The Chickens of 2010 and 2016 Have Come Home to Roost

[MineralMan]

In both of those years, far too many Democrats sat it out on election day and we lost ground in our effort to make our federal government more progressive. In 2010, Republicans got control of the House and increased their majority in the Senate. Worse, that was a Census year, and we lost a number of state legislatures, which helped Republicans further gerrymander some states.

For those who could not get excited about Hillary Clinton in 2016 and either did not vote or voted in vain for a third party candidate because they disliked Hillary, I hope a realization of the result of that is at the top of their minds today. I am not the only one who pointed out the extreme risk of a Trump presidency leading to an overwhelming majority in the Supreme Court. That is now about to occur.

In 2020, we should be working hard to re-elect Hillary Clinton for a second term. Instead, we are facing the distinct possibility that Donald J. Trump will manage to squeak back into office for four more disastrous years. If you're saying to yourself that such a thing cannot happen, I remind you once again of 2016.

Elections are about the realities of politics, not about the pure ideals of progressivism. We must elect public officials who will, in some way, advance our goals. If we do not, or cannot, progressivism will not be on the agenda. That is what we faced after 2016, and what we again face in 2020. No matter how pure your goals for government may be, if Republicans hold power, none of those goals will be realized.

Some claimed in 2016 that electing Trump would create a massive wave of progressivism in reaction. It did not. instead, it created a reinforcement of the regressive ideals of the religious right and arch-conservatism. The alternative to progressive purity is not the middle road. It is Republicanism and Donald J. Trump.

Can the United States be saved, even after losing the Supreme Court to the right wing? Maybe. Maybe not. That will depend on everyone who wishes for a progressive society to work up their enthusiasm at least enough to get Joe Biden elected as President and to establish a majority in the US Senate.

Is Biden the progressive ideal as a candidate for President? No. Of course he is not. However, the progressive candidates in the Democratic primary lost and Biden is the nominee. The voters spoke, and it is the voters who decide, not idealists. So, progressives, step up to the plate and work your asses off to elect Biden. Make up for 2010 and 2016 and give us all a chance. Please.

Why? Because Republicans are hungry for even more power, and because chickens who are late to roost and who are not productive of eggs will end up in the stew pot on Sunday. Don't become the main ingredient in the Republican's supper. And that is how it is, the day after the death of Ruth Bader Gingsburg.

Will this post be unpopular with some? Of course it will. I am beyond caring about popularity at this point. It is all about survival now.

[Yavin4]

1. Why stop at 2016? I would go all the way back to 2000.

More so than 2016, 2000 was THE year that we could have made massive progressive changes for the new century. Coming out of Clinton's 2nd term, we had a budget surplus, an end to the Cold War, new technology that was creating new industries, and peace around the world.

The Progressives back then voted for Nader which cost Gore and just look at how much we've lost since then. Two wars, a financial collapse, the rise of Trump, and a right wing SCOTUS. Sure, there was the bright spot of Obama's presidency, but that's pretty much it. Everything else has been a shit sandwich.

Some American progressives simply do not understand that you cannot have progress without power. You have to seize power in order to have progress. Making speeches at rallies, posting online, and voting for 3rd party candidates out of spite loses power.

[MineralMan]

3. I chose 2010 and 2016 because they are remembered better

than 2000. You're right, of course, but there are many, many voters who either were not born or were too young to vote in 2000. They do not remember the 2000 election.

So, I picked the years I picked because of that.

[Yavin4]

9. 2000 resonates more because of where we were then.

We had the resources to push through massive progressive change. In 2010 and 2016, we were still climbing out of the hole of the financial collapse.

[MineralMan]

10. Yes, but we need to be relevant to those who have no memory of 2020.

Hell, I remember the election of 1960. I was just 15 years old then. We need every vote of everyone who has become eligible to vote after 2000. The rest of us will vote as we habitually do.

[Yavin4]

20. History matters. 2000 is only 20 years ago.

It's important to track recent history to today in terms of the point that you're making. From 2008 to 2016, we were still dealing with two wars and a financial collapse. Hillary lost to Obama in 2008 primarily because of her vote for the IWR, and why was there an IWR because Bush II pushed us into it. And where did Bush II come from? 2000.

Events build upon each other. If your point is to make some progressives understand the necessity of holding and building onto power, start with 2000. No clearer example exists.

[moose65]

24. 2010 was awful in the House and in state legislatures...

But the Republicans didn't control the Senate after 2010. Democrats held onto it, and actually increased their majority in 2012.

We have really seen the results of what happened in 2014. That year, we got an absolute shellacking in the Senate, and that's where a lot of our problems came from. If Dems had kept control of the Senate that year, Obama would have had another Supreme Court justice, as well as many other lower level judicial posts that McConnell blocked.

2016 didn't help, either. Russ Feingold should be in the Senate right now - that was the worst loss.

For some reason, Democrats don't seem to take a long view. Senators are in office for a long time - a lot of stuff can happen in 6 years!

[still_one]

14. Exactly

[Sherman A1]

19. No, let's take this logic back to something like

1800 and it makes just as much sense as the OP. Which is less than zero.

[Demsrule86]

74. Wrong...there are senate seats being impacted by crappy Greens. It continues.

We will lose everything if we dont recognise the threat Republicans pose and we must vote blue no matter what. We will lose Medicare and social security if Trump wins reelection and or we don't hold the Senate and the House. Thank God, the greens are not on the ballot in Montana as they could take votes from Bullock a poll by NYT which erroneously surveyed Greens showed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/20/upshot/montana-poll-election.html

[Sherman A1]

89. Oh, sure

[FBaggins]

34. And all the way forward to 2018

Those two senate seats would be very useful right about now.

[AngryOldDem]

48. I'd go back as far as 1980 and Reagan, who legitimized a lot of factions...

...that had no business claiming any kind of legitimacy in the party. Then there’s good old Newt Gingrich, who made “win and keep power at all costs” Rule One of GOP leadership.

It’s taken decades for this tree to bear and drop its bitter fruit. I feel like I’ve watching a slow motion train wreck since the ‘80s. This may well be our last chance to stop this madness.

[plimsoll]

66. Absolutely 1994.

The contract on America. As much as I dislike the Reagan myth, Gingrich ushered in the brand of the GOP.

[AngryOldDem]

75. Yes, he did.

McConnell is a creation of Gingrich.

[rockfordfile]

2. I agree with some of that

[MineralMan]

4. I'm glad to hear it.

[The Genealogist]

5. I hope a good number of people who didn't vote in 2016 or went 3rd party come to...

their senses this time. I've seen what some in that group want. I hear "end private property!" I hear "workers take over corporations!" Such people argue that it is those calling themselves "liberals" who are the problem. It may be a hard sell.

[MineralMan]

6. If They Don't, Their Very Survival Is in Question.

[still_one]

15. I know that Cornell West will be voting for Biden/Harris, because he said so on Anderson/Cooper

[calimary]

60. I hope so.

I keep thinking - to those who just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary - Happy NOW???

You SURE Hillary would have been just awful or sucky or icky or whatever-the-fuck the excuse was for not voting for her?

STILL think Hillary would have been just so terrible and awful and shitty and horrible and everything would be so fucked?

I’d like an answer to that one.

[still_one]

62. Most of them are unapologetic, and some like Gray and Sirota are doing the same things they did in

2016

In the Anderson Cooper interview while West said he would vote for Biden/Harris, don’t count on him or anyone else from that group to be on board in 2024, since they are intent on forming a third party

[Demsrule86]

7. Great post MM.

[MineralMan]

8. You're too kind.

I began thinking about this post at 2 AM, when I learned that RBG had died.

[Klaralven]

11. Democrats controlled the Senate for 6 years and the House for 2 years of the Obama administration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

Democrats controlled the House 257 to 158 in the 111th Congress. They spent all their political capital on health care. They fell to 193 to 242 in the 112th Congress. But they continued to hold the Senate by a slim 51 to 47 with Bernie and Joe as Independents caucusing with them.

[In It to Win It]

12. I think most progressive voters only see it one way

That is the only way for progressivism to happen is if you get a purely progressive candidate.

I don’t think they consider that our candidates (even if they’re not as liberal as some would like) would enact some amount progressive legislation. They don’t consider that they would throw out the little progressivism that we’d get because it’s not enough.

Instead, they would rather sit out or vote 3rd party which results in Republicans being elected. They want take a giant leap forward (and we all do). However, we’d also take an inch forward rather than take 10 steps back.

I don’t think the purists that refuse to vote for the Dem candidate considers that calculation.

[BannonsLiver]

50. Bless your heart.

[betsuni]

67. "In Pennsylvania, where public and private polls showed a competitive race similar to 2012,

we had nearly 500 staff on the ground, 120 more than the Obama campaign deployed four years before. We spent 211 percent more on television ads in the state. And I held more than twenty-five campaign events there, during the general election. We also blanketed Pennsylvania with high-profile surrogates like President Obama and Vice President Biden. In Michigan, where the polls showed us ahead but not by as much as we'd like, we had nearly 140 more staff on the ground than Obama did in 2912, and spent 166 percent more on television. I visited seven times during the general election. We lost both states, but no one can say we weren't doing everything possible to compete and win.

"If there's one place where we were caught by surprise, it was Wisconsin. Polls showed us comfortably ahead, right up until the end. They also looked good for the Democrat running for Senate, Russ Feingold. We had 133 staff on the ground and spent nearly $3 million on TV, but if our data (or anyone else's) had shown we were in danger, of course we would have invested even more. ... As it is, while I didn't visit Wisconsin in the fall, Tim Kaine, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and other high-profile surrogates did. ... Trump received roughly the same number of votes in Wisconsin that Mitt Romney did. There was no surge in Republican turnout. Instead, enough voters switched, stayed home, or went for third parties in the final days to cost me the state.

"Google searches about Wikileaks were particularly high in swing areas with large numbers of undecided voters, like Cambria County in Pennsylvania and Appleton, Wisconsin. In other words, a of people were online trying to get to the bottom of these crazy claims and conspiracy theories before casting their votes. Too often, what they found was more misinformation and Russian-directed propaganda."

Hillary Clinton, "What Happened"

[JI7]

70. Republican Lite ? You mean Sanders and his pro gun stance ? Hillary and other Democrats have far

more progressive, liberal , left leaning records of actually getting things done than Sanders .

Sanders is all talk. Look at how long he has been in office but has very little to no progressive accomplishments to show for it.

Bill Clinton gave us Ruth Bader Ginsburg . Barack Obama gave us Sonia Sotomayor . Hillary Clinton helped fight discrimination against minorities when she was in her 20s . Hillary Helped get funding for first responders , Hillary helped with CHIP . They actually worked on DOING things rather than just TALK .

I guess when you don't have actual accomplishments to talk about it's easier to just attack others who have done things as not being perfect.

[betsuni]

73. +100000000000000000000

[JI7]

71. Ed Markey was Suddenly Good enough for a certain crowd that has attacked other Democrats

who have a very similar voting record as he does.

Lets stop this bs. It's not about issues for those who claim to want more progress. If that was the case you woudln't support someone who has been in office for half a century with little to no accomplishment to show for it.

[Firestorm49]

13. I don't think your post will be unpopular because we've hashed out these issues to death.

[ismnotwasm]

16. Yes.

And I am angry.

[MineralMan]

27. Angry, Frustrated, and Very, Very Worried.

That's what I am.

[bucolic_frolic]

17. Democrats and Progressives don't see politics as a war the way Republicans do

Once their Obamacare satiated their economic anxiety, they relaxed and thought the Progressive Era had returned because they had LGBTQ and a Supreme Court seat. Obama pushed culture issues too fast in 2016; it alienated some in the right of middle. We as a party didn't play enough of an Electoral College game in 2016. Proof of all this is we beat Trump by what, 2.9 million votes? Just not in the right counties.

Trump in power can cheat more this time. So we need 2016 plus 8%. That's why it will be close. Too close.

[Martin Eden]

18. K&R, but you need to re-word one sentence

The alternative to progressive purity is not the middle road. It is Republicanism and Donald J. Trump.

To me that sounds like a rejection of the middle road. We can either have progressive purity or Republicanism and Donald J. Trump.

At this moment in time we have to understand the only acceptable alternative to progressive purity is the middle road (which is nevertheless left of center with Biden's platform), and I know that's what you meant.

The progressive movement since the Sanders campaign of 2016 has definitely had an impact on middle road Democrats like Joe Biden and what is expected from Democratic voters.

The point of your OP is of course spot-on. Progressives and those even farther left should need no convincing of the absolute imperative of ousting the current POtuS. Refusing to vote for Biden for his lack of purity makes no sense whatsoever, but apparently some still need convincing.

[DFW]

72. I was going to comment on that as well. I would make one minor change in the word order

Instead of "The alternative to progressive purity is not the middle road. It is Republicanism and Donald J. Trump," I would have made one difference in the way that was put:

The alternative to the middle road is not progressive purity. It is Republicanism and Donald J. Trump.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

21. It's all about TANGIBLE support now...donate or work for Democrats running against McCONnell, Graham

And all the rest of those criminal powermad scum!

K and R

[MineralMan]

28. Yes. That and just plain turn out and turn Trump out of office.

The rest should take care of itself if we turn out in massive numbers, like never before. I think we must.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

57. We HAVE to, yes.

[IronLionZion]

22. Far too many DUers were on the punish Democrats first plan back then

A lot of DUers opposed the ACA from the left naively thinking we'd get single payer, and opposed many of Obama/Biden's policies from the left.

They figured getting rid of red state moderate Dems from Congress would help shift things left, and that turned out to be a catastrophic mistake. Some DUers actually opposed Merrick Garland's nomination saying he wasn't liberal enough.

Sure, I voted Bernie in the 2016 primaries but voted Hillary in the general election.

[Ligyron]

53. But it is a shame Pres Obama had to nominate someone that conservative.

A Repuglican that still didn't make them happy 'cause Mc Turtle had another strategy in mind anyway.That traitor has done more to damage the legislative process than about anyone in the history of this Republic.

I just hope if, by some miracle of hard work, messaging and sheer determination, we ever elect a Pres and a veto proof majority to Congress ... we don't blow our chance to save, or perhaps at that point resurrect, Western Civilization and the American Dream by being such naive idiots as to think "being fair" is the thing to do. Far more than 911, we need to make "we will never forget" our call to arms.

We need to codify into law every norm, every little nuanced practice our founders never pictured their fellow countrymen violating after using just such questionable tactics as are need ourselves to rid this country of the power wielded by monied interests and their brainwashed WS, RW running dogs.

[Pepsidog]

23. Righteous words brother.

[NoRoadUntravelled]

25. Yes. Every word hits the mark.

Especially this:
"Elections are about the realities of politics, not about the pure ideals of progressivism. We must elect public officials who will, in some way, advance our goals."

We must be able to face that truth and to vote strategically. If we're in it for the long game then a strategic step forward is better than being taken out of the game altogether. Based on the damage done by this administration in under just 4 years, another 4 will be our undoing.

[PatSeg]

26. I am a progressive

and I want someone who can both win and get things done. Biden as president is liberal enough for me. If people want real, lasting progressive change, the focus should be on congress, governorships, and state legislatures. A president is meant to represent everyone in a large and diverse country. Pay more attention to down ballot races to manifest the changes you want.

[MineralMan]

30. For almost four years, I've been imagining where we'd be with

Hillary as President, and now running for a second term. Four years completely wasted, and Trump in office. What a freaking disaster!

[PatSeg]

41. Not just wasted,

but we've regressed a great deal. We have a lot of mending and catching up to do. Meanwhile, I can't help but think of all the ways republicans would have obstructed Hillary. I have no doubt they would have tried to impeach her. We not only need a competent Democratic president, we need solid majorities in congress and good turnout in mid-terms elections. Obama could have accomplished much more if Democrats had gotten out the vote in the mid-terms.

Of course, it would also help if the republicans in congress were sane and reasonable, willing to negotiate and actually legislate.

[certainot]

31. democrats need offense, not just GOTV and fundraising - destroy RW talk radio, it's ready

democrats should make it impossible for any advertiser or university or pro sports team broadcasting on rw radio stations to continue their support unless they declare they actually support trump, global warming, COVID denial, and racism.

any organized effort to do that will force the advertising industry to break up the monopoly and any signal to republican politicians that will happen will completely change their attitude toward trump

rw radio is the ONLY unique advantage republicans have and it needs to be destroyed.

[MineralMan]

32. How do you suggest we do that? I'm all ears.

[TwilightZone]

35. That's the question that is always asked.

It's never answered with anything tangible, at least not in my experience.

[MineralMan]

36. That's because there is no answer. Without giving up the First Amendment,

we can't "shut down" radio stations for political reasons.

People often propose doing things that cannot be done in a free society. They never realize that they'd also be losing their freedom of expression. I grow weary.

[certainot]

49. see comment below. you would have a point if rw radio was not a 95% monopoly that

protects itself from everything but the most token competition.

that rw radio monopoly is free speech stuff is a RW talking point they push on rw radio regularly in their defense. if a guy sets up a soapbox across the street form you and calls you a thief and traitor all day it can't be ignored but that is exactly what democrats have done for 30 years

the idea that a 95% monopoly represents american demand for hate lies and ignorance is nuts and there are probably russian trolls selling that since they started using US talk radio about 2008.

and modern AI makes a stoprush x 100 easy.

democrats ignoring rw radio has been the biggest political mistake in history

[certainot]

46. see below. aside from that, dems don't even poll for rw radio. start with that, identify

the fact that most of the trumpers are fucking dittoheads, and democrats and media can stop analyzing politics like their studying fish without water.

all it would take is for dems to get attention to it instead of ignoring it. the ad industry will destroy the monopoly when dems /liberals force it to apply market demand instead of offering discounts and shuffling advertisers onto those stations to keep them going

[certainot]

43. all it would take is one major athlete to publicize the absurdity of their team's broadcasts

on rw radio and limbaugh stations

i wouldn't want to put that on any particular athlete but there are 87 universities supporting 260 limbaugh stations as well as many other rw statiions that don't headline limbaugh.

and out of the 18 NBA teams that were in the bubble 13 broadcast on 32 rw stations including 16 limbaugh stations. while the teams try to make statements.

the LA lakers support 5 rw stations while labron speaks out

it's absurd the athletes are being used like that and don't know it. rev al sharpton did a segment on his show a couple of weekends ago pointing out how black athletes were being used as money-makers

all it would take is for a guy like that to publicize the problem. advertisers would head for the hills when it got attention.

but how do you reach someone like that?

[certainot]

51. how many radio advertisers will support COVID denial for 2 months, like all limbaugh stations

did? all those stations are licensed to operate in the public interesest and through trump's friend limbaugh thtey were all coordinated with the white house , yelling HOAX in a covid theater

destroying rw radio is low hanging fruit.

[MineralMan]

52. OK, then. You do it.

Let me know how your plan goes.

[certainot]

54. dem and progressive leadership and media leaders/pundits etc have completely failed

and then expect to get bailed out by the same old ramp up of GOTV and fundraising while a few hundred coordinated blowhards on 1500 radio stations take free potshots at anything and anybody the russian and us think tanks want

it's their fuck up the last 30 years and willl continue (like i said, they can't even poll for it) and it may be that when limbaugh croaks and the whole rw media operation falls apart and everything gets better all of a sudden those same 'leaders' will scratch their heads and call it cyclic or something....

[Hekate]

87. Limbaugh is only the tip of the boil,not the infection itself. Look at who owns local TV stations...

...as of recent years: a group called Sinclair started buying them up and “consolidating” local markets. They did this in the county I used to live in: 3 stations were snapped up, the reporters moved all around, the usual shit.

Sinclair sends scripts out to local news reporters. The scripts get read or the reporters are out of a job & no doubt blacklisted throughout the Sinclair empire.

I checked back in on my old town’s station (my new town has no station of its own anyway) when the Post Office crisis hit. I already knew the blue post boxes out front of the PO on Patterson Ave had been removed. Patterson has heavy traffic. The PO is busy. So what would Tracy say about it?

Tracy dutifully read that the blue boxes out front had been removed due to lack of use, and mentioned there was some “controversy” due to new rules around the nation.

The point is not to foment hate, as with radio, but to slant the news and suppress the news and water it down until you have no idea.

Your time might be well spent educating yourself about who owns the broadcast media in local markets. It isn’t local people any more in either radio or TV.

[certainot]

88. limbo basically leads messaging on 1500 radio stations for the COC, RW, Putin think tanks that

coordinate and feed him and the others. they are the political 2x4 that made reagan a saint, gingrich and rove 'geniuses. it made bush and trump 'acceptable' and gore, kerry, and hillary not. and unlike those TV stations they are a lot easier to control at the local level and can call biden and harris "joe and the ho".
it's a lot easier to lie into a radio microphone than do it staring into a camera, though that's a lot easier once the lie has been pounded into the earholes of 50 mil a week.

it was dems ignoring rw radio in the years between 1987 and 1996 that allowed them to push the telcom act and other deregulation of media, do similar to the internet - with the same talking points - deregulation lowers prices, liberals want to regulate con media, money is free speech, corporations are people etc. - and beat back reregulation efforts by dems. not only that, but because democrats and by extension media ignore rw radio (not a factor) the cons get regulation proponents to blame democrats for not trying hard enough (just like with obama and health care).

media will be a lot easier to reregulate if liberals start by destroying the radio monopoly - and it wouldn't take much effort to force the ad industry to do it. they want those ears and if they're forced to apply market demand so the only advertisers and sports teams left on those stations are trump supporters and racists it will not survive.

any organized boycott, with the added threat that AI makes it easy and cheap for anyone to associate a business with the content they're paying for - with little or no listening required - will force the ad industry to stop bundling non racist fascist advertisers onto those stations and start forcing the stations to change content.

The point is not to foment hate, as with radio, but to slant the news and suppress the news and water it down until you have no idea.

rw radio doesn't just foment hate - recent eg is the last 3.5 years, since inauguration, attacking the 'deep state', as well as coordinating with the WH and prob putin in calling COVID a hoax....

nothing the RW has works better than rw radio at selling/establishing the alternate reality and fake news that the social media trolls and fox and sinclair and trump have been piggybacking

[Mr.Bill]

59. Boycott their sponsors.

Make it very difficult to make money with hate radio and TV.

[Bigredhunk]

33. Nice!

I don't "get" staying home any election year. Save for those who have to stand in line for hours b/c they're disenfranchised (which should never happen), voting isn't that hard. Once every two years you can't get your azz out to vote? Please.

And no, both candidates/parties are not the same. If you believe that you're either really privileged (Sarandon) or not paying attention (lots of people).

[COL Mustard]

39. Unfortunately A Lot Of People Don't Pay Attention

[llashram]

37. yep a whole Party and cult base of chickens and

it's been going on in my life since these chickens came home to roost years back then Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II and now the orange menace threatening a dictatorship. Talk about the long game.

https://erenow.net/biographies/malcolm-x-a-life-of-reinvention/11.php

[COL Mustard]

38. If You Sit This Election Out Because You Wanted Someone Else

And Biden isn't ideologically pure enough for you, then congrats...you voted for Trump.

This election is the most important one in my life, and I started voting in 1976. Don't blow it!

[dlk]

40. Obama should have done a recess appointment of Merrick Garland

I also believe Obama should have done a better job warning Americans about Russian interference in the 2016 election. I like Obama very much. However these two shortfalls continue to cost us dearly.

[bpj62]

42. The Senate was never in recess

Mitch McConnell kept the Senate open. It is a procedural move that prevents the President from making recess appointments. We did it to Bush in 2007-2008. As for Obama not coming out and saying something in 2016 hindsight is 20,/20 and I am sure he would do things differently.

[dlk]

56. I think there was a recess in May that year

[BumRushDaShow]

61. There hasn't been a true "recess appointment" that was sustained by the courts since 2006

I wrote the below in another thread -

You can only do it if the Senate is truly "in recess" and ever since Shrub recess-appointed someone as odious as John Bolton to the U.N. Ambassador post during a 2006 Senate recess (just after the general election where Democrats had just won back the House after 12 years out of power), the Senate has NEVER gone into a "hard" recess since.

I.e., they hold "Pro-forma sessions" (even when lame ducks) where a couple volunteer (Senate majority party) Senators will appear, gavel into session for "Morning Business", and then "go into a recess subject to the call of the chair" (i.e., not adjourned). And then wash, rinse, 3 days later, ad infinitum.

The whole idea of a "Pro-Forma session" being considered "not in recess" was even taken to court when Obama challenged it by recess-appointing members to the NLRB and the chair of the CFPB. Eventually the SCOTUS struck down the ability for a President to do that while those "Pro-Forma sessions" were underway.

Amy Howe Independent Contractor and Reporter

Posted Thu, June 26th, 2014 3:13 pm


Court strikes down recess appointments: In Plain English

With only four decisions remaining when the Justices took the bench today, we knew we would have to get something good: all four decisions had the potential to be blockbusters. And we did indeed, starting with a unanimous declaration by the Supreme Court that the president violated the Constitution in 2012 when he appointed three commissioners to the National Labor Relations Board during a brief recess of the Senate. Let’s talk about the decision and what it means in Plain English.

As unlikely as it sounds, the Court’s decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning was its first pronouncement on the scope of the president’s power to make recess appointments. And the Court’s opinion was a mixed bag for both sides. Noel Canning, the soft-drink bottling company challenging the president’s recess appointments to the NLRB, and the conservative and business groups that supported it certainly regarded it as a victory in the sense that the specific recess appointments at issue were deemed invalid. But the president and his supporters could also declare victory, at least to a point: the Court upheld his power to make other recess appointments – as long as they are made during recesses that last at least ten days.

<...>

The Court then turned to the third and final question presented in the case: whether the Senate can prevent the president from making recess appointments even during its longer recesses by holding “pro forma” sessions – that is, sessions at which no work actually gets done – every three days. The Court answered that question in the affirmative, rejecting the federal government’s argument that the “pro forma” sessions are, in essence, just a sham to thwart the president’s recess appointments powers. In the Court’s view, all that matters is whether the Senate says it is in session and could at least in theory conduct business, which is possible (even if unlikely) at the pro forma sessions.

<...>

But what about other recess appointments in the future? The short answer is that it really will depend on which parties are in power. Right now Democrats control both the White House and the Senate. With the decision by Senate Democrats back in November to invoke the “nuclear option” – which allows them to confirm the president’s nominees with a simple majority – the president currently doesn’t need to use recess appointments to fill judgeships or senior positions in the executive branch. But that could change if the Republicans gain control of the Senate this November (a prospect that many believe is increasingly likely): a Republican Senate could not only block the president’s nominees, but prevent the president from making recess appointments by ensuring that it never recesses for more than a few days. And, of course, the shoe could be on the other foot if – after the 2016 elections — the Democrats were to control the Senate but lose the White House. So even if the president’s recess appointments power may not factor into many voters’ decision-making process, it certainly could hang in the balance in the next two elections.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court-strikes-down-recess-appointments-in-plain-english/

---
The above case was decided in 2014. And because of the filibusters that were executed against Obama during his first term, it drove Reid to go with the nuclear option during the 2nd term, which resulted in the court-packing that we see Turtle has in force today - only needing a simple majority to confirm an appointee.

[Hekate]

44. I see I'm late to the party, so I'll just note that there are those who'd rather quibble over...

...fine points than agree with you and get off their butts NOW.

I agree with you, MM.

[MineralMan]

55. It's informative, I think.

I like being informed.

[Lock him up.]

45. tRumpism

Herd immunity: 70% get infected & 2.5 to 3 MILLION DEAD

SS down to $0: 69+ MILLION DEAD https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/

donny "hannibal" dRumpf wants to murdeR 72 MILLIONS in a 2nd term to please vlad.

LOCK HIM UP

[LizBeth]

47. I will remember 'til the day I die, they have no grounds to stand on. I feel like the day after of

2016 all over again. There will not be a time I do not get in their face giving them ownership of what they created for this nation in pitifulness.

[quakerboy]

58. I mean, title is true but the rest is antifactual

Every time I look at the numbers, whats clear is that it wasnt the left, or even democrats particularly, who sat it out. It was the center that we lost. Not the left, not even democrats, much as people would like to blame us. We can debate over why, but the who is not what this writing implies.

Clinton got almost the same number of votes that Obama got 4 years earlier.
It was moderates and independents that were the big swing.

But sure. Lets take a moment when its most vital that we be united to win an election that will determine whether we have a shot at a democratic nation going forward, or a quick fall into fascism, and try and split the party. That seems prudent.

[Autumn]

79. That's interesting. I remember hearing that about the center once but never saw the figures.

And then it became "the progressives and Independents stayed home and we don't need them anyway, we can win with just the center".

[turbinetree]

63. It is about survival now..................that's is what is at stake...............

thank you...............

[Joinfortmill]

64. Vote Blue to save our democracy.

[aikoaiko]

65. And let's remember not to tell lefties to eff-off as if we don't need them as we've done in the past

And I'm not sure guilt-tripping them or blaming them for our losses is a winning strategy either.

[Demsrule86]

76. If we are forced to, our party can move to the middle in order to win and the left will have even

Iess influence. We must win and either they help us do so or we find another way. Look at elections in 2000, 2004 (primary attacks on Kerry), 2010,2014 and 2016 which have left us and our party in the minority and our nation on life support. `but her email voters' helped send a sociopath to the white house. This can never happen again. And I tire of threats from the green$ left.

[aikoaiko]

84. I'm sure you're strategy will work better this time.

[yuiyoshida]

68. You won't have to worry COVID 19 will most likely

take out huge numbers of the population, and we Democrats outnumber the Republicans add to the fact that many of their base is acting stupid during a pandemic...call it natural selection, or Darwin's theory, the unfortunate side is that many innocents will die as well.

And as for Herd Immunity?? It sure seems like TRUMP wants to kill off as many Americans as he can and Putin must be so proud of him.

[RandySF]

69. Too many people think one election solves everything.

[AllaN01Bear]

77. how quickly they forget about the kerry -edwrads campaign and the

"swift boat " scandal.

[fescuerescue]

78. Bobby Boushay

[TheFarseer]

80. I understand this sentement BUT

Gary Johnson bled off THREE TIMES as many votes from Trump and Jill Stein bled off from Clinton. The numbers for people that stayed home/didn't vote are probably similar, especially given alot of Republicans were not shy in opposing Trump even after he secured the nomination. So in aggregate people that had to have a 'pure' candidate casting a protest vote or not voting actually HELPED Clinton. Sure, if all the Democratic leaning people voted for the Democratic candidate and some of the Republican leaning people DON'T vote Republican, it would help, but it's completely unrealistic. It's like being pissed off that your favorite football team plays with 11 players, but the opposing football team plays with 11 players too. Why can't they play with 10 players and playing with 11 players is just our little secret? This attitude makes no sense to me!

I think this election will be hyper-partisan with hardly any protest votes, especially given the Supreme Court fight that is about to happen. It could end up hurting us because, as I pointed out, alot more Republican leaning types cast a protest vote that Democratic leaning.

[MineralMan]

81. Your point is not made.

In the three states that ended up deciding the 2016 election, Jill Stein got more votes than the margins of Trump's apparent victory in those states. In addition, turnout was down in those three states.

As for Gary Johnson, I remember some on the "left" on another site claiming that they would vote for him, instead of Hillary. There are more leftists with libertarian leanings than you might imagine.

[TheFarseer]

82. This is the only post-election article I could find quickly

That had statistical analysis.

[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/11/gary-johnson-helped-hillary-not-by-enough-but-he-did/|

It's impossible to know for sure without ranked choice voting, which would make this argument irrelevant anyway.

[MineralMan]

85. In the end, none of that matters.

Trump got the electoral votes, which is the only measure that counts.

We have to do better.

[TheFarseer]

86. Yes! Totally agree! nt

[chriscan64]

83. Bill Clinton used a short term strategy.

Moving to where the voters are is quicker than moving them to you, at his time at least. Maybe modern information technology will speed up the time it takes for new ideas to take hold. We have a strange dynamic going on now. Progressiveism is getting more popular at at time when the numbers of moderate Democrats are being supplemented by the purge of republican moderates. We are facing the old conundrum of whether we have to sacrifice the best of our ideas to prevent the worst of theirs.