Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


By the time you read this, Neil Gorsuch will have been confirmed to fill the vacancy on the US Supreme Court left by the late Antonin Scalia. And, by the time you read this, Leftists will still be whining about it.

There were a number of reasons Senate Democrats voted against Gorsuch, ranging from his “extreme” viewpoints (like daring to follow the letter of the law instead of inventing new legal meanings out of nothing) to being too legalistic. That last one was courtesy of California Senator Kamala Harris. Finally, we have someone who can fill the intellectual void left when Joe Biden left the Senate!

One of the more common ones, though, was that Gorsuch was not mainstream enough to be a Justice. Of course, when I consulted the Constitution, I didn’t find any requirement to serve on the Supreme Court, but hey, I’m just too legalistic. However, I did find an interesting topic for this week’s Lexicon.


What the Left believes it means – conforming to societal norms as the Left defines them

What it really means – conforming to societal norms as society defines them

When the Left calls something mainstream, it needs to be viewed within context. Remember, the Left considers abortion for any reasons to be normal, so their concept of mainstream is more skewed than the Leaning Tower of Pisa. These are the same people who thought Hillary Clinton was qualified to be President because she lived there for 8 years, won a Senate seat that would have gone to any Democrat this side of Al Gore, and did an abysmal job as Secretary of State. So, yeah, let’s not take their ideas about what constitutes mainstream thinking too seriously.

The important thing to remember is what is considered mainstream can change depending upon time and your perspective. At one time, treating blacks as inferior unintelligent subhumans was considered to be mainstream. Now, we know better and have adjusted our thinking accordingly. Even so, there may come a time when our past thinking becomes mainstream again. And if so, I will be the king of bell bottoms and polyester leisure suits!

The fact mainstream thinking can change is not a good baseline by which to judge potential Supreme Court Justices. If justice is subject to the will of the people, there would be a lot more chaos than there is now. Think of it as a combination of American Idol and America’s Most Wanted. And the cute criminals will get off because the teenage girl population thinks they’re dreamy. Sure, this guy killed 14 people in a food court with an arsenal of assault weapons, but he looks like Johnny Depp, so he gets off.

And if you don’t think that will happen, let me remind you Rolling Stone put one of the Boston Marathon bombers on their cover and then defended it.

The Left will attempt to paint Gorsuch as outside of the mainstream because of the means by which he was appointed to the Supreme Court. When you consider it took Senate Republicans to use the Constitutional option (also known as the nuclear option) to change requirement for approval from 60 votes to a simple majority and the confirmation vote was 54-45, the Left appears to have a point.

That’s where additional context comes into play. President Barack Obama submitted Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan’s names to the Senate and they were confirmed by votes of 68-31 and 63-37, respectively. Yet, when you look at their previous rulings and rulings since becoming Supreme Court Justices, the “confirmation votes mean how close they are to mainstream” argument goes right out the window. Not that they’d admit it, mind you…

The problem with the Left’s argument against Gorsuch is that it’s based on a logical fallacy known as an appeal to popularity. In short, it’s the belief something is correct because it’s a commonly held belief. And with the Left trying to define what should be believed, they may truly believe Gorsuch isn’t qualified because he isn’t popular. Of course, this neglects the years he’s spent on the bench, the quality of his rulings, and, oh yeah, his unanimous confirmation to the Tenth Circuit Court in July 2006 by the Senate (with confirmation votes from Senate Democrats who opposed him this year, I might add).

When the Left says Gorsuch is outside of the mainstream, it’s an excuse to divert attention away from the real reason they oppose him: he was appointed by President Donald Trump. Had he been appointed by President Hillary Clinton (a doubtful proposition, but hear me out), the Senate Democrats would have made him seem like the most mainstream candidate out there. The fact they oppose his politics and decision to follow the law instead of his feelings tells you they’re not really interested in the mainstream. They’re interested in advancing their ideology.

And by doing that, they gained…the ability to call Neil Gorsuch a Supreme Court Justice. Brilliant strategy, kids.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Like it or not, theft is a part of human history. From the first time Og saw something Grog had and wanted, the idea of taking what doesn’t belong to you has been a part of us as a species. Even though we’ve advanced from Og and Grog’s day (we now have a federal government to steal from and for us), we still have theft, from the small to the grand.

To hear Leftists talk these days, Donald Trump successfully stole a seat on the US Supreme Court with the help of Senate Republicans. See, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland last year to fill a vacancy left by the late Antonin Scalia, but Senate Republicans refused to hold confirmation hearings since it was the last year of Obama’s Presidency. After much kicking, screaming, swearing, and general pouting, the Left have now stated Trump should not be allowed to nominate anyone until Garland is given a hearing, citing Trump “stole a seat.”

Brace yourselves, kids. This one is going to be a doozy.

stolen seat

What the Left believes it means – a spot on the Supreme Court taken by Donald Trump and Senate Republicans that should go to Merrick Garland

What it really means – the Left are still being sore losers

Before we speak about the present, we need to take a step back to talk about the Garland nomination. Although President Obama nominated him, there is no requirement for there to be confirmation hearings. The Constitution states the Senate is to give “advice and consent” on nominees, but it doesn’t go into detail as to the form this advice and consent is to take. The confirmation hearing is a Senate creation and has given us such memorable moments as Republican nominees being grilled like a Chik Fil A sandwich, and Republicans rolling over for Democrat nominees.

Back when Democrats thought Hillary Clinton would win, they warned Republicans not to block Garland’s nomination because they were going to keep the White House. Yeah, how’d that work out for ya? Pretty good?

Now that they are not only out of the White House for the short and possibly long term, but also in the minority of the Senate, Democrats are relying on the stupidity of their followers to create a crisis where there is none. Trump’s victory means he gets to nominate whomever he wants to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. Period. Full stop. The End. Thank you for playing, and here are your lovely parting gifts.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I reject the “stolen seat” notion completely because it was never the Left’s seat to begin with. The fact Obama nominated someone to fill the vacancy is immaterial. It does not grant ownership of said seat to any one party or ideology.

But, as with most things Leftists complain about, there’s more to the story. With Scalia’s death, the Supreme Court stood at 8 members. Four of the Justices vote consistently to the Left, three vote to the Right, and one is a wild card that votes inconsistently for either side. Garland’s successful appointment to the Supreme Court would give the Left a minimum of a 5-4 decision in their favor in practically every case that got to the high court.

Then, Donald Trump won the Presidency and that Leftist Supreme Court wet dream became a pipe dream. Now, the Left can still count on their 4 favorite Justices to vote the way they want, but the Right may have 4 Justices of their own if/when Gorsuch gets confirmed by a Republican-lead Senate. Granted, the Left may still get 5-4 decisions, but they aren’t going to be guaranteed. Then, the Leftist Justices will have to actually make compelling arguments to create the majorities they want.

And we know how Leftists hate to actually work for something.

When you consider the Left feels Trump stole the 2016 election by, you know, actually campaigning in states instead of letting Hillary win them, the “stolen seat” idea isn’t that unusual. The Left is trying to find any way they can to instill doubt in people’s minds that Trump is legitimate, so if they can get enough people to think he’s a thief they will get what they want.

The problem is the more they rely on this line of thinking, the less effective it becomes. And it doesn’t get any easier when there is no evidence to back up the notion Trump stole anything. But a lack of facts hasn’t stopped the Left before, so it’s not going to stop them now. Of course, that doesn’t mean we have to play along, does it?