Big Red Handle: pulled

Posted on by

The GOP said they’d do it.

The Demorats filibustered Judge Neil Gorsuch for SCOTUS. They didn’t have to. It was their decision.

So the GOP pulled the Big Red Handle.

John McCain thinks they’re “idiots” for having done so.

In the end, however, McCain voted in the same fashion as all the other Republicans in the senate.

From CNN.com (who says I’m not egalitarian?):

Senate GOP triggers nuclear option to break Democratic filibuster on Gorsuch

by Ashley Killough and Ted Barrett

Washington (CNN) The Senate Thursday triggered the so-called “nuclear option” that allowed Republicans to break a Democratic filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.

The chamber is now expected to vote to confirm Gorsuch Friday. The controversial changes to Senate rules, made along partisan lines, allows filibusters of Supreme Court picks to be broken with only 51 votes rather than 60.

The actions on Thursday and Friday cap more than a year of tension over an empty Supreme Court seat, as both parties in the Senate are poised to take action leading to an outcome neither party wants.

It’s a situation loaded with nuance, procedural twists and Senate history — not to mention a spot on the nation’s highest court — and a standoff that reflects a peak in polarization following a deeply divisive presidential election.

The move came after Democrats blocked the nomination under the previous 60-vote threshold. Only four Democrats — Sens. Michael Bennet, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin — crossed party lines to side with the Republicans.

Subsequent party-line votes allowed the GOP majority to change the rules, leading up to the final vote breaking the filibuster. After the final vote was gaveled, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell went down his row and gave high fives to Majority Whip John Cornyn and two aides.

Here, however, is a very interesting article from the NYT.com:

After Senate Filibuster’s Death, Somber Lawmakers Seek Path Forward

by Jennifer Steinhauer

WASHINGTON — The conventional Washington wisdom dictates that the end of the judicial filibuster is also the end of life as it is currently known in the Senate.

In truth, it may not make that much of a difference at all. In an unexpected way, it may well herald the beginning of a better era for the Senate.

The Senate Republicans’ successful effort on Thursday to end the 60-vote threshold to proceed with confirmation of Supreme Court nominees was really only the final step in a process set in motion by Democrats in 2013 when they removed that threshold for other nominees.

That set off a far bigger firestorm, and Republicans now have simply extended that precedent.

Republicans are quick to point out — and many Democrats privately agree — that had former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the White House last year, and Democrats taken the Senate, a similar confrontation was likely in the other direction, and that Democrats may have needed to take the same step as Republicans took to confirm any Supreme Court nominee that Mrs. Clinton had chosen.

Color me gobsmacked, now, because the New York Times just allowed a bit of truth to creep out of an article. Yes, the Demorats would have done precisely the same thing had they been in power. Because of this, I have a sneaking suspicion that Jennifer Steinhauer may not quite have a loving, hallowed and lengthy work future at the Gray Lady.

If you wish to see how all the senators voted, please click here.

The move came after Democrats blocked the nomination under the previous 60-vote threshold. Only four Democrats — Sens. Michael Bennet, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin — crossed party lines to side with the Republicans.

Manchin described Thursday as a “very sad day,” saying the Supreme Court won’t have “have a check and balance” system in which the minority has input on future justices. He argued that senators will “rue the day that this happened.”

“They all know what goes around comes around,” Manchin told reporters. “I was just extremely sad.”

And yes, in a way it was extremely sad. But it was the Demorats who decided to filibuster what is fundamentally a good, honest, serviceable and dedicated individual like Judge Neil Gorsuch who has continued to maintain that he has and can remain independent in his opinions from the bench. He follows the law and allows it to inform and guide him. He does not, unlike Demorat/Leftist judges, attempt to create transformative new law out of thin air where precedent does not primarily exist.

Both sides blamed each other for the episode. Democrats blasted Republicans for using the workaround. Republicans, meanwhile, said they felt they had no other option because of the Democratic filibuster.

But the real truth comes next, from Orrin Hatch.

“For the life of me, I don’t understand why the Democrats made such a fuss about this (nominee),” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “They look stupid. The next one, I mean I expect Armageddon.”

CNN spoke to Senator Hatch on Thursday.

I feel compelled to repeat some things I’ve written before here on the blog and stated on my radio show — which is on tonight, by the way, the Bloviating Zeppelin’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, at 8PM Pacific and 11PM Eastern tonight on the SHR Media Network. At the appropriate time click ON AIR to listen.

Republicans, on the other hand, argue Gorsuch answered more than 20 hours of questions and was abiding by what’s known as the “Ginsburg standard” so as not to show his cards on how he’d rule in cases that may come before him.

Hitting back against the argument that he’s extreme, Republicans say Gorsuch sided with the majority in 99% of his opinions as a federal judge in the past decade, and the GOP said that of the 2,700 cases he has ruled on, 97% were decided unanimously.

On Friday at 11:30 Eastern, the senate will vote up or down on Judge Neil Gorsuch. A majority vote will yield confirmation.

There will be Armageddon as Hatch suggests. I have it on good information there is a chance that, later this year, another opening on SCOTUS will occur. I believe that President Trump will deign to nominate an individual not unlike Judge Gorsuch. That will tend to move the court to the right. Further, as this is only 2017, there is every chance that between now and 2020 there will be another opening on SCOTUS and the opportunity for President Trump to nominate a person similar to Judge Gorsuch.

If this is true, and I believe it so, this may impact the US Supreme Court for, literally, decades to come.

So yes, the Demorats were rather stupid to filibuster Judge Gorsuch.

What will be the immediate result of this? Will the Demorats become even more obstructionist than they are now, considering there are over 1,000 vacancies still requiring installation in the Trump presidency?

Time will tell.

BZ

 

 Share

If it’s Friday it must be Gorsuch

Posted on by

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said this week that, by Friday, Judge Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed as a SCOTUS jurist to replace Antonin Scalia, who died a little over a year ago on February 13th of 2016 at the age of 79 whilst vacationing at a West Texas ranch.

First up, from the WSJ.com:

Next Up Thursday: Cloture Vote and Rule Change

The Senate is on the verge of a major rules change sparked by Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to be a Supreme Court justice, as Republicans and Democrats barrel toward a partisan showdown on the Senate floor over the future of the filibuster.

The first procedural vote on Judge Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s nominee to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, is expected Thursday morning—a vote where the GOP is expected to fall short. As a result, Senate Republicans are expected to use a procedural motion that would eliminate the filibuster for this and future Supreme Court nominations—expanding on changes that Democrats initiated in 2013.

What were the changes initiated in 2013 by then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid? From the WSJ.com:

Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees

by Paul Kane

Senate Democrats took the dramatic step Thursday of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents, a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system but one that Republicans said will only rupture it further.

Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades.

The immediate rationale for the move was to allow the confirmation of three picks by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — the most recent examples of what Democrats have long considered unreasonably partisan obstruction by Republicans.

Confirmation of three US DCA picks to the DC Circuit.

In the long term, the rule change represents a substantial power shift in a chamber that for more than two centuries has prided itself on affording more rights to the minority party than any other legislative body in the world. Now, a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate is virtually assured of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction.

Reid said the chamber “must evolve” beyond parliamentary roadblocks. “The American people believe the Senate is broken, and I believe the American people are right,” he said, adding: “It’s time to get the Senate working again.”

Translated: it’s best for my party and my party is in charge therefore that’s what we are going to do.

Republicans said the way Democrats upended the rules will result in fallout for years. “It’s another raw exercise of political power to permit the majority to do anything it wants whenever it wants to do it,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the GOP’s parliamentary expert, told reporters.

Republicans vowed to reciprocate if they reclaim the majority.

Thank you. History, meet schadenfreude. Shake hands and come out fighting.

“Democrats won’t be in power in perpetuity,” said Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), a 27-year member. “This is a mistake — a big one for the long run. Maybe not for the short run. Short-term gains, but I think it changes the Senate tremendously in a bad way.”

Shelby was remarkably prescient.

From November 22nd, 2013.

Can anyone remotely say “goose and gander”? WSJ.com continues:

After the Senate Goes ‘Nuclear’ on Supreme Court Nominees, Will Legislation Be Next?

Republicans are expected Thursday to change the Senate’s rules to make it easier to confirm Supreme Court nominees. The move has aroused concern that legislation may be the next target.

The Senate, its occupants worry, is just one step away from acting a whole lot like the House if the party in the minority is no longer able to block legislation.

Right now, most bills need 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles in the Senate. Most of the time, Democrats and Republicans have to work together unless unless one party controls more than 60 seats in the chamber. Currently Republicans hold 52 seats. Both parties have tried to use the chamber’s procedural tools to their advantage, leading to more frequent standoffs.

Then Breitbart.com writes about the situation now.

Constitutional Option Unstoppable: John McCain and Lisa Murkowski Will Vote Yes

by Ken Klukowski

WASHINGTON,D.C.—Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) announced on the Senate floor Wednesday that they will not allow a filibuster of Neil Gorsuch, and will instead vote for the constitutional option to restore a simple-majority vote to confirm Supreme Court nominations, making that outcome now almost certain.

Really? And how will they manage to halt it?

Earlier during the day Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claimed that he had the 50 votes he needs—plus Vice President Mike Pence as a tie-breaker, if needed—to invoke the constitutional option and confirm President Donald Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee.

With his towering stature in the party, both in seniority and later as the 2008 presidential nominee, McCain was seen by some as the de facto chairman of the Gang of 14 effort in 2005 to save the option of filibustering judicial nominees in the future — but allowing through many of President George W. Bush’s nominees that were then being blocked by a Democratic filibuster. Ironically, that strategy’s architect was none other than Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who implemented it in 2003.

Do you see this? Do you see the wheels within wheels? On the other hand, this is McCain serving McCain and, simultaneously when it pleases him, doing the work of the GOP.

“The unprecedented nature of the Democrats’ filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee has left me in a difficult position,” the Arizona senator lamented on the state of affairs in 2017, and after surveying years of past practice in Senate confirmations.

“I’m left with no choice,” McCain declared. “I will vote to change the rules to allow Judge Gorsuch to be confirmed by a simple majority.”

The Nuclear Option. What is it?

That said, what is cloture?

“What if the Republicans become the majority again?” Inside baseball, but very important. Full circle. Should be no shock to anyone. But, zounds, a major shock to the Demorats who hadn’t fully anticipated that the Republicans — heretofore unpossessed of a spine — actually grew a modicum of one under a president who coiffed an orange dead cat on top of his head.

Again, more on the “nuclear option.”

Trent Lott coined the term. But here is a graphic.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has already approved Judge Neil Gorsuch.

One thing that I simply cannot understand. Please, someone attempt to explain to me, obviously, the advantage acquired by the Demorats in the filibustering of Judge Gorsuch. Because, once changed, the rule will allow the GOP to acquire another potential SCOTUS nominee during this term or another subsequent.

I have information to indicate there may likely be another SCOTUS vacancy extant somewhere in 2017. Then, between 2017 and 2020, my guess is that there will likely be another SCOTUS vacancy. That’s three.

By forcing a filibuster the Demorats will have, potentially, enabled the next three SCOTUS replacements. With luck they won’t be Left-leaning. This could be an unprecedented achievement in all of US history.

All under President Donald Trump.

Three Demorat Senators have had the guts to take a stand.

With 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats in the Senate, the GOP needs eight Democrats to join them to break a filibuster, which takes 60 votes.

So far, however, only three Democrats have come out saying they would support Gorsuch – Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana.

Who and what? Time will tell. These are my thoughts.

BZ

 

 Share

Democrat Elizabeth Warren screws over female employees

Posted on by

It ever so pleases me to expose the hypocrisy splayed about by the Demorats, even when honest Americans are injured personally. It sucks to be you. Sometimes you have to be smarter than the propaganda. If you are not, well, there are prices to be paid. Commitments have consequences. Hey. So do elections.

From the WashingtonFreeBeacon.com:

Elizabeth Warren’s Female Staffers Made 71% of Male Staffers’ Salaries in 2016

by Brent Scher

Equal Pay Day Special: Warren demonstrates hypocrisy on gender pay gap

The gender pay gap in Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D., Mass.) office is nearly 10 percent wider than the national average, meaning women in the Massachusetts Democrat’s office will have to wait longer than most women across the country to recognize Equal Pay Day.

Equal Pay Day, created two decades ago by the National Committee on Pay Equity, is scheduled by using the Census Bureau annual unadjusted gender pay gap to determine how far into the next year women would have to work to match annual earnings of men. Last year’s figures, showing that women earned 79.6 percent of what men earned, put Equal Pay Day on Tuesday April 4, more than three months into the calendar year.

Equal pay for equal work. Equal pay for dangerous work? Take a gander.

Question: just how many womyn work in these jobs? The deadliest jobs? I would submit: merely a handful at most. Lots of womyn loggers. Lots of womyn roofers. Lots of general construction laborers. Why, just the other day, I saw a massive contingent of womyn slamming down shingles on a friend’s roof. Uh no. I didn’t. I was lying there.

The above jobs? They’re too foul for most womyn. They wouldn’t denigrate themselves thusly. Those are jobs best left for the — wait for it — male barbarians. Most womyn might break a nail, after all. Worse yet, two or more. Beneath them, it is.

(The word “womyn” is insisted upon by those females who don’t want to be associated by word with men. Hence the “y.” You see?)

Sorry. Facts.

However, women working for Warren were paid just 71 cents for every dollar paid to men during the 2016 fiscal year, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.

The median annual earnings for women staffers, $52,750, was more than $20,000 less than the median annual earnings for men, $73,750, according to the analysis of publicly available Senate data.

When calculated using average salaries rather than median, the pay gap expands to just over $26,051, or about 31 percent.

Consistent with previous Free Beacon analyses of Senate salary data, only full-time staffers who were employed for the entire period in question were included in the calculations.

For example, Warren’s former chief of staff Mindy Myers and her male replacement Dan Geldon were not included because neither worked the full year.

Among employees employed the entire year, only one woman, Warren’s director of scheduling, earned a six-figure salary, at $100,624.88.

Five men—Warren’s director of oversight and investigations ($156,000), legislative director ($149,458), deputy chief of staff ($119,375), Massachusetts state director ($152,310), and deputy state director ($113,750)—earned more than Warren’s highest paid woman staffer in 2016.

Whaaat? Leftist womyn screwing over fellow Leftist womyn? Zounds! This cannot be true. Except, well, yes, it is.

Many discount attributing gender pay differences to discrimination, arguing that these comparisons fail to take into account several contributing factors, but Warren is not one of them.
Warren said on last year’s Equal Pay Day that the American workplace was “rigged against women” and called it a “national day of embarrassment” for the nation.

“Today is Equal Pay Day, and by the sound of it, you would think it’s some sort of historic holiday commemorating the anniversary of a landmark day that our country guaranteed equal pay for women,” Warren said. “But that’s not what this is about. Not even close.”

“The game is rigged against women and families, and it has to stop,” Warren continued. “It is 2016, not 1916, and it’s long past time to eliminate gender discrimination in the workplace.”

Right. It’s rigged. By womyn. Against womyn. Just ask Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren. She’s in good company. Hillary Clinton also short-sheeted womyn.

Warren is far from the only politician who pays women less than men.

Most notable on the list is failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who paid women less than men first as a senator, then as secretary of state, and as a presidential candidate. Her campaign viewed her tendency to pay women less than men as a campaign vulnerability.

Former President Barack Obama regularly spoke out about the gender pay gap, but women working at the White House were paid less than men.

Also paying women less than men were Democratic Govs. Jon Bel Edwards (LA.), who last month held an “equal pay summit,” and Andrew Cuomo (N.Y.), who has signed two executive orders this year to eliminate the wage gap.

Warren’s office did not respond to inquiries from the Washington Free Beacon. Gobsmacked, I am. Moreover, let’s stay away from facts, shall we?

Nice video. But the poster clearly can’t spell.

The Spite House under our loving Barack Hussein Obama deigned to undercut the salaries for womyn doing the same jobs as men in the Spite House itself? Under its roof? The outrage! The betrayal!

Not just regular betrayal. Extra-crispy betrayal. From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Obama White House still pays women less than men

by Ashe Schow

If activists are going to use median annual salaries to claim women are paid less than men, then they ought to be consistent and call out President Obama‘s White House.

Female staffers in the White House earn 89 cents for ever dollar that male staffers earn. That’s on par with one of the numbers often reported for the misleading “gender wage gap,” which finds women earning 77 or 78 or 89 cents to a man’s dollar.

American Enterprise Scholar Mark J. Perry, who analyzed the White House data, found the median salary for the White House’s 271 female staffers to be $68,658, while the median salary for the 198 male staffers was $76,928 in 2016.

I don’t know. To me that seems to fit the word “disparity.” But I could be wrong.

“Therefore, female staffers in the Obama White House currently earn 89.25% of the median salary for male staffers, or 89.25 cents for every $1 men earn, and there is a 10.75% gender pay gap at the Obama White House,” Perry wrote. “That pay gap is slightly smaller than the 15.8% gender pay gap at the White House last year, but is still more than 2.5 times greater than the average gender pay gap for the Washington, D.C., labor market of only 4% according to the most recent data available from the Department of Labor.”

You opened the door. Never think people will not walk through it, once opened.

BZ

P.S.

Here’s another tasty tidbit that womyn will only admit singly and alone, never in a group or in public: womyn hate working in an all-female environment at any given job. But of course that’s not PC to think, much less to write here.

 

 Share

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, Tuesday, April 4th, 2017

Posted on by

My thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to broadcast in their studio and over their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show™ each Wednesday evening.

Tuesday night at the Saloon we discussed:

  • Happy Stories: grandfather upset that home invasion victim killed his grandson and two other suspects with an AR-15 — as opposed to a pellet pistol or a butter knife?
  • How I conduct business at the Saloon; thanks be to those in chat;
  • Mother talks about how her son was tortured and killed at the hands of an illegal alien who systematically killed her son and set his body on fire;
  • Victims of illegal immigrant crime speak to Donald Trump;
  • Who is REALLY sitting next to your child in the classroom: is it an illegal alien or a 30-year-old man who shares a bathroom with 10-year-old kids? Your school probably couldn’t care less and it won’t tell you any way;
  • No Shaun at the Sack Heads Radio Show tomorrow night?
  • Nancy Pelosi: we actually have nothing on Trump and Russia;
  • In depth: an extended update on the surveillance of President Donald Trump
  • We go into 7 minutes of overtime;

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, Tuesday, April 4th, 2017” on Spreaker.

Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening via podcast. Thanks also to the BBS bouncer Fluffy for kicking all the louts out of Mary Brockman’s chair at the bar.

Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here.

BZ

 

 Share

BLM says: black lives matter over all others

Posted on by

These Caucasoids marching with other BLM protesters: no longer allowed.

Nothing like knowing that an entire organization and movement is staffed by blatant racists. However, if there’s something I value, it’s clarity and honesty. Thanks BLM.

From DailyCaller.com:

Black Lives Matter Philly Bans White People From Its Meetings

by Amber Randall

Black Lives Matter Philly banned white people from an upcoming event, claiming it is a “black only space.”

The April 15 meeting plans to discuss projects and initiatives for the upcoming year and act as a  place for people to “meet, strategize and organize.” While children are invited to attend, white people are explicitly banned from the meeting, according to the Facebook event page.

When people began questioning the ban on whites over Twitter, Black Lives Matter Philly stayed by their ban, explaining that their meetings are “black centered.”

Anyone who identifies as “African disapora” is allowed to attend, the group explained over Twitter.

Calling Rachel Dolezal. Hello, Rachel Dolezal? Perhaps it’s time for you to weigh in on CNN because, after all, race is only a “social construct.”

I submit there may be a few blacks in America who might take issue with that. Call me wacky, but I suspect more than three blacks might think so.

After all, as Kamau Kambon says, it’s past due time to simply eliminate Caucasoids.

The terrible problem is this: not all blacks in America think this way. Take Tyrus from the Greg Gutfeld Show.

BZ, you racist! Blacks can’t be racist. Just ask them.

BZ

 

 Share