Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 259: Donald Trump, judges, and the consequences of electing liberals

Clinton Emails Resolute Desk
Hillary Clinton shocked the world last week when she appeared behind the Resolute Desk to speak to her fans, the media and other interested parties about matters of great importance.

Fortunately for all of humanity, the Resolute desk in question was only a model and it was located nowhere near the Oval Office in Washington, DC. You can wake up from your nightmare now. Clinton was in Italy where she temporarily assumed a living person’s part in an art exhibit. She stupidly read from a stack of her printed emails (from exactly when, we’re not told), which she called “boring” and sneeringly mocked those who might’ve thought she actually did something wrong by keeping her own private email server during her tenure as Obama’s Secretary of State. She subsequently scrubbed it of any traces of 30,000 -- or more -- messages…and the rest is history.

If Hillary’s so innocent, why doesn’t/didn’t she work harder to produce the classified emails she allegedly ditched? You know, the important ones? Heck, even crooked James Comey said she acted “grossly negligent” in a memo before softening it to “extremely careless.” If everyone thinks the topic is so humorous, why isn’t anyone laughing along?

At any rate, Clinton isn’t really president and responsible folks frequently breathe a sigh of relief at the assurance. President Donald Trump sits behind the authentic Resolute Desk now -- and his administration celebrated a very important milestone at about the same time Hillary was play acting across the ocean. Alex Swoyer reported at The Washington Times, “The U.S. Senate confirmed President Trump’s 150th judicial nominee Wednesday, helping to fulfill the president’s campaign promise to remake the federal bench with a conservative bent.

“Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham called the number of confirmations a ‘historic milestone.’ ‘These conservative judicial appointments will impact our nation for years to come,’ the South Carolina Republican said…

“Liberal advocacy groups said the 150th judicial confirmation is alarming, stressing the need to make judicial nominees and the courts a 2020 campaign issue. ‘As of today’s confirmation votes, Trump and McConnell have confirmed 150 judges to the federal bench — a group that can overwhelmingly be described as narrow-minded and elitist, favoring corporations and the powerful over the interests of all Americans,’ said Marge Baker, executive vice president of the People for the American Way.”

Favoring the powerful over all Americans…? A judge is supposed to impartially interpret the law, not “favor” anyone. If a case or controversy reaches a judge’s bench each party’s counsel has more than enough opportunity to conduct discovery, depose witnesses, bring in evidence, examine and cross-examine experts -- and then the judge makes a determination on the relevant law.

From that point, if there’s an appeal a panel of judges reviews the case and determines if the trial court acted properly in applying the law and ensures procedures were followed. Each party submits briefs, interest groups can file supporting information and again, counsel argues in favor or against. The process is what it is -- and if there’s any favoritism it’s due to liberals inserting themselves into the scrum where they’re not wanted.

Appointing judges is a political process. They have to come from somewhere. It used to be both parties would pass through a president’s nominees as long as they were “qualified” and survived relatively unscathed through the confirmation gauntlet. Liberal Democrats brought politics to the equation and now no one can exhale without being accused of “bias” and “favoritism.”

Besides, it’s hardly a jolt when a liberal accuses conservatives of favoring corporations over the people. If you watched the horrible Democrat presidential candidates debate last Thursday night you heard an unending stream of invective against American businesses by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren (among others). Conservatives have plenty of issues with corporations too, but at least our objections center on the powerful joining with government to tip the game in their direction. Anyone ever heard of corporate welfare? How about the Export-Import bank?

At any rate, Trump’s 150 mark includes 105 district court vacancies filled, 43 circuit court judges (U.S. Court of Appeals, the level where the vast majority of Constitutional cases are heard and decided unless the Supreme Court has a big enough beef with the conclusion) and the pair of high court justices the president appointed. It’s hard to believe but the confirmation hearings for Justice Brett Kavanaugh took place a year ago this time. Time flies in Washington. Kavanaugh may be on the Court for life but the wounds from his high-tech lynching are still exceedingly fresh (especially with the release of the bogus NYT story).

Swoyer additionally reported that the Senate’s confirmation pace is much more ambitious than it was under Obama, who “only” had 74 district court judges, 20 appeals court jurists and two Supreme Court justices confirmed in the same time frame. Because Trump’s managed half again as many as Obama, liberal groups are grumbling about courts being packed…. corporations… etc.

Sen. Graham is right, the vast new infusion of originalists into the federal court system will indeed have an impact in the coming years. At the very least we’ll hear a lot less about national injunctions, rights-protecting state statutes being struck down through twisted interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses and liberals will need to do their fighting in legislatures and at the ballot box, where such conflicts belong.

Legislators are accountable to the citizens through the electoral system. Judges aren’t. The average person doesn’t understand how a single judge’s decision can overcome the will of millions. And if there are enough Clinton and Obama appointees at the Circuit Court level, you create even bigger messes that only the Supreme Court can unravel. Federalism has somewhat made a comeback under Trump and his carefully selected judicial appointments.

One needn’t have a wild imagination to see how the system would’ve suffered had Clinton won the 2016 election. The late Antonin Scalia’s high court seat would’ve been filled by someone other than Neil Gorsuch (Merrick Garland?) and it’s more than likely Justice Anthony Kennedy would still be donning the black robe and assuming his role as the “swing” vote in the great marble halls of the Supreme Court building. Instead there’s Brett Kavanaugh dutifully examining cases and filtering them through an originalist’s lens.

Of course liberals don’t like it. And yes, judicial nominations should be a very important feature of the 2020 campaign on both sides. Republicans and conservatives must be reminded how tenuous the current Supreme Court majority is and how easily it could be reversed if Trump isn’t given the chance to appoint another justice or two. Everyone knows 86-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg has health issues, which means there could be a vacancy sooner rather than later.

Who do you trust more to fill it, Donald Trump and his sterling assemblage of Federalist Society-approved candidates, or Bernie Sanders? How about Joe Biden? Kamala Harris? “Pocahontas” Warren? Would any of their chosen judges give a lick about the Constitution’s limitations over their own notions of “fairness” and “diversity.” Outcome based jurisprudence?

It’d be scary. 2016 surveys showed wavering voters chose Trump over Hillary in large part because they wanted a Republican to select Scalia’s successor. It was just one of many areas where the outsider New Yorker was superior to the world’s worst establishment elitist.

With so many of our precious God-given rights now hanging in the balance, does anyone really want to risk letting a Democrat get control of the nominating procedures? What would happen with gun rights? Or religious freedom?

Despite all the evidence, some #NeverTrumpers are still trying to figure out why/how Trump won. The always reliable for a chuckle Jonah Goldberg wrote at National Review, “The Atlantic’s Ronald Brownstein argues that the key to understanding the president’s standing with Republicans is that Trump is behaving like a wartime president, but the enemy is ‘Blue America.’ Trump’s almost daily references to ‘treason’ and enemies of the people may be driven by his own narcissism and persecution complex, but they resonate with a share of the electorate that believes the cultural war really is tantamount to a cold civil war.

“While Trump has made it worse, this dynamic is not new. He is more the beneficiary (and exacerbator) of the polarized landscape than the creator of it...

“It may be that once Trump is no longer the commander in chief in the war against Blue America, the ardor of his troops will give way to a better understanding of the price the GOP paid on his watch.”

Goldberg was simply citing someone else’s (Brownstein’s) theory, but once again he appears to be completely off-base. Trump is popular with Republicans because he actually works hard to fulfill his campaign promises; plus, there’s been a lot more progress made on the conservative agenda than any other GOP leader since Reagan (at least from the White House).

Goldberg’s wrong -- again. There isn’t any non-shooting “war” against “Blue America” and Trump isn’t seen as a wartime leader of it. Like with judicial appointments, if there’s a “war” at all it’s because the Democrats declared it and are waging it to transform the nation. Just view one of their “debates” to see how far they’re willing to go to alter every valued tradition and practice we’ve ever had.

And the left even has its own “storm” forces, Antifa. The black hooded vermin show up wherever there’s a protest -- and they’re not the least bit interested in influencing others by free speech and superior arguments. They’re criminals, not leaders. Government by club and urine bomb won’t foster a more civil society.

No conservative claims the white supremacist scum as their own. There’s a difference. The liberty-loving tea parties sprouted up all across the land to stand up for the Constitution, federalism and the legislative process. Democrats and the left want to rule by dictate and intimidation.

Barack Obama famously said “elections have consequences,” and for once, he was right. America and the world would be very different today if Hillary Clinton had beaten Donald Trump in 2016. #NeverTrumpers only seem to care about tone -- do they think a sweet-talking Democrat would solve things?

Share this