September 28, 2020
When Justice and self-imagined Constitution whisperer
Antonin Scalia shuffled off his mortal coil, President Barack Obama – certainly
no fan of Scalia’s interpretation of the law – attempted to fulfill his
constitutional duty by appointing someone to replace Scalia on the Supreme
Court. As the saying goes, “Elections have consequences.” Hopefully, so does stealing Supreme Court seats.
Obama did not attempt to replace the ultra-conservative
hunting buddy of war criminal Dick Cheney with Scalia’s ideological opposite in
order to drastically shift the balance of power in the Supreme Court. No, Obama,
still having not learned his lesson, made a thoughtful, collegial nomination in
a futile attempt to sow consensus.
Not only did Obama select a well-respected jurist, he chose
Merrick Garland. Garland had a history of fairness, adherence to the law and
not his own personal opinions, and an almost unheard-of level of bipartisan
support. Also, Garland was 63 years old at the time, which would have made him
one of the oldest nominees since the days of Nixon. Yet another display of
reasonableness from Obama – assuring his nominee would not be on the Court for
a very long time. Thanks Obama.
Merrick Garland, whose seat on
the Supreme Court
was stolen by Mitch McConnell and Republican’ts
was stolen by Mitch McConnell and Republican’ts
As everyone who cares to pay attention knows, Obama’s pick
was not even afforded the courtesy of sitting down with senators to discuss his
nomination. That nomination never saw the light of day. As Mitch McConnell
later gleefully admitted, “One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack
Obama in the eye, and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme
Court vacancy.’”
McConnell and the Republican’ts just plain stole that
Supreme Court seat. Not satisfied being a total shithead, Ted Cruz went one
step further squealing that even if Hillary Clinton became the next president,
Republican’ts would never allow her to fill Scalia’s vacant seat. Even revered
maverick John McCain said at the time, “I promise you that we will be united
against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president,
would put up.” This is not love of country, it’s more like sexual abuse.
In the few minutes that passed after the untimely death of
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, once McConnell was able to stop drooling over her
passing, he announced that he would happily approve IMPEACHED president
Chrump’s replacement nominee. Despite the fact that there were less than eight
weeks before the next election to replace a president who was not elected by a
majority of the electorate and has been, throughout his despicable tenure, the
least popular president in modern history. And of course, despite the fact that
McConnell insisted that Barack Obama should not be able to nominate a Justice
eight months before an election.
Simply irreplaceable
Republican’ts’ pick to replace one of the most accomplished
jurists ever to be nominated to the high court and one of this nation’s great
liberal Supreme Court justices is the polar opposite of Ginsburg in every respect.
Amy Coney Barrett is a member of People of Praise, a charismatic covenant
community that has been criticized by former members for being a religious
cult. The church practices, including speaking in tongues and faith healing. One
of its most notable features is the submissive role played by women.
Barrett, a favorite of religious conservatives, is anti-choice,
anti-immigrant, and is herself an ideological and religious zealot, with a mere
three years of experience on the bench. The 48-year-old clerked for Scalia and
was appointed to the lower court by Chrump. During Barrett’s confirmation
hearing for the 7th Circuit Court, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) –
referring to the nominee’s religious fanaticism’s presence in her court
opinions – told Barrett, “The dogma lives loudly within you.”
Like her mentor Scalia, Barrett is a delusional “original intent”
fetishist, i.e. one who is convinced that 1) the Constitution was designed as
an unchanging unchangeable document (despite Thomas Jefferson’s admonitions to
the contrary), and 2) they are able to know the minds of the Founding Fathers
many of whom disagreed with each other and often with themselves. As Ali Velshi
recently noted, “If you’re entirely a constitutional originalist and a
textualist, there wouldn’t actually be a woman on the Supreme Court; there
wouldn’t even be women who vote.”
Barrett will surely be reversing progress from the bench
with fellow rabid anti-civil rights, anti-voting, anti-economic and social justice,
anti-environment, anti-progress justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for the
next two generations unless God plucks her from this world before she can do
too much damage. That, or Democrats take the White House and Senate and add
four more seats on the Court.
I. Mangrey reporting. Only 35 more cheating days until the
election.
Nor would Thomas be anywhere near the High Court.
ReplyDelete