Share This Article with a Friend!


100 Days of Trump: The search is over and Gorsuch is the man for the Supreme Court

I will fight for you with every breath in my body, and I will never ever let you down.”

These will go down as perhaps the most famous words from President Donald Trump’s inaugural address delivered just twelve days ago. They’re the same or similar words Trump used when he gave his victory speech Trump Gorsuchon Election Night.

And from all the signs, Trump meant every syllable of his vow, including nominating a man for the Supreme Court who many are comparing to the Gold Standard of Justices, the late Antonin Scalia. As many speculated in the days leading up to the announcement, Trump’s pick is Judge Neil Gorsuch of Colorado.

Ryan Lovelace of the Washington Examiner reports, “An appointee of President George W. Bush, Gorsuch is a 49-year-old Harvard Law graduate who has developed a reputation as an ‘incisive legal writer’ with a ‘flair’ reminiscent of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whose seat he will look to fill.

“Gorsuch said he thought a crucial component of Scalia's legacy was to call attention to the differences between legislators and judges, in a lecture on Scalia's legacy at Case Western University last year.”

President Trump spoke for a few minutes after revealing the secret heaping praise on Gorsuch and his wife. When it was the nominee’s turn at the lectern, he thanked the new president for the honor of being put forth for the Supreme Court and said to Scalia’s widow (in attendance in the front row of onlookers) that he would do his best to further her husband’s legacy.

It was a short ceremony, formal but not stuffy. Everyone could get a sense that the world was about to change – again – but the prospect wasn’t frightening because order could be restored to the Court.

Meanwhile, up at the Supreme Court a crowd of leftists had already gathered to “protest” a generic Trump nominee. When Gorsuch proved to be the one Trump selected, the crowd then had an actual person to demonize. What a collection of losers.

Fox News’s Tucker Carlson interviewed one of them on his show and the woman indicated they were against all 21 names on Trump’s Supreme Court list because they all are in bed with corporations and would not protect minority rights, etc… In all honesty, she and the mob should have been inside one of the Senate office buildings because she didn’t sound all that apart from a Democrat senator.

It’s going to be one heck of a fight to get Gorsuch through, folks.

Though the real battle began the minute Trump officially announced his nominee, there are already signs from leading Senate Republicans that they’re ready to do whatever it takes to see that Gorsuch is indeed seated on the Court, including changing the rules if necessary.

Burgess Everett of Politico reports, “The Texas senator said in an interview that no matter what they try, Democrats will not be able to stop Trump's nominee — and said that the GOP should not shy away from changing the filibuster's 60-vote threshold on high court nominees if need be.

“’The Democrats are not going to succeed in filibustering the Supreme Court nominee,’ Cruz said on Tuesday. ‘All procedural options are on the table. The bottom line is we will confirm a strong conservative to replace Justice Scalia.’”

Cruz made the statement before knowing who Trump’s choice would be, but I’m guessing now the cat’s out of the bag that the feeling is the same. It seems obvious Cruz and most if not all of the Republicans in the Senate will fight intensely to see that Gorsuch is confirmed.

The Democrats will put on a spectacular show in opposition. It’s almost as if they’re daring Mitch McConnell to ditch the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. As they’ve demonstrated during the confirmation process for Trump’s cabinet appointees, they’ll do just about everything in their power to stall or block President Trump from getting what he needs to run the country (see below).

It could easily come to a point where Republicans unanimously call for the “nuclear option” on the filibuster. They may not have a choice. The real fight in America today isn’t about vote thresholds in the Senate.

It’s about upholding and preserving the spirit of the Constitution. The political system is about as close to complete breakdown as it’s ever been. President Trump is trying to do something about it. The question is whether the Democrats will even cooperate – or participate -- any longer.

Trump can ill afford Republican turncoats; better keep an eye on McCain and Graham

In observing Donald Trump during the opening weeks of his presidency, it could easily be argued he’s done things with the confidence and reassurance of knowing that he has a Republican congressional majority to back him up.

Several of his cabinet selections were likely made with an eye towards the numbers game in confirmation. Trump’s naming of Senator Jeff Sessions to be the next Attorney General, for example, would not be controversial in any sane person’s world, but we’re talking about Democrats here. In the end Trump knew he could get some people into his administration that he might not normally be able to do had the opposition party fared a little better on Election Day.

But then again, when you consider that not all Republicans are principled conservatives – or even team players -- the calculus becomes a lot more complicated. Enter Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both of whom appear to take great delight in getting in front of microphones to spout off about how much they disagree with something Trump said or did.

Austin Wright and Burgess Everett of Politico report, “A parade of Republicans this weekend blasted President Donald Trump for his executive order on immigration. Trump only seemed to notice two of them: John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

“The two senators are Trump's most persistent intraparty critics, lashing him for his views on trade, immigration and foreign policy. And perhaps most notably, they seem to get under Trump's skin — the new president fired off a tweet in response to their latest criticism, calling the pair ‘weak on immigration’ along with several other barbs.”

This story is just another instance of blatant anti-Trump media bias from Politico, holding the duo of bumbling longtime amnesty supporting establishment senators up as heroes just because they frequently criticize Trump. The truth is the base of the party can’t stand either of them and if they weren’t relatively popular in their respective home states, neither would be around to buzz about anything.

Both McCain and Graham speak to a pro-amnesty neoconservative Bush constituency that is rapidly being swallowed from within the GOP. But still they talk and talk and talk…

“The pair’s disciplined approach appears to be an effort to hold onto their leverage for when they really think they need to take a stand against Trump — or work with him to achieve common goals such as a larger defense budget,” the Politico writers added.

Isn’t it funny how Democrats and the media single out McCain and Graham as “disciplined” and “independent minded” because they often disagree with the new head of their party? Or how about the time McCain called the small group (mainly Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Mike Lee) of outspoken senate conservatives “wacko birds?” It was portrayed in the news as a staid observation from a respected Senate leader instead of what it was -- a gripe from the dying establishment.

The truth is, the only reason why the media pays any attention to McCain and Graham at all is because they’re willing to publicly censure their own party. There are token few Democrats who do the same – and whenever they do, such as Bernie Sanders, it’s often hailed by the left as trying to push their party in more of a populist and “principled” direction.

There aren’t any conservatives left in the Democrat caucus, so when someone like West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin says he’ll consider supporting some of Trump’s measures he’s described as a “moderate.” These days, “moderate” in the Democrat party means you’ve voted differently than Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin at least once.

We’ll see how many Democrat “moderates” there are now that Trump has revealed his Supreme Court selection. We’re going to learn an awful lot about party discipline in the next two months, that’s for sure.

Meanwhile, President Trump is looking to add Republican reinforcements to the Senate in the 2018 elections. If Republicans play their cards right, they just may gain another senator from Florida.

Alex Isenstadt and Marc Caputo of Politico report, “President Donald Trump is personally urging Florida Gov. Rick Scott to challenge Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in 2018 — and the loyal Trump ally looks increasingly likely to take the leap.

“Trump and Scott speak about once a week and on several occasions have talked about the race, according to two sources briefed on the talks. The two have known each other for two decades, and Trump likes Scott’s record as governor and as a health care tycoon.”

Did Trump use that word…“tycoon?”

Of course since it’s Politico Scott was portrayed as another rich Republican who could potentially self-fund his own campaign. And Trump, the rich Republican president, would help him fundraise for the effort in addition.

Apparently the media forgets they were nitpicking Marco Rubio just last year because the junior senator from Florida isn’t personally wealthy. And aren’t there a ton of rich Democrats in Congress? It’s true – look it up.

Rick Scott was part of the Tea Party wave of 2010 that swept in a number of Republican governors across the country and kicked the Democrats out of the majority in the House of Representatives. I’m not familiar with the entirety of Scott’s record in the Sunshine State but it’s my impression he’d be a huge improvement over the current occupant of the seat (Bill Nelson).

At any rate, Scott would be a lot more likely to speak common sense in the Senate than John McCain or Lindsey Graham – and he wouldn’t generate nearly as many headlines, too.

Democrats exposed as naked politicians in stalling Trump’s cabinet nominees

In a preview of what’s certain to come for President Trump’s Supreme Court pick, Democrats yesterday perpetrated an astonishing bit of childish grandstanding in addressing two of the new president’s cabinet nominations.

Joseph Lawler of the Washington Examiner reports, “Democrats on Tuesday ‘boycotted’ a scheduled Senate Finance Committee vote to advance the nominations of President Trump's picks for the treasury and health and human services departments, preventing the votes and forcing Republicans to reschedule.

“The committee was supposed to vote on the nominations of Steven Mnuchin for treasury secretary and Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., for secretary of health and human services. But the panel needed at least one Democrat present to conduct the vote, and with none present, angry Republicans were forced to reschedule.”

It’s hard to imagine what the media’s reaction would be if Republicans pulled such a stunt with any of Obama’s nominees (though apparently they did something similar in 2013). Sure, Democrats often bring up the fact Mitch McConnell denied Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing after Justice Scalia’s death last February, but McConnell’s reasoning was crystal clear in declaring the vacancy issue should be resolved by the voters, not a lame duck president.

If McConnell had scheduled a hearing for Garland and then none of the Republicans showed up for it, the media would have been in a tizzy. As it was, Committee Chairman Senator Orrin Hatch called the Democrats’ Tuesday boycott “[T]he most pathetic thing I've seen in my whole time in the U.S. Senate.”

What else can you say? It was pathetic.

Since they weren’t there to speak for themselves, I’m guessing Democrats’ likely excuses for being absent go something like this:

“I went with Madonna to Target to shop for torches and lighter fluid and got stuck in the gender neutral bathroom.”

“Russian agents stole my Senate pin and the police wouldn’t let me back in.”

“Al Sharpton called and I had to rush to return his ‘racism handbook’ that I’d borrowed for Senator Jeff Sessions’ hearing.”

“George Soros popped in and wanted to grab an early lunch, so the votes had to wait.”

“Donald Trump made fun of Chuck Schumer’s tears, so we’re trying to make him shed a few of his own.”

I’m guessing Democrats will have no trouble making up their real excuses – they’re good at it. Weaver’s article indicated a few of them said the nominees hadn’t “answered their questions” or something like that. Democrats also held up a committee vote on Jeff Sessions on Tuesday, though the delay will only last a day.

Naturally, the White House was quick to respond to the Democrats’ intentional inaction. Jordan Fabian of The Hill reports, “Press secretary Sean Spicer called the move an ‘outrageous’ example of partisan obstruction.

“’The idea that these highly qualified nominees … are being stalled because Democrats are boycotting the committee vote is outrageous,’ he told reporters. ‘The mere idea that they are not even showing up for these meetings is outrageous.’”

It is outrageous. And the Democrats’ ploy doesn’t even qualify as bare-knuckled politics. It’s more like politics via kiddy tantrum. It’s about time the country gave the Democrats a well-deserved collective timeout.

It should be noted that other Trump nominations did go forward on Tuesday, including that of Education Secretary designee Betsy DeVos.

Lisa Hagen of The Hill reports, “The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) on Tuesday morning approved Betsy DeVos’s nomination to lead the Department of Education.

“DeVos was confirmed 12-11 along party lines. Her nomination will now go to the Senate floor, where she’ll need only a simple majority to be confirmed.”

Democrats had already stalled DeVos’ committee vote for a week and were asking for more time before voting “no” yesterday. But at least they showed up.

That seems to be all we can hope for from Democrats these days. But hopefully if their “boycott” gets enough attention from constituents that the problem will take care of itself in two years’ time. Thankfully the Democrats are providing lots of reasons to vote against them when the time comes.

Share this