Trump Nominates Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court

Donald Trump held a live ceremony today nominating Amy Barrett to the Supreme Court. She has been a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals since 2017 when Trump nominated her. She is a former law clerk to Anton Scalia.

She and her husband have seven children, one of whom has Downs syndrome and two of which are adopted from Haiti. She is the first mother of school age children to serve on the Supreme Court.

Trump says, "Amy will decide cases based on the text of the Constitution".

In July, Barrett was part of a three court panel that unanimously ruled against the Republican Party in a lawsuit it had brought against Illinois Governor Jay Pritzger, seeking a Temporary Restraining Order against coronavirus restrictions he had ordered. The suit was based in part on freedom of religion. The 7th Circuit opinion includes this: [More...]

As for the balance of harms, we see no logical stopping point to the plaintiffs' position here; they seem to want an all-or-nothing rule.

COVID-19 is "a novel severe acute respiratory
illness that has killed ... more than 100,000 nationwide. At this time, there is no known cure, no effective treatment, and no vaccine. Because people may be infected but asymptomatic, they may unwittingly infect others." ....

If 100 Democrats or 100 Republicans gather and ten get infected, those ten may go home and infect a local shopkeeper, a local grocery-store worker, their postal carrier, or their grandmother—someone who had no interest in the earlier gathering. Thus, the balance of harms in this instance strongly favors the governor.

Citation: Ill. Republican Party v. Pritzker, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116383, 2020 WL 3604106 (N.D. Ill., July 2, 2020)

Back to the present. Amy talks after Trump: She loves the United States and the United States Constitution. She eulogizes the late Justice Ruth Ginsburg: "She not only broke glass ceilings, she smashed them." She talks about Ginsburg's and Scalia's friendship and affection despite their differences on the law.

I don't think Trump's nomination of Amy Barrett is the worst possible choice. I think 11th Circuit Court Judge Barbara Lagoa would have been much worse.

The worst part of today's ceremony: Most of the audience were not wearing masks and sitting shoulder to shoulder.

< Breonna Taylor Grand Jury Protests | Debate: Grandpa vs the Grifter >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Great Biden campaign response (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 10:30:55 PM EST
    to Trump's demand that Biden submit to a drug test before the debate.

    "Vice President Biden intends to deliver his debate answers in words. If the president thinks his best case is made in urine he can have at it," said Kate Bedingfield, Biden's deputy campaign manager. "We'd expect nothing less from Donald Trump, who pissed away the chance to protect the lives of 200K Americans when he didn't make a plan to stop COVID-19."

    Yahoo News

    Could we have a debate thread? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 29, 2020 at 10:03:18 AM EST
    Or an open thread.  Or maybe both.

    God help the undecided voter (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 29, 2020 at 07:29:21 PM EST
    I sort of think if you are still undecided you should not be allowed to vote.  Or use sharp objects.

    And you definitely should not be on tv.

    I have not (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 29, 2020 at 07:46:49 PM EST
    listened to any of those so called panels. I guess this is the new thing in an election year. We have had 4 stupid years of interviewing ignorant Trumpers in diners. 2020 undecided voters would make me scream.

    Lindsey Olin Graham (none / 0) (#1)
    by ragebot on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 04:42:48 PM EST
    says hearings will start 12 October.

    You mean (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 05:55:23 PM EST
    he's going to stop begging for money long enough and talking about how everybody hates him to actually hold hearings?

    I really don't (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 05:56:38 PM EST
    care. Biden can add justices and Kavanaugh is more than likely going to be removed.

    I question her ethics though since she would accept a nomination from Trump. I believe anyone who was ethical wouldn't accept a nomination from Trump.

    why would Kavenaugh be removed? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 06:51:34 PM EST
    I doubt that.

    Plenty of people (like very rich people) support Trump and I doubt anyone one would turn down a Supreme Court nomination or any other lifetime appointment due to who nominated her.


    OK I'll bite (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 06:53:19 PM EST
    how is Kavanaugh more than likely going to be removed?

    Lying under (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 07:14:36 AM EST
    oath. It seems Bob Woodward has the info and didn't come forward during Kavanaugh's hearing because his boss didn't think he should burn a source.

    You mean this? (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 02:08:46 PM EST
    Woodward was reportedly set to expose Kavanaugh as an anonymous source for his 1999 book "Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate." At the time the book was being written, Kavanaugh served as a lawyer on independent counsel Ken Starr's team in its investigation of President Clinton.

    The revelation would have publicly contradicted what Kavanaugh said in a letter to the Post in 1999, the Times noted.

    Woodward's unmasking of Kavanaugh was set to be published in October 2018, according to the Times, which added that Post executive editor Martin Baron urged Woodward to not burn his source because it would be "bad for Bob" and the newspaper itself if Kavanaugh were exposed.

    Woodward's story never ran as a result.

    Yes (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 03:31:58 PM EST
    I believe he was asked about this in his confirmation hearings and lied about it. Plus remember McGahan said that Kavanaugh would never pass a full background check and that is why they were not doing it. Obviously it seems the GOP found something there.

    Interesting. (none / 0) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 05:31:15 PM EST
    From watching him testify at the (none / 0) (#45)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 06:41:13 PM EST
    confirmation hearing, I would say this was just one of the subjects on which it looked like Kavanaugh was committing perjury.

    It sounds like the democrats (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 06:26:08 PM EST
    are on the right path.  From m WaPo -

    "Instead, in sync with Joe Biden's presidential campaign, Democrats want to replicate their successful 2017 fight to preserve the Affordable Care Act, which peeled off enough GOP senators to defeat Trump's bid to repeal the health law. They remain skeptical of defeating this particular nominee, expected to be Judge Amy Coney Barrett, but Democrats believe this policy-focused message could propel them to big wins in the November elections."

    I think this is smart.  Make sure everyone knows what  the stakes are.  These hearings will be the perfect place to make the case.

    IMO they need to stay miles away from her religion no matter how weird it is.  

    They can't stop this but they can use it.  It might not be the worst thing to have three Trump appointees vote against Trumps little coup.  

    And then when we are rid of the First Crime Family the senate can add a couple more justices.

    Raw Story (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 06:53:41 PM EST
    Meanwhile, polls show that the majority of voters in general would prefer to have the court vacancy filled by whoever is sworn in come January. And women aren't an exception.

    When Sarah Longwell, a Republican political strategist, held a focus group Thursday night with Republican women in swing states who previously voted for Trump, none of them favored the idea of moving forward with a confirmation process before the election, and several said they were more likely to support Biden as a result. Many of them expressed respect for Ginsburg, and were uncomfortable with the idea of a replacement justice swinging the court's ideological balance further to the right.

    And the focus on selecting a woman for the nominee? "They thought it was a transparent play for voters," Longwell said.



    I don't think anyone cares (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 06:57:26 PM EST
    about what the people want. No Republican is going to get ousted in November for having voted for a Republican nominee for the court.

    I really think this is a losing issue, and a distraction by Trump, to have people focus less on the election.

    I think it is a done deal that Barrett will be confirmed. Dems need to move on to November.

    Nonetheless, thanks for sharing the article. This is just healthy disagreement.


    Also (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 07:09:37 PM EST
    I have heard this will be bad because it will force Kamala to stop campaigning and sit in the hearings.

    I think this is nuts.  First no one is really campaigning.  Second she could not ask for a better forum that these hearings.  That will be seen by millions and IMO are made for her.


    I disagree (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 07:05:18 PM EST
    Pretty completely.  I think people will vote against republicans.  Not just for this vote but because they are republicans.

    This pick is a great chance to focus the country on exactly what Republican government means.

    And there is going to be hearings.  Ignoring them would look stupid and weak IMO.

    I do not think this is a losing issue.  Just the opposite.


    Republicans (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 07:18:07 AM EST
    can't be elected by Republican votes alone and in places like here in GA which are polling 50/50 it could make enough difference to send Perdue packing.

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 06:30:25 AM EST
    The troll rating for this comment



    Very sorry. Just a (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 11:00:26 AM EST
    late-night finger-slip!

    do you really think (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 06:54:42 PM EST
    Joe Biden's nominations will be anything but mainstream? I don't. He is not now, and never has been, a progressive, let alone a liberal.

    What I don't want is another Alito.

    I would skip the court battles and spend time on getting out the vote if I were Biden. That's where he is in trouble. No one cares about him or is excited about him.


    I believe (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 07:01:27 PM EST
    THe idea is to get out the vote by focusing on the ACA and reproductive rights.  Both threatened by this pick.

    And i think it will work.

    Beyond that not sure why this "excitement for Biden" stuff keeps being a thing.

    Nope.  No one is excited for Joe.   All he has to do is not give them a reason to vote against him because they are very excited about voting against Trump.


    You and I (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 07:36:31 AM EST
    are on the same page with this. Maybe it is because we live in the same area of the country. People will start oh, Biden is not exciting and I'm like oh, I would vote for a can of tomato soup to get rid of Trump.

    Anyway Biden winning and not being exciting I think is a wonderful thing. I'm so sick of hearing candidate X doesn't speak to me or doesn't excite me. Grow up and vote and quit whining about how you as a voter need to be coddled.


    I actually think (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 07:40:54 AM EST
    Being boring and conventional could be a plus.  I think lots of exhausted people are ready for boring government.

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 08:19:01 AM EST
    I think we are in for quite a number of election cycles where it is going to be boring dry candidates discussing policy and I for one am here for it.

    THIS. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Towanda on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 04:28:08 PM EST
    Take us back to No Drama Obama.

    I know a lot of people who are just so weary of the nonstop outrages that we have endured fir almost four years now.

    I want a day, even a day, of not  living in dread of the next attack on our democracy.


    The idea (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 02:06:42 PM EST
    of being "exciting" as a critical criterion for a successful executive is over-rated.  I cannot think, for example, of any Governor, red or blue, who is exciting.  Governor JB  Pritzker. (D. IL)  is doing a good job, but is hardly rousing.  Governor Cuomo (D. NY) is competent but not exhirating.  On and on.  

    Presidential leadership requires an ability to inspire and unite the country toward achievement,, it will be the ability to effect exciting programs that mattes, more than a thrilling personality.  For the deplorables and the Hannity -types  Trump is exciting---I rest my case.

    Joe Biden is the right candidate for these perilous times--law abiding, mature, experienced, calming, and capable. America can look to the latest Netflix release for its excitement.


    I think (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 08:59:19 AM EST
    the Dems need to remain laser focused on healthcare. Not just ACA but also Medicare and Medicaid. These programs not only provide needed healthcare but also help keep rural hospitals remain open. Stressing the damage another Trump presidency would do to these programs is the strongest argument that the Dems have IMO.

    Pelosi (none / 0) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 09:26:32 AM EST
    was on CNN and was laser focused on the healthcare ramifications of ACB's nomination. I think it's wise to stay away from the culture war aspect of this( aside from the obligatory nod to reproductive rights).

    Biden got the memo (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 11:08:30 AM EST
    It's all about healthcare

    IMO (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 01:10:06 PM EST
    they need to focus somewhat more on Trump's statements and proposals that will hurt Medicare. A two prong approach, ACA and Medicare/Medicaid, would be the most effective. Peeling away more seniors and rural voters would definitely be a win.

    If I were in a swing state (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 01:35:09 PM EST
    and my vote counted on who won the presidency, my unenthusiastic vote would help Biden win just as much as someone else's enthusiastic vote. It doesn't matter if I'm excited about the candidate, it only matters that I vote for him.

    I am in a swing state (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Towanda on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 04:32:22 PM EST
    and already voted. Not with excitement but with determination.

    That will count just as much as any other vote cast in my state.


    Here in Pennsylvania, perhaps the swingiest (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 05:09:35 PM EST
    of swing states, I am waiting with bated breath for delivery of my mail-in ballot. It's looking like hand-delivery of the completed mail-in ballot to a "satellite office" of the county board of elections as soon as those offices open will be the safest way to vote. If not that, then hand-deposit into an official off-site "drop box."

    I've received my absentee ballot (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 09:30:03 PM EST
    I plan to drop it off at the local Board of Elections sometime this week. Unfortunately, my presidential vote will only count in the popular vote total. Oh, how I wish they would do away with the Electoral College.

    Yes,, we delivered our ballots (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Towanda on Tue Sep 29, 2020 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    to our village hall dropbox, as we always do n Waukesha County in Wisconsin, infamous in past for the corrupt county clerk (long gone) who hid mailbags full of ballots. And we are in a semirural area, where USPS could be slow even before.

    But our village clerk has a record of integrity. And we already can see online that our ballots were received. We next will be able see whether our ballots are accepted on election  day, as mail ballots are not opened here until then.

    All of our past mail ballots (a couple of elections since the pandemic) began) have counted. Love that online system at myvote.gov.


    This (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 07:28:35 PM EST
    The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Republican-led case seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act on November 10, exactly one week after the presidential election, according to the court's online docket on Wednesday.

    A hearing post-election was the likeliest choice from the outset. The justices' October schedule did not include the highly anticipated case, leaving just one day for arguments to potentially be heard before the election.

    Still, Wednesday's news does not mean the Supreme Court will make a ruling on the case in 2020. Legal experts say a final ruling is still expected next year.

    I think if they can make people understand the ACA could be gone in the middle of a pandemic that by then will have probable killed 300,000 people it will scare the shi+ out of them.

     ACBs feelings about the ACA are public record.



    Smart (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 08:20:31 PM EST

    Democrats say Barrett's nomination is all about the future of Obamacare

    Democrats on Saturday night launched their case against federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, saying support for her confirmation was equivalent to a vote to end the Affordable Care Act.

    In a rush of statements following Barrett's Rose Garden introduction, top Democrats put the fate of the law -- and its popular protections for patients with pre-existing conditions -- front and center. They also made frequent reference to the coronavirus pandemic, and the chaos that could arise from stripping health insurance options from millions of Americans in its midst.

    Let the press (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 07:13:20 AM EST
    handle the cult thing. It seems they already have.

    How Times Have Changed (none / 0) (#14)
    by RickyJim on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 07:37:58 PM EST
    In February 1932, Republican President Herbert Hoover nominated a Democrat, Benjamin Cardozo, to replace retiring Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.  Cardozo was unanimously confirmed by the Senate a few days later. Hoover was running  for reelection under obviously difficult circumstances. He probably thought appointing a distinguished NY liberal judge would help his chances with the electorate as a whole.

    It's not that the times that have changed but ... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Erehwon on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 04:29:36 AM EST
    it's the Republican party that has changed: the kindest words are that they have become b*tsh*t crazy, but the likely one is that the Faustian bargain they made in 1964 has fully transformed them into the new klan, of which they are now proud!

    Trump could have picked Lagoa (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 07:56:13 PM EST
    and the democrats would have had a much harder job.  Instead he picked the "in yer face" candidate.  Cause that's just how he rolls.  The one with the long paper trail on abortion  and other things.

    He could have energized Latina women.  In FL.

    But instead we get Aunt Lydia.

    His stupid hubris may be all that saves us.


    I have a favor, though. (none / 0) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 10:44:23 AM EST
    Considering Trump's transactional way of doing business, such as the blatant shakedown of a foreign leader for which he was impeached, it is not unimaginable that an understanding, implicit or explicit, has been struck with his Supreme Court nominee, Cony Barrett.

    Trump has publicly stated that Justice Ginsburg must be replaced before the election so as to be in a position to rule on election results he is in the process of undermining so as to assure a dispute. And, of course, there is the red meat offered up of ACA and Roe, for now with more to come.

    With the pedal to the metal on the confirmation process (Both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch's hearings started two months after the nomination) and Lindsey claiming the Republicans have the votes to confirm, the inaptness of the nomination is compounded by its confirmation sham. The Cony Barrett of Merrick Garland days would agree. It would be wrong, she said, to "flip the balance" of the Court in an election year.

    For the Democrats to participate in this confirmation normalizes its wrongness and down plays its outrage.

    All Democratic senators, save for Donnelly, Kaine and Manchin, voted against the nominee when being considered for appellate judge. Her record of extremism has become even more clear since that time. As a Supreme Court Justice, she is likely to be Alito on steroids.

    The hasty hearings probably will not be of the Kavanaugh tone. Judge Cony Barrett will not show hostility or sing praises of beer. She will be pleasant. But, her responses are likely to be non-responses, reflecting professional coaching: only calling "balls and strikes,"  unable to comment since ACA/Roe cases may come before me, and religious beliefs will not infuse my decisions--just the facts and the law.

    The fawning of the Republicans and the disingenuous responses to the sharp questions of Democratic senators, such as Kamala Harris, will only add to this shambolic process.

    The Democrats should be absent from hearings and floor vote, allowing their absence to tell the story.  And, to have that stained baggage carry along during Cony Barrett's 40-year tenure.

    I understand (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 10:52:48 AM EST
    might even agree with the sentiment.  But it would be a huge mistake and an even bigger missed opportunity.

    I agree, (none / 0) (#38)
    by Towanda on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 04:36:45 PM EST
    It allows Republicans to say that Drms, including the candidate for vice president, are not showing up for work. If votes are close in somE states, too many voters could buy into this.

    News is breaking (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 05:01:09 PM EST
    About 20 yrs of Trumps taxs in the NYTimes

    It broke while Trump was talking so they got in some questions before he scuttled away.

    And in WaPo, about his repeated efforts (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 05:14:00 PM EST
    to deceive his father and cheat his siblings -- and finally the offspring of his deceased brother -- in relation to his father's estate.

    Oops (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 05:16:21 PM EST
    Tr*mp calls the Times story (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 06:58:28 PM EST
    "fake news." Of course, it would be simple for him to back up this claim: release his actual tax returns.

    Poor Trump keeps (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 06:38:54 PM EST
    losing more money than he makes.  Hencen he paid no taxes, or only $ 750 in two tax years.  What the country needs is a businessman to run the country like a business.

    AOC tells it like it is (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 09:40:29 PM EST
    Ocasio-Cortez: Trump contributed less in taxes 'than waitresses and undocumented immigrants'

    In a tweet, the freshman New York lawmaker pointed to the taxes reportedly paid by the president and former media mogul in 2016 and 2017 -- $750 a year -- as being less than she paid while working as a bartender in New York City prior to her election to office in 2018.

    "In 2016 & `17, I paid thousands of dollars a year in taxes as a bartender. Trump paid $750," she tweeted. "He contributed less to funding our communities than waitresses & undocumented immigrants.

    I paid more than $750 and I'm on SS and a small pension.


    I pay more in a month (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Sep 28, 2020 at 10:15:23 AM EST
    than the orange clown paid in 2016. (I'm still working). :(

    I am guessing that his accountant put down (none / 0) (#52)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 10:04:46 PM EST
    $750 as tax owing for political reasons, so that Tr*mp could deny the accusation that he didn't pay any federal income tax, not because that was a correct calculation under any interpretation of the law including their own fraudulent interpretation (where it would probably have been zero, or even a negative number).

    interesting analysis of some of the Times (none / 0) (#64)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 28, 2020 at 09:34:29 PM EST
    revelations, by a tax accountant who writes for Forbes, and who is politically no friend of Tr*mp's. He's critical of some of the Times' insinuations.

    He has (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 29, 2020 at 06:25:53 AM EST
    a lot of very good points. The NYT really does need a forensic accountant to go through Trump's taxes and then tell the reporters.

    Reading the "Editor's Note" about (none / 0) (#46)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 06:53:52 PM EST
    how the Times investigation was conducted, I was led to infer that several IRS employees (could be anything from an IRS lawyer, to an auditing agent, to a computer technician) agreed to leak Tr*mp's tax records to the Times reporters. (A Daniel Ellsberg-level act of courage; breach of tax privacy is a serious federal crime.) That seems like a more plausible theory than a disgusted Tr*mp Organization accountant, which is also possible. I would guess that federal criminal investigators are fanning out at this very hour.

    My immediate takeaway is this: (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 07:10:20 PM EST
    Right now, we really need to know who's holding and underwriting the $421 million in business loans to the Trump Organization and its affiliates that are coming due over the next four years, for which Trump is apparently personally liable because he apparently offered his own assets in part as collateral.

    Because if it turns out that foreign entities, e.g., Deutsche Bank and VB Bank, have been bankrolling Trump, as so many of us have long suspected and speculated, then that would certainly explain his behavior. And if it's indeed the Russians who have him by the naughty bits financially, that's entirely problematic for our national security.



    Suddenly, I find myself looking forward to (none / 0) (#55)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 28, 2020 at 06:14:37 PM EST
    tomorrow night's debate.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 28, 2020 at 06:31:21 PM EST
    Trump ran away from questions in his one appearance today.  He can't do that tomorrow.

    I almost expect him to find a reason to cancel.  


    Maybe he will use this (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 28, 2020 at 06:34:57 PM EST
    Donald J. Trump
    Joe Biden just announced that he will not agree to a Drug Test. Gee, I wonder why?

    If Biden takes a drug test, will Tr*mp agree (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 28, 2020 at 07:13:53 PM EST
    to take the SAT (finally)?

    Hey PA guys (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 28, 2020 at 07:16:59 PM EST
    5 hours ago - Politics & Policy
    Pennsylvania GOP asks Supreme Court to halt mail-in ballot extension

    Republicans in Pennsylvania on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to halt a major state court ruling that extended the deadlines for mail-in ballots to several days after the election, The Morning Call reports.

    Why it matters: It's the first election-related test for the Supreme Court since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and could decide the fate of thousands of ballots in a crucial swing state that President Trump won in 2016. What the court decides could signal how it would deal with similar election-related litigation in other states.

    I agree that this case will be an interesting (none / 0) (#63)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 28, 2020 at 09:19:01 PM EST
    test of the Supreme Court R majority's current willingness to let states run their own election systems, or instead to impose federal (court) control.

    I have (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 28, 2020 at 06:59:29 PM EST
    long thought the whole drug test thing was Trump's way of getting out of the debates.

    I am expecting (none / 0) (#56)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Sep 28, 2020 at 06:24:22 PM EST
    nothing but a fib fest. Lies, lies and more lies.

    And I've read he intends to make Hunter Biden a focal point. Because that's the guy he's running against. It will be a train wreck where just can't look away.


    The Times says they have more big reporting (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 28, 2020 at 07:12:14 PM EST
    coming on Trumps taxes.  IMO the biggest story they COULD have would be exactly to whom the 421 million is owed.

    The biggest question has been after the money from Daddy and the Apprentice was gone where did  the hundreds of millions Trump used to make massive cash purchases of things like golf courses come from.

    If they have the returns it seems possible they know the answer.  

    That answer could be explosive.  I think.


    Yeah, (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 29, 2020 at 06:24:03 AM EST
    who he owes is going to be important to find out. I bet it's Deutsch bank.

    Well, if he was (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 27, 2020 at 07:04:51 PM EST
    hoping Amy Coney Barrett was going to help him hide his taxes that sure blew up in his face. Now this is gonna bring a lot of interesting questions she is going to have to answer along with what do you think of Trump's statement about assaulting women?

    I previously stated (none / 0) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 30, 2020 at 05:48:19 PM EST
    I doubt most Republicans really want to overturn Roe v Wade. This post fleshes out that rationale.

    Why Don't Republicans Sound Excited That Their SCOTUS Picks Might Fulfill GOP Promises?

    Michael McConnell, a former federal appellate judge and an extremely influential thinker in right-wing legal circles, published a Washington Post op-ed Tuesday afternoon arguing that even with Coney Barrett's addition to the court, the chances of Roe being overturned were still extremely low.

    The argument came with a political analysis that could be read as a warning directed at justices who themselves might be considering reversing the precedent of Roe:

    The politics would not be kind to pro-lifers. Right now, abortion-related disputes concern marginal cases (such as late-term abortions, parental consent, sex-selective abortion and disposal of fetal remains) where public opinion is divided and the majority might even support increased restrictions. If Roe were overruled, the debate would shift to out-and-out prohibitions, where public opinion is squarely on the side of abortion rights. Republican Party primaries would feature fights to the death between purists and compromisers, and a united pro-choice Democratic Party would gain the advantage.