During Irma I read issues 1 and 2 of Josh Bayer’s Raw Power series, those being all the issues so far. Issue 1 is out of print so I read the pdf on my ipad, and issue 2 I bought from Josh’s site. Definitely felt a lot righter as a floppy comic book than a bright digital image, though both issues were bad ass. These are the kind of bad ass comics I’ve been looking for. They have that wild slightly insane quality that my favorite novels have, too, in contrast to those polished stones of lyrical MFA minimalism. Visually, so many of the comics I read and enjoy are pretty slick with nice clear leans (even the ones that might have a wildness underneath). I think that’s probably what kept me from doing comics so long: the perfectionism of most of the “good” work that I saw. Like I wouldn’t look at Ghost World and think, I could make a comic! This shit, in contrast, is a big mess. But in a way that feels more like punk rather than noise music (which is how, say, Brian Chippendale’s Puke Force felt to me; I couldn’t get into that). For awhile now I’ve been thinking a lot about how much I want to see Ralph Steadman in sequential-art form. This isn’t that, but it’s playing around in that country, and gave me so much to think about in making my own shit.
Raw Power is framed around the idea that G. Gordon Liddy and Jimmy Carter cut a deal with major record labels in the late 70s to suppress punk music. The main characters are Liddy, and “Catman,” a vigilante inspired by Liddy’s writing, whose parents were murdered by punks. Both issues end in some extended riff, where a character starts reading a comic book, which I assume is just a cover version of some old Marvel comic, and Bayer spends a lot of pages just doing that. Bayer’s stuff definitely plays a lot with the history of mainstream superhero comics, and he often covers old comics in his own style (like a band covering a song). I think knowing that kept me away from his work for awhile, because I don’t give af about Marvel and that stuff. But as “grist” for Bayer’s “mill” it’s amazing.
This Sept. 19 photo shows the Bench draped for the death of Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the Supreme Court in Washington
Fred Schilling—Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States/AP
![Power Power](https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-oUXJ7G7PFXE/TXTi5GZztRI/AAAAAAAABEU/KOMavUyxrvM/s1600/Raw+Power+Orig+UK+LBL.jpg)
T Just cause 1 mods. he Republican argument for immediately nominating and confirming a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now stripped of all pretext. It’s about raw power. In fact, it can be boiled down to three words – “Elections have consequences.” The Republicans won the presidency in 2016, they held the Senate in 2018, and there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about wielding that power now, even when Americans are already voting in a presidential election that will end in less than seven weeks.
The argument has a certain Machiavellian simplicity about it. But there’s a problem – if you’d listened to Republicans speak before this moment, including just four short years ago, this raw power politics appears new. When they blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court, they claimed a neutral principle was at stake. Their argument? When an election looms, let the people decide.
BCAA 2:1:1 Powder 500 grams. Learn more about Raw Powders Cookies Policy. Customer Reviews. Harri Kuosmanen. Fluoro Phenibut Powder. 'Raw power got a healing hand, raw power can destroy a man,' Iggy raves on the title track, and he's right on both counts. 6 people found this helpful. 1 1 comment Report abuse James. 5.0 out of 5 stars Raw Power Vinyl Reviewed in the United States on December 21, 2013.
Here was Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham: “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”
And here was Texas’s staunch “constitutional conservative,” Ted Cruz: “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
We can keep going. Florida’s Marco Rubio weighed in: “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term – I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
This game of gotcha is all too easy, and it can also be flipped back at Democrats who loudly declared that Garland deserved a hearing and a vote. For example, Democratic Senator Christopher Murphy released a statement that said in part, “The president fulfilled his constitutional obligation today, now the Senate must fulfill ours . . . If Senate Republicans refuse to consider the president’s nominee, they will be willingly violating the spirit of that sworn oath.”
Chuck Schumer called on then-Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to “do their job and hold hearings so America can make its own judgement as to whether Merrick Garland belongs on the court.”
We know that President Trump will put forward a nominee. He’s promised to do it quickly. Install catalytic converter without welding. And now a critical mass of the Senate faces a choice, one that is likely to echo in American history. At the end of the day, do principles matter at all, or is power the only coin of the realm?
After all, while much can happen between now and November 3rd, the Democrats may well hold the House, narrowly take control of the Senate, and win the White House. At that point, they’d have the legal and constitutional power to not just reverse conservative control of the Court by amending the law to increase the number of Supreme Court seats (a process popularly known as “court-packing”), they could also permanently alter the balance of power in the Senate by admitting new states – namely Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.
Republicans would object. Conservative Americans would protest. They’d appeal to “norms” and worry about a “tyranny of the majority.” But if power is all that matters now, Democrats could respond with the same three words from the start of this piece – “elections have consequences.”
But there is a deep and profound danger to stripping politics of principle and instead appealing to power alone. Americans are deeply and profoundly divided. As I write in my new book, Divided We Fall, a toxic combination of geographic clustering, negative polarization, and mutual enmity is placing great strains on our union.
When politicians’ words mean nothing – when only partisan interests prevail – it damages our social and cultural fabric. It deepens public anger and mistrust and unacceptably raises the stakes (and thus the tension) around each and every American election.
What can be done? An increasing number of center-right legal scholars, including the American Enterprise Institute’s Adam White and George Mason Law School professor Ilya Somin are proposing a variant of an approach best summed up as “make them keep their word.” It goes something like this:
Tuxera ntfs 2015 for macos. First, Trump makes his pick.
Second, the Senate applies the Schumer principle and gives the nominee a hearing. This will have the benefit of giving the American people a more-complete picture of the qualifications and philosophy of the nominee and thus the stakes of the presidential election.
Third, the Senate then applies the Graham/Rubio/Cruz rule and does not vote before the election. If Trump wins, they then vote on the nominee.
But what if Trump loses? What principle comes into play? Joe Biden’s own words provide the guide.
In the October 2019 Democratic debate, Joe Biden clearly expressed his opposition to court-packing. “I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court,” he said, “because we’ll live to rue that day.” He continued, “We add three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.”
He’s right. Court-packing is dangerous. Yet if the GOP violates its principles to jam through a nominee in Trump’s last days in office, the pressure from congressional Democrats to pack the court may well be overwhelming. So Biden should make a deal with the lame-duck Senate. Keep the seat open, and he’ll pledge not to sign any legislation packing the Supreme Court while he’s in office.
This isn’t the “unilateral disarmament” so despised by partisans. It’s a compromise. Both sides would shed Machiavellianism (for a moment, at least) and do something concrete to actually de-escalate America’s toxic political conflicts. America’s polarization is growing dangerous. Political violence stalks our streets. Now is the time for true statesmen to step forward, to put prudence before power, and reach a compromise that doesn’t just preserve the legitimacy of the court, it helps preserve the integrity of our republic.
Sign up for Inside TIME. Be the first to see the new cover of TIME and get our most compelling stories delivered straight to your inbox.
Raw Power 1 4 24
Thank you!
For your security, we've sent a confirmation email to the address you entered. Click the link to confirm your subscription and begin receiving our newsletters. If you don't get the confirmation within 10 minutes, please check your spam folder.TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary on events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
![Raw Power 1 4 2 Raw Power 1 4 2](https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~C1080x0S1800x1800T1200x1200~articles/5126078745/Extension.jpeg)
Each product we feature has been independently selected and reviewed by our editorial team. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.
Read Next
TIME Replaced Its Logo on the Cover For the First Time in Its Nearly 100-Year History. Here's Why We Did It
Next Up: Editor's Pick