“Entertaining and shrewd… Hulse is an expert guide through the machinations on Capital Hill: New York Times
Inside Washington’s War Over The Supreme Court
The Cheif Washington Correspondent for the New York Times presents a richly detailed, news-breaking, and conversation-changing look at the precedented political fight to fill the Supreme Court seat made vacant by Antonin Scalia’s death-using it to explain the paralyzing and all but irreversible dysfunction across all three branches in the nation’s capital.
The Embodiment Of American Conservative
Antonin Scalia cast an expansive shadow over the Supreme Court for three decades. His unexpected death in February 2016 created a vacancy that precipitated a pitched political fight. That battle would not only change the tilt of the court but the course of American history. It would help decide a presidential election, fundamentally alter long-lasting protocols of the United States Senate, and transform the Supreme Court-which has long held itself as a neutral arbiter above politics-into another branch of the federal government riven by partisanship. In an unprecedented move, the Republican-controlled Senate, led by Majority Leader, Mitch McConnel refuse to give Democratic President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, a confirmation hearing. Not one Republican in the Senate would meet with him. Scalia's seat would be held open until Donald Trump's nominee, Neal M. Gorsuch, was confirmed in April 2017.
About Author Carl Hulse
Carl Hulse is the chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times and managing editor of First Draft, a political news stream and morning email newsletter. His regular New York Times column “on Washington”, described developments in Washington D.C. His writing has also appeared online with MSN, MSN UK, MSN Canada, and CNBC, and the Sudney Morning Herald, Albany Business Review, Boston.com, The Economic Times, American City Business Journals, and Miami Herald.
Mitch McConnell’s Hold On The Senate
A forthcoming book on President Trump’s two Supreme Court appointments relays new insight on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decisive move to block any candidate from President Barack Obama might nominate to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
This book reveals that Mitch McConnell confirmed with longtime aide Josh Holmes shortly after learning of Scalia’s death. The pair concluded that McConnell should immediately announce Republican opposition to an Obama nominee, lest GOP Texas Senator, Ted Cruz beat them to the punch and render the idea toxic.
“If it was branded as a Ted Cruz idea, he could lose half of his conference,” Holmes said of his discussion with McConnell.
McConnell’s instinct’s proved correct. Speaking after the majority leaders announcement at a presidential debate in Greenville, South Carolina, Cruz urged Senate Republicans not to confirm an Obama nominee for the high court.
Mitch McConnell Told Carl Hulse:
Mitch McConnell did pause for a moment to mourn Scalia’s death, who had been a friend, but his “second thought was to immediately turn to the politics of the situation. The first thing that came into my mind was that I knew if the shoe was on the other foot, they wouldn’t fill this vacancy. I knew it for sure.” “They; of course, meant the Democrats,” Hulse writes in Conformation Bias.
Shamelessness paid off for the Republicans. McConnell boasted that by preserving an open seat on the Supreme Court, he helped elect Trump for President, and Hulse offers polling data to back up this claim. President Trump gloated over the opportunity to stock the rest of the federal bench with conservatives. “You know when I got in, we had over 100 federal judges that weren’t appointed, “Trump declared to a crowd in March 2018. “Now I don’t know why Obama left that. It was like a big, beautiful present to all of us. Why the hell did he leave that? Maybe he got complacent.” Actually, Obama left so many judgeship s unfilled because the Republicans were able to obstruct and delay.
Democrats Reaction To The Supreme Court Justices
The lack of attention to the courts in the Democratic primary in 2015 is in stark contrast to the right’s embrace of the issue. President Donald Trump frequently touts his success dramatically reshaping the federal courts-he’s already filled two Supreme Court seats, and the U.S. Senate confirmed the 150th judge nominated since he took office. His (Donald Trump) re-election campaign is even hawking T-shirts with the message “Supreme Court Champs,” featuring silhouettes of Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel.
So far, Democrats running to unseat Trump have barely made an issue of the courts at all. None of the top-polling candidates have made the future of the courts a central part of their platform, and some don’t even mention the issue on their websites. It’s barely come up in the first three primary debates.
Confirmation Bias: Inside Washington’s War Over The Supreme Court, From Scalia’s Death To Justice Kavanaugh.
This book is “Entertaining and Shrewd,” richly textured and deeply informative, Confirmation Bias provides much-needed context, revisiting the judicial wars of the past two decades to show how those conflicts have led to our current polarization. He examines the politicization of the federal bench and the implications for public confidence in the courts, and takes us behind the scenes to explore how many long-held Democratic norms and entrenched bipartisan procedures have been erased across all three branches of government.
In the last two years anyway, I think that we have seen what the appointment of judges has done for Donald Trump and his group of henchmen going about trying to find dirt on Biden and in the past 2016 election interference by Russia, that the Trump campaign manager has already pled guilty to lying to Robert Meuller is now starting to pay off for Trump, by getting lighter sentences and just today the prosecutor for the Roger Stone Case, that makes three. This also has a lot to do with Attorney General, Bill Barr. There is something going on here that is scary and in my eyes at least, wrong and illegal for a president to step in on a case that involves him (2016 election for president) and to say that the sentence was to harsh and that the people (Robert Meuller) who charged him should be prosecuted and not Stone, who pled guilty as well as 6 other Trump associates. Attorney General Barr is suppose to be bi-partisan and not political at all, but everything that he has done for Trump has been to benefit his re-election or to protect Trump from any type of investigations into his conduct in some way. NOT GOOD.
If you have any questions or want to leave a comment, please do below and I will get back with you as soon as I can.
All The Best. Confirmation Bias: