Democrats: SCOTUS Furor Even Worse Than Anticipated

    We finally know the specifics of Democrats “new” plan for governing in the U.S. In today’s TNN offering, we will walk you through their governance process, give you its history, and facts that prove this plan is not a conservative conspiracy theory — it’s factual. It’s not new. In fact, it has existed for a decade or more. On its own merits, it is scary. But the scariest realization is that it has been there for all to see from its inception, and Americans have either ignored it, seen it but dismissed it or have missed it altogether. See more about this in the “Summary” below.

Leftist Frenzy

Who would have thought that a kind, gentle, and soft-spoken jurist with a history of 300 legal documented opinions written during his 11 years a federal appeals court judge, would (according to Democrats) either be Satan himself or at least Satan’s best friend? That’s the story being trumpeted to the Nation by Democrat Party leaders in D.C. Putting it plainly from Dems perspective: Brett Kavanaugh is an evil Supreme Court nominee who wants to snatch all personal freedoms from every American — especially from women.

How to respond to such bombastic allegations?

How bombastic are they? Here are U.S. Senate Democrat leaders Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Kamala Harris (D-CA) — who is almost certainly a candidate for President in 2020 — Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):

Roe v. Wade

Is it surprising that the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling by the Supreme Court 40 years ago is “the” hot button for whoever is to fill Justice Anthony Kennedy’s spot on the Supreme Court? Is it surprising that even before President Trump’s announcement of the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to fill that spot, Leftists were screaming that “the” nominee (if confirmed) would single-handedly overturn Roe v. Wade?

Enter Brett Kavanaugh.

Immediately upon his nomination, the Leftist abortionists began alerting every American that women’s rights — including abortion — would be immediately abolished by Justice Kavanaugh. Their cry would have been the same no matter who the President nominated.

In his Senate confirmation hearing in 2006 after his nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, here is how Judge Kavanaugh replied to Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) when asked about his position on Roe v. Wade (click on the link to watch):

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4739106/schumer-questions-kavanaugh-2006

SCHUMER: “Do you consider Roe v. Wade to be an abomination? And do you consider yourself to be a judicial nominee, like the president (George W. Bush) said he was going to nominate people, in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas?”

KAVANAUGH: “Senator, on the question of Roe v. Wade, if confirmed to the DC Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully. That would be a binding precedent of the Court. It’s been decided by the Supreme Court.”

That answer, of course, was not sufficient to stem Schumer’s fear of the overturn of Roe v. Wade:

SCHUMER: “I asked you your own opinion.”

KAVANAUGH: “And I’m saying if I were confirmed to the DC Circuit, Senator, I would follow it. It’s been reaffirmed many times, including in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.”

SCHUMER: “I understand. But what is your opinion? You’re not on the bench yet. You’ve talked about these issues in the past to other people, I’m sure.”

KAVANAUGH: “The Supreme Court has held repeatedly, Senator, and I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to give a personal view of that case.”

SCHUMER: “Okay, you are not going to answer the question.”

Kavanaugh’s answer seems clear and to the point to most, but not to Schumer who simply sought to disqualify Kavanaugh — a conservative judge who is thought to be Pro-Life — for his personal stance on abortion. But the “Ginsburg Rule” was invoked and has been often since the Senate confirmation hearing in 1993 of Ruth Bader Ginsburg then a Supreme Court nominee. Let’s look at it.

Ginsburg Rule

At her 1993 Supreme Court confirmation hearings, nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her opening statement urged the Judiciary Committee to judge her fitness to be a Justice principally on the written record of her past 34 years of legal experience—as a law teacher, practicing attorney, and
federal appellate court judge. She then articulated a limit on what the Senators could expect their questioning to elicit from her. For, she said, she would be constrained, when responding to Senators’ questions, from providing any “previews,” “hints,” or “forecasts” of how she as a Justice might cast her vote on issues that might come before the Court:
“Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or to preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues. Each case comes to court based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”
In her subsequent testimony, Judge Ginsburg sometimes declined to address or discuss in any way an issue raised by a Senator’s question, in each instance referring to her earlier proclaimed intention not to provide any “hints or forecasts” on how she might vote on an issue once on the
Court.
Since that hearing, it has been — on both sides of the political aisle — not just acceptable but considered the just and right thing that nominees to ALL federal courts not be asked to give personal opinions on specific legal issues that are not specific to the Constitution or the Rule of Law. Of course, senators who are pushing political agendas will occasionally push nominees on certain hot topics (like Roe v. Wade) so as to politically expose nominees’ personal convictions and opinions about those topics.
Today’s Democrat Senators have thrown “The Ginsburg Rule” to the curb. They apparently do not care for historical precedent, the decency, and decorum that has been part of confirming judicial nominees to federal courts. Want an example? That same senator above — Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) — said this about the upcoming Senate confirmation hearing to be held for Judge Kavanaugh: “During confirmation hearings for nominees to the High Court, members of the Judiciary Committee have the right to hear the personal opinions of candidates on anything that might impact the way they would rule on any issue.” (paraphrased) Blumenthal angrily made that statement in an interview, demanding that Kavanaugh is forced to tell members of the committee where he stands on abortion and other hot political issues. Doing so would obviously obliterate the long-standing standard set by Justice Ginsburg in her confirmation hearing in which she stated refused to answer questions 70 times because “doing so would possibly prejudice any position I might take if/when that issue was part of a case the Supreme Court agreed to rule on.”

Why the Demand from Dems on this Issue?

The answer to that question not only explains past nominees’ reason for refusal to answer questions about personal views, it exposes Democrats “new” plan for governing in the U.S.

The Dem “Plan”

It’s simple: they have lost the election war in America, and they’ve thrown in the towel. For the last decade, Democrats have watched election after election at federal, state, and local levels in which Dems lost 1000+ seats of government to Republicans. That slide had already begun when their former leader — Barack Obama — installed and initiated the “new” Democrat plan that is still in use. What WAS and IS the Democrat plan?

Democrats understand that their old party platform based on higher taxes, increased regulations, increased government subsidies, open border immigration policies, diminished military, anti-law enforcement policies, anti-business legislation and restrictions, and socialized medicine with a much larger federal government running the show, was impossible to sell to the American people. Obama promised to install policies that would “fundamentally change” America. In his first term, he did just that, and America realized they did not like those changes. Those policies were not helping them, their wallets, or the towns and cities where they lived. They lost jobs and businesses while unemployment soared as they watched company after company abandon the U.S. for other nations with better financial policies.

Middle America stopped voting for Democrats. Democrat Party leaders were horrified at their loss of power, so frantically struggled to find a way out. Obama schooled them on the “new plan:” Make the American Judiciary the political arm of the American government — a Democrat government. He knew that federal judges and courts had the final say-so on all laws and policies. If Democrats could flood the federal courts with liberal activist judges, they would see federal court case verdicts based on liberal political philosophy and abandoning the longstanding Rule of Law for court rulings. That meant appointing activist judges wherever federal court judge openings occurred. Barack Obama did just that.

The total number of Obama Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate was 329, including two justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 55 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to the United States district courts, and four judges to the United States Court of International Trade.

In terms of Article I courts, Obama made 8 appointments to the United States Tax Court, 3 appointments to the United States Court of Federal Claims, 3 appointments to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, 2 appointments to the United States Court of Military Commission Review, and 2 appointments to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. He also elevated two chief judges of the Court of Federal Claims.

All were Democrats — and all were political activists.

The “Plan”

Now we know the reason for the outcry from the Left over the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy and the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to replace him. We know why long before the Kavanaugh appointment, the Left made preparations to fight ANY Trump appointee. They knew Trump would appoint a Conservative judge to the High Court — a justice that would certainly NOT be an activist, and would certainly rule according to Constitutional guidelines and certainly not for Democrat political leanings on any issue.

Democrats are in total melt-down.

Summary

There are several points I want to make here:

  • There’s a reason why our forefathers created the electoral college for our presidential election system. They knew large cities and heavily populated areas would eventually dominate national elections at the expense of those from rural and less populated areas. Therefore elections could not fairly be determined by just a popular vote. The “new” plan was to eventually with activist court decisions do away with the electoral college;
  • The Democrat Party has quickly slipped left politically — not just a little bit. The Party is now Far-Left, and can fairly be termed “Socialist.” In fact, many on the Left are past European Socialism and are flirting with Totalitarianism in which Big Brother Government totally controls the lives of the citizenry;
  • Democrats can no longer control the legislative process to install their Socialist agenda, which they for a decade have secretly been developing. And they have for a decade relied on activist judges to do that;
  • Donald Trump foiled their plan by “stealing” the election from HRC. They don’t know what to do.

We will continue to see and hear the shouts of anger and hate from the Left as the process of confirmation for Kavanaugh get underway. I fear that this may devolve into real violence. FOX News’ Shannon Bream was doing her show from outside the Supreme Court the night of the President’s nomination announcement. She had to terminate her show plan and move inside because Leftist demonstrators threatened violence. I think that is just the beginning.

Make no mistake: Brett Kavanaugh will be the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice. He “will not” because one Justice “cannot” overturn any federal law: that includes Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage, and cannot install any new conservative laws at all. JUDGES ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE LAWS! The only judges that have and are doing so number among those Leftist, activist judges appointed to federal courts by Obama.

I’ve said this before today, and it’s more applicable to today than any other: buckle up…..WE’RE IN FOR A RIDE!

Play

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.