Rand Paul: Republicans Want a Judge, Democrats ‘Want a Politician'

Breitbart ^ | Oct 12 | JOEL B. POLLAK

[RandFan]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) told reporters on Monday that Democrats’ approach to the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett showed that they wanted a “politician” on the bench, not a judge.

Democrats, he said, think “all justices are politicians, and so they want a politician that’ll vote for their cases.”

Paul spoke after the opening round of statements on the Senate Judiciary Committee on day one of Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings.

They had focused their statements in the confirmation hearing on policy questions like Obamacare, he said. “instead of whether of not a justice will adhere to the law.”

Republicans, he said, urged that judges “not be politicians” and follow the law instead.

Asked whether Democrats had violated the “Ginsburg rule” — Joe Biden’s 1993 standard, which states that judges should not be asked about pending cases during their confirmation hearings — Sen. Paul predicted that Democrats and the media “will show they have a double-standard.”

If Judge Coney Barrett tried to use the Ginsburg rule to avoid answering a question about particular cases, such as the pending litigation about Obamacare, Sen. Paul said, they would likely attack her.

“I’m one who thinks Obamacare was a disaster, made health insurance more expensive, and didn’t necessarily help those it was intended to help,” he said.

The way to help those with pre-existing conditions, he said, was to “allow individuals to group together and buy insurance.”

“There are market ways to try to fix these problems that don’t involve the government taking over health care,” he added.

[Grampa Dave]

Great summary by Rand.

[caww]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) told reporters on Monday that Democrats ‘approach’ to the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett showed that they wanted a “politician” on the bench, not a judge....

He’s absolutely correct!!...we don’t want activist Judges!

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) told reporters on Monday that Democrats’ approach to the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett showed that they wanted a “politician” on the bench, not a judge.

Yes, they do - and they've been filling the federal courts with left-wing politicians. Note how many of Trump's EOs have been blocked by left-wing judges playing political games instead of judging the lawfulness of the EOs. The Republicans can keep on playing a losing game, nominating folks Federalist Society-approved question marks, or they can finally get smart and start nominating dedicated, proven right-wing politicians to the federal judiciary, including the SC.

Barrett better not disappoint us - the GOP has run out of excuses.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

He’s absolutely correct!!...we don’t want activist Judges!

I do. I want activist right-wing judges.

[adorno]

Instead of 3 branches of government, with equal and separate powers, and that are part of the checks and balances of government...

democrats want to create a third branch of congress...

or...

a senate and a house and judicial branch of congress.

That would leave just 2 branches of government, which democrats hope happens and that will give them uncontrolled/unchecked powers over the whole government, going forward and forever.

[conservative98]

Well said.

[Empire_of_Liberty]

Rand often looks like the only friend Trump has in the Swamp.

I’m glad he’s there.

[jpsb]

I do. I want activist right-wing judges.

You're a fool playing right into the hands of the mob that does not respect the constitution or the law.

[The Pack Knight]

They ultimately want Congress and the President to be irrelevant. We'll instead be governed by a black-robed Politburo in the Supreme Court and an bureaucracy of "expert" nomenklatura in the executive branch, with the President as a mere figurehead. Congress will be a mere rubber-stamp Supreme Soviet.

[RandFan]

He also has principles ... and Trump respects that.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

You're a fool playing right into the hands of the mob that does not respect the constitution or the law.

And you think you're going to beat the left by playing checkers while they play chess? There's one fool in this conversation and it's not me. Learn from experience.

[Kudsman]

Democratics want a lifetime appointed super legislator.

[adorno]

They ultimately want Congress and the President to be irrelevant.

I see it differently.

Once the court becomes part of congress, congressional power will become irrelevant, and what democrats will have instead, is an all-powerful president, selected by socialists/communists, same way as happens in countries were the legislators are just puppets who serve at the will of the president or tyrant.

Once democrats get their way, the U.S. and its constitution will have become extinct.

[zeugma]

The way to help those with pre-existing conditions, he said, was to “allow individuals to group together and buy insurance.”

Actually, if you cover pre-existing conditions, it's not insurance.

Can I wreck my car yesterday, then go buy insurance today, and have the insurance company pay for fixing my car?

[caww]

Actually you shouldn’t want that.....that’s not their job.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Actually you shouldn’t want that.....that’s not their job.

I know that it shouldn't be their job - which doesn't change the fact that we have a federal judiciary filled with liberals legislating a left-wing agenda instead of acting like judges. We've tried combatting this by nominating strict constructionist judges, but this only slows down left-wing judicial activism - it doesn't stop it, let alone reverse it.

The only solution to a left-wing activist judiciary is right-wing activists in the judiciary. This is plain.

[caww]

well, guess we’ll just disagree then.

[marktwain]

I suspect, just following the Constitution, would appear to be “right wing activism”.

[antidemoncrat]

“Rand Paul: Republicans Want a Judge, Democrats ‘Want a Politician’”

Which is exactly what the Democrats got with Sotomayor and Kagan. Oh I’m sorry. John Roberts said all judges are apolitical didn’t he?