We can deep-six Trump with a Blue tidal-wave



“Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska issued a scathing takedown of President Trump during a telephone town hall with constituents, saying he cozied up to dictators and white supremacists.”  [Republican Sen. Ben Sasse]


Ben Sasse has lashed out against Trump who has bossed ‘im.

And if more step up it will certainly cost ‘im.

It ain’t all she wrote.

So let’s get out the vote

And we’ll be assured in a landslide we’ve tossed ‘im.

Filed under: Sen. Ben Sasse


Leave a comment
  • This reminded me of Ty-D-Bol for some reason.

  • Well done. Your dropped "aitches" have me thinking of "My Fair Lady" and "Just You Wait, 'enry 'iggins." Just you wait, Donald J. Trump, just you wait....

  • Ben Sasse may have bad-mouthed Trump as he runs for reelection in Nebraska, but he is still in Trump's pocket. He is doing Trump's work in ramming Judge Barrett through the Senate Judiciary Committee and I don't see him joining Collins and Murkowski in opposing her appointment on the floor of the Senate.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    There are plenty of articles like this one indicating that the Senate Repugs know that they are going down. Hence they know that the only chance to get their kind of Justice through is this week.More interesting is Biden now taking OPD's track of "we'll have to see what happens" with regard to whether he'll support court packing plans. I don't see why not.

    In the meantime, it appears that the Fascist Mad Tweeter's insults are losing their sting.

  • In reply to jack:

    I think Biden is making the right move in not making court packing an issue right now. Even if the Democrats win the White House and both houses of Congress, they can't do anything until after January 20. The Supreme Court already has a "hot docket" and the new majority under the leadership of Thomas and Alito will probably show their bias quickly. Biden and the Democrats can then sell expansion of the court as a remedial measure, rather than retaliation for ramming through the Barrett appointment.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Makes sense. However, as the last term showed, one really can't rely on Roberts and Kavanaugh as part of the calculus.

  • In reply to jack:

    If Biden packs the court enough, we won't have to rely on them.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    That wasn't my point. My point was that Scalito (Thomas and Alito) can't count on those two, especially given stores about politicking behind the scenes at the court (such as stories that the Court has denied cert. in several 2nd Amendment cases, even though they had the 4 votes to grant it, because the 4 believed that Roberts would not vote to overturn), Kavanaugh was the leader on the immunity and Title VI includes sexual orientation cases, and, basically speaking, those two have never showed leadership qualities, especially Thomas over 29 years.

  • In reply to jack:

    During most of his time on the court, Thomas was everyone's crazy uncle. But in Alito he found a reliable ally and the club expanded when Gorsuch came along. They will likely find a kindred spirit in Barrett and the four of them may draw in Kavanaugh and even, on occasion, Roberts. The major point, though, is that the moderating influence of Roberts is in the past, and we can expect a far more activist court.

  • In reply to jack:

    An example of the altered state of the Court is found in yesterday's supreme court resolution of the Pennsylvania mail-in ballot case. The court couldn't decide since they were split 4-4, so the Circuit Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions stood. Roberts joined the three liberals, and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh maintained the conservative position. Had Barrett been on the court, she would likely have joined the conservatives to shorten the voting window in Pennsylvania. There are many more potentially split outcomes on the docket.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    I'll only bet on Sam Menaker's expression on All Star Professional Wrestling that "anything can happen and probably will."

    I sort of see your point that if Roberts is now assumed to be a liberal, Barrett could make it 5-4, but McConnell & Co. assumed they had that already.

    While the political commentators have made a lot about the Pa decision, it was only on whether to address a stay of the Pa SCt decision pending appeal, and thus not clear whether it was on the merits, or just involved the stay equities (as Judge Posner would put it), and what the effect of staying that judgment would have meant.

    As far as split outcomes, probably not after Thursday.

  • In reply to jack:

    I meant Title VII.

  • In reply to jack:

    I don't think McConnell & Co assumed they already had a 5-4 court. He and his conservative companions (along with Trump) have been complaining for a while about how disappointing Roberts has been in forwarding the conservative agenda.

Leave a comment