Archive - Mar 29, 2017

Date

All The Reasons

« March 2017 »
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
18
19
21
24
25
26
28
30

Memo to Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, and the Undecideds: ALLOW ME TO EXPAIN THIS TO YOU.

There are a shit-ton of reasons for Democrats to support the filibuster of Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch. I shouldn't even have to explain all of them to the two "no" votes and the 15 undecided votes. Most of these reasons are fucking obvious, and any one of them would be reason enough.

HE'S A SHITTY JUDGE: Can we stop using the low bar of "qualified" as our metric? I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm sort of surprised Trump nominated someone who was an actual-for-real judge to do it, and didn't just decide to give his son-in-law another fucking job, but that just drives home the point that appointing a "qualified" judge is so easy even Trump pulled it off. Gorsuch decided that a truck driver who detached his broken trailer to avoid freezing to death could be fired for abandoning his cargo. That's not judgment, literalism at the expense of sanity.

STOP REWARDING NON-HEARING HEARINGS: That whole "I'm not going to tell you anything I think about anything ever because that would be wrong" bullshit? Let's put a fucking stop to that right now. It's not a principle, it's a tactic, and everyone knows it's a tactic, and American politics is already 99% tactics and 1% principle. Start moving the pendulum back.

>THE ASSHAT THAT NOMINATED HIM CANNOT BE TRUSTED: First, he's shown a near-constant willingness to violate the Constitution. Second, he's corrupt as fuuuuuuuuuuck and everyone knows it. Third, he loves the idea of war crimes. And fourth, something's going on with Russia. Nobody like that should be allowed to place anyone on the body that could ultimately rule one or more of these problems.

MERRICK GARLAND: There's revenge for Merrick Garland, first of all. Straight up political revenge. Reason enough right there. But more importantly, there's a phrase Republicans like to throw around at poor people. It's called "moral hazard". It means not rewarding poor choices. When Republicans use it, the poor choice is literally being poor, which they think is a choice, and the reward is eating. But if Gorsuch gets Garland's seat, it won't demonstrate that Democrats are fair and Republicans are mean, it'll demonstrate that mean kicks fair's ass.

DEALS DON'T WORK: How many fucking compromise deals have the Democrats fallen for over the past decade plus? What did they get out of those deals? John Roberts? Sam Alito? Future good behavior by Republicans? You know what you didn't hear during the Merrick Garland nomination? Calls from moderate Republicans to strike some kind of deal. Wonder why that is? Any deal now will just give Republicans something to wipe their ass with down the line.

MAKE THEM GO NUCLEAR: Yes, this might cause the Republicans to go nuclear and kill the filibuster. So? They've threatened that before. You've threatened it before. And if anyone had pulled the trigger, at least all this bullshit would be over with. Call their bluff, make them do it. Because either they'll realize this Trump debacle will leave them out of power a lot sooner than they hoped and decide not to go nuclear, or they'll go nuclear, they'll be out of power sooner than they hoped, and you can just keep nominating transgender Marxists to the court and make their heads explode. That's what we call a win-win.

Oh, and also? Your constituents are riled the fuck up. They desperately want to see you fight, even if you lose, rather than give up out of fear you'll lose. The optics on this couldn't be clearer, unless, of course, you're Joe Manchin.