The Progressive-Democrats in the Senate object to President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. They object, as I write this, even before they know who that nominee is—it could be me, for all they know, but they object.
This has nothing to do with the qualifications of that nominee-to-be; it has everything to do with what they consider to be their personally owned seat on the Court—just like they’ve been trying to block the squatter in their private house known colloquially as the White House.
That’s whatThe Wall Street Journal‘s editorial board thinks of Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s rationalization of his refusal to publish his list (assuming it exists) of judges from which he’d pick nominations to the Supreme Court.
Mr Biden has resisted naming individuals he’d consider for the Supreme Court, saying it would subject them to undue criticism. Fair enough—Mr Trump’s practice of making his short-list public is not required of other candidates.
Never mind what Michigan State law actually says on the matter. The judge knows better than the people’s representatives, and she considers herself eminently qualified and obligated to stray from her judicial constraints and intrude into a political matter.
Bobby Jindal, in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, is on the right track, but wide of the mark. He opened with
President Trump’s determination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy has enraged Democrats. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ominously warns that if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is replaced and Democrats gain a Senate majority, “nothing is off the table.” It’s not clear what was off the table before: Democrats had already threatened to end the filibuster, ignore pay-as-you-go rules, make the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico states and pack the court.
Recall the trillions of American taxpayer dollars already committed to dealing with the Wuhan Virus situation, including $139 billion sent to State and local governments explicitly for that situation. It turns out
blue states and Democratic mayors are also using the money for their pet causes.
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) is spending millions on free college for more than 600,000 essential workers.
Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell (D) agreed to spend $629,000 to hire 15 community relations specialists.
Democratic St Paul Mayor Melvin Carter recently announced a guaranteed income program for low-income families using $300,000 in CARES Act money….
It’s active, biased, and deliberate in social media. And Facebook, Twitter, and Alphabet intend on stepping it up during the remainder of this election season.
Twitter, for instance, says on its website that it will “require people to remove Tweets” that include “statements which are intended to influence others to violate recommended COVID-19 related guidance from global or local health authorities to decrease someone’s likelihood of exposure to COVID-19.” Among the problematic statements the company lists under that category is “social distancing is not effective.”
But Twitter won’t say how its censors will reconcile the myriad local health authorities who disagree among each other on the proper steps to take.
A 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has a case that’s well summarized (for the sake of my thesis) by the Institute for Justice in this way:
What are judges to do when they wish to be faithful to text but two provisions of the same law irreconcilably conflict? The Fifth Circuit brings us the answer with an annual Medicare health care provider compensation formula that overlaps for one day each year.
The court’s answer is a blithe engagement in Newspeak, textualism, and a misunderstanding of the duties of judges. The details of the case itself needn’t concern us here; it’s sufficient that it centers on those two provisions of a statute that contradict each other:
In Canada, too. There’s a petition—one that drew a record number of signatures—in Canada calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to withdraw his Order in Council (roughly analogous to our Presidents’ Executive Orders) regarding his gun control overreach [emphasis added, but that’s a side issue].
We, the undersigned, citizens of Canada, call upon the Prime Minister to immediately scrap his government’s May 1, 2020, Order in Council decision related to confiscating legally owned firearms and instead pass legislation that will target criminals, stop the smuggling of firearms into Canada, go after those who illegally acquire firearms, and apologize to legal firearms owners in Canada[.]
Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden spoke to a few reporters who, along with a few union bigwigs, were his entire audience (carefully unfilmed by the press, in contrast to the frequently done panning across President Donald Trump’s audiences with a view to “worrying” about masks and social distancing) at his Warren, MI, campaign stop the other day.
At that campaign event, Biden said that our armed forces had seen 118,984 cases and 6,114 deaths.