You may have heard the news that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been hospitalized since last Friday. Keep that thought in mind as we reflect on Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Some pissed-off place south of North Carolina) and his questioning of SCOTUS nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Graham was particularly interested in how other people, or outside groups lobbied hard to have Jackson be Biden's pick; or, maybe, they lobbied hard to have Judge J. Michelle Childs, from South Carolina, not be Biden's pick. Either way, Jackson herself had nothing to do with that, Graham knows that, and he doesn't give a dried-out palmetto leaf if we all know he knows.
I think it does matter that the groups that came to your aid at the expense of Judge Childs - how did that happen and why were they doing what they were doing? What is it about your nomination that the most liberal people... threw in their money, their time, their support, and threatened Joe Biden if he picked Judge Childs?
So, here's what I'm wondering: if Justice Thomas is unable to return to the bench, for whatever reason, how hard would Senator Graham lobby to have Judge Childs replace him?
And, sticking with the Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Jackson's nomination, I wonder why so many Republicans want to spend so much time talking about child pornography?
And I wonder why these Republicans are expending so much effort on how Judge Jackson sentenced offenders in these cases, when what she did was exactly what other judges were doing?
Were those judges questioned on this issue? Not just soft-on-crime-liberal-Democrat appointees, but Republicans, too, the ones recommended by the Heritage Foundation (they're the folks who fan themselves with their pocket copies of the US Constitution if it gets too hot in the freedom-loving trenches)? Judges nominated by Donald "Only the Best People" Trump, their appointments strongly supported by these same porn-focused senators?
And I wonder why these child-porn-focused Republican senators are now asking to receive additional information on these cases, including pre-sentencing reports? And why is Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin withholding information from the Republicans, if in fact that's happening here?
Truth be told, there's a simple way to resolve that conflict, and I wonder why no one has suggested it yet: have the FBI urgently investigate, like it did with the sexual harassment allegations against Brett 'I Really Like Beer' Kavanaugh, and then the senators can all go into a SCIF or something and have the report read to them. Oh wait - we all remember how that went.
There was much more from the hearings that inspired wonder, like the war criminals issue involving George W. Bush (but curiously not Barack Obama) question and the definition of 'woman' but I'll leave it here, and you can wonder out loud or to yourself, as you prefer.
I'll close out tonight's wondering where we started - with gas prices. It seems that, in addition to the blame game, some folks in DC want to try and help. And we know there's a whole lot of wondering going on when that happens, right?
We've got three federal proposals - and it's only March 23rd. Who knows how many more there'll be, since the House isn't occupied with Daylight Savings Time. One would provide a
monthly energy rebate of $100 per person. That refund would kick in for the rest of 2022 (if) the national average gas price topped $4 a gallon during any given month... both joint and single tax filers would receive $100 each, while each dependent would also receive $100 each. In other words, a family with two kids could receive up to $300 a month in rebate checks.
The second would offer less money, but would be paid for, I think. It'd offer
a quarterly rebate to consumers based on a tax levied on oil and gas companies. The Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax would charge a per barrel tax equal to 50% of the difference between the current price of a barrel of oil and its pre-pandemic average price between 2015 to 2019... if the per barrel price sits at $120, the tax would raise about $45 billion a year — providing single filers with $240 annually and joint filers with $360 each year.
The last proposal would also be paid for, but differently, and we have no idea how much money's involved. It would
create a rebate based on oil company profits. It's unclear how much Americans would receive because the plan is based on taxing this year's profits from oil and gas companies.
So, what's the wondering on this one? Well, for starters, how much more appetite is there for sending checks to Americans who may or may not need them? Didn't we learn anything from the previous stimuli? And, what are the chances that any of these will make it through the legislative process before the midterms? I'm guessing slim to none, but maybe that's just me.
What are you wondering about tonight?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!