image_pdfimage_print

Concise Conservative Comebacks for Loony Leftist Lines

With the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace the retiring Anthony Kennedy, Leftists have been throwing out all sorts of arguments why we (meaning they) can’t allow this to happen. Don’t you wish you had a handy dandy guide to help you refute those arguments?

Well, I’m going to try to provide one. Granted, I try not to think like a Leftist for too long because it makes my head hurt and I might not come back, but for you, I’ll make an exception. Let’s take a look at some of the Left’s arguments (which I have put in bold to separate them from my responses) and some of my responses (which I have not put in bold to separate them from the Left’s arguments). Yes, I know that last one was redundant, but when dealing with Leftists, it’s best to make absolutely sure. Where applicable, I have tried to make it into a back-and-forth conversation, but if the Leftist jumps to a different argument than the order in which I have written responses, just jump to the appropriate response and go from there.

Ready? Here we go!

Donald Trump shouldn’t be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice while he’s under investigation.

What investigation is that?

That he conspired with Russia to help him win the Presidency.

Oh, that investigation! Seems former FBI Director James Comey and special prosecutor Robert Mueller, both of whom you’ve lauded in the past, have both said Trump is not under investigation. In fact, of the indictments to date, none have been against Trump, nor have they been linked to Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign. All the accusers have at this point is guilt by association, which doesn’t stand up to legal scrutiny.

But what about all of those connections between Trump and Russia? Surely they prove collusion!

Not quite. Much of what you’re focusing on occurred before Trump was President. It could be argued the terms of impeachment spelled out in the Constitution, along with Article 1 Sections 9 and 10 which prohibit actions that punish an individual retroactively (a little thing the kids call ex post facto), mean Trump’s alleged actions would not be legal grounds for impeachment. As a private citizen, which Trump was at the time of the alleged collusion, Trump could conduct business with anyone he chose, even the evil Russians (which people like former President Barack Obama defended against allegations they were bad folks). And, on top of all that, collusion isn’t expressly illegal. That’s where the bar of “high crimes and misdemeanors” comes into play. If no laws were broken, impeachment isn’t a good and true option.

So what? If Trump gets to pick the next Supreme Court Justice, he could be picking someone who would rule on any case involving him!

Strangely enough, you have half of a point here. Appointing a Supreme Court Justice means that Justice might have to hear cases involving the President who appointed him or her. That’s why it’s expected any judge with conflicts of interest recuse themselves from any case that they have a personal stake in the outcome.

See? You’ve just made my point for me!

I’m not finished. Just because you should recuse yourself doesn’t mean you will. In my lifetime, there have been cases where a Justice should have recused himself or herself and didn’t. Clarence Thomas should have recused himself during cases involving health insurance since his wife works in that industry. On the other side, Justices Kagan and Sotomayor should have recused themselves from any rulings on Obamacare because both had direct impacts on it. And let’s not forget Justice Ginsburg, who officiated a same-sex wedding before she ruled on a Supreme Court case involving same-sex marriages. If you’re afraid of a Justice being influenced to vote a certain way because of who appointed him or her, you’ve had plenty of opportunities to say something.

But Kennedy’s son was Trump’s banker!

So what?

So that means Trump could have put pressure on Kennedy to retire early! Doesn’t that trouble you?

The operative words are “could have.” Trump could have talked Kennedy into retiring, or Kennedy could have come to that conclusion on his own. Without plausible evidence to confirm the President pressured Kennedy into retiring, we have to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Well, that and the fact further evidence shows Kennedy’s son did not do business with Trump directly. The bank he was working for at the time did. That’s like blaming Ford for having trouble with your Chevy Volt.

Let’s go back to the appointing of the Justice ruling on a case Trump’s involved in. How can you reconcile that?

Easy. Precedent states the President cannot be charged legally with a crime while in office. That leaves impeachment as the means to remove Trump, and of all the Supreme Court Justices that would be involved, it is only Chief Justice John Roberts who would be involved, since the Constitution states the Chief Justice presides over the Senate portion of impeachment. And since Roberts was appointed before Trump was even a nominee, there is no conflict.

What about Mitch McConnell denying a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland? Shouldn’t we wait until the elections are over, as McConnell said in 2016?

There’s a big difference between a Presidential election and a mid-term election. In 2016, McConnell relied upon what is loosely called “the Biden Rule”, but one that is backed up by Senate history. Traditionally, no Supreme Court nominations are made in Presidential election years since there is a chance the incoming President would not get to choose a nominee, which undercuts the power of the Presidency as outlined in, surprise surprise, the Constitution.

This year, there is no Presidential election; only the election of House and Senate members. There is no affect on Presidential powers, so there is no reason to hold off on the process. Not to mention, there is a current Supreme Court Justice who was appointed in a mid-term election year. Elena Kagan was appointed in 2010…with support of Republicans. Not liking who is President is not an excuse to delay the process.

Okay, okay, but shouldn’t Merrick Garland get a hearing, given how Senate Republicans sat on his nomination?

I actually have no problem with this, mainly because it’s pretty much a guarantee Garland wouldn’t get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But Garland never got a hearing! That’s a stolen Supreme Court seat!

In order for something to be stolen, it must first be owned. The Supreme Court is not owned by any one President or political party, so President Obama didn’t get an automatic appointment because he was President at the time the vacancy occurred. Thanks to a bit of Senate history, Supreme Court Justices aren’t nominated in Presidential election years. Only when that bit of history comes back to bite the Left in the ass does it become an issue.

To go even further into this, the Constitution states the Senate gives “advice and consent” for judicial nominees. Nowhere is there a requirement for any nominee to go through a confirmation hearing. Really, the hearing is for grandstanding politicians to look like they’re doing something when they’re acting like hams.

Well…okay, but what about Brett Kavanaugh? Don’t you right wingers want Roe v . Wade overturned?

First off, Kavanaugh said he considers Roe v. Wade to be settled law and would not consider overturning it. Even if he’s changed his mind, there would need to be a legal challenge to Roe that would need to get through multiple judicial layers before it would even reach the Supreme Court. Will that happen? We don’t know.

Even if Roe gets overturned, the decision to allow abortions would go back to the states. We can argue whether that’s good or bad, but it’s a discussion that should be welcomed by all parties involved. Until Roe comes back before the High Court, though, it’s still just theoretical.

But Kavanaugh is a practicing Catholic! Don’t they want abortion outlawed?

Nancy Pelosi is a practicing Catholic, and she doesn’t want abortion outlawed.

Kavanaugh’s faith plays no role in determine whether he’s fit for the Supreme Court. Remember, the Constitution states there is no religious test to serve, so he could be an atheist and still not be disqualified.

What about gay marriage, civil rights, and other important issues? Kavanaugh will set us back on those and a lot more!

Again, there has to be a legal challenge that makes its way through the courts before it even gets heard by the Supreme Court. And that process isn’t quick, kids. It might be years before such a challenge gets heard.

Didn’t Kavanaugh say a sitting President shouldn’t be indicted or tried?

He did.

So, why should he be a Supreme Court Justice if he feels that way? No President should be above the law.

Because in that same piece you’re quoting from, he goes on to say Congress should change the law. In other words, Kavanaugh feels the current system needs to be changed and wants the body charged with making laws to do it, just as the Constitution dictates.

You keep talking about the Constitution. That’s outdated and should be revamped to reflect current values.

The Founding Fathers already accounted for that. If you can get enough support for your ideas, you can call for a Convention of the States and have the Constitution changed. With today’s political climate, I wish you the best of luck.

Even if you don’t want to go through the trouble of amending the Constitution, it should be pointed out the Constitution has already been interpreted to address many of the issues you hold dear. You may not feel like it’s progressive or conservative enough, but the judicial branch can be persuaded. How far those interpretations deviate from the source material may be an issue, but to call the Constitution outdated is to ignore the framework it provides us to change with the times.

Well, the Constitution doesn’t say how many Supreme Court Justices there need to be, so we should add more Justices so there is a better balance of ideologies.

That is a good point, actually. However, that has the potential to backfire. Remember, when you allow one President to do something, future Presidents can pick up that permission and run with it. Want to see 25 Antonin Scalia-type judges sitting on the High Bench?

Well, maybe we should put term limits on Supreme Court Justices.

Although it might seem like a good idea to limit the terms of Justices, the reason Justices have lifetime appointments is to avoid political favoritism. And when we look at the current Supreme Court makeup, the Justices who lean Left put their ideology above the Constitution. The Justices who lean Right tend to do the opposite. Besides, if we put term limits on Justices, we might be looking at another Merrick Garland situation, especially if the terms are to be 19 years, as is what is being suggested. Then, we might be right back where we started from and nothing will be solved.

Stop talking to me you racist/sexist/homophobe/bigot/Trumpster/insult-du-joir!


And there we have it. Use this as a guide, and may the fates be ever in your favor!

Share This:

 

Chuck is doing his Job

MoveOn and other progressive, leftist, and liberal organizations keep calling for Senator Chuck Grassley to “do his job.” Which to them means to hold hearings and appoint President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. They site the Constitution stating the Senate’s job is to advise and consent.

These liberal groups fail to enforce the same “rules” when a Republican President’s nominee is being ignored or rejected by a liberal Democrat controlled Senate. And they forget all of history which shows this cycle repeating itself in every Administration.

Likewise these liberal groups don’t understand plain simple English. They fully believe that “advise and consent” means that the Senate will approve any nominee given to the Courts. If this was truly what that phrase meant then Judge Robert Bork would have been on the Supreme Court before his death. But of course the definition would change when a Republican nominates a conservative Judge.

No “advise and consent” does not guarantee the judicial nominee will be accepted. It does not guarantee the judicial nominee will even get a hearing. The Senate has the full right to reject the President’s nominee outright. The only thing a President can do is make a Recess appointment if the Senate goes into a recess. It is in the President’s best interest to submit another nominee.

Just like a parent not giving their consent to a child’s activity at school. Consent is not automatic in most cases and not at all guaranteed to be given. The Senate is not a rubber stamp to the actions of the President.

The Senate is a check and balance against the actions of an executive branch overreaching it’s Constitutional authority. Each branch of government is a separate but equal power. Interwoven to insure liberty over tyranny.

The role of the Senate is either confirm the President’s nominee to the Court or to deny it. In either case the Senate is doing it’s job and so is Senator Chuck Grassley.

Share This:

 

An Open Letter to President Obama

President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC

Mr. President,
Hey! How are the wife and kids? How’s the short game treating ya?

If I may be serious for a moment, I know you’re in the process of picking a replacement for late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and you’ve run into some opposition from the Senate Judiciary Committee (who is using the same argument you, Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Charles Schumer, and Senate Democrats in 1960 used, but, hey, who’s paying attention right?). You and I are not on the same page politically, but it’s time we put that aside for the betterment of the country.

That’s why I’m offering to be your nominee to replace Justice Scalia.

Now, before you start sending the authorities to my house to determine my sanity and whether I’m a threat to myself and others, let me explain. I have given this a lot of thought and I think I would be the perfect candidate for many reasons, the most compelling of which are as follows:

  1. I wouldn’t consent to a Senate confirmation hearing. The Constitution states the role of the Senate is to give “advice and consent” to any nominations the President makes. As a Constitutional scholar yourself (or as your followers…I mean supporters keep reminding us you are), you can see there is no requirement to hold any hearings on my nomination, just to give advice and consent. Instead of a stuffy Senate meeting room, we could have the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee come over to either my house or yours and just hang out with a few beers. And from what I’ve heard, you guys do make a pretty good brew in the White House!2. I wouldn’t allow my feelings to get in the way of doing my job. This country is fractured on many levels, so clear thinking from the highest court in the land is essential. Unfortunately, the High Court has allowed emotions and political leanings get in the way of making just decisions with respects to the Constitution. I may not like some of the things you’ve proposed, but I would give them a fair hearing before I rendered my decision. If your ideas are great, they should be able to stand on their own merits in the marketplace of ideas.

    3. I’m not a lawyer or a judge. Yeah, at first that sounds like a knock against me, but hear me out. I have been studying the Constitution since 1987 and feel I have a pretty good grasp and respect for it. That cannot be said of some of the people on your short list. Instead of relying on the simple language of the Constitution, too many lawyers and judges attempt to use legal reasoning so tortured it’s against the Geneva Convention just to get what they want codified into law. I don’t care about being famous; I just want to make something complex simple, and I bring that to the table.

    4. I would make both major parties mad at me at some point. Again, this seems like a negative, but it’s actually a positive. Democrats and Republicans (and their lawyer buddies) love to push for their agendas to be reflected in judicial rulings. I eschew that kind of thinking in favor of original intent. That’s bound to put people’s panties in a bunch!n I mean, how DARE a Supreme Court Justice do his or her job the way the Constitution says!

    5) I would be a LOT of fun! Ask anyone who has worked with me in a cubicle farm about how I would decorate my desk. Imagine that kind of spirit in a black robe and, BINGO!

    The ball’s in your court…er, green. I will await your call, email, Secret Service detail, cease and desist order, whichever you feel is appropriate to address my offer.

Share This:

 

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has had very left leaning judges of late appointed to its ranks. Many of the recent opinions have been 5 to 4. Sometimes 5 on the Conservative side of issues and sometimes 5 on the Liberal side of issues. The very balance of the Court hangs at the edge of Liberty.

Justice Antonin Scalia, nominated by President Reagan has died. This gives President Obama an opportunity to nominate a new Justice to the Supreme Court. Many past presidents, in their last year of office, have not nominated a Justice and left this task up to the incoming president.

I firmly believe that Obama, wanting to fundamentally rebuild Amerika, will break from this tradition. He will nominate a new Justice to the Court tipping the balance from Liberty to tyranny.

And if he is blocked by the Senate he will appoint a Justice by recess appointment or some other means. This is Obama’s legacy.

Share This: