Select one, seat one, move on

An endorsement, from an unexpected source, for Trump and McConnell forging ahead to fulfill their mandate in accordance with the job description spelled out for them by the original instruction manual: the US Constitution.

When a similar scenario occurred four years ago, following the death of Antonin Scalia, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It was a controversial move, and Ginsburg had something to say about it:  Ginsburg publicly called on the Senate to go through with the nomination.

“That’s their job,” she said in July 2016. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”

“Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees,” Ginsburg said on the issue a few months later during an event at the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington.

“What we do is we automatically affirm the decision of the court below. No opinion is written, no reasons are given, and the affirmance has no precedential value,” Ginsburg explained. “It’s just as though we denied review.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) made the same argument Friday night, though he added that since the 2020 election results are expected to be contested, an eight-member Court poses a potential constitutional crisis.

“Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear they intend to challenge this election. They intend to fight the legitimacy of the election. As you know, Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden ‘under no circumstances should you concede, you should challenge this election.’ And we cannot have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 Court,” Cruz told Sean Hannity on Friday. “A 4-4 Court that is equally divided cannot decide anything. And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine-justice Supreme Court, particularly when there is such a risk of … a contested election.”

Contrary to all the self-serving but historically illiterate Lefty shrieking, Ogabe’s underhanded attempt to ram Garland through wasn’t undone by McConnell’s hypocritical skullduggery but by, oh, the trivial matter of around a solid century and a fucking half of Senate precedent, which Democrat-Socialists will never utter a word about until it can be used again for their own nefarious purposes. As per usual, they hew to no principle; they believe in nothing, not even their own vacant, blank-eyed nihilism. They insolently sneer at scruple and consistency. They restrict themselves to grabbing whatever tool is in easy reach to be used for their dirty work, then toss it aside until the day they need it again.

Of course, correct as Cruz is, said constitutional crisis is not an unintended consequence or unlooked-for side effect that just sort of accidentally cropped up for some bizarre reason, nor is it something being “risked” by anyone. It is the whole point—a fundamental part of the plan from the very git-go. RBG shuffling ingloriously off this mortal coil is no more than the most recent gossamer-thin justification for this ongoing program, and that’s all.

Let the Left continue right on with the permacoup, screaming and ranting the whole while; they’re going to anyway, regardless of what anyone else may or may not do, and have been explictly telling us so all along. If Real Americans seriously hope to fight back successfully, then it’s time and way past time for them to begin to take violent, anti-American Leftist revolutionaries and their pet Demonrat ProPol Swamp-scum at their word, take their “fighting words” seriously, and respond to these threats with all the gravity and severity such plainly-stated intentions demand. Because laughing them off and blithely dismissing their actions as the amusing antics of a passel of desperate clowns hasn’t really worked out all that well.

Happily, it looks like Trump intends to just keep blasting right thru their feebly-defended lines to wreak havoc in their wide-open and vulnerable rear areas. Y’know, so to speak.

On Saturday evening at a rally in Fayetteville, N.C., President Donald Trump announced that he would be naming a successor to the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman,” the president declared. This will likely unleash speculation as to which candidate Trump will choose from his list of potential nominees.

Since Trump said he will choose a woman, that narrows down the names on his list of potential nominees. Twelve of the 44 names on Trump’s list are women. Of those twelve, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett is considered the frontrunner.

When Trump was deliberating which nominee to choose when replacing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the president told confidants he had big plans for Barrett. “I’m saving her for Ginsburg,” he said, three sources told Axios’ Jonathan Swan last March.

Barrett would be an excellent choice. Not only is she a stellar judge and a pro-life Roman Catholic, but Barrett performed well under fire during her confirmation hearing in 2017. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) notoriously said, “The dogma lives loudly within you,” suggesting something of a religious test for a federal judgeship.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s running mate and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has a history of attacking conservative Christians for their faith and she will likely vociferously attack Barrett in the confirmation hearings.

I can’t honestly claim to be any sort of maven on the procedural ins and outs and such, of course. But if at all possible, whoever is responsible for scheduling those hearings really should take one giant step torwards regaining a modicum of control over the things and rein in the conniving Dem-Soc monkeywrenchers with strictly-enforced limits on the time alotted for them, just for starters. Unyielding codes for dress and decorum ought also to be specified in writing, and enforced to the very last detail. Such close oversight ought not be necessary for serious, civilized adults, who are presumably capable of grasping the importance of not behaving like feral children while managing the nation’s affairs.

But alas, these are Democrat-Socialists we’re talking about here, who wouldn’t know propriety and decorum if they were run over, crippled, and left to die in a ditch by them. “Serious” and “civilized” are unknown concepts to them〈alien, unfamiliar, and not even minutely interesting. As for propriety, you might as well be speaking in Swahili for all they care. In fact, the very idea of propriety actually, actively angers them, seeing as how propriety, as well as the basic respect for others that undergirds it, aren’t for them the very keystones that uphold civilization itself, but rather archaic relics of patriarchal oppression. So can it really come as any big surprise that these juvenile delinquents, these vile ignorami, these cultural vandals, these purblind fools have wilfully warped and perverted the SC hearing process into a true national embarrassment, a grotesque obscenity insulting not only to the Founders and the institutions they so carefully crafted and bequeathed to us, but to every decent American as well?

No more. Just….NO. MORE. Enough is enough. No more Kavanaughs, no more Thomases, no more Borks—not now, not EVER. The grownups in the Congressional room must—MUST—bring any and all further Democrat-Socialist confirmation affrontery to an immediate halt, for real and for good, then get to work straightaway at restoring whatever dignity they may to the institutions that have been so recklessly and infuriatingly debased. Senate GOPers bear a duty most grave to firmly shut down the malignant polyps of America’s Enemies, Domestic Inc™ who have reduced the whole thing to such an anarchic, farcical freakshow. They must get on with it, starting yesterday.

17 thoughts on “Select one, seat one, move on

  1. The best way, IMO, is to hold a vote with no senate hearings. They are not required nor were they originally done. The democraps have turned it into a carnival so get rid of it.

    OTOH, regardless of my initial reaction, I can see where the coming attacks on a female nominee will be useful to reelection efforts. The real battle is for the fickle females in the suburbs. What better way to gain then to have the marxist party attacking a female?

  2. Elections have consequences. We won the Presidency. We control the Senate.
    If he puts in the name Amy Barrett I wonder what Romney can possibly come up with to NOT vote for her.
    If I were McConnell I would simply say, “She was vetted in 2017 and her behavior has been impeccable since. You had your chance to advise then. Your advisements are now duly noted. Let’s Vote.”

  3. Very much this. I think the Supreme Court has become much too restricted in membership in recent decades, with mostly only people from a couple of law schools and who have previously clerked at the SC being seriously considered. It has become a very small club, which is not good for a nation that is supposed to be a representative republic.

    One useful aspect of this very small club, however, is that everyone in it is a well known quantity and has been investigated and background checked multiple times over the course of their career. Long “hearings” are just an opportunity for Senators to grandstand for the media and try to score political points. President Trump should nominate his choice, and the Senate should proceed to an up or down vote with minimal delay. There is no reason the court should not be back to 9 members by October 1st.

    Of course that won’t happen. Weeks of round-the-clock media blather will take place, changing exactly zero minds and shifting precisely zero votes. Protests, riots, threats, screaming, and total lunacy will occur in abundance — all completely pointless. The fiasco that is 2020 will grind on.

    What a stupid time to be alive.

  4. Barrett would be an excellent choice.

    Cuckqueaned her own children: she has a pair of adopted Haitian Virtue Signals.

    She’s gonna turn a hard left long before the end of Trump’s third term.

    Allison Jones Rushing would be a better choice.

    Or possibly Sarah Pitlyk, except that she has incipient Karen Hair.

    No woman is really a good choice for that seat, with the limited exception of the enjoyment of seeing the Left try to Cavannaugh one, but Barrett would be a bad one, IMO.

    1. I’d go with Rushing myself, but I’m not really seeing Barret as that bad of a pick.
      If it were really up to me I’d pick someone like Grenell.

      1. I’d like to nominate myself. Not that I particularly want to be a supreme court justice (though I’d be unlikely to do a worse job than several of the recent chairwarmers) but can you imagine the confirmation hearing?

      2. I’d go with Rushing myself, but I’m not really seeing Barret as that bad of a pick.

        *nod* Barret’s a great pick if you want another John Roberts, only in drag.

        I second the SteveF nomination. My secondary pick would be Tom Kratman, for the joy of seeing malefactors crucified in front of the Supreme Court building.

        My third pick would be Ann Coulter, for the joy of watching heads go all esplodey.

          1. True. One day she’s in Love with Trump and the next she Hatey Hates the guy. Too much just an attention whore, jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon and back.

    2. Rushing was confirmed in 2019. The vote was 53-44. Not sure how GOP squishes voted FOR then and would change now. I kinda like Rushing now. Good call.

      Could be a better pick than ACB. I did not know about the adoptions.

      Pitlyk was confirmed recently only 49-44 though. Sowwrisome.

  5. I just heard a blurb on FOX that Cory Gardner, the wayward R senator from Colorado has said he will be voting for confirmation.

    Looks like the Trump train is rolling right along. Prog heads exploding very soon.

    1. I saw a blurb in passing as i did a search for something that Romney is on board for voting before the Election.

      My gut feeling says that Trump wouldn’t have chosen a date to announce unless he had heard from McConnell saying he had the ducks all in a row.

      One good thing for Barrett is she was confirmed just in 2017. What new thing could they ask her about in 2020? A couple of rulings?

      I’m not sure if that’s the case with others.
      Plus as a woman Borking Her without making it unseemly to women out there in Soccer Mom Country will be difficult to do.

Comments are closed.

Comments policy

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit. Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) and...you won't. Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar. Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.

Categories

Archives

Notable Quotes

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." — Daniel Webster

"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." - GK Chesterton

"The only way to live free is to live unobserved." - Etienne de la Boiete

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." — Dwight D. Eisenhower

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

"There is no better way to stamp your power on people than through the dead hand of bureaucracy. You cannot reason with paperwork." - David Black, from Turn Left For Gibraltar

"The limits of tyranny are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." - Frederick Douglass

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine." - Joseph Goebbels

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.” - Ronald Reagan

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it." - NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in." - Bill Whittle

Subscribe to CF!

Support options

Shameless begging

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

Best of the best

Neutral territory

Alternatives to shitlib social media:

Fuck you

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Rss feed

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

Contact


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

Copyright © 2020