The NYT really is fun

Supreme Court nominations are among the most important decisions a president makes, and certainly the most enduring: A nominee like Judge Gorsuch could sit on the court for more than three decades. At a rally last summer Mr. Trump said: “Even if you can’t stand Donald Trump, you think Donald Trump is the worst, you’re going to vote for me. You know why? Justices of the Supreme Court.” That may have played well on the campaign trail, but Mr. Trump’s failure to choose a more moderate candidate is the latest example of his refusal to acknowledge his historic unpopularity and his nearly three-million-vote loss to Hillary Clinton. A wiser president faced with such circumstances would govern with humility and a respect for the views of all Americans.

Trump won therefore he should appoint a Democrat to the Supreme Court.

Whut?

42 comments on “The NYT really is fun

  1. ‘his nearly three-million-vote loss to Hillary Clinton’

    So Hillary is going to nominate someone?

  2. ‘A wiser president faced with such circumstances would govern with humility and a respect for the views of all Americans.’

    Instead of the ones who voted for him. Duh.

  3. ‘The outrageousness of the ploy was matched only by the unlikelihood that it would succeed — until, to virtually everyone’s shock, it did.’

    Heart of stone, laugh, etc

  4. I am watching for the first time a US president doing the things he said he would do. It is so refreshing after the resiling floppiness combined with a lax attitude to justice and assassinations of Obama

  5. One of the greatest of Trump’s achievements has been to accelerate the decline of both the New York Times and Washington Post. In the past two weeks both have moved well beyond parody.

  6. Every morning I wake up prepared to laugh, not at what the schemer Trump has schemed, but at the reactions of the left.

    How about that lovely, defiant, act of formally beginning the 2020 Presidential campaign right now? And so successfully preventing all the left wing charities, but I repeat myself, from anti-Trump “political speech” for 4 whole years.

    I suspect he is the first politician in a long time who began working on his agenda and plans the after the election.

  7. I don’t recall seeing these editorials in the Times when past Democratic presidents failed to get a popular vote majority.

    And it’s likely that Trump owes his election exactly to the hope among the US electorate that his Supreme Court picks would be better than the nullities that Obama has elevated to the bench.

    It is fun to watch, I’ll say that.

  8. Apparently only 4 presidents before Trump lost the popular vote, apart from Dubya the rest are quite obscure: Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B Hayes, John Quincy Adams. It is possible that Nixon beat JFK to the popular vote but, Alabama.

  9. That NYT piece deserves a good fisking, starting with the first paragraph. But I especially like the statement that Gorsuch’s elevation to the Supreme Court would spell big trouble for women’s access to contraception. What? Condoms would be banned, like 16-ounce sodas in Bloomberg’s New York or plastic bags in San Francisco?

    But of course this is just code for abortion, as the next-to-last paragraph shows, without of course admitting it.

  10. @Diogenes: Yes. However, Bill Clinton did not get a popular vote majority during his first election (Ross Perot having run as a third-party candidate), which is the way I phrased my conjecture.

    Agreed that it’s not a perfect parallel to the current situation. However, is there any doubt that the NYT would make the same argument if a Republican gained the presidency while the Democratic opponent lost it due to a third-party candidate purportedly siphoning off more votes from their side?

  11. “Apparently only 4 presidents before Trump lost the popular vote”: that depends on exactly what you mean by ‘lost’. What %age of the popular vote did Slick Willie win?

  12. Still harping on this “3 mil” popular vote tripe.

    Wait until after the voter fraud investigation. Christ that scum Obama was brazenly encouraging illegals to vote– which is a crime. How many California illegals–the most likely place for Mexican illegals to go because of the leftists the place is rotten with–voted on Nov 8.

  13. You know how it is – a Dem wins, so it’s an opportunity to re-balance the court and appoint a progressive cos it’s what the people wanted. A Repub wins, so he should be gracious to those who didn’t vote for him, and appoint a progressive.

    There’s a common theme running through these threads somewhere…

  14. @Eksy,

    Remember, voter fraud isn’t a *thing*. So there’s no point in investigating it. Except when Repubs do it by adopting Canada’s policies on voter ID.

    But if the investigation turns up millions of illegal votes, for instance at least 3 million, I will laugh my British arse off.

  15. Anyone know if he can force this appointment through, or is it possible the Democrats will talk it out like the Republicans did to Obama’s pick?

    They outrageous is particularly ridiculous as its not really altering the ballance of the court anyway – it’s one sane right leaning type out, one sane right leaning type in. It’s if one of the left leaning justices dies in the next four years all the fun starts…

  16. They make him sound like a legal Atillla the Hun. The BBC tried a half-hearted hatchet job on him but it was pathetic. His terrible crime? He believes the Constitution should be interpreted as the writers intended, rather than as Left-wing judicial activists ‘interpret’ it.

    THAT’S IT.

    The left wing media has only one tactic and it is to scream “WOLF!” 24×7.

  17. “You know how it is – a Dem wins, so it’s an opportunity to re-balance the court and appoint a progressive cos it’s what the people wanted. A Repub wins, so he should be gracious to those who didn’t vote for him, and appoint a progressive.”

    The mistake is to fall for their apparent reasonableness, but then when they win they cut your throat. Nuke their positions and sow the land with salt, it’s the only way.

  18. Diogenes,

    “Apparently only 4 presidents before Trump lost the popular vote, apart from Dubya the rest are quite obscure: Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B Hayes, John Quincy Adams. It is possible that Nixon beat JFK to the popular vote but, Alabama.”

    Clinton won the popular vote by pouring resources into states she would win, like illinois, and into states that she wasn’t likely to win, like Arizona. Her people were so certain of winning the EC, they started focussing on trying to win the popular vote just to make it more legitimate as they feared they could come 2nd on that.

  19. @ the prole.
    Republicans had a majority in both house and Senate, so could block Obama’s choice.
    Democrats do not have a majority in either, hence they can’t.
    Unless the Republicans reintroduce the filibuster that the Dems got rid of.

  20. @ the prole.
    Republicans had a majority in both house and Senate, so could block Obama’s choice.
    Democrats do not have a majority in either, hence they can’t.
    Unless the Republicans respect the filibuster that the Dems got rid of for every other office.

  21. I keep reading Gorsuch described as a moderate conservative, so with the Supreme Court split 4/4 that would seem the best appointment. Naturally resulting in the Refuseers tying themselves in knots to find ways to describe “he believes in the rule of law and the constitution” into some sort of evil.

  22. “What %age of the popular vote did Slick Willie win?”

    If I recall, he got 39% in ’92, and improved to 49% the second time around, but never got a majority.

  23. I suspect he is the first politician in a long time who began working on his agenda and plans the [day(?)] after the election.

    I’m not sure what rock you were lounging under during the course of 2016, but everything he’s done since being sworn into office is exactly what he said he’d do while he was on the campaign trail. That’s why he’s got all of Washington shitting bricks at this very moment…

    Hope that doesn’t come as too much of a shock.

  24. “The popular vote” bollocks.

    With someone droning on about that I told him it was like complaining if your rugby union team scored two unconverted tries and lost to 4 penalties. You scored more tries but the rules don’t decide the winner that way.

    He said it was “different”. Because…..reasons.

  25. I’m amused at the idea suddenly that the popular vote counts.
    How long have the US had to change the constitution? Far as I know they have never gone with the popular vote and such a campaign would not be run the same way a EC campaign would.
    We know Hills had more popular vote in this EC campaign, we have no clue who would win if the US had changed things to a popularity vote.

  26. Naturally resulting in the Refuseers tying themselves in knots to find ways to describe “he believes in the rule of law and the constitution” into some sort of evil.

    This is exactly what they believe.

    In a sane world, the appointment of a judge to a constitutional court would be of interest to legal scholars only. It’s an important role, one that requires a high quality candidate, but ultimately the job is simple (though not easy):

    Apply relevant laws to the relevant facts.

    That’s it. No inventing hitherto undreamed pnenumbras. No conjuring phantasmagorical emanations. No dark papyromancy or Frankenstein jurisprudence attempting to turn the constitution into a “living” golem that does whatever freakish and unnatural acts the court pleases.

    It’s the Supreme Court, not an alternative legislature. Not an unelected executive. It’s as necessary to the functioning of civilised society as sewage management is, and it should be no more involved in political controversy than plumbers are.

    Leftists are freaking out precisely because they’ve been working to corrupt the judiciary for decades, turning it into an authoritarian power centre that imposes by judicial fiat and specious reasoning policies even right-on progressive legislatures would balk at.

    See also: the ECJ.

  27. …calling for an end to the deference courts traditionally show to administrative agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency, that are charged with implementing complex and important federal laws.

    There is an example in the middle of a lecture he gave last year which helps illustrate why he believes that, along with a fairly solidly argued case for the strict constructionist stance he takes: http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4658&context=caselrev

    I also note that there is an op-ed in the NYT that is much more complimentary to Trump’s nominee, penned (keyboarded?) by a chap who served as Acting Solicitor General under Obama so is presumably fairly knowledgeable about these matters:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/why-liberals-should-back-neil-gorsuch.html

  28. In the GWPF press conference, Myron Ebell, who was appointed to head the transition team for one agency rather than a major department of state, said he was appointed last August. This administration has hit the ground running and probably has enough measures in hand to overwhelm the Snowflakes

  29. I don’t recall the NYT ever arguing that because Obama was unpopular or because Bill Clinton only just won they should be modest.

    On the contrary.

    Trump made a promise on the campaign trail. He is now actually doing what he said he would. What he has a mandate to do. If the NYT does not like it I have an object they can kiss if they so wish. As some other President once said, winning has consequences.

  30. Tsk. I once read that Trump ate a bacon sammich, on white bread.

    BACON. WHITE.

    WHY CAN’T YOU GET IT NEO LIBRALLS! DONAL TRUM IS LITRALLY HITLAR!!!!1!!!!!!

  31. Hillary won (sic) the popular vote. Meh. Like she won Miss Photogenic. Wait . . . Miss Congeniality . . . no . . . that doesn’t work, either.

    She won nothing.

    Trump won the EC vote. He gets to act like president; she doesn’t, no matter what she “won.”

  32. GWB, in 2004, handily won the popular vote, but only just won the EC. Do you think that the Dem’s would have acknowledged that if the EC went the other way ?

    Hell no, sneer in the fuckers faces.

  33. Some idiot on Salon (but I repeat myself) tried to claim that that was tainted because the writer did not disclose that he argued cases before the SC. He would benefit from supporting a justice he would argue in front of and thus this was not sufficient disclosure.

  34. Basically, the Democrats try this stuff on all the time, and surprisingly th Republicans often fall for it, so the Dems keep trying it on whenever they can. Trump isn’t going to take any notice, though.

  35. TIS

    Don’t you mean the ECHR? They are the scumbags who keep investing new rights. The ECJ are not as activist.

  36. Helpful tips on modern American Democrat vocabulary:

    Modern Democrats believe they are “mainstream” and everyone else is “extremist”.

    Modern Democrats say they value “diversity”. Just remember, to a Democrat, “diversity” means another Democrat with the same opinions.

    Modern Democrats claim to be “tolerant”. Because Democrats believe it’s OK not to be a Democrat – as long as your political, religious, and personal beliefs align with the Democrats.

    That’s the sort of Supreme Court nominee the NYT has in mind.

    Other modern Democrat beliefs that came into prominence in the past 10 years:

    War is peace
    Freedom is slavery
    Ignorance is strength

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.