Debunking Demo Objections to President Trump's Third SCOTUS Nominee

"It will be a woman — a very talented, very brilliant woman." Calling Amy Coney Barrett...

by Mark Alexander

: “There is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution.” —Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers No. 81 (1787) 

Apparently, all the Democrat Party operatives and their legions of useful idiots got the Demo memo and are singing the same chorus line: “Let the people decide!” They insist that, so close to a presidential election, only the candidate who wins that election should put forth the next nominee to the Supreme Court, filling the seat vacated by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. 

That is their layup for opposition to a nomination by President Donald Trump to fill RBG’s seat. 

First, a couple questions. 

In regard to SCOTUS nominations in the fourth year of a presidential term, who said: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year”? 

That was Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2016, after then-lame duck Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court’s most articulate and faithful advocate of Liberty and Rule of Law. (This despite a Leftmedia claim that Ginsburg told her granddaughter just before her death, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”) 

And regarding SCOTUS nominations before an election, who said: “I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with the confirmation process as chairman even a few months before a presidential election”? 

That was then-Vice President Joe Biden in 2016, objecting to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s refusal to take up Obama’s Garland nomination. 

So, what would Senator Chuck Schumer have done with Obama’s nominee if he was majority leader in 2016? Obviously, he would have done exactly what McConnell is doing now. 

Senator McConnell has been clear regarding his consistent standard for election-year nominations and votes. 

In a statement on the passing of Associate Justice Ginsburg, McConnell affirmed he will call for a vote on a SCOTUS nominee: “In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year. By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise. President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.” 

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), responding to Demo objections, provided them a quick lesson on the history of SCOTUS nominations: “Twenty-nine times there has been a vacancy in a presidential election year. Presidents have made nominations all 29 times.” Cruz added that a significant factor in Trump’s election was the Scalia vacancy, to ensure the appointment of “a principled constitutionalist on the court.” Cruz noted, “And it’s a big part of the reason why we have a Republican majority elected in 2014, reelected in 2016, grown even larger in 2018. A major issue in each of those elections is the American people voted and said we want constitutionalist judges.” 

Indeed, as President Thomas Jefferson noted in 1804, “The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” And it is that tyrannical despotism that will completely undermine the principles upon which our Republic was founded. 

The SCOTUS appointment is not about Right v. Left. It’s about Liberty v. Tyranny. Furthermore, as for McConnell’s actions in 2016, better obstruction than destruction of Rule of Law regarding “the advice and consent of the Senate” on nominations. The Constitution’s mandate for the nomination process is straightforward. 

Again, Trump is not a lame-duck president as was Obama in 2016, and he does not have a Senate controlled by the opposition party, as did Obama in 2016. 

President Trump’s response to first hearing about the death of RBG was very humble, as was his Presidential Proclamation. 

He then made clear: “We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!” 

He noted that his nominee would “be a woman — a very talented, very brilliant woman,” whom we believe will be Louisiana native Amy Coney Barrett, now serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Indiana. Judge Barrett has been on Trump’s short list for two years. In fact, he reportedly told numerous people, “I’m saving her for Ginsburg.” 

Trump has nominated and the Senate approved 205 federal judges over the course of his first term. His appointments of Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the latter being confirmed after a disgraceful obstructionist effort by Democrats, have moved SCOTUS back to center. 

This nomination will help ensure the majority of SCOTUS judges will abide by their solemn oaths “to support and defend” our Constitution, which is precisely why the Democrats object. They prefer “despotic” jurists who will do their bidding by judicial diktat. 

Of course, whether Trump’s nomination will get through the Senate is another matter, given opposition from Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME). The nominee may face opposition from Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) but he indicates he would support the vote. 

Then there is the question of whether Republicans can break through all the Democrat obstacles between now and election day. If not, and in Arizona, Mark Kelly defeats incumbent Republican Martha McSally in that special election, that would take away her vote before the end of November. 

Of course, in a tie, Vice President Mike Pence will step in. 

As for the amount of time required to consider a nomination, Justice Ginsburg, despite her clear leftist leanings, was confirmed by the Senate on 22 June 1993, just 42 days after her nomination by Bill Clinton, and with a 96-3 vote. There are 43 days until the presidential election. 

That rapid approval is because Republicans uphold their constitutional duty, unlike Democrats who, two years earlier, made a spectacle out of George H.W. Bush’s nomination of Clarence Thomas, which resulted in a 52-48 affirmation. Those hearings were the Democrat model for the Kavanaugh debacle, during which one of the most vociferous of his opponents was Kamala Harris. 

Some further observations: 

Democrats spent three years using deep-state operatives to, in effect, attempt a coup d'état to take down Trump’s presidency. That charade was based on a fake dossier funded by Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton. (As it turns out, there are Obama and Biden fingerprints all over the coup crime scene.) 

After that direct assault on our Constitution, Democrats now believe they have the moral authority to insist that President Trump not nominate an RBG replacement in an election year? 

When their coup attempt failed, Demos attempted to take Trump’s presidency down with an impeachment farce — in a presidential election year. 

Again, after that direct assault on our Constitution, they believe they have the moral authority to insist that President Trump not nominate an RBG replacement in an election year? 

As RBG said correctly, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” 

And on the subject of frivolous impeachments, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) hinted that the House might impeach Trump again to distract from the nomination, saying, “Well, we have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now.” And in a bizarre response to leftist George Stephanopoulos, who asked, “But to be clear, you’re not taking any arrows out of your quiver? You’re not ruling anything out?” Pelosi responded with an answer that only Joe Biden could understand: “Good morning. Sunday morning. The, uh, we have a responsibility, we take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people, uh, that, uh, is, uh, when the, we weigh the equities of protecting our democracy requires us to use every arrow in our quiver.” 

For the record, whenever Pelosi mentions the Democrats’ “oath to protect and defend the Constitution,” you have permission to laugh out loud! 

Pelosi added, “They’re coming after your children.” The irony of that statement is rich. 

Of course, one of her “quivers” is the plan Democrats revived last February – FDR’s court-packing agenda. Now they are threatening to act on it. Mitch McConnell declared: “The American people are about to witness an astonishing parade of misrepresentation about the past, misstatements about the present [from] the same people who have already been saying for months they want to pack the court.” 

The Constitution stipulates that Congress has the responsibility to set the number of justices on the court. Article III provides Congress the discretion to “determine the shape and structure of the federal judiciary."Historically, there have been as few as six Justices, but since 1869, the Chief Justice has served with eight associate Justices. 

When Chuck Schumer was asked about how he would respond, including adding the number of Justices so Democrats could move the court back to the Left, he said, "Let me be clear: if Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans move forward with this, then nothing is off the table for next year. Nothing is off the table.” 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) was more direct, saying if Democrats take the Senate and presidency, congress “should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court,” adding, “Congress would have to act and expanding the court would be the right place to start.” And then: “If Leader McConnell presses forward, the Republican majority will have stolen two Supreme Court seats four years apart. … We can’t have business as usual when Republicans are destroying the institution as they have done.” 

That’s “stolen two Supreme Court seats.” 

Recall that 11 of the Democrat primary presidential candidates favored packing the court with leftist judges, including Kamala Harris. 

As for Biden, who has thus far refused to release a list of his prospective SCOTUS nominees, also refused to answer the court-packing question: “I’m not going to answer that question.” 

Regardless of the Trump nomination, I believe the Democrats, if they take control of the Senate and Executive Branch, are going to pack the courts. One of the Demos’ most vociferous Leftmedia propagandists, CNN’s Don Lemon, summed up the Left’s objective, noting Democrats should “blow up the entire system.” He insists they must “[pack] the Supreme Court” and “get rid of the Electoral College.” 

Now, leftists are threatening more violence on the streets when Trump advances a nomination. I would add, now is the time when Republican senators should ALL have additional security, given the history of Democrat supporters attempting to murder Republicans. The Marxists will start targeting senators. 

Finally, allow me to end this column with a few words of praise for Justice Ginsburg. 

When asked about the Democrat efforts to “pack the court” by adding justices under a future Democrat president, RBG chastised them, calling it a “bad idea” and “partisan.” She said: “Nine seems to be a good number. … I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried. … I am not at all in favor of that.” 

And reflective of the national sentiments of even the most leftist SCOTUS judge, regarding the anti-American antics of celebrity athlete Colin Kaepernick and his refusal to stand for the national anthem, RBG said: “I think it’s dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act.” 

Footnote: Reflective of threats being posted by emotionally incontinent leftist adolescents regarding the upcoming court nomination… “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f—–g thing down.” “If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots.” “If McConnell gets another justice, we need to burn down the f—–g Senate.” “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election.” And… 

---------------------------

Mark Alexander writes for The Patriot Post.

---

Tags: Mark Alexander, Patriot Post, Debunking Demo Objections, to President Trump's, Third SCOTUS Nominee To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!