Octopus Overlords

Not sarcasm -- soliciting donations in a federal building. I'm sure there will totally be consequences.

Senator Lindsey Graham has been accused of illegally soliciting donations to his campaign after a statement to the press following Tuesday's confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

The South Carolina senator, who is a Republican and staunch ally of President Donald Trump, made a fresh plea for donations at the Capitol as he fights a close race with Democrat Jaime Harrison.

His critics were quick to point out that soliciting campaign donations on federal property is illegal. Graham has called for supporters to give to his re-election effort during previous media appearances.

He is increasingly desperate. Multiple Congresspeople sent out Tweets last night saying that this was bare basic stuff in their ethics training for years. He knew what he was doing. FWIW the polls in South Carolina are *all over the place*. NY Times just dropped one with him up 6. Others have them dead even. There is some oddity there.

His colleagues:

The ads I see fall into three categories - one is Tim Scott saying that national defense is the biggest thing facing us and Graham is great there as a former officer and well respected throughout the world. The second is Lindsey saying Harrison is getting tons of outside money and he needs us to support him (sounds whiney, honestly). The final type is tying Harrison to Pelosi and Schumer saying he's way too liberal for SC and will choose social medicine and raise all our taxes. These are incessant.

It is mind-boggling. Soliciting donations for a political campaign during a break from confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court Justice. I guess when your world is burning down, you do you, Linds. I am convinced he'll be re-elected regardless. But part of me wants to see what he's on Fox News literally crying about. It's almost like he knows if he's not re-elected something is going to drop. Or maybe I'm just making up things.

You know, like how Barrett believes scientists are just making up stuff about global warming.

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 1:38 pm It's almost like he knows if he's not re-elected something is going to drop. Or maybe I'm just making up things.

I said something about this a little while back - I have the same impression. It is like his life is on the line. It's very odd behavior.

You know, like how Barrett believes scientists are just making up stuff about global warming.

Don't worry - she said her personal views don't matter on this.

stessier wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 1:37 pm The final type is tying Harrison to Pelosi and Schumer saying he's way too liberal for SC and will choose social medicine and raise all our taxes. These are incessant.

This is the one I see all the time. Makes me want to vote for Harrison even more!

In a side note - Diane Feinstein is being blasted from all directions based on this. Some will see some mild collegiate remarks. Which they honestly were but they are also amazingly out of step with the circumstances and some groups are organizing calls for her to not be the chair in a theoretical Senate Majority.

In fairness to Feinstein, I'm sure that after the fiasco that was the Kavanaugh hearings, this was downright pleasant by comparison.

Which doesn't mean she should stay in leadership. Feinstein is 87 years old. I get that she's really, REALLY good at raising money, but still.....

Was about to say the same thing about Feinstein wrt age. WTF, man. Of COURSE she shouldn’t be in a legislative leadership role when she’s 88.

Also, to make those comments she must have been napping when Graham opened the confirmation with basically a political ad for his re-election.

And as far as Graham’s desperateness, his unhinged begging is a prime example why we need term limits, predatory lobbyists be damned.

Anybody acting that way simply based on a medium to low chance that they won’t get re-elected, should be a warning sign.

He’s been there too long and the sense of power has corrupted him, to the point where he doesn’t give a crap about the rules, or what anybody but his specific base in SC thinks.

IDK, Feinstein seems to speak her mind sometimes without really giving two fucks. As I recall, she's also the one that told a bunch of middle schoolers to pound sand when they cornered her and were borderline rude in their demands that she support the Green New Deal. I kind of liked her for that.

None of that means I disagree with any of the above sentiments that she should step aside in favor of some new blood in leadership.

Kurth wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:03 am IDK, Feinstein seems to speak her mind sometimes without really giving two fucks. As I recall, she's also the one that told a bunch of middle schoolers to pound sand when they cornered her and were borderline rude in their demands that she support the Green New Deal. I kind of liked her for that.

None of that means I disagree with any of the above sentiments that she should step aside in favor of some new blood in leadership.

I mean, she's 88 and just got reelected. She'll say whatever the F she wants.

I respect her fine in general, but I do wish the primary against her had succeeded. She's just got an old school institutionalist mentality which doesn't fit the Trump era very well. But what can you do.

Well, Feinstein spoke closely to Graham and others during the hearing without wearing a mask. If she keeps that behavior up, she might not make it through her term...

It's almost like...maybe they shouldn't vote to confirm her:

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett served for nearly three years on the board of private Christian schools that effectively barred admission to children of same-sex parents and made it plain that openly gay and lesbian teachers weren’t welcome in the classroom.

The policies that discriminated against LGBTQ people and their children were in place for years at Trinity Schools Inc., both before Barrett joined the board in 2015 and during the time she served.

The three schools, in Indiana, Minnesota and Virginia, are affiliated with People of Praise, an insular community rooted in its own interpretation of the Bible, of which Barrett and her husband have been longtime members. At least three of the couple’s seven children have attended the Trinity School at Greenlawn, in South Bend, Indiana.

To be clear:

The actions are probably legal, experts said. Scholars said the school’s and organization’s teachings on homosexuality and treatment of LGBTQ people are harsher than those of the mainstream Catholic church. In a documentary released Wednesday, Pope Francis endorsed civil unions for the first time as pope, and said in an interview for the film that, “Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God.”

Barrett’s views on whether LGBTQ people should have the same constitutional rights as other Americans became a focus last week in her Senate confirmation hearing. But her longtime membership in People of Praise and her leadership position at Trinity Schools were not discussed, even though most of the people the AP spoke with said her deep and decades-long involvement in the community signals she would be hostile to gay rights if confirmed.

But she's a garbage person. A garbage person has no business being a Supreme Court Justice, I'm sorry if that's controversial.

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 11:35 amBut she's a garbage person. A garbage person has no business being a Supreme Court Justice, I'm sorry if that's controversial.

I agree and she was hand-picked for this role by extremists almost entirely because she is a garbage person in their image.

It's not surprising. The Democrats only got a couple of talking points out of the session. There was no organized effort against her, they didn't go after her because it was a waste of time, and frankly no one was paying attention to it.

It's not surprising at all. It's difficult to actually listen to Amy for any length of time and come away thinking she's a garbage person - whatever one may think of her political views, she's extremely intelligent, articulate and compelling, so putting her on camera for days at a time is only likely to increase her support, even among her ideological opponents.

Little Raven wrote:It's not surprising at all. It's difficult to actually listen to Amy for any length of time and come away thinking she's a garbage person - whatever one may think of her political views, she's extremely intelligent, articulate and compelling, so putting her on camera for days at a time is only likely to increase her support, even among her ideological opponents.

I’m starting to think LR has got a little something for her.

Being intelligent doesn’t stop you from being a garbage person. Being articulate doesn’t stop you from being a garbage person. Being compelling doesn’t...I don’t even know what the F you mean by that.

Doing and supporting garbage things makes you a garbage person. She has done and supported garbage things. Ergo, garbage person.

She might be a smart, articulate and “compelling” garbage person - which is vastly worse.

For me the story about the school is not surprising. The tell was in the open. A person who served in an oversight position of an institution with discriminatory policy used language in the hearings - to wit "sexual preference" that aligns with that sort of discrimination. How is that acceptable? It not only makes her a garbage person but it undermines the integrity of the court. I don't care how smart she supposedly is.

RunningMn9 wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:03 pmI’m starting to think LR has got a little something for her.

Heck man, that's not a secret. I'm many things, but deep? Heart on sleeve, baby.

Doing and supporting garbage things makes you a garbage person. She has done and supported garbage things. Ergo, garbage person.

Amy is, in fact, a human being. She has no doubt done things that other humans beings find objectionable. But that's not a very useful metric, precisely because it is so ubiquitous.

And I get it, you hate her. That's your prerogative. But there's a reason Americans (even Democrats) have increasingly embraced Amy as they have learned more about her. When most people turned on the hearings, they did not see a Republican extremist - they saw a highly accomplished woman who has balanced a tremendously successful career with a huge family in a way that most American women find hard not to respect. It's possible to hate the hypocrisy of the Republicans while still respecting Amy as a person.

Most people didn’t turn on the hearings. I don’t know what kind of Kool-Aid you’re drinking, but I don’t want it.

She’s a human being (that’s the person thing), that believes and does garbage things. Nothing else matters to me. I don’t like her. I don’t hate her.

She’s just a garbage person. And it doesn’t matter that she’s a garbage person, because the people in power want garbage people on the court.

I’m not for or against it because that doesn’t serve me in anyway. She’s going to get seated, and likely the rest of my life is going to have to be spent dealing with the consequences of her garbage beliefs. It is what it is.

RunningMn9 wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 5:09 pm She’s just a garbage person. And it doesn’t matter that she’s a garbage person, because the people in power want garbage people on the court.

I’m not for or against it because that doesn’t serve me in anyway. She’s going to get seated, and likely the rest of my life is going to have to be spent dealing with the consequences of her garbage beliefs. It is what it is.

I don't know enough about her to make that judgement but Kavenaugh is evidence that I don't have to know enough not to have trust. Kavenaugh is a garbage person given power by garbage people. So she gets no benefit of the doubt from me.

I don't know what the future holds or who Americans are any more. One would think if the courts, the legislature, and the executive all move to existing for the sake of advancing institutionalized garbage beliefs that the institution is done for and yet here we are. I have no more faith in Americans to overcome our garbage institutionalization than I do Russians overcoming theirs.

(Also Barr is intelligent and articulate and he tops the heap of how you can be an intelligent and articulate garbage person. I was going to cite Pence, but I'm not sold on his intelligence)

Little Raven wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:28 pm It's not surprising at all. It's difficult to actually listen to Amy for any length of time and come away thinking she's a garbage person - whatever one may think of her political views, she's extremely intelligent, articulate and compelling, so putting her on camera for days at a time is only likely to increase her support, even among her ideological opponents.

Compelling? When she literally refused to answer any questions about established, codified law? Although sure, some of those verbal gymnastics certainly required some advanced articulation skills.

The only intelligent thing she has ever done was endear herself to the Federalist Society, and she's set for life.

gilraen wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:46 pm

Little Raven wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 1:28 pm It's not surprising at all. It's difficult to actually listen to Amy for any length of time and come away thinking she's a garbage person - whatever one may think of her political views, she's extremely intelligent, articulate and compelling, so putting her on camera for days at a time is only likely to increase her support, even among her ideological opponents.

Compelling? When she literally refused to answer any questions about established, codified law? Although sure, some of those verbal gymnastics certainly required some advanced articulation skills.

FWIW that's normal. What irked me was her hiding beyond an expansive political question shield to not answer questions about basic values.

The only intelligent thing she has ever done was endear herself to the Federalist Society, and she's set for life.

I disagree on this. She has a notable background but to your point she took a path that was meant to potentially lead her to the Supreme Court. She caught their attention because she checked a lot of their boxes. That alone should give us pause. The Federalist Society is fairly radical and extremist and has outsized influence that has enabled an outlier agenda. Knocking down voter rights. Turning a Federal blind eye to gerrymandering. Etc.

gilraen wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:46 pmCompelling? When she literally refused to answer any questions about established, codified law?

That's the game. It's the game every single nominee since Bork has followed. Don't you remember Kagan?

Elena Kagan deflected questions about her own views on gun rights and abortion during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings on Tuesday, instead describing Supreme Court precedents. She declined to say whether terrorism suspects must be warned of the right to remain silent, saying the issue was “quite likely to get to the courts.”

Kagan deflected on virtually every issue, no matter how obvious. And remember, she had absolutely no record as a judge, so theoretically, these questions are all anyone had to go off of, AND she had previously written an article saying that nominees should answer difficult questions.

But unlike her predecessors, Ms. Kagan wrote a 1995 article calling for judicial nominees to be more forthcoming. On Tuesday, minutes into her testimony, she backpedaled, saying she now believed it would be inappropriate even to answer questions that might “provide some kind of hints” about her views on matters of legal controversy.

Is it a stupid game? Yes, yes it is. But Amy didn't write the rules.

The only intelligent thing she has ever done was endear herself to the Federalist Society, and she's set for life.

I get not liking her political affiliation. I get not liking the Federalist Society, and I certainly get not liking Mitch McConnell's naked power plays.

But Amy has done one or two things in her life that indicate intelligence beyond impressing the folks at the Federalist Society.

Little Raven wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:56 pmI get not liking her political affiliation. I get not liking the Federalist Society, and I certainly get not liking Mitch McConnell's naked power plays.

But Amy has done one or two things in her life that indicate intelligence beyond impressing the folks at the Federalist Society.

Yet she accepted the nomination under these circumstances. People who seek power in these circumstances deserve high, high levels of scrutiny. And we're finding out *after the fact* that she has some pretty big skeletons in her closet. Mostly because this was incredibly rushed. That some poll showed people were ok with her is meaningless. No one watched. The whole thing was blown through with shockingly little scrutiny in a pantomime act. You can choose to ignore all of that but many of us are disgusted at this and despite her supposed virtues she is tainted by the association.

According to Vice.com, in a move that surprises absolutely no one, the GOP violated their own rules in voting for this SCOTUS pick with zero Democrats present.

I hope the Democratic party continues to stand resolute and boycotts every session regarding this process, making it 100% clear to the whole world that the GOP has hijacked the Senate and doesn't give a shit about ethics.

Not that we didn't already know, but this is the kind of thing that sticks on the records and gets brought up in history books. It's not a look that's going to fade with time.

malchior wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 8:12 pmYet she accepted the nomination under these circumstances.

Indeed. The mere act of accepting the nomination under present circumstances is conclusive evidence that one is not fit for the nomination.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:01 pm I think Collins and Murkowski vote no, everyone else votes yes. One might wonder why Senators like Gardner and McSally aren't gettable as no votes given the electoral peril they are in, but for them I think they're both sufficiently doomed that they're probably more focused on their post-Senate cushy consulting gigs, and on those crossing McConnell would be fatal.

Collins has a compelling self-interested case to vote no, as I said. Murkowski's a little more interesting, but I think she's sufficiently secure and independent of McConnell that she can genuinely vote her principles for the most part, and this stuff seems to bother her.

Thought you should know - Murkowski is a "Yes".

I repeat - 100% yes to confirm, party line vote.

Little Raven wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:56 pm

gilraen wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:46 pmCompelling? When she literally refused to answer any questions about established, codified law?

That's the game. It's the game every single nominee since Bork has followed. Don't you remember Kagan?

Don't you mean "Elena"?

FWIW I think "she's a garbage person" is a bit harsh, and I am probably left of most of you on this board. It's also partly because I have lived for the past 20 + years in a place where many people hold ideas and values that I am firmly against. To the point that I have a neighbor directly behind me with a freaking Qanon flag on his shed, but EVEN THEN I would be hard pressed to call him "garbage".

Are Qanon ideas abhorrent, and even absurd? Of course they are. And I truly believe that political views reflect a person's world view, so it follows that my neighbor has abhorrent world views, too. But you know what? For the past 7 years that I have lived here, he has been nothing but kind, helpful, and insightful on every occasion that I have spoken with him over the fence. He legit seems to be a very decent man.

We both somehow (especially now, with his fucking flag) knew to never talk politics, as we are apparently both pretty fervent in our views. I guess I could call him out one day and yell "YOU FUCKING QANON MORON!", or be a dick and totally start ignoring him completely, but that's not me. And maybe that is cowardice, or maybe that is me trying to see the good in someone that from a political standpoint, is repugnant to me. (I see him and/or he sees me over our mutual fence most days, so it's not like a rarely see him).

It's easy to armchair quarterback when 99% of the people around you are on "your team", but when you are a little blue dot in a sea of red... (full disclosure: the city I live in is pretty much blue, but the state...oof), I think it becomes much more complex.

The problem is that all those “nice” people around you are willing to believe things and follow causes that mistreat other people. That makes them “stupid” or “gullible” at best, likely “garbage” or “selfish” people, or worse “asshole” or “racist.”

I believe the applicable phrase is “love the sinner, hate the sin.”

My brother believes all the crazy internet shit. He’s my brother and I love him, but we’re not going to spend a lot of time with him beyond the holidays because he’s a stupid asshole who needs to get a job rather than resenting others for his own failures in life. And we tell him that to his face if he starts telling us about the latest conspiracy bullshit.

Zarathud wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2020 9:31 am I believe the applicable phrase is “love the sinner, hate the sin.”

Yes, exactly this. This is the dilemma, and where the complexity of real life vs. an all to easy to embrace macro view of 'those stupid deplorables" comes into play.

McConnell doesn't sound confident about November.

Although at least he's honest about ACB's partisanship.

Holman wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:31 pm

McConnell doesn't sound confident about November.

Although at least he's honest about ACB's partisanship.

Statements like the one he made there make it clear that Democrats have no option to effectively utilize the systems in place without resorting to packing the courts. Let the court-bloat-battles begin.

Maybe by 2032 the SCOTUS will have 43 judges. It all starts with this moment.

Good work, Mitch.

Other than $$ costs.... I don't know if it really is the end of the world to 'have more judges'....


I'm pretty sure this would take an amendment/ratification, so it will not happen:

I feel if the House had a role to play in the confirmation of SCOTUS Judges - this 'packing the courts' solution wouldn't be needed.

As an aside, it burns me up every time the Democrats get accused of wanting to "pack the courts" when that's all the Trump administration has done for the last 4 years.

Not really


They sat on nominations during Obama and handed them all to Trump.

Unagi wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:13 am Not really


They sat on nominations during Obama and handed them all to Trump.

Leaving aside the specific meaning of 'packing,' which was chosen specifically to apply negative context to potential Democratic fixes only. What the GOP has done is absolutely a different aspect of the same idea--resized the judiciary to make it more amenable to their desires rather than apply the rules equally. (In their case, by resizing the SC to 8 for the remainder of Obama's term, and withholding, then rushing through lower-court judges.)

Trying to differentiate the two is a fool's errand (other than pointing out that one side did it to un-democratically wield more power, while the other is considering the idea in order to restore democratic behavior).

Unagi wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 8:34 amI'm pretty sure this would take an amendment/ratification, so it will not happen:

No. The size of the court is set by Congress. If the Democrats control both houses, then there's nothing stopping them from making the Court whatever size they want.