Posted on 09/22/2020 9:35:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
This election was always going to be about culture. Treat the election as a referendum on cultural issues and lean in, Mr. President
It is said that when Napoleon was presented with the credentials of a general, he asked, “I know that he is good, but is he lucky?” The phrase might be apocryphal, but it is by no means wrong. One need not believe in the concept of fortune to be fortunate.
On that note, President Donald Trump might be considered fortunate, presented with another opportunity to shape the future with his third nomination to the Supreme Court. With the new vacancy, Trump has also provided social scientists an opportunity to test several academic theories about future political alignments.
For starters, there’s nothing Democrats can gain from this scenario. If a caustic confirmation ensues, it would be a rehash of the Brett Kavanaugh episode, which would galvanize Republicans. If there’s a nomination but no confirmation and then a lame-duck session, it would spur Republicans to vote for Trump for a future confirmation. If riots break out, they would most definitely stir Republicans to vote.
The talks of a political crisis are just that — talks. They’re a fantasy narrative created by those who have a monopoly over media, similar to the line that Trump would not give up power even if Joe Biden wins the election.
The constitutional process is clear: The president nominates, and the Senate proceeds to either confirm or deny. The party in power in the Senate decides whether a confirmation process goes forward. Democrats did that with Robert Bork, and Republicans paid back in kind during the nomination of Merrick Garland.
Those in power decide the process. That is true for both parties. Any other narrative is balderdash.
Another objection from the left is that an efficient confirmation process will break norms, which is ridiculous coming from the ideological side that understands nothing but how to use raw power for political gain. It was a power play when Kavanaugh was nominated, an episode that stiffened the spine and broke the starry-eyed spell of a lot of formerly centrist Republicans. It is a power play when ideological pseudo-history such as the 1619 Project wins a Pulitzer Prize and is taught in more than 3,000 schools.
It is a power play when Democrats stop budget relief that would have aided thousands of working-class people. It is a power play when jobs and livelihoods are held hostage by protests and riots. Barricading a Supreme Court nominatio is most definitely a power play coming from a side that wants to give statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico, pack the courts, and abolish the Electoral College. The talk of constitutional norms, therefore, is absurd, as those who win elections decide the norms, according to the established rules.
This election was always going to be about culture. Trump, for good or for bad, understands that. Rhetoric aside, in the last week, his Department of Education called the bluff of Princeton University’s performative self-flagellating shtick, and fired a full broadside on the insidious and subversive critical race theory. That is more ammunition on the cultural front than any other Republican president fired off in the last couple of decades.
It also has ensured the battle lines are clearly drawn. For decades, playing “fairly” resulted in conservatives losing every single frontier of culture due to their pretended neutrality. Neutrality historically cannot oppose a crusading ideology such as liberalism.
Trump’s full-throttle, open-armed embrace of the cultural battle lines has for good or for bad clarified who’s on which side. It also surprisingly brought in support from those who were otherwise inclined to be neutral and at least theoretically liberal.
The nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett would advance those cultural battle lines. If one needs to be genuinely democratic, he or she should be clear about convictions and proudly put forward the alternative to the dilettante technocratic centrism that has been in practice. The public loves clear choices, and the public prefers leaders who act, instead of managers who hedge bets.
The left always talks a big game about direct democracy, but they seem to forget that if every issue were treated as an individual referendum, the chances of them losing major positions are extremely high. Americans do not support Black Lives Matter anarchism. The majority are patriotic and oppose taxpayer-funded anti-American education.
The majority of black Americans are far more religious on average than the public overall, and the majority of Americans oppose transgender activism. The majority of Americans oppose abortion after the first trimester and want fewer foreign wars. Ask yourself, which side stands for the majority?
Coney Barrett is tough on crime, is against campus kangaroo courts, and is an originalist who would follow the letter of the law to the last word. According to her own words, she would not be deterred from making tough decisions. Her nomination should give the public a clear choice, even if the confirmation does not proceed prior to the election.
She would be an excellent choice because all indications are she will follow the constitution. It’s even better that she’s a mom, is attractive, is as clean cut as anybody could imagine and even adopted a couple of Haitian kids.
So....sexism out. Racism out. The Left’s two biggest weapons are gone already. Let them condemn her for being a devout Catholic right before an election. LOL! They’re hosed.
We don’t need a judicial Committee hearing since she’s been vetted before and passed with flying colors. But we do need the vacancy filled now — let’s not give the D’s any opportunity to slime another nominee like kavanaugh. That ( and Pelousi’s fake impeachment) had to have been the most disgusting spectacle ever to disgrace Washington ( and that’s saying a LOT!).
ROFL!
Totally hot.
Except for throwing away a chance to cement victory in Florida and motivating millions of “moderates” to turn out and vote against Trump, there’s no downside at all. When your opponents are not very fired up, don’t throw gas on them. Trump will likely have another appointment to SC during his second term.
I’ve read that Barret has made statements indicating the fervor of her catholic faith, and that she considers it more important than the law.
This seems to me that she will not be a literal interpreter of the constitution but will interject her own opinions into it. How does that make her different from a liberal judge?
She joined an opinion that supported BLM protests over other political expression in an Illinois case: Court rejects Illinois GOP's challenge to governor's lockdown order
She talked a lot about Scalia as a professor but as a judge she seems to before big business and gov't interests over individual liberty and some groups are more equal than others.
Other potential nominee women on the courts have longer track records and should be considered.
As is the one behind her right shoulder.
I am sick of listening to the Dems.
1. Obama could not run in 2016 and Trump IS running in 2020
2. Obama submitted his nominee as was his job.
3. The Senate chose to wait until the election since the people already voted to keep a republican majority in the last interim election and since Obama was not running the people had a right to choose.
4. In 2016 people voted to make Trump president and in 2018 they INCREASED the number of Republicans in the senate based on SCOTUS.
That was a single tweet, here’s the thread, https://mobile.twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1308232087342784512
He gives 5 examples but I haven’t looked them over yet.
He seems to be anti-mask mandate, anti-lockdown, supports Rittenhouse's self-defense, supports Flynn. He definitely falls on the right side of the spectrum.
He's been openly observant on how various judges rulings can be predicted based on the president that nominated them. He seems to support Barbara Lagao because of her personal history (she had a life outside the political circles, outside privilege) and record as a FL state supreme court justice. He likes one of the judges from GA as well but feels she's still too young to get a vote.
When asked about that, I believe she said something like (paraphrasing): “we all have strong dogma within us, religious or not. But I don’t consider that when I interpret the law.”
No more Catholics, no matter how illustrious. We nee elements on the Court whose theo;ogy is Protestant Christian in nature, reflecting the plurality of our Founding Fathers.
And then I see the dour biddies of the pro-choice movement, and they are anything BUT beautiful.
Has anyone else noticed this?
I haven’t really examined the qualifications of Barrett versus Lagoa but it seems that Barrett would be harder to get through confirmation than Lagoa. Now’s the time to push Barrett. Even if President Trump wins (and I expect he will), there is no guarantee that the Senate will stay in Republican hands. If Trump delays nominating Barrett and the Republicans lose the Senate, her window of opportunity has probably closed for the foreseeable future.
Just the opposite is true
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000174-572b-d057-a37d-7fef3ec60000
I find Barrett's findings in this case to be abhorrent! Is this the best we can do? My God!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.