5-4 supreme court ruling in favor of Trump's racist travel ban. Conservatives have hijacked the Supreme Court. 5-4 decision again. "Legislating from the bench!" as the right always says well it's true and typical Republican projection they are doing the thing they accuse others of doing.
Yesterday we got 5-4 decisions allowing Texases gerrymandered maps to stand even though lower courts had struck them down pointing out the racist disenfranchising of latinos.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that: "The Court today goes out of its way to permit the State of Texas to use maps that he three-judge District Court unanimously found were adopted for the purpose of preserving the racial discrimination that tainted its previous maps. [...] It means that, after years of litigation and undeniable proof of intentional discrimination, minority voters in Texas—despite constituting a majority of the population of the State—will continue to be underrepresented in the political process."
A couple weeks ago the Court ruled that it is totally fine for Ohio to purge it's voter rolls which aims to take away voting rights of blacks and poor people.
Yesterday the Supreme Court sent back a great ruling for gay rights against a bigoted florist to Washington state for reconsideration in light of the Court's ruling in the gay baker case. This is procedural, but the implication is that religious discrimination should be favored over LGBTQ rights.
Yesterday the Supreme Court deferred a new case from North Carolina challenging partisan election which will allow the GOPs gerrymandered maps to stand in the state of North Carolina as well.
While they were at it yesterday the Supreme Court ruled against Brendan Dassey from making a murderer the guy who was clearly co-erced into making a false confession and his confession was pretty much the main reason his uncle Steve Avery is in prison.
The GOP knows it can win some races and they know in the rest it is okay to cheat - the Supreme Court has their backs. In November Democrats could win the popular vote for the House of Representatives and still not have a majority in the House, they need to win by like 7 points due to Republican gerrymandering.
Gorsuch should not be there. McConnell and Trump (Putin) are complicit. Democracy is lost in the US. Republicans are just fine with that. IF they are able to overcome the odds I highly recommend they use the Republican dirty tricks playbook against the GOP. We know the Fox News is going to say they are doing it anyway so might as well do it. There were big stories on how, gasp, Michelle Obama, wanted to improve school lunches to fight childhood obesity, and Obama worse a tan suit (!), and Obama said he was willing to talk to Kim Jong Un - like omg they could not believe it you don't talk to dictators unless you are a Republican then it's ok.
Stolen Supreme Court seat. Merrick Garland. I'll never stop harping on it.
By the way, when the first attempt at instituting it came, Trump said it was vital to national security. In the time since, not a single person has been killed by a refugee.
Stolen Supreme Court seat. Merrick Garland. I'll never stop harping on it.
By the way, when the first attempt at instituting it came, Trump said it was vital to national security. In the time since, not a single person has been killed by a refugee.
The illegitimate Neil Gorsuch.
I'm pretty sure there's stats that no American has ever been killed by a terrorist refugee. Sure car accidents or whatever but not terrorism.
And no person from Trumps travel ban countries either. Just institutional racism approved by a stolen Supreme Court.
Headshaking moment... In at least one facility in Texas, migrant children who have been separated from their parents while the government works to deport them are required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance (in English) every day.
Headshaking moment... In at least one facility in Texas, migrant children who have been separated from their parents while the government works to deport them are required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance (in English) every day.
Technically, the travel ban cannot be "racist" since it does not target any specific ethnicity, only certain nations of origin. Incidentally, it cannot be "xenophobic", either, because foreign nationals from all over the world may still travel here freely. No travel bans are ever "essential" to national security; instead, they are only essential for the *perception* of national security.
The Republican Senate during 2016 should not have essentially prevented Obama from appointing someone to the Court, as I was stating at the time, but just because you may disagree with Justice Gorsuch does not mean that his appointment and confirmation are either illegitimate or illegal. If the Court thought his appointment was not proper they would not have allowed him to be seated on the bench.
Technically, the travel ban cannot be "racist" since it does not target any specific ethnicity, only certain nations of origin. Incidentally, it cannot be "xenophobic", either, because foreign nationals from all over the world may still travel here freely. No travel bans are ever "essential" to national security; instead, they are only essential for the *perception* of national security.
The Republican Senate during 2016 should not have essentially prevented Obama from appointing someone to the Court, as I was stating at the time, but just because you may disagree with Justice Gorsuch does not mean that his appointment and confirmation are either illegitimate or illegal. If the Court thought his appointment was not proper they would not have allowed him to be seated on the bench.
I mean, they didn't essentially prevent it, they did, even after Obama put up a moderate judge. It was and remains a totally unique event in the history of the Republic. It is the only time a President has been blocked wholesale from appointing a Supreme Court Justice. Not a specific Justice, but ANY Justice. Moreover, Republicans made it very clear they would not have allowed Hillary Clinton to appoint one either. Very, very interesting that the first time this happens is to the first black President, and the same tactic would have been used against what would have been the first female President. Regardless, the explicit policy of the Republican Party (and there is no arguing this) is that ONLY Republicans can now pick Supreme Court Justices. As long as they control the Senate, no Democrat will ever be able to appoint one again. If Democrats one day take back the Senate under a Republican President and do not adopt the same tactic, it will be the greatest act of political malpractice imaginable.
I remain steadfast in my belief that Obama should have called their bluff, fought fire with fire, and made a recess appointment of Garland and let the chips fall where they may. But such a move was never in his nature.
I can only think of two nominations in the last 35 years that failed. One was Robert Bork, and, let's be frank, the idea that the person who carried out Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre would be put on the highest court in the land was prepsoterous. The other was Harriet Myers, who was torpedoed by her own party. In both cases, Reagan and W. had their second choices confirmed.
I will have to go back and look into it--I do not recall if McConnell said "don't bother appointing anyone because we won't hold confirmation hearings" or if Obama bothered to appoint anyone. Probably both, which would explain why he didn't appoint anyone. If the Republicans didn't want Obama to appoint anyone to the Court then what the Senate *should* have done is let him appoint someone, drag out the confirmation hearing, then vote "no" and wait for him to appoint someone else before dragging out those hearings until the "no" vote, and so on. That, at least, would have been Constitutional and not an abdication of responsibility, which is what they did.
Speaking of dealing with illegal immigrants...Algeria is loading people onto trucks, dropping them off in the southern Sahara without food or water, and telling them to go immigrate into Niger. That does not absolve the Trump Administration's policy, to be certain, but it does provide a point of comparison.
Finally, re: Red Hen.... I have been on the correct side of that issue all along--I have always supported a business owner's right to reuse service to anyone for any reason, including politics. Given that I do not exist on "their side" or "your side", it is heartening to see people join me here in the middle where "the truth" resides.
It's not racist nor islamophobic per se as Saudi, the country from which the terrorists who destroyed two big towers in NY came from, is not concerned.
It's just stupid, like everything from Trump nowadays.
I remain steadfast in my belief that Obama should have called their bluff, fought fire with fire, and made a recess appointment of Garland and let the chips fall where they may. But such a move was never in his nature.
In this regard, Obama was too...weak, for lack of a better word...for politics. *I* would have made a recess appointment, as per the powers of my office as defined in the Constitution.
I mean, we're in the middle of a trade war, fighting with tariffes and now he asks Europeans (among others) to cut all oil import from Iran. Well he's not been friendly, he's behave in a quite antagonistic manner. Don't think it's the best moment to ask for favours.
I'd like everybody here on this forum to take a look at this. There has never been a better time for confirmation bias than right now in this country. I am seriously considering whether or not to believe anything I haven't seen with my own two eyes. Journalism on both sides of the spectrum is dying and being reborn as spin.
I remember hearing about Antonin Scalia's death on the news. Ten seconds after I heard, I told my mother that the GOP-controlled Senate would block anyone Obama might nominate, no matter who it was.
Minutes later, I heard Mitch McConnell had publicly stated that the GOP-controlled Senate would block anyone Obama might nominate, no matter who it was. As it happens, Obama nominated a well-known centrist who had been widely praised by politicians from both parties, and the GOP refused to even hold hearings for him.
Eventually, I even heard John McCain announce that if Clinton were elected, the GOP would also block her from nominating anyone for her entire term.
So, for anyone who might think it's implausible that the GOP's official public stance was that only Republican presidents are allowed to nominate justices... I'm afraid it is. This isn't some straw man that liberals invented to make the GOP look unreasonable. That's actually the GOP's explicit policy, according to Republican lawmakers themselves.
The GOP does not believe that presidential elections are legitimate unless the Republican wins. They made it clear that neither Obama's actual victory, nor Clinton's predicted victory, gave them any legitimate power to nominate justices per the Constitution. The GOP would not even hold hearings for Garland and promised to block any justice nominated by either Obama or Clinton; the decision to block nominees was based strictly on party politics before the nominee had even been named.
I find it distressing that the concept of a democratic election is no longer viewed as legitimate by the Republican party.
I remember hearing about Antonin Scalia's death on the news. Ten seconds after I heard, I told my mother that the GOP-controlled Senate would block anyone Obama might nominate, no matter who it was.
Minutes later, I heard Mitch McConnell had publicly stated that the GOP-controlled Senate would block anyone Obama might nominate, no matter who it was. As it happens, Obama nominated a well-known centrist who had been widely praised by politicians from both parties, and the GOP refused to even hold hearings for him.
Eventually, I even heard John McCain announce that if Clinton were elected, the GOP would also block her from nominating anyone for her entire term.
So, for anyone who might think it's implausible that the GOP's official public stance was that only Republican presidents are allowed to nominate justices... I'm afraid it is. This isn't some straw man that liberals invented to make the GOP look unreasonable. That's actually the GOP's explicit policy, according to Republican lawmakers themselves.
The GOP does not believe that presidential elections are legitimate unless the Republican wins. They made it clear that neither Obama's actual victory, nor Clinton's predicted victory, gave them any legitimate power to nominate justices per the Constitution. The GOP would not even hold hearings for Garland and promised to block any justice nominated by either Obama or Clinton; the decision to block nominees was based strictly on party politics before the nominee had even been named.
I find it distressing that the concept of a democratic election is no longer viewed as legitimate by the Republican party.
The only REMOTE (and it is very remote) parallel (and it isn't even a parallel) you can draw is the defeat of Robert Bork's nomination. This man was given a full hearing before the Senate. And as I mentioned earlier, the idea of the man who Nixon finally found to carry out his obstruction of justice during Watergate was outright insulting to anyone who even pretends to care about the rule of law. If ever there was a time to defeat a Supreme Court nominee, Robert Bork was certainly that time.
All other Republican-picked Justices have had full hearings, and they have all gotten through the Senate (at least from Reagan til now). This was never considered controversial. It was the way the system has worked for over 200 years. What Mitch McConnell did was perhaps one of the most radical acts in the history of American governance that is probably only surpassed by the actions of Lincoln or Roosevelt during wartime. He unilaterally took away the Constitutional power of the sitting, duly-elected President to nominate a candidate for the Supreme Court. And the reason it worked is because there is no actual mechanism in place to stop someone that cynical from doing so. Because we used to be operating under a set of governmental norms that held everything together. They have been obliterated.
In direct regards to the Travel Ban case, does anyone else find it exceedingly worrisome that, in the case of the travel ban, the court seems to have been able to divine that the Administration was NOT acting out of animus against a religion, but in the case of the Masterpiece Baker, they concluded that that State of Colorado WAS acting out of animus against a religion?? What vision came to them in dream that allowed them to be so certain of these unknowable convictions?? Because what I see here is that when the alleged religious component is aimed at Muslims, it is totally valid. When the alleged act is aimed at Christians, it cannot be tolerated. This country does not believe in freedom of religion, at least not equally. You may be free to practice how you wish, but don't get it twisted. One religion is way more equal than all the others.
I'd like everybody here on this forum to take a look at this. There has never been a better time for confirmation bias than right now in this country. I am seriously considering whether or not to believe anything I haven't seen with my own two eyes. Journalism on both sides of the spectrum is dying and being reborn as spin.
@Balrog99 I'm not sure what your point is here - I thought it was clear quite a while ago that, even if the Russians had a favorite in the election, they also had a specific aim of increasing discord by ramping up the rhetoric on all sides. Is there something I'm missing?
I'd like everybody here on this forum to take a look at this. There has never been a better time for confirmation bias than right now in this country. I am seriously considering whether or not to believe anything I haven't seen with my own two eyes. Journalism on both sides of the spectrum is dying and being reborn as spin.
@Balrog99 I'm not sure what your point is here - I thought it was clear quite a while ago that, even if the Russians had a favorite in the election, they also had a specific aim of increasing discord by ramping up the rhetoric on all sides. Is there something I'm missing?
Just pointing out that a lot of these 'stories' being thrown around in the media may not be stories at all. I think I'd give it at least a few days before I'd give credence to any story not easily verifiable. Reporters are NOT doing their homework anymore. If they can't be bothered to verify their sources, I can't be bothered to believe them.
In direct regards to the Travel Ban case, does anyone else find it exceedingly worrisome that, in the case of the travel ban, the court seems to have been able to divine that the Administration was NOT acting out of animus against a religion, but in the case of the Masterpiece Baker, they concluded that that State of Colorado WAS acting out of animus against a religion?? What vision came to them in dream that allowed them to be so certain of these unknowable convictions?? Because what I see here is that when the alleged religious component is aimed at Muslims, it is totally valid. When the alleged act is aimed at Christians, it cannot be tolerated. This country does not believe in freedom of religion, at least not equally. You many be free to practice how you wish, but don't get it twisted. One religion is way more equal than all the others.
I'm not disputing your conclusion. However, while I may not approve of the Masterpiece verdict, there were public meetings with records providing evidence of intolerance of religious convictions - so there definitely was ammunition for SCOTUS to use. In the case of the travel ban you may believe it was religiously motivated, but there's not the same definitive evidence - and there is the counter-argument that only some muslim countries are covered by the ban.
Just pointing out that a lot of these 'stories' being thrown around in the media may not be stories at all. I think I'd give it at least a few days before I'd give credence to any story not easily verifiable. Reporters are NOT doing their homework anymore. If they can't be bothered to verify their sources, I can't be bothered to believe them.
My problem has always been with "anonymous sources". If, as a journalist, your source is speaking to the media on the condition of anonymity because 1) they are not authorized to speak to the media, 2) the sensitivity of the issue at hand, or 3) they fear retaliation then what proof do you have that this unnamed person actually said what they said? How do we know that you, as the journalist, didn't just invent the anonymous statement to pad your article or sneak in an op-ed disguised as a legitimate piece? I have seen both left-leaning and right-leaning sources do this and it always annoys me. I understand that whistleblowers and leakers are necessary but by their very nature anonymous sources simply cannot be trusted.
I'd like everybody here on this forum to take a look at this. There has never been a better time for confirmation bias than right now in this country. I am seriously considering whether or not to believe anything I haven't seen with my own two eyes. Journalism on both sides of the spectrum is dying and being reborn as spin.
@Balrog99 I'm not sure what your point is here - I thought it was clear quite a while ago that, even if the Russians had a favorite in the election, they also had a specific aim of increasing discord by ramping up the rhetoric on all sides. Is there something I'm missing?
Just pointing out that a lot of these 'stories' being thrown around in the media may not be stories at all. I think I'd give it at least a few days before I'd give credence to any story not easily verifiable. Reporters are NOT doing their homework anymore. If they can't be bothered to verify their sources, I can't be bothered to believe them.
I understand that, but I don't see any real grounds here for doubting the stories of the reputable media. Even where they have included troll tweets on fairly rare occasions I think that's to provide local 'color' for stories, rather than in support of main messages. To me it's more of a problem that so many people simply don't trust reputable media any more and source information entirely from social media - which is far, far less reliable and helps promote greater divisions.
Technically, the travel ban cannot be "racist" since it does not target any specific ethnicity, only certain nations of origin.
Bullcrap. If the intent of the ban is to block people of certain ethnicities, then it is racist, no matter how they try to put lipstick on it.
For a comparable example, take the Jim Crow poll tax laws. After the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted all races the right to vote, a number of states enacted poll taxes with a "grandfather clause" that said if your father or grandfather voted prior to the abolition of slavery, you were exempt from the tax. While some (mostly poor) whites were affected, the main goal of these laws was the (successful) disenfranchisement of newly-freed African-Americans. The fact that they found a way to write the law that didn't mention race doesn't change the fact that the intent of the law was to target a specific race.
Technically, the travel ban cannot be "racist" since it does not target any specific ethnicity, only certain nations of origin.
Bullcrap. If the intent of the ban is to block people of certain ethnicities, then it is racist, no matter how they try to put lipstick on it.
The current travel ban includes both Venezuela and DPRK in addition to various Middle Eastern countries; please explain how it targets specific ethnic groups. As written, it targets specific *countries*, which is not equivalent to ethnicity. People who disagree with it wish to apply the negative connotation "racist" to it in order to generate more negative feelings about it. I disagree with the ban, myself, but my reasoning is different--it won't stop a motivated militant person from coming here, only inconvenience innocent people.
Technically, the travel ban cannot be "racist" since it does not target any specific ethnicity, only certain nations of origin.
Bullcrap. If the intent of the ban is to block people of certain ethnicities, then it is racist, no matter how they try to put lipstick on it.
The current travel ban includes both Venezuela and DPRK in addition to various Middle Eastern countries; please explain how it targets specific ethnic groups. As written, it targets specific *countries*, which is not equivalent to ethnicity. People who disagree with it wish to apply the negative connotation "racist" to it in order to generate more negative feelings about it. I disagree with the ban, myself, but my reasoning is different--it won't stop a motivated militant person from coming here, only inconvenience innocent people.
North Korea is specifically on the list for the sole reason of making it LOOK like it isn't a Muslim ban. For one thing, who the hell is going to escape North Korea and come here as a refugee?? And secondly, I was told less than two weeks ago by none other than Donald Trump himself that we no longer have anything to fear from North Korea. That threat is over. He said so. Why are they on the list anymore at all??
Technically, the travel ban cannot be "racist" since it does not target any specific ethnicity, only certain nations of origin.
Bullcrap. If the intent of the ban is to block people of certain ethnicities, then it is racist, no matter how they try to put lipstick on it.
The current travel ban includes both Venezuela and DPRK in addition to various Middle Eastern countries; please explain how it targets specific ethnic groups. As written, it targets specific *countries*, which is not equivalent to ethnicity. People who disagree with it wish to apply the negative connotation "racist" to it in order to generate more negative feelings about it. I disagree with the ban, myself, but my reasoning is different--it won't stop a motivated militant person from coming here, only inconvenience innocent people.
Well the dissenting opinion of SCOTUS was that the policy was aimed at implementing Trump's promises during the campaign and early in his administration to implement a total shutdown on muslims. If I were a judge I'm sure I would have said the same, given that the policy is still substantially the same in effect as previous versions which did specifically target religion. The fact that religion is not mentioned in this version of the ban just provides the majority of SCOTUS with enough of a fig leaf to justify their decision.
Technically, the travel ban cannot be "racist" since it does not target any specific ethnicity, only certain nations of origin.
Bullcrap. If the intent of the ban is to block people of certain ethnicities, then it is racist, no matter how they try to put lipstick on it.
The current travel ban includes both Venezuela and DPRK in addition to various Middle Eastern countries; please explain how it targets specific ethnic groups. As written, it targets specific *countries*, which is not equivalent to ethnicity. People who disagree with it wish to apply the negative connotation "racist" to it in order to generate more negative feelings about it. I disagree with the ban, myself, but my reasoning is different--it won't stop a motivated militant person from coming here, only inconvenience innocent people.
Look at the intent of the travel ban. As Donald Trump himself said "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”
His intent with the travel ban was crystal clear - to target Muslims.
It is analogous to the Jim Crow poll tax laws. Although the poll tax laws did not specifically say "black people can't vote", they were crafted to mainly disenfranchise black citizens. Just because the Jim Crow laws also affected some (mostly poor) whites doesn't change the racist intent of the laws.
Comments
#deerlivesmatter
EDIT: NM misread the result
- Yesterday we got 5-4 decisions allowing Texases gerrymandered maps to stand even though lower courts had struck them down pointing out the racist disenfranchising of latinos.
- A couple weeks ago the Court ruled that it is totally fine for Ohio to purge it's voter rolls which aims to take away voting rights of blacks and poor people.
- Yesterday the Supreme Court sent back a great ruling for gay rights against a bigoted florist to Washington state for reconsideration in light of the Court's ruling in the gay baker case. This is procedural, but the implication is that religious discrimination should be favored over LGBTQ rights.
- Yesterday the Supreme Court deferred a new case from North Carolina challenging partisan election which will allow the GOPs gerrymandered maps to stand in the state of North Carolina as well.
- While they were at it yesterday the Supreme Court ruled against Brendan Dassey from making a murderer the guy who was clearly co-erced into making a false confession and his confession was pretty much the main reason his uncle Steve Avery is in prison.
The GOP knows it can win some races and they know in the rest it is okay to cheat - the Supreme Court has their backs. In November Democrats could win the popular vote for the House of Representatives and still not have a majority in the House, they need to win by like 7 points due to Republican gerrymandering.In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that:
"The Court today goes out of its way to permit the State of Texas to use maps that he three-judge District Court unanimously found were adopted for the purpose of preserving the racial discrimination that tainted its previous maps. [...]
It means that, after years of litigation and undeniable proof of intentional discrimination, minority voters in Texas—despite constituting a majority of the population of the State—will continue to be underrepresented in the political process."
Gorsuch should not be there. McConnell and Trump (Putin) are complicit. Democracy is lost in the US. Republicans are just fine with that. IF they are able to overcome the odds I highly recommend they use the Republican dirty tricks playbook against the GOP. We know the Fox News is going to say they are doing it anyway so might as well do it. There were big stories on how, gasp, Michelle Obama, wanted to improve school lunches to fight childhood obesity, and Obama worse a tan suit (!), and Obama said he was willing to talk to Kim Jong Un - like omg they could not believe it you don't talk to dictators unless you are a Republican then it's ok.
https://www.lesechos.fr/monde/etats-unis/0301865352480-trump-reitere-sa-menace-sur-les-automobiles-europeennes-2186559.php#xtor=CS1-25
*grabs popcorn*
By the way, when the first attempt at instituting it came, Trump said it was vital to national security. In the time since, not a single person has been killed by a refugee.
I'm pretty sure there's stats that no American has ever been killed by a terrorist refugee. Sure car accidents or whatever but not terrorism.
And no person from Trumps travel ban countries either. Just institutional racism approved by a stolen Supreme Court.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/06/25/migrant-children-must-pledge-allegiance-country-that-doesn-want-them/bl62HX8QMf4VtKIJib19eK/story.html
The Republican Senate during 2016 should not have essentially prevented Obama from appointing someone to the Court, as I was stating at the time, but just because you may disagree with Justice Gorsuch does not mean that his appointment and confirmation are either illegitimate or illegal. If the Court thought his appointment was not proper they would not have allowed him to be seated on the bench.
I remain steadfast in my belief that Obama should have called their bluff, fought fire with fire, and made a recess appointment of Garland and let the chips fall where they may. But such a move was never in his nature.
I can only think of two nominations in the last 35 years that failed. One was Robert Bork, and, let's be frank, the idea that the person who carried out Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre would be put on the highest court in the land was prepsoterous. The other was Harriet Myers, who was torpedoed by her own party. In both cases, Reagan and W. had their second choices confirmed.
Speaking of dealing with illegal immigrants...Algeria is loading people onto trucks, dropping them off in the southern Sahara without food or water, and telling them to go immigrate into Niger. That does not absolve the Trump Administration's policy, to be certain, but it does provide a point of comparison.
Finally, re: Red Hen.... I have been on the correct side of that issue all along--I have always supported a business owner's right to reuse service to anyone for any reason, including politics. Given that I do not exist on "their side" or "your side", it is heartening to see people join me here in the middle where "the truth" resides.
It's just stupid, like everything from Trump nowadays.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-trump-admin-calls-allies-to-end-oil-imports-from-iran-by-november-1.6217389
I mean, we're in the middle of a trade war, fighting with tariffes and now he asks Europeans (among others) to cut all oil import from Iran. Well he's not been friendly, he's behave in a quite antagonistic manner. Don't think it's the best moment to ask for favours.
From the same newspaper, when France passed a law prohibiting to cover your face there was an international backlash.
Now everyone does it apparently.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/21/technology/american-media-russian-trolls/index.html
Minutes later, I heard Mitch McConnell had publicly stated that the GOP-controlled Senate would block anyone Obama might nominate, no matter who it was. As it happens, Obama nominated a well-known centrist who had been widely praised by politicians from both parties, and the GOP refused to even hold hearings for him.
Eventually, I even heard John McCain announce that if Clinton were elected, the GOP would also block her from nominating anyone for her entire term.
So, for anyone who might think it's implausible that the GOP's official public stance was that only Republican presidents are allowed to nominate justices... I'm afraid it is. This isn't some straw man that liberals invented to make the GOP look unreasonable. That's actually the GOP's explicit policy, according to Republican lawmakers themselves.
The GOP does not believe that presidential elections are legitimate unless the Republican wins. They made it clear that neither Obama's actual victory, nor Clinton's predicted victory, gave them any legitimate power to nominate justices per the Constitution. The GOP would not even hold hearings for Garland and promised to block any justice nominated by either Obama or Clinton; the decision to block nominees was based strictly on party politics before the nominee had even been named.
I find it distressing that the concept of a democratic election is no longer viewed as legitimate by the Republican party.
All other Republican-picked Justices have had full hearings, and they have all gotten through the Senate (at least from Reagan til now). This was never considered controversial. It was the way the system has worked for over 200 years. What Mitch McConnell did was perhaps one of the most radical acts in the history of American governance that is probably only surpassed by the actions of Lincoln or Roosevelt during wartime. He unilaterally took away the Constitutional power of the sitting, duly-elected President to nominate a candidate for the Supreme Court. And the reason it worked is because there is no actual mechanism in place to stop someone that cynical from doing so. Because we used to be operating under a set of governmental norms that held everything together. They have been obliterated.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomination-219248
In March 2016, Obama nominated Merrick Garland:
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/obama-supreme-court-announcement/index.html
In October 2016, McCain said the GOP would block ALL Supreme Court nominations if Clinton won:
https://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498328520/sen-mccain-says-republicans-will-block-all-court-nominations-if-clinton-wins
For a comparable example, take the Jim Crow poll tax laws. After the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted all races the right to vote, a number of states enacted poll taxes with a "grandfather clause" that said if your father or grandfather voted prior to the abolition of slavery, you were exempt from the tax. While some (mostly poor) whites were affected, the main goal of these laws was the (successful) disenfranchisement of newly-freed African-Americans. The fact that they found a way to write the law that didn't mention race doesn't change the fact that the intent of the law was to target a specific race.
His intent with the travel ban was crystal clear - to target Muslims.
It is analogous to the Jim Crow poll tax laws. Although the poll tax laws did not specifically say "black people can't vote", they were crafted to mainly disenfranchise black citizens. Just because the Jim Crow laws also affected some (mostly poor) whites doesn't change the racist intent of the laws.