- Of course, we could start with the examples of Democrat misdoings hashed in my last post on this
We could point toward the establishment of the nuclear option by Harry Reid. We could continue with the Democrats’ nomination of Merrick Garland in February 2016 and then point out that replacing a Supreme Court justice by a lame duck president in February is not the same as this September appointment by a President who can be re-elected.
Moreover, we could point again to the hell-on-earth, circus-like spectacles organized by Democrats against conservative judges like Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh. Again, we could point to the complete lack of evidence of wrong-doing on part of the judges as the Democrats made a mockery of the judicial approval process in order that they might protect their leftist ideals.
- In 2016, Democrats argued for election-year appointments
The Daily Caller points to the words of eight Democrats on making election-year appointments to the Supreme Court. Here are the first six:
Although Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden favored putting off a confirmation hearing during an election year in 1992 as a senator, Biden supported Garland’s confirmation in 2016 as vice president, according to ABC News. He said there was no supposed “Biden Rule” concerning Supreme Court nominations in an election year.
“Deciding in advance simply to turn your back before the president even names a nominee is not an option the Constitution leaves open,” Biden said, according to Business Insider. “It’s a plain abdication from the Senate’s duty. … [It’s] never occurred before in our history.”
“Elections have consequences,” then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said, according to Politico. “The president has a responsibility to nominate a new justice and the Senate has a responsibility to vote.”
She called McConnell’s decision “outrageous.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted: “Garland has integrity, a brilliant legal mind & is a perfect fit for [the Supreme Court]. GOP inaction does our country a great disservice.”E
And then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi tweeted: “Judge Merrick Garland, is a respected jurist who must be given a fair hearing & timely vote.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted, “Judge Garland is a strong nominee with decades of experience on the bench. [Obama] has done his job. It’s time for Republicans to do theirs.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted that Republicans must “ditch their extremism” and schedule a vote for Garland.
(Read more at the Daily Caller)
I will have to agree with these Democrats — election-year appointments can be made if the ruling party can handle the dissent from the other party
If Democrats have the numbers in the Senate and the presidency (as they did in 2016), they can try.
If they could not set aside enough time to complete their plans — well, that just shows poor political gamesmanship. If their plans required cooperation, they should have compromised and gotten cooperation.
- In 2016, even Ginsburg made an argument against the position she purportedly made on her death bed
In 2016, Ginsbug said “Nothing in the Constitution” prevents final year Supreme Court picks (as reported by the Daily Caller in a 19 September 2020 article).
The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2016 said “nothing in the Constitution” prevents a president from nominating to fill a court seat.
Ginsburg was reacting to the upcoming fight over a replacement for her friend and colleague Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away. Then-President Barack Obama had nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill Scalia’s seat only to be denied a Senate hearing by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
“I think he is about as well qualified as any nominee to this court,” Ginsburg said of Garland, according to a July 2016 report from The New York Times. “Super bright and very nice, very easy to deal with. And super prepared. He would be a great colleague.”
The Times called her answer “immediate” when asked if the “Senate had an obligation to assess Judge Garland’s qualifications.”
“That’s their job,” Ginsburg told the outlet then. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”
Susan Davis (@DaviSusan) September 18, 2020
(Read more at the Daily Caller)
Odd how this former ACLU pro-abortion lawyer was in favor of this move, just over four years ago
When she thought that she might gain an additional ally, she was all for having President Obama implement these plans. But now that it does not work to her needs (and now that she has gambled her time away), she has another idea.
- No matter what we do, there will be no civility
Barring Divine intervention, it seems that the Left will not dialog with anyone on differing sides. This comes forward through an 18 September 2020 article in The Hill where an associate professor at Marshall University proffers a prejudicial opinion of Trump supporters.
“I’ve become the type of person where I hope they all get it and die,” Professor Jennifer Mosher said. “I’m sorry, but that’s so frustrating — just — I don’t know what else to do. You can’t argue with them, you can’t talk sense with them, um, I said to somebody yesterday I hope they all die before the election.”
Eric Kutcher (@herdanesthesia) September 17, 2020
Mosher, who teaches in the school’s biology department, was making a reference to recent indoor rallies held by the president, events that have garnered hundreds of attendees with sporadic mask usage.
Many have criticized the Trump campaign for holding the indoor rallies, noting the events violate the administration’s coronavirus guidelines which call for social distancing and mask wearing.
Mosher’s comments were recorded by a student and posted on social media, sparking backlash online and triggering a statement from the university on Friday.
“Marshall University this morning announced it is aware of an overtly political statement made by a faculty member in a recent virtual classroom session and widely circulated on social media,” the statement read. “The University does not support or condone the use of any of its educational platforms to [b]elittle people or wish harm on those who hold differing political views. The professor was removed from the classroom yesterday and is on administrative leave, pending an investigation. [T]here will be no further comment on this personnel matter at this time.”
(Read the whole article at The Hill)
While it is true that this professor has been “punished” by putting her on “administrative leave”
Do you think for a minute that a conservative professor would not have been fired for doing the same to the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton? Do you think there is any chance that this professor will be reinstated?
- The Democrats have promised that there will be no civility
National Review reports on threats communicated through The Atlantic concerning a possible Biden loss
Writing in The Atlantic recently, the sober-minded commentator Shadi Hamid says, “I struggle to imagine how, beyond utter shock, millions of Democrats will process a Trump victory.” For Democrats, having failed to cope with the 2016 election, and believing the polls that show a solid Joe Biden lead, another shock Trump win would “provoke mass disillusion with electoral politics as a means of change — at a time when disillusion is already dangerously high.” And it would lead decent folks astray. They would seek remedies “outside the political process, including through nonpeaceful means,” though, “not necessarily out of hope but …
I presented the summary from National Review out of sympathy
If you want to review the twisted logic of the left, please feel free to look at The Atlantic article by Shadi Hamid where he postulates that the Democrats’ illegal rioting in Minneapolis, Seattle, and Portland will be rewarded by Republicans who have been cowed into submission and will vote for Biden.
- Progressives, who demand that we show compassion for their shortcomings, show themselves to be myopic
In the following video (warning: there is a lot of vulgar language), the woman shows no compassion for the suffering of Ruth Ginsburg or her family. She only curses at others for what the death of RGB does to the progressive cause.