Beyond Joe Biden's SCOTUS pick

When the news that SCOTUS Justice Stephen Breyer was retiring was leaked, it was met with a certain amount of shock. After a few hours of pontificating, though, the opinion quickly shifted to it being somewhat ho-hum news apart from Joe Biden's campaign promise to pick a black female to the Supreme Court, if given the opportunity.

Kim Strassel's Potomac Watch column states what's quickly becoming a common belief. In her column, Ms. Strassel writes this:

Mr. Biden promises a name before the end of February, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer aims to wrap up confirmation in about a month. Barring delays or flashpoints, Democrats could therefore be in April right where they are now politically—with an appointee in the rearview mirror and voters focused again on inflation, Covid and the rest. It’s difficult to see how a relatively straightforward court debate in the spring will spur the liberal base to the polls in November.
Breyer is a liberal justice who isn't afraid to consider other nation's documents in forming his vote on cases. That's a fairly radical position to take. Whoever Biden nominates to Breyer's position, the person isn't likely to be more radical than Breyer. Senate Republicans, especially those on the Judiciary Committee, should do a thorough job of vetting the nominee, then vote their conscience. IF the nominee is found to have some skeletons, expose them. If she doesn't, live to fight another day.

Here's NBC's report on Breyer's retirement:

The immediate risk is to Democrats—namely, that the president saddles them with another midterm liability. Mr. Biden again faces a choice. He can pick a qualified liberal in the mold of Justice Breyer or Justice Elena Kagan and take credit for putting a substantive, thoughtful jurist on the bench. Or he can bow to progressive demands that he infuse the court with a new radicalism and put forward an amped-up version of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, all anger, bluster and fiery opinions.
Thus far, this Democrat administration doesn't have a percentage of making the right decisions. Biden's cabinet is littered with terrible secretaries, starting with but not limited to Merrick Garland, Pete Buttigieg and Alejandro Mayorkas. Garland thinks that parents disagreeing with school board members are domestic terrorists. Buttigieg's nickname is Pothole Pete, a perfect name for the Transportation Secretary. Alejandro Mayorkas is the Secretary of Homeland Security, which is an odd fit. Mayorkas hasn't enforced this nation's immigration laws. That's before I get into Education Secretary Cardona or Energy Secretary Granholm. Remember this not-so-oldie?

That's the personification of a blithering idiot. After Biden's SCOTUS pick is confirmed, people will be reminded that Biden's administration is filled with idiots.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tim Walz's Confederate Flag Fiasco

Image
After Minnesota's Democrats shoved the most controversial progressive legislation down Minnesotans' throats, gossip started popping up about Gov. Walz being interested in running for president . That's died off but Gov. Walz is still making headlines, this time for all the wrong reasons. First, Gov. Walz isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Still, Gov. Walz is fighting against Minnesota's history. This Alpha News article quotes David Hann, the chairman of Minnesota's Republican Party, as saying " The flag the DFL has eliminated was a version of the historic flag our regiments fought under during the Civil War. Minnesota was the first state to offer troops to the Union cause in 1861 , beginning a long tradition of leading the nation in confronting injustice. The DFL quest to erase our history is repugnant and should be rejected." Gov. Walz, though, sees things differently. He's quoted as saying "Minnesota is a diverse state, it continue
Read more

What is Kamala Harris afraid of?

Image
Apparently, Kamala Harris suddenly loves debating. Let me rephrase that. Harris loves debating as long as the moderators are partisan hacks. She wants nothing to do with a debate moderated by Fox's Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. She's afraid of Bret and Martha because a) they'll either fact-check both her and Trump or they won't fact-check either of them and b) Bret and Martha aren't afraid of asking follow-up questions. To a candidate whose answers are scripted and who isn't quick on her feet, the last thing you want is a follow-up question. Kamala fears follow-up questions like vampires hate wooden stakes, sunlight and holy water. Why has Kamala Harris avoided Fox News like the plague? The moderators/propagandists fact-checked Donald Trump aggressively but didn't fact-check Harris . Why didn't David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-check both candidates equally? Is it because Harris doesn't like fair fights? Perhaps she's just afraid of getting exp
Read more

Why is Joe Biden letting Hamas off the hook?

Image
It isn't disputable whether Joe Biden's administration is letting Hamas off the hook. That issue was settled months ago, when a spineless Joe Biden caved to activists interested in saving Hamas and thwarting the Israelis' attempt to defend themselves. Gerard Baker's op-ed highlights what's at stake for the U.S. if the terrorists are permitted to survive. In his op-ed, Baker wrote "If, under the pressure of internal Democratic politics and global public opinion, the Biden administration forces a 'cease-fire' that leaves our closest ally in the region short of victory over an enemy that seeks to destroy it, sooner or later we shall all pay the price." It's time to revisit George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. It's required that we remind ourselves of one of its most important paragraphs. In talking about who committed the atrocities of 9/11, President Bush identified al-Qa'ida as "a collectio
Read more