.com/6MayoFT8W5

— Schooley (@Rschooley) January 31, 2017

And Dan Pfeiffer's:

The Democrats should treat Trump's SCOTUS pick with the exact same courtesy the GOP showed Merrick Garland. Don't flinch, don't back down

— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) February 1, 2017

UPDATE:  What Dave Leonhardt says --

... Democrats should not weigh this nomination the same way that they’ve weighed previous ones. This one is different. The presumption should be that Gorsuch does not deserve confirmation, because the process that led to his nomination was illegitimate. [snip] 

... Democrats simply cannot play by the old set of rules now that the Republicans are playing by a new one. The only thing worse than the system that the Republicans have created is a system in which one political party volunteers to be bullied.

Monday Reading - Elections Have Consequences (Cont.)

Unfortunately, the 2016 election is one "gift" we can't return:

Donald Trump is set to inherit an uncommon number of vacancies in the federal courts in addition to the open Supreme Court seat, giving the president-elect a monumental opportunity to reshape the judiciary after taking office. 

The estimated 103 judicial vacancies that President Obama is expected to hand over to Trump in the Jan. 20 transition of power is nearly double the 54 openings Obama found eight years ago following George W. Bush’s presidency.  [snip] 

The result is a multitude of openings throughout the federal circuit and district courts that will allow the new Republican president to quickly make a wide array of lifetime appointments. 

State gun control laws, abortion restrictions, voter laws, anti-discrimination measures and immigrant issues are all matters that are increasingly heard by federal judges and will be influenced by the new composition of the courts. Trump has vowed to choose ideologues in the mold of the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon — a prospect that has activists on the right giddy.  (our emphasis)

With the Senate in control of far- right Republicans under Machiavellian sleazeball Sen. Mitch "Missy" McConnell (Testudines- KY), there won't be anything long standing in the way before those "giddy" fascists see their own installed on courts across the nation.  Clearly, Republican obstructionism has paid off:  8 years of delaying, slow- walking and denying the winner (by large margins) of the 2008 and 2012 elections the Constitutional right to appoint Federal judges has paid off handsomely for these party- before- country cynics.  Most egregious was the year- long blocking of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, who instead will be replaced with a Scalia- clone appointee by neo- fascist reactionary Donald "Rump" Trump, making this all particularly difficult to swallow.

This illustrates one of the most important lessons Democrats need to learn and incorporate in their political DNA: we need to act like politics is a zero sum game, just as Republicans do.  No more bringing knives to a gunfight.