When they tell you what they are planning to do, believe them! Sometimes the obvious is overlooked. Sometimes the opposition forgets that they have moved outside their own echo chamber and they tell you just what they are thinking and planning. Sometimes they slip up and throw a brick through your front window that gets your attention.
While I am going to talk about the Democrats here, remember the other side of the UniParty. They do the same things from time to time.
After last weekend, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) decided to get in his two cents and tried to trash the President.
Whether this was Justice Ginsburg’s dying wish or not is immaterial to this discussion. Notice the underlined word. Now I have heard of Presidents being elected. I have heard of Presidents being inaugurated. But I have never heard of Presidents being installed.
On the other hand I have heard of bishops being installed. But they do not get elected or inaugurated. Who they are is known. They get “installed” to lead the spiritual jurisdiction that they serve.
Chuck Schumer is using language that indicates not election but rather selection. Not by the people but by a few “higher-ups.” When you look at some of the things that have happened in our presidential politics during the last few decades, that is exactly what happened.
The political parties selected a candidate. In most cases (Trump was a notable exception), regardless of the number of candidates in the field, this candidate was the Party’s pick. So, although there was a process that appeared to encompass the voice of the people, the real decisions regarding who the candidate would be was made by the elites in the back rooms of each party.
This was never more painfully obvious than in the Democratic primary this year. When it appeared that either Bernie Sanders or Pete Buttigieg might be the people’s choice, the Party apparatus went into overdrive. This resulted in Joe Biden, who was a distant fourth early on and who is little more than an empty vessel, being where he is today. Biden was “installed” as the candidate when no other “approved” candidate could garner any real support from the public.
So “installing” a candidate is what they do. When they tell us other things via this kind of a slip-up, we should look carefully at what they are saying and see if the Democrats are again telling us what they do or intend to do.
What are they telling us in regard to a replacement for Justice Ginsburg?
The first item out of the gate was that this is a presidential election year so there should not be any appointment to the court until we know who will be President. They pointed to the “rule” from 2016 where Garland was nominated by Obama. The Republican led Senate refused to act on the nomination. The Republicans refusal was based on the “Biden” rule.
The “Biden” rule stated that there would be no nominations to the Supreme Court by the sitting administration during an election year when one party controlled the Senate and the other party occupied the White House. Of course, Joe Biden did not formulate the rule. He just told President George H. Bush that a nomination from him during the run-up to the 1992 election would not be acted on by the Senate. The Senate was controlled by the Democrats at the time. This was in keeping with long standing tradition dating back to the 1800’s.
This has nothing to do with the current situation. The same party controls both the Senate and The White House. When vacancies have occurred during an election year in this situation, nominees have been advanced and confirmed. Since 1900 there have been five such situations. The first occurred during the Taft (R) administration. Two more during the Wilson (D) administration. Calvin Coolidge (R) had one and FDR (D) was the other President where this occurred.
This is the situation we have now. PDJT nominating a candidate and the Senate acting on the nomination is entirely within the protocols and procedures that have long been in place. Under the Constitution it is the President’s responsibility to do this.
The Democrats know this. Former President Obama once said “Elections have consequences.” Their screeching about allowing the voters to weigh in is just a smoke screen to distract the public from the reality that exists now. That reality is that the voters had an opportunity to change the dynamic in 2018 and chose not to do so. In fact, the Republican majority in the Senate actually increased after that election cycle. This was considered to be fairly unusual electoral politics.
Currently there are 53 Republicans in the Senate. It probably would have been 54 except for what appears to have been probable voter fraud via ballot harvesting in Arizona.
The Democrats know that someone will be nominated and there will be a vote. So what else are they telling us?
Left-wing figures are threatening violence if PDJT and the Senate Republicans try to replace Justice Ginsburg. Reza Aslan, who used to have a show on CNN, responded by writing: “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f***ing thing down.”
Another country heard from.
https://twitter.com/KittyLists/status/1307137798848249856
Writer Beau Willimon wrote: “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election.”
https://twitter.com/KittyLists/status/1307134179696668673
Professor Emmett Macfarlane wrote on Twitter: “Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS.”
Don Lemon on CNN has called out “to blow up the entire system.”
As one reader wrote, how is some of this not considered domestic terroristic threats?
Why isn’t social media treated like main st media? It seems like both of these platforms do nothing but try to persuade the reader to think a certain way. They often use raw emotion to do it. Lately, they have liked to use fear. They have used these fears to divide us. They have used this fear to effect the way people are voting in this election and now a possible SCOTUS vote in the senate. I’m shocked that Democrats can go on social media and threaten burning down Congress over a SCOTUS vote. I thought we call that a domestic terrorist threat? Apparently that is ok in america 2020. What happened to threatening ideas and not people. Can we get back to those days or will Democracy die because each citizen can’t vote the way they want because of threats of violence?
Insightful! And yet these threats are scary at the same time. The Democrats have proven all summer that they will tolerate and condone violence. Their foot soldiers, Antifa and BLM, have been destroying sections of our urban centers for months with little or no pushback from Democratic leaders.
And the idea that such activities have been spontaneous is ludicrous. These are well organized riots. Just who is funding these activities? Are there RICO statutes that might apply here?
One such example:
This is organized
it is not random
it is not opportunistic https://t.co/dw4cngNYQ1
— Tim Pool (@Timcast) September 23, 2020
Believe them when they say it. We have seen the preambles across the country. I would expect that we will see violence in Washington. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) will call such violence a myth hoping that people will buy that narrative. Or, if they are forced to admit that violence is taking place, they will blame PDJT for “stoking division.” The only ones hoping for violence are the Democrats and those who align with their concept of totalitarian power.
Get ready. An unparalleled year in American politics is about to get even wilder.