Saturday, September 19, 2020

WI could tip election blue If McConnell sets lame duck session

Ron Johnson's brazen-corruption of a Senatorial committee in service to an openly fascistic GOP President gives swing-state Wisconsin Democrats extra incentive to vote Trump out of office.

But no motivator could top that boost for the Biden-Harris ticket than a move by US GOP Senate Majority Leader to call a post-Trump-defeat-lame-duck session to steal another Supreme Court seat and install a right-wing justice who will spend the rest of her life tearing down the human rights legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Wisconsinites know that 'lame-duck' is code for unethical, ultra-partisan and back-door GOP election-nullifying maneuvering to allow a sore-losing party and their jilted, spiteful rejects - 

to heist power from the winners and wield it from the political grave.

Topped off in the Budget State by the losers' shame-free follow-up musings that their power grab hadn't gone far enough.

You want to motivate every possible Democratic and fair-minded voter in battleground  Wisconsin to brave a pandemic and/or bad weather to vote in the Biden-Harris team and vote out every down-ballot Republican?

Keep scheming to reward an election loser with another shame-free power grab.

That's the ticket.

5 comments:

Man MKE said...

They don't play fair. Period. That doesn't mean Democrats should start pulling the same stunts. However, there are ways to be tougher in tone and action yet remain ethical, moral, and in accord with the law.

Golden Eagles said...

What they did sadly was all within the law.

Anonymous said...

From Public Radio:

Four years ago, following the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia on Feb. 13, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated federal Judge Merrick Garland on March 16, 2016. Senate Republicans blocked a vote on Garland, a move Johnson supported.

"That puts the American people in charge really by their votes in November in terms of what direction the Supreme Court is going to take," Johnson told reporters on May 6, 2016.

"What we're saying is let the American people have a voice," Johnson said. "We're six months before an election. They're going to decide the direction of the country. Let them decide the direction of the court through their votes."

Days later, after Johnson met with Garland, he issued a written statement on May 10, 2016, unequivocally opposing a vote on a nominee before a new president took office.

"Let the American people have a voice in the composition of the Supreme Court," Johnson said. "Instead of a lame duck president and Senate nominating and confirming, a new president and Senate — elected by the people only a few months from now — should make that important decision. I can’t think of a fairer or more democratic process."

Anonymous said...

From Public Radio:

Four years ago, following the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia on Feb. 13, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated federal Judge Merrick Garland on March 16, 2016. Senate Republicans blocked a vote on Garland, a move Johnson supported.

"That puts the American people in charge really by their votes in November in terms of what direction the Supreme Court is going to take," Johnson told reporters on May 6, 2016.

"What we're saying is let the American people have a voice," Johnson said. "We're six months before an election. They're going to decide the direction of the country. Let them decide the direction of the court through their votes."

Days later, after Johnson met with Garland, he issued a written statement on May 10, 2016, unequivocally opposing a vote on a nominee before a new president took office.

"Let the American people have a voice in the composition of the Supreme Court," Johnson said. "Instead of a lame duck president and Senate nominating and confirming, a new president and Senate — elected by the people only a few months from now — should make that important decision. I can’t think of a fairer or more democratic process."

MadCityVoter said...

Then the law is wrong, and needs to be changed. Constitutional amendment, anyone? Since apparently the basic rules of an orderly democratic transition now need to be spelled out for the slow-wtted and cravenly power hungry among us..