All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Tuesday, September 22, 2020

Democrats forfeited their hearing with their Kavanaugh circus

Via Kane at Citizen Free Press. Maybe the staffer is The Donald himself. Anyway, the compilation of Democrats caterwauling over Merick Garland's fate in 2016 is a brilliant way to make the point that Judge PTBNL should be confirmed pronto.

For non-baseball fans, PTBNL means player to be named later, when another player is traded before the sending team has decided who it wants from the list of players offered. The president made a list 4 years ago and posted it online, updating it with other Supreme Court-worthy judges.

I have no reason or inclination to speculate on whom the nominee will be. I just know that the nominee should not be subjected to a judiciary committee inquisition. Democrats forfeited their privilege of cross-examining a nominee for the Supreme Court with their circus at the Brett Kavanaugh hearing.

Rush Limbaugh and Ed Morrissey are pushing for just calling a meeting, having a vote, and adjourning the committee without subjecting the nominee to Democrat baboonery. Who am I to disagree with conservative icons? No more Kavanaugh hearings.

How bad were those hearings? Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg complained.

Via Stacey Lennox, the late justice said, "The way it was, was right. The way it is, is wrong. The atmosphere in 93 was truly bipartisan. The vote on my confirmation was 96-3. Even though I had spent about ten years of my life litigating cases under the auspices of the ACLU and I was on the ACLU board and one of their general counsel.

"My White House handlers asked me questions about my ACLU affiliation. They were very nervous about it. And I said forget it, just forget it. There’s nothing you could do that would lead me to badmouth the ACLU. And not a single question. No senator asked me any question. Not about that. It was the same for Justice Breyer who was nominated a year later. He had in the 90s, the numbers. Or think of Justice Scalia who was certainly a known character in what was it, 1986. He had been a law professor and written many things, he had been on the D.C. Circuit. The vote was unanimous, every Democrat and every Republican voted for him.

"But that’s the way it should be. Instead of what it’s become which is a highly partisan show. The Republicans move in lock step, so do the Democrats. I wish I could wave a magic wand, and have it go back to the way it was."

How bad were the hearings? Weeks later, voters ousted 4 Democrat incumbent senators -- an unheard of number for the opposition party in a midterm when a president's party loses seats in the Senate. President Trump saw a net gain of two Senate seats, thanks in large part to Democrat perfidy.

Not holding a hearing may be a gift to Democrats but given they likely will all vote against the new justice, they will blow it. It may be sexist (which means it is) but how do you vote against a woman judge? My goodness, Judge Amy Coney Barrett is the mother of seven kids, including two adopted from Haiti.




Democrats will lose millions of soccer moms because rejecting her or any of the other lady judges is a rejection of the soccer moms. They work, they take care of their kids, and they resent being passed over for promotion. A vote against her promotion is a vote against theirs. And husbands vote as their wives do.

Democrats seem hellbent on increasing the Republican majority in the Senate, as Nancy is threatening another impeachment of the president in an effort to postpone the inevitable confirmation of the next Madame Justice.

President Trump said bring it on.

Lindsay Graham is chairman of the judiciary committee. 

He warned Democrats in a letter, "Lastly, after the treatment of Justice Kavanaugh I now have a different view of the judicial-confirmation process. Compare the treatment of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh to that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, and it’s clear that there already is one set of rules for a Republican president and one set of rules for a Democrat president.

"I therefore think it is important that we proceed expeditiously to process any nomination made by President Trump to fill this vacancy. I am certain if the shoe were on the other foot, you would do the same."

This is not your father's Republican Party, especially if you are Jeb Bush. Thank goodness.

No, thanks to the tantrums Democrats threw over Kavanaugh.

18 comments:

  1. Make the confirmation of the new justice quick and easy. Democrats deserve nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All the constitution requires is a presidential nomination with the nominee taking the seat upon the advice and consent of the Senate. If the Senate chooses to withhold its consent by not taking a vote, there has been no constitutional violation; all that has happened is that the nominee has not qualified to serve on the Court.

    Query -- how many of this President's nominees for confirmation needing positions were held up by the same Democrats bitching now? The hell with them, I say.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This should have been done Monday morning at 6 am DC time. Every minute a new antifa/blm cultists drives into DC and they're not going there to sit on their hands. They're going there to lay on the floors to stop people from moving.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How's 'bout 13 seat Court with Cruz, Cotton, Barrett, and Cameron?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dems have promised to expand the number on the court the next time they hold the presidency and a majority in the senate. Trump should quote them and point out that Republicans have both.
    And then send five nominations over to the senate. At the very least he'd get all the dem senators on record against expanding beyond the current nine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is actually a brilliant strategy and one Trump uses against his enemies time and again. Democrats are now urging their people to vote in person.

      Delete
  6. I am in full accord here. Whether the Democrats get it or not, Republicans are still seething over the treatment of Kavanaugh and now, it's payback time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I can't fathom what kind of "surprise" these dimwits will pull out of their collective arses, but they're royally screwed with their Marxist base if they don't do something to derail this train. Between this and the debates (if they happen) it's certainly must-see TV.

    Bob in MA

    ReplyDelete
  8. Interesting how much these people have aged in four years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I noticed the exact same thing, but it doesn't surprise me. If you have elderly relatives, you notice that they seem to age more and more rapidly the older they get. 4 years for anyone over the age of 65 looks like 2 decades for someone who is 35.

      Delete
  9. President Trump (excerpted from next week's debate with Biden, after snide Biden allusion that packing the SCOTUS WAS AN OPTION): "I agree with Joe, after I win reelection I'll introduce legislation to increase the size of the Court to match each each U.S. Federal Districts to twelve (12...like a jury sometimes tied)" ...mic drop, boom! Later, Trump compromises to eleven and immediately appoints two more by March 2012. ZB

    ReplyDelete
  10. Never let the batter know,
    Just which pitch you’re gonna throw.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lindsay Graham was royally pissed during the Kavanaugh hearings. He may be a dud with other things, but like McConnell, he will ram this sucker through.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope and pray that you are right, but it's hard to depend on Lindsey Graham. He's been a disappointment so very many times!

      Delete
  12. Make their heads explode, nominate Ric Grenell. They have Kagan who is rumored to be a lesbian, so why not throw a sucker punch? I know many conservative people would oppose it, and passage might fail for that reason, but seeing the left attack an openly gay person would be fun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know a single conservative who would oppose a conservative SCOTUS nominee merely because they were gay.

      Delete