The House of Representatives has a broad inherent contempt power. The Supreme Court so held in Anderson v. Dunn, an 1821 decision. The Court concluded that the House could hold a non-member in contempt even though no textual provision grants that authority. In reaching that conclusion, Dunn said that the argument that "such an assembly should not possess the power to suppress rudeness, or repel insult, is a supposition too wild to be suggested."
I submit that the President's recent comments are an insult to the House of Representatives. Under Article I, that body has the authority and the right to respond. The response could, of course, be a simple statement that condemns the comments. Under the inherent contempt power, though, I think that the House could go further by (for instance) declaring the President persona non grata within the House chamber. The House is obviously not going to clap the President into some makeshift Capitol jail, but a far more modest sanction seems appropriate.
If a member of the House had made comments about other members comparable to the President's recent comments, there would be a serious discussion about censuring or punishing that member. Why not here?
If a member of the House had made comments about other members comparable to the President's recent comments, there would be a serious discussion about censuring or punishing that member.
ReplyDeleteA "member of the House" has special obligation to follow the rules of the chamber as well as basic rules regarding manner of debate and remarks. This also applies to the Senate. So, e.g., Sen. Warren once got in trouble for remarks she made.
I would be interested on precedent regarding doing so outside of normal House business though.
Anderson v. Dunn spoke in broad terms. But, such terms as applied to non-members' speech outside official business need also to be applied using modern day free speech principles. See, e.g., Bridges v. California (contempt of court; the dissent cited Anderson v. Dunn).
Whatever the House may do in this regard, Trump is beneath contempt.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGerard, can't you see what Trump is doing here?
ReplyDeleteAOC and her socialist, identity warrior posse have become the face of the Democrats among swing voters, who massively loathe them and their antics.
Seeing her House majority in mortal danger, Pelosi belittled the Posse as social media drama queens. In response, AOC all but called her boss a racist, attempting to overwork them and subject them to online death threats.
To stir the pot of this simmering Democrat civil war, Trump first tweets in defense of Pelosi. In some fine political jui jitsu, the man the Democrats believe is a racist pledged that the Dem speaker was not a racist. Then, Trump hits the posse with a series of old school, Vietnam era "America: love it or leave it" posts, forcing the Pelosi and the establishment Dems to reflexively defend the loathed posse by screaming "racism."
Folks, Trump's shots at AOC and the Posse are not "racist." The Posse is multi-racial. Hell, AOC herself is a descendant of Spaniards and as white as this descendant of Italians. Precisely what "race" is the Donald hating on?
Furthermore, the "America: love it or leave it" sentiment resonates in the heartland. The Democrats constant shots at America, from soaking taxpayers to pay "reparations" for long dead slavery to claiming detention of illegal immigrants is akin to Nazi death camps are hardly welcome in the swing states and distorts the GOP need to retake control of the government in 2020. The political environment is arguably more toxic than in 1972 when Nixon won re-election in a landslide revolt against the anti-American sentiments of that time.
Thus, Trump would LOVE to get the 2018 frosh Dem Congress critters from his districts on the record defending the Posse and calling him a racist.
Nancy, PLEASE take this advice!
"Why not here?"
ReplyDeleteBecause the Executive is a "co-equal" branch?
Mind, I don't think that's entirely true; The Congress can enact a law over the objections of the President with a supermajority, it can remove a President or judge, it can, with the consent of the states, amend the Constitution.
The Presidency is given no similar power over the Legislative and Judicial branches.
Thus I believe that the founders were aiming for a system of moderate legislative supremacy, not precise equality between the branches of government.
But that the Executive is a co-equal branch is likely the position the judiciary would take in adjudicating such a conflict.
I'm skeptical of this. Andrew Jackson was once censured, which seems similar to this proposal, and he simply reiterated his contempt for Congress. A few years later, when the Dems re-took Congress, they expunged the censure resolution.
ReplyDeleteBrett:
ReplyDeleteThe House can pass a resolution that Trump is the Easter Bunny. No court is going to bother to reverse the meaningless gesture.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBart, inherent contempt goes somewhat beyond just a resolution of disapproval. Not that I think even Occasional Cortex would be silly enough to send a Congressional bailiff out to try to arrest the President, but inherent contempt does carry with it the potential for enforcement mechanisms.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the "America: love it or leave it" sentiment resonates in the heartland. The Democrats constant shots at America
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 4:20 PM
Trump's campaign theme (MAGA) was a shot at America, you dumbass.
And telling ethnic minorities to "get out of my country" is racist as hell.
I share Joe's view. Contempt citations with any real penalty against nonmembers are not enforceable under the First Amendment. And if you are just going to do a symbolic contempt, why not just pass a House resolution condemning the remarks?
ReplyDeleteThe chief of staff of VP Pence provides his proof that Trump is not a racist by the fact that Trump nominated Mrs. Mitch, who was born in China to Chinese parents, to be his Sec'y. of Transportation. It would be interesting to find out if candidate Trump in 2016 had approached Mrs. Mitch about serving in his cabinet if he were to be elected. Mrs. Mitch had served in a cabinet position in an earlier Republican Admin. as Sec'y. of Labor. Is it possible that candidate Trump approached Mrs. Mitch about serving in his cabinet, perhaps asking her what position she might be interested in. Did Mrs. Mitch suggest the Transportation Dept. because of her Chinese family's financial interests in transportation? Did candidate Trump use Mrs. Mitch as a means to c0-opt Sen. Majority Leader Mitch? We may never have revealed the pillow talk that might have taken place in 2016 between Leader and Mrs. Mitch. But it doesn't take much of a conspiracy theory to test whether Mr. Mitch was co-opted by candidate Trump, particularly Mr. Mitch's stance on the Russia interference with American election process in 2016 in support of Trump's candidacy. Mr. Mitch was not willing to issue a unified public challenge to such Russia interference, rather, Mr. Mitch took the position that such would be political, despite the work of America's Intel agencies.
ReplyDeleteA conspiracy theory is already in the works regarding Mrs. Mitch's role as Sec'y. of Transportation. This is a pocketbook issue for both Mrs. Mitch and Leader Mitch. So much for the separation of powers, if Mr. Mitch was indeed co-opted by candidate Trump who as President holds a trump card over Mr. Mitch, as well as Mrs. Mitch.
A conspiracy theory might look into why Mrs. Mitch became Sec'y. of Transportation rather than of Labor, with which she had had several years of experience. Perhaps Labor had been reserved by candidate Trump for Al Acosta, whom Trump had know from his FL days as US Attorney, who protected Trump's fine friend Jeffrey Epstein. Much has been revealed about Trump's connections with Epstein in the 1990s and beyond. Perhaps more will be revealed with the recent charges against Epstein that forced Acosta's resignation as Sec'y. of Labor.
Conspiracy theories are not needed to identify the amorality of Trump over his lifetime Trump will be defeated from within his circles of supporters who wish to survive Trump's amorality, especially once they recognize and accept that Trump has duped them with his presidential micro-mismanagement.
Trump is the political Hannibal Lector's "Silence of the Republicans" that is so defeating. Trump is America's national security threat. His love bud Kim Jung un is rattling the nuclear testing card as Kim is unhappy with Trump's Admin. Keep in mind the old Greek saying: "A fish rots from head down."
"Contempt citations with any real penalty against nonmembers are not enforceable under the First Amendment."
ReplyDeleteContempt of Congress is an actual crime, which has been successfully prosecuted on occasion. Just not, as a general rule, when committed by members of the party holding the Presidency; Because like any other crime, it's prosecuted by the Executive branch.
The power of "inherent contempt", last used during the Teapot Dome scandal, allows Congress to bypass the executive branch, and directly prosecute this offense itself, and impose the punishment itself. And has been upheld by the Supreme court. But, of course, this requires the cooperation of both chambers, and the Democrats only hold one.
Does the failure of Brett, and SPAM as well, to address the amorality of Trump suggest his agreement with such amorality? SPAM, fortunately, has not passed on his vile genes. Brett has sired a mixed race son (Asian American). How does Brett address the racism of Trump to his son? Might Brett rationalize to his son that Trump's racism is not aimed at Asian Americans - at least for now? But does Brett discuss with his son America's racism going back to the early 10th century towards Filipinos?
ReplyDeleteBy the Bybee [expletives deleted], it's interesting that Brett references Teapot Dome, which was a minor Republican corruption compared to the current Trump/GOP corruption.
Brett:
ReplyDeleteThe crime of contempt of congress is a species of obstruction and can't be applied criminally to tweets.
I believe Gerard is referring to censure.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShag:
ReplyDeleteDon't delude yourself. Politics is bipartisan mud wrestling.
Past POTUSes and other politicians farmed this kind of work out to political operatives (or in the Dems case, their media) to give themselves the veneer of respectability and plausible deniability.
Trump is the first do it yourself POTUS and he is damned good at it. The Posse are actually bad Trump imitators.
I've addressed it multiple times. Trump isn't as moral as I'd like, but you're tremendously exaggerating the extent of his amorality, and just inventing his "racism".
ReplyDeleteOf all the flaws I've seen him display, racism doesn't appear to be among them. But the left call everything they dislike "racism" these days, don't they?
Brett, no they don't. You're not that stupid, you're just being a troll. Trump has exhibited a lifetime of amorality. You are just blind to it. And Trump began his 2016 candidacy in a racist manner. Look back to Trump's use of Roy Cohn in challenging Trump's racial discrimination with his real estate. How did that work out legally for Trump? Your "Trump isn't as moral as I'd like" suggests your standards go back to your childhood Citizen Breet "Rosebud" event with Mexican farm laborers. Brett, you have swallowed Trump as your leader, hook, line and sinker. Perhaps you were "lost" all those years before Trump "found" you.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteApparently the GOP is really determined to become the Party of angry white racists. And they’re completely unaware of this situation. Hopefully they remain unaware until it’s too late for them to do anything about it.
ReplyDeleteNow that Trump placed the Posse in the spotlight again, the RNC is taking the opportunity to review their lowlights.
ReplyDeleteTrump is not the genius he believes himself to be, but the man is a troll master and the party is learning to play off of his lead.
Meanwhile, the Party Who Cried Racist! cluelessly allows themselves to be trolled.
Well, maybe one or two Dem operatives see what is happening:
“With his deliberate, racist outburst, @realDonaldTrump wants to raise the profile of his targets, drive Dems to defend them and make them emblematic of the entire party,” wrote Axelrod on Twitter. “It’s a cold, hard strategy.”
I think they're plenty aware of it. Here, for example, is one of their fine constituents at The Daily Stormer: "This is the kind of WHITE NATIONALISM we elected him for. And we're obviously seeing it only because there's another election coming up. But I'll tell you, even knowing that, it still feels so good."
ReplyDeleteMark, sorry that I wasn’t clear. The part I hope they don’t realize is that the racism is a demographic disaster for them.
ReplyDeleteMark:
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Stormer? Who is "we?" The guy who puts out The Daily Stormer and the mouse in his pocket?
Your guilt by association jab is like calling 2012 Obama voters communists because the CPUSA paper shouted "We Won!" in a 24 type headline after Obama won reelection.
However, by all means, continue. Nothing gets swing voters to cast ballots for Dems than to have Dems like the Posse and yourself call them Nazis.
The Posse is multi-racial.......Precisely what "race" is the Donald hating on?
ReplyDeleteDon't be ridiculous, Bart. He is promoting white supremacy. The notion that the tweets aren't racist because those he attacked are multi-racial is dumb. White supremacists have only two categories - whites and others.
I do agree that the tweets are intended to motivate his supporters, which tells you a lot about his supporters.
BD: The Posse is multi-racial.......Precisely what "race" is the Donald hating on?
ReplyDeletebyomtov: Don't be ridiculous, Bart. He is promoting white supremacy...White supremacists have only two categories - whites and others.
"White" as in European descendants like AOC and I?
Blankshot, we’re all aware of why Trump is blurting out racist nonsense. The fact that you think it’s a good strategy says a lot about you and his other supporters.
ReplyDelete"The part I hope they don’t realize is that the racism is a demographic disaster for them."
ReplyDeleteI hope you're right. I guess we'll see tonight how R House Members are betting.
just inventing his "racism"
ReplyDeleteJust inventing. Not even "exaggerating." Or, "I disagree, but can understand why some thing ..." It's "just inventing."
Well ... that's something.
----
I deleted a comment going into how each branch has powers that at times results in other branches being penalized in some fashion. Doesn't seem to be really in dispute.
The OP is one of those where GM seems to go into "huh ... you know ..." mode from time to time and it doesn't really convince anyone. Use of the contempt power in 2019 (or even 1941) to penalize such remarks is a non-starter to me. Yes, President Johnson's remarks were part of his impeachment charges but again 1868/not now.
It's better to me to think of other options. The one that is a bit of lay-up is a resolution criticizing what he did. I don't think that is the same as a formal censure ala Andrew Jackson though perhaps there is some overlap. As to that censure being revoked later, yes, but a judge's contempt finding might be revoked by a later judge too.
Jackson's censure involved withholding documents and that generally can be applicable to Trump. A censure of some sort is one thing in the toolbox when reprimanding members as well. They can be stripped of membership on a committee. And, the "nuclear option" is expulsion. So, censure might be part of congressional contempt power in that sense. (I see that more appropriate than using it as a replacement for impeachment for let's say bribery or some other offense not connected to contempt of Congress)
I think a formal resolution against his remarks is a bit short and late but when the body's own membership is attacked, it is not really inappropriate to do something like that. I'm not really supportive of some general policy of having resolutions that amount to selective criticism of speech in general. Anyway, the House majority might hold Trump in contempt, but inherent contempt power is not what I would rest on here.
Just to toss it out there ...
ReplyDeleteCongress is not required to allow the executive to give the State of the Union (or any speech) on the floor of the Capitol. For years, it was just sent to them.
So, if they find an "occupant" of the White House (to use Rep. Pressley's term) is so offensive to their membership or in general that they wish not to have such a person do give a speech on their turf, Congress has the power to do that too.
Of course, Congress has a range of powers that can be used to answer "contempt" of this fashion that interferes with their ability to smoothly do business. Such lack of "virtue" also tends to overlap with other wrongs that can and should be addressed.
"White" as in European descendants like AOC and I?
ReplyDeleteThat's ridiculous. Her parents are Puerto Rican, which means she likely has a multi-racial ancestry, and she certainly doesn't have the skin shade that Trump or his worshippers approve of.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePerhaps SPAM is not aware that back before he was born, many European Mediterraneans were not considered by America's White Supremacists to be white. This was even applied to the Irish following their arrival after the famine.
ReplyDeleteHistorian Jon Meacham yesterday detailed how Trump has now tied Andrew Jackson as America's most racist president. Jackson nominated CJ Roger Taney to the Court. Trump nominated Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Trump had the portrait of Jackson placed in the Oval office because of his admiration of Jackson. What might conspiracy theorists make of that?
SPAM has to believe in White Supremacy because he's got nothing else going for him. Imagine the rigors of law school to end up plea dealing alleged drunks in his rural little mountain community's police court. That plea dealing provides SPAM with time to troll his vileness on the Internet. Should we assume that people of color in SPAM's mythical posse are aware of this?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShag: Perhaps SPAM is not aware that back before he was born, many European Mediterraneans were not considered by America's White Supremacists to be white. This was even applied to the Irish following their arrival after the famine...SPAM has to believe in White Supremacy...
ReplyDeleteOK, let me get this straight...
You are promoting me to a "person of color" like AOC because I am the descendant of Irish and Italian immigrants. However, I am also a "white supremacist" who apparently hates people like AOC and myself for having olive skin.
Sorry, under the current Democrat fascist race typology, all European Americans are considered "white," even my "swarthy" Southern Italian ancestors with whom I share a common skin melanin content. Nancy Pelosi (D'Alesandro) shares my Italian heritage and her olive skin is indistinguishable from AOC and I, but no Democrat considers her a "woman of color." Maybe a makeup queen, but not a "person of color."
I have now agreed with Joe twice.
ReplyDeleteWritten SOTU's are a good idea anyway, as the speeches are full of programs that never go anywhere anyway. So sure, there's no reason why the Speaker has to invite someone who insults House members. He can send Congress a report or deliver it somewhere else.
Dilan agreed with me 1000x or so when I answered Mark's Ted Cruz natural born citizenship remarks. All three of us are now going to combine forces and defeat a monster.
ReplyDeleteOh, absolutely the House can refuse the President access to the House chambers. Not the VP, of course, just the President. They certainly have the authority to engage in petty insults.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, maybe you forgot they already did that earlier this year?
But, do we have to pretend that Trump insulted them first? They were talking about impeaching the guy before he even took office.
Blankshot is right. White nationalist love for Jewish folks is very well documented.
ReplyDeleteAs I recall SPAM has claimed some Native American lineage back in the day. His recent self description left our German and other lineages previously claimed. Is SPAM a person of color under the one drop rule? SPAM really has no where to go without White Supremacy. Query: Why did SPAM really, really abandon "big law" in FL to relocate to his rural little mountain rural community to achieve the vaunted "top legal DUI criminal lawyer" fame? Or did he seek out a White Supremacy community?
ReplyDeleteBy the Bybee [expletives deleted], an earlier photo that accompanied SPAM's comments caused some to believe he was a "Bro." Perhaps SPAM took it down and substituted his current photo to please his "constituency."
Joe: Congress is not required to allow the executive to give the State of the Union (or any speech) on the floor of the Capitol. For years, it was just sent to them. So, if they find an "occupant" of the White House (to use Rep. Pressley's term) is so offensive to their membership or in general that they wish not to have such a person do give a speech on their turf, Congress has the power to do that too.
ReplyDeleteThis snubbery also has the advantage of keeping all those Dem frosh from Trump districts off the record calling the Donald a "racist."
Of course, Trump could simply hold one of his rallies on the Mall and deliver it there. That way, the TV audience does not have to watch the Dems sit on their hands and grimacing or the Notorious RBG fall asleep.
Shag: As I recall SPAM has claimed some Native American lineage back in the day.
ReplyDeleteLMAO! You are confusing me with your Senator and POTUS candidate, Elizabeth Warren, although my complexion is about two shades darker than her paper white skin.
His recent self description left our German and other lineages previously claimed.
You were only calling my Irish and Italian ancestors "people of color." I presume you think Germans are "white" and probably all Nazis. So the Germans don't count for your promotion of me to a "person of color."
Is SPAM a person of color under the one drop rule?
You will have to tell me. You Democrats invented the rule. Blood all looks red to me.
Check out this July 15, 2019 column in the NYTimes for a listing of Trump's racism:
ReplyDeleteDonald Trump’s Racism:
The Definitive List, Updated
By DAVID LEONHARDT and IAN PRASAD PHILBRICK
Many links are provided. Once again, a reminder of an old Greek saying: "The fish rots from the head down." And that fish is the leader of the current Republican Party.
Imagine, some Republicans are coming to True''s defense by claiming that the Republican Party of today is still the party of Lincoln.
SPAM neglects that the Republican Southern Strategy that started with Nixon converting southern Democrats to Republicans in resentment and resistance to the civil rights movement.
ReplyDeleteSPAM seems to have forgotten his comments on his lineage some years back when it served his purpose to show broad lineages over the years. But at heart SPAM is a White Supremacist because otherwise he would be at a dead end with his vileness.
Shag:
ReplyDeleteQuiz time!
According to Ancestry.com genetic testing, my three family lines are from all over the place in Europe.
The DePalmas from Italy may have relations from Spain like AOC.
The Carrs from Ireland may have relations from England and Norway (Vikings?)
The Asendorfs from Germany may have relations from France and Russia.
Sorry, no Native American.
So, in your expert opinion, do I still qualify as a "person of color?"
SPAM, you qualify as a colorful White Supremacist, attempting to prove to your "constituency" your purity as a White Supremacist. Do you have a problem with people of color? Is this part of your DNA? Does a person of color violate God's law? How can you support a racist pig like Trump? You are right in there with him in the trough eating the slop. Wherever you got your vileness from your lineage, the world is better off that you won't't pass those genes on.
ReplyDeleteOf course it was you, not I, that raised the matter of your lineage in the past, apparently thinking you would score political points by doing so. As I recall your German lineage goes back to Germans who resettled in America centuries ago. For some reason you stressed that lineage more than your recent lineages. I judge you by the vileness you have displayed at this Blog. As I noted years ago here, you are in the scheme of things a noagn.*
*nit on a gnat's nut
So, in your expert opinion, do I still qualify as a "person of color?"
ReplyDelete# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 3:16 PM
You seems to be missing the point. The white nationalists are the people who are deciding who is “colored”. A Puerto Rican Jew is definitely not white in their eyes. Eventually they’ll run out of Jews, Blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, etc...etc... Then they might just turn on the Italians. It appears to be similar to the process for determining who is a RINO. Eventually they run out of other candidates and come looking for you.
Well Bartbuster, looks like all but 4 Rs are betting you're wrong.
ReplyDeletebb: The white nationalists are the people who are deciding who is “colored”.
ReplyDeleteFunny, the only ones making these decisions here and elsewhere are Democrats. They decree who are "white nationalists" and what they believe, like the Chinese communists during their Cultural Revolution used to decree who were evil capitalists and what they believed...before murdering them.
Well, the white nationalists decide who they insult and threaten and the people being threatened decide who they’ll vote for. Oddly, they seem to have stopped voting for the party that defends monuments to Confederate traitors. You want to ignore that and pretend that defending traitors is good? Go right ahead. But the demographic trends are not on your side.
ReplyDeleteBlogger Mark Field said...
ReplyDeleteWell Bartbuster, looks like all but 4 Rs are betting you're wrong.
I suspect that most are aware of what coming. But they figure that they’ll be out of congress before it hits.
I think they believe they're going to win. They can control the majority of states, they can control the Senate, they can control the Court, they can gerrymander and suppress the vote. It's going to take something dramatic to break that lock and democratize the system.
ReplyDeleteSadly, John Paul Stevens has died. For a period of about 20 years, R presidents sure gave us some good Justices.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that they'll try to delay it for as long as possible. But I think the numbers will overwhelm them. Ted Cruz recently won in Texas with 50.9%. That should terrify Rethuglicans. Would Texas turning blue be dramatic enough for you?
ReplyDeleteSure, but I think that's a ways off. And even if the Dems do take TX, which would make it very hard for the Rs to win a presidential election, there are too many veto points elsewhere for actual democracy. I'm not ruling it out, I'm just not betting on it.
ReplyDeleteRethuglicans have made it pretty clear that they're not interested in actual democracy. So Texas turning blue might be our only hope. Hopefully Trump has sped that process up.
ReplyDeleteMark Field said...I think they believe they're going to win.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious.
Do you Dems even consider unabashed socialism and identity politics to be an electoral liability?
The GOP is not winning votes in places like WI, MI and PA so much as Democrats are losing them.
These poll numbers are GREAT news for John McCain!!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your political insights, Blankshot!
In 2005, a year before his death, Ford wrote, in a tribute to Stevens, “For I am prepared to allow history’s judgment of my term in office to rest (if necessary, exclusively) on my nomination thirty years ago of John Paul Stevens to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
ReplyDeleteFair.
Yeah, it's fair, if he wanted to be remembered that badly, I suppose it qualifies as humility; Ford did screw up a lot.
ReplyDeleteIs Brett suggesting Ford screwed up by pardoning Nixon?
ReplyDeleteGerard:
ReplyDeleteNow that the House Democrats have "condemned" Trump, what have they accomplished?
Accomplishment: Exposing on the record the House Republicans (except for four) as swallowers of the White Supremacy of Trump as leader of the Republican Party. SPAM probably takes that as a badge o f honor to bolster SPAM's White Supremacy chops with his constituency in his rural little mountaintop community.
ReplyDeleteShag: "Trump had the portrait of Jackson placed in the Oval office because of his admiration of Jackson."
ReplyDeleteMy recommendation to President Harris or Warren is that they replace Jackson with Stuart's portrait of Washington's enslaved cook Hercules, who managed to free himself after his owner's death. One small problem is that this picture belongs to the Thyssen-Bornemisza museum in Madrid. I worked up a Clever Proposal to bring it back to the White House where it belongs, through a swap with one of the latter's under-visited Cézannes. These are much better works of art, but have nothing to to with specifically American culture and history. Win-win!
Bartbuster: "A Puerto Rican Jew is definitely not white in their eyes."
ReplyDeleteAOC is a Catholic who claims Jewish ancestry. The majority of the large Sephardic Jewish community in Spain converted under duress during ferocious pogroms around 1400. Old Christians did not accept them as proper Spaniards because they continued to occupy the same unpopular economic niches such a tax farming, and the conversos remained as distinct community. (Marranos is s crude insult of the same order as kike and the term should be avoided.) The Inquisition was aimed not at the marginalized remnant of the Jews but at the Catholic descendants of the converts of 1400, accused of an imaginary Judaizing heresy (Netanyahu). Long after violent persecution had died down, the limpieza de sangre customs stigmatized conversos and barred them from from many positions. It's therefore very likely that AOC's Spanish ancestors had reason to recall their Jewish ancestry.
But even to contemporary American anti-Semites, having Jewish ancestors in Toledo or Barcelona before 1400 does not make you s Jew.
"Is Brett suggesting Ford screwed up by pardoning Nixon?"
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. Not only was it wrong in the first instance, but it established a corrupt bargain which is only starting to break down today, that each administration would hold the prior harmless for its crimes, and in return could expect the next to extend the same courtesy.
A terrible precedent to set, one of Ford's greatest sins.
BD: Now that the House Democrats have "condemned" Trump, what have they accomplished?
ReplyDeleteShag: Accomplishment: Exposing on the record the House Republicans (except for four) as swallowers of the White Supremacy of Trump as leader of the Republican Party.
Don't forget getting their frosh balance of power from Trump districts on the record calling him a "racist" and defending the socialist hate Squad.
Of the two groups who might be moved by above, which group makes up the greater part of the electorate in the swing states and districts who will choose the next POTUS and House?
The quote was in honor of John Paul Stevens, not a dig at Ford.
ReplyDeleteBut, take it as you will. I have mixed feelings about the pardoning of Nixon myself though Ford's path to office alone made it problematic. To the degree it sent a bad signal, at least one can cite Nixon's first VP being forced to resign (it was part of a plea deal), multiple high members of his Administration being prosecuted and Nixon himself being forced to resign and even with the pardon open to civil penalty & a law passed to protect his public papers.
RIP JPS.
Now that Trump has stepped into the Dem civil war, the other shoe may be dropping.
ReplyDeleteRep. Al Green (d) filed Articles of Impeachment and forced a vote this afternoonr to refer them to Nadler's Judiciary Committee. Rumor is the GOP minority will join with the Dem Trump lynch mob on this procedural vote.
If Pelosi thought her socialists would be satisfied with yesterday's show "contempt" vote, she was mistaken.
:::munching pop corn:::
These poll numbers are GREAT news for John McCain!
ReplyDeleteApparently Blankshot has memory-holed 2018.
bb:
ReplyDelete2018 was a standard midterm election where the angry out-party voters showed up and the self-satisfied in-party voters did not. The resulting Dem House majority balance of power won a series of narrow to razor thin wins in Trump districts.
In 2020, what happens in those districts and their states when the Trump fan boys and girls return to support their man?
Once you understand that reality, all Pelosi and Trump's actions all make perfect sense.
Blankshot, 2018 was a seal-clubbing. Using the same racist tactics in 2020 seems like a bad idea, but Klan gotta Klan...
ReplyDeletebb:
ReplyDeleteIs your girl Nancy acting like 2018 was a "seal clubbing" and her House majority is assured in 2020?
Keep delusion alive, my friend!
These poor numbers are great news for John McCain!!
ReplyDeleteKeep delusion alive, my friend!
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 1:37 PM
Right back at ya, chump!
Of course Trump's tweet was bigoted and xenophobic, a long standing such trope of telling 'foriergners' to 'go back to ___. Particularly egregious when the persons are already where they are 'from' (the slight is to their ancestry, or race if you will). It's no matter that he referred to different people from different ancestry it's no less bigoted than someone telling two Asians-Americans with ancestors from two different places to 'go back to China.' It's also fair to call it racist as racist is a commonly accepted synonym for bigoted or xenophobic as a linguistic matter and historical matter. Bart and others defenders of Trump are just being obtuse, trolls and/or partisans to deny this.
ReplyDeleteHaving said this, I agree that as a political matter, divorced from matters of dignity of the office and moral decency, having the 'squad' be the focus and face of the Democratic Party is not good for the latter.
As a political matter, there is a place for them, and them not being "the focus and face" might be akin to civil rights leaders not being "the focus and the face" in the 1960s. The party as a whole benefits from their efforts.
ReplyDelete(Reference was made to "they only had four votes" regarding the first border funding bill put forth by the House as an attempt to put a bit of teeth into it. The bill was put aside for the Senate bill, which was had 84 votes. Not a single Democratic senator running for POTUS voted for it. And, over 90 House Dems voted against it. After the bill passed, Pence et. al. still called out the Dems for not being supportive. They had more than four votes in the end. This still doesn't really make them "the face" of the party. It does show the value of a strong activist wing, which some more moderate sorts might find a bit offputting. They btw are not the ones who put up an alternative for Pelosi as Speaker.)
As a matter of public good, it was not great that the tail wagged the dog in the Republican Party the last few decades, but how "not good" for the party itself that was given the results is unclear. They did pretty well for themselves since the Clinton years.