Mediaboss Marketing

posted at 10:01 am on February 4, 2017 by Jazz Shaw

Yesterday, the legendary Andrew Malcolm published a piece here which speculates about other Supreme Court seats which may come up for grabs while Donald Trump is in office and what the fallout from such a turn of events might be. This is a grim game at the best of times because pondering an opening on the Supreme Court is frequently only thought of as meaning one thing, and it involves six people carrying a casket. But thats not the reality in most cases. Many of us tend to think that accepting a seat on that court winds up turning into a life sentence thats nearly as certain as the one Charles Manson received. However, as Zachary Goldfarb and Lydia DePillis wrote shortly after the death of Antonin Scalia, its actually a rarity. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died in office in 2005, but the last time it happened before that was in 1954. All the other ex-justices in the intervening half century left the building under their own power.

With that optimistic outlook in mind, its still worth considering whether any of the current crop are considering spending their golden years doing anything more relaxing. We would generally expect that sort of decision from the oldest members which means the Notorious RBG (83), Kennedy (80) or Breyer (78). The oldest conservative justice (Thomas) is still in his sixties. This has progressives and their liberal allies in the media in a panic at the moment. Two examples cropped up at the WaPo this week, with the first being a plaintive cry from Ruth Marcus for Anthony Kennedy to stick around until the last dog is hung or risk seeing his legacy go up in smoke.

Justice Kennedy, if youre reading this, my message is simple: Please dont retire. It could put your legacy at risk; even more, it would be terrible for the country at a moment that demands healing, not another bitter fight ripping at the seams of national unity.

Its natural, of course, that stepping down would be on your mind. At 80, you are the courts longest-serving justice 29 years this month. Appointed by a Republican president, you might decide that a Republican president should have the chance to name your successor.

Please dont.

That one is actually fairly tame when compared to a stunning offer made by Rachel Manteuffel to Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Rather than appealing to the tiny cancer survivors better angels in terms of retirement, Manteuffel cuts straight to the chase and lets Ginsburg know that shes ready to go under the knife and donate her bodily organs if it will keep RBG on the bench until Trump is gone.

I just wanted you to know that I admire you very much and have some tokens of my esteem that you might enjoy. Such as blood. If you have any need for blood, you can have the eight or so units of A-positive that are right here in my body. Theres also a gently used liver in here, lobes of it just lying around if you need them

My kidneys function well. I have two. Either one is yours for the taking. Both, if need be. ..

I have scads of nerves that you can have. Just take them. My skin would graft onto you beautifully. Bones, stem cells, a whole eyeball I dont need, feet of intestines, feet. Just a ridiculous amount of health, way more than should rightly belong to someone with my standing in the world. It is not just. And I know you like justice

I am somewhat bigger than you are, so my heart might not be a perfect fit. Have it cut to size.

I realize that Manteuffels essay is ostensibly written tongue in cheek, but these are not the thoughts of a rational person. That last line in particular about having her heart cut to size summons up images of an Aztec high priest plunging an obsidian blade into the chest cavity of a sacrificial captive on an ancient pyramid. This isnt comedy its a desperate plea from the truly unhinged, convinced that a monster (Trump) has risen up from the depths of Mordor to take over the world and there are no hobbits with magic rings of power to be found anywhere. It is, in short, thinly disguised religious fervor.

I suppose thats understandable to a certain degree. Younger political activists are facing the very real possibility of witnessing something which has almost never happened in their adult lifetime the swing of a SCOTUS seat from the far left to the far right. Kagan and Sotomayor replaced Stevens and Souter respectively both were reliably liberal. (Souter was appointed by Bush 41, but wound up voting almost exclusively with the liberal block.) Roberts replaced Rehnquist, a Nixon appointee who was considered a conservative federalist. Breyer replaced Harry Blackmun who was another Nixon appointee but went on to become one of the most liberal justices in the modern era, eventually authoring Roe v. Wade. And RBG (appointed almost a quarter century ago) replaced Byron White, a JFK appointee. In fact it could be argued that the only real ideological shift of note which younger liberals have witnessed was Alito replacing Sandra Day OConnor. Even there, OConnor was viewed as more of a swing vote and was a Regan appointee.

Now, the three members most likely to retire (or, God forbid, expire) are the current swing vote and two of the most reliable liberals on the court. If one of them is replaced by someone on Trumps current list of possible nominees it will be a seismic shift to the Right which liberals are simply not prepared to witness. And that shift would most likely continue to resonate until the current crop of liberal protesters are ready to collect Social Security. (Assuming the program lives that long without going broke.)

With all that in mind, perhaps Manteuffels offer wont bee seen as such a crazy bargain after all. And Im taking her at her word that she has a simply lovely liver to offer. Lord only knows that nobody would want mine.

Excerpt from:
Progressives are finding religion as they pray for the health of liberal SCOTUS justices - Hot Air

Progressive activists are demanding that Democrats do everything in their power to stop President Trump from putting another conservative on the Supreme Court.

When Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., suggested he might stop short of filibustering Trump's nominee Neil Gorsuch, the response from liberal groups was swift and firm.

"There is zero appetite among the public for weakness from Democratic politicians," said Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Stephanie Taylor.

"Especially after Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat, Coons and all Senate Democrats should join Sen. Jeff Merkley's filibuster of Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Gorsuch. That's the kind of backbone the public needs to see right now."

Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

Sorry, there was a problem processing your email signup. Please try again later.

Processing...

Thank you for signing up for Washington Examiner News Alerts. You should receive your first alert soon!

In case the point was missed, the group sent out an email to supporters urging them to call Coons. "Tell him that Democrats are counting on him to FIGHT WITH BACKBONE," the message read (emphasis in the original).

CREDO Action issued a blistering statement that opened with the suggestion that virtually anyone the president nominated would have been worthy of Democratic opposition, saying it was issued "in response to Donald Trump's nomination of [insert anti-women, anti-worker, anti-environment white male here] to the U.S. Supreme Court."

"Democrats cannot allow the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice picked by a racist, fascist, sexual predator who lost the majority vote by almost 3 million votes," the group's political director Murshed Zaheed said.

"The progressive base of the Democratic Party wants Democrats to fight Trump's fascist regime, not enable it," Zaheed added.

"There is no room for collaboration with a thin-skinned, tantrum-prone tyrant who, in just the first few days of his administration, has already displayed a reckless disregard for the rule of law and shown he is willing to undermine our Constitution."

Also from the Washington Examiner

Lawmakers race against a 60-day clock to repeal a slew of Obama administration regulations.

02/05/17 12:01 AM

Many of these groups and activists threatened Democratic senators who didn't do their part with future primary challenges.

"Senate Dems, let's be very clear," tweeted liberal filmmaker Michael Moore. "You will filibuster & block this SC nom or will we find a true progressive and primary u in next election."

Many progressives want to see Democrats become part of the "resistance" against Trump, obstructing and opposing him wherever possible.

Their efforts are patterned partly on the Tea Party's pressure to get Republicans to fight President Obama and partly on the unsuccessful liberal campaigns against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

But liberals are also angry that Senate Republicans denied a hearing or vote to Obama's last Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. Garland would have given the liberal bloc control of the court. Now Republicans have the opportunity to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia with another conservative.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Republicans are pushing back on claims that they are softening their language about Obamacare's future.

02/05/17 12:00 AM

"The Democrats should treat Trump's SCOTUS pick with the exact same courtesy the GOP showed Merrick Garland," tweeted former Obama senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer. "Don't flinch, don't back down."

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., quickly became the leader of this effort in Congress.

"The most fundamental thing that must be understood about tonight's announcement is that this is a stolen seat," he said when Gorsuch was nominated. Merkley called for a Democratic filibuster.

"This is a stolen seat being filled by an illegitimate and extreme nominee, and I will do everything in my power to stand up against this assault on the Court," he added.

A filibuster would require 60 votes to end debate and vote on the nomination. Republicans control 52 seats to the Democrats' 48.

Nevertheless, some Democrats are reluctant to go down this road. It is possible Republicans would change the rules to allow future Supreme Court nominees through by majority vote. This would leave Senate Democrats powerless to stop Trump if he got to replace a more liberal justice and change the balance of power on the court, unless they have retaken the majority by then.

Judging from the reaction Democrats like Coons have elicited, this is going to be a losing argument with the progressive base.

"But I'm not going to do to President Trump's nominee what the Republicans in the Senate did to President Obama's," Coons, a member of the Judiciary Committee, told CNN. "I will push for a hearing and I will push for a vote."

Thousands have poured into the streets to protest Trump's immigration order and other policies. Even before Trump, Supreme Court nomination fights had become increasingly contentious over the past thirty years, since Democrats defeated President Reagan's nomination of Judge Robert Bork.

Top Story

Notice sent about 24 hours after judge ordered the restraining order.

02/04/17 7:27 PM

Read the original here:
Filibuster or bust: Progressives demand Democrats block Supreme Court nominee - Washington Examiner

Among the many terrifying questions that Donald Trumps presidency poses is this: How do you oppose an indecent leader while still behaving decently yourself?

When it comes to the habits of deference extended to previous presidents, Im fine with breaking the rules. If Democrats want to oppose all of Trumps nominees on the basis that he himself is dangerous and illegitimate, that strikes me as fine. If performers who have traditionally performed at governmental functions want to boycott his, Im fine with that, too. Trump practices demagoguery, bigotry, and cruelty. He does not deserve the deference granted a normal president.

Trump Begins to Chip Away at Banking Regulations

But when Trumps opponents use the danger he and his supporters pose to restrict basic freedoms, theres a problem. Which is what happened earlier this week at the University of California, Berkeley, when a violent protest prevented Milo Yiannopoulos, a Breitbart News writer who has made his name by viciously mocking women, trans people, and African Americans, from speaking on campus.

Judging from my Twitter feed, not many progressives defend the violence, which appears to have been carried out by masked hoodlums who arrived from off-campus. But vast numbers said Berkeley should have peacefully denied Yiannopoulos an opportunity to speak on campus. In the words of one Twitter user, Free speech every college has an obligation to give you an official platform for your speech.

The problem with this argument is that it was not Berkeley itself that invited Yiannopoulos. It was the Berkeley College Republicans, who are legally a separate entity. And as Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks explained, long-standing campus policy permits registered student organizations to invite speakers to campus and to make free use of meeting space in the Student Union for that purpose. So the issue is not whether Berkeley should have given Yiannopoulos a platform. It is whether Berkeley should have denied some of its students the ability to give him a platform. And consistent with the dictates of the First Amendment as uniformly and decisively interpreted by the courts, Dirks argued, the university cannot censor or prohibit events, or charge differential fees.

That strikes me as a strong argument. Universities should establish rules for how they treat speakers that student organizations invite. And they should not alter those rules depending on the ideas those speakers espouse, even if their ideas are hateful. (And yes, Id apply that not merely to Milo but to a neo-Nazi like Richard Spencer). At Berkeley, the rules say that student organizations get to host their speakers at the Student Union for free. If Berkeley changes that because Yiannopoulos is a misogynist, what happens if a Palestinian group invites a speaker that conservatives call anti-Semitic?

Of course, Berkeley students also have the right to protest Yiannopoulos. But the university has an obligation to ensure that their right to protest does not prevent the College Republicans from hearing their invited guest. Is the university obligated to spend extra money, which it would not expend for a normal speaker, because Yiannopouloss speech requires extra security? Im not sure. But in any case, Berkeley did not spend extra money. It required the College Republicans to come up with funds for additional security themselves; an anonymous patron contributed $6,000 to help them.

The second argument for preventing Yiannopoulos from speaking is that his ideas are more than merely offensive. His conduct at public events has constituted harassment. As a group of Berkeley professors detailed in a letter, Yiannopoulos, projected a picture of a trans student onto a screen during his speech at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, last Decemberan event that was also live-streamed on Breitbart News. He continued to ridicule and vilify her in front of the live campus audience and the online audience. The student was so disturbed by this experience that she withdrew from the university.

But this argument is weak, too. Yiannopouloss behavior at the Milwaukee campus sounds disgusting. But as Dirks wrote in response, critical statements and even the demeaning ridicule of individuals are largely protected by the Constitution. If they were not, a lot of comedians would have trouble performing live. And even if the targeted UWM student has grounds to sue, Berkeley cannot prevent the College Republicans from hosting Yiannopoulos because of the possibility that he might do something like that again.

Politically, the problem with shutting Yiannopoulos down is obvious. The reason the College Republicans invited him in the first place was because we believe there exists a dearth of intellectual diversity on this campus, and conservative thought is actively repressed. Not letting him speak on campus just makes their point. It lets Yiannopoulos depict himself as a victim of political correctness. Which is the grievance that fuels his ugly persona in the first place.

But the argument for letting Yiannopoulos speak is more than tactical. Its a matter of principle. Conservative students have the right to bring obnoxious bigots to speak on campus and other students have a right to protest. But universities should not let the protesters shut them down. That was hard for many leftists to accept even before Trumps election. Now that an obnoxious bigot occupies the White House, its even harder. But Trumps presidency is, in part, a test of whether ordinary Americans can avoid sinking to his level, whether a citizenry can respect the principles that its leaders do not. What happened to Milo Yiannopoulos this week is part of that test. Its important that progressives at Berkeley, and around the country, do not fail.

Read this article:
Milo Yiannopoulos Tested Progressivesand They Failed - The Atlantic

To the editor:

In his Jan. 26th opinion piece, self-proclaimed "progressive" Dr. Wayne-Daniel Berard attempted to find some common ground with conservatives. Condescendingly, he concluded that the point of contact is that "what they want, what they've wanted all along, is for we progressives to include them, too, among those we want to lift up." It was good to read his acknowledgment of the fact that many progressives have marginalized those "who have no college degrees or do manual labor," or those labeled as a "stupider-than-us conservative Christian."

Additionally, Dr. Berard proudly wrote of progressive achievements including, "We have fought for the freedom of all to live their core beliefs, popular or un." However, he could not resist writing, "I will confess, I do not understand how many of these deal with LGBTQ folk or woman's reproductive freedom. But my progressivism includes the right of religions to set their own course, in house." And with only two words, "in house", he exposed what he really means by religious freedom. Those of faith should be free to practice their beliefs, but their expressions of it should be confined to their places of worship and the home. Clearly, Dr. Berard would like us to shut up in the public square.

As a Christian, I and others of like faith will continue to live out, speak out, private and public, for what we believe is God's created order regarding sexuality and against the horrific and unconscionable wrongs of abortion, which is pathetically whitewashed with its dismal depiction as "reproductive health."

No, Dr. Berard, we are not just like you. The only real ultimate point of contact with all of us is that we, as we read in the Bible, are sinners who have offended our creator, and we all are in dire need of a savior. That savior is Jesus Christ for all who embrace and follow him in faith.

Rev. Paul Wanamaker

Norton

The left must stop obstructing Trump

To the editor:

I read the newspaper, watch the TV news and listen to America, and I am utterly disgusted.

In 2008 when Barack Obama was elected president, I, and many of my conservative friends, were very disappointed. But we didn't need a "safe place" to go to. We didn't protest in the streets and destroy the property of others. We were willing to give him an opportunity to succeed or fail knowing we could vote him out in four years.

President Trump has been in office slightly more then a week. He has a very few members of his cabinet confirmed due to unprecedented Democrat obstructionism. He issues an executive order that puts a 180-day hold on accepting any persons from seven countries that Obama said were war sites because we don't know if ISIS is sending people over here. The order doesn't say a hold on Muslims, it says a hold on anyone and allows Homeland Security an opportunity to make exceptions.

Yet the left portrays this as a ban on Muslims despite the fact that there is no hold on the 99 percent of Muslims living in any country other then these seven countries. And the left, in the person of the mainstream media and the Hollywood crowd, spreads the lies as if they were the truth

A man with a highly-qualified status from the left of center American Bar Association, Neil Gorsuch, was nominated to the Supreme Court. The protesters were on the Supreme Court steps with "fill in the blank" signs where the wrote in the justice's name and the libs began the fight before having asked the man a single question. And you can already see the left salivating at the thought of what kind of hell they can put this man and his family through.

This all must stop. These people need to get a grip. We have elections in this country and those elections have consequences. If you don't like the results then do something about it in the next election.

We conservatives endured eight years of a failed presidency without obstructing every nomination (Obama's cabinets were in place within a week of his inaugurations). It's time the left did the same thing.

Joseph Chabot

North Attleboro

Editor's note: Tuesday is the deadline to receive endorsement letters for the Feb. 14 preliminary election in North Attleboro. Send to opinion@thesunchronicle.com or to Voice of the Public. PO Box 600, Attleboro, MA 02703.

On to Super Bowl

Goodell tried to hamper

the Pats on their quest,

but... in the end,

he just gave Tom some rest.

They won with Garoppolo,

J. Brissett, too;

with only two bumps,

through the schedule they flew!

Unlike the year last,

they locked up home field;

and with the bye week,

the players, they healed.

The game against Houston,

did not play their best;

it sharpened their focus,

to play with more zest.

TB had his game face

against the poor Steelers;

the Patriots rocked,

Ben and Co. were The Reelers.

Ten zip after one,

Pats got a great start;

Do Your Job! Do Your Job!

Each did their own part.

Mistakes Pitt' did make,

they started to bicker -

wouldn't you after seeing

that Hogan flea flicker?

How 'bout power, too?

That Blount rugby scrum

showed that Tom just might get

that "One For The Thumb."

Here in New England,

or so I've been told,

these trips to the Big Dance

just never get old.

And talk about dances,

of this, have no qualms:

M. Bennett is surely

the King of pom poms!

So bring on Atlanta

and all their offense.

Matt Ryan just might make

this game a bit tense.

But at the game's end,

when all's said and done,

expect Pats to win

SB Fifty One!

Don't know about you,

but I think you'll agree:

can't wait to see Roger

hand Tom ... MVP!

Allan Fournier

North Attleboro

View original post here:
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: No, conservatives are not like progressives - The Sun Chronicle

Race. Gender. Language. Religion. Politics.

Those are the subjects most worth talking about if you are looking to discuss something substantive and intellectual. They are the basis for our civics, our identities, and even our passions. Hot-button topics are supposed to be uncomfortable, the rising tensions emblematic of the magnitude these subjects carry.

A strange phenomenon has been happening over the past decade or so that has stifled great debates, great conversation. I did not truly understand the magnitude of the problem until I began receiving messages from people on Facebook after getting into debates with strangers about one of those hot-button topics. The messages are almost always identical; 'Hey James, just wanted to let you know that I agree with a lot of the points you made today. But I can't jump in because I don't want to get fired from my job.'

They sometimes don't want their families to give them a hard time, or they are afraid they will lose friends over their opinions. This is the aftermath of a recently polarized society where you must wave a flag for one side or the other, and by doing so you are required to parrot certain viewpoints or they will pull your card, no questions asked.

I know about this first hand. Most of my friends lean left on nearly everything. And that's fine, but many of them have opinions that are not in line with hard left ideology, and they are far too afraid to talk about those positions in public. Things like gender politics, for example. I would estimate that at least 80% of my female friends over the age of 30 refuse to call themselves feminists.

They feel infantilized by modern feminists, embarrassed that they are being told to constantly place themselves in the role of a victim. And just as an aside, I am fully aware that my last sentence has enraged many people reading this, and that is precisely the problem.

I don't know one person who doesn't believe in equality among the sexes. Not even one. But, for example, if you believe that there is more to the wage gap than basic misogyny, hardline progressives would rather try to reprogram you or place you into a box than politely discuss the issue like adults.

They feel that by denying the notion that there might be other reasons why women do not get paid as much as men you are denying something as ironclad as the colour of the sky, or where babies come from. This is not an exaggeration, it is the exact climate we are living in within our own discourse, and the lack of intellectual curiosity is dampening our ability to have real, robust discussions on issues vital to a modern society.

Deeply embedded in this ultra-progressive ideology is a profound hypocrisy, a sort of convenience lever that is pulled whenever the movement is being threatened. Hillary Clinton's candidacy is the easiest, most recent example. Many of her supporters were identity politics stalwarts who championed ideas like #believeallwomen, a slogan that supports the notion that every woman who accuses a man of assault or rape should be believed, no questions asked.

Obviously this idea is wrought with potential pitfalls, but activists who support the notion are unapologetically rigid in their stance. However, if you had rightfully reminded them that Bill Clinton had been accused of rape by more than one woman, your reminder was deflected as they pivoted to a lecture about how Hillary's husband was not running for office, or how Hillary was the victim of her own husband's philandering.

Consistently, almost pathologically, these activists would completely ignore the actual alleged victims of Bill Clinton, betraying their own philosophy of believing all women as they worked to get the first woman elected as president. And let's not even bother pondering what they would have said if Todd Palin was an accused rapist.

You will find the same rigidness inside every hardline movement, a kind of stubbornness that probably prevents certain causes from gaining wider appeal from rationalists and moderates alike. Like hardline conservatives and their cult-like faith in free market capitalism, there is no room for negotiation.

Both sides engage like this, by the way. It's a type of echo chamber activism born out of polarization that defines the other side as the enemy while branding their own side as unerring. There is never any compromising, never any debate to water down the dogma. Facts that undermine the radical positions of either side are off-limits, viewed through a lens tinted with the notion that the ends always justify the means, especially when those ends are all about justice.

So if both sides do it, why am I mostly focusing on the progressive side? Well, it's because up until a few years ago, I considered myself a true progressive. I am on the left side of every issue I can think of...except for one: political correctness. I know, even that term carries with it a meaning that causes both sides to roll their eyes. The left believe the right uses the term to scoff at basic politeness and civility, and the right believes the term is the label the left uses to police people's thoughts and words.

Both sides have it wrong, in my view. Political correctness is a required practice for certain things like not using the N word, or not engaging in threatening speech. It becomes problematic when comedians are being sued for jokes, or when college campuses force the cafeteria to change their menus due to alleged cultural appropriation.

We are coddling the new generation of progressives, enabling them and propping up ideas that are not sustainable in the real world. Things like trigger warnings and safe spaces might seem like examples of sensitivity and understanding, but often these ideas are associated with listening to different political views or hearing keywords that remind people of a bad memory.

Not to say that hearing certain speech isn't sometimes annoying or even upsetting, but an entire generation is being taught that coddling a hypersensitive reaction to certain speech is not just a new way of dealing with problems, but also the only ethical or moral way.

This righteous indignation is self-defeating, however, as it works to alienate people who do not subscribe to the rigid ideology of radical progressives, leaving rational progressives unwilling to join the fight.

Also on HuffPost:

More here:
North America And The Decline Of Rational Progressives - Huffington Post Canada