Home | About | Donate

'Play to Win': With Trump Set to Announce Extremist Supreme Court Pick, Mounting Pressure on Schumer to Unite Democrats


#1

'Play to Win': With Trump Set to Announce Extremist Supreme Court Pick, Mounting Pressure on Schumer to Unite Democrats

Jake Johnson, staff writer

As President Donald Trump gears up to announce which of the pre-selected right-wing extremists he has chosen to become America's next Supreme Court justice, a coalition of advocacy groups is holding a rally outside of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) Manhattan office Monday night demanding that he do everything in his power to unite the Democratic caucus against Trump's nominee.


#2

“With Trump Set to Announce Extremist Supreme Court Pick, Mounting Pressure on Schumer to Unite Democrats.”

That will only happen if they get some cash out of it somehow.
Dem Damnocrats loves dem some monies, I tell ye!!! Fairness, goodness, and what is best for “We the people”…not so much.


#3

I think it is highly unlikely that all four of those Democratic senators from conservative states will vote against the nominee but Schumer should try to get every Democrat to vote no. It also unlikely that any Republican will vote to reject but if only one Republican vote is needed then that really makes it that much more possible to stop this. Elections have consequences. Yet another very conservative justice on the court could be more consequence of the last presidential election.


#4

This is a crucial moment in American history, not to be under-estimated. The Supreme Court and all connected judiciary of the US is about to be seized by fascists. Nationwide rallies and protests are under way. I just returned from one. Rise !


#5

“About to be seized” ?

SCOTUS is the tip of the iceberg. Trump appointed more judges to all levels of federal courts during his first year in office than any of his 44 predecessors and there is nothing stopping him from breaking the record during year #2.

With the GOP controlling the Senate and Pence standing by to break a tie, there is zero chance of stopping any nomination during 2018.


#6

Yep, everyone yelled this would happen if trump got in and the DNC went Hillary anyway. Here we are! Very few people would have lost to trump. And, oh yeah, Hillary’s campaign chose Trump to be her opponent. Remember that campaign email leak she never denied? The one telling the press to keep the attention on trump to get rid of the other GOP candidates? It had EVERYTHING to do with his hundreds of millions in free press during that campaign. Her campaign looked at the polls, saw Hillary was hated and tried to use fear of trump for that wall street Horse (I said horse) to get in.


#7

This problem has its roots prior to the 2016 Hillary Clinton nomination.

The roots lie in 2010 when constitutional law expert Obama and Congressional Democrats pushed through the Heritage Foundation’s corporate welfare plan disguised as health care reform and labeled the ACA, assuring that Democrats would subsequently lose control of Congress.


#8

Schumer will do nothing of consequence…he will not unite or fight…its not in his nature as a sellout shill and timid DINO neoliberal wimp!

As far as the scotus goes, whats with these political appointees 50’ish snot-nosed punks who are still wet behind the ears? the scotus was, to me at least, a reward for brilliant jurisprudence after a lifetime of service, not for those who have done little or nothing of great consequence nominated to become another branch of the executive! The reality of these people dominating American law for the next 40 years or so is total BS! The needs of a vibrant society should change and need different outlooks, not a dynasty of right-wing or “religious” extremist dogma, or corporate, capitalist, polluter, defenders!

Given a true political revolution, and the power,we should enlarge the court to 11 or more justices to counter the trump extremist atrocity!


#9

I clicked “like” after the first paragraph. (But the piling on was welcomed.)


#10

There will always be enough lesser evils defecting to assure that the radicals owned by the corporate masters control us. That is what they do, and they will keep right on doing it. We have a one party system.


#11

Free speech has been used by the Supreme Court to give immense power to the wealthiest members of our society.
Noam Chomsky


#12

Color me not optimistic.
Democrats can’t unite on anything really good for people because they can’t get their hands out of the corporate money jar as long as they are holding a fist full of green.


#13

Can they do an old fashioned filibuster? Is that still allowed by the rules?

I’m talking about a tag team that never stops debating and never yields so there’s no vote for closure and this goes on and one for weeks, shutting down the Senate, until Trump withdraws the nomination and nominates someone like Kennedy.


#14

Another ‘originalist’ who is a Conservative Catholic. This one is extremely partisan.


#15

Schumer can no longer “unite Democrats,” as he is the very symbol of what has come to divide people. He’s a Clinton wing corporatist who opposes single payer Medicare for All, and is bent on its destruction while similarly bent on stringing voters along, pretending he’s sympathetic, when he’s not. He’s paid by insurance and pharmaceuticals to lie to voters about supporting their health care, when he supports the CEOs profiteering off our deaths, instead.

He’s part of the whole DP aristocracy bullshat that cheated Bernie Sanders on the primary, propelled Trump into the GOP nomination, and was too stupidly enamored with their own entitlement issues, to see the trees from the forest - to even fight to win the general. Just like they’re too stupid to fight to win anything of material significance for Main St vs Wall St. Just like they’re bought and owned. Just like they can’t even vote to impeach Trump if they don’t have the approval of the GOP. Just like they’re a bunch of spineless wimps.

We don’t support Trump - but they do. We didn’t invent him - but they did.

No way will I stand with these corporate Democrats on really anything at this point. Who would Hillary Clinton appoint? Probably someone who could even more effectively than a GOP appointee - hammer nails into a coffin for single payer - like Nancy Pelosi and her miused “talents” in writing ACA legislative loopholes (for whom, that is).

Let them stand behind the American People on Single Payer and get the money from the insurance and pharmaceuticals out of the Party they have been so effectively destroying for a number of decades, already.

Yes, indeed. This is war, Chuckie.We can’t decide whether or not to vote for you - but we sure as hell can decide whether or not we stand with you - and you and Nancy Pelosi’s constituents of voting sheeple - can stick that in their pipes and toke it - the next time they go to the polls and are too paranoid to vote for better candidates than yourselves who represent real change and the values of real Americans, not corporations.


#16

I suggested on another story about the same subject, that the Dems could walk out and prevent a quorum. It was pointed out to me that Repugs would just change the number needed, and hold a vote anyway. The same would likely happen to you’re suggestion also. But we can dream.


#17

That’s not what the strategy memo said, just idiots pretending it said that. She didn’t “choose” Trump or order the media to cover him. Tales have been spun from a single memo.

What the campaign wanted to do was make things tough for Bush by tying him to Cruz, Carson, and Trump. At that time (2015), the campaign thought Bush was going to win the primary. The campaign wanted to “elevate” Cruz, Carson, and Trump by “tell[ing] the press to take them seriously.” It did not “choose” Trump (or Cruz or Carson). In fact, campaign strategists worried about how well Trump was doing with white males and had to reorient their entire strategy after he knocked out Cruz, who was the second pick they thought they’d face.


#18

Go back and read it. I read it at the time.


#19

I just did, yesterday, and called another commenter out for the same silliness (in that case, they claimed the Clinton campaign “ordered” the press). I quote directly in my comment to you what the memo said, the key phrase where the “choose” web is spun from. I find it ironic that nobody discusses the Clinton campaign “choosing” Cruz or Carson. It was Cruz who they thought would win if Bush didn’t, after all, and he is the first name in the memo. But I also don’t fault people: this myth was also spun from a poor headline in Politico, that actually is a much more nuanced and detailed story of the campaign than the headline indicates (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428).

Just as an aside, I think people need to start reading more campaign history. I find it mind-bogglingly sad that people take what’s typical—campaigns trying to make things tough for their likely opponents during primaries—and acting as if the Clinton campaign did anything new and novel.


#20

And yet to this day the same people who warned the DNC of this are being blamed as the ones being complicate in this, being called too “purist”.