Good day all. Last Friday, the New York Times Editorial Board, fresh off a 6 week Cocaine binge, published an editorial that whines that the Senate Republicans stole the Supreme Court seat from Merrick Garland.
For those of you not paying attention, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away late last year, opening up a position on the Supreme Court. From the previous picks by Barack Obama, people expected him to select someone who would promptly reverse all the decisions that Scalia had authored. One major decision would have been overturning the Heller decision which upheld the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. (Which it was always intended to be)
Because it was so late in Obama’s maladministration, many people thought that the next president should pick the new USSC justice. Obama, being Obama, put up Merrick Garland. People reviewing his record found that he was utterly opposed to the 2nd Amendment and had never met a government regulation he didn’t like. The Senate, which is controlled by the Republican Party, refused to even hold hearings on Garland.
Since everyone thought, as of the morning of November 8th, 2016, that Felonia von Pantsuit would win the presidency, the Progressives didn’t push to hard. They all thought that Garland would be either put through in the lame duck session or would be renominated by Felonia. Donald Trump’s pleasantly surprising victory utterly crushed that plan. Now the New York Times, in a case of extreme butthurt is claiming that the open seat was “Stolen” from Obama.
Soon after his inauguration next month, President-elect Donald Trump will nominate someone to the Supreme Court, which has been hamstrung by a vacancy since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. There will be public debates about the nominee’s credentials, past record, judicial philosophy and temperament. There will be Senate hearings and a vote.
Well, so far so good. But this IS the New York Slimes.
No matter how it plays out, Americans must remember one thing above all: The person who gets confirmed will sit in a stolen seat.
It was stolen from Barack Obama, a twice-elected president who fulfilled his constitutional duty more than nine months ago by nominating Merrick Garland, a highly qualified and widely respected federal appellate judge.
Highly qualified if you are a member of the Progressive Liberal Elite. For everyone else, he was just another black robed judicial tyrant.
It was stolen by top Senate Republicans, who broke with longstanding tradition and refused to consider any nominee Mr. Obama might send them, because they wanted to preserve the court’s conservative majority. The main perpetrators of the theft were Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, and Charles Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. But virtually all Republican senators were accomplices; only two supported holding hearings.
The NY Slimes editorial board continues on for several paragraphs. Most of which can be summed up as:
[youtuber youtube=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_8YTa_-hZw’]
By tying the latest appointment directly to the outcome of the election, Mr. McConnell and his allies took a torch to that idea — an outrageous gambit that, to nearly everyone’s shock, has paid off.
It must really piss you off that no matter how hard you tried, you just couldn’t quite drag Felonia’s fat, drunken carcass over the finish line.
But while Republicans may be celebrating now, the damage they have inflicted on the confirmation process, and on the court as an institution, may be irreversible.
Excuse me, but do you recall a well known, scholarly gentleman by the name of Robert Bork? In case you are suffering from Crack induced dementia, allow me to refresh your memory. Bork was nominated to the supreme court and then was subjected to flat out lies, slander and libel by two of your most favored Senators, Dead Ted Kennedy and Slow Joe Biden. You didn’t have any problem with what those two “Scions of Progressive Liberal Thought” did. Now, the shoe is on the other foot and you don’t like it much do you?
The slope is both slippery and steep. If Republicans could justify an election-year blockade, what’s to stop Democrats in the future from doing the same?
Nothing, and that’s happened in the past. There have been several cases where a Justice kicked the bucket during an election year and wasn’t replaced until the new administration took office. However, the Times doesn’t see it that way. They think that the system, which worked as designed, is broken and needs to be fixed. Their solution?
Can anything be done to repair the harm? One step — as obvious as it is unlikely — would be for Mr. Trump to renominate Mr. Garland.
[youtuber youtube=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbp_JQ7RxqM’]
Oh wait, you’re actually serious?
At the very least, Mr. Trump could follow President Obama’s example and pick a centrist — someone who commands wide respect and operates within the bounds of mainstream legal thought.
In other words, someone who will continue to destroy the Constitution and strip the God, (or Nature, whatever floats your boat), given rights away from the individual American citizen. In other words, a good hard left progressive Moonbat black robed judicial tyrant.
That would be an appropriate gesture from a man who lost the popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes and will enter office with the lowest approval ratings in recent history.
Yeah, about those 2.8 million votes? They were from California, and there is some question as to their legitimacy. You might want to reflect on the fact that Felonia von Pantsuit LOST over 80% of the counties in the United States, and that only the most densely populated areas, which also happen to be under the totalitarian thumb of the Democrat Party, voted for her. That is the purpose of the Electoral college and the United States Senate. It’s to prevent the large states from ruling over and ignoring the small states. It’s generally worked pretty well too, which is why we haven’t had a second Civil war.
The shameful, infuriating actions of the Senate Republicans won’t be ignored in the history books.
Since Progressive don’t read history books, as you have amply demonstrated with this “editorial,” you really won’t care what history says.
In a desperate effort to keep a conservative majority on the court, they rejected their own professed values of preserving American institutions.
The Republican Party, and President Trump aren’t there to “Preserve” these institutions, They’re there to tear them down and restore the United States to a Constitutional Republic.
There’s little hope that they will come to their senses now, but they and Mr. Trump have the power, and the obligation, to fix the mess they created.
And as you can see, the drug besotted Editorial Board of the New York Times fails to understand what happened November 8th, 2016. Their world view, that of the “Educated Progressive Elite” managing all aspects of American, if not global life, has been repudiated. Donald Trump has already posted a list of people he thinks would make fine Supreme Court justices. From what I’ve read, most of the constitutional conservatives out there agree that his choices would be very good. The problem for the Progressives is that these choices will undo nearly a century of “Good Progressive Work”. I hate to be the one to tell you, but that is just what most Americans want.
Thatisall
~The Angry Webmaster~
[yasr_visitor_votes size=”large”]
