Skip to content

Month: June 2016

Head(line)desk by @BloggersRUs

Head(line)desk
by Tom Sullivan



Photo by Paul Schreiber via Creative Commons.

A headline at the Washington Post online brought me up short this morning: 40 dishes every Washingtonian should eat. It seemed to perfectly capture the insider world of the Beltway — a set of glam photos of culinary delights from dining establishments scattered around the Capitol. “Every Washingtonian”? A report from a couple of years ago ranked the Washington, D.C. child poverty rate higher than Mexico’s.

At Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi too highlights the way life in Washington becomes a separate reality. Because of that, Taibbi suspects that Democrats in leadership roles will draw the wrong conclusions from Hillary Clinton’s outlasting Bernie Sanders in the race for the party’s presidential nomination. After a couple of anecdotes about overworked and underpaid staffers loathing constituents, Taibbi explains:

These stories are funny, but they also point to a problem. Since The People is an annoying beast, young pols quickly learn to be focused entirely on each other and on their careers. They get turned on by the narrative of Beltway politics as a cool power game, and before long are way too often reaching for Game of Thrones metaphors to describe their jobs. Eventually, the only action that matters is inside the palace.

Voter concerns rapidly take a back seat to the daily grind of the job. The ideal piece of legislation in almost every case is a Frankensteinian policy concoction that allows the sponsoring pol to keep as many big-money donors in the fold as possible without offending actual human voters to the point of a ballot revolt.

“Are you talking about (some Young Political Careerists we know)?” a friend asked when I described the Taibbi article. The same dynamic exists outside Washington. YPCs leaped onto the Clinton train early as the best vehicle for career advancement.

“The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders,” Taiibi writes, arose from voters catching on that all they get are Washington’s table scraps. This “barely quelled revolt” from the Sanders campaign “ought to have sent shock waves up and down the party.” Yet James Hohmann in the Washington Post perceives that “pressure” to change (from the left) has now been “ameliorated” by Clinton’s victories this week. Instead of reading the mood of the electorate and seeing opportunity (43 percent of the popular vote went to Sanders), Beltway pols and party insiders are likely to get back to working their way through the 40 dishes every Washingtonian should eat.

Taibbi frets:

The maddening thing about the Democrats is that they refuse to see how easy they could have it. If the party threw its weight behind a truly populist platform, if it stood behind unions and prosecuted Wall Street criminals and stopped taking giant gobs of cash from every crooked transnational bank and job-exporting manufacturer in the world, they would win every election season in a landslide.

This is especially the case now that the Republican Party has collapsed under the weight of its own nativist lunacy. It’s exactly the moment when the Democrats should feel free to become a real party of ordinary working people.

But they won’t do that, because they don’t see what just happened this year as a message rising up from millions of voters.

This remains to be seen, of course (this blogger writes as he heads off to the state convention).

Also at Rolling Stone, Joshua Holland asks if the left might not want to reassess its belief that if Democrats just fielded a candidate offering to better serve their economic best interests, voters would flock to them. “Bernie Sanders ran the campaign left-leaning Democrats have been dreaming of for years,” yet he lost to Hillary Clinton:

Many of my fellow Sanders supporters will say that he only lost because the system was rigged — he was screwed by the DNC’s debate schedule and a corporate media blackout that kept his message from getting out to the American people. Left-populism can’t fail; it can only be failed by the machinations of a corrupt establishment.

But maybe it’s the other way around. We wanted to see the game as rigged against the guy running the campaign we always dreamed of rather than confront the failure of economic populism to win hearts and minds — or at least the hearts and minds of a broad enough swathe of left-leaning voters to beat Hillary Clinton. Again, people don’t give up their deeply held beliefs easily.

Those narratives, while soothing, are misleading, Holland writes.

But why see the Sanders campaign as a failure? Sanders advanced the ball much further than anyone expected and drove populist issues into the national spotlight. Clinton may have won 57 percent of the popular vote, but that is no reason for Democrats to leave the other 43 percent untapped. Trump is no chump. They are going to need it.

Soother Part Two

Soother Part Two

by digby

Because you need it. Be sure to watch all the way to the end and you’ll feel sooo good:

QOTD: Trumpie

QOTD: Trumpie

by digby

Trump at the Faith and Freedom Coalition:

 People should not be judged on the basis of their race and ethnicity.

Uh huh:

.

Did everyone hear the explosion?

Did everyone hear the explosion?

by digby



That was the sound of Wayne LaPierre’s head exploding:

Gen. David Petraeus and retired astronaut Mark Kelly announced Friday they are forming a new gun control group for veterans.

The Veterans Coalition for Common Sense will push to strengthen gun background check laws and help prevent veterans from committing suicide. It pointed to several alarming statistics about the military and gun violence.

According to the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), about 22 veterans kill themselves each day.
Since September 11, 2001, more Americans have been killed by gun violence than combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“As service members, each of us swore an oath to protect our Constitution and the homeland,” said Kelly, who formed another gun control group with his wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), after she was shot and seriously wounded during a mass shooting in 2011.

“Now we’re asking our leaders to do more to protect our rights and save lives,” Kelly added in the statement. “Gabby and I are grateful to all of these incredible veterans and leaders who are using their voice to call for commonsense change that makes our communities safer.”

In addition to Petraeus, the former CIA director, and Kelly, a number of other generals and admirals will join the group, including another former CIA director, Michael Hayden, and retired Adm. Thad Allen.

I’m beginning to think we might just be about to make some headway in bringing a tiny bit of sanity to our gun violence problem. Maybe. Hopefully.

I hope a reporter asks Trump about this. He fetishizes guns and Petraeus. Could be fun.

.

The perfect VP for Trump

The perfect VP for Trump

by digby

Trump spoke to the Faith and Freedom Coalition today from a teleprompter, proving that he really sucks at doing speeches from a teleprompter. And it particularly boring for this Christian confab which really wants to hear about Jesus and snowflake babies from someone who knows how to talk about it. There’s just no way that this crowd of real social conservatives are going to relate very well to this vulgar cretin.

Conservative movement Godfather Richard Viguerie has the answer to the problem and you’re going to love it:

When I asked CHQ readers to help me crowd-source a running mate for Donald Trump, I was already thinking that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum would make a good prospect, but I wanted to see if CHQ readers saw the same creative disruption in the selection of Trump’s running mate that Trump wrought on the Rick Santorumpresidential nomination in the primaries.

I think the answer is YES – and here are my reasons why Rick Santorum should be added to Trump’s short list as an almost perfect match for the criteria expressed by Donald Trump, the CHQ GOP VP poll, and those I developed in the previous columns in this series.

First, let me cover the most important reasons that I think Rick Santorum makes a better prospect than our other top-vote getters in the CHQ GOP VP poll:

Rick has the national campaign experience and exposure that Senator Jeff Sessions lacks.

Santorum outlasted Newt to run second to Mitt Romney in the 2012 primaries, and won eleven states with a plurality of the vote, including the swing state of Iowa. He also won North Dakota, Missouri, Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana.

Senator Santorum developed and maintains a national network of young, politically active, culturally conservative families that are exactly the kind of voters who are struggling with Trump’s decidedly non-conservative cultural history.

Santorum is an icon among right-to-life and pro-family voters for being a politician, like Sarah Palin, who really lives by pro-life and pro-family values. Therefore, putting him on the ticket would do much to allay the concerns pro-lifers have about Donald Trump’s apparent flip-flops on pro-life issues.

Finally, although he endorsed Marco Rubio, unlike Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum has no negative history with Donald Trump. After Rubio suspended his campaign, Santorum readily endorsed Trump and said he would campaign with him and for him.

Next, there was no other candidate on the trail this cycle whose views on trade and job creation more closely match Donald Trump’s than do Rick Santorum’s.

Santorum’s 2012 campaign in behalf America’s forgotten working families in many ways presaged Trump’s 2016 campaign themes. Santorum knows Trump’s issues on jobs and manufacturing, and won’t have to learn them or explain away a lot of contradictory comments or conflicting policy positions and votes. Aside from Senator Sessions, no one else comes as close to matching Trump’s views on this key issue.

While Senator Santorum didn’t get much traction with it this cycle, he has a stellar record on national security and national defense issues, especially on Iran. Santorum was the author of the original Iran sanctions regime and is exceptionally well informed on the war Islam has declared on the West. He has the background and brains to help Donald Trump put meat on the policy bones he regularly tosses out.

Speaking of policy, another area where Santorum has not gotten the credit he deserves is in the policy development field. Santorum was elected chairman of the Senate Republican Conference in 2000, the party’s third-ranking leadership position in the Senate and was responsible for helping to formulate and sell Republican policy during the early years of the George W. Bush administration.

I think even Santorum’s detractors would agree he was effective in that role, and most importantly from my perspective, he helped push the Senate GOP substantially to the Right.

In addition to serving as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, Santorum also founded the Congressional Working Group on Religious Freedom, accomplishments that rank with Jim Jordan’s leadership of the Republican Study Committee and founding of the House Freedom Caucus.

What’s more, the Congressional Working Group on Religious Freedom included members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and met monthly to address issues such as the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, tax-exempt status for churches, the CARE act, international religious freedom, and anti-Semitism.

That’s a pretty good match for Donald Trump’s stated goal of having a vice president who knows Washington and can work with Congress to help sell Trump’s agenda on the Hill. It is also a record of leadership that gives him credibility as president, fulfilling the second half of Donald Trump’s job description for his VP;

While no one could say that any competitor matches Newt Gingrich’s policy chops, Santorum comes as close as any prospect we’ve discussed and he comes without the baggage that Newt would bring to the ticket. If Donald Trump wants a vice president who knows Congress and can help him sell his program on Capitol Hill, he would be hard-pressed to find a better running mate than Rick Santorum.

Of course there are some downsides to Santorum as a VP candidate that must be acknowledged. He never got the same kind of traction in 2016 that he had in 2012, and there was a general feeling (shared by me) that Rick had missed his moment in the aftermath of the 2012 election when he sort of fell off the radar for the better part of two years.

Rick has also not been bashful about calling for and saying he would use strong executive powers, as has Donald Trump. Many conservatives, myself included, were critical of how he did not stand up to President George W. Bush’s expansion of big government and executive power during Rick’s time in the Senate leadership.  The fact that he reinforces Trump in that regard is not necessarily a positive thing.

Because of Santorum’s time away from the Senate, and how the conservative movement more generally has come around on how the Bush administration’s big-government ways and accretions of executive power were not just wrong, but helped set bad precedent for some of the unconstitutional excesses of the Obama administration, I count him as open to and educable on the constitutional limits on executive power. He would do well, however, to assure constitutional conservatives of his commitment to the proper limitations on executive power and his fidelity to small-government, constitutional principles.

Most importantly, however, for purposes of preventing what would be a disastrous and ruinous episode for America – a Hillary Clinton presidency following eight years of Barack Obama – Rick Santorum as Trump’s VP selection would unite the establishment wing of the GOP with the conservative movement.  Neither of these two major wings of the Party could claim that Santorum as the VP pick would be a disaster. With all his qualities, he bridges the often-wide gap between the leaders of the GOP establishment and the conservative movement. For Trump, who has given both the conservative movement and the GOP establishment cause for concern, Rick Santorum is almost uniquely suited to help soothe both factions in ways that would help defeat Hillary.

The bottom line is, to my way of thinking, Rick Santorum would, as no other candidate except Ted Cruz, help Trump complete the circle necessary to build a winning populist – conservative coalition by bringing culturally conservative pro-lifers into the fold. He knows Washington and Capitol Hill and certainly after his strong run in 2012 and his leadership in the Senate “could be viewed as somebody who could be president.”

Putting a candidate on the ticket so clearly identified with the pro-life cultural conservative agenda would do more than merely placate conservatives as the old rules of vice presidential selection would dictate. Rick Santorum is clearly “one of us” a long-time movement conservative, and it is hard to imagine pro-life cultural conservatives not backing a Trump – Santorum ticket.

Rick Santorum is my conservative dark horse who should be on Donald Trump’s short list. I’ve got a new poll with just the top prospects up, please click the link and tell me whether or not you agree that Rick Santorum should be the conservative dark horse on Donald Trump’s VP short list.

I’m convinced! Game on!

.

The Big Six

The Big Six


by digby

I wrote about the Democrats’ “A” team for Salon today:

One of the articles of faith leading up to this presidential election season was that the Republicans had a very “deep bench” featuring a cornucopia of superstar politicians. They had Governors like the union slayer Scott Walker, GOP royalty Jeb Bush, burly tough guy Chris Christie, the Texas success story Rick Perry, Ohio everyman John Kasich and Arkansas preacher Mike Huckabee. They also had several sitting Senators on tap such as the Latino man of the future Marco Rubio, the conservative firebrand Ted Cruz and the libertarian iconoclast Rand Paul. And to round out the team they had former silicon valley executive Carly Fiorina and a world renowned African American neurosurgeon. Oh and there was reality TV celebrity Donald Trump. You have to admit that on paper it looked like an impressive line-up.

Meanwhile, the Democrats were coming off of eight years in the White House and were assumed to be tired and spent, recycling a candidate who had come close in 2008 and was simply seen to be the next in line. There was one governor nobody had heard of and a socialist protest candidate. With all that talent on the GOP side and so little on the Democratic side, many people assumed this was going to be the Republicans’ year.

Well that didn’t work out so well. The GOP’s deep bench turned out to be a bunch of dull-witted duds who were knocked off one by one by a man who literally had no idea what he was talking about and gleefully turned their primary into a circus. And on the other side Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders staged a spirited campaign of ideas.

We’re now on the cusp of the general election campaign with Hillary Clinton as the presumptive nominee, the first woman in American history to earn that honor. The Republicans have a crude, racist with fascist tendencies who embarrasses them on a daily basis.

And as we survey the two parties it’s clear that the Republicans have more problems than just their dangerous and clownish nominee or their out-of-control Tea Party base. They have no one with any gravitas to speak up for their candidate as he goes out on the trail. Mitt Romney isn’t going to do it. He is the national spokesman for #NeverTrump. Paul Ryan is dancing as fast as he can to try to keep the party together without blowing up his own future in the process. And who else is there? Jeb Bush? Not gonna do it. George W. Bush? No way. John McCain? He’s fighting for his own seat and may just lose it. At this point, the only people with any enthusiasm for the GOP nominee are Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. Feel the magic.

Meanwhile, look who the Democrats have on tap. First there is the President, who is currently enjoying a 53% approval rating, up three points in the last month. (Compare that to George W. Bush’s 29% approval rating at this time in his second term.) And among Democrats, he is extremely popular, with 88% approving of his job performance. Yesterday, he released a full-throated Clinton endorsement, promising to put everything he has into her election campaign:

For more than a year now, across thousands of miles and all 50 states, tens of millions of Americans have made their voices heard. Today, I just want to add mine. I want to congratulate Hillary Clinton on making history as the presumptive Democratic nominee for president of the United States.

Look, I know how hard this job can be. That’s why I know Hillary will be so good at it. In fact, I don’t think there’s ever been someone so qualified to hold this office. She’s got the courage, the compassion, and the heart to get the job done. And I say that as someone who had to debate her more than 20 times. Even after our own hard-fought campaign, in a testament to her character she agreed to serve our country as secretary of state. 
From the decision we made in the situation room to get Bin Laden, to our pursuit of diplomacy in capitals around the world, I have seen her judgement, I’ve seen her toughness, I’ve seen her commitment to our values up close. I’ve seen her determination to give every American a fair shot at opportunity, no matter how tough the fight was. That’s what has always driven her. And it still does. So I want those of you who have been with me from the beginning of this incredible journey to be the first to know that I’m with her. I am fired up, and I cannot wait to get out there and campaign.

He then congratulated Senator Sanders and his followers saying they had brought important issues to the forefront of the campaign and expressed confidence that the party was going to come together to defeat the Republicans. According to the latest NBC/WSJ poll, 82% of Sanders voters approve of President Obama so his words about unity will undoubtedly carry some weight.

But the President is just the first among many superb surrogates who are going to be enthusiastically hitting the trail for Clinton. Yesterday one of the top leaders of the progressive wing of the party, Senator Elizabeth Warren, gave Hillary Clinton a ringing endorsement:

Hillary Clinton won. And she won because she’s a fighter, she’s out there, she’s tough. And I think this is what we need. Look at who she is: For 25 years, she’s been taking the incoming. The right wing has thrown everything they possibly can at her. And what does she do? A lot of people would just hang up their spurs, say you know, I’ve had enough of this. And she doesn’t. What she’s done is she gets back up and she gets back in the fight. 

As a Democrat, one of the things that frustrates me the most is there are a lot of times we don’t get in the fight. … You ought to be willing to throw a punch. And there are a lot of things that people say about Hillary Clinton. But nobody says that she doesn’t know how to throw a punch.

Warren is one of the most popular Democrats in the country and is widely being discussed as a possible VP choice, which would electrify the party. She too promises to be out on the trail stumping for Clinton and other Democrats. If her speech to the American Constitution Society last night is any example, it’s going to be exciting. Here’s a little taste:

Trump tells everyone who will listen that he’s a great businessman, but let’s be honest — he’s just a guy who inherited a fortune and kept it rolling along by cheating people. 

When that’s your business model, sooner or later you’re probably going to run into legal trouble. And Donald Trump has run into a lot of legal trouble. Ah, yes — Trump University, which his own former employees refer to as one big “fraudulent scheme.”

That’s just for starters. Warren has a way of getting under Trump’s thin skin and she seems to really enjoy it. She’ll be drawing his fire for the next five months and giving it right back.

Then there is Vice President Joe Biden who also endorsed Clinton yesterday and can be expected to be very active on the campaign trail. He’s very popular and while he has a different style, is equally effective at attacking the opposition. He too went after Trump at last night’s American Constitution Society gathering:

I find Donald Trump’s conduct in this regard reprehensible, evidenced by the bipartisan condemnation of the action for what it is: a dangerous attack on a vital pillar of democracy, the independent judiciary, by threats of intimidation and undercutting the legitimacy of a judge by suggesting that because of his heritage he is incapable of being fair.

“In addition to this, it is racist. But it’s not the racism that frightens me. We’ve dealt with racists before. It’s the potential impact on the court.

Michelle Obama will undoubtedly be stumping for Democrats and giving more of the same sharp criticism of Trump and the Republicans as she did at her recent commencement speech address:

Here in America, we don’t give in to our fears, we don’t build up walls to keep people out, because we know that our greatness has always depending on contributions from people who were born elsewhere but sought out this country and made it their home.

Needless to say, former President Bill Clinton whose surrogacy for Obama in 2012 has been widely considered to be tremendously effective,will continue to be out there making the case for Hillary. His speech at the convention that year was masterful and he remains very popular among the Democratic rank and file.

Finally, there is Senator Bernie Sanders. He remains in the race as of now and could theoretically remain in it until the convention. But regardless of the timing or the circumstances, he has made it very clear that he will do everything in his power to ensure that Donald Trump does not become president. His voice on the trail will be a powerful counterpoint to Trump’s arrogant nationalism.

That’s just the top of the bill. There are dozens of others who will be on the trail on behalf of Clinton and rest of the Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans in tough races are going to boycott their own convention and many of those who do show up have been saying they do not plan to speak on behalf of Trump. The contrast couldn’t be more obvious.

Trump can pull big crowds and the TV networks are happy to broadcast his every utterance so perhaps it won’t matter.  But at this point it looks as though Trump not only doesn’t have a deep bench, he doesn’t have a team at all. Clinton, on the other hand, has a very politically talented group of surrogates ready to take the field. They’re not even playing the same game.

.

The purest propaganda

The purest propaganda

by digby



The Kochs want to end the “winner take all” system. These two brothers are worth 100 billion dollars.

Here’s a reminder of what that means:

They have 100 of those.

.

What kind of a man is Donald Trump? by @BloggersRUs

What kind of a man is Donald Trump?
by Tom Sullivan

Trump isn’t a different kind of candidate. He’s a Mitch McConnell kind of candidate. Exactly the kind of candidate you’d expect from a Republican Party whose “script” for several years has been to execute a full-scale assault on the integrity of our courts. Blockading judicial appointments so Donald Trump can fill them. Smearing and intimidating nominees who do not pledge allegiance to the financial interests of the rich and the powerful.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren should stay right where she is in the Senate. She would have less of a platform as the Vice President. Yes, VP candidates are often given the attack-dog roll, but Warren needs no loftier position for doing that. Warren’s speech to the American Constitution Society’s national convention takes your breath away.

Warren’s attack on Donald Trump yesterday was part of a larger indictment of the Republican attack on the legal system and the Senate’s refusal to give Merrick Garland, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, a hearing and a vote.

Here is the entire transcript:

Four simple words are engraved above the
doors to the Supreme Court: Equal Justice Under Law. That’s supposed to be the
basic promise of our legal system: that our laws are just, and that everyone
everyonewill
be held equally accountable if they break those laws.
We haven’t always fulfilled that promisebut
it is the absolute standard to which we hold ourselves even when we fall short.
A vital part of that struggle is the fight for a truly
professional, independent, and impartial judiciary. A place governed not by
politics, not by money, not by power
but by those four
simple words: equal justice under law.
I talked pretty bluntly about how we are losing the
fight over whether our courts will remain a neutral forum, faithfully
interpreting the law and dispensing fair and impartial justice, or whether rich
and powerful interests will completely capture our judicial branch.
I talked about how year after year, for more than thirty
years, powerful interests have worked to rewrite the law and tilt the courts to
favor billionaires and giant corporations. Cases that protected giant
businesses from accountability. Cases that made it harder for individuals to
get into court. Cases that gutted longstanding laws protecting consumers from
being cheated. And cases like Citizens United, which
unleashed an avalanche of billionaire SuperPAC dollars and secret corporate
money in a mad dash to tilt the rest of the government in favor of the wealthy.
Today, I’m here to update that warning. Because what
we’ve seen over the past three years
accelerating over the
past three months, and even the past three weeks
is alarming. Powerful
interests are now launching a full-scale assault on the integrity of the
federal judiciary and its judges.
This assault has two major elements. First, tearing down
our centuries-old process for appointing judges. Second, viciously attacking
judicial nominees, potential nominees, and even sitting federal judges, at the
first sign that they might put the rule of law above devotion to the rich and
powerful.
Earlier this week, I
released a comprehensive report
 on
the Republican campaign of obstruction against President Obama’s nominees. It
details how Senate Republicans have delayed or blocked votes on key nominations
throughout the entire Obama Presidency. The purpose of this obstruction is to
hold open federal positions for as long as possible. The purpose is to
hamstring the President’s ability to protect consumers and workers, to hold
large corporations accountable, and to promote equality. In other words, to undermine
the fundamental principle of Equal Justice Under Law.
The centerpiece of that strategy has been a blockade of
federal judicial appointments
and its much bigger than just the Supreme Court.
From the day President Obama was sworn in, Senate Republicans
have used every procedural tool at their disposal to slow down his nominees.
They spent months abusing
the filibuster
 in a naked
effort to preserve a right wing majority
 on
the D.C. Circuit. After capturing the Senate in 2015, they haveslowed
judicial confirmations to a trickle.
Judicial emergencies multiply. Cases pile up. Courts are
starved for help. And now the
Supreme Court of the United States sits paralyzed
, unable to deal with its
most challenging cases. All because extremist Republicans who reject the
legitimacy of President Obama are determined to make certain our courts advance
only the agenda of the wealthy and the powerful.
It is outrageousand it is up to us to
fight back.
Senate Republicans, do your job. Give District Court
nominees their votes.
Do your job. Give Circuit Court nominees their votes.
Do your job. Give Merrick Garland his vote!
The nominations blockade is the first part of this
assault on the judiciary. But there is a second, even uglier line of attack
intimidation.
Justice demands a judiciary made up of independent
lawyers who can provide insight and expertise from every corner of the
profession. But Senate Republicans and their big business allies don’t like
nominees whose resumes reflect insufficient devotion to the interests of the
rich and powerful
so they smear them. Defense lawyers, public interest
lawyers, plaintiff
s
attorneys
nominees with these professional experiences are
regularly slandered. Their integrity is questioned. And scores of Republicans
line up to oppose them.
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama has
attacked the integrity of several of President Obama’s nominees
 for having some association with the
American Civil Liberties Union. Apparently being connected to with an
organization whose central purpose is to defend rights guaranteed by the
Constitution is an automatic disqualification. Sessions vowed that the
nominations process would become “a
more contentious matter if we keep seeing the ACLU chromosome as part of this
process”
and he meant it.
During her confirmation hearing to be a District Court
judge this year, Senator
Sessions insulted Paula Xinis
, a former federal public defender and civil
rights lawyer who worked on cases of police abuse. He asked if she could
“assure the police officers … that might be brought before your court that
they’ll get a fair day in court, and that your history would not impact your
decision-making.” I’ll let you guess how many times Senator Sessions has
questioned a fancy corporate defense lawyer, asking if they would assure
victims of fraud or people poisoned by toxic wastes or people injured by shoddy
products or employees fired illegally because they tried to form a union
if
they would get a fair day in court. Judge
Xinis was rated unanimously well-qualified by the American Bar Association.
[2] Yet she was barely
confirmed
, with nearly three dozen Republican Senators voting no.
This approach is corrosive to the legal profession. It
is corrosive to our courts. It is corrosive to the rule of law. It is the
responsibility of every lawyer
no matter who their
clients are
to stand up and fight back.
The attacks around the current Supreme Court vacancy
have been even uglier. At one point, Senator John Cornyn of Texas
the
#2 Republican in the Senate
announced
that any nomineeANY
NOMINEE
put forward by the President would be beaten like a piñata. And his right-wing billionaire and big business allies
have made good on that threat.
When rumors circulated that Jane Kelly, a highly respected
federal judge, might
mightbe under
consideration, the Judicial Crisis Network
a
shadowy right-wing group financed with dark money from the billionaire Koch
brothers
ran television
ads attacking her
 for her
service to the nation as a federal public defender.
The President eventually nominated Merrick Garlanda
judge so revered for his professionalism that days before he was announced,
Republican Senator Orrin Hatch called him a “fine
man” who the President could “easily name” to fill the vacancy.
 And what happened?
Scores of Republican Senators refused
to even meet with him.
 The
Judicial Crisis Network started spending millions
of dollars on television ads
demeaning him.
The NFIBa
right-wing Washington lobbying group
 that
claims to speak for small businesses but is swimming
in cash from conservative billionaires
announced that it
would oppose Garland’s nomination because “[i]n
cases involving federal agencies, the Judge ruled in their favor 77 percent of
the time.”
 Every lawyer in
this room knows that federal law requires judges defer to most agency actions.
But apparently, it doesn’t matter anymore whether Judge Garland follows the law
what
matters is that he doesn
t
bend the law to suit giant corporations.
Judge Garland is not a politician. He is a judge with an
unimpeachable record of putting the law first. And for that sin, he faces a
nonstop, national campaign of slime. He faces historic disrespect from the
Republicans who control Senate. It is despicable. It must end. We must end it.
The goal is to tilt the game, and it’s working86%
of President Obama’s judicial nominees
 have
worked as a corporate attorney, a prosecutor, or both, while less than 4% have
worked as lawyers at public interest organizations. Professional diversity is
missing from the federal bench
and justice suffers
for it.
But even disqualifying judges based on their
professional background isn’t enough for Donald Trump.
Trump tells everyone who will listen that he’s a great
businessman, but let’s be honest
he’s
just a guy who inherited a fortune and kept it rolling along by cheating
people.
When that’s your business model, sooner or later you’re
probably going to run into legal trouble. And Donald Trump has run into a lot
of legal trouble. Ah, yes
Trump University,
which his own former employees refer to as one
big “fraudulent scheme.”
Many of the Trump University victims ended up deep in
debt
sometimestens
of thousands of dollars with no way to pay it off.
 Trump’s employee playbook said to look
for people with financial problems
because they make
good targets. He even encouraged his salesforce to go
after elderly people
 who were
trying to create
a little financial security.
I taught law for more than 30 years. Ask any lawyer in
America and they’ll tell you that sounds like fraud. And that’s exactly what
Donald Trump is being sued for
fraud, and worse, for
targeting the most vulnerable people he could find, lying to them, taking all
their money and leaving them in debt.
Some of those people are fighting back. Because in
America, we have the rule of law
and that means that
no matter how rich you are, no matter how loud you are, no matter how famous
you are, if you break the law, you can be held accountable. Even when your name
is Donald Trump.
But Trump doesn’t think those rules apply to him. So at
a political rally two weeks ago, and almost daily since then, the presumptive
Republican nominee for President of the United States has savagely
attacked Gonzalo Curiel,
 the
federal judge presiding over his case.
“We are in front of a very hostile
judge,” Trump
said
. “Frankly, he should recuse himself. He has given us ruling after
ruling, negative, negative, negative.”
Understand what this is. Trump is criticizing Judge
Curiel for following the law, instead of
bending it to suit the financial interests of one wealthy and oh-so-fragile
defendant.
Trump also whined that he’s being been treated
“unfairly” because “the
judge … happens to be, we believe, Mexican.”
 And when he got called out, he doubled
down by saying “I’m
building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest.”
 He’s personally directed his army of
campaign surrogates to step
up their own public attacks on Judge Curiel.
 He’s even condemned
federal judges who are Muslim
on the disgusting
theory that Trump
s
own bigotry compromises the judges

neutrality.
Like all federal judges, Judge Curiel is bound
by the federal code of judicial ethics
 not
to respond to these attacks. Trump is picking on someone who is ethically bound
not to defend himself
exactly what youd
expect from a thin-skinned, racist bully.
Judge Curiel can’t respondbut we can. We can
tell his story.
Gonzalo
Curiel was born in Indiana
not
Mexico
to immigrant parents who worked hard their entire lives
and were handed nothing. He went to Indiana University for undergrad and then
for law school.
For thirteen years, he worked as a federal prosecutor in
Southern California, fighting the Mexican drug cartels as a leader of that
region’s narcotics enforcement division. He collaborated with top Mexican
officials to disrupt the culture of corruption between the Mexican government
and the most powerful and deadly cocaine smugglers in North America.
The effort was impressive. On both sides of the border,
money launderers, street gangs, and assassins were arrested and prosecuted.
But that success came at great cost. Witnesses were
killed. Mexican officials were murdered. Judge
Curiel himself was the target of an assassination plot
and spent the better
part of a year living officially in hiding, under the protection of U.S.
Marshals.
Later, after his years of service as a prosecutor, Judge
Curiel was appointed to the California state courts by a Republican governor
who calls him an
“American hero.”
 He was nominated
to the federal bench
 by a
Democratic president, and confirmed
by a voice vote in the Senate
.
That’s what kind of a man Judge Curiel is. What kind of
a man is Donald Trump?
No, Donaldyou should be ashamed of
yourself. Ashamed for using the megaphone of a Presidential campaign to attack
a judge’s character and integrity simply because you think you have some
God-given right to steal people’s money and get away with it. You shame
yourself and you shame this great country.
No, Donaldwhat you are doing is a total disgrace.
Race-baiting a judge who spent years defending America from the terror of
murderers and drug traffickers simply because long ago his family came to
America from somewhere else. You, Donald Trump, are a total disgrace.
Judge Curiel is one of countless American patriots who
has spent decades quietly serving his country, sometimes at great risk to his
own life. Donald Trump is a loud, nasty, thin-skinned fraud who has never
risked anything for anyone and serves nobody but himself. And that is just one
of the many reasons why he will never be President of the United States.
And in spite of these shameful attacks, nobody doubts
that Judge Curiel will continue to preside over Trump’s case as a fair and neutral
judge. Because Judge Curiel is a lawyer with integrity
and
that
s
what lawyers with integrity do.
Judge Curiel has survived far worse than Donald Trump.
He has survived actual assassination attempts. He’ll have no problem surviving
Trump’s nasty temper tantrums.
When first asked if he would condemn Trump’s comments
about Judge Curiel, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader,
said, well, gee, you know, “Donald
Trump is certainly a different kind of candidate.”
 After days of pressure, McConnell
finally said that attacking
the judge is “stupid” and that Trump should “get on script.”
What script is that, exactly? And where do you suppose
Donald Trump got the idea that he can personally attack judges, regardless of
the law, whenever they don’t bend to the whims of billionaires and big
business?
Trump isn’t a different kind of candidate. He’s a Mitch
McConnell kind of candidate. Exactly the kind of candidate you’d expect from a
Republican Party whose “script” for several years has been to execute a
full-scale assault on the integrity of our courts. Blockading judicial
appointments so Donald Trump can fill them. Smearing and intimidating nominees
who do not pledge allegiance to the financial interests of the rich and the
powerful.
Trump is also House Speaker Paul Ryan’s kind of candidate. Paul
Ryan condemned Trump’s campaign for its attacks on Judge Curiel’s integrity.
Great.
Where’s Paul Ryan’s condemnation of the blockade, the intimidation, the smears,
and the slime against the integrity of qualified judicial nominees and Judge
Garland?
Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell want Donald
Trump to appoint the next generation of judges. They
 want those
judges to tilt the law to favor big business and billionaires like Trump. They
just want Donald to quit being so vulgar and obvious about it.
Donald Trump chose racism as his weapon, but his aim is
exactly the same as the rest of the Republicans. Pound the courts into
submission to the rich and powerful.
Senator McConnell recently said he’s “pretty calm” about
Donald Trump because “what
protects us in this country against big mistakes being made is the structure,
the Constitution, the institutions.”
 That
is 100% wrong. Our democracy does not sustain itself. Our Constitution does not
sustain itself. The rule of law does not sustain itself.
There have always been those with money and power who
think the rules shouldn’t apply to them. Those who would pervert our system of
government to serve their own ends. They have tried it before and they are
trying it now. All that is required for the rule of law and our independent
judiciary to collapse is for good people to stand by, and do nothing.
Now is not the time to stand by. Now is the time to
stand up. Now is the time to say no. No. Not here. Not in these United States
of America.
We are not a nation that disqualifies lawyers and judges
from public service because of race
or religionor
gender
or because they havent
spent their entire careers representing the wealthy and the powerful.
We are the nation of John Adamsa
lawyer who defended the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, and went on
to serve as President of these United States.
We are the nation of Abraham Lincolna
lawyer who defended accused killers, and went on to serve as President of these
United States.
We are the nation of Thurgood Marshalla
lawyer who fought for racial equality, and went on to serve on the Supreme
Court of these United States.
We are the nation of Ruth Bader Ginsberga
lawyer who fought for gender equality, and went on to serve on the Supreme
Court of these United States.
That is who we are. And we will not allow a small,
insecure, thin-skinned wannabe tyrant or his allies in the Senate to destroy
the rule of law in the United States of America.
It’s time again to fightas we have in every
generation
for those four simple words that define the promise of
our legal system. Equal justice under law.

That’s the way you do it. And she just gets better at it.