Ron Wyden

Why he must resign:

The shocking revelation: Senator Wyden has been, for more than a decade, a willing accomplice to a plot to undermine the American political order and to overthrow the Constitution by infiltrating agents of radicalism into the highest reaches of the federal judiciary.

The nefariousness of this undertaking cannot be overstated. The monsters advanced to positions of power with Senator Wyden’s assistance include dangerous extremists whose ideology “represents a breathtaking retreat from the notion that Americans have fundamental Constitutional rights.” His agents take “a very dangerous view to our liberty” that “harkens back to the days when politicians restricted a people’s rights on a whim.”

Wyden’s anti-constitutional conspiracy “is couched in the sort of jurisprudence that justified the horrific oppression of one group after another in our first two centuries.”

This is cruel, but fair.

I'm thinking that the president may be disappointed by his 4A absolutist SCOTUS pick. And happy about it. https://t.co/4arCEx2q52

— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) February 1, 2017

[Update a couple minutes later]

Former Obama official: “Why liberals should back Neil Gorsuch.”

[Update a while later]

Orrin Hatch on senate Democrats: “I don’t care what they want at this point.”

Neither do I.

[Update Thursday morning]

If you want to get non-hysterical takes on Gorsuch, the Volokh Conspiracy is your go-to place.

17 comments on this post.
  1. Arizona CJ:

    I love that article; It’s written, intentionally, in the same kind of hyperbole so common on the left these days – showing, yet again, that if it wasn’t for double standards, the left would have no standards at all.

    Gorsuch was confirmed by voice vote in 2006, without a single nay – so therefor, every D senator who was in office for that vote found Gorsuch quite acceptable. So much so that they didn’t even trouble themselves to question him, at all – only Lindsey Graham did.

    I’m also aware that the protest signs printed up on advance (for the totally spontaneous, of course, demonstration outside the Supreme Court) were fill-in-the-blank for the name, because they didn’t know who Trump would pick – just that whoever it was, they were going to protest – spontaneously, of course. These just happen to be the same people who accused the Republicans of being the “party of No” during the early Obama years…

    I think it’s becoming obvious; blatant hypocrisy is not just tolerated on the left, it’s required. They have, simply put, found the best method imaginable of proving themselves utterly unworth listening to.

  2. Paul Milenkovic:

    It’s not hypocrisy, it is just plain power politics. The stakes are that much higher for the Supreme Court over an Appellate Court because of what the Supreme Court is called upon to decide.

    It is that Glenn Reynolds aphorism, although others have said it too, that the reason politics has gotten to be so nasty and divisive is that we are putting so much power in the hands of government.

  3. Karl Hallowell:

    There have been times in the past when politics has been really nasty and divisive without the enormous government power. For example, the decade leading up to the Civil War had some of the nastiest politics ever. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 in particular encouraged guerilla warfare because slave/free status was to be determined by popular vote. So both sides packed the territory with their supporters and then turned on the other side.

    This lead to some nasty paramilitary/terrorist attacks. For example, John Brown’s raid of the Harper Ferry armory was a result of this conflict.

    I can’t say what’s causing the divisiveness today, but there is a widespread perception of lack of fair play by opponents. That’s a traditional cause. Why compromise when the other side will merely take advantage of it without providing anything in return.

  4. wodun:

    1854 in particular encouraged guerilla warfare because slave/free status was to be determined by popular vote.

    The power over freedom and slavery is enormous government power. There are probably better examples. Political violence has been common in our past.

  5. Edward M. Grant:

    “I can’t say what’s causing the divisiveness today”

    I’ll help you. It’s the left pushing identity politics.

    When the other side are shouting that anyone who’s not like them is Literally Hitler and it’s OK to beat them up, you can’t invite them around for a polite political discussion.

  6. Bob-1:

    I think the problem is believing that “the other side” is homogeneous and can be easily described. Plenty of people on “the left” would be pleased to meet you and have a polite political discussion (and many more would decline, but would do so politely.) I just had a very pleasant conversation with a Trump voter who was cutting my hair. We both joked about the wisdom of arguing when one person was holding a sharp object near the other person’s neck, but there was no bloodshed, just a debate about immigration.

  7. wodun:

    I think the problem is believing that “the other side” is homogeneous

    He was describing the deliberate strategy of identity politics being used by the Democrat party. A strategy the dehumanizes anyone that isn’t part of the Democrat ingroup. The mass delusion is getting so out of control that people are being beat unconscious. And this is after a year of organized mass violence from coast to coast.

    That isn’t to say there aren’t individual acts of violence because there are those too, a lot of them.

    Democrats are so invested in the, what would you do to stop Hitler? meme that they are taking out their paranoid fantasies on people who are not nazis or white supremacists or any other BS insult they are using.

    Where are Obama, Hillary, or other leaders of the Democrat party? Cheering on the violence. Even on college campuses, your local Democrat presidents refuse to use security to protect people.

    The easiest way for this wave of violence to stop before people get killed is for Democrats to stop organizing these “protests”.

  8. Bob-1:

    “A strategy the dehumanizes anyone that isn’t part of the Democrat ingroup”

    Well, I see a whole lot of inclusiveness and a welcoming of diversity and, well, the exact opposite of an ingroup. And as usual, you didn’t provide any evidence, so I don’t know what you’re referring to. I’ll give you what I expect will become my touchstone example — I know some of the people in the photo at the top of this article:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-syria-trump.html See — no “ingroup”.

  9. Jon:

    Bob,

    Inclusiveness and diversity are made up ideas. The Constitution guarantees liberties for all, there is no need to single out anyone.

    The difference between the left and right is that the left wants social justice (justice for a specific group) and the right wants equal justice (regardless of group.) I leave it to you to decide which is better for our country.

    A couple weeks ago I pointed out that there was no violence at the Obama inaugural. Why does your side keep pushing violence?

  10. Jon:

    Bob

    That NYT link was lame. There is no muslim ban. Do you not see this? And Trump hasn’t done anything Obama was doing.

    My God, you really take the cake with absurdity. There are over 30 muslim countries and 7 are singled out for vetting. If you really think that is a muslim ban then I cannot help you.

  11. wodun:

    And as usual, you didn’t provide any evidence

    Its called reality. You can’t possibly not know about identity politics or the ongoing campaign of organized violence.

    Well, I see a whole lot of inclusiveness and a welcoming of diversity and, well, the exact opposite of an ingroup.

    Did you catch yourself engaging in identity politics there? I need to remind you that just because Democrats say they are against something, doesn’t mean other people are for it. But in order for Democrats to have an identity of fighting racism, then everyone else has to be racists.

    And a minority that doesn’t follow Democrat ideology? Part of the outgroup and treated in the most vile ways that would be considered racist by Democrats if directed at a Democrat.

    It isn’t a religious test we need but a persecution test. Those persecuted the most should get priority. While Democrats like to focus on their pathological hatred of Christians, there are a lot of other minority groups that this also applies to.

  12. Agent J:

    Trump needs a good Photoshopper to make a poster: “We stand with Goresuch” with all the photos of those lib nutters. Maybe with quotes, if there are good ones.

  13. Gregg:

    “It is that Glenn Reynolds aphorism, although others have said it too, that the reason politics has gotten to be so nasty and divisive is that we are putting so much power in the hands of government.”

    I absolutely agree.

    If the Feds only took care of treaties, the census, the military and minting money then blowhards like Schumer wouldn’t go near the place.

    We’d all live much happier and free-er lives.

  14. Paul Breed:

    Gregg I stole some of your post for a facebook comment…

    I added the following to it…

    It is the fundamental flaw in progressive/socialism.
    You put so much power into government that controlling how that power effects you becomes more important then actually being productive. In a world where not all people agree on what they want, than an all powerful government is guaranteed to be against the wishes of some portion of the society. It then becomes imperative for that group to rise up a fight for control of that power to protect themselves… and the whole thing devolves into a fight over power. There is no possible way to fix this core problem. The best you can possibly do is keep some slight majority happy with a large unhappy minority. I much prefer freedom from government power where every individual is free to pursue whatever makes them happy without interference from some all powerful entity.

  15. Larry J:

    The InstaPundit has also noted that “Under capitalism, the rich become powerful. Under socialism, the powerful become rich.” That makes control of the government even more vital for statists/socialists. They want to ride the gravy train to enrich themselves and their cronies.

  16. Jon:

    The golden rule for socialists: he who makes the rules gets the gold!

  17. diane wilson:

    As long as we’re quoting Glenn Reynolds, “Something that can’t go on forever, won’t.”

    There’s a line that will be crossed, and it won’t be one of Obama’s red lines.