Worries about Justice Ginsburg’s health driving the Left to issue threats against Trump replacing he

[mystery-ak]

August 26, 2019
Worries about Justice Ginsburg’s health driving the Left to issue threats against Trump replacing her
By Thomas Lifson

We already know that the Left regards the United States Constitution as a noxious constraint on their dream of using the might of the state to compel obedience to their dogmas, however they may evolve. The First and Second Amendments bother them a lot.  But when the Supreme Court is dominated by liberals who make-up rights they like from the previously-unknown penumbra of the “living” Constitution, that pesky document matters less.

 But the news that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been treated for a recurrence of pancreatic cancer has the Left in a tizzy. Should President Trump be able to name a replacement for her and the GOP majority Senate confirm that nominee, the Court will have a 5 or 6 vote majority for originalism – actually following what the Constitution says, not what Liberals imagine it should have said.

This prospect led David Axelrod warn that progressives will tear the country apart if the Constitution is followed, should Justice Ginsburg succumb before Trump leaves office. Of course, he used the passive voice to avoid the truth that the Left will be the ones doing the tearing apart:

David Axelrod
✔
@davidaxelrod

If there is a SCOTUS vacancy next year and @senatemajldr carries through on his extraordinary promise to fill it-despite his own previous precedent in blocking Garland-it will tear this country apart.
30.6K
1:49 PM - Aug 23, 2019

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/worries_about_justice_ginsburgs_health_driving_the_left_to_issue_threats_against_trump_replacing_her_.html

[Snarknado]

August 26, 2019
Worries about Justice Ginsburg’s health driving the Left to issue threats against Trump replacing her
By Thomas Lifson

We already know that the Left regards the United States Constitution as a noxious constraint on their dream of using the might of the state to compel obedience to their dogmas, however they may evolve. The First and Second Amendments bother them a lot.  But when the Supreme Court is dominated by liberals who make-up rights they like from the previously-unknown penumbra of the “living” Constitution, that pesky document matters less.

 But the news that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been treated for a recurrence of pancreatic cancer has the Left in a tizzy. Should President Trump be able to name a replacement for her and the GOP majority Senate confirm that nominee, the Court will have a 5 or 6 vote majority for originalism – actually following what the Constitution says, not what Liberals imagine it should have said.

This prospect led David Axelrod warn that progressives will tear the country apart if the Constitution is followed, should Justice Ginsburg succumb before Trump leaves office. Of course, he used the passive voice to avoid the truth that the Left will be the ones doing the tearing apart:

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/worries_about_justice_ginsburgs_health_driving_the_left_to_issue_threats_against_trump_replacing_her_.html

I'm pretty sure David Axelrod's 15 minutes of fame ended a few years ago...

[libertybele]

Whomever Trump picks the left is going to try to have a field day with them. 

[verga]

Whomever Trump picks the left is going to try to have a field day with them.

Amy Coney Barrett. Let's see them try to "beat up the girl" That will play real good in the media.

[Bigun]

WWIII /s

[mountaineer]

progressives will tear the country apart if the Constitution is followed

That pretty well sums it up.

[Jazzhead]

Amy Coney Barrett. Let's see them try to "beat up the girl" That will play real good in the media.

Well, there's a sexist observation.   

[240B]

The "blood in the streets" threat is a staple of Leftist politics, along with the corollary "the Earth will be destroyed" unless you do what we want. This is fairly standard practice for the Left. Unless we get our way we intend to inflict as much violence and destruction on America as we possibly can.

One time when this tactic absolutely worked was with the OJ trial. The Left was openly saying that if he is found guilty they were going to burn down the city. Don't know if this was a deciding factor, but it certainly did have an impact on the atmosphere of the trial.

[PeteS in CA]

Amy Coney Barrett. Let's see them try to "beat up the girl" That will play real good in the media.

Well, there's a sexist observation.

Actually, @Jazzhead, I think @verga was predicting sexist action by Dems. Probably accurately.

From what I understand, there is a good chance Trump would pick Barrett, as she was considered for the seat now held by Kavanaugh. And as was seen with Kavanaugh, if the Dems try to Kavanaugh Barrett, Trump would back her (and she would come prepared).

[240B]

I don't think the Dems will try to Kavanaugh Barrett. What they will do, and you can count on this, is to make the confirmation process last for a year or more. They will pull every single delay, stall, postpone, vacation, break, tactic they can think of to block the vote. My opinion is that they will not try to impune her, rather they will attempt to make it impossible to end the confirmation and vote in any way they possibly can. The idea being that the longer they can string it out, and the closer the election comes, the more ammunition they will have to say, "Wait until after the election."

[Jazzhead]

Barrett's likely to be a more controversial nominee than most,  given her association with charismatic Christianity.   Given the inherent difficulties of confirming a Justice in an election year,  it probably makes sense for Trump to nominate a solid conservative who less likely to be polarizing.   An excellent choice,  IMO, would be Third Circuit Judge Thomas Hardeman,  who has some of the strongest 2A credentials on the federal bench.   

[verga]

Actually, @Jazzhead, I think @verga was predicting sexist action by Dems. Probably accurately.

From what I understand, there is a good chance Trump would pick Barrett, as she was considered for the seat now held by Kavanaugh. And as was seen with Kavanaugh, if the Dems try to Kavanaugh Barrett, Trump would back her (and she would come prepared).

Save your breath, he sees only what he wants to see.

[skeeter]

Barrett's likely to be a more controversial nominee than most,  given her association with charismatic Christianity.   Given the inherent difficulties of confirming a Justice in an election year,  it probably makes sense for Trump to nominate a solid conservative who less likely to be polarizing.   An excellent choice,  IMO, would be Third Circuit Judge Thomas Hardeman,  who has some of the strongest 2A credentials on the federal bench.

An election year is precisely the time to highlight how nutso the left has become.

Contrary to your assertion, most Americans have no problem with Christians. Its only the fringe left who will go berserk.

[dfwgator]

The Kavanaugh Hearing had nothing to do with Kavanaugh, he was in, no matter what.

It was meant as a message for the next person.

[dfwgator]

Whomever Trump picks the left is going to try to have a field day with them.

Which is why the good people won't want the job,  they don't want to go through what Kavanaugh did.

[Jazzhead]

An election year is precisely the time to highlight how nutso the left has become.

Contrary to your assertion, most Americans have no problem with Christians. Its only the fringe left who will go berserk.

Correct, which is why the nomination of a solid conservative like Judge Hardeman will make the left look nutso by comparison.  Like it did with Kavanaugh.   

Barrett's nomination would be deliberate, finger-poke-in-eye controversial;  I just don't see the sense of it as a tactical political matter.   

[skeeter]

Correct, which is why the nomination of a solid conservative like Judge Hardeman will make the left look nutso by comparison.  Like it did with Kavanaugh.   

Barrett's nomination would be deliberate, finger-poke-in-eye controversial;  I just don't see the sense of it as a tactical political matter.

I appreciate that, but your point of view can also be viewed as discriminatory against someone because of their religious faith.

[Wingnut]

I appreciate that, but your point of view can also be viewed as discriminatory against someone because of their religious faith.

The party of the Rat hates fish eaters being judges  because "the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern"

[Bigun]

Which is why the good people won't want the job,  they don't want to go through what Kavanaugh did.

And that is exactly the same reason you cannot find good people to run for Congress or state legislatures.

[Night Hides Not]

Looking ahead to the near future, here's a soon to be released photo of Justice Ginsburg:

[PeteS in CA]

Barrett's likely to be a more controversial nominee than most,  given her association with charismatic Christianity. ...

More specifically, Amy Coney Barrett is a member of or associated with People of Praise, a group that grew out of the Catholic charismatic renewal of the 1970s. Most members, including Barrett, are practicing Catholics, though some members are Lutheran and other more traditional Protestant groups. Attacking her on that point, I think, would be politically foolish at best, and possibly worse if some Dems go full ugly and some Rs call them on their bigotry.

It's worth mentioning that the charismatic movement (and Pentecostalism) is not weird to me, in part because I was involved in it (as an ordinary believer, not some sort of leader) back in the 1970s. Some significant worldwide ministries have charismatic and Pentecostal roots, e.g. Youth With A Mission and Mercy Ships, as well as the Calvary Chapel association.

[dfwgator]

And that is exactly the same reason you cannot find good people to run for Congress or state legislatures.

And City Councils and Local School Boards.

[truth_seeker]

The dems have been playing full-contact partisan politics, since the run-up to the 2016 election.

No reason to lighten up. Nominate a woman-for-a-woman, Barrett or another.

Ideally the GOP would have a conservative woman-of-color, if possible.

That would be "in-your-face"

[verga]

The dems have been playing full-contact partisan politics, since the run-up to the 2016 election.

No reason to lighten up. Nominate a woman-for-a-woman, Barrett or another.

Ideally the GOP would have a conservative woman-of-color, if possible.

That would be "in-your-face"

If only Candace Owens was about 25 years older and a judge, Hey a guy can dream can't he.

[Jazzhead]

I appreciate that, but your point of view can also be viewed as discriminatory against someone because of their religious faith.

Never mind my point of view.   We saw how nuts the left was with Kavanaugh, who was objectively well qualified and (besides the fact of his conservatism) should not have been controversial.

Hardeman represents a similar profile -  conservative but not ostensibly controversial.   The contrast between the reasonableness of such a choice and the left's insanity would be palpable,  just as it was with Kavanaugh.   I like the optics of a good candidate being railroaded for no good reason.

But Barrett?   The only reason to nominate her would be to inject more controversy into the proceedings, not less.  What's the sense of picking that fight?   Wouldn't we stand a better chance of getting the nominee approved by trying from the start to appear as the adult in the room?