Posted on 02/07/2017 3:21:00 AM PST by Loud Mime
On Sunday, (January 30, 2017) Senator Charles Schumer voiced his opinion of the President’s nominee for SCOTUS. In his speech, he said,
“…if the nominee is out of the mainstream, we will do our best to keep the seat open. Let’s remember that, of the last four Supreme Court nominees, two nominated by a Republican president, two by a Democrat, they had bipartisan support. What I said — you didn’t show it on the air there — is, if the nominee is not bipartisan and mainstream, we absolutely would keep the seat open.
I’m hopeful that maybe President Trump would nominate someone who is mainstream and who could get bipartisan support. We shall see. But, if they don’t, yes, we will fight it tooth-and-nail, as long as we have to.”
Schumer spoke these words before he knew that Trump would nominate Neil Gorsuch to the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. But Schumer had made it clear by his omission that our Constitution meant nothing, but the “mainstream” – his code word – meant everything.
Stop and think of how this word, mainstream, is used in politics. The liberals have forced it into our political system, so much so that it takes the place of the Constitution in their application of law, in their measurements of political matters, and worst of all, in their oath of office
What is the mainstream anyway, and why does it take priority over our Constitution with people like Senator Schumer? Why isn’t anybody else asking this?
For the answer, we need to examine the obvious: When our Constitution is the foundation of all our laws, it should logically be the foundation of all political measurements. But the liberals have mutated that logical system by replacing the center of politics with their creature called the mainstream, which is the mob of people they created who ignore prudent, constitutional government so they can drive up the debt, increase the involvement of government in more of our lives, torture the application of law, and vilify all the people who believe in a constitutional government.
Their concept shoves the Constitution so far off to the right that it does not appear on most political maps. Look at the various diagrams have been recently offered (such as in the New York Times and National Review) that measure each Supreme Court justice in a liberal-to-conservative position within the court. Most of these graphs put Justice Clarence Thomas on the right wing and cluster the liberal justices together in a group just left of the undefined center. But the diagrams are comparisons between the judgements of the Justices; they do not have a constitutional benchmark for their measurements, so the comparisons have nothing to do with our constitution—and everything to do with promoting liberalism. It is not by mistake; it’s by design!
If our constitution was the basis of their measurements, all justices would be to the left of the constitution’s mark, including Justice Thomas. The liberal justices would be positioned somewhere further to the left, most likely between the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter. That is how far to the left the Democrats have traveled from a constitutional foundation.
The Democrat’s mainstream political animal has reduced our Constitution to a fringe, right-wing element in politics—and those who believe in the constitutional rule of law are portrayed as extremists. This perception allows groups, such as the New York Times, to wail that the open seat on the Supreme Court was “stolen” and that the Senate did not perform its duty in allowing a mainstream justice, Merrick Garland, into a seat of judgment.
But the Senate did exactly what their oaths required, they protected our constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
We have a fresh start in politics, so it is up to all of us to start challenging the liberals, especially the politicians, to obey their oath of office and honor the Constitution—instead of finessing their wording with terms such as “mainstream.” That word should have no bearing on the selection of a Supreme Court Justice.
We now have the advantage, don’t waste it.
” . . .it is up to all of us to start challenging the liberals, especially the politicians, to obey their oath of office . . .”
The oath of office is meaningful to God fearing people of faith. To a secular humanist liberal politician an oath is just meaningless words. They neither believe in or value eternal life.
When a Democrat uses the word “mainstream,” they mean unfettered access to abortion, nothing less. Do people still wonder about this?
“Mainstream” leftists and “far right” middle America.
Dems are always using and abusing language to hide what they really are.
They’re a small minority but they control the universities, media, and MSM. So they have to fool Americans into voting against their self interest. In fact, they’re voting for their own genocide, which was the policy of the Obama administration. Refugees, illegal aliens, allowing cartels to bring in opiates to impact white areas. The left is engaged in a genocide against white Americans.
The meaning of “mainstream” to Marxists/Progressives/Liberals means nothing that is one iota less than “like us”.
Mainstream = Liberal
Liberal media = mainstream media
in other words..........”We the People” voted Trump as MAINSTREAM!!
You are correct, but the emphasis is how they use the term “mainstream” to avoid the Constitution.
Fight on!
As a Californian, I will disagree with your take here.
The Dems’ misrepresentation of what constitutes the mainstream is why they lost the election.
I do not downplay their energy in this area. I can understand why many of their followers did not like Hillary, especially the Bernie supporters. I believe it drained the movement in many areas.
Here they will unify.
It’s a different game now.
The Schmukster is p!ssed the replacement for the assassinated old Scalia will be a much younger Scalia-like Gorsuch.
You’re right, and they’re getting madder. They just failed to stop DeVos.
I believe they will pull out all stops on Goresuch.
EPA and DOE are the worst swamps in need of a good draining.
Oh wait. There are plenty of flat, wet rocks in need of flipping at DOJ too.
I view Trump’s win as a temporary staying of the leftist tide; I know many people voted for Hillary, and many that voted for Greens and Libertarians would have voted for her if they hadn’t fallen for the nonsense that she was a shoe -in (and afforded them a safe way to make a statement).
My point is that even BJ Clinton had to tack right to win re-election in 1996; Schumer & Pelosi themselves, and the states they represent, are NOT representative of most of America (they are too far left). If Trump has any measure of economic success, he will be hard to beat in 2020; those idiots marching in the streets will be too busy working and buying nice things to watch it end over their feigned outrage.
Yes, we did - but it was close!
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.