End of the world for Democrats

June 28, 2018

Democrats are going through the stages of grief all at once as they realize there is nothing they can do to prevent President Trump from exercising his Constitutional authority to nominate a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.  Well, the first four stages at least:  denial, anger, bargaining and depression.  I predict that they will never reach “acceptance.”


 OUR TOP STORY:  Evening Edition - June 28  


https://www.westernjournal.com/trump-plans-immediate-search-for-new-supreme-court-justice-vows-to-pick-from-conservative-list/

 

As part of their “bargaining” phase, Democrats have tried invoking the “Biden rule,” which apples to Presidents leaving office soon, not mid-first-term Presidents that Democrats fantasize about removing from office soon.  Their hopes that outgoing renegade Republican Senator Jeff Flake would block Trump’s nominee also crumbled on Thursday, when Flake announced that he’s got enough leverage on tariffs from blocking circuit court judges and won’t block Trump’s Supreme Court pick (that might tank his current 32% approval rating.)

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/jeff-flake-wont-withhold-support-for-supreme-court-nominee-over-tariffs

 



I feel sorry for whoever agrees to accept the nomination, because no matter how qualified, respected and clean as a hound’s tooth the nominee might be, the left is already gearing up to paint him or her as the biggest monster since Godzilla.  Here’s a typical unhinged tweet from a distraught social justice warrior:

 

“Literally in tears.  Haven’t felt this hopeless in a long time.  With Justice Kennedy leaving, we now have two options as Americans: get fitted for your Nazi uniform or report directly to your death camp. How do you fight the darkness without light? My spark is going out.”

 

It sounds as if his spark of intelligence already went out, and before he ever took a history class on World War II, if he ever did.  I keep wondering how a series of court rulings that reinforce individual freedom from government encroachment somehow advance the cause of authoritarian tyranny.  As one pundit noted, if Trump were really an authoritarian, he wouldn’t appeal to the Supreme Court at all, he would just use his pen and his phone to write laws unilaterally, like another President we could all name.   

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has taken a lot of criticism from conservatives, but they should thank him for not letting Obama make a last-minute appointment of Merrick Garland (who likely would have ruled in favor of government encroachment on individual rights in every one of these recent cases) and for promising a confirmation vote before the election.  The numbers aren’t good for Democrats to take over the Senate (and thanks to the Democrats' rule-changing precedent, McConnell can invoke the nuclear option, block a filibuster and confirm with a simple majority).  But a pre-election vote will force embattled Democratic incumbents from pro-Trump states to let their constituents know whether they will side with the President in approving Justices who protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights instead of legislating from the bench, or side with their party in what will likely be the biggest public sliming since the “Ghostbusters” remake.

 


Commentary continues below advertisement


One important point that’s getting overlooked in all the coverage of the impotent rage from the left over this basic function of government: If the retirement of just one judge is so earth-shattering that it’s going to spell the END OF THE WORLD, then we have invested way too much power in the judiciary.  And by the way, why do we even have liberal and conservative wings of the Supreme Court?  Aren’t they supposed to base their decisions on the law and the Constitution, not their political opinions?

 

The Founders intended this to be a nation run by elected representatives of the people, not appointed lawyers with lifetime tenures.  The fight over the vital importance of that one judicial seat provides convincing evidence that it’s time to roll back the power of the activist judiciary.  I can’t think of a better way to start than by confirming a strict constructionist to the swing seat. 

LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE.  I READ THEM!

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

More Stories

AG Barr has draft of Horowitz report; what happens now?

AG Barr has draft of Horowitz report; what happens now?

Follow-up: Reader responses to Joe Biden commentary

Comments 1-3 of 3

  • Jack W. Tomey

    06/30/2018 06:06 AM

    I am absolutely thrilled that we will soon have a conservative-majority Supreme Court. That means that, at some point, there is the real possibility of overturning Roe vs. Wade - - I have been waiting for that for over 40 years.

  • Brad Crawford

    06/29/2018 10:57 AM

    It's not simply that these judges on the federal bench change laws. Judges at the state levels do the same thing in interpreting what they "feel" the legislators intended the law to be - NOT how it was actually written - in many cases. And what will the left do if Bader-Ginsburg retires while president Trump is in office? Oh, the melt down then.

  • Ilene Andrews

    06/28/2018 11:12 PM

    I really enjoy your appearances on Fox & your tweets! You must be so proud of Sara. My favorite saying about these dems/liberals are that they are like rust...they never sleep!