The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 2012 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Republicans won the 2014 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor as associate justices.
New York Times, 5 October 1987, with names and years changed to reflect present circumstances
Sauce for the goose:
We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not . . .
This is just a prologue considering the constitutional harm and dramatic departures that are in store if those few are joined by one more ideological ally. We have to, in my judgment, stick by the precepts that I’ve elaborated. I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining Roberts and Alito on the court.
— Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), June 2007
National Review changed the names to deliver up the argument with which to deny 0bama yet another Supreme Court pick…one potentially far more catastrophic than the two he’s had so far. (Never mind that no president has ever gotten to name new justices this late in his term.)
Source: Michael Ramirez Cartoon
I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.
– Barack 0bama, 31 March 2008
Not to mention this inconvenient actuality:
Yeah, Hillary…tell me again how women (or girls, as the case may be) who say they’ve been raped should be given the benefit of the doubt.
How convenient…right after he has his minions badmouth the industry and drive its stocks into the toilet, he snaps up what’s left for pennies on the dollar:
Billionaire investor George Soros, who has demonized fossil fuels for years through his think tanks and political contributions, seems to have warmed up to Big Coal now that stocks are dirt cheap.
The left-wing hedge fund legend has raised eyebrows with major purchases of stock in two large coal companies, firms his critics say he helped bring to their knees. While buying low is the hallmark of any shrewd investor, buying coal goes against the political and environmental ideology Soros has long espoused.
“I find it very interesting that George Soros would buy shares in those coal companies,” said Daniel Simmons, vice president for Policy at the Washington DC-based free market energy group, Institute for Energy Research. “I am confused given the non profits he funds and how hard they have worked to demonize coal.”
Soros, whose Climate Policy Initiative think tank recently urged the world to stop using fossil fuels in general and coal in particular, snapped up 1 million shares of Peabody Energy and half a million shares of Arch Coal, giving him significant stakes in what’s left of the U.S. coal industry.
The trades would have cost Soros a lot more six years ago, when Peabody, which trades under the symbol BTU, was at about $90 a share. Under the Obama administration, which has punished the coal industry with costly mandates and regulation, Peabody shares have fallen to around $1.
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Maybe MSNBC will follow Gawker into oblivion next:
Because what may have seemed like a shocking new low was really just the inevitable trajectory of one of the most toxic cultures in all of media. It was the natural extension of a media empire with an editorial mission that owes far more allegiance to bullying and bitterness than it does to accuracy or ethics. This most recent scandal—which seems to have suddenly woken up the general public—is not an anomaly. It’s exactly what you get when you mix bad leadership, bad incentives, and selfish, self-loathing people.
Just look for a second at some of Gawker’s biggest stories over the years. There was the time they stole an iPhone prototype and nearly faced criminal prosecution for it. There was the time they ran private nude photos of quarterback Brett Favre to his objections and the objections of the recipient. There was the nude video of Dov Charney. There was the time they published an anonymous source’s recounting of a supposed one night stand by a female Senate candidate. There was the time they ran humiliating commentary against stolen footage of a sex tape featuring Hulk Hogan.
…to mention nothing of this Wonkette excrescence (link is to archive.org) which they attempted to memory-hole sometime in 2012 or 2013:
wonkette: OMG I AM WATCHINGMICHELLE MALKIN’S INTERNET VIDEOS FOR THE FIRST TIME
operative: she has internet videos?
operative: does she do the thing with the ping-pong balls?*
wonkette: SHE HAS A WHOLE FUCKING INTERNET VIDEO NETWORK THIS SHIT IS BANANAS
Both deserve a dirt nap. You tell me which one’s more likely to get it, though:
Q: What’s the difference between Bill Ayers and Dylann Roof?
A: Dylann Roof isn’t a friend and colleague of an American president who enjoyed a cushy life in academia before retiring to life as the kind of author who’s invited on-the-air by the mainstream media to hawk his books.
Other than that, both of these pigs share much in common.
Bill Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist.
Dylann Roof is an unrepentant domestic terrorist.
Bill Ayers despises America.
Dylann Roof despises America.
Bill Ayers’s terror group The Weather Underground targeted and murdered innocent people.
Dylann Roof targeted and murdered innocent people.
Bill Ayers used murder and violence and terror as a weapon for political change.
Dylann Roof used murder and violence and terror as a weapon for political change.
Bill Ayers wanted a race war.
Dylann Roof wants a race war.
I was going to file this under the “presstitutes” category, but even that would be giving the beta boys and bitchy broads at Salon too much credit. They’ll just have to settle for the “assholes” category instead:
George Soros likes to say the rich should pay more taxes. A substantial part of his wealth, though, comes from delaying them. While building a record as one of the world’s greatest investors, the 84-year-old billionaire used a loophole that allowed him to defer taxes on fees paid by clients and reinvest them in his fund, where they continued to grow tax-free. At the end of 2013, Soros—through Soros Fund Management—had amassed $13.3 billion through the use of deferrals, according to Irish regulatory filings by Soros.
Congress closed the loophole in 2008 and ordered hedge fund managers who used it to pay the accumulated taxes by 2017. A New York-based money manager such as Soros would be subject to a federal rate of 39.6 percent, combined state and city levies totaling 12 percent, and an additional 3.8 percent tax on investment income to pay for Obamacare, according to Andrew Needham, a tax partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore. Applying those rates to Soros’s deferred income would create a tax bill of $6.7 billion.