Senate Dems Never Intended to Give Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee a Fair Hearing

Supreme Court Barrett

Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, meets with Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, Thursday, Oct. 1, 2020 at the Capitol in Washington. (Erin Scott/Pool via AP)

By Larry Keane

Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court has undoubtedly moved the idea of the nation’s top court operating as an originalist judiciary from a conservative dream to an anticipated reality. A court where the majority interprets the law as written, as opposed to legislating from the bench, has massive implications for many issues, and especially positive ones for America’s Second Amendment rights.

Judge Barrett’s obstacle in her confirmation battle this month, however, is not her judicial philosophy, but rather with the U.S. Senate Democrats’ vitriolic opposition to anyone that President Donald Trump nominates. The radical leftists in the Senate are opposed to anyone who will not legislate liberal policies from the bench.

Early Tell

Look no further for proof than the statements by prominent Senate Democrats that were publicized well before Judge Barrett was even the official nominee. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), upon hearing of the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, decided to skip over any kind of condolences and instead opted for an immediate tweet saying “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

He did this ignoring in his haste the “Biden rule,” created by and named for his party’s nominee for president when he was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, does not apply since the president and the Senate are both controlled by the same party.

Likewise, before Judge Barrett had even been named, Senate Democrats like Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) clarified that Sen. Schumer’s threats included the possibility that Democrats would “abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.” Even Presidential candidate Joe Biden signaled he would be open to the senate ending (the) practice” of the filibuster.

When asked about it in his first presidential head-to-head debate, Biden dodged the question in order to avoid the truth that he, and other Democrats, will do anything to squeeze the polices they want out of the nation’s highest court.

Pre-planned Talking Points

The campaign to oppose whomever Trump nominated to the court is not, and was not, limited to just Democrats in Congress, however. A document leaked late last week before Trump announced his SCOTUS nomination, authored by leftist activism groups such as MoveOn and NARAL Pro-Choice America, showed a comprehensive “response action guide” that outlined the many ways in which liberal activists across the country can protest Trump’s nomination to the court.

This template offered a litany of slogans, social media content, talking points and organizational tips for in-person protests, all with a convenient blank space where one was instructed to insert the name of the person whom Trump chose to nominate. It was strangely similar to when the organizers of the Women’s March published a press release opposing Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, but forgot to insert his name over the XX placeholder. In both cases, they oppose before they know.

Dignity Wanted

Now with Judge Amy Coney Barrett officially nominated, the zealots who take orders from the authors of the opposition document are springing into action to oppose a judge who shares the same judicial philosophy as the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Chuck Schumer

Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer of N.Y. speaks at a rally outside the Supreme Court, in Washington, Wednesday, March 4, 2020. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The very existence of this template combined with the opportunistic statements of senators like Sen. Schumer after Justice Ginsburg’s death lay bare sad truths. The fact is that Democrats had no intention of supporting any Trump SCOTUS nomination, no matter how qualified the nominee would be. They only see the Supreme Court as a political weapon that they cannot currently operate but for which they are desperate to get the launch codes.

kamala harris

(AP Photo/Elise Amendola)

Compared to Judge Barrett’s contentious confirmation to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for Seventh Circuit, the confirmation process to the Supreme Court will be much more combative, with vehement but insincere opposition from Senate Democrats including notably the most junior member of the Committee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). The nominee, the Constitution, the Court and our nation all deserve more respect.

 

Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

comments

  1. avatar former water walker says:

    Whether now or as a lame duck( or triumphant President) ACB will get a hearing!

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      She’ll get more than that, she’ll get a vote…

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        We’ll see! I’m not predicting anything…

  2. avatar MrMax says:

    Nominate and get Barrett confirmed ASAP. Period.

    1. avatar PMinFl says:

      I don’t think that the country wants to wait four more years to select a justice to replace RBG. That’s what Schumer is asking…wait for a new president….!!!!!!!!!

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I don’t think that the country wants to wait four more years to select a justice to replace RBG. That’s what Schumer is asking…wait for a new president….!!!!!!!!!”

        Sly.

        I see what you did there.

  3. avatar Debbie W. says:

    Sneaky democRats always trying to do something To America and never For America.

    TRUMP/PENCE 2020.

  4. avatar Sam I Am says:

    To twist a phrase from von C, “Politics is war by other means”.

    We pretend otherwise for long periods, then get back to reality.

    Reality bytes.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Diplomacy is also war by other means. Negotiation can be as well but both sides have to lose something. In this case we have no reason to negotiate.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Diplomacy is also war by other means.”

        The type phrase I “twisted”.

        The intent was to emphasize that the gloves are off, and we are amidst the “smash mouth” phase.

  5. avatar Scott C. says:

    Just do what the left does. They won’t nominate a woman, scream SEXIST

  6. avatar Rusty - Always Carry - Chains says:

    To restate what the democrats are saying. Don’t fill this seat or we will do everything we already said we were gonna do anyway. I for one believe they will do it if they can get away with it, but filling that seat has nothing to do with what they will do. These people are nakedly political and they see the entire government apparatus is a weapon of war to use against conservatives and any member of the American public who doesn’t wholeheartedly agree with them.

    Gentlemen keep your powder dry.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Gentlemen keep your powder dry.”

      Empty ammo cans are still on the shelves… 🙂

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        Not on my shelves, buried cache, etc. It is better to be the wise ant, rather than the lazy grasshopper. Although having the needed supplies is only part of it…

    2. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

      Never forget the final spark that lit the fire of the American Revolution was the attempted confiscation of arms and ammunition at Lexington and Concord. Gun control started the first Revolution, will it start the second?

      1. avatar G-muny nilka says:

        It should…. but it won’t…. too many americans are lazy sheeple…. not enough true Patriots….

        1. avatar Mercury says:

          You’re mistaken. Gun control already HAS started the second American Revolution. The only question now is “will it conclude with a vote, or will it conclude with a white flag?”

  7. avatar HandyDan says:

    Tomorrow in blindingly obvious headlines here on TTAG, “Water is Wet”.

  8. avatar Miner49er says:

    “Senate Repubs Never Intended to Give Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee a Fair Hearing“

    So is this what you’re complaining about?

    How the worm turns…

    Hypocrisy, they name is Conservative.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Did you notice the part about Senate majority? It’s a different situation.

    2. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

      Newsflash – Democrats are also Hypocrites (as are all politicians). Democrats are also racist, misogynistic and anti-Semitic. The current crop of Democrats are also much more likely to throw temper tantrums when they don’t get their way (see the “sit in” during the Obama administration, various riots when Hillary wasn’t elected, threatening with subverting our Constitutional Republic by tossing out the fillabuster [which would make the House and Senate a “Majority Wins” == minority loses == VERY BAD] and Supreme Court Packing).

      As far as this particular hypocrisy.. Not the same as in 2016. In that case, Senate Majority and President were different parties.
      So, would you have felt better if Garland had a hearing, and then the vote was not to give consent?

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Yes.

        The problem isn’t the vote, it’s the failure to hold a hearing.

        1. avatar tired of it says:

          Then….blame Biden. He’s the one who suggested that election year hearings and votes are pointless when the Senate and White House are controlled by opposing parties.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Hmm. I don’t think these people are very sincere. They won’t even take their own advice.

    3. avatar Hugh Glass says:

      Don’t you have a pride parade or “protest” you’re supposed to be at?

    4. avatar Bemused Berserker says:

      Gee, did those nasty Conservatives pull/use Democrat Tactics when Sotomayer and Kagen were grilled? I don’t remember any Borking during those hearings. Democrats started this shite and now their reaping what they sowed.

  9. avatar Dude says:

    Let’s not forget that the democrats weren’t even going to support the Gorsuch nomination. Only three dems voted yes for the confirmation. Mitch had to use the Harry Reid precedent to get the nomination through.

    The country should NEVER forget how the Kavanaugh hearing went down. KommieLa played a central role in that nonsense. Not confirming ACB just because of the time of the year is nothing but an excuse. They thought they would have a SC majority forever. If they can’t have that, then they plan to just change the rules. How can any fair minded person support the democrat party? Even within the party, KommieLa is the worst of the worst.

    1. avatar napresto says:

      And it’s worth pointing out that Republicans don’t play the same character assassination games when Democrats advance a nominee for the court. Disagree, yes. Ask questions, yes. Point out ways in which the nominee may twist the law to advance an agenda, yes. But fabricate lies to derail a qualified candidate? No.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        It was a disgrace. That spectacle, along with the Russia Collusion Conspiracy Theory, made it clear to me that I should vote straight republican, even in local elections.

      2. avatar FedUp says:

        How many votes did RBG get, 92, 93?
        Republicans historically don’t “Bork” legitimate appointments.
        After Kavanaugh, they’d be fools to ever again treat the Dems fairly.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “After Kavanaugh, they’d be fools to ever again treat the Dems fairly.”

          Too late.

  10. avatar Miner49er says:

    “On February 23, a week after Scalia’s death and before Obama had nominated his replacement, McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor that no Obama nominee would receive a vote.

    “Presidents have a right to nominate, just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent,” the Kentucky Republican said. “In this case, the Senate will withhold it.”

    GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that day signed a letter to McConnell saying they would refuse to hold hearings on any Scalia replacement until after a new president took office on January 20, 2017.”

    The smell of hypocrisy in the morning, it reminds me of… Conservatives.

    Of course, once the Republicans elected a triple adulterer, it became clear that honesty and integrity have no place in the republican party.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      It works by nomination by the President and Advice and Consent of the Senate. In 2016, Obama nominated, and the Republican led Senate did not consent.

      1. avatar Void says:

        Funny how that aspect never gets mentioned especially after they lost the senate in 2018 as the country largely did not want what the democrats were selling.

        1. avatar Void says:

          correction 2014 gotta lay off the expresso.

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “The smell of hypocrisy in the morning, …”

      That really pisses you off, doesn’t it, boy?

      Suck on it long and hard.

      Because if there’s one thing conservatives have that scum like you doesn’t, it’s long and hard… 🙂

    3. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

      As the Majority leader then, Mitch had the “power” (per the US Constitution) to decide that consent was not given.

      As Minority leader now, Chucky has no power to decide whether consent will be given or not.

      All politicians are hypocrites. Right now, the Senate is a Conservative Hypocrisy. The Democrats seem to do more to move the goalposts (remove fillabuster, etc) than the Republicans.

    4. avatar GS650G says:

      49er not only suffers from selective outrage but selective amnesia. He s about to suffer TDS for 4 more years

    5. avatar jwm says:

      Thank you for doing everything in your power to get Trump a second term, miner.

      You are priceless for the cause of Trump/Pence.

      And you are apparently too stupid to see it.

      Fascinating.

      1. avatar Ned Pepper says:

        Point taken, but he’s to irrelevant to have impact either way. Crisco is a fart in a whirlwind.

    6. avatar Zack says:

      It’s fine when you do it to us but a problem when we do it? Keep crying loser.

    7. avatar James Campbell says:

      Whiner is lamenting the M Garland appointment by O’bummer?
      Garland is the POS who, while serving on the DC Court of appeals, stated that since there was no definitive time limit stated in the NICS law, personal info on firearm purchasers could be held INDEFINITELY. This was certainly not the intent of the NICS law.
      Hey Whiner, there is no definitive timeline for the Senate to consider a SC appointment.
      Hey Garland, those who live by the sword, die by the sword. Suck it.
      Didn’t O’bummer once say “elections have consequences”?
      Enjoy those consequences demtards.

  11. avatar Prndll says:

    The American people have a voice. Trump has the job.

  12. avatar GS650G says:

    The left screwed this country for 50 herewith the SCOTUS and now it looks like it’s the Right’s turn they want to change the rukes of the game.

    At some point it’s going to reach the boiling point.

  13. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Senate Dems Never Intended to Give Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee a Fair Hearing”

    Anything remotely connected with President Trump will NEVER get a fair shake from dems, their hatred for him is leaps and bounds more important to them than doing the business of the country, as evidenced in the last 3+ yrs of continual harassment…

  14. avatar Gman says:

    RGB should have retired while O was still in office and the dems had the senate to preserve the seat. Hard to take her supposed dying wish to let the next president choose at this point. And though I respect her service, she was nothing but a judicial activist legislating from the bench and loathed the Constitution.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      She may have been selfishly waiting for a female president, or she might have been planning to retire in the latter part of Obama’s term and been caught by surprise when the senate flipped in 2014. At any rate, she had been clinging to a job she had no business holding in recent years, simply to prevent Trump from replacing her. She put her feels ahead of her country, something other members of the KKK party do quite a bit these days.

  15. avatar possum says:

    America could benefit from Republicans and Democrats giving a sht about the country that hired them. Wait a minute there possum, they do. America could benefit from Republicans and Democrats giving a sht about the people in America who voted for them.

  16. avatar hawkeye says:

    “…they oppose before they know…”

    As long as this is the primary directive for all sides, there is little chance that anything beneficial to the country will be accomplished. Whenever the Ds have power, they undo whatever the Rs did and then do their stuff. Then the Rs take over, and flip it.

    Where can I buy an island? Or, as Taylor said, “Stop the world, I want to get off.”

  17. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Of course they didn’t,The Demo Commie party is the originators of racism and now have went against the Constitution and for Marxism,The Great un American Commiecrat party.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      They are only following the traditions of the Democrat Party and Socialism/Communism back through the Soviet Union to Marx himself.

  18. avatar The SGM says:

    If there is anyone out there that has any faith or trust in the Democratic Leadership or any of the Democratic Socialists you are not a part of the problem You Are The Problem.

  19. avatar Hannibal says:

    of course not. Just like republicans wouldn’t give one to Garland.

    I wish we could see people drop the hypocrisy and just admit that it’s not about ‘qualifications.’

  20. avatar Whoreson says:

    “Senate Republicans Never Gave Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee a Two Day Old Tuna Sandwich with Warm Mayo”

    There, fixed it fer ya

    Bad for gander, bad for goose.

  21. avatar Anymouse says:

    Markey’s comments are BS. Obama was calling for ending the filibuster, packing the courts, and granting statehood at John Lewis’ funeral. Somebody said the Dem threat was meaningless because they already shot the hostage. I wish I remember who said it.

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      It was Christopher Barron’s phrase. He was advocating Republicans do what they want because Dems will kill the filibuster and pack the courts regardless of whether the Republicans “play nice.”

  22. avatar neiowa says:

    There should be NO hearings/demtard puppet show. Take it to the Senate Floor NOW and vote.

  23. avatar 2aguy says:

    And this is a surprise to anyone with a brain? They are lucky the democrats haven’t reached the level of just murdering the people they disagree with…….though they have tried….just ask the Republican baseball team….

  24. avatar Chris A says:

    Joni Ernst looks like Willem Dafoe from the top picture.

  25. avatar Ronald west says:

    There is no need for all this bull, she’s the one for the job America needs people who goes by the book, who doesn’t avoid doing what is necessary to clean up the streets of America

  26. avatar Scott says:

    To quote a less than honorable former President “elections have consequences”.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email