Trump’s SCOTUS pick: gambit or master stroke?

It is possible that Biden lost the election when he pandered to the far Left of his party (the “progressives”) and endorsed a platform that included all of Bernie Sanders’ pet projects.  This has driven millions of independents towards Trump.  With many states moving to mail ballots out to every name on their voting rolls, including many who are now dead, it appears that the aim is to not only distort the true results in the vote for President, but also for the Democrats to achieve sizeable majorities in both houses of Congress and seize control of some state legislatures around the country.  Oh, the perils of one party rule!  But, for now, let us consider some possible effects of Trump’s selection of Judge Barrett for the Supreme Court.

Bear in mind, that the fight over this nomination is not ultimately about Roe v. Wade.  If over turned, the issue of abortion would go back to the states, which is where it should always have been addressed.  (If there were to be a case brought to the US Supreme Court on the issue of abortion, it ought to have been on behalf of the class of human beings that reside in utero.)  The Left treats this nomination as an existential threat for good reason.  If a 5 to 4 majority of originalist jurists is gained on the Court, it means that the states and individual citizens will have some redress from government over reach.  (Chief Justice John Roberts has sided with the liberal wing of the Court since 2012 and the decision on the Affordable Care Act, aka “ObamaCare”.  Thus, he cannot be counted among the “conservative justices”.  We note that the failed President George W. Bush nominated him.)  Why does this matter so much now?!  If Joe Biden becomes President and his party controls both houses of Congress, we can expect drastic legislation being quickly passed that will transform this nation and make us all less free and less prosperous.  Just read their platform – and they are sincere about it, even zealously fanatic about what they plan to do.

First, Queen Kamala (that is Kamala Harris of the Senate Judiciary Committee) will make a fool of herself in attacking Judge Barrett, an eminently qualified jurist and intellectual heavy weight (which Kamala clearly is not).  Voters will see first hand what Kamala would be like (nasty, mean spirited, intolerant of opposing viewpoints) if she were to become President.  (A likely scenario if Biden is elected, or manages to steal the election.  Biden could easily pass away in the night next February or March, and we would as a nation mourn another elderly victim of COVID-19, which big bad Trump did not do anything to contain.)

While we are in the Senate, let’s talk about Dianne Feinstein for a moment.  (Why do I expose the 2 corrupt senators from California?  Having until recently endured life in that one party state for years, I feel the need to expose the abuses of politicos from that ideologically driven state.)  Last time Amy Coney Barrett was before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017, Feinstein attacked her for her religious faith.  So, too, did the fanatic, Senator Blumenthal (Connecticut).  Yet, the nation needs an open debate on the 800 pound gorilla in the room, and that is the terribly destructive influence on the culture from powerful Jews.  If Feinstein and Blumenthal and Schumer can attack a person for her Catholic faith, then why can we not discuss Jewish Supremacism in all its ugly manifestations?

Many Latino voters are Catholic, some devoutly so.  Insult their faith at your political risk Senator Feinstein.  (We note in passing an item of interest for those who support the 2nd Amendment.  While mayor of San Francisco in the early 1980s, Dianne Feinstein tried to outlaw firearm ownership in her city.  The courts struck down her edicts on that issue.)

Hopefully, those on the Left will not attack Judge Barrett for being the mother of several children.  It is a sign of how degraded the culture is that it is no longer considered virtuous by many folks for a woman to be a mother actively engaged with her husband in raising their children.

Let us consider for a moment the bind that senate Republicans are in because of this nomination.  Many Republican senators are up for re-election this year and many of these are in close races.  If they fail to support Trump’s nominee, they will anger their base of voters, who may choose to withhold their votes come election day.  Trump has forced the issue with these feckless politicos.  They promise to approve originalists or constructionists to the high court as part of their campaigns, but they diaper out when the media and Democrats attack such nominees.  As well, unlike their Democrat counterparts who almost unanimously oppose Republican judicial nominees, these feckless Republicans vote for liberal, judicial activists nominated by Democrat presidents (which was the real reason that Senator McConnell did not allow a vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016).  With Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s ACLU background, why was her confirmation vote in the full Senate 96-3?  I guess the Senate Republicans feared being smeared as anti-woman and anti-Semitic if they voted against her confirmation.

So, President Trump has put the Senate Republicans in a bind indeed.  We shall see how all this plays out in the next few weeks.  It may prove to be a master stroke.

Before closing, let us note the chutzpah of Ruth Bader Ginsburg if reports are true, and she did make remarks to the effect that she wanted “her seat” on the Court to be filled by the next president.  Ruthie, the seat you held on the Court was not your personal chattel.  It is not for you to make demands or even merely suggest who might nominate your replacement or who might actually occupy the seat in the future.

People must learn to think for themselves so that they can walk away, really walk away from the ideological plantation.

copyright 2020 –


    1. Thanks for the kind words Seoul Sister. Yes, RBG was lionized in a movie a couple of years back and in an earlier documentary. From her opinions on the Court, it seems that she was just ideologically driven. Elena Kagan has sometimes broken ranks with the other liberal leaning judges at times, but never Ginsburg. For those who are saying that this nomination of Barrett will flip this seat ideologically, it ought to be recalled that RBG flipped the seat herself back in 1993 when she succeeded retiring justice Byron White (a John F. Kennedy appointee who turned out to be an originalist once on the Court).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s