Red Mosquito

dimejinky99 wrote:Is this whole thing with the Supreme Court nomination not just an attempt at distraction?

Electromatic wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Is this whole thing with the Supreme Court nomination not just an attempt at distraction?

No, it's pretty important really. The basic hullaballoo is over the blue team wanting (needing) to stretch this thing out past elections in November so that they likely have a more favorable team for them to try and get a more favorable person (for them) to get a lifetime position on the supreme court.

If the approvals process goes ahead of that and he's confirmed, the court will likely be much more conservative for however long most of these folks live.... then we can have more drama over the next person selected.

Part of the issue with the last presidential election (and the terrible candidates that the two major US political parties produced) was that that person would likely get to pick one and possibly even two supreme court justices potentially changing the way the high court rules.

A Kavanaugh appointment would be a big win for social conservatives.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

BurtReynolds wrote:

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Lol ok.

Nothing says "The Resistance" like a coalition of the most powerful human beings on planet earth.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:what was the purpose of this editorial? To give Trump a heads up that people in his administration are against him? He's just going to be more unmanageable and paranoid now.

Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment is a constitutional mechanism. Mass resignations followed by voluntary testimony to congressional committees are a constitutional mechanism. Overt defiance of presidential authority by the president’s own appointees—now that’s a constitutional crisis.

If the president’s closest advisers believe that he is morally and intellectually unfit for his high office, they have a duty to do their utmost to remove him from it, by the lawful means at hand. That duty may be risky to their careers in government or afterward. But on their first day at work, they swore an oath to defend the Constitution—and there were no “riskiness” exemptions in the text of that oath.

On Wednesday, though, a “senior official in the Trump administration” published an anonymous op-ed in The New York Times, writing:

Many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. I would know. I am one of them.

The author of the anonymous op-ed is hoping to vindicate the reputation of like-minded senior Trump staffers. See, we only look complicit! Actually, we’re the real heroes of the story.

But what the author has just done is throw the government of the United States into even more dangerous turmoil. He or she has enflamed the paranoia of the president and empowered the president’s willfulness.

What happens the next time a staffer seeks to dissuade the president from, say, purging the Justice Department to shut down the Mueller investigation? The author of the Times op-ed has explicitly told the president that those who offer such advice do not have the president’s best interests at heart, and are, in fact, actively subverting his best interests as he understands them on behalf of ideas of their own.

He’ll grow more defiant, more reckless, more anti-constitutional, and more dangerous.

And those who do not quit or are not fired in the next few days will have to work even more assiduously to prove themselves loyal, obedient, and on the team. Things will be worse after this piece. They will be worse because of this piece.

The new Bob Woodward book set the bad precedent. The high official who thought the president so addled that he would not remember the paper he snatched off his desk? Those who thought the president stupid, ignorant, beholden to Russia—and then exited the administration to return to their comfortable, lucrative occupations? Who substituted deep-background gripe sessions with a reporter for offering detailed proof of presidential unfitness, or worse, before the House or Senate? Yes, better than the robotic servility of the public record. But only slightly.

What would be better?

Speak in your own name. Resign in a way that will count. Present the evidence that will justify an invocation of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, or an impeachment, or at the very least, the first necessary step toward either outcome, a Democratic Congress after the November elections.

Your service in government is valuable. Thank you for it. But it is not so indispensable that it can compensate for the continuing tenure of a president you believe to be amoral, untruthful, irrational, anti-democratic, unpatriotic, and dangerous. Previous generations of Americans have sacrificed fortunes, health, and lives to serve the country. You are asked only to tell the truth aloud and with your name attached.