BThe White House is racing to fill federal judgeships before Democrats take the Senate.
BLisa Rubin on X has the story with Paula Reid. Not the Supreme Court — district and appeals seats.
BLifetime jobs. No do-over.
BThe White House is, quote, pulling out all the stops.
BEven for nominees first approached after the election.
BThat part should bother you. Voters just delivered a verdict, and you're still installing judges.
BBrian, the Senate is still Republican until new members are sworn in. They have the votes.
BLegal, sure. But this isn't normal transition housekeeping. They already confirmed Gregory Cook.
BVotes are set for Daniel Domenico and Anna St. John.
BSome of these names weren't even in the pipeline before voters went to the polls.
BThe pipeline doesn't matter. The Constitution says the president nominates. Full stop.
BOh, come on. The spirit matters. You lose the Senate, you shouldn't sprint to fill the bench.
BYou keep saying fill. This isn't court packing. These are open seats.
BIt's a bench-stacking sprint and you know it.
BEvery party does this when it has a lame-duck majority. Democrats have done the same.
BThat makes it right?
BIt makes it expected. You can hate it and still admit it's within the rules.
BI do admit it's within the rules. That's exactly my problem.
BThen say that. The system lets a president nominate until the last hour.
BThen the system has a flaw. A fast confirmation blitz after losing an election.
BHow do you fix it? Ban confirmations after the midterms?
BVoters should have a say in lifetime seats. The election told us they want Democrats making those calls.
BThe election said who controls the new Senate. Right now, it's still the old Senate.
BThe White House is using that gap. That's the story.
BYes, and it's a real fight over whether lame-duck power is legitimate.
BMy take: if you need raw speed to seat judges, you're not governing, you're grabbing.
BAnd my take: the other side would do the same. The party with the gavel uses it.
BThey would. Doesn't make it good for the country.
BNo, but let's not pretend this is a brand-new scandal.
BFine, not new. Still a problem.
BThat's fair. Different fight, same nerve.
BAn account on X posts a quote it says is Thomas Massie.
BThe Kentucky congressman?
BRight. The quote says Republicans control the House, Senate, White House, and partly the Supreme Court, so why complain about election fraud?
BThen he allegedly says, 'We won all the damn elections.'
BThat quote is floating around, but no reliable source has it.
BIt's unverified, but the point is sharp. If you won everything, fraud claims sound weird.
BThe problem is, we can't pin it to Massie.
BA reply under the post makes the same point: you controlled all of it.
BThat's the argument against the fraud narrative in one line.
BBut some Republicans still say the system is rigged, even after winning.
BYou can think an election had problems and still win. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
BBut the optics are rough. Winning all branches makes 'rigged' a tough sell.
BMaybe. But without confirmation, this is shadow boxing.
BFair. We'll keep an eye on it.