Senators Collins and Murkowski oppose holding a vote until after the new presidential term begins in January 2021. Senator Romney is lockstepping in place. 2 more Republican senators will have to agree to not voting for any nomination to be blocked at this time.
Vote Blue of course, but also send some money to a Democrat or Democrats that appeal to you in close Senate races. We don’t have any senatorial race here in Oregon, so I sent my money to South Carolina and Montana.
The NY Times shows an op-ed with the words of various GOP senators stating in 2016 that they would never act to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year. This list includes McConnell, Grassley, Cruz, Cornyn and Ernst.
NPR just reported a hundred or more of RBG’s clerks were attending her at the SCOTUS today. I’d prefer to see a hundred RBG’s, present & future. Fair, bold, upstanding, and outstanding. Unlike the vast majority of politicians, obviously far more vile and vitriolic in the conservative end of things but on both sides of the aisle. Rise up, stand up, don’t put up (with anymore of their schiznit).
Also, McConnell & Trump are a lethal threat to me & my family. My wife & I are asthmatic. My wife has COPD. My grandson is mixed race. Can you see why I consider them – & the whole GOP – a lethal threat?
Conservative pundit George Will: Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina contortionist, illustrates the perils of attempted cleverness by people with negligible aptitude for it. He says that the principle he enunciated in 2016 and reaffirmed in 2018 — that he would not support confirming a Supreme Court nominee in the last year of President Trump’s term — has expired. One reason he gives is — really — that Democrats in 2013 ended filibusters for circuit-court nominees.The pandemic of national cynicism that the likes of Graham exacerbate is engulfing the Supreme Court, an institution whose functioning will be especially damaged by it. Immediately after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February 2016, Senate Republicans concocted a principle in order to give a patina of high-mindedness to something they were determined to do anyway. Now, for the same purpose, they have concocted a codicil that essentially nullifies the principle. In 2016, slathering on populist rhetoric (about “the American people” having a “voice”), they proclaimed that no Supreme Court nominee should be confirmed in a presidential election year. Now they assert, without pretending to have an argument: Oh, never mind, because unlike in 2016, the Senate majority and the president are of the same party. […] Sixteen Republicans who were in the Senate in 2016 and who are seeking reelection this year said (Susan Collins did not say this) that refusing to confirm a new justice during a presidential election year was high statesmanship. How many will have the effrontery to vote for someone nominated while presidential voting is underway, or after the election even if the nominator loses?
And he continues: Republican senators correctly say that Senate Democrats, given a comparable opportunity, would behave with identical loutishness. Most Republicans argue, like kindergartners, that this justifies their behavior. But if just four non-plastic Republican senators do not ignore their caucus’s pretended 2016 principle, the coming nominee cannot be confirmed before the election. And if Trump loses, perhaps even this amazingly malleable Republican caucus might not confirm his nominee before Joe Biden’s inauguration. So, whomever Trump nominates might be about to have a tortuous Merrick Garland experience of disappointment.Suppose, however — not altogether implausibly — that the Republican Senate caucus is incapable of embarrassment. Suppose Biden wins and Democrats have a net gain of at least three Senate seats. And suppose that either before the election, or before the new Senate is sworn in on Jan. 3, Republicans confirm a new justice. And suppose Senate Democrats, spurred by their party’s enraged base and enabled by their quick abolition of the filibuster, enlarge the Supreme Court by at least four members (two fewer than Franklin Roosevelt envisioned).This would erase the principal achievement — three Trump nominees — for which Senate Republicans, during four years of canine obedience to the nominator, have rationalized shedding their dignity and shredding their reputations.
Mr. Jones, I love your editorial cartoons! Do you worry and the other cartoonists ever worry that you’ll have to share any cartooning awards you win with the GOP since they write all their own punch lines? ;-)
Say What Now‽ Premium Member over 3 years ago
“Now let’s go spit on RGB’s grave.”
sipsienwa Premium Member over 3 years ago
That ship sailed years ago, mitch.
Concretionist over 3 years ago
I liked the one where he’s explaining that it’s the same as before: They moved the goalposts then, and they’re doing it again now.
Well, not exactly liked… but I got a wry sense of satisfaction from it.
RAGs over 3 years ago
The first part is OBVIOUSLY false, McConnell and other republicans LOVE being hypnotical.
The Love of Money is . . . over 3 years ago
Mitch had better not quit his day job in standup comedy on Fox Entertainment.
Cpeckbourlioux over 3 years ago
That would be funny if it wasn’t so real.
eclairewl Premium Member over 3 years ago
Support their Democratic opponents!
mourdac Premium Member over 3 years ago
Senators Collins and Murkowski oppose holding a vote until after the new presidential term begins in January 2021. Senator Romney is lockstepping in place. 2 more Republican senators will have to agree to not voting for any nomination to be blocked at this time.
brwydave Premium Member over 3 years ago
Vote Blue of course, but also send some money to a Democrat or Democrats that appeal to you in close Senate races. We don’t have any senatorial race here in Oregon, so I sent my money to South Carolina and Montana.
Michael G. over 3 years ago
They are retaining their traditional values. Cannot fault them for that.
Alberta Oil Premium Member over 3 years ago
Republicans thrive on hypocrisy. It.. is the secret sauce of their success.
thelordthygod666 over 3 years ago
The NY Times shows an op-ed with the words of various GOP senators stating in 2016 that they would never act to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year. This list includes McConnell, Grassley, Cruz, Cornyn and Ernst.
Radish the wordsmith over 3 years ago
The only thing the brutal republicans want is the power to tell you what to do.
Take it away from them.
ferddo over 3 years ago
Moscow Mitch attempting to get a bigger laugh than Trump did at the UN…
Packratjohn Premium Member over 3 years ago
This stuff writes itself…
Display over 3 years ago
NPR just reported a hundred or more of RBG’s clerks were attending her at the SCOTUS today. I’d prefer to see a hundred RBG’s, present & future. Fair, bold, upstanding, and outstanding. Unlike the vast majority of politicians, obviously far more vile and vitriolic in the conservative end of things but on both sides of the aisle. Rise up, stand up, don’t put up (with anymore of their schiznit).
wsedrel Premium Member over 3 years ago
Also, McConnell & Trump are a lethal threat to me & my family. My wife & I are asthmatic. My wife has COPD. My grandson is mixed race. Can you see why I consider them – & the whole GOP – a lethal threat?
Godfreydaniel over 3 years ago
Conservative pundit George Will: Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina contortionist, illustrates the perils of attempted cleverness by people with negligible aptitude for it. He says that the principle he enunciated in 2016 and reaffirmed in 2018 — that he would not support confirming a Supreme Court nominee in the last year of President Trump’s term — has expired. One reason he gives is — really — that Democrats in 2013 ended filibusters for circuit-court nominees.The pandemic of national cynicism that the likes of Graham exacerbate is engulfing the Supreme Court, an institution whose functioning will be especially damaged by it. Immediately after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February 2016, Senate Republicans concocted a principle in order to give a patina of high-mindedness to something they were determined to do anyway. Now, for the same purpose, they have concocted a codicil that essentially nullifies the principle. In 2016, slathering on populist rhetoric (about “the American people” having a “voice”), they proclaimed that no Supreme Court nominee should be confirmed in a presidential election year. Now they assert, without pretending to have an argument: Oh, never mind, because unlike in 2016, the Senate majority and the president are of the same party. […] Sixteen Republicans who were in the Senate in 2016 and who are seeking reelection this year said (Susan Collins did not say this) that refusing to confirm a new justice during a presidential election year was high statesmanship. How many will have the effrontery to vote for someone nominated while presidential voting is underway, or after the election even if the nominator loses?
Godfreydaniel over 3 years ago
And he continues: Republican senators correctly say that Senate Democrats, given a comparable opportunity, would behave with identical loutishness. Most Republicans argue, like kindergartners, that this justifies their behavior. But if just four non-plastic Republican senators do not ignore their caucus’s pretended 2016 principle, the coming nominee cannot be confirmed before the election. And if Trump loses, perhaps even this amazingly malleable Republican caucus might not confirm his nominee before Joe Biden’s inauguration. So, whomever Trump nominates might be about to have a tortuous Merrick Garland experience of disappointment.Suppose, however — not altogether implausibly — that the Republican Senate caucus is incapable of embarrassment. Suppose Biden wins and Democrats have a net gain of at least three Senate seats. And suppose that either before the election, or before the new Senate is sworn in on Jan. 3, Republicans confirm a new justice. And suppose Senate Democrats, spurred by their party’s enraged base and enabled by their quick abolition of the filibuster, enlarge the Supreme Court by at least four members (two fewer than Franklin Roosevelt envisioned).This would erase the principal achievement — three Trump nominees — for which Senate Republicans, during four years of canine obedience to the nominator, have rationalized shedding their dignity and shredding their reputations.
Jody H. Premium Member over 3 years ago
Mr. Jones, I love your editorial cartoons! Do you worry and the other cartoonists ever worry that you’ll have to share any cartooning awards you win with the GOP since they write all their own punch lines? ;-)
clarrywat Premium Member over 3 years ago
Moscow Mitch refinances his soul with the devil yet again.