Interesting, had no idea a judge could overrule the FDA. What if some judge somewhere decides antibiotics should be pulled from FDA approval...

gotta pull those AIDS drugs because of all the sinning.

Up until yesterday, they couldn't. First time it's happened and it's unprecedented. Just making up new rules as they go along.

They can do it now because he cited Wikipedia in his decision. You know it's locked in now.

What are we even talking about here? I hate the ruling, but it's pretty basic constitutional law that judicial review includes actions of the executive branch, which would include the FDA.

This doesn't seem like judicial review though, he's making new laws up (or changing existing ones).

There is a process for withdrawing a drug from FDA approval. It was written by Congress. That's the law that the FDA has to follow. So for the FDA to revoke approval of the drug, they would have to violate federal law.

It sounds like he would have the right to demand the FDA start the congressionally approved process of removing a drug. But that's not what his ruling says. It demands the FDA break the law. I think that's why it's seen as unprecedented. And this doesn't even mention the fact the plaintiffs have no standing in the case.

It sounds like (from the snippets of the ruling I've been able to find) that he's arguing the approval process didn't follow the law passed by Congress because it disregarded safety concerns that the FDA is supposed to follow. Again, I disagree with that take, but it is still judicial review. Also, the ruling hasn't taken effect yet, because (as is standard practice) he gave the government time to appeal the ruling.

Either way, the main reason I responded is because people were saying a federal judge couldn't overrule the FDA. They can review and overrule any action taken by the executive branch.

He gave them 7 days.

trump has until December over election financing fraud.

I imagine that they'll file for an injunction pending appeal with the Court of Appeals. They probably already have it ready.

And we could argue whether 7 days is enough time or not, but certainly we can agree that appeals of a final ruling in a federal district court should be handled differently than the time between an arraignment and next action in a local criminal defense case.

Again, I hate the ruling, but some of the arguments being presented here are nonsensical and/or dangerous. SCOTUS has no power to remove one of their own members (I can't believe anyone thinks this would be a good idea.) Judicial review clearly covers the FDA as part of the executive branch. And the President should not ignore a Supreme Court ruling. That would set a terrible precedent for the future.

Well, let's get some progressive-learning judges to start judicially reviewing some of the bullshit put in place by the Trump administration.

I rarely agree with larrymcg421 on much constitutional, but 100% with him here.

I'm for impeachment investigation at least on Thomas, but if a public official is misusing their office they should be impeached, and that's a Congressional act. Congress won't do it? Well, that's the choice of the people who elected people there.

We have a very long history of ignoring the proper channels on this stuff as a nation, but if we just start openly saying - not just as opinion but in terms what the government should actually do - that the law means what we think it means, not what a judge or justice thinks it means, then we can't get upset about democracy being under attack because we are forthrightly participating in said attack ourselves. We have a process to follow. Remove public officials that abuse their power, and if necessary re-enact whatever laws were 'wrongfully' overturned.

Many of these judges were put in by individuals who received less votes and confirmed by a body of politicians in the Senate that received less vote. The judicial system is as far removed from a democracy as you get. Not really what I would argue in defense.

And yes there are ways to remove Thomas, but he also broke the law and should be charged with those crimes like other citizens are.

I'm not sure this is it, but there has to be a point where it's preferable to ignore a court order. If this same judge said the election didn't count would we still need to honor the decision? What if a liberal judge made guns illegal? There has to be a line somewhere.

There are many ways in which it could be further removed from democracy, but what I'm talking about is the way the term is commonly used. It's not the right meaning IMO, but I've given up arguing about it on this forum and have adopted the convention. When I refer to attacking or defending democracy, I'm talking about not the US form of government, which of course is technically a republic with democracy as the primary but not sole driver, and all the baggage that goes with those distinctions.

Here is my question for you and Brian. Do you think the judge really believes that the FDA did not vet this drug properly? Do you think the judge believes that this drug that has been on the market for 23 year is a danger to the public?

I'm not trying to start anything. I'm just asking if you think the judge believes those things or if you think he just came up with a reason to throw out a drug he doesn't like being available.

If a ruling that extravagant is not over-ruled by a higher court, that means you have a majority of SCOTUS on that side of the issue. There certainly are no perfect safeguards as we've seen, and our government is a disaster (though no worse than we deserve). But to make a ruling like that stick you need justices appointed and confirmed under multiple Presidents and Senates to uphold it, and not enough opposition to throw them out and re-enact a better law. In other words, a large degree of 'people are ok with this happening' is required.

You probably won't like this answer, but it's an honest one; I don't presume to know and don't particularly care. I do my best to evaluate public officials - and others in my personal life for that matter - based on their actions which I can know if I care enough to get the available facts, not their motives which I can never know but only guess at.

There are many SCOTUS cases over the past century where I think it's hard to make a good argument for them constitutionally. We'd almost certainly disagree on which ones those are, and I don't think it's productive to go down that road, but I would say that justices have made the arguments and votes they have for a variety of reasons. Some of them good, others not. I consider it an element of good citizenship not to assume motivations going beyond what they've written, but to deal with the facts as they are known - otherwhise I'm going to presume bad motives for a lot of the people I disagree with, and the same will happen for those who think differently, but that is not only unfair to the public servants involved but also just is basically running round chasing your tail. I just don't think it accomplishes anything.

So if SCOTUS says, we'll leave the injunction in place and put this on the calendar maybe for June maybe next year, people should just accept that this is the system?

I don't think they'll do that, but it certainly would fit with how this court has handled things procedurally. Personally, I don't think a district court judge should be able to institute a national injunction, but there's no way the GOP will accept that.

I would say in that case the problem isn't primarily the system, but the people in it. What I think the people should do is examine their votes and consider voting differently and valuing things like integrity and statesmanship above blind party loyalty, just as one way of phrasing it.

Do I think that would happen? Of course not. Every once in a while this kind of subject comes up on the forum, and I guess as an aside here I really do understand the frustration with our government. As i've said before Biden is the first Democrat I've ever voted for - third-party the previous couple of elections - and I don't think he'll be the last given our trajectory. He has not made me proud of my vote to date, but I'd still unquestionably vote for him again if I had the chance to do it over.

To me it just comes down to the fact that when you have government of,by,and for the people, then that's who is to blame. At least up to now we do still have that with some notable hiccups and aberrations, but in the large scheme it's very much still there. Percentage-wise it would not take a permanent shift very large to give one party or another the ability to do whatever we think they should. But the people don't really want that. They want, more than anything else, politicians who lie,cheat,steal,whatever else they have to do so the 'right' policies are enacted. We're far more concerned with party platforms than we are with the rule of law. We shouldn't be surprised when politicians give us that.

I mean even if I didn't, I'm not sure what worth there is exploring that unless you think decisions to enforce rulings should be based on an examination of what the justice really means rather than their written ruling.

I mean, your previous language about making or changing law is a constant conservative argument used against SCOTUS rulings on gay marriage and other civil rights issues. Those rulings still got enforced. Non-enforcement of judicial orders is a dark path to go down.

Sure, there's a line somewhere, but I don't think you can draw that line unless all options have been exhausted, which means at least going to SCOTUS. And when that line is drawn, prepare to never have another liberal ruling enforced ever again.

I think you wait and see what happens in terms of the stay being active, but if SCOTUS leaves it in place or says it's up to an appeals court and they leave it in place it's inevitable that states ignore this. One district court judge making national policy in clear opposition to the majority of the population is not going to just be accepted because that's what the rules say.

This is the general problem with the GOP right now. Minority rule will not be accepted forever even if it follows the rules.

The wife and I were discussing this the other day. I do think if the GOP continues to push minority opinions on the people you will see push back at the state level. She's afraid of the precedent that sets, but this is where we're at with a SC that doesn't reflect the makeup or the beliefs of the population.

The SC desperately needs reform. I don't know what the answer is there, but if rulings continue to favor the minority we risk the court as a whole being seen as ineffective and illegitimate.

The judicial system is also broken at the state level. As it stands the GOP can take cases directly to Kacsmaryk and a couple other Texas judges and know how he's going to rule. Your only course of action is then to get in front of the equally biased 5th circuit and then the SC. Judge shopping shouldn't be much less encouraged but it's where we are.

Reading through the Texas' Trump-appointed judge's judgment, it appears the objections to mifepristone fall into two buckets. The first is that the FDA improperly used its "accelerated approval" process. The second is that the FDA ignored supposedly-legitimate safety concerns in the 20 years post-approval (and potentially pre-approval).

Both assertions are so false that in a rational world they would call into question the Trump-appointed judge's faculty for rational thought.

First, despite the name, "accelerated approval" is merely an alternate process the FDA can use in special situations to, indeed, accelerate approval by accepting, say, a shorter trial process. But the process also allows the FDA to go the other way, and require much more for its approval criteria, including, critically, post-approval restrictions on sale & distribution.

The typical time for the FDA's approval process (once trials are complete) is roughly 10 months. The FDA in this case took 54 months to grant approval. And once it did, it imposed significant restrictions on prescription, sale, and distribution.

So, for the first bucket, the judge (or, more likely, the anti-choice lobbying groups known to have lobbied for him), misunderstood what "accelerated approval" means.


The second complaint is that the FDA ignored legitimate safety concerns in the 20 years post-approval. This seems to rest on claims from specific "medical" groups funded by anti-choice PACs that intimate that negative safety data exists. In reality, none does. Mifepristone actually has a similar safety profile to OTC medications such as Tylenol and is statistically safer than actual full-term pregnancy. This is backed up by, again, over 20 years worth of actual real-world usage data. Only someone who didn't understand or didn't trust science would find such an argument compelling.


This "judicial review" only makes sense if the judge's goal is not actually judicial review, but obtaining a result that could not be obtained through legislative or executive action. It is an anti-science, anti-fact, anti-rationality action that misuses the court system by allowing a case that has flimsy merit, at best, to cause significant disruption to multiple federal and state agencies, not to mention actual citizens.

The plaintiffs keep telling people this had nothing to do with abortion and was really about women's health and side effects. It's no standard on the right to brazenly lie if the lies lead to a "good" outcome.

But that should matter the most. Is the judge making a legal ruling or a personal ruling? If it's the latter, it calls into question the legitimacy of that judge and his rulings.


Those are constitutional issues though. Whether the government can treat certain citizens differently under the law.

This is not a constitutional issue. It's a group with no standing suing over a drug they don't take as a workaround to stop a legal medical procedure they don't like. The people suing are not having their rights stripped. They're trying to strip the rights from others.

The fact that their argument for standing was accepted is one of the more ridiculous parts of the case, and that's a hell of an accomplishment.

Their argument, from this right wing group of "medical professionals", was that they were damaged by having to spend time explaining to patients the side effects of the drug.

If a liberal judge ruled that meat is banned because they happen to be a vegan, what do you think the appropriate response would be?

That's the appropriate comparison. Not comparing the banning of a drug to an actual civil rights case.

It's a shitty judge with a shitty ruling. I have no disagreements with that. The only reasons I engaged here in the first place were

1. People seemed to be suggesting that federal judges don't have the power to review FDA actions. That's factually incorrect.
2. I'm concerned about the fallout that would happen if the left sets a precedent of non-enforcement of judicial orders. The fact that the fallout would be far less justifiable in a vacuum doesn't comfort me at all given the way the GOP abuses all norms and doesn't always get electorally punished for it.

DeSantis would love for Blue states to start ignoring judges' orders.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Going to throw this out, and I'm not equating it really, but your statement just reminded of something I read this morning about

Missouri officials refuse to work with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, saying all federal 'so-called' gun laws are unconstitutional

A county saying that federal laws are unconstitutional. We're pretty far past the brink one way politically already. Counties now will selectively decide which laws they will follow.

This happens all the time now. Read about Governors, Mayors, and Sheriffs boasting about how they'll ignore rulings they don't like (specifically on guns). Bunch of Governors defied court rulings on gerrymandering. We're not exactly dealing with an era of politicians who respect the constitution.

I'm just saying it's a ridiculous ruling with no basis in our laws. It's a farce and we all know it. Just as it would be a farce if a judge banned meat because they don't like it. You don't need to give them any respect.

We're about a few months away from the "independent state theory" being ruled on. It'll be fun when our vote truly means nothing. Nothing to argue about though. Those judges we were just shown being bribed with millions will certainly make a ruling based in actual constitutional law.

How does this part work? Like how can you ensure it goes in front of a particular nutter judge?

Also, this whole "we appeal some rando thing here and it suddenly applies across the entire country" - maybe it's just me but this feels like a relatively new thing.

SI

Aren’t states with “legal” weed ignoring federal law too?

And possibly sanctuary cities as well?

There are a couple of districts in TX that only have one judge, so if you file there you are assured that judge.

In Texas cases are supposed to be randomly assigned to a judge in a district. However, as JPhillips said, there are districts in Texas with a single or just a couple of judges and the Trump administration started filling these with unqualified, far right judges. Tipton, Kacsmaryk, and Hendrix are the big 3 right wingers want to get their cases in front of and all 3 are Trump appointees.

Without even getting to private suits, the state of Texas has filed 28 cases against the Biden administration and 18 of those cases went to a district with a single judge.

No, states enforce state law. Feds enforce federal law. They're not ignoring it, it's just not their job.

The Feds can come in and arrest people in legal weed states if they want to.

Didn't we almost run into this issue with Barr? He wanted to start enforcing federal marijuana laws but backed down after states pushed back and refused to support federal agents?

I think it was Sessions. He was the one that used to tell people he was OK with the KKK until he learned they smoked pot.

It's also worth mentioning that some of this is the Democrats own doing. There is an opening on the 5th circuit court of appeals (currently filled with conservatives) that will come into play on this FDA ruling. The Biden administratin has left it vacant for some reason.

Democrats are honoring blue slips still with the courts even though Republicans largely ignored them. So you can't confirm nominees in Republcian states.

And finally, Feinstein has had dementia for some time now and is dealing with other illnesses. She hasn't been showing up or voting. So judicial confirmations are on hold until she either resigns or recovers.

Just a reminder that despite their campaign promises, Democrats really don't care much about the courts and that's why you'll continue to see rulings like you just did in Texas.

Younger Democrats care about the courts and understand the importance of ramming judicial appointments through. The problem is that there are still waaaaaaay too many ancient Democrats in positions of power who still think the judiciary will revert to a center mean. Or, in the case of Feinstein, don't even think anymore.

Again, what are we even talking about? Biden has an exemplary record in filling federal judgeships.

Another week, another nasty industrial accident
Massive inferno billowing toxic smoke from recycling plant known as a 'fire hazard' forces evacuation orders for thousands, officials say. It could burn for days | CNN

This will probably be a big news story for a little bit like Palestine. However, in the past, there would be some bill and a raft of new regulations to stop some of this crap - some window dressing and some real. Instead, there will be some complaining about how Biden is inept and also how he really hates the environment and no chance of passing any bill to address it because if the goal is to claim there's too much government regulation, show that it "fails" (when there's not enough manpower or penalties) and then roll it back so it happens even more.

SI

I was actually born in that town and still have some relatives there. They seem to be alright. Some of them did have to evacuate.

Speaking of Feinstein

Revealed: Dianne Feinstein Has Missed 73% of Senate Votes Taken Amid Claims Her Absence Is Holding Up Judicial Confirmations

She does need to resign and if not then she needs to be replaced on the committees she's on. Heck make it a general rule. If you miss X% of votes then you're removed from your committees, whether you're dealing with health issues or running for president.

I don’t think senators etc should get paid if they’re missing votes

Another one.

GOP-controlled Arizona House votes to expel Republican representative | CNN Politics

I was wondering how many state representatives have been expelled before. The approx answer is

Elected officials expelled from state legislatures - Ballotpedia

The new conspiracy is that Biden and the Democrats are blowing up trains and factories in red states for some unknown reason.

If the WaPo article is true, won't be long before (if not already) intelligence agencies identify the leaker.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ked-documents/

That article downplays the fact that the discord was essentially for white supremacists.

Another article on the leaker. Washington Post seems to have stolen most of their information from it.


From Discord to 4chan: The Improbable Journey of a US Intelligence Leak - bellingcat

That facility sounds just lke one my friend works at. There are several hubs like that around the world, but there is a chance this is some he works with. The one in which he works has become the central classified information hub for the Eastern United States.

Remember when GOPers claimed to dislike legislating from the bench? From the Politico story on the 5th Appeals ruling on mifepristone:


It isn't banned, just impossible to get!

Let's hope Biden is right.

Wonder what the leaker is going through right now. Reaching out to a lawyer, trying to figure out how to get into a Russian embassy and asking for asylum, getting cash to skip to a non-extradition country etc. Sucks to be him knowing that his discord/gaming group has said what they've said already.

And unlike Snowden who did what he did out of principle, this guy seemingly did it to look OG to a small group.

Looking forward to learning more about this idiot.

Supposedly identified. No pic yet

You're in a lot of trouble Jack.

Identity of the 'man responsible for the Pentagon top secret documents leak' | Daily Mail Online

I swear I did not leak any classfied documents to my friends here in my gaming group :)

Hey, what's this Dynasty Report entitled "Top Secret Russian Invasion of Ukraine Documents"?

SI

I'm sure Greg Abbott will try to pardon him.

Nobody ever leaks anything cool here. Lame.

This is just a straight up bribe.

In 2014, one of Texas billionaire Harlan Crow’s companies quietly bought several lots on a residential street in Savannah, GA.

The seller? Crow’s friend & travel companion Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. ���� pic.twitter.com/4qHmat7YFe

— ProPublica (@propublica) April 13, 2023

They have arreted him. Air National Guard based out of Cape Cod. I had heard the documents were tied to Fort Bragg. It will be interesting to see how and where he ended up with them.

That is from my identical twin brother, not me. :)

How to fudge a bank statement and blackjack strategy don't count?

This is such an enormous story. A SC justice has been bought and paid for, right out in the open. If we are still a nation of laws, there needs to be some kind of consequence here.

I am not so confident that it won't get drowned out by sexier news and even less convinced that the GOP will do the right thing and force him into resigning (as if he has any shame) or impeach him. If the shoe was on the other foot, I don't know that the Dems would give up a seat on the SC, but no way the Republicans will do anything about it while Biden is in charge of choosing a successor.

The GOP absolutely won't force him into resigning. Or even acknowledge he did anything wrong. Zero chance.

People on Twitter are shocked that a low-level soldier had access to these type of documents. Really, it is pretty common. How do people think these things get into the hands of Generals and even the President? Some low ranking kid prints them out and brings it to them. A Full Bird Colonel isn't working the printers. And some low ranking grunt is also going to be the one responsible for destroying them after use.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Eh, it's also the low ranking guys that compile most of these reports as well. Colonels and Generals are briefed on them and that's really it.

A bunch of E5s and below will put all the information together, an E6 or E7 will put it into a presentable state, a LT will make sure his name is attached, and a civilian boss will sign off on it. Who actually does the briefing can vary. Our day to day briefings were done by our newest soldiers as training and an experienced E4 or E5/E6 would brief the VIPs

I think the bigger question is how was he able to take pictures of the TS stuff. Seems like a big miss if electronics are not secured while handling TS stuff?

And the really, really big question is how come all this stuff was floating out there for months without some sort of reaction. I get US didn't know about it but why not (so this doesn't happen again).

Some good questions. My basic understanding is that you aren't allowed to carry any type of electronics in and out of areas where you can access this level of documents. I have no idea what level of search you go through entering/exiting, but there is something. Seems like I remember a time when my friend was station in Norfolk and threre was a security incident. He complained about how much longer it took to get to his work station because they added extra hoops to jump through.
There is going to be some pretty big overall on handling classified documents coming between this and the whole White House people taking documents home thing.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Security varies from place to place. There's usually a building you'll enter to badge in that's manned by MPs. That's the point where no electronic devices can go past. All the places I've worked it was voluntary surrender of those things, but that was also the early 2000s.

It's not easy to get the TS/SCI clearance and loss of clearance and arrest is usually a good enough deterant. Everyone does training several times a year on what you can't do, what to watch for, and the consequences of doing shit like this.

The biggest red flag to me in this isn't him having access to the documents or getting a camera past security, it's that he somehow got extended access to these documents by himself. That's what needs answers as that should have set off alarm bells.

Absolutely. I cannot agree enough. The extent of corruption here is very, very significant.

I guess it’s bad that I immediately suspected the Clintons when that Cash App guy got murdered.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65257806.amp

We know Harlan Crow collects things he hates, so isn't the obvious answer here that he hated Clarence Thomas' mother?

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking here -- he was probably the low-level grunt who was supposed to be shredding these, and he decided to stuff some into his pockets instead.

The Clintons? In the sex trafficking pizza parlor? With a stained dress?

Is there a RWNJ Clue? If not, I see a grifting opportunity.

"It's George Soros. At the Drag Queen show. Death by Critical Race Theory."

"Is it one of the Kennedys? On Epstein's island? With a sexy M&M?" Actually, they might believe that one. Hell, I'm not even going to say that one's impossible (though I can't say I've ever tried to determine the fuckability of candy).

SI

You should look into Cadbury Creme Eggs

Pretty much what you guys said about younger soldiers having access. Giving similar examples how & why.

A 21-year-old with top secret access? It’s not as rare as you think - POLITICO
Don't really know Moulton but his analysis below seems an over generalization.

"Feel incredibly entitled" sounds like "I'm old" talk. I don't even know what that means in this context

SI

She represents the district north of me. Glad she's not my representative.

Access Denied

He is definitely painting with a broad brush but some of the response comes off as a lot of "Not All _________" deflection.

Using the paragraph right below the one you highlighted gives more insight into what he was trying to say.


Gen Z military members will more important and entitled because they are more important and that importance comes with entitlement. With the smaller force and more importantly the dearth of middle management (E-5s and E-6s and O-4s and O-5s with more than average time in grade), Gen Zers have been placed in positions that those ranks used to occupy. If there is a generational uniqueness in this case it is the rewards for actions like the ones Teixeira is accused of are things like clout and laughs nowadays. In the past, the rewards were money, love and/or sex.

I can't wait for the 1-2-3 screw job I'm going to get of 1) removing the payroll cap, 2) not increasing the max benefit, 3) increasing the retirement age anyway. Likely followed by bonus screw job 4 of means testing by the time I finally get there.

Why do none of these fixes ever look at the current beneficiaries. Why not means test them, or decrease their benefits since they are getting significantly more even adjusting for inflation than beneficiaries were 20 years ago.

Nice. I think it's time for some sort of IRS or Congressional investigation. In fact, I think they should periodically audit each SCOTUS. Wouldn't be surprise if there are irregularities by others.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/16/clar...tate-firm.html
I chuckled at below. I guess it could be paperwork error if the $ is a rounding error but that seems to be a pretty big sum for SCOTUS. And for it to occur multiple years ...

Not sure if this is tied into the leaker or not, but FBI and SDNY and others are going to have a press conference today at 1pm on 3 national security issues. Just in time for Jim Jordan's press conference on crime in NYC to be drowned out. Well done FBI :)

Jordan's hearing on NY crime in Manhattan has to be one of the wildest political stunts by the House in my lifetime and no one is surprised they're doing it.

If Trump is charged in Georgia I wonder what they're planning for that?

That Georgia has the highest crime rate in the States since the DA took over no doubt!

Got excited by NPR's title. Finally, the proposal ...

McCarthy outlines debt limit plan in NYSE speech : NPR
But no, not a lot details.

The bolded section is interesting. No details on the $ amount in the article but another article said $4.2T spent out of $4.6T (ERROR: The request could not be satisfied. That's a lot of moola left on the table

The claw back won't happen as some GOP states have used that money for tax cuts and police spending.

Not Georgia. Fulton County. They won't slam the state, just Atlanta.

McCarthy stuck to the Trump plan. Say you have something of substance but then when it is time to produce it blame the other side for acting in bad faith. I am 100% certain they will let us default because it makes Biden look bad.

Looks like they won't let the Dems replace Feinstein. So no new judges unless she resigns. Just the most incompetent party.

Sen Cornyn says he’s a no on temporarily replacing Sen Feinstein and that he doesn’t believe there are 10 R votes there for it.

— Liz Goodwin (@lizcgoodwin) April 17, 2023

Is there a way to remove a Senator before their term is up? Stories have been out for a long time about how Feinstein has dementia. A reporter today mentioned that she introduced herself as Mayor a few times recently. It's pretty clear she is unfit for office and is being used by people. But I genuinely don't know what the process is if a Senator is unfit and doesn't resign.

She should retire but couldn't Shumer also change the rules to let a replacement through with 50 votes. Machin and Sinema might block it but at least try.

You go Joe. You'll be 82-86 in your 2nd term.

You really are too old for my liking but do believe you are the best insurance vs Trump if he get's the nomination. If he doesn't get the nomination, then you may be in trouble.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/20/bide...next-week.html

They won't do that so I think they're just stuck. Probably not a good idea to put someone with dementia on such an important committee, but Dems never really care about the courts. They'll be sure to tell us all how we need to vote for them though to prevent nutjob judges from getting nominated.

Congrats Joe.


More than ever, it does bring to the forefront what happens if Biden shows significant cognitive decline leading up to the election. If anyone at his age can stay relatively "sharp", I'd think it would be the POTUS who is challenged daily to use his mental capacities, decision making, doesn't seem to have a bad diet, works out with weights & cardio etc. Hope he has great genes.

Schumer can't do that. At issue, to answer Rainmaker's question, is the Constitutional provision on this:


A constitutional amendment to change this would of course be an even higher bar.

It sounds like they have to hope she resigns, or they've committed a pretty bad own goal. Can't fathom they could expel her because that would go against the norms for Democrats and Republicans are more than happy to have Democrats down a Senator and unable to confirm judges.


What a shitshow this will be if there is a SCOTUS opening.

What they could do is change the rules so a 50-50 vote in committee advances to the floor. Sinema may balk at that, but I bet Manchin would let it go through.

Even if she resigns they then have to hope the GOP agrees to allow her to be replaced on committees.