Why are Liberals Hiding their Supreme Court Plans?

President Donald J. Trump was not only open about it — he aggressively campaigned on the need for conservative, Constitution-abiding judges to serve on our nation’s federal courts and the United States Supreme Court. And voters enthusiastically embraced Trump’s pledge with exit polling confirming the president was elected in large part due to his bold promise to appoint judges who would uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.

“The freedoms we cherish and the constitutional values and principles our country was founded on are in jeopardy,” President Trump said in a statement released prior to his election. “I will appoint justices who, like Justice Scalia, will protect our liberty with the highest regard to the Constitution.”

Along with that statement came a list of 21 potential Supreme Court nominees Trump would choose from if elected president. It’s among the most transparent Supreme Court-nomination process in American history but, unfortunately, not the type of process liberals are eager to live up to even though they should.

In stark contrast to Trump’s campaign, Democratic presidential hopefuls along with dark monied liberal advocacy groups are keeping their lists of potential judges completely hidden from public view. “Unlike the unprecedented Trump list, the liberal groups do not intend to make their recommendations public,” reports The New York Times.

Why are Democrats playing hide-and-seek with their judicial nominees? The level of transparency President Trump afforded the country when he named prospective Supreme Court appointees was bold and refreshing. It is disappointing to see liberals stuck in the past.

President Trump gave voters four months to investigate, vet, and debate the merits of the men and women on his Supreme Court short list before ultimately announcing the nomination of now-Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. He gave voters more than eight months to review the careers of those on the short list published ahead of now-Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Men and women from both sides of the political aisle had nothing but glowing things to say about Gorsuch and both sides had plenty of time to debate his credentials. Arguably one of the best pieces to come out of President Trump’s first Supreme Court nomination is a column by Washington Examiner Commentary Editor Timothy P. Carney.

Carney, who titled the piece “Actually, Neil Gorsuch is a champion of the little guy,” masterfully analyzes the court decisions handed down by the Ivy League-educated lawyer and, in so doing, demonstrates Gorsuch’s fidelity to the Constitution.

“The rule of law doesn’t care if you’re powerful or powerless; it applies to all. Gorsuch has spent his years on the bench reading the law and applying it without animus or favor,” says Carney.

The role of our federal judiciary should not be mired in politics or become the product of cloak-and-dagger tactics. So liberals should be open about who is on their short list for the Supreme Court. Are they nominees who will faithfully interpret the Constitution as written or are these judges with a record of projecting their political views via their rulings from the bench?

Their lack of transparency, in light of President Trump’s upfront dealings with voters, will not be received well.

It certainly goes right in line with their rumored plans to pack the courts with liberal appointees who will do their bidding, but it will be a losing argument with mainstream voters.

President Trump not only change the game by being so transparent on the campaign trail, he then followed through and kept his word on the type of judges he nominated. He has shown himself trustworthy in this area.

If the Democrats truly believe they have a better plan for America, then they should put an end to the silly smokescreens and secrecy games that only serve to undermine a critical branch of government. Let’s debate the candidates and their judicial philosophy and then let the American people decide the type of judges they want.

https://twitter.com/paulmuaddib61/status/1153432787308994560

What I think is that it doesn’t take a computer expert to see that’s a deep fake.

So now you have to ask : Why?

1. Well obviously they are trying to convince us that RBG is still alive/healthy when she really isn’t or that she was in place X at time Y when she really wasn’t. For obvious Deep State reasons.

2. But what if there is a MUCH MORE SINISTER REASON for this. What if the Deep State wants to prove to all of us unequivocally that deep fakes are a real thing? What if they are fully willing to give up the fraud of RBG for a higher purpose? Now why would they want to do that? What purpose? Well, many of us believe that there are incriminating videos of people like HRC, BJC, 0vomit, and more. If the public is “taught” that they can’t believe their own eyes, they can’t believe what they see in a video, then it will cast doubt on any video evidence that is produced.

There will be some people who will never believe that St. Hillary is evil. Regardless of the evidence against her. They could watch her commit murder at noon in Times Square and either they’d think it was for the greater good and she should get a pass or else they’d claim “body double” or hoax or something.

BTW, speaking of body doubles.... some people have said that there are body doubles for some of the famous libs and some have even claimed that the old X has been replaced by the new X. (I’ve heard this about Biden!) I seriously doubt there is a different person pretending to be Biden. My best guess is plastic surgery. Plugs, you know! But that topic is going to come up, possibly as a defense and certainly to muddy the waters when famous derps start getting arrested.

Forewarned is forearmed.

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.