Supremely Ridiculous - Soapbox Jr.
*NOTE* This is the second recent political soapbox I’ve done, and while some people seem to like me sharing my positions like dad frequently did, many would like to just hear memories of dad and growing up with him. So, I’m going to try to satisfy everybody by shifting to two soapboxes a week, one political and one CDB history/memories. That way you can tune out of the political one, and hold on for the non-political a few days later. – CD, Jr.
In watching the Senate Confirmation Hearings for Supreme Court Justice nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, it appears that it’s business as usual in Washington D.C. Every time there is a nomination for Supreme Court appointed by a president who isn’t from their party, the opposing party attacks with everything they have to keep the nominee from getting through the approval process.
Oh, wait a minute… let me double check something...
Okay, after a full 30 seconds of research, it is actually only when the nominee has been put forth by a Republican president. Nominees from a Democratic president sail through, even when the Senate has had a Republican majority.
But more often than not, when a Republican president nominates a justice, be it Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch – who was filibustered – and, of course, the circus that was the Brett Cavanaugh confirmation, the Democrats in the Senate go for the jugular.
Of course, politics comes into play. There’s no way it can’t.
Democrats have been clamoring how inappropriate it is to go forward with the nomination process in an election year.
But Democrat voices were singing a different song in the last presidential election cycle.
The Democrats launched a major campaign to give Merrick Garland a confirmation hearing in 2016 - an election year, it was squashed by Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. According to the media and prominent Democrats, it was the Senate’s “duty” to give President Obama’s nominee a hearing, despite the looming election.
We were even told in the vice presidential debate by Democrat VP nominee, Kamala Harris, that Abraham Lincoln even selflessly held off on a SCOTUS nomination until after his upcoming election so that the voters could have a say, and that his shining example was the standard we should adhere to.
There’s only one small problem, that’s not exactly what happened.
According to National Review’s Dan McLaughlin and historian David Donald, the Senate was not in session at the time there was a Supreme Court vacancy – but Ms. Harris was correct, it was 27 days before the election - so good ol “Honest Abe,” put forth several potential nominees… and they went out and campaigned for him. Yep, it appears that Abe was playing politics.
After winning re-election, he made his nomination right after the next Senate session began, and Salmon P. Chase was confirmed the exact same day.
So, Ms. Harris, my feelings can be summed up by my favorite Lincoln quote, “Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
In fact, politics has affected the SCOTUS nomination process many times over our nation’s history.
There have been twenty-nine times when Supreme Court vacancies have occurred in an election year.
In years when the White House was in line with the majority party in the Senate, the president’s nominee was confirmed seventeen times. There were ten instances where the White House was not in line with the Senate majority in an election year, and the nominee confirmed before an election only once.
Amy Coney Barrett is an outstanding choice for the Supreme Court, but in the minds of the left wing, because of her religious views, she is incapable of ruling fairly, something that – to my knowledge – she has never been accused of any time in her career.
When President Obama’s SCOTUS nominees, Elana Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor, were going through the confirmation process, there was no grandstanding by Republican senators, no protests and no hearings with witnesses with shaky stories trying to discredit the nominees in order to hold up the process, and in fact, several of the GOP senators voted for both Kagan and Sotomayor, despite being in the minority, and being nominated by a Democratic president.
Character assassination only seems to happen with the Democrats.
And now, Amy Coney Barrett.
So, this is nothing new.
What is relatively new – although it was put forth by Franklin Delano Roosevelt back in the 1940s - is the idea of packing the Supreme Court. What does packing exactly mean? It means adding justices until you get the majority that you want, so it could be 11 justices, 13 or even 15, whatever it takes. Chuck Schumer won’t discount that as a possibility and several others on the left seem to be in favor of it.
This would have a drastic impact on the court, likely making it a rubber stamp for a Democrat president, provided it was packed with liberal justices.
What does Democrat presidential ticket have to say about that?
Well… nothing. They wouldn’t even address it in previous debates. When asked about it during the debate, Joe Biden said that he wouldn’t give his position, because Trump would use it against him. He was later asked about court packing by a reporter who point blank asked, “Don’t the voters deserve to know?” To which Biden replied, “No they don’t!”
Seems like I’ve heard this line of thinking before.
“We have to pass the bill, so you can find out what’s in it.”
That didn’t work out so well. I was one of those people that was told if you liked your plan, and if you liked your doctor, you could keep it.
I had my own private insurance at the time that I was satisfied with, turns out I could not keep my plan, and my doctor wasn’t in the Obamacare system.
So, forgive me, but I’ve played this game once already.
Every American should be concerned about a candidate that won’t tell you what they will do with one of the three branches of our government until after the election.
All Americans should be calling for Joe to tell the truth on this matter, although it sounds like Joe has some bigger problems brewing right now, according to the New York Post.
But he’s got the media on his side, so who knows if will even faze him.
*NOTE 2* I wrote most of this before Biden’s town hall on ABC Thursday night, and while Joe and Hunter’s problems unsurprisingly did not get mentioned, Joe did clarify his position on court packing… sort of…
“He’s “not a fan” of court packing, but he’s open to considering it, and when pressed on whether or not voters did deserve to know his position, he flip-flopped and said that voters did have the right to know, and he would make his position clear… before the election. When before the election? Who knows? So his clarified position is as clear as mud.
What do you think?
Pray for our troops, our police, our country and the peace of Jerusalem.
God Bless America!
PLEASE READ BEFORE YOU POST
Feel free to comment on soapboxes, but please refrain from profanity and anonymous posts are not allowed, we need a name and you MUST provide a valid email address. If you provide an email address, but leave the name as "Anonymous" we will pick a name for you based on your email address. No one other than website administrators will see your email address, not other posters. If you post without a valid email address, your comment (whether positive or negative) will be deleted. — TeamCDB/BW
Check out "Geechi Geechi Ya Ya Blues" from Beau Weevils - 'Songs in the Key of E'