- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Kavanaugh 4-Ever

Even if he’s confirmed today, that’s not going to be the end of it, according to a top House Democrat: [1]

House Democrats will open an investigation into accusations of sexual misconduct and perjury against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh if they win control of the House in November, Representative Jerrold Nadler, the New York Democrat in line to be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said on Friday.

Speaking on the eve of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote this weekend, Mr. Nadler said that there was evidence that Senate Republicans and the F.B.I. had overseen a “whitewash” investigation of the allegations and that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court was at stake. He sidestepped the issue of impeachment.

“It is not something we are eager to do,” Mr. Nadler said in an interview. “But the Senate having failed to do its proper constitutionally mandated job of advise and consent, we are going to have to do something to provide a check and balance, to protect the rule of law and to protect the legitimacy of one of our most important institutions.”

Good grief. If I’m the Republican National Committee, I’m going to take Nadler’s comments and remind people every day from now till Election Day what the Democrats intend to do if they win power. Having failed to crush this Privileged White Male’s nomination with unsupported allegations of sexual assault, and worse, Democrats will try to come pry him off the Supreme Court with the same allegations.

Yesterday, after Sen. Collins’s speech all but guaranteed that Kavanaugh would win confirmation today, I heard a couple of Democratic strategists saying that they hope passion among Republican voters over this thing will fade before election day. They were referring to the NPR poll this week showing that the Kavanaugh controversy had wiped out the big advantage Democrats had in voter enthusiasm headed into the fall election. Well, Jerrold Nadler has probably just guaranteed that that’s not going to happen. He’s laid it out clearly: if Republicans don’t show up to vote, and vote Republican, they’re leaving Kavanaugh at the mercy of a party that will try to remove him from the Supreme Court.

In other words, the Kavanaugh fight doesn’t end with the Senate’s vote today. It goes on until Election Day. Jerry Nadler told us so.

Advertisement
140 Comments (Open | Close)

140 Comments To "Kavanaugh 4-Ever"

#1 Comment By cka2nd On October 7, 2018 @ 6:24 am

MM says: “Aren’t you guys the same ones who want to decriminalize all narcotics? How many overdoses will that result in?”

You could ask your libertarian friends that question, and it’s an interesting one when it comes to deaths related to alcohol before, during and after Prohibition, but I think the general sense of people who want to decriminalize narcotics is that the illegal market in them, with all of its negative consequences, could be eliminated and replaced by a legal, regulated one that would include methods for minimizing overdose deaths. “Harm reduction” is the phrase in the academic and policy literature, or at least it was.

MM says: “Give me a break… You guys don’t really care about the consequences of your own policies, intended and unintended, would affect the little guy…”

Yes, because we are the Brotherhood of Evil Liberals/Progressives/Socialists/Communists. B’wah, hah, hah, hah!

#2 Comment By cka2nd On October 7, 2018 @ 6:30 am

Erdrick says: “What lies under oath? Are the Democrats really going to double down on the crazy, desperate position that Kavanaugh committed perjury because they disagree Kavanaugh’s explanation of some inside jokes teenage Kavanaugh wrote in a yearbook published nearly 40 years ago?”

If I were the Democrats – “Eeeew!” – I’d focus on the ones he told about working in the Bush White House. You can find them detailed in the New York Times or linked to in the Boston Globe’s editorial on Kavanaugh. They’re the ones Rod studiously ignored in this space.

#3 Comment By cka2nd On October 7, 2018 @ 6:38 am

Jonah R. says: “Next month, and probably in 2020, I’ll be voting for the Republicans. For all their horrible flaws, they don’t claim ‘illegitimacy’ every time they lose”

First, see Obama as the Kenyan Muslim not born in Hawaii.

Second, Voter ID laws are sold as securing our electoral system based on the lie that hundreds of thousands of illegals are voting when they shouldn’t be and that those illegals are voting for Democrats, hence, Democratic victories are illegitimate since they are based on illegal, fraudulent votes.

If the Republicans were really concerned about electoral security, they would back paper trails and paper evidence of each vote, and they would clamp down on absentee voting, which is a system abused by members of BOTH the Dems and the GOP.

#4 Comment By Jonf On October 7, 2018 @ 7:33 am

Re: And she proudly officiated the wedding of a couple of accused rapists.

???
Maybe you have “gay” confused with “rapist”?

#5 Comment By Jonf On October 7, 2018 @ 7:38 am

Re: Roberts reads the polls and has been an occasional opportunist on the Court (the ACA, obviously)

I wouldn’t say that was opportunism as much as it was to keep the Court from exceeding its authority (you know, “legislating from the bench) in a way that would have destroyed whatever legitimacy it had left. Apart from the Medicaid issue (IMO, the right decision was made even if I loathe the real-world result) the 2012 ACA case had no business even being before the Court as it was simply a naked attempt by the Right, using ludicrously specious reasoning. to achieve before judges what it could not achieve in Congress.

#6 Comment By Jonf On October 7, 2018 @ 7:46 am

Re: I’ll never vote for another republican candidate again ever.

And re: Funny, this whole Kavanaugh episode has made me feel the same way about the Democrats.

Spite is never an acceptable motive for voting. I will continue to consider what the candidate stands for, where s/he wants to take us, and what his/her qualifications are (including and skeletons in the closet). In the vast majority of cases I will be voting for Democrats, yes, since the GOP Randite social Darwinism, “War Forever” foreign policy and refusal to recognize the inalienable rights of anyone not white and possessed of a six digit income renders the party anathema to me. Though occasionally someone with an “R” beside their name like Larry Hogan may pass through my meshes and get my vote.
Politics is one area of life where one should always be looking to the future never to the past.

#7 Comment By Daniel (not Larrison) On October 7, 2018 @ 8:42 am

Harve wrote:

Considering the gerrymandered House, the Slave Power inspired Senate and Electoral College, and a coup by the Supreme Court, we are now well into minority rule. This is, of course, unsustainable without servile acquiescence by the majority or violence by the minority.

“Slave power inspired senate and electoral college”?

You have it exactly backwards. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the southern states (like Virginia) had large populations and wanted representation propotional to population. They also wanted slaves counted as persons for that representation.

The northern states (like New Jersey) wanted equal representation of states in a unicameral legislature, and not count the slaves as persons.

The compromise, with our current bicameral legislature and the “3/5ths compromise” was the result.

So you can surely blame slave states for many crimes…but blaming them for the electoral college and the softening of representation based solely on population is plain silly and ill-informed.

#8 Comment By Sam M On October 7, 2018 @ 8:43 am

cka2nd:

“I predict that within a few years, some piece of “settled law” will be struck down by the conservative SC majority on his initiative.”

Well, yeah. That’s not much of a prediction. As the decidedly non-conservative Mark Joseph Stern as Slate points out, the Supreme Court has spent the past eight decades consistently delivering progressive jurisprudence. During that time, conservatives have dutifully tried to win the court. It took nearly a century, and the analysis that it’s now “conservative” remains to be seen. But yes, if it IS conservative, you can envision some of the decisions made over those 80 years receiving some scrutiny, and perhaps even going down.

Is this a sign of anarchy? Only if you are so committed to “settled law” that you think Plessy v. Ferguson should still be the law of the land. It was the law of the land from 1896 to 1954. 58 years.

Roe v. Wade will be 50 in 2023.

I am not arguing it should be overturned. I am pro life but I honestly don’t think it matters as much as people believe it does. It would go back to the states and all 50 or close to it would all legalize abortion with state laws.

What I am saying is that I don’t know a single person who really believes the “settled law can and should never be overturned” argument. I suspect you don’t either.

#9 Comment By Sam M On October 7, 2018 @ 8:48 am

Maria,

“How many more Supreme Court picks might Trump have over the next two years.”

None, if Democrats take the Senate. They will take the Merrick Garland route if Ginsburg or another liberal steps down.

If Republicans keep the Senate, I imagine that RBG would put herself in a cryogenic chamber to keep from retiring.

But let’s say RBG dies or retires and the Dems control the senate. We would have two more years of a court that conservatives control 5-3. And 2020 would be set up as the most preposterous election in history.

Most normal people will be very nostalgic for Bob Dole and Walter Mondale if that comes to pass. Because what we will get is Trump/Warren.

#10 Comment By Craig in OH On October 7, 2018 @ 9:09 am

The Tea Party (remember those folks?) provided the model for no compromise politics. The far left has decided to use that model for themselves. This will leave moderates with no place to go.

#11 Comment By cka2nd On October 7, 2018 @ 9:37 am

Sam M says: “As the decidedly non-conservative Mark Joseph Stern as Slate points out, the Supreme Court has spent the past eight decades consistently delivering progressive jurisprudence.”

I hate to ask this of you, but do you have a specific webpage that you can refer me to for that? I ask because I’ve gotten back to 9/4/18 – 30 stories on his first page at Slate – and none of them seem to specifically address that topic. And, so far, no conservative here has actually listed the progressive judicial abuses the Supreme Court has supposedly foisted on the country over these last many decades, aside from Roe, or provided a link to such a list.

And no, I don’t put too much stock in “settled law.” I thought I had made that clear on one of these threads…

#12 Comment By Erdrick On October 7, 2018 @ 10:20 am

cka2nd says:
October 7, 2018 at 6:30 am
Erdrick says: “What lies under oath? Are the Democrats really going to double down on the crazy, desperate position that Kavanaugh committed perjury because they disagree Kavanaugh’s explanation of some inside jokes teenage Kavanaugh wrote in a yearbook published nearly 40 years ago?”

If I were the Democrats – “Eeeew!” – I’d focus on the ones he told about working in the Bush White House. You can find them detailed in the New York Times or linked to in the Boston Globe’s editorial on Kavanaugh. They’re the ones Rod studiously ignored in this space.

It’s not just Rod who is “studiously ignoring” the allegations to which you’re referring. They’ve barely made a ripple. I’d think that if there were something to them that the Democrats would’ve emphasized them. The fact that they’ve chosen a strategy in which they’d rather call Kavanaugh a perjurer because of the disputed meaning of slang terms in a 40 year old yearbook than focus on the allegations you’re referencing suggests that those allegations are weak indeed.

#13 Comment By cka2nd On October 7, 2018 @ 10:30 am

Craig in OH says: “The Tea Party (remember those folks?) provided the model for no compromise politics. The far left has decided to use that model for themselves. This will leave moderates with no place to go.”

I particularly loved it when Jean Schmidt, that far right-wing Republican congresswoman from Ohio, was voted out because she had simply shaken Obama’s hand while he was walking down the aisle to make a State of the Union speech. Yet, the cons here all seem to think that it’s only the left that gets hysterical and goes all emotional.

#14 Comment By Erdrick On October 7, 2018 @ 10:35 am

Harve says:
October 6, 2018 at 2:09 pm

Considering the gerrymandered House, the Slave Power inspired Senate and Electoral College, and a coup by the Supreme Court, we are now well into minority rule. This is, of course, unsustainable without servile acquiescence by the majority or violence by the minority.

Oh yes, it was that infamous slave power state Connecticut that secured equal representation of States in the Senate. And the Democrats never engage in gerrymandering when they have the opportunity to do so.

You should probably gain at least a rudimentary understanding of US history and governance before you make criticisms of it.

#15 Comment By MM On October 7, 2018 @ 12:39 pm

cka2nd: “Yes, because we are the Brotherhood of Evil Liberals/Progressives/Socialists/Communists.”

Heh, well, if the shoe fits.

Case study: California, with the highest poverty measure of any state in the Union.

“Never underestimate the coercive power of the central state in the service of good.” – Governor Jerry Brown, speaking at an event with billionaire Tom Steyer

“Unfortunately, common sense is just not common. We have to regulate every aspect of people’s lives.” – Councilman Jesse Dominguez (Santa Barbara), speaking at a hearing debating a plastic straw ban

I’m just describing the political mentality, and the consequences, that’s all…

#16 Comment By JeffK On October 7, 2018 @ 12:49 pm

@Steven says:
October 7, 2018 at 12:37 am

“JeffK,

When you spend that much time and energy trying to convince someone you don’t care about them, I think you’ve mistaken spite for apathy.”

Steven – Spite is a noun or verb, basically “a desire (noun) or deliberately (verb) to hurt, annoy, or offend someone”. I don’t desire to hurt, annoy, or offend Republicans.

Looks like they constantly vote Republican, which is against their better interest, based ideology. It is amazing to me.

I vote Democratic even though, under a Democratic administration and congress, I would probably pay more in taxes. But the taxes I pay would go to programs that I support, not endless wars and tax breaks for the top 5%.

My point was that I vote against my economic interest, to help architect a society that I believe would generate more benefits for the middle and lower class.

I will continue to do so even though many that vote Republican don’t. If they did then the would have better healthcare, access to education, and a less polluted environment. I doubt the current administration and congress have any interest in those things. We shall see what happens Nov 6.

#17 Comment By Janwaar Bibi On October 7, 2018 @ 1:15 pm

Second, Voter ID laws are sold as securing our electoral system based on the lie that hundreds of thousands of illegals are voting when they shouldn’t be

This is a good example of a non-issue that both parties waste a lot of time debating.

Common sense says that to vote, you should be able to prove that you are eligible to vote. This is true in any country but it is particularly true in a country like the US where there are millions of residents, legal and illegal, who are not citizens.

If the concern is that some minorities and poor people do not have identification, the problem can be fixed as follows: (i) let them vote in the next election using whatever the current voter ID laws are, (ii) ask them for their contact information and (iii) follow up with them after the election to issue them some form of identification.
After a few election cycles, there will be few if any eligible voters without identification, and we can require voter ID without fear of disenfranchising vast numbers of eager minority voters or whatever.

I come from India where we have people who are a lot poorer than people here but the government has succeeded in issuing a biometric ID called Aadhar to 1.2 billion people.

I understand that for cultural reasons, a government-issued biometric ID cannot be required in the US for everything, but a voter ID is not difficult to do. It’s just that we’d rather work ourselves into a frenzy than solve this minor problem.

[2]

#18 Comment By MM On October 7, 2018 @ 1:26 pm

JeffK: “But the taxes I pay would go to programs that I support, not endless wars and tax breaks for the top 5%.”

How were your taxes spend during the Obama years, again? Pentagon budget grew fastest when the Democrats controlled Congress, and hit it’s all-time high after he orded his own surge in Afghanistan.

Keep whistling in the wind, pal.

“My point was that I vote against my economic interest, to help architect a society that I believe would generate more benefits for the middle and lower class.”

Spoken like a true progressive. And like a true progressive, you won’t pay any more in taxes than you’re obligated to, and take every penny in Social Security benefits even though you don’t need it all.

The middle and lower classes are subsidizing a good portion of your very comfortable retirement, in case you forgot…

🙂

#19 Comment By cka2nd On October 7, 2018 @ 1:47 pm

Janwaar Bibi says: “I understand that for cultural reasons, a government-issued biometric ID cannot be required in the US for everything, but a voter ID is not difficult to do. It’s just that we’d rather work ourselves into a frenzy than solve this minor problem.”

And your proposal for getting everyone an ID was admirable. The problem is, the Republicans have been doing everything in their power to prevent folks from doing just that. First, they limit the types of photo ID’s that can be used – colleges have the required data, but Voter ID laws disallow photo college ID’s out of hand – then, they close or limit the hours of the offices that can provide the ID’s, such as Dept. of Motor Vehicle offices. And they’ve been closing or limiting the hours of polling places in high minority population areas, and cutting back on the number of days prior to an election day that one can vote (not that I am a fan of early voting, but it is popular with a significant percentage of the population). In the abstract, your points had merit. On the ground, this isn’t a minor problem because of ONE side’s dishonest and anti-democratic actions; the Dems are their own unique type of bad on any number of issues, but on this one, there is no “false equivalence” between the parties.

#20 Comment By JeffK On October 7, 2018 @ 4:31 pm

MM says:
October 7, 2018 at 1:26 pm

“The middle and lower classes are subsidizing a good portion of your very comfortable retirement, in case you forgot…”

This coming week I send my quarterly payment to the US Treasury. The check will be for $10K. I’m having a good year.

Since I’m self employed I pay both employer and employee portion of SS.

Nobody is subsidizing my retirement. As you know, but for some reason state otherwise. In 5 years I may retire at 66. If I pass before then I get nothing, after paying into SS for 50 years.

Great deal there.

Keep on carrying the water for the elites and top 5%, if it makes you feel good. Don’t think they appreciate it, but, whatever.

#21 Comment By JeffK On October 7, 2018 @ 6:02 pm

@MM says:
October 7, 2018 at 1:26 pm

“How were your taxes spend during the Obama years, again? Pentagon budget grew fastest when the Democrats controlled Congress, and hit it’s all-time high after he orded his own surge in Afghanistan.”

How many times do I have to keep correcting you this subject?

Per the US Constitution, all spending bills MUST originate in the House of Representatives. Since 1997, the Republicans have been in control of the House of Representatives 20 out of 24 years. The 4 years they were not in control were 2007 thru 2011.

Republicans are not fiscally conservative.

[3]

#22 Comment By JeffK On October 7, 2018 @ 7:33 pm

@MM says:
October 7, 2018 at 1:26 pm

“Spoken like a true progressive. And like a true progressive, you won’t pay any more in taxes than you’re obligated to, and take every penny in Social Security benefits even though you don’t need it all.”

Do you understand how much of a whiner you sound like? I suspect many of the people that opine on this blog are doing well, and will collect social security too. I bet many are going to collect retirement pay from the military or law enforcement along with SS. Are you denigrating them too?

Your comments make you look bitter and unhinged. An economics major, probably from a good school, that doesn’t understand economics. No wonder you hate CA. Tough to make a good living in retail out there.

BTW, The Cheeto Messiah bragged paying the least taxes in a debate. Remember that?

[4]

Also, even if TCM is successful in tanking the Mueller probe (very doubtful), him and his family are still in a world of trouble regarding recent tax fraud related to their ‘charities’. Recent violations of NY state law, where the statute of limitations has not passed, and are not pardonable by your dear leader.

Can’t wait to see them perp-walked to the greybar hotel.

[5]

#23 Comment By Harve On October 7, 2018 @ 7:51 pm

Daniel (not Larrison) says:

“Harve wrote:”

“Considering the gerrymandered House, the Slave Power inspired Senate and Electoral College, and a coup by the Supreme Court, we are now well into minority rule. This is, of course, unsustainable without servile acquiescence by the majority or violence by the minority.”

“Slave power inspired senate and electoral college”?

“You have it exactly backwards.”

“The compromise, with our current bicameral legislature and the “3/5ths compromise” was the result.”

In 1848 Frederick Douglass wrote:

“The Senate has a Veto on every law, and as one-half of that body are slaveholders, it follows, of course, that no law can be passed without their consent.”

“No bill has passed the Senate, nor a treaty been ratified, since the organization of the government, but by the votes of slaveholders.”

The very existence of the undemocratic senate meant that the Slave Power controlled almost a majority (6 – 7) of one of the Constitution’s veto points in 1788. That’s a pretty good base to start with.

Granting ANY representation to a state based on ANY proportion of slaves was a victory for the Slave Power.

As the number of Electors is based on the number of Senators and Representatives, the undemocratic Senate and the 3/5s deal were a victory for SP.

#24 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 7, 2018 @ 8:26 pm

Re: And she proudly officiated the wedding of a couple of accused rapists.

???
Maybe you have “gay” confused with “rapist”?

No JonF, not too long ago Rod posted a column on how two gay men, who have a high profile reputation in dramatic arts, I think it was opera, have been accused of raping young men aspiring to success in their field. Sort of a set of gay Harvey Weinsteins. And they are were reported to be the gay couple Ginsburg married.

Blue dogs? Those are the Democrats the GOP was able to defeat in 2010. What kind of district do you think elects blue dog Dems anyway?

#25 Comment By JeffK On October 7, 2018 @ 8:35 pm

@MM says:
October 7, 2018 at 1:26 pm

“How were your taxes spend during the Obama years, again? Pentagon budget grew fastest when the Democrats controlled Congress, and hit it’s all-time high after he orded his own surge in Afghanistan”.

By the way, the attached chart, which shows defense spending as a % of GDP, did spike the first couple of years during Obama’s term. And it immediately fell back to historical avg of 4.5%. Anybody that wants to understand why I always call out MMs BS and use of logical fallacies can see what I mean just by reviewing the chart in the context of his trolling.

As an economist and political observer, MM should understand that
1). In the first year of a president’s term he works with the budget of the previous president. Obama was working with Bush’s budget.
2). Defense appropriations are pretty much baked year to year. Much of the budget is fixed costs. Very difficult to cut it in the short term. Cutting the defense budget will require lots of cuts to major programs for sparkling farkles, such as the F-35. And no more useless foreign wars.

[6]

#26 Comment By Richard Parker On October 8, 2018 @ 2:33 am

‘Feinstein is a disgrace to California and to the United States. I’m certainly voting for her opponent, and I hope everybody else will, too.’

There is only one opponent – a minor league Democrat – no write-ins are allowed. People protest by submitting blank ballots. A million fewer Californian voted for Senator (2 D’s)in in 2016 that for President (multiple candidates) and write in’s are allowed.

#27 Comment By Richard Parker On October 8, 2018 @ 2:46 am

“What scares me is eventually the Dem will take the House, Senate and WH, it is inevitable. Then what? Will they stop with Kavanaugh? Not likely. They will impeach Kavanaugh on perjury and Thomas and everyone else on some sexual assault charges from 40 years ago based on some “survivors” stories.”

It will be much easier to increase the court from 9 to 11 justices.

#28 Comment By Sisera On October 8, 2018 @ 11:25 am

Nadler will get on that, just as soon as he finds Peter Strzok a Purple Heart from one of the toxically-male wounded vets.

The Democrats are nominally left, yet are nearly equally as corrupt as the Republicans- so they’re a walking contradiction.

Identity politics, theatrics, and now open goon squads are the distraction.

At least with Republicans, they don’t necessarily lie about their policies other than that their give-aways ‘trickle down’.

#29 Comment By MM On October 8, 2018 @ 12:21 pm

JeffK: “Obama was working with Bush’s budget.”

Excuse me? You, yourself, have routinely blamed a GOP controlled House for out of control budgets.

That budget that you refer to, “Bush’s budget” was passed by a Democratic House and Democratic Senate.

What you call BS is merely your own partisan standard for federal spending.

Why take offense at that? Unless you’ve forgotten you made comments like that?

#30 Comment By MM On October 8, 2018 @ 12:25 pm

Jeff: “And it immediately fell back to historical avg of 4.5%.”

Inflation adjusted defense spending did not fall in actual dollars until after 2010:

[7]

You know, a GOP controlled House had something to do with that. It was called the sequester, which was Obama’s idea until he ran for reelection and then blamed the GOP.

Did you forget about that, too?

Look, I understand you’re merely trying to whitewash President Obama’s warmaking record (more dead U.S. soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan than Bush, unknown number of dead civilians due to drone strikes, overthrow of Libyan government), but if you’re going to argue dollars and cents, at least do your homework.

#31 Comment By MM On October 8, 2018 @ 12:28 pm

JeffK: “Do you understand how much of a whiner you sound like?”

Wow, that’s the best you can come up with?

After which you proceed to whine and complain about things I didn’t even mention.

Come to think of it, most of what you do here at TAC is whine and complain. It’s been ubiquitous ever since you showed up.

Wouldn’t that be more appropriate over at Huffpo and Salon?

After all, they’re now calling Susan Collins a nasty Senator who hates women…

#32 Comment By MM On October 8, 2018 @ 1:01 pm

JeffK: “Nobody is subsidizing my retirement. As you know, but for some reason state otherwise.”

I was hoping you’d make this claim again, because it’s 100% false and a denial of the facts you gave about your own past Social Security taxes paid. For anyone else who cares, it’s all on the record here:

[8]

$2,700 per month benefit, nearly the maximum allowed at age 65. And if you pass away before then, Social Security provides survivor benefits. Whether you’re self-employed or not, you have not paid $2,700 in Social Security taxes per month out-of-pocket, adjusted for inflation, during your entire working life. Between $500 and $700 was a generous estimate, as I recall.

The difference between what you paid, personally, and what you’ll receive, personally… that’s the definition of a SUBSIDY!

It’s a great illustration of how wealthy retirees are subsidized, not just with Social Security but also Medicare, by younger, poorer workers.

#33 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 8, 2018 @ 1:11 pm

In 1848 Frederick Douglass wrote:

“The Senate has a Veto on every law, and as one-half of that body are slaveholders, it follows, of course, that no law can be passed without their consent.”

Harve, are you familiar with the difference between the terms “1848” and “1787”? You are posing an effect noted 61 years later and attempting to sustain an erroneous assertion about the motives 61 years earlier. The senate remained the same structurally before, during, and after the civil war, with and without slavery. In 1787, there was no “slave power.” By 1820, the balance between “slave” and “free” states had become very important in federal politics. But it wasn’t the purpose of the Electoral College — which was YOUR original assertion.

#34 Comment By Harve On October 8, 2018 @ 4:20 pm

Siarlys Jenkins says:
October 8, 2018 at 1:11 pm

Harve, are you familiar with the difference between the terms “1848” and “1787”?

Yes I am and if you read the entire post my point should have been clear as I referenced “6-7″ and there were more than 13 states in 1848.

The notion that the potential future advantages of an anti-democratic, anti-majoritarian body to Slave Power was lost to its advocates in the 1787 convention is naive.

” In 1787, there was no “slave power.””

The 3/5 compromise was the result of Slave Power. The first slave codes were enacted well before 1787.

“By 1820, the balance between “slave” and “free” states had become very important in federal politics.”

1820 was only 33 years after the adoption of the Constitution. The very nature of slavery is anti-majoritarian and the anti-majoritarian Senate with the anti-majoritarian 3/5 compromise in the House were essential to its preservation and extension.

The Senate, the 3/5 compromise, and the Electoral College were all potential time bombs in 1787. All it took was the techno-economic/techno-environmental changes resulting from the invention of the cotton gin in 1794 and the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 to set them ticking.

#35 Comment By JeffK On October 8, 2018 @ 4:27 pm

@MM says:
October 8, 2018 at 1:01 pm

“JeffK: “Nobody is subsidizing my retirement. As you know, but for some reason state otherwise.”

I was hoping you’d make this claim again, because it’s 100% false and a denial of the facts you gave about your own past Social Security taxes paid. For anyone else who cares, it’s all on the record here: [8]

$2,700 per month benefit, nearly the maximum allowed at age 65. And if you pass away before then, Social Security provides survivor benefits. Whether you’re self-employed or not, you have not paid $2,700 in Social Security taxes per month out-of-pocket, adjusted for inflation, during your entire working life. Between $500 and $700 was a generous estimate, as I recall.

The difference between what you paid, personally, and what you’ll receive, personally… that’s the definition of a SUBSIDY!

It’s a great illustration of how wealthy retirees are subsidized, not just with Social Security but also Medicare, by younger, poorer workers.””

MM, I have been paying into SS for 45 years, and will pay into it at least another 5 years. In the last 20 years I have paid the maximum at least 12 years.

Clearly you do not understand the concept of opportunity cost, time value of money, which includes compounding, at the avg stock market rate of return (about 6%), and not the treasury bill rate (which you prefer), which for quite awhile has been less than 1.5%.

Also, you and I disagree that the employer share contribution to SS would not be ‘my money’ if they did not contribute it to SS. Well, I have been self employed for the last 7 or 8 years, and will be for another 5. So I will be paying both employee and employer shares for 12-13 years, if I make it to 66. So clearly that was ‘my money’.

Go ahead. Stick with the complaint that others are subsidizing my retirement (when I get there, if I do). Just like the electoral college decides presidential elections (which you love), current law decides how much SS I will collect (which you hate).

And how about all of the double dippers out there? Are you ok with Govt employees, military, law enforcement, etc collecting pensions from both the government and collecting SS, since most double dippers I know work just enough in the private sector to collect as much SS as they can.

Again, over 50 years I will pay $160K directly into SS, and my employers (and myself as employer) will pay another $120K into SS. And from that you think I should collect $500-$700/month, starting in 2023? Really? If I draw SS for 20 years, at $700/month, I will only collect $168K TOTAL. By the time I am 86 years old. Barely getting back what I paid in.

No wonder you ain’t making it as an economics major. Simple math proves you wrong. But that’s what you do. Obfuscate the facts of the issue in order to tell a lie.

BTW, taking my last SS statement, applying a 6% rate of return to what both my employer and I paid in annually, and what I will pay over the next 5 years, totals $1,142,000. And I should draw $700/month? Get yourself a financial advisor. Don’t try it yourself. You will be disappointed.

#36 Comment By MM On October 8, 2018 @ 7:44 pm

JeffK: “Go ahead. Stick with the complaint that others are subsidizing my retirement…”

Oh, I’m not complaining. I merely feel obligated to point out, whenever a self-described progressive like you complains that his taxes aren’t high enough, that you should voluntarily give some back, as well as take less in Social Security, since you’ve admitted you don’t need it all.

It’s not my fault you get offended when a clear example of hypocrisy like that is pointed out.

And Social Security is a subsidy, by definition. That’s how federal entitlements, pay-as-you go, work by design.

Look, you can go around and around all you want trying to explain away the obvious, but I’ve actually done your math for you.

Even if you claim credit for you employers’ Social Security contributions, you’ve never paid anywhere close to $2,400 per month in SS taxes, adjusted for inflation, in your life. You’ll be collected somewhere around 5x a much as you and your employers have ever paid in.

I’ll stop pointing that out when you stop complaining about how your taxes should be higher, and stop gloating about how much you’ll get in Social Security benefits.

It’s your big mouth that’s gotten you into this mess. All I’ve done is take what you’ve said and used a little math to figure out the truth about your BIG SUBSIDY. Why don’t you just admit that, or do the math on your own if you don’t believe me?

#37 Comment By MM On October 8, 2018 @ 7:56 pm

JeffK: “Barely getting back what I paid in.”

This isn’t a perfect estimate, since it’s not adjusted for inflation at growing rate over time, but taking that $280,000 you claim to have paid in, part of which isn’t even yours, and applying your $2,400 per month benefit, you’ll collect it all back in less than 10 years, after which you get the same subsidy every month for as long as you live. And you’ve already admitted you have other assets of value.

How can anybody justify that and still call themselves a progressive?

#38 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 8, 2018 @ 10:31 pm

Whether you’re self-employed or not, you have not paid $2,700 in Social Security taxes per month out-of-pocket, adjusted for inflation, during your entire working life. Between $500 and $700 was a generous estimate, as I recall.

If your working life is about 3-4 times as long as your retirement, no problem, you’ve funded your social security. And, the trust fund is invested in T-bills, which draw interest. (Actually, the Dems and GOP are in collusion on a few manipulations of this beginning, as Franklin has detailed a few times, but that’s the original model, and it works. There was never a subsidy built in.)

Harve is a classic example of the statement that no amount of facts will persuade someone who has an interest in believing otherwise.

Yes, the “3/5 compromise” was related to slavery. But it was mostly about the stunning possibility that wage workers and other non-property owners would be allowed to vote. (In South Carolina, even up to 1860, you couldn’t serve in the state senate unless you owned 20 slaves, and there was a property qualification to vote). If only property owners voted, the states wouldn’t have had anything to argue about, but if wage workers (who in those days addressed their employer as “master,” — see John Woolman’s Diary) were going to vote, THEN the states with a larger population of enslaved laborers had something to worry about in terms of their congressional representation.

Thirty three years is thirty three years. A lot can change in that time, especially when a nation is only 33 years old. Again, at the time the constitution was ratified, almost everyone agreed slavery was an evil… they hoped it would go away after a while. It might have, but the cotton boom dictated otherwise.

We’re wandering rather far afield of your attribution of THE reason for the electoral college. But that happens when people shift their ground desperately trying to resurrect an ahistorical unfactual argument. You haven’t even tried to refute anything I said about what the reasons for the Electoral College actually WERE.

#39 Comment By JeffK On October 9, 2018 @ 7:30 am

@JeffK: “Barely getting back what I paid in.”

“This isn’t a perfect estimate, since it’s not adjusted for inflation at growing rate over time, but taking that $280,000 you claim to have paid in, part of which isn’t even yours, and applying your $2,400 per month benefit, you’ll collect it all back in less than 10 years, after which you get the same subsidy every month for as long as you live. And you’ve already admitted you have other assets of value.

How can anybody justify that and still call themselves a progressive?”

So you’ve already abandoned your position that I should only collect $500-$700/month for 20 years ($168K), since that just about equals what I myself paid in ($156K). Not counting what my employers paid in ($106K).

And you totally discount the time value of money and compounding for the 50 years the federal govt held that money? Just because you don’t like my progressive point of view. I get it.

And you fail to address my point about all of those double dippers out there, that collect 2 government retirement checks. Probably because you are afraid to stir up all the military, LEOs, firemen, etc that receive those checks.

And you certainly don’t seem to object to The Republicans remaining payoff for the donor class. The ability to inherit $ Billions of dollars tax free. And those individuals can still collect SS. Even though “they have other assets of value” and surely don’t need it.

I have no understanding of why people of little means (you) argue that trickle down economics will somehow benefit them. Never has, never will.

The best con job in history. You have your SCOTUS, which may strike down the ACA and other programs that may benefit you or your family. All the while the elites laugh at you and yours as you do their bidding.

#40 Comment By JonF On October 9, 2018 @ 3:10 pm

Hi Siarlys, thanks for explaining the “rapist SSM” allusion. That’s the first I’ve heard that story, though I have heard of other #MeToo gay stories (Kevin Spacey most obviously.)