Here’s what you won’t see on the networks tonight.
Democrats walked out on democracy today (10-22-20). They left empty chairs at the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on recommending the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the full Senate. What a lame stunt! At least they smashed no windows.
If you love democracy and reverse the Constitution, listen to Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, one of America’s sharpest legal minds, call Democrats out on their goal to make the courts an unelected legislature to enact laws that they cannot. The video is 17 minutes.
A must see; Sen. Mike Lee on Democrats objective to politicize the Supreme Court.
A partial transcription:
[Democrats] killed Miquel Estrada’s nomination [to the D.C. Appellate Court], for partisan reasons. They slandered Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Kavanaugh. They nuked the filibuster for partisan reasons. Now they are trying to scuttle this vote for partisan political reasons. When it comes to the judiciary, abuse of power is their agenda.
Now, the left seems to think the Supreme Court exists to impose their very worst ideas onto those recalcitrant members of the public … citizens that refuse blindly to go along with their entitled extremism. They want the court to empower abortion activists, … to tell everyone how to live without votes, without accountability, and without debate. Putting debatable matters beyond debate seems to be their formula. They don’t want democracy.Amy Coney Barrett will not politicize the Supreme Court. She is going to turn back policy decisions and political debate back to the people and their elected, accountable representatives where they belong. Judge Barrettt understands under our Constitution policy is supposed to be determined by the priorities of the people, not editorial boards, or twitter posts, or school faculty senates. That is why the left is so furious about this nomination.
For all the pious pablum you hear on MSNBC and all the networks tonight, understand they are not angry because this process is unfair. They are angry because it is fair. Not because they think Amy Coney Barrett is going to be a partisan justice, but because they know she will not be.They are not afraid Judge Barrett will legislate from the bench, but [that] she will force Democrats and Republicans to legislate from legislatures! — as the Constitution itself requires. Judge Barrett threatens their power — not because she has a hidden agenda or hidden powers but because they do and she won’t enact those powers or exercise them by judicial fiat.
That is exactly why we need to have Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court of the United States. not to avenge Bork, Thomas, Estrada, Alito, or Kavanaugh— but to return integrity to the Supreme Court and the senate, and all the institutions left is judicial abuse has twisted and desecrated for two generations. We need to confirm Amy Coney Barrett not to give political power to conservatives or Republicans but to finally give it back to the American people from whom it was stolen.
Worth watching the entire Judiciary Committee hearing. It is 1:12 hours long. Chairman Lindsay Graham is properly indignant, but restrained. Sen. Cruz is, as usual, wonderful. Sen. Cornyn is worthwhile, too.
Blaska’s Bottom Line: Democrats can keep walking, far as we are concerned. (And that’s pretty far!)
Blaska Policy Werkes 
57 responses to “Democrats walk out on ACB because she is not partisan”
She did lie in her testimony. She said she wouldn’t be a pawn, well isn’t that exactly what she did? Juris Prudence requires fair play and equal application of the law and rules. She violated those principles of justice when she accepted the nomination.
LikeLike
Reaching much?
How on Heaven’s earth does saying you won’t be a pawn constitute a lie?
You can apply what you just said to ANY judge. Especially most egregiously to Roberts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because she’s already playing the pawn.
LikeLike
Your reply is subjective and poorly-constructed.
She hasn’t even tried a case yet, and you’re already labeling her as a pawn. Why, simply because you hate Trump?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alfie: Emulating Jeffrey Toobin whilst writing comments is not for you. Multi-taskin’ takes BOTH hands and a brain. Eliminate any one of the three = the drivel that ya post here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liberty: U.S. Supreme Court judges do not try cases. They hear appeals, interpret cases, make rulings. Have you been watching vintage Perry Mason TV shows?
LikeLike
Liberty: U.S. Supreme Court judges do not try cases. They hear appeals, interpret cases, make rulings. Have you been watching vintage Perry Mason TV shows?
LikeLike
Voice,
Yikes!!!! My bad. I was writing so quickly that I mixed up my words.
What I meant to say was “HEAR’ cases, not “try.”
Thanks for elaborating on the roll of the SC justices though.
LikeLike
Here’s one that goes way over the heads of Mama Jones’es children, (no FATHER ? ) Vox etc mediocrities, “..*EQUAL application of the law and rules.” Not * “special,” “Reparative” etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
LikeLike
Yo, Alfred E…..
You claim, “Juris Prudence requires fair play and equal application of the law and rules. She violated those principles of justice when she accepted the nomination.”
Define the constitutional imperative that requires “fair play.”
Explain how Barrett violated the principal of “equal application” of law and rules.”
I cannot agree with your assessment. In what specific way(s) did Lindsay Graham fail to follow the Constitution? In approving Barrett, what specifically was illegal, unfair, or unjust?
[ PS Alfred E……. because you look a lot like Chelsea Clinton, I’d like to ask: “Are you Bill’s secret love child — or are you Chelsea’s cousin from Arkansas?” ]
LikeLiked by 1 person
” ‘Are you Bill’s secret love child — or are you Chelsea’s cousin from Arkansas?’ ”
Neither, for the real answer, Webb Hubbell needs to weigh in…
The Gotch
LikeLike
Let’s see, isn’t the fact that she accepted a SCOTUS nomination just prior to an election against the republican rule that the voters decide in these matters so close to an election? Is that equal application of the republican rule?
P.S. I was not a Bill Clinton fan, like Obama, i only voted for them once, the first time, then it seemed they were to conservative for my liking.
P.P.S. Notice I didn’t stoop to your level of name calling, I don’t go low.
LikeLike
Dishonest people see lies everywhere.
LikeLike
Do they have plans for a whiney get together at the Clock Tower in Rockford…?
Despicable Lefties!!!!
The Gotch
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Clock Tower was torn down. Too many cockroaches from 2011 that they could never get rid of.
LikeLike
C’mon jd, if cockaroches (as Tony Montana would say) could survive Nuclear War, they should be able to survive an infestation of despicable Lefties, am I right?
The Gotch
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
All they accomplish by doing this is to expose themselves as the clowns many of us already know they are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reminds me of a spoiled six-year-old brat who doesn’t get his way: screams “I hate you!” at his parents and storms out of the room.
LikeLike
Lee’s analysis is obviously right.
LikeLike
Did you see this? https://www.dailywire.com/news/its-really-hard-to-cope-youth-suicides-skyrocket-nearly-90-in-wisconsin-county I spent time with three liberals yesterday. One told me I am a fool to be a Christian. He proceeded to laud the secular humanism worldview because with that worldview a person can be free and make the “rules” as they go through life. After all, there is no such thing as absolute truth. One told me he knows that he will lose his right as a gay man to marry another man. ( I said that’s unlikely. He insists it will happen thus justifying his constant anti Trump rants) And the third person tried to convince me Trump is a racist, divisive force in our country. I am exhausted. Why can’t liberals just shut up? Why is it so important that they force others to agree with them by just exhausting us with their constant harangues?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The “right” to invade a house of worship and demand a “wedding” is a lazy-person’s warfare. (when this transactional union coud be legalized by a justice-of-the-peace,and creating their OWN ceremony based on “THEIR OWN” beliefs) It is invasion ,and is , ON IT’s FACE, a demand for the END of Seperation of RELIGION and STATE. Your beliefs ARE YOUR HOME. Ignore these invaders. And as far as dum-dums repeating w/ ZERO proof, that Trump is racist, Silence , in their face, and pity is the only answer. The reason they keep screeching that “Silence is Violence” is because they want to practice their Saul Alinsky “rukes for radicals” provocations on you. Don’t give them the opportunity .
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dwire is nuanced BS. Though suicides have indeed gone through the roof. Like crack, oxycotin/heroin overdoses ,spousal homicides , all kinds of extremes are the symtoms of the “cure”.
LikeLike
Ruth – Thank you for that heartbreaking link. When will people with any shred of basic decency wake up to what is going one with this over-the-top Covid fraud?
LikeLike
RE: Youth Suicides – These kids are told that the environment will self destruct in a few years. If they are Black they can’t succeed, and the police are actively hunting them. If they are White they are irredeemable racists, and need to be “cancelled” for the good of all. If they are Gay the Right will torture and kill them. Pregnancy is a death sentence. Black and female? (You’ll be set on fire) Black and gay? (You’ll be “Smolletized”) You get my point, this list goes on and on. So let’s just blame the virus, shall we?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Remember the Democrat who once said “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”?
How things have changed……..
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is ALL of one piece, and has been for centuries. TACTICS .
LikeLike
To be clear: Tactics, like POLICIES that cause more harm than good, based on fiction, upon fiction, that, if you go and SEE ,and ask the people staged, or working , some WILL tell you the truth. “Cases” ? False positives in the 80% have been reported by the CDC, (you can’t police/fool ALL the people, all the time.) Like Amos pointed out, fear is all in your own head, if you like.
LikeLike
“The “war” is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects, and its object is not victory over (covid, “injustice” etc etc ), but to keep the very structure of society intact.” or for current purposes , the Great Global Reset . Break eggs, make perfect (for elite Oligarchal Collectivisim) “Utopian” omelet
LikeLike
Ruth,
It’s heartbreaking that the suicide numbers have risen so drastically, Substance abuse, depression, and anxiety rates have also risen. Something the left refuses to admit is that the cure is indeed proving to be worse than the virus. Probably not politically expedient for them to do so.
What you describe has been my experience with the left, too. Frustrating thing is, they think they’re smarter & more enlightened than the rest of us, and that we’re just a bunch of rubes.
The Dems weren’t always like this. I know, because I was one of them years ago. They’ve become radicalized, controlling, arrogant, irrational, and content to use identity politics (which is destroying this country) for their own ambitions. No way in good conscience can I pull the lever for a Dem in this environment.
LikeLike
Because misery loves company.
LikeLike
The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ –Psalm 14
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I am exhausted.”
Isn’t that the truth, Ruth? 🙂
I think what’s exhausting for me is that there is ZERO attempt to speak about today’s contentious political issues with ANY attempt at having an intelligent and productive discussion. It’s a very sad thing when you encounter this with family, friends or acquaintances, whom you love or admire when it comes to other things in life.
Definitely not a good thing if you want to live in a civilized society, rather than a country torn apart by hate and intolerance. And what really gets to me is that so much of this has NO current underlying economic reason for this to happen. I think it’s just ignorant elitism, starting with a capital “E.”
LikeLike
“this has NO current underlying economic reason for this to happen.” Micro (the WWE puppet show projected down the blk etc,) No, but Macro (global mover, and shakers) ? *They absolutely have *their reasons.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
And even the micro. “How to do your part ( pick a side ,and Character to play) in sinking/bankrupting the entire (former) Constitutional Republic from the convenience of your own neighborhood. Or , heck, become a missionary.”
LikeLike
Koch’s Postulate not satisfied, but “Policies”and “Politics” engaged……
LikeLike
*correction Koch’s Postulates (accidently left out the “s”) for Amos, an introduction to the REAL “powers” here on the globe. Two Vol. By Niall Ferguson “The House of…” also, “Creature from Jekyll Island”,WEG and “Tradegy and Hope 101” J.P.
LikeLike
Did all those Democrats go over to the Clock Tower for dinner?
LikeLike
Folks, we have a winner!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Did we ever hear “I’m exhausted because I dislike the president when Obama/Biden were in power?” I didn’t.
If there is no God then life must be what you make it. Hate your life? Then its because of what? Capitalism? White men? Patriarchy? Donald Trump?
As my then six year old grand daughter told me after a Packer loss,
“Suck it up, Buttercup.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL
LikeLike
Where did the Oregon GOP senators go? Just sayin….. It would appear there are whiners on both sides of the aisle.
LikeLike
I do not think that a president Biden (nor AOC0 will try to pack the Supreme Count.. Why? Because they are good people who respect procedures and tradition. And they’re good and decent people who will do the right thing.
LikeLike
Godallmighty the Derangement is strong in this one (Leo).
The closer to Halloween, the more active and abundant the trolls become.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reading his comment , i immediately had a picture of this “Leo”dressed as (Billionaire Monopolist Bezo’s Amazon/Whole foods etc) “ALEXA” w/ the “2001” HAL voice. Me as “Dave” , yelling, “They’re all extortionists for the bankers HAL !.”
LikeLike
Also , Stockholm Syndrome comes to mind. Hey Leo, did you REALLY “Choose” your canidate . A guru for you, (not mine) “The worst lies are the ones we tell to ourselves”
LikeLike
*(not mine) meaning I am not an acolyte of Richard Bach , but of the Originator of this precept, and more.
LikeLike
Senate rules state “No bill, matter, or nomination shall be ordered reported from the Committee, however, unless a majority of the Committee is actually present at the time such action is taken and a majority of those present support the action taken.”
So once again we see republicans breaking the rules, rules needed for decorum. Sen. Graham could have called for the Senate Sargent at Arms to gather two Committee Democrats, but no, he’d rather break the rules.
As most posters here are conservative republican syncopates, could you please explain to me why breaking the rules seems to be the MO of republican politicians. Hell, no wonder so many claim to be Christian, it’s nothing to break the rules ( the 10 Commandments) of Christianity for them.
I could swear a few weeks ago many of the syncopates here were saying “blacks only have to follow the rules”
I look forward to a cognizant reply.
LikeLike
What are you talking about Alfred?! Isn’t this an issue of simple arithmetic? 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats are on the Senate Judiciary Committee. All the Republicans voted to confirm recommendation of Justice Barrett. Not going to waste time
researching how the actual procedure that occurred, since I think we’d be hearing about it in every headline in the country if some Senate rule was actually broken as you claim.
And speaking as an independent, not a “republican syncopate” (sic) I must say that ACB has got to be one of THE most impressive SC nominees I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.
LikeLike
My mistake, I thought people who post here know WTF their talking about. a quorum in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary requires 2 from the minority party be present.
LikeLike
“My mistake, I thought people who post here know WTF their talking about”
That’s OK.
LikeLike
Alfred -One cognizant reply is: “Syncopates” is a musical term relating to rhythm… Yer vocabulary skills are those of a tatterdemalion.
LikeLike
Right you are, meant sycophant.
LikeLike
If it wasn’t for hypocrisy, Democrats wouldn’t have any personality traits at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By boycotting the Judiciary Committee vote, these petulant, posing, proglibocratic Pharisees only drew attention to themselves and the kind of pith-poor people they are, but it wasn’t a very shrewd political move. Because of their cowardice, a voice vote was requested. ACB was reported out of committe unanimously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OK, I just couldn’t resist further investigating the issue regarding House Judiciary rules that Alfred brought up.
Surely this issue can’t be one of simple “cowardice” and not being a “very shrewd political move” on the part of the Democrats/Deep State, as Good Dog suggests. The first news report I found with a quick search on what happened was by the left-leaning buzzfeednews that discussed this issue with a link to the rules. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/rules
This report states:
“The Thursday vote appeared to break the committee’s own rules, which require at least nine members present, including two members of the minority party, in order to do business. The Senate’s rules generally state that committees can’t vote without a majority of members present, but don’t specify when minority members have to be there; the Judiciary Committee did have a majority of members there for the Barrett vote on Thursday. According to a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, there are ‘longstanding precedents’ that allow the committee to send nominations to the floor without two members of the minority party present as long as a majority of members are there, and that’s happened seven times over the past 15 years. ‘That was their choice. It will be my choice to vote the nominee out of committee. We are not going to allow them to take over the committee,” Graham said on Thursday.”
Note that the version that I’m quoting at 9pm 10/23/20 was “Updated with comment from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office.” https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-committee-vote-boycott
So what are the rules? See the first link above. Don’t have time to parse this interesting question, but maybe someone else does? It isn’t immediately clear to me in briefly reading those.
PS: I misstated the number of committee members in reply to Alfred – should have been 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats, rather than 11R and 9D. But still a majority of Republicans, which is the issue in regards to his original post.
LikeLike