Democrats: Any SCOTUS Nominee Will Be “Fundamentally Illegitimate”

Democrats: Any SCOTUS Nominee Will Be “Fundamentally Illegitimate”

Democrats: Any SCOTUS Nominee Will Be “Fundamentally Illegitimate”

“Fundamentally Illegitimate” is the rallying cry now. It doesn’t matter who the nominee is, the Democrats have their narrative and will be following it to the letter over the next few days and weeks.

Pelosi and Schumer are leading the charge. 

“On ABC’s “This Week,” George Stephanopoulos asked Speaker Pelosi about the possibility of impeaching President Trump or Attorney General Barr as a way to stall a Supreme Court confirmation in a post-election lame-duck session.

Pelosi replied: “Well, we have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now.”
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said on a call with his caucus yesterday, after a moment of silence for Justice Ginsburg:

If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell “and Senate Republicans move forward with this, then nothing is off the table for next year.””

‘Arrows in our quiver’ sounds so…Lizzie Warren! But I digress. What are those arrows in the quiver that Nancy speaks of? How about The Washington Post leaping into the fray by writing an article slamming Amy Coney Barrett’s defense of due process over campus sexual assault cases. Due process should be a non-starter according to the WaPo because Barrett argued for the guy! That’s a huge problem because we are supposed to believe all women ALL THE TIME even if evidence is to the contrary. Therefore, choosing Amy Coney Barrett will be a fundamentally illegitimate move.

Two years ago this country went through hell during the Kavanaugh hearings. It was even worse for Brett Kavanaugh and his family. The scurrilous accusations, accusations without merit, that were championed by the Democrats angered more people than they realize. Did they learn their lesson? NOPE. 

Instead Democrats are being told to unpack their tool boxes and use whatever is necessary to block a Senate confirmation hearing.

Then again, not every tool should be used. When asked if Biden should offer up HIS list of who he would consider for the Supreme Court, AOC said the following:

““I think that Democratic voters, right now, it’s less about motivating people around a specific individual to be named to that court,” she said. “I think we are highly motivated about just making sure that vacancy is protected and preserved for the next president. I don’t think releasing a list of names really adds to that, and in fact, I think it could risk demoralizing and dividing our party.

“Right now, the costs outweigh the benefits,” she added. “But as events develop, the calculus could change.””

That’s highly illuminating. AOC said a super quiet part very loudly. No one on that list would make it through a confirmation hearing.Why? Because whomever is on the Democrat list is so far left, the Democrats wouldn’t be able to muster the votes.

Yet we are supposed to believe that anyone President Trump nominates will be a “fundamentally illegitimate” choice?

Since providing a list won’t work, lets continue to beat the ‘pack the court’ drum!

“Democrats fed up with the status quo have toyed with the idea of packing the Court—adding more members to create a more liberal majority. Ginsburg’s passing—and McConnell’s reaction to it—have set off another round of demands for court-packing. The journalist Jill Filipovic, writing in The Washington Post, urged Democrats to follow through on a threat to pack the Court if McConnell succeeds in pushing through a nomination. Ian Millhiser, writing for Vox, argued that court-packing may be the “only solution.” This may well be true; it is also, as far as solutions go, an indication of the depth of the Court’s legitimacy problem.”

Well, in order to accomplish that the Democrats would need a majority in the Senate, the House, AND the White House. Oh well, nit picky little details like that aren’t stopping the Democrats such as Eric Holder (who doesn’t know the Constitution is) from yakking about it. 

“Illegitimate majority.” Yep, there’s part two of the narrative. Brian Fallon, former Hillary Clinton spox, really has his knickers in a knot over President Trump choosing a nominee for SCOTUS. 

At least he is consistent. He called the Kavanaugh and Gorsuch nominations illegitimate as well. My question is this. Exactly what kind of actions does he want the Democrats to take? Oh.

There it is. Power grabs for the win! Democrats want to pack the court. They plan to contest the election, yet leave a seat on the Supreme Court vacant. Why? They are gambling on a 4-4 tie or perhaps Roberts once again providing that swing vote to the left. 

Democrats like the rule of law as long as it fits THEIR playbook. Guess what Democrats. WE REMEMBER.

When it’s someone else’s playbook, their only answer is to engage in baseless slanderous personal attacks on the nominee. When it’s the Republicans who have the gavel, the Democrats throw tantrums and self-righteously declare the process and the nominee “fundamentally illegitimate.” 

What is “fundamentally illegitimate” is the conduct of the Democrats.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

Feature Photo Credit: Scales of Justice by DonkeyHotey via Flickr, cropped and modified

Written by

7 Comments
  • Quentin-Q Quill says:

    Quote from Lindsey Graham: “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s s Repubican president in 2016 and a vacany occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.” Hmm, looks like Lindsey sure changed his tune.

  • GWB says:

    a post-election lame-duck session
    But that’s NOT what they’re all up in arms about. They’re whining about him pushing a nominee before the election. Which means it’s not a “lame duck” session. And, if Trump wins, it’s not even a “lame duck” after the election. Was he giving her an out if someone tries to trash her for shredding the Constitution? (I would LOVE to see the Dems try to re-impeach Trump before the election! That would be a HOOT! 49-state landslide in the making, there!)

    Hey, why is Representative AOC behind a Senate seal for her gum-flapping? Get back over to your own house, sweetcheeks.

    I think it could risk demoralizing and dividing our party.
    Because you know the intersectionalist rugby would risk peeling off even more support from your political captives?

    an indication of the depth of the Court’s legitimacy problem
    Well, I’ll agree with this. The SCOTUS has a definite legitimacy problem – primarily because even liberals (the ones who’ve actually read the Constitution, that is) can see how often they mangle simple text to achieve some policy end, or mumble and hedge and twist themselves in order not to rule on something that is clearly unconstitutional.

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat
    No such thing, Bro. I know most of them are using shorthand for “the seat which RBG occupied until the moment Mephistopheles came to claim his wager,” but it really is an idea they hold – they think all seats on the Court that are prog must remain prog forever (otherwise it wouldn’t be progress dontchano). So, if you want to a real journalist, don’t use the phrase.
    It is the people’s seat.

    Power grabs
    Well, duh. And the progs use law as a ratchet (see above): whatever gets more left must stay as “rule of law”, and whatever moves right must be resisted as breaking the “rule of law.”

    (I love how Lindsay had to look at his thesaurus to remember the word “sham” in that clip. *eyeroll*)
    (Oh, he was right. It’s just a bit… over the top for Ms Graham to make like he is suddenly this constitutional David, and oh so offended.)

    What is “fundamentally illegitimate” is the conduct of the Democrats.
    QFT
    Unfortunately, also not held to account by their electorate. We won’t be free of the tyrants until there are personal, real, strong consequences to their lack of faith to the Constitution.

  • TempoNick says:

    Elections have consequences. For the entire term, not just for three years of it.

  • Rick Caird says:

    I do have to laugh when I notice every politician or hanger on has completely changed his position on filling the vacancy since 2016.

    Then, as the Democrats have learned from the Obama EO’s, what Obama did can be undone by a Trump (execept for Roberts strange reasoning on DACA). If the Democrats take the cort to 11, Republicans can take it to 15 or back to 9 and dump the new additions.

  • Andrew says:

    If the Red Wave materializes, and Republicans hold a majority in both House and Senate in 2021, they should immediately expand the SCOTUS by 6 to 15, justices with 12 seats presumptively non-progressive and the incumbent 3 for the others.

    SCOTUS appointments are for life, so the Dems cannot shrink the number of justices without creating a conservative supermajorit for many years

    To get their new hard left SCOTUS majority, Dems would need to add 10 more new seats next time they got a majority in both houses, bringing the total to 25!

    15 is a large number of Justices, but 25 is unworkable, even for Dem idealogues.

    This might put a permanent end to talks of court packing.

  • […] Basic Training Gets More Cuddly, also, More Secret Squirrel Stuff From Red China Victory Girls: Democrats Say Any SCOTUS Nominee Will Be “Fundamentally Illegitimate” Volokh Conspiracy: RBG’s Daughter Claims She Didn’t Expect Republicans Would Block […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram
Instagram did not return a 200.