Romney’s ‘Pathetically Weasel-Worded’ Defense of His Vow to Vote for Trump SCOTUS Pick Mocked and Destroyed
U.S. Senator Mitt Romney is being highly criticized Tuesday, after he announced he will vote to confirm President Donald Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, even before the candidate has been named.
CNN’s take is that Senator Romney’s “backing of Supreme Court vote paves way for election-year confirmation.”
Romney said he would vote for any nominee who is qualified, although he struggled to define what the term meant to him.
Many are attacking the Utah Republican Senator for green lighting Trump’s unnamed SCOTUS nominee despite voting to impeach the president.
Former Dept. of Defense communications official:
Imagine simultaneously believing the President of the United States violated the constitution & is so unfit for office he must be removed from the White House but also being totally on board with his judgment for a lifetime Supreme Court seat
— Adam Blickstein (@AdamBlickstein) September 22, 2020
Sen. Romney also made several remarks, both to reporters (video below) and in a statement, that are provably false.
Mitt Romney: “I recognize that we may have a Court which has more of a conservative bent than it has had over the last few decades, but my liberal friends have over many decades gotten used to the idea of having a liberal court and that’s not written in the stars.” pic.twitter.com/0lXXcAGrjQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 22, 2020
“The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own,” Romney said in a statement.
Journalist Joan McCarter points out that’s false.
Well, except for 1988 when a Democratic Senate confirmed Ronald Reagan’s nominee, Anthony Kennedy. Except for that “historical precedent of election year nominations.” https://t.co/yOnk78NIMu
— Joan McCarter (@joanmccarter) September 22, 2020
Civil rights attorney Sasha Samberg-Champion blasts Romney for cloaking a purely political decision in the rule of law.
This is a ridiculous statement. It suggests that an inherently political decision is not, in fact, based on politics, but instead on “law” and “precedent,” neither of which have anything to do with this. https://t.co/eixFJhvKwG
— Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) September 22, 2020
Historian Kevin Kruse:
This “historical precedent” is so pathetically weasel-worded I’m actually embarrassed *for* you. https://t.co/1vvrKUkeUP
— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) September 22, 2020
Reporter and analyst for Inside Elections, Jacob Rubashkin, notes just how false Romney’s claim is that America is a “center-right” nation – and embarrasses him in the process:
The GOP has lost 6 of 7 popular votes over the last 30 years. That the US is a “center right” country is not particularly borne out in the voting history — if it were, Romney would have a different title than “Senator.” https://t.co/RUtv8X4zGI
— Jacob Rubashkin (@JacobRubashkin) September 22, 2020
As does journalist Jay Willis:
ROMNEY: [runs a center-right campaign to be the literal President of the United States, loses by four points, is immediately stuffed in the garbage can by his party as it lurches far to the right]
ROMNEY: my worldview is obviously shared by a majority of the country
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis) September 22, 2020
Romney’s false claims that the Supreme Court has been liberal for years is also easily debunked as “utter nonsense” – by Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at a conservative think tank:
Romney’s statement is utter nonsense. A liberal court? Besides Citizens United, Shelby County and many other anti-voter rulings, anti-labor, pro-business, anti-Civil Rights. Center-right? This would be radical right, Federalist Society to the max.
— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) September 22, 2020
And by this HuffPost journalist:
The court hasn’t had a liberal majority since 1969.
The country is only center-right if you consider the Democratic Party center-right, which Romney does not.
The Republican Party has won the presidential popular vote just once over the last three decades. https://t.co/VhuwhoKUuO
— Paul Blumenthal (@PaulBlu) September 22, 2020
“The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.”
That’s the fanciest way of saying “it’s all about power baby” I have ever seen. https://t.co/llnYImFhbz
— National Security Counselors (@NatlSecCnslrs) September 22, 2020
There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. Moral. Republican. https://t.co/WcEhOm22jL
— Jessie defund police shut it all down Losch🗽🇺🇾 (@JessieLosch) September 22, 2020
You’ll always be the dude who tried to iron his shirt while wearing it, and absolutley nothing more. https://t.co/Xu1PGpD1zI
— Ryan Barr (@RADMANRBARR) September 22, 2020
Take back the presidency. Take back the Senate. Pack the courts.
There are no “norms” if Republicans keep making up rules that apply only to them. https://t.co/D3oaBcE2O1
— Hemant Mehta (@hemantmehta) September 22, 2020
“Sure, I thought that @realDonaldTrump should be removed from office when he was impeached, but since he wasn’t I will reward him by voting for his Supreme Court nominee.” https://t.co/onwr9QaMdc
— *you’re (@RKJ65) September 22, 2020
No one seems to understand: Mitt Romney, in the end, is a member of the many cults that want to own women’s uteruses.
How could he pass up a chance? https://t.co/3dVtNqOUzx
— Michelangelo Signorile, subscribe to my newsletter (@MSignorile) September 22, 2020
Image via Shutterstock
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
Trump Desperate to Keep Any Possible Criminal Evidence From Supreme Court: Legal Expert
Donald Trump’s decision to allow one of his lawyers to speak before a grand jury on Friday morning, instead of appealing all the way to the Supreme Court, may have been made out of fear of what the justices on the nation’s highest court might see if they reviewed the case.
According to MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin, under normal circumstances, the former president would have dragged out a legal fight over attorney-client privilege that would have kept attorney Evan Corcoran from testifying under oath about Trump’s possession of government documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort that led to the FBI showing up with a warrant.
As Rubin notes, the fact that Trump let Corcoran testify over three hours raised eyebrows.
“For one, yes, it is indeed unusual, if not unheard of, for a lawyer to be litigating against a party one day and then testifying under court-ordered examination by that same party the next one,” she wrote before suggesting Trump and his legal team were looking at the long game when he might need the predominantly conservative Supreme Court to lend him a helping hand.
RELATED: Revealed: Emails show how Trump lawyers drove Michael Cohen to turn on the president
Writing, “Trump has made clear he believes this Supreme Court — controlled by conservative justices, three of whom he appointed — owes him one,” she added, “My hunch is that Trump’s team let Corcoran’s testimony happen because of what’s likely involved in any request to pause, much less, review a crime-fraud-related ruling: the evidence.”
“Put another way, if Trump had petitioned the Supreme Court to stay Corcoran’s testimony and document production, the justices would have seen some, if not all, of what Judge Howell and the three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit have already reviewed: proof that Trump misled Corcoran and engaged in criminal conduct,” she elaborated.
Rubin went on to note that Trump would likely appeal any conviction to the Supreme Court, writing, “And for someone whose one last hope, if he is ultimately charged or tried by any of the multiple entities now investigating him, is that same Supreme Court, letting the justices see evidence of his alleged crimes now would be a bridge too far.”
“Trump can’t afford to lose the Supreme Court yet,” she suggested.
You can read more here.
No TX Congressional Republican Will Say If They’re Attending Trump’s Rally in Waco – Will He Have Trouble Filling Seats?
Donald Trump‘s Saturday campaign rally in Waco, Texas, falls during the 30th anniversary of the 51-day siege that community is known for, when 86 people died after a failed ATF raid on an anti-government religious cult suspected of illegally stockpiling firearms amid allegations of sexual abuse, statutory rape, and polygamy.
Experts have been warning for a week that Trump’s choice of Waco, synonymous with violent anti-government extremism, was no accident. His rhetoric this week, including most recently Friday when he warned of “potential death & destruction” should he be indicted, has been seen as encouraging violence.
NCRM was among the first news outlets to report experts’ concerns over Trump’s choice to hold a rally in Waco during the 30th anniversary of the deadly siege.
Not a single congressional Republican from Texas will say they are attending, nor has the town’s GOP mayor, according to a report from Insider, which contacted over two dozen Republican lawmakers and other elected officials.
“None of the 30 Texas Republicans Insider contacted about the event said they were going,” Insider reveals.
“Most of the 30 GOP members contacted about Donald Trump’s inaugural visit to the site of a 30-year-old standoff between cult leader David Koresh and federal authorities did not respond to requests for comment about whether they intended to rally with the scandal-plagued candidate and perhaps say a few kind words,” Insider reports.
“Rep. Pete Sessions, a Waco native who now represents the surrounding 17th congressional district, praised Trump for shining a light on his hometown but said he’d have to miss the spectacle,” Insider adds. “Aides to Rep. Troy Nehls, one of the four House Republicans from Texas who have formally backed Trump’s 2024 run, told Insider he wouldn’t be heading to Waco because of a prior commitment in Washington, DC, this weekend.”
READ MORE: ‘Utter Cowardice’: Jim Jordan Blasted for Telling Reporter He Can’t Read Trump’s Violence-Threatening Post Without Glasses
Meanwhile, in addition to guest list challenges – the campaign refused to tell Insider who the guest speakers will be – Trump may have trouble filling seats.
Mary Trump, the ex-president’s niece who opposes him, has been running a campaign to get anti-Trump Americans to “sign up” for tickets to the Saturday rally, in the hopes of being able to turn away supporters.
Let’s fill this venue with empty seats.https://t.co/3tGSfan5iw
— Mary L Trump (@MaryLTrump) March 24, 2023
“Donald has a rally in Waco this Saturday,” she also said via Twitter. “It’s a ploy to remind his cult of the infamous Waco siege of 1993, where an anti-government cult battled the FBI. Scores of people died. He wants the same violent chaos to rescue him from justice.”
“But we can stop him. If we book the 50,000+ venue, we can make sure most of the seats are empty when the traitor takes the stage,” she said. “We can no longer fail to hold powerful men accountable for their crimes against our country.”
Image via Shutterstock
‘Utter Cowardice’: Jim Jordan Blasted for Telling Reporter He Can’t Read Trump’s Violence-Threatening Post Without Glasses
Countless GOP lawmakers over the years have professed ignorance over Donald Trump’s tweets as reporters ask them to respond, often claiming they hadn’t read them, but House Republican Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan took that performance to a whole new level Friday afternoon.
NBC News senior national political reporter Sahil Kapur asked the Ohio Republican congressman to weigh in on Trump’s social media post threatening “potential death & destruction” if he gets indicted.
“Jordan said he hasn’t seen Trump’s post,” Kapur said via Twitter. “When I showed [it] to him on my phone, he said he can’t read well without his glasses.”
“He added he’s reviewing DA Bragg’s letter,” Kapur added.
READ MORE: ‘Big Shoe Drops’: Bad Day for Trump on Multiple Fronts in Special Counsel’s Grand Jury Probes
Jordan, who didn’t need glasses to appear on Fox Business just two days ago (photo) is getting blowback.
VICE News Deputy DC Bureau Chief Todd Zwillich explained the progression.
“The stages of ignoring incitement,” he tweeted. “2016: I don’t respond to tweets —> 2018: I havent seen the tweet —-> 2023: I literally can’t see the tweet.”
“Utter cowardice,” declared former GOP Congressman Joe Walsh. “Not at all the @Jim_Jordan I knew & served with in Congress 10 yrs ago. Or…maybe it is.”
“The sheer dishonesty and cowardice of these people,” lamented MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan, echoing Walsh’s remarks.
Government watchdog group Citizens for Ethics said the “extent to which Trump’s backers in Congress are going to not condemn [his] calls for violence are ludicrous.”
RELATED: Ninth Wrestler Comes Forward to Say Jordan ‘Snickered’ When He Complained of Sexual Abuse: Report
Some tied Jordan’s inability to see the post to his apparent inability to see or remember all the Ohio State wrestlers who say they complained to Jordan when he was their assistant coach, about being sexually harassed or assaulted by the team doctor. To this day despite numerous reports and people publicly coming forward, Jordan denied it ever happened.
“Apparently, Jim Jordan is unable to see wrestlers being sexually abused or Donald Trump social media posts,” attorney and Republican turned Democrat Ron Filipkowski tweeted.
“Well, @Jim_Jordan has shown before that he has trouble seeing threats right in front of his nose, so this checks out,” tweeted historian Kevin M. Kruse.
But Jordan’s Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee may have served up the best response: “Why do you need your glasses to condemn violence @Jim_Jordan?”
READ MORE: ‘Pits Parents Against Parents’: House Republicans Pass Anti-LGBTQ Florida-Style K-12 ‘Parents’ Bill of Rights’
- 'UNPRECEDENTED'2 days ago
‘Unlawful Incursion’: Manhattan DA Schools Jim Jordan for Demanding He Testify in Ongoing Trump Investigation
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM2 days ago
‘Burn It to the Ground’: Kari Lake Undeterred After State Supreme Court Smacks Her Down
- News2 days ago
Lindsey Graham Admonished by Senate Ethics Committee
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM2 days ago
Watch: GOP Lawmaker Orders Grieving Parkland Parents Removed From ‘ATF Overreach’ Hearing
- News2 days ago
‘Going Full Fascist’: Morning Joe Blasts Trump’s Latest ‘Dehumanizing’ Attack on Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM1 day ago
‘Pits Parents Against Parents’: House Republicans Pass Anti-LGBTQ Florida-Style K-12 ‘Parents’ Bill of Rights’
- News1 day ago
Jim Jordan Busted for Helping Trump ‘Tamper’ With Probe: ‘Beyond All Bounds of What’s Legal’
- News2 days ago
‘Repercussions’: Biden White House Warns Uganda ‘Kill the Gays’ Bill Could Force US to Cancel $950 Million in Annual Aid