Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 154: 2020 confirmation battle would make Brett Kavanaugh’s look tame

Kavanaugh Prayer
It almost seems like a lifetime ago when America struggled and strained through the incredibly contentious (solely because of Democrats) senate confirmation process for now Justice Brett Kavanaugh last fall. Just imagine if another Supreme Court vacancy were to materialize next year during the heat of the already certain-to-be-hot presidential race between President Donald Trump and the last man (or woman) standing of the two dozen or so Democrats vying to appear on the national ballot opposite him.

Simply stated, it would be pandemonium, especially if the departing (or departed) justice is/was one of the four liberals appointed by former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Most Republicans and conservatives would relish the opportunity to place a third Trump-appointed member on the high court, an epic chance to cement this country’s jurisprudential orientation in an originalist direction for a generation or more. Democrats, knowing full well their best hope to maintain “progress” for the leftist agenda is through judicial activism, for sure would throw everything but the proverbial kitchen sink at whomever Trump tabbed to take the spot.

What Democrats can’t win at the ballot box they’re more than happy to try and take through a federal court majority at the appellate or Supreme Court level. The sky’s the limit on liberal judges’ imaginations to create rights and other imaginary fantasies the Founding Fathers never contemplated (right to privacy?). It’s life in the 21st century, where everything is politicized.

If such a circumstance (a vacancy) did arise, would the senate even attempt to confirm the sacrificial lamb (a.k.a. nominee) when doing so would mean all heck would break loose in Democrat enclaves and on liberal cable TV talk shows? Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recently shared his thoughts -- and it’s definitely yes. Jordain Carney reported at The Hill, “[McConnell] said [last week] that Republicans would fill a Supreme Court vacancy even if it occurs during the 2020 presidential election...

“The Senate GOP leader has viewed confirming judicial nominees as his top priority and one of the party's best chances at having a long-term impact. With 53 seats, Republicans could confirm a nominee over the objections of Democrats...

“Three of the nine current justices on the Supreme Court are 70 or older: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 86, Stephen Breyer is 80, and Clarence Thomas is 70. Ginsburg and Breyer are both members of the court's liberal wing, while Thomas is a conservative. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are the court's two youngest justices, at 51 and 54, respectively.”

Mention “Supreme Court opening” and all eyes immediately shift to Ginsburg -- not only because she’s the oldest (and looks ancient) but also because the Clinton appointee and current second longest serving justice has experienced a myriad of health issues that forced her to miss a big chunk of time this past term. Americans of all political persuasions wish Ginsburg well, but if it’s time to step down, it’s time to step down.

What if Bernie Sanders wins the Democrat presidential nomination? Would he then pledge not to consider anyone his age (and Ginsburg is eight and a half years older) for an appointment?

Not surprisingly, Democrats weren’t pleased with McConnell’s anticipatory  “we’d do it” declaration, calling him a hypocrite for daring to suggest he’d rely on his party majority to assess a candidate when he refused to move Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination forward during Obama’s final year. Legendary conservative originalist Justice Antonin Scalia passed unexpectedly in February, 2016 (just days before the South Carolina GOP primary, which was to determine the race’s frontrunner between Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz), and liberty-lovers were horrified at the prospect of the Court’s delicate ideological balance being irreversibly tipped if Scalia’s place were filled by an Obama disciple.

The seat became a major campaign issue, not only for the Republicans vying for the party’s presidential nod but also for Democrats who hoped to position someone in the Supreme Court chamber who believed in things like same-sex marriage, abortion on demand and climate change (no doubt referring to the power of the administrative state to make its own rules).

At the time, McConnell announced -- and it’s true -- that in presidential election years when the White House is in one party’s hands and the senate’s in the other’s, the vacancy should be filled by the victor of the election. McConnell kept his promise and sat on Garland’s nomination despite screechy enraged cries of foul by Democrats hoping to sneak one by.

No doubt the 2016 vote on Garland would’ve been close, but with Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham (who’s since seen the light), Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (among other wishy-washy establishmentarians) in the upper chamber, Democrats would’ve had a solid chance at 50 votes (the tie broken by then Vice President Joe Biden). Garland would’ve had to survive a possible filibuster (the nuclear option not yet exercised), but with the proper scare tactics and “you’ll lose your reelection bid” forecasts from the media, it’s conceivable Democrats could’ve mustered enough GOP ruling class votes to reach 60 yeas.

Now Donald Trump is president and the senate remains controlled by Republicans. Nothing too ambiguous about that one, and barring some catastrophe, today’s balance of power will remain at least through the end of next year. Therefore, if a 2020 vacancy occurs (because of death or retirement), McConnell intends to go ahead with it.

Besides, if “Chucky” Schumer were in McConnell’s shoes, would he voluntarily restrain himself and let the opportunity slip? No way. There’s no such thing as a promise Schumer’s ever kept -- unless it’s to one of his leftist constituencies guaranteeing as much trouble as possible for Donald J. Trump. Schumer and cohorts ensured Neil Gorsuch’s and Brett Kavanaugh’s names were dragged through the mud, the latter being accused of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford. Not a single person corroborated Ford’s wild 35-year-old story -- yet Democrats shouted “believe survivors!” and submerged the process to its lowest depths ever.

The federal courts have gotten completely out of hand, assuming privilege and authority the Constitution’s authors never intended. And it’s not just the Supreme Court needing more respectable jurists like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh -- the lower courts are abusing their powers as well.

Rachel Bovard wrote at American Greatness, “Nationwide injunctions—when a single district court judge can halt the enforcement of a law or policy across the country—have been stymying President Trump’s agenda from the get-go. And Attorney General William Barr is getting fed up...

“Barr is right to complain. The judiciary—which, it should be pointed out, the Framers envisioned as the weakest branch—has asserted breathtaking and unprecedented control over the policy process. One judge can now effectively cancel a policy with the stroke of a pen. As Barr put it, these injunctions give ‘a single judge the unprecedented power to render irrelevant the decisions of every other jurisdiction in the country.’

“In other words, ‘one judge in one circuit gets to control the law until the Supreme Court intervenes.’”

Statistics don’t lie. Barr noted how 37 national injunctions have been issued in President Trump’s two plus years in office, surpassing the 27 in the entire 20th century. By comparison, only two were handed down during the first half of President Obama’s first term.

President Trump’s earned praise and notoriety for his willingness to cancel out many of Obama’s so-called “accomplishments” through executive orders of his own, driving frenzied liberals into a tizzy trying to stem the bleeding from the overuse of executive authority under the previous president’s reign. Judges from obscure places disagreed with Trump’s corrective measures, issuing injunctions to halt the new orders.

Most recently a district judge halted construction on the southern border wall, ruling unallocated defense funds couldn’t be used when the matter was already considered by Congress. Eventually the question will reach the Supreme Court -- but how much damage will be done in the interim?

Whereas Obama abused his powers by issuing obviously unconstitutional orders like DACA, Trump legitimately employs his own for national security purposes clearly within his constitutional purview. Take his so-called “Muslim ban” for example. Trump narrowed the order so it didn’t specifically target any particular religion, and, limited its scope to dangerous war-torn hotspots where the threat from insufficiently vetted foreigners was most acute.

Liberal federal district judges issued injunctions anyway. The Supreme Court overruled them. It must stop.

Few issues would engender more interest and energy than a Supreme Court vacancy during next year’s presidential campaign. Should one occur, the public battle would certainly make history. Mitch McConnell was correct to say he’d move forward with confirmation hearings… but would the nation survive?

Share this