Monday, September 21, 2020

The Supreme Choice is with We the People

My thoughts on why President Trump should NOT nominate until he wins reelection.



You have devised a completely unanticipated response to a classic attack.


I know I'm in the minority with this opinion, at least among those of us who conduct ourselves based on thoughts rather than emotion, but just hear me out on this. I think you'll come away from this with a better sense of the grand scale this issue presents.

Even in the game of 2D chess, it makes no sense to capture a queen if it eventually costs you your king. In a game of 4D chess, moves like these must be considered all the more carefully.

So let's consider what's involved. We are closer to this election than we were when Scalia "fell asleep" under a pillow and Obama tried to replace him with Merrick Garland, which I think was February of 2016. The argument against him at the time was a good one, that we were approaching an election and that the American people should have the option to vote on the next president who would then nominate the next potential Supreme Court Justice. This sentiment is as true in 2020 as it was in 2016.

Give Americans the power to decide. Trump and other republicans were elected to office to do what was right by the American people, not what was politically advantageous for the republican party. Trump promised to drain The Swamp, not join it. He must wrest power away from The Swamp and restore it to its rightful wielders; the American people.

The Supreme Court too often has control over our lives. It's high time that situation be reversed and We the People exert our control over the structure of the Supreme Court.

President Trump should take the high ground and embrace the role of The People's Champion. He should present himself before the voters promising to let them be the ultimate deciders of their own fate, and in so doing remain consistent with his own statements in 2016.

"I think the next president should make the pick, and I think they shouldn’t go forward, and I believe I’m pretty much in line with what the Republicans are saying." - Donald Trump in 2016

This way he and other republicans avoid having to excuse their actions when confronted with their own words about Garland and why he should have been rejected. Some would say, "But republicans held the senate in 2016, and they had the power to reject him just as they have the power to confirm Trump's nominee". And I reply, so what? The republicans have a history of confirming democrat nominees. For example, 9 republicans voted for Sotomayor, putting her over the 60 vote threshold for a filibuster. Likewise, Kagan received 5 republican votes, preventing a filibuster. So it isn't like republicans are keen on exercising the power to block democrat nominees to the bench.

More to the point, the reason they denied Garland's hearing in 2016 was so that the voters could decide, or so they said. Pushing through a nominee now would expose that as a lie, which would signal to voters exactly how the republican party thinks about us.

And don't think the democrats and the liberal media won't capitalize on that. It could even stir up resentment in the upcoming election. I think it's a better idea to put democrats on defense for wanting to confirm Garland but to hold off on this seat.

The Big-Brain Play

Aside from the morally right aspect of letting Americans decide our own fates, this is also a perfect issue to clobber Biden, who still hasn't released a list of potential nominees.

Think of how easily Trump could crush Biden on this if it were made a campaign issue.

Trump: I've got a shortlist posted on my website, featuring Amy Coney Barrett, Barbara Lagoa, among many great others. Who've you got Hoe-Joe?

Biden can't think for himself. In fact, Biden can't think at all, let alone compile a list. Trump can hammer him in the debates and challenge him to explain his rationale of selecting judicial nominees. Biden won't be able to explain his philosophy, because he doesn't have one aside from "justices who will advance the liberal agenda".

Best of all, Biden will be pushed by his own side to name radical nominees, and possibly black women specifically, probably even Michael Obama of all people. I say good. Let Biden name radicals he can't articulately defend before the American people on the debate stage. Watch his poll numbers among independents tank!

Trump could also add that any Biden interviews with potential nominees would have him flanked on both sides by radical liberal activists who will ask all the questions, while Biden just sits there silently and ponders if he'll have butterscotch or banana pudding for dessert later.

For those saying this will fire up Biden's own base, don't be so sure. RBG's death is not going to suddenly inspire interest in Biden. This was the second main reason for democrats voting for Biden already. Always has been. The first being Orange Man Bad, obviously. This sentiment is already baked into the cake. No undecided voter will cross over to Biden just because RBG met her predicted end. We've known that RBG would retire (one way or the other) within the next year or so. That means voters already considered the fact that the one who wins in 2020 would have another Supreme Court nominee.

What COULD sway voters however, is Trump's refusal to let them have a say in the matter. This might actually sour independents on Trump and make them see him as just another Swamp dwelling hypocrite politician.

The democrats on the other hand won't stop in their assault of our liberties, and rushing a nominee through won't stop them either. The only thing that can stop the democrats is to turn the American people against them. We the People must reject the democrats and vote them out. We can only do that by exposing them as the ones who reject the will of the people in favor of self-serving power-grabbing.


Pros and Pitfalls

Another thing to consider is that this is an opportunity to pull senate seats toward the right. The President will only nominate. We still need at least 50 republican senators (plus Pence) to confirm said nominee over a filibuster. Using this as a campaign issue would motivate voters to send more republicans to the Senate. Republicans such as John James in Michigan, or Martha McSally in Arizona. Those candidates could then run on the fact that they would vote to confirm Trump's nominee, and point out how the democrat candidate would only obstruct the confirmation of such great nominees.

Democrats won't vote for Trump's nominees, the left will force them to blindly vote against, and SAY as much publicly. That will ruin them among independent voters. The republican candidates need only announce they will vote for Trump's nominees.

The republicans could also dove-tail this into how Trump's nominees stand for the rights of The People. Pro-2nd Amendment judicial rulings! Pro-1st. Pro-4th. Pro-10th. Pro-14th. Think of the results. Numerous republican senators defeating democrats, some of which are incumbents. A Red Sea of election victories!

Avoid the Establishment trap, Mr. President!



Imagine nominating Amy Coney Barret, only to have her blocked by the likes of Romney, Collins, Murkowski, and possibly one more RINO. This could be McConnell's plan all along. Get Trump's best nominee out of the running, and also sabotage the conservative movement in the process.

Trump should WAIT until after the election, when these RINOs will have no excuses. Otherwise, these few RINOs could sabotage the effort, and the entire republican party loses. They will all be painted with the same brush as traitors to the base. This is why Trump must take command of the situation and declare that the decision will be left to the American people. This prevents any such shenanigans playing out in the Senate.

"So I would not vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee" - Lisa Murkowski

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2020/09/18/hours-before-ginsburgs-death-murkowski-said-she-wouldnt-vote-on-a-supreme-court-nominee-before-the-election/

And then there's Susan Collins...



And we all know how "Remove-Trump" Romney will vote.

Democrat Payback

For those saying getting Amy Coney Barrett in now is necessary to stop the left, consider the following...

Democrats will see your ACB, and raise you 20 AOC's. They may also take your Clarance Thomas and your Brett Kavenagh. This is if they take back the Senate.

"But they'll do this anyway", you say. You're right. But the difference will be in the "justification" they have for it. If republicans rush through a nominee and cut the American people out of the equation, democrats will use that as justification for their court packing, and the liberal media will sell the point to the public on the democrat party's behalf, wrapping the efforts in concepts of "fairness", "balance", and "equality". Just read Jerry Nadless...






In Summary

President Trump, take the high ground and say you're giving the choice to the American voters. This will cement an electoral blowout in favor of republicans nationwide. Use this vacancy as a campaign issue to clobber Biden who isn't capable of compiling a list of nominees and will have a list compiled for him which will be full of radicals he won't be able to defend. The voters will reject Biden on those grounds. Pull Senate seats toward the right by giving them the opportunity to pledge to vote for your nominee, which their democrat opponents will oppose. Conservatives will win their elections. Then after being reelected, nominate Amy Coney Barret and she'll be confirmed anyway.

Go for the double-win.

Believe it!

___________________________________________________________________________________


Afterword

The Supreme Court will have no say in the election. So you needn't consider that angle. The ELECTORS in the various states decide who wins the electoral vote. There is a deadline for that. In the event there is no decision, or there is a tie, the responsibility falls to the House of Representative's electors, of which republicans have the majority. So Trump still becomes President. Pence, likewise, would be elected Vice by the republican-controlled Senate.

Any 4-4 split on the Supreme Court would have no effect on the outcome of the election. At worst, the court would have a deadlocked ruling on the motion to extend the deadline for ballot counting, which means the election ends and the electors cast their votes, much like the 2000 election when Florida's results were challenged.
at