Presidents’ Day, 2016

On this President’s Day, we Conservatives find ourselves mourning the loss of sitting Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (Scah -lee’-ah).  His passage comes at an untimely moment, with numerous important court hearings still in the docket that could affect our Constitutional way of government:


  • race in college admissions
  • how far states can go in restricting abortion
  • the viability of public sector unions,
  • the deferment of deportations of unauthorized immigrants
  • claims of religious freedom and women’s access to contraception.


Recently, SCOTUS halted the implementation of Obama’s climate plan.

A political war is brewing between Left and Right whether Obama “can” nominate a replacement for Scalia (well, of course, he can) and whether the Republicans can stall the nomination of a replacement until January 2017 – eleven months from now. Obama can nominate a replacement.  That’s not to say, however, that the Senate, with a Republican majority, has to approve the nomination.

Sen. Mitch McConnell could simply prevent the nomination from coming to the floor of the Senate. The Republicans then run the risk of Obama and his Cheerleader Media shouting, “Obstructionists” – by now a hackneyed, overused phrase.  We wouldn’t want a repeat of Marco Rubio, now would we?

The Supreme Court is in an ideological deadlock right now. Justice Roberts, a George W. appointment, is thought to be on the right side of the bench, but his ruling on Obamacare makes him suspect.

Will there ever be a better champion in the Supreme Court for Conservative values than Antonin Scalia? That’s like asking whether there will ever be another Ronald Reagan, who appointed the New Jersey-born justice to the bench in 1986.

According to the San Antonio Express-News, in its Local News section it was John Poindexter, owner of the Cibolo Creek Ranch in Shafter, Texas (West Texas) who found Scalia dead.

“A first-time guest to the Cibolo Creek Creek Ranch, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was animated and engaged during dinner Friday night, as one of three dozen invitees to an event that had nothing to do with law or politics, according to the ranch owner.

“’He was seated near me and I had a chance to observe him. He was very entertaining. But about 9 p.m. he said, ‘it’s been a long day and a long week, I want to get some sleep,’ recalled Houston businessman John Poindexter, who owns the 30,000-acre luxury ranch.”

When Poindexter tried to awaken Scalia about 8:30 the next morning, the judge’s door was locked and he did not answer. Three hours later, Poindexter returned after an outing, with a friend of Scalia who had come from Washington with him.

“’We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. [Italics ours]  His bed clothes were unwrinkled,’ said Poindexter.

“’He was lying very restfully. It looked like he had not quite awakened from a nap,’ he said. Scalia, 79, did not have a pulse and his body was cold, and after consulting with a doctor at a hospital in Alpine, Poindexter concluded resuscitation would have been futile, He then contacted federal authorities, at first encountering a series of answering services because he was calling on a weekend.”

Make something of all that, conspiracy theorists!

There is nothing new about the Senate holding up an opposing party president’s Supreme Court nominations. History – and Twitter – are full of them, going all the way back to – actually, we don’t have to go very far back in history.

According to the Washington Post, “When Justice Fortas stepped down in May 1969, it would be a full year (well, 363 days to be precise) before his successor was confirmed. One reason it took so long to fill the Fortas seat is because the Senate rejected President Nixon’s first two nominees for the seat — Clement Haynsworth and Harold Carswell — before confirming Harry Blackmun. The Court did its work with only eight justices in the interim. (Also of note, the Court went several months with only seven justices in 1971 after Justices Harlan and Black stepped down that September. Their replacements were confirmed in December.)

The vacancy of a Supreme Court seat in a presidential election year is not unprecedented in presidential history: George Washington, who would have been considered an Independent, nominated Oliver Ellsworth on March 3, 1796.  The Senate confirmed Ellsworth the next day, March 4, 1796.

Some nominations took longer than others.   On January 29, 1916, Wilson nominated Progressive Judge Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court. However, his nomination was bitterly contested and denounced by conservative Republicans, including former president (and future Chief Justice) William Howard Taft, whose credibility was damaged by Brandeis in court battles and from his having at one point called Taft a “muckraker.”

Further opposition came from members of the legal profession, including former Attorney General George W. Wickersham and former presidents of the American Bar Association, such as ex-Senator and Secretary of State Elihu Root of New York, who claimed Brandeis was “unfit” to serve on the Supreme Court.

The controversy surrounding Brandeis’s nomination was so great that the Senate Judiciary Committee, for the first time in its history, held a public hearing on the nomination, allowing witnesses to appear before the committee and offer testimony both in support of and in opposition to Brandeis’s confirmation. While previous nominees to the Supreme Court had been confirmed or rejected by a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor—often on the same day on which the President had sent the nomination to the Senate—a then-unprecedented four months lapsed between Wilson’s nomination of Brandeis and the Senate’s final confirmation vote.

On June 1, 1916, the Senate officially confirmed his nomination by a vote of 47 to 22. Forty-four Democratic Senators and three Republicans) voted in favor of confirming Brandeis. Twenty-one Republican Senators and one Democrat) voted against his confirmation.

Democrats vociferously opposed George W. Bush’s cabinet nominations. Many were still unfilled by September 11th when the United States came under assault from Islamic jihadists.  But Democrats – as Rush Limbaugh this moment is noting – never let charges of hypocrisy trouble them.  Why should they, when they have a huge, propagandist Media machine operating on their behalf?

The question is will our unreliable Republican Senate roll over for Obama? They have in the past.  We have no good reason to trust them now not to allow a Liberal nominee to pass, although they have vowed to hold up the nomination process until the next president – whoever that is – takes office in January 2017.

The GOP nomination is still up in the air, dominated by a wrestling-match candidate whose latest debate performance clearly represented the sheer red-faced fury of Republican, and especially Conservative, voters who’ve been abandoned by their own party.

Trump’s supporters identify with him. Since his early candidacy, the Conservative, to say nothing of the Moderate, punditry have scoffed at his candidacy, minimalizing his supporters.  That’s what the GOP did to them, too.  They couldn’t have made a worse mistake, perhaps other than the Republican Party itself trying to prevent him from running on the GOP ticket.

That put the bit in Trump’s teeth, certainly. But an Independent candidacy would have only drawn those voters off or caused them to stay home on Primary Day, or the Election Day.  The GOP has put in place one unelectable Moderate candidate after another, and lost when average voters stayed home in droves rather than vote again for another one of these losers.

This bitter contest between the Conservative Media, the GOP, on the one hand, and the voters on the other, has deafened his supporters to all common sense arguments against Trump’s nomination. He’s pivoted on every single issue, including illegal immigration.  Trump is a “Touch Back” candidate who’s openly declared that he will send the illegals back – and then let them right back in again.

He’s been in favor of partial birth abortion. He’s in favor of gay marriage.  He never talks about individual liberty or the U.S. Constitution.  He has strong arguments about the dangerous trade gap between China and the United States in his favor and he has vowed to “temporarily” put a stop to all Syrian refugees until the situation can be straightened out.

Rush Limbaugh’s “low information” have a short attention span and a low tolerance for being minimalized. They’ve heard what they want to hear and don’t trust anyone any more who tells them the rest of the story about Trump.

The man has warned us, himself, that “President Trump will not be Candidate Trump” and that he will make deals when he has to. The warning that he will be exactly like the politicians the average voter despises has gone completely unheeded.

If candidates like Cruz and Rubio, more trustworthy where the Constitution is concerned, are to be heard, pundits must be more respectful of the average voter’s perspective. Telling them they’re “stupid” or “short-sighted” are, as Trump could tell you, poor salesmanship.

The average voter has as little trust for the Media. Yet during the New Hampshire debate, Chris Christie was able to tear Marco Rubio to pieces for doing something they’ve all done:  repeat a talking point.  The Media, particularly Fox News, picked up on this alleged error, and Rubio subsequently fell behind.

I need to find the transcript of the debate (I’d stopped watching the debates by that point) and read the arguments leading up to Christie’s allegation. Something someone said caused Rubio to “stutter” his talking point, as it were.  I don’t know what it was, but I’m pretty certain it played a factor in Christie’s attack.

What was lost in the ensuing melee was Rubio’s point is that Obama’s ruination of America – economically, politically, culturally, and in foreign policy – have been pointedly deliberate and that we can expect more of the same from the next Democrat president and worse.

America is now on the horns of both a legal (the Supreme Court vacancy) and a presidential dilemma. If the election were held today, the race would be between a fascistic, egotistical real estate gambler hailed by his supporter as the deliverer of America from the elitist (true) political class and a Socialist dinosaur who is being embraced by a brain-washed, communist youth cult.

Every election, pundits claim “this is the most important election in the history of the United States!” Talk about repetitious.  Seriously, the most pivotal election was in 2012, when Obama was re-elected. We failed in keeping him out of office and now we must elect someone who can undo the swath of damage in Obama’s wake or prepare ourselves for an eventual Communist state?

Why Communist and not merely Socialist? The Socialists didn’t last long in the Soviet Union.  Those who crave power always find a way to win and they certainly don’t allow something as puny as “we, the people” stand in their way.  That’s what the histories of the Soviet Union and China – the real histories, not the propagandist histories – have taught us.

The American Communist chose the Progressive route so inattentive Americans would not realize, or care about, what was happening. So, Americans happily accepted every entitlement program until future Americans found themselves bound hand and foot, present and future, tethered to Socialism.

Thus transfixed, Americans will put their trust in one strongman or another who will promise to care for them, sealing the fate of the American experiment.

Benjamin Franklin predicted it. Thomas Jefferson foresaw America would not survive without an educated public.  And George Washington is probably rolling over in his grave over the thought of a President Trump (the name itself rather tells the story, doesn’t it?) or a President Sanders.

If only the GOP had listened to the Tea Parties instead of dismissing them. We told you this day would come.  You thought we were only a minority out of the extreme Conservative movement, declaring that your polls told you that most voters didn’t identify as “Tea Party” or even “Conservative.”  What you saw on television in February 2009 wasn’t us.

What you saw in the South Carolina GOP debate wasn’t us, either; the crimson-hued Trump was the face of the angry voters we were trying to tell you about. They told us that they didn’t trust you and that’s why they stayed home on Election Day, resulting in the election of Barack Hussein Obama.  They had no use at all for the Moderate candidates you put forward.  They had even less use for the corrupt, lying politicians who were eventually elected.

They’d probably still be staying home, grousing at the television in their lounge chairs. But then they started noticing an increase in the drug crime rate.  They found their own kids becoming addicted to the drugs.  They also noticed the result of our involvement in the Middle East – the invasion of Europe by Islamic jihadists.

Would one of their cities become the next Paris? Would some jihadist blow up their beloved Super Bowl?  Fortunately, nothing happened that we know of and no one has mentioned even the thwarting of any attacks.  Such news would bring the sanctuary city of San Francisco, the Gay Capital of the World into focus, even though the game was held in Santa Clara, Calif. (where The Nephew lives).

Maybe we should have been more theatrical in our rallies, brought the television cameras in, at the expense of our personal dignity. Most Tea Parties made the mistake of listening to Moderate consultants who told them not to allow any more home-made signs (whose creators were very proud of their creations) and to go political, to consult with the politicians instead of educating the average voter.

We didn’t get the attention of the average voter, thanks to the negative Media coverage. But the illegal immigrants and the jihadists certainly did.  Now you have to deal with the average voter, and the consequence of your blindness, in the form of Donald J. Trump.

Don’t say we didn’t warn you.


Published in: on February 15, 2016 at 1:34 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

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

%d bloggers like this: