Thursday Reads: Trump’s Inferno

trumps-infernoWell, the year 2016 continues to be a challenging one.  I seriously can’t look at any type of media without wanting a script for a happy pill along with a huge bottle of Jamison. It’s just really like living through the Divine Comedy. We’re getting closer and closer to the lower levels as we’re approaching the first season of the Mad King of Hell.

Today’s circle is the one where the Greedy push boulders against the boulders of the Wasteful. It’s a sin against sin extravaganza. Maybe the WWE executive Linda McMahon can arrange for something compelling? I’m sure it’s more up her alley than her pending appointment to lead the SBA into oblivion.

The WSJ has a great article behind it’s awesome paywall illustrating exactly how much of a spider’s web Trump Enterprises represents with the news that it would take an army of forensic scientists and hackers to figure out all the combinations of potential conflicts the Mad King of Hell has with enemy states and other states and his portfolio.  Here’s a brief description from WAPO’s Plum Line.  The oligarchy of kleptocrats is nearing perfect completion.  This continues to be the perfect storm for the End Days of OUR Republic.

If you want to understand why the conflicts-of-interest involving Donald Trump’s business holdings and presidency could matter enormously in the months and years to come, read this single sentence buried in today’s big Wall Street Journal piece about those holdings:

It’s not clear how much Mr. Trump’s businesses would benefit from his proposal to cut business tax rates.

The key part of that sentence is the phrase, “it’s not clear.” The Journal piece reports that Trump has employed a “web” of limited liability companies to house assets accounting for over $300 million of the revenues he reported in disclosure forms last year. The crucial revelation in the piece is that these entities are a key reason why many of the specific details of Trump’s holdings remain shrouded in “opacity.”

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports this morning: “Trump is considering formally turning over the operational responsibility for his real estate company to his two adult sons, but he intends to keep a stake in the business and resist calls to divest, according to several people briefed on the discussions.”

As I’ve reported, if Trump merely turns his businesses over to family members (never mind whether he keeps a stake), it will not remove the potential for conflicts or even corruption. His family could stand to benefit from his policy decisions, or alternatively, other entities could seek to curry favor with the new president through deals that benefit his businesses, and by extension, his family (or himself, if he keeps a stake). Ethics experts believe only putting his interests into a genuine blind trust, via the liquidation of his assets, would truly remove the possibility of conflicts.

But, now that this looks unlikely to happen, what needs to be emphasized is not simply that such conflicts are very real possibilities, though that’s important. It also matters greatly that our lack of knowledge of the full range and scope of his interests makes it hard to evaluate whetherthese conflicts are taking place in any given situation, and if so, what they truly mean. And that’s where the new Journal story comes in. Here is the rub of the matter:

None of the 96 LLCs examined by the Journal appear to regularly release audited financial statements. That opacity — compounded by Mr. Trump’s decision to break with decades of precedent by declining to release his tax returns — makes it impossible to gauge the full extent of potential conflicts between his business interests and presidential role.

The scope and complexity of Mr. Trump’s private business holdings is unprecedented for incoming presidents, said Norman Eisen, President Barack Obama’s former White House ethics lawyer. “We’ve never seen anything like this,” he said.

It’s not clear how much Mr. Trump’s businesses would benefit from his proposal to cut business tax rates.

Mr. Trump’s wealth is impossible to measure with precision. His financial disclosure form isn’t externally audited and — following government rules — often uses bands, such as more than $50 million, rather than exact amounts to report assets and revenue or income. Only a handful of the hundreds of entities listed in Mr. Trump’s financial disclosure publish audited financial statements — and those figures don’t necessarily illuminate Mr. Trump’s financial situation.

Trump has called for huge tax cuts, including for top earners and businesses, and Congressional Republicans are all but certain to go forward with the same. But, as the Journal points out, we cannot know what impact these policies will have on Trump’s own businesses — or his family’s.

greedy-vs-wastefulTrump has no intention of giving up his stake in the family kleptocracy.  Hey, why should he?  No one can even get him to release his taxes.  It’s going to take a full on court battle to get him do do anything remotely constitutional or legal.  It’s his MO.

Meanwhile, the appointments to the Cabinets continue to be Orwellian.  The meetings will likely resemble those infamous scenes from the “Wolf Of Wall Street”.   Trump is naming a fast food CEO to be Labor Secretary that will make you ill.

President-elect Donald Trump will name Andy Puzder, CEO of a major fast-food chain, to serve as Labor secretary, according to Bloomberg.

Puzder, who’s the CEO of CKE Restaurants, met with Trump for the second time on Wednesday. CKE Restaurants is the parent company of burger chains Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s.

During Thursday morning’s transition call, Trump aides wouldn’t confirm or deny that Puzder  would be tapped for the position, but said there will “additional Cabinet information” announced later in the day.

Puzder served as an economic adviser to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign and has been a vocal opponent of President Obama’s controversial rule expanding overtime pay.

Obama’s rule, which would require overtime pay for most salaried workers who make less than $47,476 annually, is temporarily on hold due to a Texas court’s order.

In an op-ed published in May, Puzder argued that the rule adds to the “extensive regulatory maze the Obama Administration has imposed on employers.

International Franchise Association’s President and CEO Robert Cresanti applauded Trump’s expected nomination, calling Puzder “an exceptional choice” to helm the Labor Department.

And now, if President-elect Donald Trump has his way, an enemy of the Fight for $15 movement will lead the U.S. Labor Department.

On Thursday, Trump revealed that he had nominated Andrew Puzder, CEO of CKE Restaurants, to be Labor Secretary. CKE Restaurants is the parent company of Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr., two fast food companies that have been targeted by Fight for 15. Puzder himself is on record as an opponent of raising the minimum wage, and has said that he would like to try automating service more service jobs in response to wage hikes.

18121534652_2b791ae54a_bThen, there is further evidence that Trump has no idea what he’s doing in terms of US diplomacy.  To make matters worse, his latest possible appointment as Secretary of State is so bad that he makes Rudy G look tame by comparison. Remember disgraced shill Rep. Dana Rohrabacher?  He’s out there defending Russia’s Human Rights Record.  Again, Trump’s new mantra for the American people is let them all rot and die while we get rich.  As long as Trump et al become rich as Russian Oligarchs, we can just suffer.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who has emerged as a dark-horse pick for Donald Trump’s secretary of state, tangled with a Yahoo News host Wednesday over whether Russia is a major human rights abuser. Rohrabacher’s verdict: It’s “baloney.”

The exchange is pretty remarkable — in part because he was debating a Yahoo host who just happens to be from the former Soviet Union, but mostly because Rohrabacher seemed to dismiss long-standing and documented evidence of abuses in Russia. Rohrabacher seemed to take exception to Russia being mentioned in the same breath as China when it comes to human rights abuses.

I doubt seriously the Republic will withstand all of this. In his farewell to the Senate,  outgoing Senate Majority Leader and future retiree Harry Reid believes the filibuster will soon be dead.


To hear Reid tell it, the party’s electoral collapse wasn’t a result of poor messaging or even a bad candidate. It stemmed from looser campaign finance rules, FBI Director James Comey and the influence of a few powerful individuals — namely the Koch brothers, his long-running nemeses. The outgoing Senate minority leader is unapologetic on behalf of his party, and remains resolute that Democrats don’t need to chart a new political course after their 2016 debacle.

“They have Trump, I understand that. But I don’t think the Democratic Party is in that big of trouble,” Reid said in a half-hour interview with Politico on Wednesday, one day before he’ll deliver his farewell address. “I mean, if Comey kept his mouth shut, we would have picked up a couple more Senate seats and we probably would have elected Hillary.”

And Reid not only refused to admit any misgivings about invoking the “nuclear option” for most nominations — a move that’s backfiring now by empowering Republicans — he predicted it’s just a matter of time before the filibuster is done away with altogether.

Though the filibuster is Democrats’ best weapon against Trump, Reid said it would be a “mistake” for his party to reflexively oppose whatever Trump proposes. But the outgoing minority leader also wants Democrats to stand firm for their core principles, urging lawmakers to do “everything in their power” to block “wacky” Supreme Court nominees and to not be “complicit” in supporting GOP priorities like tax cuts for the rich and repealing Obamacare.

6a00d8341c464853ef017d4182d778970c-500wiFrankly, any Democrat should OPPOSE everything the Republicans try to do at this point.  It’s our only hope.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?


63 Comments on “Thursday Reads: Trump’s Inferno”

  1. janicen says:

    Of course Trump isn’t going to give up his share of his businesses. He intends to increase their value tenfold at the expense of the American taxpayer. What about his personality would lead anyone to conclude he would pass on that opportunity? There were those who thought the gravity of his responsibility and his position as POTUS would change him. He said it himself on an episode of The Apprentice, I’ll never forget it because it was the one thing I ever heard him say that I agreed with and that is, “People don’t change”

  2. William says:

    To perhaps oversimplify, but not much, this was all caused by Democrats never asserting power when they had it. The Republicans played it no holds barrred, and the Democrats always have this sense of decency, or guilt about having power, and they let the Repubilcans obstruct and block at every turn. The ultimate in this was President Obama wittingly or unwittingly now standing for the mind-boggling historical proposition that a party which controls the Senate has the right to keep a Supreme Court nominee picked by a President of another party, from even getting a hearing for a year. I do not comprehend how someone who actually acceded to this as if it were just part of the rules, is generally considered by liberals to be a great President. If he had stood up and fought for the nomination, and even appointed Garland during a recess session earlier this year, we might have gotten decisions on voting rights suppressions, and won this election. Or of course if he had told the country that he had clear Intelligence information that Russia was actively trying to throw the election to Trump. But that wouldn’t have been sporting, apparently, so he let it go. And he never did what Bill Clinton had suggested, invoked the 14th Amendment to force the debt ceiling to be raised when the Republicans extorted things under threat of not raising it. And he did not use the DOJ to sue everybody and everything which was attempting to suppress the vote this year, which suppression of course cost Hillary a certain election win.

    And inevitably, as anyone who has been paying attention would have known, when the Republicans obtained any sort of power, they used it to the hilt. Now that they have wormed and gamed and cheated their way to controlling all three branches of government, they will set up a totalitarian state. You see, all that attempted compromising, that “we are all people of good will” nonsense, did absolutely no good at all. Neville Chamberlain comes to mind, in that he was foolish enough to believe Hitler, instead of seeing him for what he was. And i’m not directing this specifidally at Obama, but at all the Democrats, including Joe Biden, who not so subtly criticized Hillary after she attacked Republicans, by saying “Paul Ryan is one of the good guys.” Yes, he is a “good guy” who is a social darwinist from the 1890’s, who will destroy security and safety for everyone in this country who is not either a millionaire, or a member of Congress with their lifetime pension and medical care. They are not good guys, they are evil and soulless people. We needed an FDR, or even LBJ, who knew how to force a recalcitrant Congress or Court to get out of the way.

    Just to close on a teast a note of non-fatality, everyone who cares, and ceratinly those who run the Democratic Party, must above all try to stop voter suppression, which is the Republicans’ ticket to a permanent dictatorship here. And if the courts are too packed with social darwinists to help us, then it has to be district by district at the state level, to gain control of state legislatures. If that isn’t done, the vote will be so suppressed that it won’t even matter if Trump and his cronies wreck the economy, because only their supporters will be alllowed to vote in the next election, just like in any totalitarian state whose nature used to horrify us when we read about them in junior high school.

    • dakinikat says:

      They need to punish Mitch McConnell and stop Paul Ryan.

    • Delphyne49 says:

      Thank you for this very lucid comment, William – I appreciate it and enjoyed reading it.

      I’m writing this while wearing a 2008 T-shirt from Hillary’s campaign that says “Hillary – Democrat with a spine” and has a spinal cord down the back of the shirt. I was going to retire my Hillary shirts after 11/9, but decided they’re like a badge of honor that I like wearing.

      • dakinikat says:

        I still have my yard sign up in my window and my bumper sticker on my car. I still proudly wear my T shirt that has Hillary’s quote “This one is for every one …” because we have been beaten down and we’re trying to get back up again.

        • Delphyne49 says:

          I have my bumper sticker and my stained glass “H with the arrow” ornament hanging in my window. Not taking that down ever and the bumper sticker stays on for as long as it can last. I, too, have that T-Shirt, Kat, and love it – I remember when she said that, I think in Ohio. It still brings tears…

    • jackyt says:

      Thank you so much for this, William. Every. Last. Word!
      My guess is that Obama sees himself as a ‘statesman’… actually muddling in Politics is so de classe, dontcha know.

    • William,
      I agree with you but when I follow this thinking I can’t help but question not only Obama but Dems–what is really driving policy and leadership? In other words, if we’ve already lost being a democracy in any real sense of the word, what now? It is hard to understand D’s tactics as simply that Dems are nicer than R’s. I just can’t quite believe that. Maybe it is true despite my doubts. I was willing to believe that Clinton would work toward a positive vision. But I am having trouble keeping that belief about Dems, even though many individual D. politicans are admirable and I support them.

      • Enheduanna says:

        I’m coming to believe the reason GOPers are so successful on a local level is because it tends to be the authoritarian “strict Father” patriarchal types who want to boss everybody else around.

        So yeah – Dems are nicer. lol

        If you have not read “The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer and you are interested in what makes people tick – be sure and check it out:

        It’s free online book and that link is from University of Manitoba.

        • contrask says:

          The workshop I went to last week-end talked about this. Left leaners are motivated by love and freedom – right by law and order. Left favors an egalitarian style of governance, right favors authoritarian and hierarchical. We view them as judgmental and unloving and they view us as lawless and immoral. This helped me a lot, but I don’t know how we move forward and win back our country.

          • NW Luna says:

            Similar to what George Lakeoff writes about. The Electoral College and the disrepresentation in Congress artificially weight what is a minority of the population. Other than resisting, I don’t know what to do.

            Maybe I should word that as resisting is the bedrock of what I can do. And if all the people horrified at Trump refused to accommodate or enable him, we could block him.

          • contrask says:

            But the left has to learn to get our agenda across to them in a way they can agree with based on mutual respect. And we can’t reach the ones that are set far right, we have to go for the moderates to find consensus. Of course, Hillary had plans for this.

      • roofingbird says:

        Dems are not nicer because the GOP is more authoritarian. Its that very aspect of authoritarianism that the Dems failed to rise above in their own tribe. You only have to go back to Kerry’s statement in the 2008 primary about Obame being the transformative figure, or Obama’s statements about “Annie Oakley”, or his mother’s tears, or now to Bernie’s lies. Niceness doesn’t heal the broken part, it just sometimes makes it easier to swallow.

      • William says:

        After I wrote that longish post above, I was thinking a bit about this; and how Obama was always cossetted, had the paths cleared for him. And maybe he somehow thinks that if you have the right ideals, thinks will just work out by themselves, without having to fight for them.

        It is a fascinating and frustrating question, isn’t it? I think that part of the answer is that many Democrats do have a positive idealized view of making the country better, so they look for the good in the other side, think that maybe they can call them to the higher cause. Meanwhile, Republicans consist of arrogant billionaires who have contempt for anyone outside their circle; and gut-fighting low-life climbers who hide behind a phony religiosity and who want to step on the faces of the people they despise.

        A couple of months ago, I saw an interview with George Mitchell, ex-Senate majority leader, whom I used to admire, but now see as a rather exasperating self-righteous bore. He was talking about how he stopped a potential Democratic filibuster of Clarence Thomas. Lawrence O’Donnell, interviewing him, said that as a senate staffer, he was so proud of how Mitchell and Dole worked together to give Thomas a fair hearing. Of course, the end result of this was that Thomas became one of the absolute worst Justices in history; and the Republicans returned Mitchell’s favor by not even giving Garland a hearing. And yet Mitchell is still proud of what he did.

        • dakinikat says:

          Obama reminds me of what Winston Churchill said about Americans and America back in WW2. That we take our time but eventually do the right thing. Obama has always been slow, steady, and calm but he usually gets to the place where he feels the urgency of now and then does what’s necessary,.

          • William says:

            Well, I hope that he does, though in a real sense he has only ten more days to do something. And of course Churchill was talking about an America led by FDR, and with a progressive majority. Maybe I am being unfair to Obama, but in my view, the time to have done something, to have spoken up, was a few months ago at least. I know that he wanted Hillary to win, but I think that his innate attitude was that she should win, and if she didn’t, it was her fault, and there’s nothing to be done about it. Other Democratic presidents of the past would have been more partisan in this regard, I think. He presided over the loss of about 87 House seats and nine Senate seats, plus many statehouses. Not all his fault, but a good deal of it was–or that of the Democrats who installed him as nominee. He spoke up more about issues like gun control and climate change in the last two years, to his credit, but the time to have moved on those was when he had the majorities.

          • NW Luna says:

            Yes. Obama should have resisted compromise and the Dems in Congress also back in ’09 at the start of his first term. Ah, well, wonder if enough have learned.

      • roofingbird says:

        I like to think of us as nicer too. I see it however, as a veneer over large swaths of our tribe. You only have to look at the latimes article announcing that the CA counting is over and HRC won and that 75% voted. Then look at the comments with all the burned bernie furies. This isn’t about the Dems; it has all misogynist nature of the drumfsters. Cosseted is a good word, William. He was always more a centrist, he had his mother’s early training, and that of a child who moved a lot and learned how to fit in. He was destined to be a judge. He eschewed his own pastor and went to visit Warren at Saddleback. (What a name.) You had to know then what he was willing to do or not. Obama was a place holder for troubled times. We hoped that the real change would come after.

      • joanelle says:

        We can talk about this until we are blue in the face but will get nowhere. All of your thoughts are good, but we need to send them to the DNC, they need a wake up call or they will just keep on keepin on.
        I contacted them with my thoughts and will continue to do so until I see some forward movement. They need a smack to get them moving or they’ll just sit and stew

  3. dakinikat says:

    Y’all might find this interesting:

    Dorothea Lange’s Censored Photographs of FDR’s Japanese Concentration Camps

    The military seized her photographs, quietly depositing them in the National Archives, where they remained mostly unseen and unpublished until 2006.

    • Enheduanna says:

      Heartbreaking. I love the photo of the man and his Japanese garden! What a testament to his will.

    • janicen says:

      I found it heartbreaking. Honestly, I had to force myself to view them all because it was so hard to face the reality of what we did. That speaks to the power of her photos.

    • NW Luna says:

      Though it didn’t happen in my lifetime, it was something one knew about in the background of living on the West Coast. This is why, even as a teenager, when people would say about the Holocaust “That couldn’t happen here” I would say: “Yes, it could — look at what our government did to these American citizens.” Families lost jobs, property, savings. Shameful.

      This quote from a military official illustrates the total reverse of logic:

      The very fact that no sabotage has taken place to date is a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken.”

    • contrask says:

      Thank you for sharing. I’m going to do a unit with my 7th grade next semester. They will read Graham Salisbury “Under the Blood Red Sun” There is a 2014 movie now. It’s time for them to think. Seeing real photoessays like these and getting the historical perspective may help them realize the dangerous the times we are living in.

  4. dakinikat says:

    • Enheduanna says:

      The only quibble I have with this article is they praise the news organizations for doing tremendous work on Trump’s scandals when from my POV it was far too little too late.

      Otherwise there is no question is was ridiculously biased. But those outlets are all billions richer so they’d do it again in a heartbeat. And they’ll keep giving him star treatment as long as it upholds the ratings.

  5. dakinikat says:

    It’s pretty bad when China State News calls you a “diplomatic rookie” …

  6. roofingbird says:

    Dante’s Inferno…wow, every page of that book in my mother’s bookself I first read around eleven. Those things stick with you.

  7. William says:

    This will probably get everyone more frustrated and infuriated, as it did me, but it is interesting that E. Randol Schoenberg, the attorney portrayed in the very moving film “The Woman in Gold,” for helping Jewish people recover artwork stolen from their families by the Nazis, has filed suit calling for an investigation oif the legality of the warrant obtained by the FBI to search Anthony Weiner’s computer, based on “probable cause” that there was a crime committed by Hillary Clinton. (Sorry that I never mastered linking, but it’s easy enough to find this).

    In addition to all the corruptions and lies which damaged Hillary in this campaign, the issue of how the FBI ever had the right to that laptop in the first place, always really bothered me. And certainly there was no probable cause to validate a warrant to search it for emails related to Hillary.The FBI lied on the request for a warrant, and Schoenberg suggests that perhaps Giulani or Christie provided the lies about probable cause to them. It was an incredible violation of civil rights, but of course only done to cost her the election. And to my knowledge, no one in the media ever questioned why the FBI had a right to search that laptop for Hillary-related emaiils. I guess they just went along with the “rule” that anything that has anything to do with HIllary, is always grounds for investigation. What kind of legal system did we have in America, even before the election? Nixon was going to be impeached for this kind of thing, back in 1974, but this is apparently not even worthy of an investigation in this era.

    • Enheduanna says:

      Oh sure – the whole thing with that last episode by Comey (in clear violation of the Hatch Act) was Ghouliani stirring up trouble. There will never be an investigation by Trump’s DOJ.

      And I’d be surprised if the media asks why Linda McMahon, who donated $5mil to Trump Foundation, gets an appointment but that’s not pay to play. I guess that doesn’t reach the “lock her up” level.

      When these cretins get asked about stuff like that they just smile and say nothing or giggle. But this will ALL be ignored – gots to “move forward now” doncha know.

  8. dakinikat says:

    and he’s found another wife beater/misogynist

    • NW Luna says:

      Well, he’ll fit right in.

    • Enheduanna says:

      My first thought after seeing this and knowing he’s the Carl’s Jr. CEO was about their notoriously lewd commercials. They even have a “three-way-deal” i think. YUCK

      There goes the last shred of dignity the office of POTUS ever had.

  9. palhart says:

    Democrats seem to think it’s bad form to lay out the progressive wins over the last 50 years. They should have had a list of freedoms, rights, and actions that Americans would lose under businessman buffoon Trump. Many they would lose under any Republican president-elect and a Republican majority led Congress. The pain I feel everyday for all that may be lost further in women’s reproductive rights and legal abortions, voting rights, clean air and water, equality under the law and in jobs and salaries, inclusion of all Americans, and sane leadership and diplomacy. Hate crimes alone have jumped 35% this year of TrumpWorld.

    I hope within this 240-year American democracy there are still patriots and freedom fighters in the tens of millions who will take this country back from the authoritarian, nationalist (white), CEO, fascist invaders. The America I know is becoming a far-away memory of the past.

  10. contrask says:

    I wish I could say I felt better. I know Trump will be inaugurated and we will endure, but I’m not going to get over this. I found an article today that expresses what I want to say to people:

    “Please understand that I am not mad at you because Clinton lost. I am totally unconcerned that you and I have different ‘politics.’ And I don’t think less of you because you voted one way and I another.
    “No, I think less of you because you watched an adult mock a disabled person while addressing a crowd and still supported him. I think less of you because you saw a candidate spout clear racism day after day and still backed him. I think less of you because you heard him advocate for war crimes and still thought he should be given the reins of government. I think less of you because you watched him equate a woman’s worth to where she landed on a scale of 1 to 10 and still got on board. I think less of you because you stood by silently while he labeled Mexicans as criminals and Muslims as terrorists.

    “It wasn’t your politics I found repulsive. No, it was your willingness to support someone who spouts racism, sexism, and cruelty almost every time he opens his mouth. You sided with a bully when it should have mattered most, and that is something I will never be able to forget.

    “So in response to your post-election expression of hope, no, you and I won’t be ‘coming together to move forward.’ Obviously, the president-elect disgusts me; but it is the fact that he doesn’t disgust you that will stick with me long after the election.”

  11. Sweet Sue says:

    I try to be cynical and stoic but, since the election, whenever I see anything that’s artistic, lyrical and beautiful, I burst into tears and sob.
    Today, I saw Chaplin’s “Limelight” and wept.
    So much is lost, especially my belief in -how did LBJ put it-my fellow Americans.

  12. Enheduanna says:

    Hullabaloo is reporting Trump will still go on Celebrity Apprentice:

    But Obama campaigning for Hillary was bad.

  13. ANonOMouse says:

    “I doubt seriously the Republic will withstand all of this”

    With trumps cabinet picks there can be no doubt what the end game is. We have no option but to oppose everything the GOP puts forward because there’s nothing good that will come from them.



  14. ANonOMouse says:

    Nobel Winner Who Predicted Fall Of Soviet Union Just Made A Prediction About Trump

  15. ANonOMouse says:

    Last night on “Make it Plain” Sirius Progess Radio, Host Mark Thompson had on Markos Moulitsas. He put forth an idea which I’ve never heard before and never he considered. He suggested that on the day Joe Biden swears in the new U.S. Senators. that he call the Senate to order and order a vote for the SCOTUS replacement.

    You might want to read the idea