Wondering on Wednesday 9/30/20

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Random wondering, in no particular order, from the so-called presidential debate.

• What the hell was that? I turned off the #CaterwaulinginCleveland before the end of the first segment last night - I didn't even make it ten minutes - but I did watch the entire thing this morning. I found myself alternately wanting to scratch my own eyes out, and wanting to stick lit firecrackers in my ears to make the noise stop. I just wanted it to stop.

• Chris Wallace is taking a lot of crap for not doing a better job moderating the debate. Anyone who's giving him crap should be forced to sit in the moderator's chair for two minutes and prove they can do better. Off the top of my head, I can only think of people who would have done worse, other than maybe Jim Lehrer and maybe Gwen Ifill, or maybe Peter Jennings... 

• In that same vein, can you imagine if it had been the team from NBC/MSNBC trying to wrangle that #CockfightinCleveland last night? Chuck Todd, Hallie Berry, Andrea Mitchell, Savannah Guthrie - who knows how many moderators the peacock network would have thrown at it?

• Joe Biden wasn't wearing a wire, Trump was wired, and never have I wanted a mic kill switch like I wanted one watching the video today. Or a Dick Brick. Probably 20 years ago, maybe more, a handful of  us  fun people, all now former smokers, came up with the idea of having a foam 'brick' we could throw at the television whenever Dick Vitale was broadcasting SU basketball games. We hated him, we did, and furiously threw ideas around, how we'd market it and all that... Alas, our dreams were big, but our smoke breaks were short; by the time we really gave it some thought, someone had beaten us to it, absent the Vitale reference. 

• Is it too late to create a #MAGAMA brick, I wonder? I mean, it's not too late to cram through a SCOTUS nomination, right? 

• Speaking of sports references, there was a long-time sportscaster here, local guy named Joel Mareiniss, who had a kind of funny way with words. I thought of him, and of my dad, while watching the #ChaosinCleveland, when it occurred to me that if my dad were alive today, he'd be spinning in his grave. That's how confused I was...

• My confusion pales in comparison to that of Portland-area sheriff Mike Reese, who learned watching the #CatfightinCleveland that he was a Trump supporter. Except, of course, he's not one. Fun times for him, right? 

• How on earth, "for the love of all the corn," as a friend of mine says, does the president of the United States of American not immediately seize on the opportunity to condemn white supremacy? Seriously - for all the kernels on all the ears of corn on all the corn plants in all the cornfields on all the farms in all the states in all of the entire country, why didn't he just say "yes" to that question? Instead, he gives marching orders to the Proud Boys? #whattheactualhell

• Again, but we can use all the peas in all the pods on all the plants on all the farms and in all the gardens in all the backyards in all the states in the entire country, isn't the very first thing a Republican does, when hearing that their Fearless Leader didn't say "yes" to that question, is IMMEDIATELY go out on social media, call their local radio station, show up at their local TV station in their Donald John Trump footed pajamas  with the presidential seal on the fanny and declare their wholehearted and unequivocal condemnation of white supremacy? And why is it that so few of them did that, and why are so many of them simply saying "what he said" in reference to your comments, Sen. Tim Scott? Any ideas? 

• I saw a tweet last night suggesting that Latinos watching the debate on Telemundo thought that Trump won the debate. And that got me wondering what it must have been like being the translators and closed-captioners for the #CacophonyinCleveland - I picture it looking something like this: fkjg;h$(*Y lkjaoia4[ #$(*&#P$( )$5385-#$$^%(^(@*#pao48yp983y4t  -- and I hope I've not offended anyone with that effort. For all I know, I've typed a top secret Qanon password or something, and my fervent hope is that's not the case.

• Should there be another debate, you may be wondering? Yeah, you and everyone else in the world, after the #CarriedawayinCleveland debacle last night. At least so far, the next one, a Town Hall catering to undecided voters in Florida (don't even get me started on that), is still on the schedule. The Commission on Presidential Debates has said they're looking for ways to add more structure to the process, because "more orderly discussion is needed." That's gonna be fun for them, don't you think?  

• And I wonder, what you would do to help drive "more orderly discussion" the next time out? Muzzle the candidates?  Take away time for interruptions and talking out of turn? Trump's mic would have been turned off with about ten minutes left, and Biden's not all that much later, if that had been in place last night. Although, to his um, 'credit,' Biden made more quick hits (telling Trump to shut up, calling him a clown, saying he was the worst president ever, and so on) compared to Trump's more rambling, long-winded  interruptions. Either way, I'm not looking forward much to the next round. 

• Overall, I had very low expectations for what became the #ClamorinCleveland - Trump's a bully, for sure - everyone knows that - but he exceeded my expectations by behaving even way more worser than usual. I was not sure how Biden would handle it, whether he'd "stand back and stand by." as it were, or if he'd go to the center of the ring to engage. There was more of the latter than I thought, but I don't know that it helped all that much. 

I  came away from the #CagefightinCleveland with full comfort knowing that my opinion of Trump was, and is, the correct one. As Biden said to Trump about the pandemic, "it is what it is, because you are who you are." 

And who is he? A man completely undeserving of the honor of being called the president of the United States.  About that, I have no doubts.

What are you wondering about?

Thoughts on Tonight's Debate

 Poor Chris Wallace.

A week or so ago, he set out the topics for tonight's debate, calling for 15-minute segments to address 

• The Trump and Biden records
• The Supreme Court
• COVID-19
• The Economy
• Race and Violence in our Cities
• The Integrity of the Election

Since then? Well, among other things, 

• Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away; 
• Trump is rushing to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed; 
• the NY Times released some of Trump's tax records; 
• Joe Biden and Kamala Harris released their tax records; 
• a judge ordered the census count to continue, and the government is saying they pretty much don't care; 
• there were no police officers charged in the murder of Breonna Taylor; 
• a grand juror has petitioned the court to have the full record released so the people know what really happened; 
• ICE is threatening mass arrests in 'sanctuary cities' starting in California; 
• the NFL has its first COVID outbreak; 
• Disney is said to be laying off 28,000 employees;
• there was a deadly rocket attack in Iraq;
• one million people are dead worldwide from COVID, with the US having over 200,000 of the victims;
• unemployment claims continue higher than expected, even though they're lower than at the peak of the pandemic;
• we don't yet have a new economic stimulus bill;
• Arkansas is threatening to fire teachers who refuse to teach in-person classes, and
• one million people have already voted in the presidential election.

Meanwhile, the drinking game boards are set, and everyone's on edge wondering whether they're going to last through the full hour and a half debate, given the chances they'll be a few sheets to the wind after the first topic.

The larger questions? 

• Is anyone watching to learn, or just to have fun? 
• Will either candidate even answer a question, much less answer it fully and factually? 
• Will anyone actually talk about policy, or will it be just a bunch of malarkey? 
• Will any votes change as a result of the debate? 
• Will the debates encourage people to vote, or have them running screaming into the woods and far, far away from their polling places or mail-in ballots? 
• Does anyone think there's really any value in having these darn things, anyway?

Oh -- what's your beverage of choice? Wine? Beer? Or, maybe this is more your style?

I'll see you tomorrow for some post-debate rambling. 

Sunday School 9/27/20

There were lots of folks making the rounds today, including the House Speaker, a bunch of senators, a comedian, the Secretary of Labor who's also the son of a late SCOTUS justice, and more. 

I decided to check in with the folks at Fox News Sunday, who missed out on all the fun last week because of a very late transcript posting. 

Chris Wallace was off preparing for Tuesday's debate, so Brit Hume sat in to lead the conversations. Among his guests were former appellate judge and Clinton independent counsel Ken Starr and Harvard emeritus professor Laurence Tribe, both of whom are considered experts on constitutional law. Hume wanted to talk Roe v. Wade with the experts.

Tribe went first and said the nomination should have waited until we had the results of the election, and that "we've never, never jumped the gun this quickly" and that people are already voting. And he compared that to the 400 days with an open seat after the nomination of Merrick Garland. 

The idea that we need to rush ahead with a lifetime appointment, that as Judge Barrett herself would readily acknowledge will make a huge difference in the tilt of the court on health care, on women's reproductive rights, on voting rights, the idea that we can't wait a few days is ludicrous. There's no reason for it.

And, although he said he thinks quite well of Amy Coney Barrett, "the issue is not the nominee, it's the nomination." The Rs aren't willing to wait, Tribe said, because "they really are nervous about what the American people believe the Constitution means and what they believe should be represented on the Supreme Court." 

When Hume asked, Tribe admitted it wasn't unconstitutional to move forward, "but a lot of things that are constitutional are stupid. This is not a good idea."

What is it that they're afraid of? That the American people don't want to re-elect this president? If they think he'll be re-elected, and that they will have a Republican Senate, then they can confirm Amy Coney Barrett then. But the idea that it has to happen now, one of the reasons the president has given is, he wants to have a majority on the court to uphold his decision not to count all the ballots. He's said, if we don't count the ballots, if we toss some of them aside, we won't have to worry about a transition, it will just be a continuation of my presidency. That's not the way democracy works. That's the way dictatorship works.

Hume turned to Starr, who confessed his respect and affection for Tribe, but said he views the nomination as the president doing his duty. 

There is a vacancy and it's tragic that we lost Justice Ginsburg, but, exactly, you ask the right question, what does the Constitution say? I don't think that the president, whoever the president is, should dillydally. And, in fact, Justice Sotomayor said in 2016, we really don't do well -- I'm paraphrasing, with eight members of the court. And Justice Ruth Ginsburg herself said at that same time.

He said that "the president doesn't stop being the president during an election year." (unless his name is Barack Obama, it would seem), and

...now, of course, it is up to the Senate to determine, are these considerations that Professor Tribe is articulating, are those weighty enough to say we're not going to go forward or we're going to wait until after the election and so forth.

He also said that Coney Barrett was a "superb nominee" and that no one questions "her abilities, her integrity, her temperament and the like" so the issues Tribe and others are raising should be addressed in the confirmation hearing. And, in response to Hume's question about the issues Tribe raised - abortion among others - where he said it was clear how Coney Barrett would vote, Starr said that thinking was "absolutely premature and wrong," and to predict what a judge would do is "folly." About Coney Barrett, he said

Does she have a judicial philosophy? Absolutely. She has said she is of the school of Antonin Scalia. And so that's a great insight. And that is a -- what I would call a traditionalist who treats the Constitution not as simply an aspirational document, but as law. And so I would say, hold off, let's hear the confirmation hearings and see if she says, as I think she will, I solemnly promise that I will go about my duties with an open mind, I will listen to all the arguments and I will assess them with great, great respect for both sides as well as the views of my colleagues.

Tribe responded that he's read her writings, many of her opinions, and "it's clear how she approaches the law." 

It's a perfectly respectable view. It was the view Justice Scalia held. And, of course, he said he thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. She's written that Roe v. Wade is not entitled to determinative weight as a precedent. She has also been explicit in saying she thought that Chief Justice Roberts was wrong in stretching what he understood the Affordable Care Act meant in order to uphold it. She's been admirably candid about her views --

And what did he think, from a constitutional lawyer's perspective, about how Chief Justice John Roberts ruled on the ACA? 

I made clear at the time that I thought that's what he would rule and that that's what he ought to rule in order to avoid a constitutional conflict. That is, interpret the law as a tax in order to use the broad taxing power in order to uphold it. And I think the lower court, which said that when the tax goes away, it's no longer possible to uphold the law and even the protection for people with pre-existing conditions goes away. I think, and most scholars think, that that went way too far.

Now, I'm not going to predict exactly what Judge Barrett will do on that, but what is clear is she is being rushed through in a confirmation process that will be faster than any in recent memory because they want to have six conservatives on the court - that will determine whether he is remaining president.

And, the last word is from Judge Starr.

Predictions are fallacious. Let's have a confirmation hearing. The history of confirmation shows that the Senate can move forward very, very quickly, especially when you have someone with a very good and solid record and a person of such great ability. So let's move the process forward and have a good, robust debate, which I think will be good for the country.

I'm sure the confirmation hearing will be robust, and there'll be a debate on any number of things, but good for the country? Not so sure about that, if recent history of hearings is any indication. I'm not sure how much we benefit from a bunch of partisans scowling and barking at each other, but we'll see. 

Wear your mask, please, and continue practicing good social distancing habits. It might not be mentioned in the Constitution, but it's the smart thing to do.

See you around the virtual campus.

In Case You Missed It (v55)

Time for your recap of last week's posts. Grab your cuppa and dive in!

We started the week in the Sunday School classrooms,  in which we heard Senators Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar speak about the importance of voting as the antidote to any Trump SCOTUS pick, recognizing as they did the (at that point) limited opportunity the Ds in the Senate had of stopping the nomination. That opportunity is now zero, as only Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins have said they believe going forward before the American people have their say is wrong.   

And we heard from Wyoming Senator John Barrasso, who doesn't know the difference between a Senate rule and a mouthful of hypothetical bluster. Barrasso in 2016 said "I want to give the American people a voice in this."  This time around, he doesn't want to do that because, he says without evidence,

If the shoe were on the other foot and the Democrats had the White House and the Senate, they would right now be trying to confirm another member of the Supreme Court. What we're proposing is completely consistent, completely consistent with the precedent. What happened in 2016, and let's go back, we were following the Joe Biden rule.

The "Biden Rule" is something the Democratic nominee said back in 1992, when addressing a hypothetical vacancy on the court. It is not a rule, and it did not have any practical application when he said it.  

It got worse, though, as we heard Texas Senator Ted Cruz explain that he doesn't know the difference between Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, which I think is downright scary. 

Back to the question at hand, he doesn't know if they have the votes, but it's important because Joe Biden "has been explicit. He has said, if he doesn't win, he's going to challenge this election." George pointed out it's actually "president Trump who has been the one talking about rigged elections" and that Biden "has not explicitly said" he'd challenge it, and of course the candidates have legal teams. Cruz said that Hillary Clinton said Biden shouldn't concede, and apparently we're supposed to believe that she and he are one and the same, or something. 

To earn your Sunday School Extra Credit last week, you needed to pay attention to the interview with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The part that got all of the attention was her refusal to say the House wouldn't consider impeaching the #IMPOTUS again - the whole thing about "arrows in her quiver"- but that was not her main point, even though it seemed like it was George Stephanopoulos' main point. 

George asked how Dems can slow or block the nomination. Pelosi focused on voting, noting that 10 states have already started early voting

We just want everyone across the country who cares about health care for all Americans, who cares about crushing the coronavirus, who cares about a woman's right to choose, who cares about LGBTQ rights -- the list goes on and on -- to vote. The election is very important.

Pelosi also pointed out that Congress does have the ability to make good law from bad SCOTUS decisions, and referenced RBG's dissent in the Lilly Ledbetter case which became the first law that Barack Obama signed as president, and that's another reason why people need to vote, "why we have to have a big turnout" in the election. 

She reiterated that point when he pushed her on whether anything was being ruled out. 

This president has threatened to not even accept the results of the election with statements that he and his henchmen have made. So right now, our main goal and I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg would want that to be, would be to protect the integrity of the election as we protect the American people from the coronavirus... 

So again, when people say, "what can I do?" You can vote. You can get out that vote, and you can do so as soon as possible... 

The soundbite about arrows made the news -- the comments about voting did not, of course.

Last week's Wondering on Wednesday included an update on the taxpayer-funded witch hunt into the well-publicized foibles of Hunter Biden, whose money-making efforts had nothing to do with any actions or policies of the United States. 

They did, of course, have to do with Trump trying to get the Ukrainians to investigate Joe Biden, and to the president getting impeached. And dammit, Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson didn't like that, or the audacity of Joe Biden running against the Dear Leader. 

And, since we were on the topic fitness for office, I outlined several examples of the president's many conflicts of interest and the ways he and his family have been profiting from him being in office. 

But the Biden report wasn't the only election interference issue discussed in the post. There were examples from both the elephants and the donkeys. 

What else is going on today?  Well, both the Republicans and the Democrats are actively engaged in sticking their noses in the election.  Let's take the Rs first: according to an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, 

The Republican National Committee is getting involved in an appeal over absentee ballot deadlines in Georgia, making it the 20th state where the Republican Party is fighting election lawsuits. 

And the Dems? I don't think we need to wonder why they're fighting to keep Syracuse's own Howie Hawkins, the Green Party's presidential candidate, off the ballot in swing states, including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin... After all, we know that any vote for a candidate other than Joe Biden is a vote for Trump, right? Particularly a vote for a more progressive candidate than Biden.  

I can't wait for this election to be over, in SO many ways. Pretty sure I'm not alone in that.  

In a #tbt post from three years ago, I was looking at what to do with the Trump in Transition theme I started before the president was inaugurated. Seems back then I thought I might be able to retire the theme, now that Trump had been president for several months and should have started to grow into the role. 

Instead, he was going off on the NFL owners for allowing displays of patriotism during the national anthem. And me? 

Do I feel threatened, as our still-transitioning president appears to, by people who are willing to take a stand on a very public stage? 

Hardly. Truth be told, I'm encouraged by their actions, and by their patriotism...

It's significantly more patriotic to do that, than to have an American flag waving between your cab and the trailer you're hauling, like the guy I saw on the NYS Thruway last week. The flag was in despicable condition - filthy dirty, gray with soot and road dirt, stained, the colors barely discernible. The ends were shredded; perhaps as much as a third of it had gone into the wind, and it was torn in several spots where the stripes were sewn together. It looked like something you'd find in a dumpster, to be honest. But the truck driver sure is patriotic - he's displaying the FLAG!

I've not yet retired the theme... 

Ending the week, the TGIF entry meandered along a theme of vote-buying, and I'm sure you are shocked - SHOCKED! - at the prospects that anyone would even consider doing anything like that in this day and age, right?  

The post  had a few examples for you to consider: the potential nomination of Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Cuban-American Floridian, which followed the $13B bribe to Puerto Rican voters, many of whom fled to Florida after Hurricane Maria, to Michael Bloomberg's fundraising to help pay off the fines and fees for former Sunshine State felons, to the tweet from the press secretary, announcing a $200 bribe being sent to senior citizens across the land. 

Now, I don't want you to think that I'm just attacking the president for this type of behavior - I've long not been a fan of political handouts during the weeks before an election,  as I noted in this post from 2014 referencing similar behavior by Albany pols.

That these payments are being made to encourage voters to re-elect those in office is virtually irrefutable. One, the checks just happen to be sent out right before the Nov. 4 elections, when they could have been sent most anytime during the year, and two, delivering checks through the Post Office and not by direct deposit is costing taxpayers over $1.6 million in postage just so the legislators can have you manually open an envelope and remove a check hoping you imagine their photo on the face -- much more effective than campaign literature.

And, yes, if you're wondering, I'll say the exactly the same thing if another stimulus payment gets deposited in our account before November 3rd.  And I hope you'll say the same thing, too. 

So, there you have it - the full and veritable pastiche from last week. I'll be back later with Sunday School, if I can stand what will be a contentious bunch of classroom visits. 

TGIF 9/25/20

Yippee -- it's Friday! Let's make our lists, OK? Good week folks over here, bad week folks over there. 

Starting with the president and his decision that will come tomorrow, unless it's today, but more likely tomorrow, but sometime before the day after tomorrow, we'll hear who will be the person on whom the onus of ensuring a Trump victory in a contested election will fall.  

Will it be Catholic mid-westerner Judge Amy Coney Barrett? She's said to be the front-runner, but it might be Cuban-American Floridian Judge Barbara Lagoa, about whom Trump has said,

"Well, she's excellent. She's Hispanic. She's a terrific woman, from everything I know. I don't know her. Florida; we love Florida. So, she's got a lot of things. Very smart. 

She's got a lot of things, including a Florida address, and we know how important that is to Trump. Heck, he'd nominate a ham sandwich if he thought that would get him votes...

Sticking with the election, and Florida, where we know the president has already promised to invest $13 billion of taxpayer money in Puerto Rico in order to encourage Puerto Rican transplants to vote for him help rebuild the island nation from the devastation he previously helped with paper towels, we learn that there are two kinds of vote-buying: the kind that don't get investigated, including blatant presidential actions, and the kind that do, including Michael Bloomberg's raising of $20 million or so in funds to pay the fines of released felons who would otherwise not be able to vote. Now, there are a few things that we should pay attention to here:

• An estimated 80 percent of felons in Florida are too poor to pay off their fees and fines, meaning they would be unable to vote. Most owe between $500 and $5,000.
• The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, a non-partisan group, collects money to help felons pay off their court costs, fees, and fines - and it's legal to do that in Florida. court fees, fines or restitution.
• Florida has a law that says, "No person shall directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.”

Now, is there any guarantee that any of these former felons are even going to register to vote, much less consider the payment of their fines as a bribe in order to coerce them into voting for Joe Biden and not Donald Trump? Nope.  That said, Bloomberg's focus on this particular voting bloc, along with his promise to invest $100 million to help Biden win Florida, are complicating the situation. 

And, it's also interesting to note that the aforementioned Judge Barbara Lagoa agreed with the decision that the repayment of fees and fines, added by the Republican legislature after the state overwhelmingly voted to allow former felons to vote, was legal.  I guess she does have a lot of things, as Trump said. 

Sticking with legal stuff, a federal judge has barred the administration from ending the 2020 Census next week, and has instead said they must continue counting through October 31st. The decision, which comes after the Administration has been all over the map in terms of extending or ending the count, who gets counted, and so on, was cheered by both local governments, who rely on a full and accurate count to get their fair share of federal funding, and by civil rights groups fearful that their constituents would be undercounted.  Here's Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, on the decision:

The court’s decision affirms our contention that changes to the census schedule will irreparably harm the integrity of the 2020 Census and result in a devastating undercount of vulnerable communities. Career officials at the Census Bureau opposed the shortened schedule precisely for these reasons, and to avoid the perception of political manipulation, and we are confident that integrity and equity will win out over the partisan vandalism that threatens our democracy.”

"Partisan vandalism" is a great term for what's going on, isn't it? 

There was some good news out of Washington, though. The president, in one of his customary blowhard moments, refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power, saying we'd have to see what happens or some such nonsense. At the same time, he said

Get rid of the ballots and you'll have a very peaceful - there won't be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You know it, and you know who else knows it better than anyone else? The Democrats know it better than anyone else. 

In response, the Senate passed a non-binding resolution - by unanimous consent - in which the Senate affirms "its commitment to the orderly and peaceful transfer of power called for in the Constitution of the United States" and supports the concept that "there should be no disruptions by the president or any person in power to overturn the will of the people of the United States. 

 Yay, them - but how sad that it's even necessary to consider the need for something like this...

And finally - back to partisan vandalism and vote buying -  I'll close with this tweet from Kayleigh McEnany, the president's press secretary.

I can only surmise that the millions of Medicare beneficiaries in Florida will not be receiving these payments, because it's illegal to buy votes there...

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday 9/23/20

Ready... Set... Wonder!

OH EM GEE -- Didja know that Hunter Biden worked for Ukrainian energy company Burisma, and didja know that it was stupid that he worked for Burisma when his father was the vice president?  If you didn't know those two things, I've no choice but to wonder where you were during the impeachment.  And, today, I have to wonder what the heck Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson thought he was going to accomplish by having a lengthy investigation to determine those two facts?  Well, let him tell you himself.

People need to take a look at this report very carefully and understand what the ramifications are for electing Joe Biden as president.

Well, no -- I mean, we knew all of that before, even if Johnson didn't. Heck, even Republicans have called his investigation nonsense, with Utah's Mitt Romney saying

It is not the legitimate role of government, for Congress or for taxpayer expense, to be used in an effort to damage political opponents. 

And from this article in the NY Times, we learn that Johnson

said he was simply conducting the type of oversight with which his committee was tasked, and suggested that the investigation had been thrust upon him because Mr. Biden had opted to challenge Mr. Trump. The senator said that he “never thought Joe Biden should run for president,” and hinted that the former vice president had cognitive problems, a baseless attack frequently hurled by Mr. Trump.

I don't know about you, but I wonder if the most important thing we'll learn from the report is that Ron Johnson is completely unfit for office - something he was hell-bent on proving about Biden.  

And speaking of people profiting from and benefiting from relationships with politicians, let's wonder about these items:

• The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) gave more than $6 million in contracts since September 2018 to the firm where acting Secretary Chad Wolf’s wife serves as an executive.
• Since assuming the presidency, Donald Trump has racked up more than 3,000 conflicts of interest from his refusal to divest from his businesses, according to a report released today by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Trump averages more than two conflicts of interest per day, an astonishing rate of corruption... Highlights from CREW’s tracking include:  78 visits by members of Congress to Trump properties; 267 visits by the president to his own properties, each of which costs taxpayers money and makes Trump money; at least 30 visits by Cabinet members to events at Trump properties; 117 events hosted or sponsored by special interest groups at Trump properties, and nearly 80 more by political groups; 13 events held by entities with ties to foreign governments, and visits by at least 134 foreign officials, and of course, the 65 trademarks granted to Trump by foreign governments while he's been in office...
• Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross - "The Trump Official Who Keeps Watchdogs Up At Night" - has lied about divesting his vast financial holdings, and his "inaccuracies and omissions have also prompted serious questions about whether he took official actions that could affect his personal financial interests..."

There are so many more of this kind of thing in the Trump administration, either folks who are still there, or the many others who took their ethical challenges and went home. Are any of them fit for a government job, or fit for office, I wonder? Including Trump? 

What else is going on today?  Well, both the Republicans and the Democrats are actively engaged in sticking their noses in the election.  Let's take the Rs first: according to an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, 

The Republican National Committee is getting involved in an appeal over absentee ballot deadlines in Georgia, making it the 20th state where the Republican Party is fighting election lawsuits. 

From the Protect The Vote website, which is an arm of the Republican National Committee, 

Is it any wonder that the 20 states where the Rs are involved in lawsuits include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia - are all swing states?  

And the Dems? I don't think we need to wonder why they're fighting to keep Syracuse's own Howie Hawkins, the Green Party's presidential candidate, off the ballot in swing states, including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin... After all, we know that any vote for a candidate other than Joe Biden is a vote for Trump, right? Particularly a vote for a more progressive candidate than Biden. 

A reporter today asked the president what he thought about Harry and Meghan doing a PSA about voting. I was sure it was going to be the reporter from OANN, but it was actually the Daily Mail UK reporter. Trump's answer was typical - rude and denigrating - so no wondering there. Nope - the wondering is why anyone would ask that question in the first place. And then I saw that reporters also asked Buckingham Palace about the former royals, so I guess maybe that's just the way the UK reporters are. 

And we'll close tonight's wondering with this piece of news about the president's second son, Eric. He's been asked to appear for a deposition in a case brought by NY AG Tish James, but wanted to wait until after the election. After all, his lawyer said, Eric is a "vital and integral part" of his father's campaign, and he's traveling way too much to appear. Alas,

Judge Arthur Engoron has ordered President Donald Trump's son to appear for a deposition by Oct. 7, denying Eric Trump's request to wait until after the election.

Engoron said the argument to delay providing testimony was "unpersuasive" because "neither the petitioner nor this court is bound by timelines of the national election." 

So, what's the wondering on that part? 

• Will he really appear as ordered in two weeks? 
• Will the president's campaign legal team join the case? 
• Or, even better, will Snitty Snitty Bill Barr's Justice Department join the case on behalf of the president, because being deprived of having his number two son on the campaign trail makes this a case about the president?

There's more, as usual, but that's enough for one night.

Sunday School 9/20/20 Extra Credit

We'll wander around the halls for a couple more classroom visits for you Extra Credit this week, starting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who popped in the This Week classroom with George Stephanopoulos.

First, here's how the Speaker remembers Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "petite, tiny in size, huge in impact, and powerful, brilliant brain on the court." And, she moved quickly to what's at stake.

...she would want us to keep our eye on the ball of the 200,000 people who will be, probably this weekend, will reach -- sadly reach that number. This challenge that we have is directly -- if the president thinks this isn't about the coronavirus, it is. It's about health care. So the president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because he -- November 10th is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act. He doesn't want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.

She said that "any one of us who knew her, who loved her, who respected her" mourn her loss but understand the need to move forward to protect people who are sick, and who have pre-existing conditions.

George asked how Dems can slow or block the nomination. Pelosi focused on voting, noting that 10 states have already started early voting

We just want everyone across the country who cares about health care for all Americans, who cares about crushing the coronavirus, who cares about a woman's right to choose, who cares about LGBTQ rights -- the list goes on and on -- to vote. The election is very important.

Pelosi also pointed out that Congress does have the ability to make good law from bad SCOTUS decisions, and referenced RBG's dissent in the Lilly Ledbetter case which became the first law that Barack Obama signed as president, and that's another reason why people need to vote, "why we have to have a big turnout" in the election. 

She also said she was not interested in shutting down the government, which would have "such a harmful and painful impact on so many people in our country," even as she noted "some enthusiasm, some exuberance on the left" - but that's not going to happen.  

George asked if Trump and the GOP Senators try a lame-duck session nomination, even if Biden wins, should the Dems impeach Trump or Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, "as a way of stalling and preventing the Senate from acting' on Trump's pick?"

Well, we have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now, but the fact is we have a big challenge in our country. This president has threatened to not even accept the results of the election with statements that he and his henchmen have made. So right now, our main goal and I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg would want that to be, would be to protect the integrity of the election as we protect the American people from the coronavirus... 

So again, when people say, "what can I do?" You can vote. You can get out that vote, and you can do so as soon as possible. Ten states, as I said, on Friday, started their early voting, the day that we lost Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

George then said, "but to be clear, you're not taking any arrows out of your quiver, you're not ruling anything out?" 

Yeah. We have a responsibility. We've taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people. That is when we weigh the equities of protecting democracy requires us to use every arrow in our quiver. 

I don't know about you, but by this point in the interview, I was quivering myself at the thought of all those arrows flying around, I really was. Quivering, and quaking, and probably some other 'q' words... 

Not ready to quit trying to quapture stuff from the quiver, George asked about "expanding the court in retaliation," which has been mentioned as a possible reaction by other Dems. 

Well, let's just win the election. Let's hope that the president will see the light...So people have something at stake in this decision, and how quickly the president wants to go. I don't think they care about who said what, when, and all the rest of that, but they do care about their own health and well-being and the financial health and well-being of their families if they are subjected to unlimited costs because of preexisting conditions, as well as eliminating the caps that have been placed by the Affordable Care Act on what insurance companies can charge.

...We have a great deal at stake here. I think we should be very calm. We should be inspired by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was brilliant, and she was strategic, and she was successful. And she did more for equality for women in our country than anyone that you can name, and women appreciate that, and I think that you will see women weighing in on all of these decisions, be the elections, confirmations or the rest.

Sunday School 9/20/20

Where to hang out today for Sunday School... let's see... how about with a bunch of senators? 

Let's start with New Jersey's Cory Booker, who joined Margaret Brennan in the Face the Nation classroom on CBS. Here are some highlights.

He's not sure how things will play out, with Mitch McConnell controlling things, but that "we've seen moments like this before," where some of his colleagues listened to the American people and changed their vote and did the right thing.

As to what the Dems might do to stop things, what leverage they have, Brennan mentioned the upcoming spending bill, but Booker kept to the high road, saying one thing 

is to appeal - a moral appeal to people who clearly stated what they would do under these circumstances. For them to go against their word is pretty significant in the public space in terms of their own honor and legitimacy. 

And what's different, in his eyes, now vs. back in 2016?  Back then, we were 269 days from the election, not already in the process of the election, and for his Republican colleagues to violate their own words, "does a tremendous amount of damage to the institution of the Senate as well as to the legitimacy of the court."

This is one of those moments where I wish we would step back and take a beat and understand what we're doing and the consequences and how they could radiate throughout time.

On whether Biden should release a list of potential nominees, Booker noted that Trump did it as an appeal to the far-right base, and that it broke with tradition. Biden doesn't have to follow suit, first of all, and if he chooses to release a list, that's "secondary to the urgency of this election" and to those who understand the issues, from health care to climate change to voting rights - and "what's important right now is the urgency of this election to a lot of the fundamental issues that affect our daily lives."

And finally, on calls to expand the court, Booker was clear.

Unless we win the Senate back, unless we win the White House, all these questions are just hypothetical and moot. We need to focus on what is at hand. We have already begun voting in a number of United States. Early ballots are going out across this country. We need to win this election. Everything is on the line and that should be, in my opinion, the focus right now.

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar was also making the rounds, with a couple of appearances including one with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press.  Here are highlights of that conversation.

She's not interested in talking about the Senate rules and what the Dems might be able to do to stop a nomination from going forward, "for a very important reason."

I'm not going to concede that when you already have several of my colleagues saying that the way this happened, so close to the election, that the next president should be able to make the decision. The people pick the president, and the president picks the justice. That is how this works. Look at what Abraham Lincoln did the last time someone died this close to the election. He waited. He waited until after the election.

To me, the fact that you've got people voting right now, including in my state, everything is on the line here. Health care is on the line. There's literally going to be an argument on the Affordable Care Act, whether or not people will continue to have health care and not get kicked off for preexisting conditions, on November 10th. So I think my Republican colleagues are the ones. They have to decide, based on what they said before. They set this new precedent in the last -- in 2016, and they've got to follow their own words.

Chuck asked her about specifics, going further than Brennan did with Booker. He asked if 'nothing is off the table' meant packing the court, or getting rid of the filibuster, or granting statehood to DC and Puerto Rico. She again said she wasn't conceding this, referencing RBG, a woman who never gave up, and saying

Well, I'm not going to give up that some of my colleagues here, when we already have three of them, three of them, having said that they believe that the next president, whoever wins the election. They're not saying who that's going to be. Whoever wins the election should be able to pick the justice. Then we can talk about the reforms. Because what matters right now is what mattered three days ago before she died. And that is that people have to vote. And they vote. And they have to vote, as Michelle Obama said, like their life depends on it.

Also on MTP? Wyoming's John Barrasso, who four years ago said "I want to give the American people a voice in this."  This time around, he doesn't want to do that because, he says without evidence,

Well, first, let's be very clear. If the shoe were on the other foot and the Democrats had the White House and the Senate, they would right now be trying to confirm another member of the Supreme Court. What we're proposing is completely consistent, completely consistent with the precedent. What happened in 2016, and let's go back, we were following the Joe Biden rule.

The "Biden Rule" is something the Democratic nominee said back in 1992, when addressing a hypothetical vacancy on the court. It is not a rule, and it did not have any practical application when he said it.  

Todd says he had scoured all of the notes from 2016 looking for any reference to this new explanation they're using now, and he quoted Barrasso extensively.

When an election is just months away in 2016," you said that, "people should be allowed to consider possible Supreme Court nominees as one factor in deciding who they'll support for president. This shouldn't even really be controversial." Then you said, "This is not about the person. It's about the principle involved, and I want to give the American people a voice in this." Republicans have said there should not be a bitter political fight. "We have called on the president to spare the country this fight. The best way to avoid the fight is to agree to let the people decide." Senator, these are your words. Not once did you say, "Oh, it depends on what party the Senate holds versus the party of the president." This just sounds like a power grab, pure and simple.

Well, Barrasso said, "it is the Biden rule" and precedent and Schumer and Harry Reid and

I'll tell you what's going to happen here I'll tell you what's going to happen.  The Senate is going to be back in session and the president's going to make a nomination I believe this week.

And whether viewers should "Just not believe anything you're saying today because whatever you're saying today will change depending on the politics of the moment?"

Well, I can tell you what's going to happen, Chuck. For viewers who are watching, the president is going to make a nomination. I believe it's going to be this week. And Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we will hold hearings. And there will be a vote on the floor of the United States Senate this year. The president has a list of 20 potential nominees. He's mentioned several of them last night. And I think, I really do think that if the president really wanted to make a powerful positive statement by coming forth with a woman nominee, there are many qualified women on his list, somebody who could then be a role model for future attorneys, for young women and young men looking into the law --I think that would be the right move for this president, soon.

He did say that

Every Senate candidate and every senator speaks for himself or herself. As chairman of the conference, I have great respect for that. But each one is going to be called upon to make a decision in their role as advise and consent. The president is going to nominate, and we're going to vote this year, Chuck.

In Case You Missed It (v54)

Grab your cuppa - here's your recap of last week's posts, in case you missed anything. 

Sunday School had me listening in on the MTP classroom for the second week in a row, and during my time there I learned that Ronna McDaniel not only wears a mask (although I couldn't find any pictures of her doing so - and there's at least one of the president wearing one, so she's pretty good at hiding), but that she had some extra N-95s hanging around that she and her family donated. And, that she's apparently unaware of what stimulus bills have been passed, and blissfully unaware of the president's lack of deal-making finesse.

Let's show the best of America. The president's willing to work with everyone. Why aren't Democrats passing a fourth stimulus bill? Why aren't they helping small businesses? Why aren't they working with this president? 

And, I learned from Peter Strzok (the real reason I dropped in) that the gang working on the FBI's Russia investigations had multiple arguments about whether the investigations were the right thing to do, but "conclusively, the concerns we had about Russia were merited and it was the appropriate thing to do to look into them." Strzok also pointed out that, given the facts, Trump "is surrounded by people who have a pervasive pattern of conduct with the Russians." And, he said, 

It is not without exaggeration that there is no president in modern history who has the same broad and deep connections to any foreign intel service, let alone a hostile government like Russia.

For last week's Sunday School Extra Credit we learned that "the fog of war" is the new mantra the White House Spin Doctors have cooked up to explain the president's mishandling of the pandemic. Here's a summary of just a piece of the conversation between Chris Wallace and Trump senior campaign advisor Steve Cortes.

He said what he means is that "it's very clear that the president, early on during the fog of biological war" (and I can't stop seeing an image of a guy with orange hair fighting off a fog of Agent Orange, or worse, a fog of sexually transmitted diseases - his own personal Vietnam, you'll recall), Trump decided to "reassure the American people. That he was going to be the kind of leader who convinces people that we can persevere through this epidemiological Pearl Harbor" and that meant he had to lie to us. (Cortes didn't actually say that last part, I did.) All of that added up to what he called "a record of superb management actually of the virus."

I'm in a fog just recalling the interview...

The first of two Sidebars last week spun off the Extra Credit post. Jake Tapper, bless his heart, attempted to interview Peter Navarro on CNN's SOTU. I didn't cover that - I can't deal with Navarro - but I did feature Tapper's remarks about China and Disney and the NBA and America's right to make a profit even in the face of that country's human rights violations. American first, and all. 

This summer two Uighur organizations lodged a complaint against the government of China at the International Criminal Court accusing the Chinese government of genocide, torture and crimes against humanity.

This is the government to whom the NBA is bowing and president Trump is giving approval and Disney is openly thanking.

After a horrible genocide, the Holocaust, the world came together and pledged never again, never again. The NBA, President Trump and the Walt Disney Company, they're making those words meaningless.

For our Email of the Week  I highlighted some snail mail my brother-in-law shared with me.  He gets all kinds of mail from the Republicans, not sure why, and passes them on to me in case I need to get riled up. The latest was from Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the truth-telling former White House Press Secretary, right?  The email was all about getting word to the president about how important my BIL's voice was on a Stop Fake News petition, since he's, you know, a special patriot.

I for one, can't sit idly by any longer as the Democrats and their medial allies try to tear down our president, our Republican Party and our values with malicious smears and pervasive lies. Your name was forwarded to me as a strong pro-America patriot, so I am counting on you to join me. 

I was moved, I tell you. I was moved.  Moved enough to share, in the second Sidebar of the week, how much it appeared the Republicans were asking that the media no longer cover the president, after I removed a dozen or so words from her petition.

I'm not a Republican - heck, right now I'm not a registered anything, truth be told - but I've got to tell you, I'm practically giddy seeing Republicans all up in arms about the lies and the attacks (in which they've been complicit, as we all know - and they know, too).  

I mean, Trump has attacked them, and lied about them, and he's also attacked and lied about: 

And then I included over 50 bullets of the attacked and lied to and lied about. The Rs have a strong case here, they really do. 

For your TGIF, I was all over the map, starting with Trump buying votes in Florida by sending billions and billions of aid to Puerto Rico to help them recover from Hurricane Maria - you know, the one where he threw paper towels to suffering Americans?  And yes, this is vote-buying in Florida, because that's where so many Puerto Ricans went in 2017 when they ran out of paper towels. And of course, who could ignore this comment from the president?

I have to say, in a very nice way, a very respectful way - I'm the best thing that ever happened to Puerto Rico. Nobody even close.

There were also thoughts on the beleaguered folks at the CDC, and about the Big 10 deciding after all that, since they can rapid-test all of their players every day, they might as well rake in some money and play football after all, and  on the administration's fear of mask fraud.

As I was finishing Friday's post, news was breaking that Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - the #NotoriousRBG - had died. And that's what led to yesterday's post about consistency and hypocrisy. For your reading pleasure, I highlighted comments made by 15 current Republican senators about the importance of waiting to fill a vacant SCOTUS  seat during the last year of a president's term. We know where they stood when they were the ones who wanted the people to speak, and I'm pretty sure I know where they stand now that they are the ones who don't want to wait for the people to speak.  

For example, here's what Sen. Ted Cruz, himself apparently a potential justice candidate in Trump's eyes, had to say back in 2016 when Justice Scalia died. 

It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year... In an election year, we have a long tradition that a lame-duck president doesn't get to jam a Supreme Court nominee through on the very end. 

But long traditions, like long memories of someone calling your wife ugly and your father a presidential assassin, don't mean a thing when it comes to a SCOTUS swing, do they? 

I'll be back later with your Sunday School.

We Deserve Consistency; We'll Get Hypocrisy

There was an article in Mother Jones reminding us of the positions of a number of current Republican Senators regarding an opening on the Supreme Court occurring in the last year of a president's term - a situation we face now, because of the passing of the #NotoriousRBG, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

We know the position of Mitch McConnell - the American people deserve to have their voice heard, and so the incumbent president (if that person is a Democrat, anyway) does not get to nominate someone - the incoming president does. McConnell has told us that's out the window, and the president has asked for swift confirmation of his nominee. We may know as early as Monday, it's been reported, who the nominee will be.  

And, of course, we know because of the tomfoolery of Harry Reid and other childish senators back in the day, it only takes a simple majority to confirm a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS.  Three Republicans would need to refuse to vote at all, or to vote with the Democrats, in order to block Trump's pick. 

Right now, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski  seems to be a no, saying just yesterday before the announcement of Ginsburg's passing, that she would not vote to fill the seat before the election. And, as I write this, Maine's Susan Collins has tweeted, in part, 

Given the proximity of the presidential election, however, I do not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election. In fairness to the American people, who will either be re-electing the president or selecting a new one, the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the president who is elected on November 3rd. 

We'll see if Mitt Romney or anyone else steps up to put a stop to McConnell and Trump. In the meantime, let's wander down memory lane and read the wise words spoken by these fifteen senators, all of whom, I'm sure, will let us down when push comes to shove. 

• Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO): I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision...We are deep in the heart of a political campaign, a divisive election, a divisive president, who has done nothing but overreached Congress time and time again. 

• Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX):With (Scalia's ) passing, the Constitution is unambiguous about what happens next. President Barack Obama has exercised his authority to nominate someone to fill the vacancy, but the Senate has an equal authority to determine whether to proceed with that nomination. I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President...The direction of the court is now in question, and the Senate has an essential role to play. At this critical junction in our history, the American people should have the opportunity for their voice to be heard. Senate Republicans are committed to making sure that they do.

• Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year...In an election year, we have a long tradition that a lame-duck president doesn't get to jam a Supreme Court nominee through on the very end. 

• Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Trump): If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election. 

• Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): The precedent's been set. It's been over 80 years now since, in the last year of the last term of a sitting president, there isn't Supreme Court nominees, 80 years. And there's a reason for that. And the reason is that the next president should have a chance to fill that void, not someone who's never going to answer to the electorate again. We're going to have an election this year. And in the election, people are going to get to choose a candidate for president. And part of that vote will be, what kind of nominee do you want, because we're going to be asked now who -- what kind of person or what kind of justice would you put on the Supreme Court? So, let the voters weigh in, in November, and then we will have an appointment. The court can function with eight justices. It does it all the time.

• Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) It makes the current presidential election all that more important as not only are the next four years in play, but an entire generation of Americans will be impacted by the balance of the court and its rulings... I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future.

• Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.

• Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination. We understand that, in November if people are unhappy with the way that we have been governing in the United States Senate, they would speak out. But from what we have heard, people are excited about the opportunity to voice their opinion through the ballot box, whether they’re Democrats, whether they’re Republicans... Let’s all talk about it and then in November we’ll have that decision. And if the decision is made that we have another Democratic president, that’s a decision we will live with.

• Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president. Vice President Biden (referring to Biden's 1992 remarks on a hypothetical SCOTUS opening) – and this is not something I’ve said very often – was absolutely correct. There should be no hearings. There should be no confirmation. The most pragmatic conclusion to draw is to hold the Supreme Court vacancy until the American people’s voices have been heard.

•  Sen. David Perdue (R-GA): The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people. Given our global security crisis and debt crisis, the upcoming election will not only determine the direction of our country, but also serve as a referendum on the Presidency and Congress, and now the Supreme Court. President Obama's record of ruling through executive action and regulatory mandates has show he is willing to circumvent Congress and bypass the will of the people. (Note: for more information on president Trump and executive orders, check out my comments on Ivanka Trump's speech at the RNC here.)

• Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI)  I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.  America needs Supreme Court justices who share Justice Scalia's commitment to applying the Constitution as written and to the freedom it secures.

• Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) In the final year of a presidency, it is common for vacancies that arise on the Supreme Court to await the outcome of the next election. Given that we are already well into the presidential election process and that the Supreme Court appointment is for a lifetime, it makes sense to give the American people a more direct say in this critical decision. The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president. If that new president is not a member of my party, I will take the same objective non-partisan approach to that nominee as I have always done.

• Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.

• Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) There is 80 years of precedent for not nominating and confirming a new justice of the Supreme Court in the final year of a president’s term so that people can have a say in this very important decision.

• Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.

Note that, while the bulk of the information comes from the Mother Jones article, it generously included the source of the quotes they used, and I reviewed those for additional or alternate information.

What's your best bet?  Will there be a vote before the election? Will Trump threaten anyone who dares to even hint that they might not toe the line? Will someone stand up and say they don't give a crap whether Trump endorses them or not, and vote against him? 

I think you know my thoughts on those questions -- and I'm happy to hear yours.