Minnesota Supreme court Justice David Straus was originally floated as a short lister for the USSC seat that was eventually filled by Neil Gorsuch. In May Trump nominated David Straus for a seat on the 8th circuit court of appeals.
For literally months Al Franken refused to return his "blue slip" for David Straus, suggesting to the press and constituents that he was reviewing the record. For those who are unaware of the "blue slip" tradition, when the President nominates a Justice from a particular state court system the Senators have an informal procedure called the "blue slip" whereas those Senators can offer their support by returning the blue slip, or offer their opposition by not returning that slip.
Through the years, there have been a variety of ways this has been handled, but the general concept is that it would provide a state Senator (who would in theory know more about a local Judge) the ability to prevent a hearing and vote on said Judge, if there was due cause to do so.
So very recently Senator Franken has made the determination that Justice Straus is somehow unqualified because he is supported by conservative groups, and personally looked up to Justices like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. I guess it would be called it guilt by admiration.
The irony of Franken's decision is that President Trump promised exactly that. That he would nominate and promote Justices who were constitutionalist in the mold of Antonin Scalia. This means that Franken is basically making the argument that Trump should not be allowed to nominate the very Justices he promised he would during the campaign.
Moreover, polling generally has suggested that Americans want Justices to base their rules only on legal issues rather than follow some personal ideology (even with those who call themselves Democrats) and generally only about one in five suggest that our current judicial system is too conservative. Franken is out of step with the public on this one.
Franken is also not following the spirit of the tradition. He has no credible objection to David Straus. No personal objections. No allegations of wrong doing. He didn't even cite any cases where Franken believed Straus was wrong. He simply has a philosophical difference with the President and the public on how a Justice should behave. By Franken logic, no Minnesota Justice that would be chosen by Trump should ever receive a hearing.
Either the Judiciary Chairman Check Grassley should ignore Franken's opposition, or it will no doubt create a situation where the President will just go ahead and nominate someone different from a state where he will get both Senators to return the blue slip.
Not sure what Franken hopes to accomplish here. Whoever is eventually nominated and confirmed will be in the same mold as Straus. All he does it take away an opportunity for a Minnesota Justice with the credentials and universal respect that put him on a short list of potential USSC nominees. David Straus doesn't deserve to pay the price to be a pawn in Al Franken's fruitless game.
70 comments:
For literally months Al Franken refused to return his "blue slip" for David Straus, suggesting to the press
Good for him.....I'd feel sorry for your side, but I can't with the BS your side pulled on the scotus that was delayed because mcconnell said it should be done by the next potus...WHat a crock of crap. I literally hope franken never releases the hold....it is probably the correct thing especially with Strauss's record.
Mutt how ya doing, after I soled you again
Ohio made a very good murdering covicted criminal this morning. They killed him, finally.
Again, Opie...
Grassley could just ignore it and simply call for the hearing (and eventually the vote) anyways. That is sort of what is expected at this point.
The problem with these sorts of "traditions" is that they are respected when people are respectful of the use.
But to simply say that you don't believe that anyone should be nominated because they are in the mold of Thomas or Scalia is not how this "tradition" worked. If a Senator refused to return a blue slip in the past... it was because of something more than just ideological and political differences.
It's partisanship from Senators like Harry Reid who got the filibuster eliminated for Judgeships, and it will be partisanship from Senators like Franken to see the elimination of the blue slip tradition.
Partisanship is not a good enough reason to tell a well qualified Justice that they can never be promoted in their career as long as there is a partisan Senator elected in his home state who disagrees with them. Otherwise, states that split their Senate seats would never see a single Justice from that state promoted to a Federal Seat.
If Grassley decides to ignore the blue slip tradition (and he probably should)... I put that on Senator Franken, not Grassley.
Again as usual, you believe that the conservative, original intent judicial philosophy is valid.
There are many other, highly intelligent and respected legal experts, unlike you, believe that the original intent judicial philosophy is rooted in politically motivated beliefs.
Franken is intellectually correct and consistent with the Constitution.
Given the debate over ObamaCare and the "right" to medical care is a "right", that could be a topic. If I had posting rights, that would be my topic of the day.
But not now. Things to do.
And no, not psychological treatment! :-) :-) :-)
Alky alky alky alky alky alky alky alky.
Five years three months and eighteen days.
One other quick comment. The president is Reaching Across the aisles to get bipartisan support for both his tax reform and possibly even healthcare because Bernie Sanders is going to be at the meeting today. The Republicans are so deeply divided they just cannot stand this. They are very worried that he will make a truly bipartisan agreement and promote it from state-to-state especially in the the states that are purple who are they could actually to help the Democrats. The meeting last night was interesting and they going in in today and the president is actually acting like he's going to lead. Maybe firing Bannon was the best thing ever did because he would not have done that if he would had his ear.
Grassley could just ignore it and simply call for the hearing (and eventually the vote) anyways
he could, but so what!!! Paybacks are a bitch...don't remember you asking mcconnell to do the correct thing and confirm obamas pick....but you went along with! it and trump won. Even though Obama was Potus for almost a full year!!!!! Had to change the rules to get the confirmation which you also thought was fine. Oh well, your hypocrisy skirt is showing!!!
Again as usual, you believe that the conservative, original intent judicial philosophy is valid.
It's not only "valid" Roger, but it's what the majority of the American voters prefer.
There are many other, highly intelligent and respected legal experts, unlike you, believe that the original intent judicial philosophy is rooted in politically motivated beliefs.
I believe there are intelligent respected legal experts who disagree with the original intent philosophy. But when done correctly (as with someone like Justice Straus) it means (as it does if you look at Justice Straus's record) that an originalists will often find themselves agreeing with the so-called "liberals" on the court.
But I will give you this.. if your political belief is that legislation should be done by legislators, and that legal disputes should be fairly and objectively resolved by the judicial branch based on the law (and not political ideology)
Then absolutely, ruling by original intent would be a pretty fair means to that end.
The Republicans are so deeply divided they just cannot stand this
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 66% of Likely U.S. Voters say it is good for the country if Trump works with congressional Democrats to advance his agenda. Just 13% think the bipartisan cooperation is bad for the country, while 21% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Only 19% believe the president should continue to rely on congressional Republicans to pass his agenda. That’s down from 29% in early April. Sixty-five percent (65%) now feel he should reach out more to Democrats in Congress for help versus 58% who felt that way five months ago. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.
Republicans (72%) are even more enthusiastic about the president working with congressional Democrats than Democrats (62%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (63%) are.
Sorry Roger... what were you saying?
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Again as usual, you believe that the conservative, original intent judicial philosophy is valid.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
how could it not be, genius?
"original intent" means what it says. it's crystal fucking clean.
there's no nuance or ambiguity to original intent. no wiggle room or other such nonsense that a liberal would normally use to turn the constitution upside down and inside out. and no, it's not a living document that evolves, but a dead document that can only be changed via constitutional amendment.
so yeah, as written, it's completely valid. what's not valid is the idea that it means whatever the fuck you want it to mean to fit your agenda.
don't remember you asking mcconnell to do the correct thing and confirm obamas pick
Nope I did not ask McConnell to hold hearings on any of Obama's picks... but McConnell was Senate Majority leader.
How many of Bush's nominees to the Courts were allowed hearings and votes in 2008 by Harry Reid? Almost none.
Did you know that over sixty of Clinton's nominees were held up by Lott and the Republican over the last couple of years of his Presidency?
What you were asking for was not precedent, Opie...
Republicans holding up ALL of Obama's picks in his last term, I don't blame Franken a bit for holdup up Trump's pick. It's how it's done now; the Republicans set that in stone. You don't get to whine about it now.
I hope the Minnesota Senator holds up every pick Trump makes, until Trump finds one who is acceptable to the Senator and his constituents.
Sorry WP....
But that's not how it works.
When you don't win elections, you don't get the power.
If Franken is successful in holding up Straus... Trump will simply replace Straus with someone from Iowa, Arkansas, Nebraska, etc... where there are no Democrats to hold it up.
Obama obviously won his elections CH. So yes, that IS the way it works. The Republicans put a moratorium on ALL of his picks, so the rule now is, if you can block the nomination of the other party President, you do so. For whatever reason suits you.
You (GOP) made that bed, so you lie in it. I've got no sympathy for any hypocritical complaining about a Democratic Senator withholding his support of a Republican nominee.
Rasmussen
Obama obviously won his elections CH. So yes, that IS the way it works.
And McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate won theirs, too...
You act as if McConnell was doing something unusual or unprecedented. You can go back as far as Clinton, and if the Party of the President didn't have a Senate Majority, those judicial nominees stalled.
Trump won.
The GOP won and controls the Senate.
The only thing Franken is doing is either:
- Forcing Grassley to bypass the Blue Slip
- Force Trump to nominate someone from another state.
It's really that simple, WP... stop acting like this is one side or the other's "fault".
My issue with Franken is that he is simply delivering this pick to another State. Trump isn't going to decide to pick a liberal from Minnesota to get Franken's approval (he doesn't need it).
Franken is a fool. Nothing more, nothing less.
wp is correct. He has the right to withhold his support. Complaining about his intellectually correct decision is nothing more than conservative partisanship. He has the absolute right to withhold his support for the Republican nominee. You are being hypocritical. If the situation was reversed, you would be cheering into the balcony.
Rasmussen
I think we all trust a Rasmussen poll over "your opinion" of what the rank an file Republican voters think. You live in California. Do you even know any of the 17 Republicans that live in that state?
Franken won his election in your state CH, so he's got the power and that's the natural order of things per you. He's doing what your state elected him to do.
Trump can't "simply replace" his nominee with someone from another state. He's first got to find someone obstinately "original intent", is qualified, but who doesn't appear to be an obvious whack-job. And then he's got to overcome whatever obstacles the Democrats throw up. It's not a case of "simply" doing anything.
The Democrats will do whatever they can, whatever they have to, threaten debt default or something even more breathtakingly stupid, because that's the way it's done now. Your leaders made those rules, so get used to it.
You are being hypocritical. If the situation was reversed, you would be cheering into the balcony.
No Roger... because it's an exercise in futility.
Franken's best case scenario is that it forces Trump to nominate someone else other than Straus. That person will not be a liberal from Minnesota.
It will be someone likely even more conservative from any of of the eight circuit court states that have two GOP Senators.
Only a fool would celebrate that.
Los Angeles just got the Summer Olympics for 2028!
Trump can't "simply replace" his nominee with someone from another state.
Yes, WP... Trump can simply replace pull Straus's nominee and replace him with another pick. There is a long list of proposed nominees that fit the mold. Certainly more than just one from the states that are part of the eight circuit.
Oh, and guess what?
Grassley CAN decide to simply ignore Franken. The Blue Slip is a "tradition". It's not a law, and it's not even a Senate "rule" that would need to be changed. It's been ignored in the past (by both Democrats and Republicans in charge)... and by most accounts, it's the likely outcome here.
Then, what has been accomplished, WP?
All Franken's move would do is take away the last remaining tool to actually stop a "real" radical who might otherwise have real reasons to be opposed... for both sides.
If he nominates somebody else from more conservative state with to Conservative Republican Senators you be cheering it on. Only a fool will not see the difference between the two situations.
Your leaders made those rules, so get used to it.
I think it was Harry Reid who eliminated the filibuster on Circuit Court nominees like Straus.
That was a clever move when the Democrats had both the Presidency and the Senate. Not so clever today.
So I think the Democrats made these rules, WP. You have the Presidency and the Senate, and you have clear sailing to fill the courts with no opposition.
If he nominates somebody else from more conservative state with to Conservative Republican Senators you be cheering it on.
I will neither cheer or jeer.
But I will say that I told you so.
Of course Grassley can ignore tradition. But there is always a cost, and that cost is why he hasn't yet.
Mike Flynn’s Son Is Subject of Federal Russia Probe
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mike-flynn-s-son-subject-federal-russia-probe-n800741
WASHINGTON — Michael G. Flynn, the son of President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, is a subject of the federal investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential election and possible collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign, according to four current and former government officials.
The inquiry into Flynn is focused at least in part on his work with his father's lobbying firm, Flynn Intel Group, three of the officials said. It's unclear when the focus on Flynn began.
Drip Drip Drip. It"s not going away.
The President is speaking on the tax reform, health care and immigration and the Dreamers. DACA will be handled in discussions with Nancy Pelosi. He's not mentioning the Republicans..
But there is always a cost, and that cost is why he hasn't yet.
Actually WP... the reason why nothing has happened as of yet is that Franken claims to have just made this decision just last week. There has been an enormous amount of national (and of course local) attention given to this particular move since that time.
Why? Because Franken made no real attempts to even hide that this was purely a partisan play about judicial ideology. There wasn't even a remote effort to find decisions that were reversed, or poorly constructed opinions, or even anything particularly controversial. He just stated it was because conservatives support him, and he admires Scalia and clerked for Thomas.
By those rules, WP... then no nominee would ever past muster unless they came from a state where both Senators are of the same Party of the President. If having a liberal or conservative group say good things about your, if having clerked for a USSC Justice, or if admiring a USSC Justice is disqualifying...
Then who would ever be qualified?
Considering we are getting awfully close to the idea that you must hold both the Presidency and the Senate to pass a nominee... being forced to limit your self to states with two Senator of that Same Party to find nominees that can get past a "blue slip".
Lastly... it was being said (by all accounts) that Franken and Klobuchar were trying to use the blue slip tactic to force Trump to make certain choices for other nominees (like the local US Attorney).
So it makes it all the more disingenuous.
I understand your desire to watch the entire Democratic Party hold their breath until they are blue in an attempt to get their way on something...
but wouldn't the more reasonable thing be to call on people like Franken to make mature, rational decisions, and then try to win some elections to regain their power?
Some want to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction. NO WAY in hell. The inheritance tax may continue. The rich won't be getting a big cut, the middle class is going to get the break. He said the wealthy already are fine, the middle class and infrastructure are the highlights . Corporate tax rate to 15% don't bet on that. He was mixed, but the rich won't be happy.
I was typing that as the speech was on the tv.
It"s not going away.
But it keeps 'moving' away... pretty soon they will be investigating Jared Kushner's third grade teacher's second cousin...
Franken won his election in your state CH, so he's got the power and that's the natural order of things per you. He's doing what your state elected him to do.
Ironically, WP... in Minnesota, our Justices are elected. Franken and Straus actually were on the same ballot during the same election.
Guess who got more votes?
More Minnesotans wanted Straus to be a Justice than wanted Franken to be Senator.
So he isn't looking out for the interests of Minnesota, WP.
He's looking out for the interests of the Democratic Party (who need activist Justices to enact the policy they cannot pass through legislative means).
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Los Angeles just got the Summer Olympics for 2028!
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i'm not surprised you'd cheer this since hosting an olympics is just about the most fucktarded thing a municipality at any level can do.
...according to four current and former government officials.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
LOL.
n Minnesota, our Justices are elected
SFW!!! This ain't minnestota rules so your point is just interesting and doesn't matter at all!!! Sad
The Olympics are 'fucktarded" More words of wisdom by the blog racist beaner hating, Mooslimmb hating asshhole. And this is not an insult it's the truth, on his own words, repeated time and time again, and not once, not ONCE has our host called him out for his blatant hatred of non white, chinks and etc.
but he's a psychologist and has diagnosed me as mentally ill. His degrees in business and accounting make him an expert in his own mind. Kind of like the alternative reality, that exists in the"mind" of the President
Racist, racist, racist
It's all you say. Worse than a broken record
BTW Mexican nor Islam is a race, idiot
Sir Hillary, bitter old haggard dike.
Beaner, Moose Limbs, Rag heads, chinks, etc. Let the bodies rot, ad infinitum.
So who set HB Off?
LA, taxes soar to fund Olympics.
Good.
I see now, Cali set HB's ass ablaze.
Oh, I see now, Cali set HB's fat ass ablaze and RRB threw gasoline on it.
Team work, cool.
Trump and Democrats reach a DACA deal — without the border wall
This just came out after the dinner with Trump.
DACA to be the law.
The wall is NOT included.
The top congressional Democrats on Wednesday night said they reached a deal with President Donald Trump to shield about 800,000 young people from deportation — without the president's proposed border wall as a condition.
"We had a productive meeting at the White House with the President. The discussion focused on DACA," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement following a White House dinner with Trump.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/13/trump-and-democrats-reach-a-daca-deal--without-the-border-wall.html
"We agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that's acceptable to both sides," they added.
Cool, Dems getting Pres. Trump re-elected.
Sir Hillary the Dike, swinging wildly at one of the cildren of the President. Keep talking Sir Hillary, too funny.
Last night the preachy winning left con all four major networks to give one hour off free broadcast time to raise money to help Hurricane victims.
They blamed Gorebal warming. As they polluted massive amounts fly pvt jets, riding in massive vehicles.
Liberalism is a mental disorder
The k'putz is clueless about everything. The Republicans feel betrayed by accepting the compromising on everything, that Trump is selling them out.
Reelection prediction this far out, one for the archives. He will eat his words.
Republicans feel betrayed by McConnell and Ryan, not Trump.
If Trump can get tax cuts and obamacare in exchange for daca, I'd be good with that. So would many voters.
HB, stealing what I say about you. Just stop!! Atempt an original thought.
Let me again explain it to you.
Pres Trump Won.
Sir Dispicable Hillary lost.
That alone is more then I hoped for on Nov 8th, 2016.
The rest pure sunshine.
HB, stealing what I say about you. Just stop!! Atempt an original thought.
Let me again explain it to you.
Pres Trump Won.
Sir Dispicable Hillary lost.
That alone is more then I hoped for on Nov 8th, 2016.
The rest pure sunshine.
But Thursday morning Trump disputed the Democrats' version of events, tweeting, "No deal was made on DACA."
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders also denied any deal was done, saying, "excluding the wall was certainly not agreed to."
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/13/trump-and-democrats-reach-a-daca-deal--without-the-border-wall.html
slow down alky. you might be getting all "wee wee'd up" for nothing.
If Trump can get tax cuts and obamacare in exchange for daca, I'd be good with that. So would many voters.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i wouldn't. when the dems pulled this shit back in '86 we got royally fucked. we amnestied many more than originally promised and it was a sham all the way around.
For two decades after the 1986 amnesty, the federal courts were tied up with dozens of class-action lawsuits brought on behalf of illegal aliens -- regular illegal aliens, farm worker illegal aliens and still-in-Mexico illegal aliens -- challenging every aspect of the law.
Is that how American tax dollars should be spent? On endless litigation, brought by America-hating activists on behalf of people who have no right to be in our country and decided by Democrat-appointed judges? (Who are also America-hating activists.)
And when their work is done, there will be a lot more Democrat-appointed judges because there will be a lot more Democrats.
Lawyers sued over everything -- the absence of Creole interpreters, the requirement that illegals have proof of prior farm work and the rare denials of amnesty. Congress desperately tried passing laws that would prevent courts from hearing these cases -- all to no avail. Left-wing lawyers just had to pick the right judge, and they won.
In 2005 -- nearly 20 years after the 1986 amnesty -- the Ninth Circuit was still granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who claimed they had been unfairly denied because they were not in the country for the first amnesty. Seriously.
No matter how the law is written, as long as anyone is eligible for amnesty, everybody's getting amnesty.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2017-09-13.html#read_more
Blogger KD said...
Oh, I see now, Cali set HB's fat ass ablaze and RRB threw gasoline on it.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the alky's just pissed that i beat his ass in his hospice blog challenge.
heh.
Mean while the Trump Economy continental to race right past the lost years. The #1 issue in 2016.
Compared with the general population, dreamers are not especially highly skilled. A recent survey for several pro-dreamer groups, with participants recruited by those groups, found that while most dreamers are not in school, the vast majority work. But their median hourly wage is only $15.34, meaning that many are competing with hard-pressed lower-skilled Americans.
The dreamers you read about have typically been carefully selected for their appeal. They’re valedictorians. They’re first responders. They’re curing diseases. They root for the Yankees. They want to serve in the Army. If dreamers are the poster children for the much larger undocumented population, these are the poster children for the poster children.
Still, taking the dreamers as a whole, not just the dreamiest of them, they represent an appealing group of would-be citizens. So why not show compassion and legalize them? Because, as is often the case, the pursuit of pure compassion comes with harmful side effects.
[...]
Under “chain migration” rules established in 1965 — ironically as a sop to conservatives, who foolishly thought that they’d boost European inflows — new citizens can bring in their siblings and adult children, who can bring in their siblings and in-laws, until whole villages have moved to the United States. That means today’s 690,000 dreamers would quickly become millions of newcomers, who may well be low-skilled and who would almost certainly include the parents who brought them — the ones who, in theory, are at fault.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-buy-all-the-pr-style-hooey-about-dreamers/2017/09/12/adc246d6-9738-11e7-82e4-f1076f6d6152_story.html?utm_term=.08486ec88b63
Mean while the Trump Economy continental to race right past the lost years. The #1 issue in 2016.
from the WSJ:
The blue slip has been around since 1917, but only a few Judiciary Chairmen have chosen to treat it as an absolute veto. Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy gave home state senators a “reasonable” deadline to return slips, and then put it to a committee vote on whether to proceed if they weren’t returned. Democrat Joe Biden reserved the right to ignore blue slips so long as an Administration consulted with home state Senators. Republican Strom Thurmond gave Members a mere seven days to return slips, then sometimes voted on nominees even over blue-slip objections.
Mr. Grassley has authority under Senate rules to suspend the blue-slip tradition on a case-by-case basis, and Mr. Franken’s abuse deserves to become his first example. The Iowan would also be justified in setting a time limit for returning a slip, since Mr. Franken also exploited the tradition by dragging out his decision on the Stras blue slip for months.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos
Dem Polosi and Schumer fuel rise in Trumps poll numbers.
Leahy honored the blue slip tradition when Republicans were blocking Obama nominations. Regardless of how long it's been, there will be political cost with trampling over Senate traditions and it remains to be seen whether the Republicans are willing to risk it.
If the pick for the 8th Circuit isn't acceptable to Franken, why should he give his approval? To prove he's a nice guy?
BTW, the first post has it at "literally months" and you said "last week", that Franken has held onto his "blue slip". For the record which is it?
the alky's just pissed that i beat his ass in his hospice blog challenge.
You mean you showed his ass?
BTW, the first post has it at "literally months" and you said "last week", that Franken has held onto his "blue slip". For the record which is it?
Prior to last week, Franken had said he was studying Straus's record, trying to make a determination. Last week he announced that he was not going to turn in the blue slip.
The nomination was made in May...
so it took Franken four months to study the record, only to conclude that he ideology unfit because he was favored by conservatives and looked up to Thomas and Scalia. Something he obviously would have known pretty much immediately.
If the pick for the 8th Circuit isn't acceptable to Franken, why should he give his approval?
The problem is simple WP. I am sure you actually already know the answer.
Franken doesn't have an issue with the pick (Straus). He has an issue with the sort of Justice (in general) that Trump will nominate. If Straus is not acceptable to Franken, quite literally nobody Trump will nominate from Minnesota will be acceptable.
Because Senator Franken is not the President and can "only" show his disfavor by not returning a blue slip... he really is offered limited control. There is no reason they the President should otherwise compromise with Franken over a blue slip tradition... when he can get the same sort of Justice confirmed by choosing one from a different state.
The President made judicial picks a large part of his campaign, and for those who saw this as an important issue, they voted for Trump. Trump's loyalty on this position would be to his voters, and to keep his word. He has no obligation to make Franken happy.
The only person who actually tangibly suffers here is Justice Straus. Who many feel could be a USSC Justice.
Of course, others of the Jewish community are disappointed that Straus (Jewish) is being opposed... although nobody (as of yet) has accused Franken of being an anti-semite.
Here was the original article in regards to the pick.
http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-justice-david-stras-trump-s-pick-for-eighth-circuit-ejnoys-broad-swath-of-support/421642283/
HB, How you doing?
Franken says that he has a problem with Straus' judicial philosophy, as an understudy to Clarence Thomas. What that means in the mind of Franken, who knows he's Al Franken after all. But it sounds to me like he's doing what he's supposed to do, in alignment with whatever reasons your state voted him in for.
Maybe, he just wants to see whether the Republicans really will trample over the "blue slip" tradition. Possibly he wants them to, so he can yell about it on TV, or make jokes or whatever it is that Franken does. I think your main issue is that Franken's political strategy may be deeper than your Republican leaders' (which is a really low bar).
Post a Comment