Post-Confirmation Musings

by Jon N. Hall10/23/18
The Midterm Elections in the Wake of Kavanaugh’s Confirmation  •  Senate hearings are rarely “must-see TV” for this kid. Such hearings are often tedious and can serve as just an excuse for senators to showboat in their bids for the presidency. The moral preening of some senators can be downright nauseating.

Even so, I did happen to catch Senator Sasse’s opening remarks in the Judicial Committee’s hearing on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to SCOTUS. But that’s only because it coincided with lunch, when I tune into Fox Business to see how the Nasdaq’s doing. Real Americans will find Sasse’s observations about the proper role of the judiciary and the nature of Congress quite edifying. I highly recommend that you click and listen. America needs more senators like Sasse.

Content to let others watch Senate hearings so I don’t have to, I know that if there are any “I am Spartacus moments” that the media will excise them out for me. The highlights and blooper reels are enough for me. Given all that, the advent of the mysterious Christine Blasey Ford, doctor of psychology no less, was too much and I resolved to watch her testimony. And that I did: the whole hearing.

Having tuned in to Fox News to hear Ms. Blasey Ford tell her story in real time to the whole world, I will say this: she may be an extraordinarily “fragile” person. Or perhaps she’s just a good actress. Ford claimed to be “terrified,” but her testimony was not creditable. If she really were terrified, she could have stayed home. Yet, she came to D.C. intent on ruining a man’s career, and her only evidence was nothing more than hearsay.

Perhaps Ford is telling the truth; perhaps she’s lying. No one knows. It’s easy to wonder whether even Ford knows. But if Ford’s testimony isn’t true, then she has very conveniently fabricated a story that cannot be falsified. However, some of what Ford has said has been found false. If she said those things under oath, then she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. (J.R. Dunn recently wrote about Ford’s “inconsistencies” for American Thinker.)

Anyone who lied under oath in this confirmation process must go through the very justice system they were seeking to subvert. The system demands this for its own credibility and hygiene, and that includes Ms. Ford, the Left’s new Joan of Arc.

What struck me about the ceremonial swearing-in on Monday night was how gracious President Trump was; he thanked everybody, and by name. He’s a class act, that Trump. And the moving ceremony was a much needed blessing after such an ugly, underhanded attempt to malign and smear a good man.

Republican voters need to understand that Kavanaugh’s ascension to the high court isn’t enough. Five conservatives on the Court aren’t enough. Any retirement, illness, or death in the five conservative justices would knock the Court right back to being evenly split.

If Democrats take control of the Senate and we lose a conservative justice, President Trump, despite having nominated two terrific conservative justices, might be tempted to do a “deal” with the Democrats and nominate a Merrick Garland-type judge. That may not be likely, but it’s possible. The temptation to have a third justice might be too powerful, even for Trump.

But if Trump stood firm and didn’t nominate some progressive that the Dems would accept, we’d have a “hung Court” and get no finality, no precedent, on the more contentious issues that come before SCOTUS. We saw this after the death of Justice Scalia with 4-4 deadlocks on public unions and immigration cases. And with 4-4 deadlocks (split decisions) on the Supreme Court, the decisions that prevail are those of the lower courts that were appealed.

It would seem that The Notorious R.B.G., who will turn 86 next March, would be the next justice to depart the high court. But you never know; she could hang on for years. Ginsburg may be the most progressive of the justices, but she was confirmed by a vote of 96-3. Today’s Democrats have probably made such lopsided confirmation votes a thing of the past.

Majority Leader McConnell has performed magnificently in ushering through the president’s conservative nominees to the federal bench. And Republican senators are finally getting some grit. It would be shameful to reward them by allowing angry mobs to determine the makeup of the next Senate.

Conservatives therefore cannot rest on the Kavanaugh confirmation; they need to vote in November so we can keep the Senate in the hands of Republicans and be ready for a sixth conservative nomination, and maybe even more. You see, there’s no requirement to share the Court with justices who “legislate from the bench.”

Americans need as many constitutionalists and originalists on the Court as we can get. And consider this: Democrats are already talking about impeaching our newest justice, and there’s even talk of packing the Court with two more seats. Of course, such strategies have little chance of success. The Democrats’ real aim is to gum up the works, get us chasing our tails, and halt the Trump agenda.

Decent Americans need to go to the polls to “lock in” their recent victories. They need to crush the Democrats in November so that the Democrat party will be forced to reform itself into something decent and American.

To that end, President Trump should promise voters that his next pick for the SCOTUS will be at least as conservative as Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. And the president should also promise this: that his next nomination to the Court will be a woman.

The president bypassed several great gals for Kavanaugh, but now their time has come. President Trump has been terrific in following through on his campaign promises; he tells us what he wants to do and then he does it. Promising to put a conservative woman on the highest court in the land is one way to perhaps break the midterm curse for the party in power and stir up a “red wave.”


Jon N. Hall of Ultracon Opinion is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City. • (75 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Post-Confirmation Musings

  1. Steve Lancaster says:

    I guess I am kind of old fashioned but the progressive circus when Buzzie leaves the court will be epic. I wonder how many women are willing and able to stand the heat? Even the god queen of progressives, HRC, would be hard put to stand the onslaught that will be at least double the last. There are few men who can or would subject themselves to the slime attacks likely. That is not to say Trump shouldn’t appoint a woman, but it is going to be brutal.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    Actually, the unanimous votes stopped for Republicans with the invention of Borking. After that, every Republican SCOTUS nominee faced heavy opposition from Demagogues basically for political ideology (sexual license, mainly). Not until the Black God nominated the unwise Latina and Elena Kagan did most Republicans act similarly, and in those cases it didn’t matter.

    The key may be a big GOP surprise in 2 weeks. If the smearmongers are badly beaten, they may decide this wasn’t a good idea. Then, with enough GOP Senators that we can afford to lose a couple on the abortion issue, Amy Barrett could replace Darth Bader Ginsburg. Then watch the banshees shriek

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    And the president should also promise this: that his next nomination to the Court will be a woman.

    Despite whatever promises Trump made (still waiting for his #1 promise — The Wall), wouldn’t it be nice if he didn’t further validate the Left’s conception of society and instead picked the best candidate regardless of sex or color?

    Wouldn’t it be thrilling if the president himself said so? And does anyone think we have ever boughten ourselves one ounce of indulgence by trying to placate the Left? Did it work for Clarence Thomas (although in his case, he was at least a highly-qualified candidate….not so much with Harriet Miers)?

    Sorry for all the questions. I don’t expect an answer.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Thanks for expressing my thoughts.

      Sadly, I don’t, for a moment, believe such political honesty is any longer possible in our society.

    • pst4usa says:

      I thought his #1 promise was to dump 0bamacare? Silly Brad, we don’t want the most qualified, that would be some sort of Utopian meritocracy.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Unfortunately, it may be necessary to replace certain justices with members of the same identity-politics group, as happened when Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall. (Bush actually wanted to name Thomas even earlier, in place of David Souter, but he was advised that Thomas needed a little more seasoning with judicial experience — much like Amy Barrett this year.)

      Still, Bush was able to avoid doing it with O’Connor in the end. (He started to replace her with Roberts, then promoted him to CJ when Rehnquist denied and tried to replace O’Connor with Myers. When she quickly fell through, he chose Alito.)

      We’ll have to see who goes next (hopefully Darth Bader Ginsburg) and who the replacement is (Barrett may be the best choice, but there are plenty of good ones).

  4. Steve Lancaster says:

    My concern is that the court has become a kind of super legislature/executive branch. Nine people who some how are sooooo wise that their judgement on what is constitutional is better than mine or yours. It reminds me of the Pharisees. If we are to have three co-equal branches of government than each must have an equal say in what is constitutional.

    Ever since Marbery v. Madison the court has been a political player and these nine black robed mandarins have given themselves some sort of Devine right to rule. Jackson had it right. The court has made its decisions , now let them enforce it. I fully understand the reality, but I don’t have to like it. At least until the court says I have to.

    • pst4usa says:

      I sure wish we could drop this co-equal crap. They are not co-equal and never were intended to be.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      As Pat observes below, the judiciary was considered the weakest branch because they have no power, as illustrated both by Jackson in his famous comment or Cousin Abe when he blew off a writ of habeas corpus issued by Chief Justice Taney in 1861.

      Back then, all branches of government considered themselves (in theory) defenders of the Constitution. Prior to Jackson’s veto of the renewal of the Second Bank of the United States, most vetoes were on constitutional grounds. (We once looked at a portrait gallery in Philadelphia that dealt with important historical figures — it was in the vicinity of Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell, and other such sites. One panel included both Andrew Jackson and Nicholas Biddle, to my amusement.)

      Incidentally, the system is forcing me to fill in my name and e-mail address every time I post now. What’s going on?

  5. pst4usa says:

    Let me submit some evidence from Hamilton in Federalist #78

    “…Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power
    must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated
    from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions,
    will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the
    Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or
    injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds
    the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the
    purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of
    every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary,
    has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction
    either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can
    take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have
    neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately
    depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of
    its judgments.

    This simple view of the matter suggests several important
    consequences. It proves incontestably, that, the judiciary is beyond
    comparison the weakest of the three departments of power
    ; that
    it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that
    all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against
    their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression
    may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general
    liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I
    mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the
    legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no
    liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the
    legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last
    place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary
    alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either
    of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union
    must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter,
    notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from
    the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy
    of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate
    branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its
    firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may
    therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its
    constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public
    justice and the public security…”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *