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.
No downside but personally I prefer Barbara Logoa. She brings the added problem to being a Latina female to Democrat’s bashing party. Just my Opinion.
There was a post on Sunday warning against ACB on account of her deference to the pope and the bishops on some issues (not traditional Catholic doctrines but things like opposition to the death penalty and pro-immigration).
The only thing I worry about is where does she stand on “social justice” crap.
Catholics seem to easily fall for that crap. .
I also have reservations about her being a Catholic.
But then.... Clarence Thomas is a Catholic too. And his record is superb.
+1!
When? When will someone nominate a regular old Christian to the Court?
And not a protestant either. A Bible believing evangelical.
I haven’t seen anyone play the “deference to the pope and the bishops on some issues” card since Kennedy was running for president 60 years ago. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now.
THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
And not only that, i.e., following the plurality of the Founding Fathers (there only were three Catholics).
It was hundreds of thousands of evangelicals and protestants, crawling on broken glass to the polls in 2016, who literally put Trump in the White House. How about a little respect for us?
Well now you’ve said it. I was just hoping for someone who might be called a “Protestant.” But really, those who gather as a local independent Scripture-based assembly of Christ-followers are not “Protestants” or “Reformers” (who protested against the errors of the Romanists and sought to return the State Church to its former state), but are just, as you say, regular old Christians, governed by the Bible and led by a lurality of spiritually mature elders for the purpose of helping our neighbors come to Jesus for a new, spiritual birth, and to learn how to live an abundant life.
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3886526/posts?page=74#74
Second Amendment.
What is her stance? I’ve heard nothing.
wow, good column. Freaking common sense, sometimes I feel I alone in the world still possess it. :)
war is war. At some point everyone has to realize that and act accordingly.
The West started kicking Islams ass back to the stoneage, as soon as they STARTED FIGHTING back. It’s past time that we started fighting back using the left tactics, and kick their butts back to the stoneage along with Islam.
real catholics vs fake catholics.
REAL ones are amazing. You can tell by the number of kids she has, Barrett is a real one.
I agree. We have enough Catholics and Jews on the Court. How about some good, old-fashioned Protestants for a change? We’re waiting.
What was with this woman’s smeared up eyeglasses? She looked nuts. Nobody who wears glasses all the time wants the lenses smeared up with finger prints or grease or whatever was on hers.
That was truly DISGUSTING!
Yeah, let’s have a hot looking judge. And if she’s brilliant, imagine her impact on twitter!
That would be Trumpesque.
I just watched a clip of her being raked over the coals by Al Franken. It was not encouraging.
On being asked why she gave a talk to some group he considered a “hate group,” she could have said it’s often beneficial to talk to people whom you don’t agree with; that it’s hard to change their thinking if you don’t speak to them.
On being asked if she was lying when she said she doesn’t “vet” groups before she speaks to them, when she later said she does try to find out something about them if she knows nothing about them when invited — she could have said there’s a difference between finding out basic information about them, and “vetting.”
Her actual responses were rather feeble.
If you can’t handle an SNL comedian... :(
In retrospect what a very, very wise thing it was to nominate this woman and get her confirmed.
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.