Constitutional Hardball: Confirm Merrick Garland on January 3rd? by Prof Samuel Wang

This morning I googled Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination for some news.  It's shocking and frightening to find nearly nothing.  It’s like Democrats are oblivious to this crucial tiny moment of opportunity to preserve the cornerstone of our American government - you know, it’s checks and balances!  That the importance of getting Judge Merrick Garland onto the Supreme Court isn't on every Independent and Democrats' lips, I find that astounding and deeply demoralizing.  This is the sort of laziness that gets governments defeated and countries lost.

Losing the Supreme Court will have far reaching consequences. Consider how passionately many powerful Republicans want to turn us into their “Christian Nation” under their personal god.  With the entire government in their hands, you better bet they will do their best to make it happen and given how pliable the DNC seems to be, they may get their way.  Who's to stop them?  Seriously, think about it.  This is for keeps.  Who's to stop this run away train wreck?

About the only thing I found worth sharing was this fascinating article by Professor Samuel Wang PhD.  It’s a good sober appraisal of this very real opportunity and it’s worth your time.  (I've included the directory of US Democratic Senators at the end of this.)

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/12/25/constitutional-hardball-can-democrats-confirm-merrick-garland-on-january-3rd/

Constitutional Hardball: Can Senate Democrats Confirm Merrick Garland on January 3rd?

By Sam Wang. |  December 25th, 2016

On the New York Times opinion page, the editors suggest (“The Stolen Supreme Court Seat,” December 24th) that President-elect Donald Trump could nominate President Obama’s choice, Judge Merrick Garland, as a gesture of goodwill. I myself suggested this on CNN last month (that was the point, you guys, not the bug – go watch). This is unlikely, to say the least…but there’s still a long-shot way to get a vote on Garland on January 3rd. It involves playing Constitutional hardball. (also see petition)

Update: A reader quotes a former Republican Senate staffer who claims that the rules prevent this. I am skeptical of the source. But if objections are raised, they will surely take the form described.

In 2004, the legal scholar Mark Tushnet published a classic article called “Constitutional Hardball.” This article is a must-read for anyone wanting to understand the battles over how our national government works.  

In it, Tushnet points out that from time to time, an organized effort is made to change fundamental principles of how the branches of the U.S. government operate. In Constitutional hardball, the parties carry out maneuvers that are within the literal rules, yet violate longstanding principles that are followed by mutual consent, a.k.a. “norms.” As examples, Tushnet cites (1) Marbury v. Madison, (2) FDR and the New Deal, and (3) a period that began in the late 1990s and continues today. This last period coincides with the advent of our modern, polarized politics.

The ninth-seat vacancy on the Supreme Court – and twenty-five other languishing judicial nominations – exemplify this year’s round of hardball. 

A Historic Snafu In Need Of Revisiting - Cheney/Edwards VP Debate

This was my second post at citizenschallenge.blogspot and harks back to another monumental Democratic Party failure to appreciate the moment and capture its important opportunity.  Though I imagine most aren't even aware of it.  I reposting this for the young bloods who are sick of their DNC elders and the disconnected mistakes that they seem incapable of learning from.  I encourage you move on and up within the DNC, the elders will oppose you, but exert yourselves, speak up, the DNC and America needs you to step up and deal with our world as it is.

________________________________________________
A historic snafu in need of revisiting
CitizensChallenge, August, 2, 2008

Back in 2004, during the Vice Presidencial debates, the question of the moment was: America's Right to "Go It Alone." Cheney proclaimed: "America will not allow anyone veto power!" Senator Edwards (and by extension the Democratic Party) could respond no better than to mumble meaningless platitudes.

Why couldn't Senator Edwards invoke the words of our United States Declaration of Independence? The last line of the first paragraph reads: "... a decent Respect to the Opinion of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to Separation."

Our Declaration of Independence and its signers granted no one veto power, however they did recognize a higher arbiter of correctness and a requirement that they be able to justify their actions in the eyes of the world!

Why couldn't the Democrat articulate that?

Why have we so easily misplaced our respect for the rest of mankind?

***********************************************

Consider a historic inspiration worth recalling

Our Founding Fathers were all men of passionate, deeply held and defensible beliefs.

Yet, each one knew they needed the knowledge and experiences of their ideological opponents.

They allowed themselves the luxury of respecting their opponents and they appreciated that there was something to be learned from most everyone.

They had the humility to understand that no one of them held absolute insight.

And they had the integrity to be able to alter perspectives when new information justified it.

Shouldn't all of us reacquaint ourselves with this principle?

FBI Director Comey, the Dworkin Report, Hiding Trump's Cozy Russian Relationships

I though I was through with US election 2016 stuff, but something big has come up.  Something that, to me, seems a last opportunity for liberal minded rationalists to, if not stop Trump, at least make it clear that we are aroused and will be watching him very closely.  With the constant reminder that the next election is only two years away and his Tea Party support will become vulnerable.  That is, if the Democratic Party learns some lessons and changes its ways.  Since I get more visits here than at CitizensChallenge, I'm shamelessly reposting in the hope that others might pass on this information.  

Rather than protests that merely vent anger, how about some protests with defined grievances and a list of expectations.  It's the democratic way.
(edited 11/13 morning)

_______________________________________________________________

I’m trying to figure out what to make of: “The Dworkin Report: Evidence Tying Donald Trump to Russia”

On the face of it, it’s an outrage that this sort of information was being kept hidden from the American people, particularly considering the scrutiny Clinton received for what are basically irrelevant emails.  

Imagine, FBI Director Comey goes out of his way to make election eve statements regarding innocuous emails, all the while sitting on this relevant information of national importance regarding copious evidence of deep Trump business ties to Russia.  It is an outrage against the American Way.  

My entire six decades has been lived in the shadow of USA’s fundamental conflict with Russia, and now, FBI Director Comey along with the GOP and America’s once proud Fourth Estate, our media, has played enabler to a Russian Obligate becoming the President of the United States. 

There was considerable information available that Donald Trump was lying to the American people as he denied ties to Russia, when in fact those ties are extensive and cozy and quite possibly crossing national security thresholds.  It is an outrage.  

What’s being done about it?