Hunter Speaks
-
Derek Hunter's latest:
The feces are going to hit the fan harder than it has at any point throughout the Trump administration. If you thought the Kavanaugh confirmation was a fight, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet. If you weren’t excited about voting before…
The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has given the election even more urgency than it had before. Yes, I realize that’s an understatement, but sometimes the simplest words are the best. Democrats have made no mystery of their plans should they ever obtain power again, and it’s not good for fans of individual liberty, personal responsibility, or just being left the hell alone by the government. That’s why Republicans need to move quickly and deliberately to replace her.
So much of the progressive agenda is dependent upon twisting the plain language of the Constitution into a rat’s nest of snarls and bastardizing words to the point of unrecognizability. The only thing standing between them and getting their way is the whims of John Roberts. How terrifying is that?
The passing of the Justice I affectionately called “Darth Vader Ginsburg” presents the republic with a fighting chance to move away from a nation ruled by the radical left and the politicking of Roberts, and back toward one where government power is held in check by the Constitution.
Still in shock, Democrats are scrambling to find a way to block any nomination. They don’t have one. They changed the rules under the Obama administration so they could stack liberals on the courts and their chickens have come home to roost. I say this with all due respect: to hell with them.
They’re whining about Merrick Garland and twisting the so-called “McConnell Rule” to try to make a case, but even Stevie Wonder could see they’d ram through anyone they wanted if the situation were reversed.
But the situation isn’t reversed. This is the bed Democrats made, make them lie in it. Make them bask in it, marinate in it, and smother them with the pillow if need be.
When the news of Darth’s death broke, the threats of violence started. Former CNN host Reza Aslan tweeted, “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f*cking thing down.” And that was one of the less explicit, more reasoned responses to the death of an 87-year-old riddled with cancer who should’ve retired a decade ago. If liberals are mad, they should be mad at her.
Ginsburg shouldn’t have stayed on the court for so long. I’m not a fan of mandatory retirement, but there should come a point in everyone’s life when they want to spend more of the time they have left with family and friends than working, no matter what their job is.
But Ginsburg believed her own press, and the left built a cult around her. Books were written about her, documentaries made, and even a Hollywood production with models playing her and her late husband. She basked in all of it, embracing the cult and believing the hype. Leftists portrayed her as the most important Justice ever; as more important than the Constitution itself. And she acted accordingly.
When enough people, and news organizations, wonder aloud how the republic could survive without her, she clearly started to ask the same question. And she wasn’t willing to risk it.
Reports of her dying wish – that she not be replaced until after the election, in the hope of a Democrat being able to do it – showed who and what she really was. Threats of violence show who leftists really are. And that one Supreme Court Justice, any of them, should hold so much sway over the direction of the country shows how far we’ve fallen from the intent of our Founding Fathers.
Replacing RBG with that is the antithesis of her is the best hope for preserving our liberties and the very concept of limited government. That leftists like Aslan are greeting that prospect with “Over our dead bodies. Literally,” is a risk worth taking.
While the worst thing leftists have going for them is their totalitarian instincts boiling to the top for everyone to see, the best thing they have going for them is spineless Republicans who campaign as conservatives and govern like Democrats. By moving a nomination now, it’ll force a few jelly-spines to harden.
Ultimately, Democrats created this situation for themselves, they deserve a big dose of their own medicine.
Democrats were already talking about getting rid of the filibuster to ram through their bills, packing the courts to ensure whatever they pass is ruled legal, and creating new states to solidify power in the Senate, why the hell shouldn’t we take them at their word? When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
And if you believe them, there is little choice but to act preemptively to prevent their naked power grabs by quickly confirming a new Justice. You know they’d do the same.
-
@jon-nyc said in Hunter Speaks:
Seems this could go out with a whimper if a couple more republicans say they won’t vote in a lame duck session.
I think the GOP will want to pick this fight. I don’t believe we will hear much more comment, and how GOP individuals position their comments before the election and actually vote after is another entirely interesting question.
Packing the court is the real strawman.
-
Seems this could go out with a whimper if a couple more republicans say they won’t vote in a lame duck session.
@jon-nyc said in Hunter Speaks:
Seems this could go out with a whimper if a couple more republicans say they won’t vote in a lame duck session.
The thinking is that if they sacrifice this SC seat, the democrats will give it back to them when the shoe is on the other foot.
Is that it?
Or maybe they think they better sacrifice this seat in order to prevent packing.
Those are two really weak arguments to give up a seat.
And based on past performance it is likely they would get nothing in return for their sacrifice.
-
@jon-nyc said in Hunter Speaks:
Seems this could go out with a whimper if a couple more republicans say they won’t vote in a lame duck session.
The thinking is that if they sacrifice this SC seat, the democrats will give it back to them when the shoe is on the other foot.
Is that it?
Or maybe they think they better sacrifice this seat in order to prevent packing.
Those are two really weak arguments to give up a seat.
And based on past performance it is likely they would get nothing in return for their sacrifice.
@Copper said in Hunter Speaks:
And based on past performance it is likely they would get nothing in return for their sacrifice.
And the perfect example of that is when Reid abolished the filibuster.
"You changed the rules, Harry? OK, wanna play again?"
-
My senator, Portman, explained it.
Yes, the history is to not confirm a president's nomination in election years, but only when the presidency and senate are held by opposing parties.
In every case but one since the 1800's when the president and senate were the same party the nomination was confirmed.
So the "but 2016" argument vanishes like a fart in the wind.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
My senator, Portman, explained it.
Yes, the history is to not confirm a president's nomination in election years, but only when the presidency and senate are held by opposing parties.
In every case but one since the 1800's when the president and senate were the same party the nomination was confirmed.
So the "but 2016" argument vanishes like a fart in the wind.
@Mik said in Hunter Speaks:
My senator, Portman, explained it.
Yes, the history is to not confirm a president's nomination in election years, but only when the presidency and senate are held by opposing parties.
In every case but one since the 1800's when the president and senate were the same party the nomination was confirmed.
So the "but 2016" argument vanishes like a fart in the wind.
Because shut the fuck up.
-
My senator, Portman, explained it.
Yes, the history is to not confirm a president's nomination in election years, but only when the presidency and senate are held by opposing parties.
In every case but one since the 1800's when the president and senate were the same party the nomination was confirmed.
So the "but 2016" argument vanishes like a fart in the wind.
@Mik But I think you realize that you can "chop up" almost any argument so that it fits one sides view or the other.
"Since the start of USA, we have never done a Supreme Court confirmation in an even numbered year that was also a leap year, and had a black President of the opposite party from the Senate. We are not going to start now!" LOL
