Eating Their Own

I’ve always said that the Democrats’ “big tent” approach to politics with so many diverse and conflicting groups would one day evolve into them “eating their own”. I couldn’t see how environmentalists and union bosses could be on the same side of say the Keystone XL Pipeline (and they weren’t).

But it’s beginning to happen again.

This time, the call is going out that Democrats are starting to push for the third time in the last four years or so, the resignation of a Justice from the US Supreme Court. And it’s not Clarence Thomas. It’s Sonia Sotomayor. When I saw that, I was stymied. She’s only 69 years old, that’s like a middle-schooler in terms of Supreme Court years. Thomas is 75 years old and Samuel Alito is 73. Chief Justice John Roberts is also 69, and doesn’t look like he’s going to be retiring anytime soon.

So, why go after Sotomayor? Well, there are two reasons basically. Dems felt totally betrayed when Bobo Obama tried to get Ruth Bader Ginsburg to resign during his presidency so he could replace her with someone younger, and equally liberal. She refused constantly, and ended up dying in office. That allowed Donald Trump to appoint her successor, which he did during a presidential campaign (that he lost), and Amy Coney Barrett flipped the seat from liberal to conservative. I’m sure you’ll remember Democrats went crazy over that one!

That’s exactly why just two years ago, the pressure became too much when Stephen Breyer was tabbed by liberals as the next to go. Two years ago, Ketanji Brown Jackson was tabbed to replace him by Joe Biden, saving a liberal seat for another generation.

Now, add to that situation the fact that when Sotomayor was speaking at UC Berkley, she described how devastated she was over the high court’s turn to the right:  “I live in frustration. Every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart. But I have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting.” 

It’s obvious that being the oldest liberal on the court, and the fact that she’s obviously frustrated over the fact she can’t get any of her ideas across, Sotomayor is falling into the position as the latest RGB victim. Democrats want Biden to be able to name yet another successor to enable the fact that the 6-3 conservative court doesn’t become a 7-2 blowout that they may never recover from.

It’s a strange type of arrangement when you think about it. When does a justice retire from the lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court? Do they worry about who is going to follow them? And if so, do they time their departure so that someone of their same ideology is sitting in the White House so that either a conservative or a liberal can take their place? I’m not sure that is the over-riding reason for them leaving when they do, but I’d bet your house on it that it plays a part, regardless how small.

We are always told that the Supreme Court is the one place in government where politics doesn’t matter, but the Constitution is king. And if you don’t believe that these people that are sitting on that court don’t follow their ideologies when determining their interpretation of the Constitution, I’ve got a bridge in Lake Havasu City I’d like to sell you.

The bigger question isn’t IF Dems are trying to push Sotomayor out the back door. The big question is, will they succeed? Given her feelings that she’s “traumatized” at every loss she endures (and there have been many lately), she may want to take them up on their offer!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Here’s Who To Thank For Defeating Roe v. Wade

Now, before I give you the answer, you know I have to tell you I was never a Never-Trumper. I wasn’t ever in his camp fully. I thought in 2016 that Trump made a much better candidate and would be a much better president than Hillary Clinton. And I thought in 2020 that Joe Biden was a doddering old fool who’s time had long since passed him by. I wasn’t enamored with Donald Trump but of the people running, he was certain by far the best candidate. And though I never liked his “style” of running things, not even when he hosted The Apprentice, I did like most of the policies that he implemented during his four years in office.

And Donald Trump is the guy we need to kiss his ring and thank because of the high court getting rid of Roe v. Wade.

When you think of it, Trump promised he would nominate conservative justices to the Supreme Court. He had not one, not two, but three nominations. Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. I think he got more conservative the more people he nominated. And it was because of the Barrett nomination that turned the tide of Dobbs v. Jackson. Oh, it could have been a 5-4 ruling had a liberal taken Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s place, and kept the seat liberal. But by moving ahead with a nomination just a couple of months before a presidential election, Trump cemented the over-turning of Roe v. Wade.

And yes, he promised to do that! Another campaign promise kept, 18 months after he left office!

Now, Trump was quick to take the victory lap, and take credit for the monumental decision. He was very quick to remind everyone of the campaign promise that he made to nominate justices to the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe. And he is deserving of this particular victory lap. In a time when we judge Trump’s effectiveness as a politician on whether his endorsements make it through primaries, this one has to stand out as the most shining example of his conservative values. With lesser men (or women) in power at the time, they may have acquiesced to waiting and letting the winner of the 2020 election decide who should be nominated.

Had someone waited, I don’t think Roe would have ever been overturned. Amy Coney Barrett was basically the one that allowed John Roberts to move to the conservative side. He wanted so badly to see that overturning Roe wasn’t going to be a 5-4 decision, and thus susceptible to being reviewed in a year or two once say, Clarence Thomas leaves the court. No, Roberts wanted it to make a statement. 6-3 makes a much louder statement than 5-4 decisions ever could.

So, I will congratulate and give Donald Trump his due today. He is deserving of this one. Take as many victory laps as you need big man. You’ve earned it.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Does Ketanji Brown Jackson Deserve A Supreme Court Appointment?

Now, this is going to upset some of you. I get that. But if you look at the whole nomination process of a Supreme Court Justice, you need to realize something. According to the Constitution, which is really the only thing that matters in cases like this, the President of the United States, as part of his duties gets to nominate whomever he feels is appropriate for the Supreme Court. And the United States Senate, with it’s supposed deliberative character, is supposed to vet that choice with “consent”. That has come to mean holding hearings, and holding a vote on the President’s choice.

And just as Democrats screamed bloody murder with Donald Trump’s three appointments to the high court, with Neil Gorsuch being confirmed after a struggle, Brett Kavanaugh having to face all sorts of sexual abuse charges that were totally false, and Amy Coney Barrett that the Dems said shouldn’t have been appointed at all, because it was just a couple of months away from a presidential election, Republicans are kinda/sorta doing the same thing with Jackson.

And they are no more correct for doing it than the Democrats were for opposing Trump’s nominees.

Look, I think Ketanji Brown Jackson is not a good choice. She’s far too liberal. She believes in things that I have no idea where they came from, but it certainly wasn’t the Constitution. And she is going to try and spread that liberal gobledegook to the rest of the court. But does that mean she’s not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice? No.

I would much rather have seen someone more moderate get appointed to the high court bench. And I’m sure Democrats would have loved to have seen Jackson get nominated in place of Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But that’s not their choice. And it’s not my choice, or Republicans’ choice with Jackson. It’s Joe Biden’s choice. And as addle-minded and fraught with ineptitude as the man is, he is the president, and he does get to name someone.

I said early on in this battle that it doesn’t really matter what the Republicans say or do in this matter as long as people like Kirsten Sinema and Joe Manchin go along with it, and K-baby Harris is there to break the tie, it will most likely happen. And while Jackson didn’t score any points with me during her confirmation hearings, she didn’t necessarily give the Senate a reason not to vote for her either. Ideology aside, she didn’t come across as a law breaker, a felon, or a rapist. No, I don’t like her stances on several issues, but again, not my fight…and not the Republicans fight.

If the GOP Senators want to vote against her, that is certainly their prerogative. But it’s still Biden’s choice. And to do to her, what the Democrats did to Robert Bork back in the day, knocking an extremely intelligent jurist from the high court simply because of ideology is totally wrong.

The thing that is at the very least comforting is, Jackson will be replacing an almost equally liberal Justice. At least it’s not like Barrett replacing RBG!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Court Packing?

The Biden administration almost a year ago, called for a commission to decide whether the Supreme Court should be expanded to 13 members from the current 9. Remember all the hullabaloo over Amy Coney Barrett getting nominated after Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away? They were ready to take over the high court any way they could.

Biden said that he would appoint a commission to look into it, and he did.

But what the commission has come up with, and what is going to be made public next month by Biden is that the court should not probably be expanded to 13 justices. There’s not much in the way of legal precedent to do so, nor is there much agreement from those on the mostly liberal commission to do it.

Oh, they heard from scores of people that said it was a great idea. They heard from more people that thought the Supreme Court shouldn’t be a lifetime appointment, and that maybe after 18 years or so, the justices would take a “smaller role” in determining the outcome of the cases before it.

In the end, it’s basically going to be High Court stays the same as it is now. And the reason is basically two fold.

First, the American people don’t want expansion. It’s never been a popular idea with the public, and it’s never been a popular idea with those wearing the robes. In fact, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer have both come out against it, and they are two of the most liberal justices we’ve had on the Supreme Court in recent memory.

The second reason that the Supreme Court will stay the same is, Congress is most likely going to be changing next year. That means that you’re not going to be able to get expansion of the SCOTUS through the legislative body. Republicans don’t want to see it expanded, and if they take the House and Senate, as most predict will happen, you’ve got a better chance of seeing Jesus today than seeing the Supreme Court being expanded to 13 members.

So, we’ve spent millions of dollars, wasted a year of time, and done what Washington does best. Come up with the status quo. Why am I not surprised!?

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

McConnell To Block High Court Nom?

Well, he did it before. At the time Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) blocked Bobo Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. His reasoning was simple. He wanted to see what the will of the voters had to say about it, and with an upcoming election in just a few months, and pointing to history, it made sense with plenty of precedence on the books to hold off with any appointment confirmation.

All of that was well and good until Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away less than two months before the 2020 election. And, all indications were at the time that Trump probably was in a dogfight for reelection, but could beat Joe Biden. McConnell reversed himself (not usually a good thing), and decided that it was time to actually go through and nominate Amy Coney Barrett to the high court and have her seated prior to the election. That way IF there were reason for the Supreme Court to step in, ala 2000, then they would certainly have a conservative majority on the court.

That’s very partisan thinking, and of course, it drew more than ire from the Democrats who saw a very liberal seat being swapped out for a very conservative seat.

Now, McConnell is at it again. With Justice Stephen Breyer, who’s 82, being told by Democrats everywhere that he faces the same problem that RGB faced if he doesn’t retire, and that a 6-3 conservative court could actually go to 7-2 if Biden or the Democrats don’t win an election in 2024. Breyer has basically resisted the call for him to retire early, allowing for the Democrats who control the Senate by the slimmest of margins, and the White House, would have the chance to at least hold on to that seat. But McConnell has signaled that if the Republicans retake the Senate in 2022, which is likely at this point with several Democrat seats in doubt, that he might just forego an appointment confirmation during calendar year 2024.

Yikes!

Talk about throwing gasoline on the fire! First off, as a conservative, that would make me happy to see Democrats stew and steam over that one, knowing full well there isn’t a damn thing they can do about it but cry. And truthfully, I really do enjoy seeing Democrats cry. But as a consistency guy, it kind of roils me. If you’re going to do one thing when a Democrat is in the White House and the Republicans control the Senate, and then switch out and do the opposite when the same party controls both, I have a problem with that. And yes, I know history is on the side of what McConnell did in Barrett’s case. But still, it’s not consistent. Leaving partisan politics out of it, if you’re not going to let Garland get an up or down vote, you should have done the same thing with Barrett.

And you certainly don’t come out three years ahead of time and announce that IF you retake the Senate, and IF Breyer were to leave or pass away in 2024, you wouldn’t be entertaining any nomination that year, I can see how Democrats would want to pack the court. I’m not saying I would agree with either side. I’m saying that I can see how both sides would be enraged.

So, how do you solve this mess? Hey, if Breyer were to retire early, there would be no problem, and actually, I agree with the McConnell and Trump of 2020. When someone dies you have the duty according to the Constitution to appoint, as President, a new Justice to the Supreme Court. And regardless of party affiliation, if that happens, you have a duty as the Senate to advise and consent and approve that nomination. The rest of it is politics. And we’re never going to solve anything in DC playing politics. I think we’ve all learned that much since Bobo took office in 2009.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Hypocrisy Run Amuk

I’ve made no bones about…I’m a consistency guy. I really don’t care what your thoughts are politically so long as you are consistent. If you’re against something, don’t tell me in a year or two because your party is now in charge that you are in favor of it. That’s hypocritical and wrong.

And right now, the Democrats in DC are terribly wrong.

Let me just use a few examples.

First and foremost, let’s examine “politicizing the Supreme Court”, or actually, “de-politicizing” or “rebalancing” as Senator Edward Markey (D-Ma) pointed out as he introduced a bill to add four justices to the Supreme Court. In order to “de-politicize” the Supreme Court, you need to take politics out of it. If that’s the case, why were Democrats all over Ruth Bader Ginsburg to resign prior to her death? Why today, are Democrats all over Stephen Breyer, another liberal justice, to resign rather than stay in office as RBG did, and die with a Republican in the White House? Hypocrisy. All the way.

On the same subject, let’s talk about “packing the court”. let’s look at what Joe Biden said in 1983. He was a Senator at the time and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee

“President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the court. It was totally within his right to do that. He violated no law. He was legalistically, absolutely correct. But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make. And it put in question, for an entire decade, the independence of the most significant body—including the Congress included in my view—in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.”

Hmmm. That seems to differ a little from the Joe Biden of 2021 when, as President, he faces a court that is 6-3 conservative, and will most likely knock down most if not all of his socialistic plans. Today he has announced that he wants a “blue ribbon panel” which consists of people entirely from the left to look into adding four Justices to the Supreme Court. Why four? Because that gives the liberals a 7-6 edge. Hypocrisy in action.

Let’s move on to something else the Democrats in DC are wont to do. They are all excited about getting rid of the filibuster rule in the Senate. That’s because they know that with the filibuster rule in place, they need 60 votes to cut off debate, and under current rules, with a 50-50 Senate, there’s no way they can pass any law without Republican help, unless they use “reconciliation”, which only applies to budget items. Biden was against gutting the filibuster back when he was a Senator. So did Bobo Obama. Both spoke on the Senate floor against the idea.

But recently, because of the fact Biden realizes he can’t get anything passed in the Senate, he’s come out in favor of some “tweaks”. Instead of gutting it altogether, he’s in favor of going back to the old days when a Senator that wanted to filibuster a law could simply speak for as long as they could, hoping the other side would leave the chamber, then they could call the vote, and either win the vote, or not have a quorum present in order to do so. Think of “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington”, the old Jimmy Stewart movie. Same thing. Why the change? Hypocrisy.

You could make the same argument on the voting law in Georgia. It actually expands the right to vote, which you would think the Democrats would be in favor of. Georgia actually ADDED days to vote to their old law. But, they made it harder to cheat, they tightened up the vote-by-mail provisions. So, a place like, say, Colorado, makes it actually harder to vote because there are fewer days, but easier to cheat because they don’t have sufficient checks and balances in place when it comes to checking signatures on mail-in ballots. End result? Hypocrisy.

What is interesting is that every time liberals decide to change the rules because they can’t win any other way, it always ends up biting them in the backside. Just look at the whole 50 vote approval rule that Harry Reid put in place so Obama could get more liberal judges on the courts. It allowed Republicans to do the same thing to Supreme Court Justices’ confirmations, which led to not one, not two, but THREE appointments confirmed by Donald Trump and the current 6-3 conservative court! Same thing will happen this time if they try to pack the court or they try to end the filibuster.

I’ve always said that liberalism never works long term because they always run out of other people’s money to spend and have to change their ways of thinking, or go entirely socialist or to some other dictatorial style of government. But really what also happens is that the people eventually catch on and decide that they’ve gone too far with their hypocrisy. And that’s when the people vote them out of office when they (the people) are smart. The dumb ones don’t get the chance to vote crooked politicians out of office. As a friend of mine says…you can vote socialism in, but you have to shoot your way out. Amen, brother!

Carry on world, you’re dismissed!

Supreme Court Backs Religion In Tandon v. Newsom Decision

The Supreme Court came out this past Friday with what really should be considered a landmark case. The case was Tandon v. Newsom. At the heart of the matter was whether or not the State of California could deny religious institutions indoor events, such as Bible Study, and worship service if there were other indoor events that were permitted.

In the past the high court has basically said that religious activities were viewed differently from other “indoor activities”, even though religion is protected under the First Amendment, actions and events that are religious were deemed to be different than actual “religion”. In Tandon v. Newsom, the State was slapped down because religious activities and religion are viewed as one.

Basically, there were four points why Gavin Newsom’s law was deemed unconstitutional and why the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong. The first was the “comparator” of religious activities and religion, as outlined above. The second was that the Supreme Court said the reason people gather inside is irrelevant. People gathering inside, whether there for a dinner, or Bible Study, are still inside. The reason doesn’t matter, even though the 9th Circuit said it did. The third reason was that the State of California and not the church bears the burden of proof in this case. Usually it’s the plaintiff that has to prove the charges. In Tandon v. Newsom, the state was trying to make the church prove that having indoor religious meetings and events wasn’t a public health risk. They basically shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. That’s not right. And fourthly, parties are entitled to relief as long as the case isn’t moot. This refers to the ever-changing rules regarding COVID, and the fact that Cali was opening bars and restaurants, and not churches, then closing bars and restaurants and re-writing the criteria for events and activities being opened. So the case wasn’t moot.

What’s nice to see here is that we finally have a Supreme Court that is willing to accept that “Freedom OF religion” doesn’t mean “Freedom FROM religion”. And we can thank the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the bench for that. A year ago, this would have been a 5-4 decision going the other way. But with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, and Coney Barrett’s replacing her, this has been a 5-4 decision based on what the Founding Fathers would have said. Joining the decent was Steven Breyer, Elena Kagan, Sonya Sotomayor, and the court’s newest liberal, Chief Justice, John Roberts. What is interesting is Roberts’ loss of power as the Chief Justice ever since Coney Barrett joined the Court. I’m going to go out on a limb here. My thinking is that John Roberts may be the next Justice to retire from the high court…not Steven Breyer as all Democrats want (to keep the seat liberal).

It’s interesting to see that in this screwed up time when Democrats are afraid of losing power in Congress and are clawing and scratching to do anything to keep that power, up to and including packing the court, and changing all sorts of rules just because they want to hold on to their power, it’s refreshing to see the high court turn their nose at liberalism in all it’s forms. The snowflake liberals of America can’t run roughshod over a group that has the final say in the Constitutionality of laws in our country. And it’s about time!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Barrett Wins Confirmation, Democrats Cry

The one thing that has become very clear during this election cycle is if the Democrats don’t get their way, they cry. Oh, talk about sore losers! And the latest episode to display that is the confirmation, and swearing in of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court.

Realizing that they had zero chance to stop, or even slow down the confirmation vote in the Senate, Democrats voted en masse to block her nomination. The reason they publicly give is that you shouldn’t be able to nominate and confirm a Justice to the highest court in the land so close to an election! Of course, what the truth is, is that they don’t want to see a truly liberal seat, once held by Ruth Bader Ginsburg to go to a conservative. It makes me wonder if this had happened a year ago, would we not have seen any of the crybaby tactics that were prevalent this week?

Once again, the left has tried to cover up their true ambitions and feelings with lies and deceptions, and the Barrett confirmation is just the latest example of that. They have spewed their hatred for Donald Trump for beating Hillary Clinton for the last four years in a variety of ways. They haven’t come out and told the truth once. They tried to impeach him because he had “a quid pro quo phone call”. Yet, when Joe Biden had exactly the same type of phone call Dems’ accused Trump of having, they didn’t seem to have a problem with it. Democrats thought Trump wasn’t mentally qualified to be president and tried to invoke the 25th Amendment. Yet when Joe Biden shows obvious signs of a lack of mental acuity, they chalk it up to being “Uncle Joe”.

When Democrats can’t win something through legitimate means, they have to change the rules. When they can’t get their way in the Senate, they decide they need to dump the filibuster because they feel like they’re going to take over the Senate next year. They don’t want the Republicans to have the ability to block their moves. So, rather than try to work across the aisle (as Joe Biden says he’s great at), they decide to get rid of the one device that allows the minority party to have some power. When they are down 6-3 in the Supreme Court, they decide that they need to pack the court and add several more Justices to that body to “even this ‘out of whack court’ up”. Forget the fact that they need to do what hasn’t been done in over 150 years (Congress passed The Judiciary Act in 1869). And while yes, it’s in Congress’ purview to change the number of Justices on the high court, and it has fluctuated from as few as six to as many as ten, it’s always been a lifetime appointment. Joe Biden, if elected is even toying with that.

Democrats seem to play the short-game on their childish rants. Remember Harry Reid? When he was Majority Leader in the Senate, he felt it was a great idea to take away the 60 vote rule to confirm appointments and judges (not Supreme Court Justices). That helped Bobo Obama get a ton of nominations through that he otherwise could not. Of course, it led to Mitch McConnell packing the lower courts with conservatives (220 as of today), and expanding the Reid Rule to include Supreme Court Justices (Trump has three Justices sitting on the high court). It’s kind of backfired on them.

And that’s the point. If the Democrats are so stupid and short-sighted that they don’t understand what will happen to them when the public decides that they should no longer be in power, the Republicans will be able to march in and take over.

Amy Coney Barrett is a wonderful addition to the Supreme Court. It’s just too damn bad that the Democrats couldn’t have voted on her confirmation based on her qualifications rather than the fact “it was so close to an election”. Shame on you liberals!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Let ME Tell You Biden’s Decision

Joe Biden is obviously afraid to tell you. He’s scared to have you learn what he thinks about court-packing…you know…adding members to the Supreme Court so that liberals can change the rules to get their way. He says that he’s against it. Then he comes out and says it “depends on how Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the high court turns out.”

I can tell you already what Biden is thinking, what his dilemma is, and what his final decision is going to be. And why he is wrong.

Joe Biden is going to wait until just before the election (because that allows more Democrats and Independents to vote by mail, and they can’t change their vote then!) and when Barrett gets confirmed, he’s going to call the nomination “a shame”, as Kamala Harris already has, and “an affront to our constitution”. Now, I don’t think had Mitch McConnell actually allowed Merrick Garland’s nomination to go through he would have said that, do you? So, what’s the difference here? Well, the difference is, his side of the aisle is going to lose a very liberal seat and they don’t like it a bit.

So, Biden will come out and say that if the Congress brings him a bill to expand the size of the Supreme Court, based on the Republican over-reach in nominating Barrett, he would have no choice but to sign it. Write these words down, put them by a calendar somewhere, because it is almost an exact quote of what he’s going to say.

And he’s dead wrong.

First of all, the lady that is getting replaced on the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was totally against court-packing. Bob Bauer, who was White House Counsel to no less than Bobo Obama has said that court-packing will “not serve to strengthen the Constitution”. And Michigan law professor, Richard Primus, who happened to clerk for Justice Ginsburg at the high court commented three years ago that court-packing would cause the federal courts to “lose a hefty share of whatever legitimacy they still retained.”

Maybe that’s why Marco Rubio (R-FL) has decided to put forth a Constitutional Amendment on the floor of the Senate that calls for the Supreme Court to be set at nine Justices. Now, I wouldn’t expect the House to go along with that in this current climate, but if the GOP takes back the House and retains the Senate, and wins the White House, it certainly could happen. And I have no doubt that it would most likely pass the required number of state legislatures which is overwhelmingly conservative.

No, Joe Biden would LOVE to see the Supreme Court add Justices if he felt he could get his way in future lawsuits before them. Unfortunately, like a lot of ideas that Democrats try when they realize that they are losing on an issue and want to change the rules, it usually comes back to bite them in the butt. The whole Amy Coney Barrett confirmation wouldn’t even have been an issue had Harry Reid decided long ago to get rid of the 60 vote rule for federal judges. That move is responsible for Mitch McConnell to expand it to Supreme Court Justices. While it worked getting liberals through in the short term, it has crushed the liberal doctrine in the long term.

And I have a feeling that “packing the court” will have the same results for Democrats. Then what are they going to do?

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

The Supreme Court Inconsistency

I’ve said it a million times…I’m a consistency guy. I hate it when politicians come out on one side of an issue, and a little later, flip-flop to another side of the issue. And it’s happening again.

And by the way…it’s NOT happening with Donald Trump.

In 1992, Joe Biden, then a US Senator spoke on the Senate floor and created what is known as “The Biden Rule”. It basically said during the last year of a president’s term, they shouldn’t be able to nominate anyone for Supreme Court Justice. They ought to wait until the election to decide which party should get to do it. In 2016, when Antonin Scalia passed away, Biden was all against his own rule, and thought that his boss, one Bobo Obama, should be able to nominate Merrick Garland. Mitch McConnell in the Senate, went along with and even cited “The Biden Rule” and didn’t allow Garland to be given a confirmation hearing.

Today, we have the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And once again, Biden and the Democrats are wanting to invoke The Biden Rule. What they fail to realize is, there IS no “Biden Rule” I’ve looked. It doesn’t exist in the Constitution. There is no law saying a president can’t nominate a Supreme Court Justice during the last year of his/her term. Nothing. Bupkus.

Democrats are pissed because RBG died during a Republican president’s term. She didn’t listen to them when they wanted her to retire under Obama. Then a liberal could have been appointed. Instead, she thought she could wait out Trump and whomever took his place would be able to appoint her replacement when she died.

The facts are very clear here. Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Donald Trump’s watch. Antonin Scalia died on Bobo Obama’s watch. Bobo Obama decided to nominate Merrick Garland to the high court, and Donald Trump is getting ready to do the same thing (not Garland, though) as his predecessor did. If the Democrats are going to cry foul over that one, they should have cried foul over Obama’s nomination as well. But they didn’t.

Last I checked, a presidential term goes four years. Not three and a half. Not three years, nine months, it goes for a full four years. And even if RBG had died in late November, and Trump lost the election, he still is constitutionally bound to name the nominee. Just as Obama was constitutionally bound to replace Antonin Scalia. Obama was right to nominate Garland back then. Trump is right to nominate whomever he wishes now.

As far as the Senate goes, it’s up to the Majority Leader to decide how the confirmation takes place. They can hold it in 60-90 days as has been the case over the last four nominations, or they can rush it through. There is no rule as to how long it takes to confirm a nominee. If they decided to wait until after the election, or until the next president is in office, that’s their perogative. And just because one Senate decides to hold off, the next one doesn’t have to follow the same “rule”. That’s because there IS no rule.

Democrats have already said that they intend to pack the court with a total of 12 Justices if they control the Senate and the White House. They intend to do away with the filibuster altogether. But they are hung up on whether or not a sitting president has a constitutional obligation to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in his/her last year in office? Where is the consistency?

And this is why politics in Washington DC stinks.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!