Fact Check: New York Times Cuts Precedent for Election Year Nominations By Almost Half [Updated]

Last night, I was finalizing my column for USA Today when one of my editors flagged my reference to the roughly 30 election-year nominations to the Supreme Court as a possible error.  The New York Times ran a story declaring that there “there have been 16 Supreme Court vacancies that occurred before Election Day.” I have previously discussed glaring misstatements of cases in major media, but this was unnerving because the New York Times was suggesting that the precedent for the current nomination was roughly half as previously thought. I decided to do another rough count and, if anything, it would seem that the 29 nomination figure is arguably too low and that there appears almost twice the number cited by the New York Times.  The difference appears in part counting a calendar year rather than a year from election, but that approach causes problems in comparison given the earlier early election calendars.

There has been considerable push back on the “precedent” for an election-year nomination.  NBC Meet the Press Host Chuck Todd exclaimed “What precedent?!” when  John Barrasso (R-WY) even used the word precedent in his interview. In reality, such nominations have occurred regularly in history. Indeed, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself said in 2016 that the Senate had to do its “job” and vote on such nominations because “there’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” (While Todd correctly considered it newsworthy to note that Ginsburg wanted to leave her seat for the next president to fill, he did not consider it relevant to also note that Ginsburg previously insisted that the Senate was supposed to fill such seats in an election year). Justice Sonia Sotomayor also stated that it was wrong to leave the Court with only eight justices.

That debate will continue to rage, but we should be able to reach a consensus on the historical record, even in this time of rage.  Here is my effort (taken at my own peril).

I may be missing something obvious but I count 30 nominations in the year before a presidential election.  The current vacancy could produce 31.  There are a couple that could be excluded by a day or so (Johnson, Rutledge, Jay, and Crittenden). There is a recess appointment (Brennan).  There were also a couple on the last day of the election period (King and Walworth). Moreover, a couple nominees were nominated and then renominated. Some are repeaters. For example, President John Tyler nominated Reuben Walworth three times in 1844, but Tyler was unpopular with the Democrats and the Whigs in Congress (leading to a series of stalled efforts on nominations and legislation). Spencer and King were also repeaters but represented separate nominations. However, even with such eliminations, it comes to roughly 30 not 16 from what I can see.

The New York Times also states that only one nomination was made in a short period in history (Chase) at 27 days. Again, I may be missing something but Chase was nominated on December 4, 1864.  The election was on November 4, 1864. That would appear after the election, but I added him since it occurred during a lame duck period. Moreover, a couple of nominees (King and Walworth) appear to have been nominated on the actual last day of the election.

Keep in mind that the date of presidential elections has changed and once occurred over a longer time span. Anyhow, at the risk of making a fool of myself, here are the nomination dates with the election dates in parentheticals.

Thomas Johnson Oct. 31 1791 (Nov-Dec 1792)

John Rutledge Dec. 10, 1795 (Nov.-Dec. 1796)

John Jay Dec. 18, 1800 (Oct. –Dec. 1800)

Gabriel Duvall, Nov. 15, 1811 (Oct.- Dec. 1812)

Joseph Story, Nov. 15, 1811 (Oct. –Dec. 1812)

Smith Thompson Dec. 5, 1823 (Oct.-Dec. 1824)

John Crittenden Dec. 17, 1828 (Oct.-Dec. 1828)

Roger Taney Dec. 28, 1835 (Nov. – Dec. 1836)

Philip Barbour Dec. 28, 1835 (Nov. – Dec. 1836)

John Spencer Jan. 8, 1844 (Nov. – Dec. 1844)

Reuben Walworth March 13, 1844 (Nov. – Dec. 1844)

Edward King June 5, 1844 (Nov. –Dec. 1844)

John Spencer June 17, 1844 (Nov. –Dec. 1844)

Reuben Walworth June 17, 1844 (Nov. –Dec. 1844)

Edward King Dec. 4, 1844 (Nov. –Dec. 1844) *last day of the election on Dec. 4th

Reuben Walworth Dec. 4, 1844 (Nov. –Dec. 1844) *last day of the election on Dec. 4th

Edward Bradford August 16, 1852 (Nov. 2, 1852)

Salmon Chase December 4, 1864 (Nov. 4, 1864) (post election; lame duck period nominee)

Melville Fuller, April 20, 1888. (Nov. 6, 1888)

Lucius Lamar, Dec. 6, 1887. (Nov. 6, 1888)

George Shiras, July 19, 1892 (Nov. 8 1892)

Rufus Peckham Dec. 3, 1895 (Nov. 3, 1896)

Mahlon Pitney March 13, 1912 (Nov. 5, 1912)

Louis Brandeis January 28, 1916 (Nov. 5, 1916)

John Clarke June 10, 1916 (Nov. 7, 1916)

Benjamin Cardozo January 12, 1932 (Nov. 8, 1932)

Frank Murphy January 4, 1940 (Nov. 5, 1940)

William Brennan (recess appointment shortly before 1956 election)

Homer Thornberry June 26, 1968 (Nov. 5, 1968)

Abe Fortas June 26, 1968 (Nov. 5, 1968)

Anthony Kennedy November 30, 1987 (Nov. 8, 1988)

Merrick Garland March 16, 2016 (Nov. 8, 2016)

I could certainly be missing something. Even if the New York Times maintains that there were only 16 such nominations, it should explain its calculation. The most obvious explanation is that the Times is focusing on the calendar year instead of the common reference to “within a year of an election.” The difference however is small. Though early elections included October voting, the difference is the lost of two months in most cases. Moreover, for early election including October, it would cut off three months where presidents have moved within the year of the election, which seem a tad arbitrary and adds an unnecessary barrier for easy comparisons.  Moreover, using “vacancies” rather than “nominations” does not address the discrepancies.  While some were nominated for the same vacancies, there are clearly many more such cases.  Finally, it makes not sense to focus on vacancies. The issue is whether it is extraordinary for the a president to make a nomination within a year of an election. It is not.

Of course, I could certainly be wrong but the Times seems to be advancing too low of a figure. I consider this a working list in progress, so if you spot any errors or omissions please let me know.

378 thoughts on “Fact Check: New York Times Cuts Precedent for Election Year Nominations By Almost Half [Updated]”

  1. What I have noticed on this and other comment sections Wapo, NYT, et al, is that very few supposedly liberals rarely discuss or comment on the merits of an article or post, they immediately go to rude, acerbic, and vulgar personal attacks. As mespo727272 so eloquently stated “they are having a case of the vapors”…continuously. Conservatives and Independents are generally polite (until attacked themselves). Just about everyone in Washington is hypocritical at one time or another, the party doesn’t matter. If anyone thinks Harry Schumer wouldn’t do the exact same thing as McConnell they are living in an alternate reality. If you can’t discuss the merits of what Prof. Turley posts via straight up analysis and back up your position you are only intellectually lazy. I like reading Prof. Turley’s posts because it gives me perspectives or analysis I may not have heard or thought of before.

    1. Karen, I’m liberal, and I posted a comment discussing the merits of the article. Do you have anything to say in response to it?

      Ironically, you laud Mespo, though he regularly posts “rude, acerbic, and vulgar personal attacks.”

      Your claim that “Conservatives and Independents are generally polite (until attacked themselves)” is false. Some people from far right to far left are generally polite and others from far right to far left are not, and conservatives and independents aren’t any more polite in general than liberals are.

      1. Committed to Boring:
        “Ironically, you laud Mespo, though he regularly posts “rude, acerbic, and vulgar personal attacks.”
        **********************
        Always rude, sometimes acerbic but never vulgar except perhaps to the tender sensibilities of the neo-Puritans around. You know I’m the self-proclaimed unlicensed fool around here. What’s the problem?

      2. CTHD: Your claim that “Conservatives and Independents are generally polite (until attacked themselves)” is false.

        Sadly, it’s true. It’s exactly the mean spiritedness of the modern left that is driving so many to leave the left. And it’s not a mystery that the left is in denial about their behaviour. It’s one of the main reasons this independent who voted for Dems his entire life now votes against the Dems. The same goes for my entire family of registered Democrats. Modern lefties have lost their minds and there’s no helping them because they are out of touch with reality. If you read the NYT or Washington Post and think that’s news I’m talking about you.

        1. So you turn regressive instead of progressive because of the extremists that attach themselves to liberal concepts. Yet, you ignore the pestilence that is the Republican Party and that malignant growth that is Trump. You ignore the malignant growth’s outstretched arms to the White Supremacists and other filth. Read both newspapers. Open your eyes.

          1. It’s the “progressives” that are regressive. They are racist. They wish to bring back segregation…to divide the nation by race. Your “white supremacy” boogey-man is a fiction the left embraces. I marvel at the super-hearing abilities of the Dems…only they can hear dog whistles.

            1. I’m progressive, Ivan. I don’t wish to bring back segregation.

              Your claim that “Your “white supremacy” boogey-man is a fiction the left embraces” is false. Don’t take my word for it. Listen to non-progressive law enforcement, like the FBI and the Dept. of Homeland Security’s intelligence division. Listen to the DOJ. Listen to congressional testimony.

              Examples:
              https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/64-white-supremacists-sentenced-combined-820-years-federal-prison
              https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-116hhrg36828/html/CHRG-116hhrg36828.htm

              1. You don’t believe in segregation but you believe in preventing minorities from going to Charter Schools where the success rate for those children is counted in multiples.

                Do you hate the idea of minorities getting a better education?

        2. Ivan, do you actually read the comments from conservatives and independents here?

          For example, Mespo told Anonymous “I doubt anyone takes your rapid head expansion commentary seriously. … we do find your desperation amusing, your panic satisfying and your lying funny … all that’s left for the Left is the whining. And that is music to our ears.” Do you consider that “polite”? Anonymous didn’t “attack” Mespo, so it doesn’t fall into that exception in Karen’s claim.

          When you say something like “the left is in denial about their behaviour,” you’re pretending that there is some behavior that’s exhibited by all or most on the left. The behavior of those on the left is varied. The behavior of those on the right is varied. The behavior of those in the middle is varied. It’s not productive to overgeneralize about any of these groups. From far right to far left, some people exhibit “mean spiritedness” and others don’t.

          1. “Ivan, do you actually read the comments from conservatives and independents here?”

            I look through all the comments except for Natasha’s[Trump is fat]. I also read the comments on many right wing blogs and left wing blogs. There is vitriol everywhere…welcome to the internet. Nonetheless, the history of the behavior of our citizens in the real world is damning for the left.

            Without question it can be said that the left started a war in this country. Their collective behaviour is simply atrocious and can be measured scientifically. There are clear, significant differences. The right has now awoken to this sad reality- we are now in an intractable, existential crisis because of the left. I have been trying to resist this schism, but Mespo, my older brothers(registered Dems), and others are right: we are at war.

            For me, the Kavanaugh hearings and the attack on the Covington HS kids was the final straw. All democrats and their favorite media were united in a witch hunt and that’s not a generalization, nor is it hyperbole. I didn’t like Kavanaugh, but to accuse him of drugging and gang raping women was as low as it gets. The same goes for the high school student who was simply standing waiting for his bus when an idiot with a drum walks up to him and starts banging it in his face…he showed remarkable restraint. We all know how the left and their media responded. And of course there is the never ending attempt to remove Trump from office using the national security state. The left has become enamored of the intelligence agencies…who could have foreseen that?

            “Politics correctness”, “Social Justice Warriors,” “Back Lives Matter,” “Antifa,” etc. are all concoctions of the left. These forces are marxist and seek to destroy the nation. They must be destroyed. Those left on the left have much to answer for.

            1. “There is vitriol everywhere”

              Then you, too, presumably disagree with Karen’s claim that “Conservatives and Independents are generally polite (until attacked themselves).” One sees vitriol from some people from far right through far left, and one doesn’t see vitriol from other people from far right through far left. It’s not more prevalent on one side than the other. It’s just prevalent among jerks, regardless of their political beliefs.

              1. No, I agree with her that Conservatives and Independents are generally polite and that Democrats are impolite, closed minded, and violent by comparison. What I will say is that in the last year I’ve seen a sea change in the right: a recognition that we have an intractable problem with the left because they literally want to destroy Western Civilization.

          2. Committed:

            “Anonymous didn’t “attack” Mespo, so it doesn’t fall into that exception in Karen’s claim.”
            **************************
            Please don’t say this near anyone’s person, the rapid thrust of your nose would likely put their eye out.

            1. Here’s the comment from Anonymous that I was referring to: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/09/22/fact-check-new-york-times-wrongly-cuts-election-year-nominations-by-almost-half/comment-page-1/#comment-2003652 (as should be clear from my having said “Mespo told Anonymous ‘I doubt anyone takes your rapid head expansion commentary seriously. …'” — you said that in response to the comment I just linked to)

              You haven’t quoted anything from that comment, Mespo, that you claim is as an “attack” on you.

                    1. @Anonymous, 6:51 PM:
                      Socrates-head underestimates how many of us there are and clearly can’t tell us apart. What a wanker he is.

    2. Mesp and his ilk like Escobar have yet to post anything remotely deserving of or illustrating merit. Turley’s content is about 50/50, 50% without merit and 40% redundant attacks on extremists who have attached themselves to the left. Ten percent is non partisan incriminating attacks on the right. This is the basis of Turley’s stance as an objective legal expert. The law is a tool to use and shape opinion. If this was not so, then there would be no American oligarchy, political parties, etc. The law is a double edged sword. It can be used righteously and it can be used for the most perverse reasons. Turley’s main sin is to present himself as an objective legal scholar yet fashion his rag resolutely around his champions: Trump, McConnell, and the Republican Party.

      America and the law should be more than this. If Turley had an ounce of dignity and self worth beyond his legal coat of feathers, he would divide his postings between the left and the right. Hypocrisy itself speaks.

      1. who made isaac the judge of content

        only himself, arrogant self appointment as media critic of the turley blog

        actually 100% of what turley writes is worthy on some intellectual level

        whereas about 20% of what you write is worth reading isaac and that much usually just for a laugh

        see? i can be a critic too and my opinion has all the weight of yours. you know what they say about opinions isaac

      2. issac:

        “Mesp and his ilk like Escobar have yet to post anything remotely deserving of or illustrating merit. Turley’s content is about 50/50, 50% without merit and 40% redundant attacks on extremists who have attached themselves to the left.”
        *************************
        And yet here you stay perched over the dung you see all around you even amid the general feeling by many here that you are batpoop nuts. Are you the dung beetle or just the vulture? (see Committed, rude, acerbic but not vulgar).

    3. You can tell from reading the posts of street-level Democrats here is that the only thing that gets them out of bed in the morning is making accusations and issuing animadversions. They’re not interested in public policy, just in using the levers of the state to feed their clientele and injure the rest of us.

      1. and yet these low level flunkies are so far below the level of even dogcatcher and yet they identify so strongly with the D party.
        this is something to be studied like a mass hysteria or a bubble in the stock market

  2. Of gag-worthy note was McConnell’s comments in the Senate yesterday when he justified what he’s doing by this same “different parties in WH/Senate bit” – that’s not a principle, it’s an explanation of pure power, and one his 2016 “principle” was not based on when reporting to the American people. Part of his rationale was the Senate and the President were chosen by the American people, which is false. The Senate by design does not represent the American people and at present the GOP is the majority there, but has about 8% more representation than the it deserves by popular will and of course Trump lost the vote by 3 million and has done nothing to increase his popularity since.

    This reflects what we used to call – before Trump – a “mandate” and the GOP Senate and Trump have not had either and still don’t (Obama had a mandate and these lying scumbags stole a SC seat from him. ) thus putting his claim in the garbage with his moral bearings.

    1. Anonymous:

      Since you have no concept of what a principle is versus a custom versus a rule, I doubt anyone takes your rapid head expansion commentary seriously. If you need it explicitly: We don’t. But we do find your desperation amusing, your panic satisfying and your lying funny in a SNL/Jon Lovitz kinda way. Carry on. The battle is over; all that’s left for the Left is the whining. And that is music to our ears.

    2. Essentially, McConnell is giving us a snap shot of the mind of a thief. Not only will he take what’s not his to take, he’ll blame the victim for presenting the opportunity to steal. He regards them as suckers. He’s completely vacant in the integrity department. And the trumpers here all know what he’s doing is wrong, they’re just way short on integrity as well and think, ‘well, hey, we’re on the same team as McConnell’ so it’s all good in their minds.

      Make no mistake, we’re seeing outright thievery though. Through whatever McConnell comes up with as rationalization, the differing parties in the executive versus the senate,etc…, blah blah. It’s complete b.s. They presented their Garland position as precedent going forward. Now they’re lying, proudly, in plain sight while their supporters proclaim that anyone who doesn’t agree just doesn’t understand the principles of power. It’s all nonsense. Just a way to justify outright thievery. They gignapped a nomination from the dems in power, and while McConnell is doing an impressive job in manipulating the system without having majority support, it seems it signals a time to be as cut throat as possible in response…., just in order to take the trash out. If this nomination goes through there isn’t a reason to respect the supreme court. They must be systematically cut out of the equation. And the republican party with its dwindling support should be crushed into dust at every opportunity.

      1. it can’t be thievery if its completely legal and this is wholly, entirely, and completely legal and regular per Constitutional standards

        ergo YOU are the liar BUG but keep on dreamin

      2. listening to nutjobs like the clown on NPR today calling the nomination an “abuse of power” lol

        right he must be the same kind of person who thinks a cop arresting an looter is an abuse of power too

        this is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY leadership today- in all its insanity

        so sad — America is a bipartisan experiment and if one of the two major parties embarks on a decided pattern of lying and anarchy, and does not repent–

        we may very well need a divorce. so let’s see how it unfolds, give it a little whiles longer

  3. Turley is becoming more and more a pathetic Republican lackey. This is a non issue. If the Dems were in power they would do the same thing. If they get into power in all three spots, they can increase the number of justices and add enough to lean the court the other way; and it will all be constitutionally correct and legal. The Republicans will moan and spew their vile arguments and Turley will feature more of them than the other. The only thing wrong with all this is the political maneuvering by McConnell in 2016 and his and Graham’s mistake of shooting off their mouths about noble reasons for using a legal maneuver to screw Obama and the Democrats. If McConnell and Graham had kept their mouths shut, this would not be anywhere near the issue it is today.

    How about focusing on more important stuff. Trump just spewed out more lies about Covid-19 not being a problem for young people, right now when school is of a primary importance. All scientists state that Covid-19 is a danger to the youth as well as the elderly. Lung, heart, and neurological damage can affect a youth for, no one yet knows but long after they recover from the virus.

    “It affects elderly people, elderly people with heart problems and other problems. That’s what it really affects,” the president said. “In some states, thousands of people — nobody young. Below the age of 18, like, nobody. They have a strong immune system, who knows? Take your hat off to the young, because they have a hell of an immune system. But it affects virtually nobody. It’s an amazing thing.”

    These are the words of the blithering idiot President Trump, to hundreds of his followers in an indoor rally, no masks, no distancing, all immune because Trump says so. It is an established fact that the more precautions taken by every one of every age, the fewer the infections and the fewer deaths. Trump is inciting the youth to kill people. It comes right down to that.

    And Turley’s counting his fingers and toes to see if the NYTimes made a mistake. Shame on you Turley. Think of this when you mount your next podium and start blathering.

    1. And there’s a Woodward tape of Trump admitting in March about who it affects: “Now it’s turning out it’s not just old people, Bob, But just today and, and yesterday, some startling facts came out. It’s not just old, older. Young people too, plenty of young people.”

      And of course with his rallies, Trump should be concerned not only about whether rally attendees are themselves harmed, but also whether some become carriers, resulting in harm to others who didn’t attend the rally. For example, with that Maine wedding which resulted in seven COVID-19 deaths and almost 200 people infected, IIRR, none of the people who died attended the wedding, but they caught the virus from people who’d attended the wedding.

      And all Trump is doing at this point is trying to downplay the virus. What is he DOING to help protect people? It astounds me that Trump sycophants simply don’t care or are ready to blame everyone except Trump, despite him being the single-most powerful person in the U.S.

      1. So BLM protesters standing shoulder to shoulder for hours is A-OK with you?

        Your arguments become ever more feeble as time goes on, Buttercup.

        1. From what I’ve seen, BLM protesters are more likely to be outside (where the risk is less, unless people are standing very close together), aren’t as likely to be standing close together as people at a rally, and are more likely to be wearing masks. But when protesters *are* “standing shoulder to shoulder for hours,” yes, of course I object to that too, especially if they’re indoors and/or not wearing masks. I’m sure it’s hard for you to understand that I can apply the same standards in both situations.

          Your insults only reflect on you, Rhodes.

        2. Yours is the essence of false equivalence. Trump is the president, in command of policy and the bully pulpit that could save thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, if he were remotely interested in saving those lives, or science (when it conflicts with his self-interest), or carrying out what is supposed to be the president’s vaunted duty of “protecting the nation”. This cannot be said of the protesters, who are also outside, acknowledge the risks, and do not willfully deny science or the role of wearing masks in protecting the public health.

          In Trump’s case, there is no countervailing interest whatsoever, other than his self-aggrandizement and riling his base for his own reelection, that would justify the utterly stupid risks he, “the single-most powerful person in the U.S.”, is encouraging people to take, and the misinformation about the virus he has knowingly spewed. With the protesters there is an intolerable oppressive situation on their side of the ledger that has and will never be remotely adequately addressed without protest, even if it’s risky.

          But I agree with Isaacbasonkavich that this Supreme Court stuff is sheer fluff, a product of political desperation. Democracy in America has become so denuded that our whole political attention has been consumed by these miniscule considerations of which panjandrum will be appointed to the most undemocratic council of elders in U.S. history. We’ve made the Devil’s Bargain of constitutional law and judicial review instead of pursuing “strategies of disempowering the court, like jurisdiction stripping (prohibiting the court from hearing cases) or requiring a supermajority rule for it to strike down laws.” Or for that matter, public referenda (as Teddy Roosevelt advocated for state courts) on Supreme Court decisions that could result in remanding bad decisions to the Court for reconsideration, or their simple nullification, upon a supermajority public vote.

          1. save millions of lives? no, i dont think so, supposedly we have an excess mortality of 200K for the COVID and it’s not clear at all, contrary to what pelosi says, that a Democrat president would have been able to cut that excess without raising it somewhere else

            suicides and overdoses and problems from deferred elective surgeries are on the rise, due to COVID restrictions, to say nothing of massive unemployment and God only knows what other deferred economic consequences around the corner

            and yet we may be blessed, should joe biden win, and deliver on his outrageous promise to “cure cancer”

            no, really! he’s promised to cure cancer.

            talk about a sales pitch! wow. and they say trump is shameless

          2. Wartberg, finally you make an insightful comment. I 100% agree with this comment:

            “Democracy in America has become so denuded that our whole political attention has been consumed by these miniscule considerations of which panjandrum will be appointed to the most undemocratic council of elders in U.S. history. We’ve made the Devil’s Bargain of constitutional law and judicial review instead of pursuing “strategies of disempowering the court, like jurisdiction stripping (prohibiting the court from hearing cases) or requiring a supermajority rule for it to strike down laws.” Or for that matter, public referenda (as Teddy Roosevelt advocated for state courts) on Supreme Court decisions that could result in remanding bad decisions to the Court for reconsideration, or their simple nullification, upon a supermajority public vote.”

            this is precisely why I say, Republicans should not fear this threat to pack the court. Let it happen and let their supermajority veto get diluted. Right now the SCOTUS & article III is too powerful

      2. On the other hand Needs to be Committed has little comments about those that riot and burn neighborhoods. She is nothing more than a vile partisan that is openly anti-American.

      3. And, then, there’s the CDC walking back advice posted on its web page that COVID-19 is spread via droplets. The post included commentary about closed spaces without direct access to fresh air (like a window you can open) being risky for the spread of the virus. Most schools and modern commercial buildings don’t have openable windows. The sole reason the post was pulled back was to provide cover for Trump to push for businesses, restaurants, bars and schools to reopen now that fall is here, thinking he can bully the economy to recover, which it won’t. More people will be dying as a result. TRUMP LIES—PEOPLE DIE.

        Perhaps the only good news in any of the Trump criminal mishandling and lying about COVID is that no one believes him now that they understand that he controls the CDC and the FDA. Not even Republicans. Most won’t accept a vaccine if Trump says it is safe and effective, if a Trump appointee says it is safe and effective or even if a drug manufacturer, which has received billions of our tax dollars, says it is safe and effective. Trump has made a vaccine a political issue, and he lies constantly. He gets others to lie, too, or they get fired and replaced with someone who will lie. We all know that now, and we must figure out for ourselves how to protect ourselves and our loved ones.

        Everyone knows someone who has had it, and some may have had friends or loved ones who have died. A friend of mine very nearly died from it, and his description to me of being resuscitated when he couldn’t breathe was scary. The bad news is that many people were skeptical about vaccines before all of this, and now, they have valid reasons to be. That means that people will be afraid to take vaccines for which Trump didn’t manipulate the safety and efficacy data. Again, people will be dying unnecessarily. TRUMP LIES–PEOPLE DIE.

        1. Natacha – did you hear Trump at his rally in Pittsburgh this evening? He was talking about Joe Biden wearing always wearing a mask while he is speaking, at a podium, far apart from other people. Yet Joe Biden is still wearing a mask! Obviously Biden thinks he is “setting an example” by wearing a mask. But the truth is Joe Biden looks like a fool and sounds like a muffled idiot. Absolutely UN-presidential to stand there virtue signalling in a mask, all muffled and foolish looking. But Biden keeps doing it. It is especially foolish because there is never anyone there when Biden gives one of his staged speeches and then answers zero pool reporter questions. It is outrageously stupid what Biden thinks he can continue getting away with. So Trump says at his rally tonight, about Biden and his “virtue signalling” mask wearing…..”Why would Joe pay that much money for plastic surgery only to hide his face behind a mask all the time” !!!! Hahahahahahahahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Hilarious LOL. This is why We LOVE President Trump!

        2. Did you get that? ”Why would Joe pay that much money for plastic surgery only to hide his face behind a mask all the time” Ha!! Seriously good question, eh?

        3. “TRUMP LIES–PEOPLE DIE.” What a losing line, and a brazen LIE. Do Dems really think people are this stupid? Hint: Voters are not as stupid as Democrats think they are. Some Democrat voters ARE that stupid, but the rest of us are not.

          “Media/Democrats LIE – Trump Wins ReElection in a Landslide” = now this is more like the TRUTH.

    2. I’ll add that many people who contracted SARS-CoV-2 but didn’t die from it have other significant health effects from it (e.g., myocarditis), and we don’t yet know the longterm effects of COVID-19.

      Trump pretending that if someone doesn’t die, then the harm to that person simply doesn’t matter. And even in a single speech, he contradicts himself, saying both “It affects virtually nobody” (which is false) and “It affects elderly people,” as if the elderly are “nobodies.”

      He’s a malignant narcissist. He simply doesn’t care who is harmed.

      1. Commit,
        Regarding SARS-Cov2 and myocarditis, what if the heart is depleted in zinc due to the virus and the residual effects are due, in part, to chronic zinc insufficiency?

        Zinc modulates the anti-inflammatory action of NF-KB. Zinc deficiency leads to immune dysfunction.

        Zinc in Infection and Inflammation
        Nour Zahi Gammoh et al. Nutrients. 2017.

        NF-KB is involved in myocarditis.

        NF-κB-mediated metabolic remodelling in the inflamed heart in acute viral myocarditis
        Alexander H V Remels et al. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis. 2018 Aug.

        1. Prairie Rose, I don’t understand how your question is related to my point: Trump is pretending that if someone doesn’t die, then the harm to that person simply doesn’t matter.

          1. Commit,
            My reply disappeared into the WordPress abyss (and it really, really did since I had typed it into my phone rather than into a document). I will attempt to recreate my original…

            My response was somewhat sideways from your point. You brought up the concern that “many people who contracted SARS-CoV-2 but didn’t die from it have other significant health effects from it (e.g., myocarditis), and we don’t yet know the longterm effects of COVID-19”.

            I think this is an important point to explore and address. How are these health effects being treated? Many of the people most badly affected by SARS-Cov2 already probably had some degree of deficiencies (at least that’s what the literature indicates about people who are obese, diabetic, and elderly).

            Since zinc deficiency plays a role in myocarditis, for example, (and it seems zinc and other micronutrients are depleted by this infection), are the various and sundry micronutrient deficiencies of affected people being noted, monitored, and addressed?

            On a related note, our country is struggling with a high degree of obesity and diabetes. There are significant health effects that can stem from these issues, as well, such as blindness, amputation, NASH, kidney problems. These, too, pose an existential threat to the US.

            All of the above need to be addressed effectively. Why do some people have chronic complications to the virus while others seem not to? What are the differences? What are the issues undergirding the various complications? And by issues, I include not simply micronutrient deficiencies, but stress, socio-economic factors, habits of culture, etc. In what ways does the Ghost of Christmas Present haunt us with the concerns of Ignorance and Want?

    3. Shame on you Isaac for scolding a man who corrects the record properly.

      Do you prefer lies isaac? oh of course i forget you are a convinced Democratic cheerleader so of course you do

      1. Turley wasn’t “correcting the record,” Kurtz. As both Michael Scott and I noted, the NYT and Turley were counting different things: the NYT was counting vacancies (not nominations) and limiting the count to the same calendar year prior to the election, whereas Turley was counting nominations (even if there were multiple nominations to fill a single vacancy) and including the 365 days prior, even if they were in a different calendar year.

        1. perhaps that is so, but, the NYT’s counting is selective fact reporting that fits inside their editorial frame, contrasted to Turley’s count which is more germane to the situation

          1. No, Turley’s counting isn’t “more germane to the situation.” Scalia died in an election year, prior to the election. Ginsburg died in an election year, prior to the election. It’s the opposite of “germane” to extend the time frame to a non-election year. And it’s also not particularly germane whether a vacancy resulted in 1 nomination or more than 1. The NYT actually focused on the most germane features: how many vacancies during an election year prior to the election?

            Go ahead: make an actual argument about why you think “Turley’s count … is more germane to the situation.”

            1. I thank you for your polite invitation to further discussion and regret that I must turn now to my devoirs. Enjoy your day

  4. Doofus JT ignores the fact that the “precedent” was set by the GOP in 2016 when they clearly, emphatically, and with moral force claimed that nominations should not go forward in an election year. In that case, the nomination was delivered by a twice elected President – our current President was not elected by the people but by a winner take all EC (winner take all state delegations are not mandated by the Constitution and disenfranchise close to half of the voters, and in the case the plurality) – 9 months before his term ended.

    Another “precedent” was Abraham Lincolns passing on a nomination before the 1864 election, but the GOP is no longer the Party of Lincoln, it’s the Party of Nixon and Roger Stone.

    JT never gets tired of carrying Trump water and should give up the false pretense that he has any ethical bearings or non-partisan approaches. He’s good buddys with AG Barr not by accident.

    1. “Doofus JT”

      Pretty bold for a person whose accomplishments almost certainly lag JT’s – unless you would care to share your exalted credentials (but I doubt it).

      Like most Pinkos, you love to insult when reason fails you.

      1. The proof’s in the pudding monument and JT’s stinks like bat s..t.The question isn’t competence, it’s sleazy propaganda pretending to have an objective and ethical basis. He provides neither but pretends he does.

        Who writes about whether the NYTs is wrong – they are not as CTHD points out – while ignoring the much bigger questions of Americans’ faith in our judicial system with jerks like JT’s buddies running amuck and doing whatever they can get away with? He’s speechless on that because there is no defense.

          1. one man’s trash is another man’s treasure

            HAIL MESPO, HONORABLE COMRADE! ADVOCATE FOR JUSTICE AND TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT!~

  5. Once again, Turley cuts off a quote in a way that influences its meaning. The complete NYT sentence is “In U.S. presidential election years, there have been 16 Supreme Court vacancies that occurred before Election Day.”

    “I could certainly be missing something.”

    Yup. Like the fact that the NYT quote is about the number of vacancies, not about the number of nominations.
    And the fact that they’re only counting election-year nominations that occur prior to the election and not those during a lame duck period.

    Turley includes multiple people who weren’t nominated in an election year. You would think that the fact that the nomination year and election year are different would be a big hint. Why is Turley including the following in his list?
    Thomas Johnson Oct. 31 1791 (Nov-Dec 1792)
    John Rutledge Dec. 10, 1795 (Nov.-Dec. 1796)
    Gabriel Duvall, Nov. 15, 1811 (Oct.- Dec. 1812)
    Joseph Story, Nov. 15, 1811 (Oct. –Dec. 1812)
    Smith Thompson Dec. 5, 1823 (Oct.-Dec. 1824)
    Roger Taney Dec. 28, 1835 (Nov. – Dec. 1836)
    Philip Barbour Dec. 28, 1835 (Nov. – Dec. 1836)
    Rufus Peckham Dec. 3, 1895 (Nov. 3, 1896)
    Anthony Kennedy November 30, 1987 (Nov. 8, 1988)

    And if Turley is trying to include all election year nominees, why is he omitting people like William Cushing (nominated Jan 26, 1796)?

    Turley’s own goal is unclear, as he states both “election year” and “the year before a presidential election,” which aren’t synonymous.

    1. CTHD, unfortunately JT’s goal is not unclear. Too smart to screw up this many times, he’s just a sloppy propagandist for his team. Those coming here expecting a fair analysis based on his posturing as an independent have come to the wrong place. This is a blog for Trumpsters and assorted right wingers and white supremacists – see the comments – to get whipped up by irrelevancies intended to distract from the actions of the most powerful man in the universe, or fed confirmation-bias excuses for whatever he and his GOP enablers come up with next.

      Hey, GOP senators say in 2016 a nomination should not go forward in an election year so the people can express their opinion – thus stealing a SC seat from the popularly twice elected President – but in 2020 say they were only kidding – to give one to a guy who did not win the vote and is probably going down soon after? No problem for our morally blind host. What a phony.

      1. You can fret about hypocrisy but what counts is the actual law. The Senate should consent to Trump’s nominee immediately without letting the Marxist Democrats stage more phony shows at ‘hearings’.

        1. The Senate hasn’t always confirmed nominees and has no obligation to do so here. If the Founders intended the Senate to be a rubber stamp, they wouldn’t have given the Senate the power to reject nominees. And the Senate must abide by its own rules on who gets to speak, even if you don’t like them.

      2. Your comments are essentially the same from the ones you have posted on here since Trump’s election win.

        Your handlers at David Brock’s trolling farm True Blue Media are not getting their moneys worth

        🥳

    2. Turley’s goal is clear. Read Foxnews or the Washington Times and you will get a better idea of how Turley thinks. If it’s bad for Republicans and Trump then omit it. Then scour the liberal/progressive newspapers for any slip up, spelling mistake, etc. John boy, wise up, Trump isn’t going to appoint you to the Supreme Court, ever. Even Trump isn’t that stupid.

    3. CTHD- But at this point, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? The President has the legal authority to make the nomination and the Senate has the authority to approve it.

      You are only whining; not bringing up any point that has the force of law.

      The radical socialists in the party want to gin up public opinion in favor of hearings, but the last hearing fiasco probably has exhausted the demand for Senate sh*t shows.

          1. Kurtz, if I made a mistake, please quote it, so I can check and acknowledge/fix my mistake if you’re correct that I’m “off.”

            1. how did I know you were going to say that. lol. always ready to give me some homework. hey, do your own homework

              you already have the answer to that in today’s comments so go find it. i am not your tutor.

              1. I don’t have a burden of proof for *your* claims, Kurtz, only for my own. When I ask you to substantiate a claim you made, that’s not “homework.” It’s only standard burden of proof.

                I do see that I made a mistake when I said that the NYT was “only counting election-year nominations that occur prior to the election and not those during a lame duck period.” What I should have said was that the NYT was “only counting election-year vacancies that occurred prior to the election and not those during a lame duck period.” Glad to correct my mistake.

                  1. I always correct my mistakes when I become aware of them. That’s part of what it means to be committed to honest discussion.

                    1. Unfortunately you resist becoming aware of your mistakes or you hide behind declarations that you don’t always believe what is in the pages you cite so those errors are not your errors. You say.

  6. It should be obvious by now that a great many millennial journalists do not do research or reject it if it doesn’t match their *personal* narrative; they write what comports with their ‘feelings’, even if it is contrived on the spot. Their ‘feelings’ are generally puerile and age inappropriate. The veterans capitulate to these clowns out of fear of bottom-line degradation, not realizing people in the audience are not this stupid or patient (we are very unlikely to care about said man/woman child’s tender spine. Temper tantrums worked on their parents, they simply annoy everyone else). This is happening across the board – medicine, law, tech, education, and yes, government – and it is the end result of an entire cycle, not one college class. We could have addressed it over a decade ago and saved the headache, but we didn’t want to ‘trigger’ anyone. :/

    1. James, you mistake weakness for cunning

      the immature journalists are manipulated en masse by cunning masterminds like geo soros for example but also their editors who are paid by other billionaire owners of mass media like Jeff Bezos to establish a narrative and hammer it home every day, to advance the financial interests of the ownership

      the goal is this. to bully and intimidate the American workers and middle class, to break us into a thousand pieces, and then when we are done, nobody else will ever be able to oppose the global financial interests again ….. simple as that

      they have heard this but they can’t stomach the notion that their own affection for irrelevant trifles is totally below the scope of the ownerships’ objectives.

      trust me nobody like soros cares about gay marriage or what have you one way or another. this is a guy who’s made a mountainous issue out of a molehill of police errors in a time when police abuse is as low as it ever has been in American history

      no his goal is actually to terrify and intimidate the police and weaken law and order as such, to unleash criminals, because they will harass US and not HIM.

      by weakening us more, he makes himself and his overcaste of global plutocrats, stronger

  7. I certainly accept Prof. Turley’s count of Supreme Court Justices nominated and approved by the Senate in the last year of a President’s term. However, that is not the issue this year. What is the issue is the hypocrisy of Republican senators who refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing for ten months. Read what those senators said four years ago and compare that to what they say and do this year. Hypocrites is too weak a word to describe them. Dissimulation, insincerity, piousness, sanctimoniousness, duplicity, depravity, villainy, corruption, and obscenity are other words that describe their conduct.

    1. Hypocrites is too weak a word to describe them. Dissimulation, insincerity, piousness, sanctimoniousness, duplicity, depravity, villainy, corruption, and obscenity are other words that describe their conduct.

      Wow, that is certainly a cringeworthy list. I knew at some point Republicans will need to be prepared to match Democrats, blow for blow. Your list is a great projection of just how low they will have to go.

      1. There is nothing hypocritical about it. It is political, for sure.
        If dems controlled the senate in 2016, they would have confirmed Garland.
        If dems controlled the senate today they would block Trump and they wouldn’t think twice about.

        1. It would be hypocritical no matter who did it, including Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, etc.. The hypocrisy is in the justification offered for the action then and now. Otherwise, words have no meaning and we can all throw away our dictionaries.

          1. Otherwise, words have no meaning and we can all throw away our dictionaries.

            Of course words have no meaning. Riots/Looting = Peaceful protests. Voter ID = Disenfranchisement. White/Male = Racist/Patriarchy. BLM = certainly not all black lives. And on and on. They’re politicians, hypocrisy is expected. What we can’t permit is a narrative that Republican Senators aren’t allowed to actually follow the constitution because it’s not fair. Not following the constitution is not fair, especially to the people that elected them to follow it.

        2. Of course. Pat Buchanan wrote a good article about what is at stake.

          The cause of right to life. Affirmative action. Religious freedom. Immigration. Gun rights. All could be lost if the opportunity to fill the Ginsburg seat is forfeited by Republican defectors. The 50-year struggle to recapture the Supreme Court would be over.
          https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2020/09/last-best-chance-capture-supreme-court-pat-buchanan.html?mc_cid=7d31fca03b&mc_eid=c1f326aae5

          Republicans have an opportunity to plant their conservative flag in the court and thwart the radical left’s agenda. Democrats know this as well and they will scorch the earth to stop it.

  8. Democrats have made every day, week, month and year a time when President Trump should not be exercising his Article II powers. Even if Trump wins in a landslide, the GOP takes the House and has a super majority in the Senate, Democrats will declare a Trump nomination is not legitimate. So it doesn’t matter what number is precedent.

    1. I’m a Democrat.
      Of course the nomination is legitimate.
      The question isn’t the nomination, but whether the Senate should vote on it, given that McConnell blocked the Senate from voting on Garland’s nomination, given that McConnell stated that the voters should have a say in an election year, given statements by other Senators and whether they are likewise now acting like hypocrites, etc.

      1. The Senate should eliminate the abusive hearings and vote Trump’s nominee into the Court immediately.

        The Democrats disgraced themselves and the country in the Kavanaugh hearings. Don’t let the vandals and wreckers loose again.

        Any nominee by Trump will be better than any nominee put forward by Harris/Biden.

        1. Kavanaugh disgraced himself in the hearings, and according to multiple complaints filed with the court, he also committed perjury.

            1. The many people who submitted complaints to the court alleging perjury weren’t anonymous. You can read the complaints on the Tenth Circuit’s website.

        2. Young,
          Do you know if the rules of the hearing are fixed? I don’t care who the nominee is, they should never have to sit there and go through the type of inquisition Democrats have become famous for.

          1. they watched the Red Guards in China in the late 50s and they admired them so now they want to destroy our country with same methods

            restrain them forcefully before they destroy America

                1. True, but it would not surprise me if they one day ditched their faux proletariat fashion and burst into the streets wearing snazzy uniforms in the Hugo Boss style.

          2. The Senate can change its rules just as the House did for their Kafkaesque impeachment hearings. Reid changed Senate rules for a short term goal and now that change has come back to bite the Democrats.

            I posted a few days ago that ‘heaings’ be eliminated and now I see Rush urging the same. If elimination proves too difficult compress the time for them down to one day, no extensions.
            There is no excuse for letting the Democrats turn the Senate into a Soviet Show Trial forum.

            Or they can submit their objections in writing within 5 business days.

        1. So, if (when) Biden wins, the Senate goes Democrat, and Congress remains Democrat; and they change the Supreme Court to number 13 or 15 and appoint/pass four or six new progressive justices; and it’s all legal, done according to the Constitution, just like the Republicans are doing; then what would you say?

      2. Get back to me when the Senate Republicans violate the constitution in this process. Dishonoring their oath of office is the only hypocrisy that matters.

          1. That is a talking point that has been repeated over and over again by those with little knowledge. That democrats wished to hold things back is their problem. It’s doubly their problem when the things they held back were not backed by proof and were proven wrong with good evidence.

            Some like to say the evidence is in the Ford psych notes but then she should release her notes and we can see a nutty woman for what she is. I know its hard for you to think on your own. That is why you prefer to not think at all.

            1. Allan, you’re a nutty man. I know its hard for you to think on your own. That is why you prefer to not think at all.

          2. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant. If feelings mattered, House Democrats dishonored the process by not getting the witnesses they wanted the Senate to get for them. Did Senate Republicans fulfill their duties required under the constitution?

            Try again.

      3. The nomination of Kavanaugh was legitimate.
        The Senates actions were legitimate. (Read the Constitution)

        Garland was afforded the courtesies that Kavanaugh should have been provided but we are dealing with democrats that threaten to pack the court, pack the Senate, support violence along with what looks like insurrection and now they are talking about impeaching the President once again.

        Democrats are against the rule of law and are anti-American to such an extent that perhaps in the coming election along with winning the Presidency maybe Republicans will be dominate both houses.

        Blacks seem to be coming around as are hispanics. With anti-Semitism at a high I think we will see a substantial Jewish vote for the President. Suburban woman might be noting that the left plans to destroy their communities that will destroy their family’s lives.

        1. Garland wasn’t afforded squat. McConnell simply waited out the clock. If Clinton had won, the Progressive Justices would number 5 with Roberts adding a neutral. To get that advantage for America to progress, evolve, become more democratic, we will have to wait. An interesting point here is that if Trump nominates and the Senate confirms before the election then that warrants a like response from the Democrats should they win it all. If they wait until after to confirm then they lose all credibility. The expansion and loading to the left of the Supreme Court will be the result of Trump and McConnell. RBG gambled that Clinton would win and she could safely retire, but she had to stay and fight and unfortunately die too soon. Will Trump and McConnell gamble or will they be content with the 5 to 4 advantage they have now.

          1. I welcome a larger Supreme court if that’s how it goes. This will dilute the power of article III tyrants overall and be a net gain in the long run, if it happens

            the “packing” of Supreme court is nothing to fear

            Americans need law and order and the article III branch has ever created more disorder with its arbitrary cancellations of valid laws passed with proper process by elected officials. Packing the court will downside their overly important judicial veto in the long run. It may be hard to see it now but Republicans should disregard this as a threat.

          2. “Garland wasn’t afforded squat.”

            Issac, Garland was afforded the rights provided by the Constitution. Read it. On the other hand the democrats started lying and slandering with the Bork hearing and it reached a point in the Kavanaugh hearings that proved they would do anything and destroy anyone in their way. The democrats have become fascists.

            I didn’t bother with the rest of your post. You have a right to believe what you wish but you have no right to discard the Constitution.

  9. I think the difference between the two counts is reconcilable.

    First, the difference between *calendar year* (i.e. Jan-Dec) and *solar year before the election*. I suspect the NY Times was using the calendar year of the election (and thus only counting vacancies that arose on or after Jan. 1 of each election year). As a result, I expect that they are not counting:

    Thomas Johnson Oct. 31 1791 (Nov-Dec 1792)
    John Rutledge Dec. 10, 1795 (Nov.-Dec. 1796)
    Gabriel Duvall, Nov. 15, 1811 (Oct.- Dec. 1812)
    Joseph Story, Nov. 15, 1811 (Oct. –Dec. 1812)
    Smith Thompson Dec. 5, 1823 (Oct.-Dec. 1824)
    Roger Taney Dec. 28, 1835 (Nov. – Dec. 1836)
    Philip Barbour Dec. 28, 1835 (Nov. – Dec. 1836)
    Rufus Peckham Dec. 3, 1895 (Nov. 3, 1896)
    Anthony Kennedy November 30, 1987 (Nov. 8, 1988)

    None of these appointments occurred in the same *calendar year* as the election (January – November/December).

    Also, there is an important distinction between a vacancy occurring (what the NY Times quote refers to: “there have been 16 Supreme Court *vacancies* that occurred before Election Day”) and the president nominating a candidate (what your list is based on. For instance, you list Anthony Kennedy was nominated in November 1987 to fill a vacancy that arose when Lewis F. Powell Jr. retired on June 26, 1987 (Kennedy was only nominated after the nomination of Robert Bork failed).

    The most obvious place where this is an issue is John Tyler’s nominations. As you note, he made the following seven nominations, during an election year:

    John Spencer Jan. 8, 1844 (Nov. – Dec. 1844)
    Reuben Walworth March 13, 1844 (Nov. – Dec. 1844)
    Edward King June 5, 1844 (Nov. –Dec. 1844)
    John Spencer June 17, 1844 (Nov. –Dec. 1844)
    Reuben Walworth June 17, 1844 (Nov. –Dec. 1844)
    Edward King Dec. 4, 1844 (Nov. –Dec. 1844) *last day of the election on Dec. 4th
    Reuben Walworth Dec. 4, 1844 (Nov. –Dec. 1844) *last day of the election on Dec. 4th

    However, Tyler was only trying to fill two vacancies (arising from the deaths of Smith Thompson on December 18, 1843 and Henry Baldwin on April 21, 1844). As noted above, the Thompson vacancy might not be counted because it arose prior to January 1 of the election year. As a result, only one vacancy occurred in 1844.

    I have not checked the remainder of your list to determine when the vacancy occurred (as opposed to when the nomination occurred); however, I would note that Frank Murphy was nominated on January 4, 1940 to fill a vacancy created by the death of Pierce Butler on November 16, 1939 (similar to the above, this vacancy did not arise in the same calendar year as the election).

    What your list does not include (but the NY Times count presumably does) are any vacancies that arose during the election year where the nomination to fill the vacancy was not made until after the election.

    Anyway, if you remove the nine nominees who were nominated before January 1 of the election year, reduce the seven Tyler nominees to one vacancy, and remove Frank Murphy, that reduces your list from 30 to 14. I imagine that a couple of vacancies may have occurred in an election year but were not filled until after which may explain the small discrepancy.

    1. Thank you for your attention to relevant details. Had I read your comment before posted my own initial comment, I would have made mine (which overlaps with yours in content) much shorter.

      FWIW, re: “What your list does not include (but the NY Times count presumably does) are any vacancies that arose during the election year where the nomination to fill the vacancy was not made until after the election,” yes, they include several where the nomination was made after the election. If you’d like to read a non-paywalled version of the NYT article: https://web.archive.org/web/20200920190045/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/19/us/politics/supreme-court-vacancies-election-year.html

  10. Mr. Turley we keep quoting what RBG, Sotomayor, Graham and others said, doesn’t it and shouldn’t it just come down to what the Constitution says?

    1. Yes! Unfortunately we are dealing with people that place more value on binary hearsay and how they ‘feel’ about that.

      1. Jamie, you misunderstand them. They never believed Blasey Ford, they just used her to smear a Republican they aimed to cancel for their own strategic purposes.

        They also ever and always try and intimate us with slander. Time to stop caring what names they call us. We will move on one day from names to sticks and stones and we had better stiffen our necks to prepare for that day

    1. Allan – Thank goodness, at least our president doesn’t lie more than every day, and his cult members are quick to correct him when he does. Either that, or attack whomever pointed out his lies.

      1. Says the member of a different “cult”.

        A cult so blind that it chose a 78 year old man with Dementia as its nominee for POTUS.

        Go find a large mirror and remove the beam from your eye.

            1. You know nothing about me Rhodes. Lots of different people post under this name and avatar, and we have very varied views.

              1. “Lots of different people post under this name and avatar”

                The problem for you is that there is a limited number of those posting under a generic alias and icon. Their comments become recognizeable to most intelligent people even though they are not obvious to you.

                It is true Bookie can respond to Mespo sounding like Anonymous the Stupid but one need not differentiate the vile from the Stupid.

                PaintChips can post under anonymous and most of the times what he posts makes little sense as well but he mostly has a distinct style. But once again one need not differentiate the vile from the Stupid especially since there are gradations of Stupid which I am sure even you can recognize.

                1. Allan, try listing all of the people you think post under this icon, and we’ll see if you’re telling the truth that there is a limited number of those posting under a generic alias and icon. Their comments become recognizeable to most intelligent people, at least if you’re among the intelligent people.

                  1. “Allan, try listing all of the people you think post under this icon,”

                    I don’t have to. Most people, unlike you, can think for themselves. We have all pointed out enogh names that make my side of the aisle credible. I’ve been tracing btb through many of his aliases and have suspicions of others. He started out as Jan F. with a known occupation and his cherished ability to do his own taxes. He has used multiple aliases and icons since including the generic anonymous and icon along with the name anon and others. Sometimes he has had more than one alias at a time and pats himself on the back to make himself feel good.

                    Many of us have done the same with Peter Hill who probably leads the pack in the number of aliases. There are other aliases on the blog that have changed their identities over and over.

                    I can mention a bunch more but no one is as Stupid as Anonymous the Stupid who has patted himself on the back with other generic aliases and uses other icons. As you know very well he is a coward.

                    1. I doubt you can mention a bunch more. I doubt you can even identify the multiple people who posted under this icon on this one column.

                    2. “I doubt you can mention a bunch more. ”

                      With an intellect like yours I don’t question that you would be stuck. You “doubt you [I] can mention…” Good. That you admit to having doubts is the most intelligent thing I have heard from you so far. Continue with your doubts.

                    3. Anonymous the Stupid I guess you couldn’t understand what I said because otherwise you could have commented on the content and agreed or disagreed. That is OK. Everyone knows who you are…Anonymous the Stupid.

                    4. Allan, most people, unlike you, can think for themselves. No one is as Stupid as Allan the Stupid who has patted himself on the back. As you know very well he is a coward.

      2. Bill, Trump engages in puffery, Obama engaged in outright lies repeated over and over…you can keep your doctor…Remember? Or the proclaimed architect of ObamaCare admitting the Administration lied. Of course if you think Trump has lied repeatedly and significantly you could always produce his 5 worst lies so we can discuss them. You never do and your buddies refer us to hit pieces where the lies are quickly rebutted. That is your problem. You don’t have a handle on the facts.

        1. Trump engages in outright lies repeated over and over. People have already given you lists of his lies. You just close your eyes to them, pretending to yourself that they’ve been rebutted.

              1. here let sort through the mountain of verbiage they emit every day and explain to you’

                on second though I will let you wonder and go do something useful like weed the garden

                1. How convenient for you Kurtz. You can fantasize all you want about how Trump is a working class hero and his opponents all conspirators without check based on fact at all.

          1. “Trump engages in outright lies repeated”

            Then pick out the five most important lies and defend them. These lists are lists that contain only one side of the story and many of their explanations contain outright lies themselves.

            Trump may exagerate, may make a mistake, might tell a mistruth for national security but overall he has been quite honest and very transparent. Look at his tweets. They demonstrate he is not afraid to say what he thinks and doesn’t need a teleprompter. You complain about his tweets…in other words you are even afraid of his unfiltered honesty. We know you are afraid because you can’t even take a non generic name and icon. Total cowardice matching your total lack of intellectual prowess.

            If brains were involved in your comment you would have recognized that the lists have been disputed over and over again. Even random statements were clearly proven erroneous. It’s not enough to make a claim. You have to have adequate intellect to back your claim up. That is something you sorely lack.

    2. Allan calls for exact quotes when it serves him and ignores that he doesn’t have an exact quote when it serves him. What a shock.

      1. Steve, yet another alias? Too afraid to post under only one? What quotes do you want? Would you like to deal with any of the hoaxes promoted by the NYT and WP?

            1. they rarely read the articles and always bring their prejudiced viewpoint to Turley’s blog.

              too bad because we are in search of a sincere dialogue but their crazed devotion to the Dem Party Leadership has blinded them to the common good of the public

              what can we expect from a mob of people who cheer on months of riot, looting, arson, and felonious assault on peace officers?

              the Republican party welcomes people of goodwill from all walks of life, every shade color nationality sex and creed who value law and order. Vote Trump come nov.

          1. Any one of the numerous articles on Stacy Abrams winning the Governor’s race in Georgia. Articles alleging voter suppression by Republicans without any examples (even Abrams has not examples other than voter rolls being updated and names removed of people who hadn’t voted in 12-15 years, like dead people). Statements like “unprecedented” for the Sec of State to run for Gov/Sen when it’s happened 5 times before in Ga. But in those cases it was. Democrat Sec of State So it’s ok.

            In 2016 the Times said it was unprecedented not to vote on SCOTUS In an election year (not true), and now says it is unprecedented to vote on a SCOTUS In an election year.

            My question, if it’s an election year and this close to the election, why if the House doing anything…. leave it to the newly elected Representatives

          2. I’ve provided their lies many times before but I urge you to review what the NYT wrote regarding the Russia and Ukraine hoaxes along with their statements on the Steele Dossier. That is easy for you to find all by yourself and yes, at this time one must assume that this is just another alias even if only based on your first response to me. Right now I have an idea as to who you are but a bit too early to tell.

            I see some other statements below about additional NYT lies, but you don’t look these things up. That alone is defining who you are.

                  1. You have a short memory consistent with a low IQ. Don’t worry about these things Anonymous the Stupid. Make sure you put your shoes on the correct foot.

                    1. You have a short memory consistent with a low IQ. Don’t worry about these things Allan the Stupid. Make sure you put your shoes on the correct foot.

                    2. “Make sure you put your shoes on ”

                      I see that the coward, Anonymous the Stupid, has bumbled 9 more of his replies with his usual intellectual panache. Dumb as a door knob, he is totally unable to write something that is his own, not already written by another.

                      The numbers of postings and their repetition must represent the inner turmoil Anonymous the Stupid cannot control. Sucks to be him.

                    3. Bwaahaahaahaa!

                      We are cats playing with a mouse. Invest as much energy as you want in crafting replies, you lose because you cannot control yourself and walk away. All we have to do is repeat your insult back to you.

                      You are a coward, Allan the Stupid, who has no intellectual panache and is dumb as a door knob. Your easy provocation represents the inner turmoil Allan the Stupid cannot control. Sucks to be you.

  11. The NYT would never have an agenda in an election year. /sarc Your count is probably right. I have been hearing 29, so this list seems legit.

    1. of course not. they would if it was on their side in this instance. but it is not so all these lies about “abuse of power”

      it is actually the USE of power. for the common good.

      the anarchist loving Left does not hold constitutions in any regard at all. that is precisely what anarchy is all about

      mark them by their friends…. the criminals of ANTIFA and BLM

  12. The NY Times (MSM) bending the facts to advance an agenda – NEVER! Who would conceive such a thought? Anyone with a functioning brain stem.

Leave a Reply