Filling the SCOTUS Seat Isn’t an Option, It’s an Obligation

 

With Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death and a newly vacant Supreme Court seat, the political madness of 2020 got even madder. But this moment is precisely why so many Republicans voted for Donald Trump despite their misgivings. A conservative majority on SCOTUS has been a signature goal of the party base going back to Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Now, 40 years later, the opportunity is finally here.

To quote Margaret Thatcher, this is no time to go wobbly. As expected, many are.

The center-right’s appetite for catering to the Democrat base instead of their own is insatiable. In reaction, GOP voters launched the Tea Party movement. When that fizzled, they elected Trump. Many Republicans still haven’t learned this lesson and want to surrender before any battle begins.

At The Bulwark, Jonathan V. Last oddly casts this moment as a “political crisis,” which it most certainly is not. Justice Ginsburg’s passing is a sad event, as is anyone’s death, but it was as inevitable as every other Supreme Court vacancy. We’ve been through this more than 100 times before.

Yet Last believes RBG’s mortality is an unexpected “black swan” event. His solution is to toss aside the simple Constitutional process and replace it with a complex backroom deal:

There are only a handful of ways out of this trap and all of them require the prudential coordination of elites. Which is … not something we have seen a great deal of in the last, say, generation of American life.

Nearly zero voters, left or right, want to be governed by the “prudential coordination of elites.” In fact, the Constitution doesn’t mention “prudential,” “coordination,” or “elites.” It does state that the President is obligated to nominate a jurist and the Senate to provide advice and consent.

Why invent some novel aristocratic contraption when our foundational document provides a simple path forward? These are the rules every elected official — left, right, and center — agreed to uphold since our founding.

One expects knocking knees at The Bulwark, but the demand for some extraconstitutional haggling is spreading.

Jonah Goldberg and David French, two conservatives for whom I have great respect, recommend a different type of deal with Senate Democrats. I’ll let French explain:

First, Trump makes his pick.

Second, the Senate applies the Schumer principle and gives the nominee a hearing. This will have the benefit of giving the American people a more-complete picture of the qualifications and philosophy of the nominee and thus the stakes of the presidential election.

Third, the Senate then applies the Graham/Rubio/Cruz rule and does not vote before the election. If Trump wins, they then vote on the nominee.

But what if Trump loses? What principle comes into play? Joe Biden’s own words provide the guide.

In the October 2019 Democratic debate, Joe Biden clearly expressed his opposition to court-packing. “I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court,” he said, “because we’ll live to rue that day.” He continued, “We add three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.”

Goldberg, offering similar advice, adds some context in his LA Times column:

Even before Justice Ginsburg’s demise, Democratic support was building not just for packing the Supreme Court by increasing the number of justices (which Ginsburg opposed), but also for D.C. and Puerto Rican statehood and abolition of the legislative filibuster. Now Democrats are all but vowing to go through with expanding the court in response to a rushed replacement for Ginsburg.

What will be the GOP’s argument against such schemes?

…Moreover, merely on the level of realpolitik, abandoning all considerations other than what you can get away with amounts to preemptive disarmament for the wars to come. The pernicious logic of apocalyptic politics works on the assumption that the long term doesn’t matter. But the long term always becomes now eventually.

Making a too-clever-by-half deal instead of simply following the Constitution is also a type of “preemptive disarmament for the wars to come.” The GOP has the White House and the Senate, while the Democrats have nothing. If the Packers are leading 42-3, they don’t give two touchdowns to the Vikings if they promise to be nice to them in the next game.

Any deal is especially suspect given the Senate Democrats’ abysmal track record on upholding the slightest of norms. A party willing to portray the dullest nominee in SCOTUS history as a high-school drug lord and gang-rapist has no interest in comity or fair play.

French and Goldberg’s deal is better than Last’s but still attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Trump and McConnell hold all the cards; the left has only screaming.

Democrats high and low have already promised to pack the court, create new states, and abolish the electoral college. They have allowed their constituents to create mayhem, attack citizens, destroy businesses, and burn buildings in their cities for three and a half months. This is who they were before RBG died and they will only radicalize further as we move toward the election.

The Republican base has set everything in place for a conservative Supreme Court. It is the party’s obligation to deliver it to them.

Forget “prudential coordination of elites,” it’s time at last for “We the People.”

Published in Law, Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 219 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):
    There is also the fact that silence is frequently and wrongly interpreted as agreement.

    Maybe, but that’s a pretty hefty burden for the lurkers and the less-attentive to bear.

    I don’t understand. Those are the people I’m concerned about. You have to hit them before the Trump-hate establishes itself, because it’s nearly impossible to deprogram a Never.

    I just meant that assuming agreement from someone who doesn’t speak up one way or the other puts them in a difficult position. Do you assume that every member who doesn’t vigorously refute Gary’s assertions believes or agrees with them?

    Every other member doesn’t have to post their disputes of Gary.  And that would clutter things up a lot.  But someone needs to, lest the lies go unchallenged.

    In a way it reminds me of when I lived in Phoenix, any time I heard or saw a car crash, I always called 911.  Because if everyone assumes that someone else will call, then NOBODY calls.

    In one particular incident, I learned from paramedics on the scene that a little girl had been seriously injured, and there had only been one call.  Mine.  I thanked them, and they thanked me.

    • #181
  2. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):
    There is also the fact that silence is frequently and wrongly interpreted as agreement.

    Maybe, but that’s a pretty hefty burden for the lurkers and the less-attentive to bear.

    I don’t understand. Those are the people I’m concerned about. You have to hit them before the Trump-hate establishes itself, because it’s nearly impossible to deprogram a Never.

    I just meant that assuming agreement from someone who doesn’t speak up one way or the other puts them in a difficult position. Do you (or @django, who made the original comment) assume that every member who doesn’t vigorously refute Gary’s assertions believes or agrees with them?

    No; I make no assumptions. I also do not know that they don’t believe the lie, and there are many lies floating around about Trump, some endorsed by Gary. 

    • #182
  3. Charlotte Inactive
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):
    There is also the fact that silence is frequently and wrongly interpreted as agreement.

    Maybe, but that’s a pretty hefty burden for the lurkers and the less-attentive to bear.

    I don’t understand. Those are the people I’m concerned about. You have to hit them before the Trump-hate establishes itself, because it’s nearly impossible to deprogram a Never.

    I just meant that assuming agreement from someone who doesn’t speak up one way or the other puts them in a difficult position. Do you assume that every member who doesn’t vigorously refute Gary’s assertions believes or agrees with them?

    I’ve probably been around long enough that I know where most of the regular posters stand. It’s the people who have memberships here and never post anything . . . those people, you don’t know if they’ll be taken in.

    Also, when Ricochet posts get main-feeded and highlighted on Instapundit, there are a whole bunch of non-members who are going to read it. Outside these walls, Ricochet has a reputation for being a NeverTrumper site, and in any associated Instapundit thread, you can find the people who automatically reject a Ricochet post and call us all NeverTrumpers. I have frequently attempted to correct them and invite them to go beyond the paywall. Ricochet could get more members that way. (But probably not the members Ricochet wants. I mean, this place hosts some rather Trump-hating podcasts, and it’s no wonder it’s got that bad reputation.)

    Fair enough (and thanks for the thoughtful response). I just have the impression that Gary takes up way too much of everyone’s bandwidth.

    • #183
  4. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):
    Sincere question for participants in this thread: why do you let Gary get under your skin? Wouldn’t you all be happier, calmer people if you just ignored him?

    Lies must be confronted.

    Yes.

    If someone lies on a comment thread, and no one acknowledges it, does it make a sound?

    Charlotte: “You should comment like a responsible adult.”

    Me: “OMG UR NOT MY MOM!!!!!!11”

    Go to your room.

    ~mutters~ 

    • #184
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):
    There is also the fact that silence is frequently and wrongly interpreted as agreement.

    Maybe, but that’s a pretty hefty burden for the lurkers and the less-attentive to bear.

    I don’t understand. Those are the people I’m concerned about. You have to hit them before the Trump-hate establishes itself, because it’s nearly impossible to deprogram a Never.

    I just meant that assuming agreement from someone who doesn’t speak up one way or the other puts them in a difficult position. Do you assume that every member who doesn’t vigorously refute Gary’s assertions believes or agrees with them?

    I’ve probably been around long enough that I know where most of the regular posters stand. It’s the people who have memberships here and never post anything . . . those people, you don’t know if they’ll be taken in.

    Also, when Ricochet posts get main-feeded and highlighted on Instapundit, there are a whole bunch of non-members who are going to read it. Outside these walls, Ricochet has a reputation for being a NeverTrumper site, and in any associated Instapundit thread, you can find the people who automatically reject a Ricochet post and call us all NeverTrumpers. I have frequently attempted to correct them and invite them to go beyond the paywall. Ricochet could get more members that way. (But probably not the members Ricochet wants. I mean, this place hosts some rather Trump-hating podcasts, and it’s no wonder it’s got that bad reputation.)

    Fair enough. I just have the impression that Gary takes up way too much of everyone’s bandwidth.

    The only bandwidth totally wasted by Gary, is Gary’s.  :-)

    • #185
  6. Charlotte Inactive
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Because if everyone assumes that someone else will call, then NOBODY calls.

    Also a fair point.

    • #186
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Because if everyone assumes that someone else will call, then NOBODY calls.

    Also a fair point.

    Fortunately, we have some members who are very good at deconstructing Gary’s regurgitations, and they don’t seem to mind doing it.

    • #187
  8. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):
    we need to stop thinking that our fellow citizens are smart enough to separate truth from lie

    It’s been depressing to discover just how true this is.

    That’s why I hate get out the vote PR campaigns.

    If you’re not motivated to vote on your own, you’re probably not very informed and I’d rather your vote wasn’t counted.

    We should be making it harder to vote, not easier.

     

    • #188
  9. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    TBA (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):
    Sincere question for participants in this thread: why do you let Gary get under your skin? Wouldn’t you all be happier, calmer people if you just ignored him?

    Lies must be confronted.

    Yes.

    If someone lies on a comment thread, and no one acknowledges it, does it make a sound?

    Charlotte: “You should comment like a responsible adult.”

    Me: “OMG UR NOT MY MOM!!!!!!11”

    Go to your room.

    ~mutters~

    Don’t forget to slam the door when you get there.

     

    • #189
  10. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Interesting, but do you think any “Nevers” will bother  to read even the summary? Link to the document, so those who hate TGP don’t have to go there.

    https://www.scribd.com/document/477171053/Hunter-Biden-Burisma-and-Corruption-The-Impact-on-U-S-Government-Policy-and-Related-Concerns#from_embed

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/breaking-senate-finance-homeland-committees-release-report-hunter-biden-burisma-corruption-devastating/

    • #190
  11. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):
    Also, when Ricochet posts get main-feeded and highlighted on Instapundit, there are a whole bunch of non-members who are going to read it. Outside these walls, Ricochet has a reputation for being a NeverTrumper site, and in any associated Instapundit thread, you can find the people who automatically reject a Ricochet post and call us all NeverTrumpers. I have frequently attempted to correct them and invite them to go beyond the paywall. Ricochet could get more members that way. (But probably not the members Ricochet wants. I mean, this place hosts some rather Trump-hating podcasts, and it’s no wonder it’s got that bad reputation.)

    I noticed that too, in other places, and it’s one of the reasons I only just listened to podcasts for a long time, before even starting to read posts and comments, let alone begin commenting myself.  The Ricochet membership – rank-and-file, if you will – seems to be much more Trump-supportive than the Ricochet “Establishment.”

    • #191
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):
    we need to stop thinking that our fellow citizens are smart enough to separate truth from lie

    It’s been depressing to discover just how true this is.

    That’s why I hate get out the vote PR campaigns.

    If you’re not motivated to vote on your own, you’re probably not very informed and I’d rather your vote wasn’t counted.

    We should be making it harder to vote, not easier.

    I’m totally with that.  I would favor a voting “literacy test” but then you run into, who makes up the test?

    • #192
  13. Gary Robbins 🚫 Banned
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    It appears that I have stirred up a hornet’s nest, even after I acknowledged that “Apex Predator” Cocaine Mitch has the votes to proceed.

    Let me say this.  I post and comment only as to things that I know or believe to be true.

    I don’t post or comment to start fights.

    I think that it is unfortunate that I apparently live “rent-free” in some people’s heads.

    I am well aware that many of my fellow Ricochetti disagree with me.  I do not consider them to be my “enemy” but just as people who disagree with me about a certain point.

    I am looking forward to the election being over in 41 days.  I wish everyone well, even my most caustic critics.

    As to the underlying issue of this post, while I think that it will be a tactical mistake to proceed to a confirmation vote, if I were in the Senate, I would vote to confirm ACB or Barbara Lagoa.

    • #193
  14. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    It appears that I have stirred up a hornet’s nest, even after I acknowledged that “Apex Predator” Cocaine Mitch has the votes to proceed.

    Let me say this. I post and comment only as to things that I know or believe to be true.

    I don’t post or comment to start fights.

    I am well aware that many of my fellow Ricochetti disagree with me. I do not consider them to be my “enemy” but just as people who disagree with me about a certain point.

    I am looking forward to the election being over in 41 days. I wish everyone well, even my most caustic critics.

    As to the underlying issue of this post, while I think that it will be a tactical mistake to proceed to a confirmation vote, if I were in the Senate, I would vote to confirm ACB or Barbara Lagoa.

    Oh, goodie goodie!

    But you’re voting for a President and Senators who wouldn’t nominate either of them.

    • #194
  15. DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow 🚫 Banned
    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow
    @DrewInWisconsin

    kedavis (View Comment):
    The Ricochet membership – rank-and-file, if you will – seems to be much more Trump-supportive than the Ricochet “Establishment.”

    No question about it.

    • #195
  16. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):
    we need to stop thinking that our fellow citizens are smart enough to separate truth from lie

    It’s been depressing to discover just how true this is.

    That’s why I hate get out the vote PR campaigns.

    If you’re not motivated to vote on your own, you’re probably not very informed and I’d rather your vote wasn’t counted.

    We should be making it harder to vote, not easier.

    I’m totally with that. I would favor a voting “literacy test” but then you run into, who makes up the test?

    Literacy tests are too easy to abuse.

    I just want to discourage people who don’t care enough to jump a few simple hurdles.

    Require people to re-register every so often.  (If I had my way, we’d flush the entire voter registration list every ten years and start from scratch).  If you can’t be bothered to go register*, you’re probably not that interested in voting.  Motor voter is a travesty.

    *I went to City Hall with my dad and registered on my 18th birthday.

     

     

    • #196
  17. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    If you can’t be bothered to go register*, you’re probably not that interested in voting.

    Or you may have moved, or died…

    • #197
  18. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):
    If you can’t be bothered to go register*, you’re probably not that interested in voting.

    Or you may have moved, or died…

    Tradition used to be the ‘democracy of the dead’ but the Dems never much cared for tradition anyway so they co-opted the dead.  

    • #198
  19. Gary Robbins 🚫 Banned
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    It appears that I have stirred up a hornet’s nest, even after I acknowledged that “Apex Predator” Cocaine Mitch has the votes to proceed.

    Let me say this. I post and comment only as to things that I know or believe to be true.

    I don’t post or comment to start fights.

    I am well aware that many of my fellow Ricochetti disagree with me. I do not consider them to be my “enemy” but just as people who disagree with me about a certain point.

    I am looking forward to the election being over in 41 days. I wish everyone well, even my most caustic critics.

    As to the underlying issue of this post, while I think that it will be a tactical mistake to proceed to a confirmation vote, if I were in the Senate, I would vote to confirm ACB or Barbara Lagoa.

    Oh, goodie goodie!

    But you’re voting for a President and Senators who wouldn’t nominate either of them.

    True.  However there are multiple reasons to vote against Trump, which go far beyond the scope of this post or comments.

    • #199
  20. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Let me say this. I post and comment only as to things that I know or believe to be true.

    Yeah. You’re honest. Well-meaning. Just wrong on some things.

    • #200
  21. Gary Robbins 🚫 Banned
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Let me say this. I post and comment only as to things that I know or believe to be true.

    Yeah. You’re honest. Well-meaning. Just wrong on some things.

    I could very well be wrong about some things.  That is clearly within the realm of possibilities.

    • #201
  22. Richard O'Shea Coolidge
    Richard O'Shea
    @RichardOShea

    Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw (View Comment):

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    I haven’t read all of the Supreme Court justice threads, so I don’t know if this has already been covered. Is anyone else complaining that Trump appears to be using a criterion that we were taking Biden to task for just a few months ago? That is, his selection must have a certain set of genitalia? Fortunately, Trump’s choice of female justices seem to have more qualifications than the selection pool Biden was left with when he declared that his vice president choice had to be a woman. Just nominate the best person for the job.

    I don’t know. The list I saw had several men on it, but that might be the list for any as opposed to this particular spot.

    I’ll grant that the most likely picks are women but I don’t have a problem with that.

    I would also argue that picking a woman here for tactical reasons* is better than doing it for pandering reasons but YMMV.

    *Said reasons being that a woman held the seat, so it might be easier to confirm a woman, and the opportunity to display leftist hypocrisy. Or get them to admit that the way one thinks is the most important part of the process.

    I heard he was picking a woman because they are much harder to accuse of gang rape.

    • #202
  23. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Richard O'Shea (View Comment):

    Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw (View Comment):

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    I haven’t read all of the Supreme Court justice threads, so I don’t know if this has already been covered. Is anyone else complaining that Trump appears to be using a criterion that we were taking Biden to task for just a few months ago? That is, his selection must have a certain set of genitalia? Fortunately, Trump’s choice of female justices seem to have more qualifications than the selection pool Biden was left with when he declared that his vice president choice had to be a woman. Just nominate the best person for the job.

    I don’t know. The list I saw had several men on it, but that might be the list for any as opposed to this particular spot.

    I’ll grant that the most likely picks are women but I don’t have a problem with that.

    I would also argue that picking a woman here for tactical reasons* is better than doing it for pandering reasons but YMMV.

    *Said reasons being that a woman held the seat, so it might be easier to confirm a woman, and the opportunity to display leftist hypocrisy. Or get them to admit that the way one thinks is the most important part of the process.

    I heard he was picking a woman because they are much harder to accuse of gang rape.

    Maybe they’ll accuse her of being Lizzie Borden.

    • #203
  24. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Let me say this. I post and comment only as to things that I know or believe to be true.

    Yeah. You’re honest. Well-meaning. Just wrong on some things.

    I could very well be wrong about some things. That is clearly within the realm of possibilities.

    Your ends are probably about right. But I think you’re wrong on the means. Demonstrably so.

    • #204
  25. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Let me say this. I post and comment only as to things that I know or believe to be true.

    Yeah. You’re honest. Well-meaning. Just wrong on some things.

    I could very well be wrong about some things. That is clearly within the realm of possibilities.

    Your ends are probably about right. But I think you’re wrong on the means. Demonstrably so.

    And if the means aren’t going to lead to the (supposedly) desired ends, then being “right” about the ends is really irrelevant.

    • #205
  26. Gary Robbins 🚫 Banned
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Hey,. this post is now on the second page and we have over 200 comments.  I am going to step away.

    Gary

    • #206
  27. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Richard O'Shea (View Comment):

    Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw (View Comment):

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    I haven’t read all of the Supreme Court justice threads, so I don’t know if this has already been covered. Is anyone else complaining that Trump appears to be using a criterion that we were taking Biden to task for just a few months ago? That is, his selection must have a certain set of genitalia? Fortunately, Trump’s choice of female justices seem to have more qualifications than the selection pool Biden was left with when he declared that his vice president choice had to be a woman. Just nominate the best person for the job.

    I don’t know. The list I saw had several men on it, but that might be the list for any as opposed to this particular spot.

    I’ll grant that the most likely picks are women but I don’t have a problem with that.

    I would also argue that picking a woman here for tactical reasons* is better than doing it for pandering reasons but YMMV.

    *Said reasons being that a woman held the seat, so it might be easier to confirm a woman, and the opportunity to display leftist hypocrisy. Or get them to admit that the way one thinks is the most important part of the process.

    I heard he was picking a woman because they are much harder to accuse of gang rape.

    And as Andrew Klavan joked yesterday, we can save money since we only have to pay her 75% as much as the men. 

    • #207
  28. Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw Member
    Matt Balzer, Imperialist Claw
    @MattBalzer

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hey,. this post is now on the second page and we have over 200 comments. I am going to step away.

    Gary

    I wasn’t aware that either of those were reasons to stop commenting on a post.

    • #208
  29. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):
    Sincere question for participants in this thread: why do you let Gary get under your skin? Wouldn’t you all be happier, calmer people if you just ignored him?

    Lies must be confronted.

    Yes.

    If someone lies on a comment thread, and no one acknowledges it, does it make a sound?

    Lies unchallenged can reach many low-information voters. I’ve run into too many conservatives who believe all the garbage spewed forth about our President because they consume mainstream news. It’s time we stopped pretending that nobody could believe their lies, because too many do.

    Essentially, we need to stop thinking that our fellow citizens are smart enough to separate truth from lie. The media is too powerful, and has effectively brainwashed the populace into never questioning anything it says.

    They need to be called out at every turn, all the time. They deserve no peace for spouting lies. No peace for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. 

    Gary is voting for Biden. He rooted for the Democrats to take the House, and he is rooting for them to take the Senate. This is the outcome he has staked his vote, his money, and his sacred honor upon. 

    • #209
  30. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    It appears that I have stirred up a hornet’s nest, even after I acknowledged that “Apex Predator” Cocaine Mitch has the votes to proceed.

    Let me say this. I post and comment only as to things that I know or believe to be true.

    I don’t post or comment to start fights.

    I think that it is unfortunate that I apparently live “rent-free” in some people’s heads.

    I am well aware that many of my fellow Ricochetti disagree with me. I do not consider them to be my “enemy” but just as people who disagree with me about a certain point.

    I am looking forward to the election being over in 41 days. I wish everyone well, even my most caustic critics.

    As to the underlying issue of this post, while I think that it will be a tactical mistake to proceed to a confirmation vote, if I were in the Senate, I would vote to confirm ACB or Barbara Lagoa.

    It won’t be over, Gary, in 41 days. If you get your wish, it will only have just begun. 

     

    • #210
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.