Maine’s Angus King is a swing Independent Senator who caucuses with Democrats. As a former lawyer, like many of his colleagues, he cannot plead ignorance about the historic importance of his vote on the fateful Senate filibuster to deny Neil Gorsuch confirmation as Trump’s first Supreme Court appointee. Confirmation hearings for this far-right, “friendly fascist,” defender of torture, Federalist Society nominee are scheduled to begin March 20. A filibuster will follow. The key vote will come, likely in the first week of April, when Gorsuch supporters vote for cloture (i.e. termination) of the filibuster. The Republicans will need 60 votes for cloture in order to proceed to a vote on confirmation. They only have 52 votes, which is enough for confirmation but not enough to first end the filibuster.
Trump and establishment Democrats are trading allegations about “fake news.”
Trump attacks CNN and others in the mass media with his typical lack of supporting evidence for his assertions. Nevertheless, progressives can agree with Trump that during the election major mass media selected Clinton as their candidate early on. They accordingly discounted and ignored Sanders during the primary while promoting Trump, and then promoted Clinton against Trump in the general election
The battle between Sanders and Clinton over the term “progressive” presented an opportunity to discuss some history. Now that Sanders is supporting the very person who misappropriated the term it is even more important to define what does progressive mean, if it is more than a euphemism for the vague term “liberal.” This article argues on the contrary that “progressive” has a very precise meaning conferred by its history.
The Supreme Court has mostly completed its decimation of any anti-corruption law that might have caused any more than the slightest inconvenience for the plutocracy’s political investments. Therefore the Court has now picked up its judicial supremacy ax to perform a similar demolition of laws that regulate the other side of the corruption equation. In a decision announced on June 27, timed as one of three final opinions of its 2015-16 term, the Court turned its attention to protecting the influence peddlers – who are installed by and otherwise benefit from the now freely flowing plutocratic investments – from prosecution for their delivery of the peddled policies.
Obama Nominates a Conservative to Court: Sanders Still Missing Strategic Opportunity
Obama Writes Nomination Insurance for Plutocrats
Obama has decided that, to fill Scalia’s vacant seat for radicals on the Supreme Court the country needs another former partner of a Wall Street law firm, turned prosecutor, and then appellate judge. Another judge obscures the highly political work of the contemporary Supreme Court beneath a veneer of technocratic competence. Just the opposite is required at this time. We need a politician who will make a political case against decisions like the Court’s most important ruling of the past half century that “money is speech,” which was pure politics when decided but has become part of the ordinary technology of plutocracy that a judge like Merrick B. Garland administers with exquisite technical competence to the satisfaction of plutocrats. Chief Judge Garland is a continuation of business as usual. What is demanded by the times is a justice that will eradicate the politicized judicial doctrines that sustain the corrupt business as usual.
The salutary rule of private life that one should not speak poorly of the dead does not properly apply to public persons who we know only through their public deeds. When they choose to lead a political life, which is the only capacity in which we have occasion to know them, and have had an overwhelmingly perverse influence on the course of public affairs, honest historical judgment should not be suspended or falsified for inappropriate application of rules that properly pertain to private life. Biographers will weave the personal attributes, the odd-fellow relationships with Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, membership in Opus Dei, assessments of when one person’s flamboyance crossed the line to another’s buffoonish bombast, to make a fuller portrait for those who might care about Antonin Scalia as a person.
Please see revised version: “Progressive”: Does its Meaning Depend on Whatever the Clintons Think is “Progress”? by Rob Hager
The battle between Sanders and Clinton over the term “progressive” presents an opportunity to discuss some history relevant to the campaign. The meaning of the term gains importance from new thinking that “people of color and progressive whites add up to a new majority” comprising 23% and 28% of the electorate respectively. See Steve Phillips, Brown is the New White: How the Demographic Revolution Has Created a New American Majority (2016). These Americans are those most strongly committed to America’s republican traditions. Today’s progressives represent the same fraction who fought to establish the republic envisaged by the two Toms, Paine and Jefferson.
Rackets Science: The Influence Peddlers Protection Act of 2015 (H.R. 2029)
- Government by the wealthy.
- 2. A country or society governed in this way.
Christmastime for Plutocrats
Political scientists need a new sub-specialty to describe the end-of-year extravaganzas that influence peddlers and special interests have joined to make a Capital Christmas tradition: the racket of wholesale plundering of the government’s treasury. Paraphrasing Willie Sutton, that’s where (the tax-farmed and public-debt) money is.