Five Post Ginsberg Thoughts Under My Fedora Bottom Line Trump Wins This Fight

For those who missed last night’s bonus podcast on the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg here are five thoughts about the political effect of Ginsberg’s Departure from the court.

1. The Help this will Provide for Democrats will be Minimal at Best.

While some younger voters and Bernie Bros will turn out over this and a bunch of money will be raised over this none of it will be enough to counteract the effect of riots, murder and looting particularly in swing states.

It’s one thing to care about a SCOTUS opening but that pain is in theory, riots looting and burning out people in your state or city affects YOU.

Furthermore for those conservative who still find Trump icky the prospect of finally securing a John Roberts Proof majority will be enough to secure all but the most bought NeverTrump consultant.


2. Democrat threats of riots and violence (and any actual violence) are going to make things worse for them

Resa Aslin’s offers threats of violence if the President nominates a replacement for the late Justice Ginsberg

The BLM riots and violence are already costing the left nationwide. The same coming over a GOP nomination If there is a stupider move than this I can’t think of it:

Of course I’d just as soon do without riots and violence and not have the political advantage that will come of it just as would have just as soon not had the riots and looting and violence nationwide as I don’t believe in such things no matter what the advantage. However I don’t have a veto over this, the left does and I predict they will not exercise it.


3. Trump will nominate a replacement soon, perhaps as soon as Monday.

The Ruth Bader Ginsberg death watch has been on for a long time and President Trump has been ready with a candidate to replace her for a year. or more, most likely Barrett but I wouldn’t be surprised to see a nominee that the left isn’t prepared for to throw off their plans of character assassination.

Additionally President Trump understands political power better than any president since Lyndon Johnson and he understands that delay helps the Democrats while a quick nomination and a vote before the election will force the GOP to choose sides in an election where the GOP base will definitely hold any member accountable for giving in.

He knows the left was down before this nomination. He is going to stop on them and finish them off by nominating a candidate and winning a vote on it BEFORE the election and he’ll succeed because….


…4. Democrats threats to GOP Candidates over this are empty

Any GOP member up for re-election from Thom Tillis to Susan Collins who thinks they MUST oppose a vote now because of a Democrat backlash is assuming that the left wasn’t already going all out to destroy and defeat them anyways. As I said in a twitter exchange last night:

While it’s not inconceivable that a Mitt Romney or a Lisa Murkowski who has a few years before facing voters again might betray the voters who elected them for gain or spite any GOP candidate who hopes to be elected this time around who falls for these empty threats of retaliation if they vote with POTUS and the even more empty promises of mercy from the left. When it comes down to it Trump will have his fifty votes with Pence for this reason and also because…

5. …The media/left can’t significantly affect this fight because they threw away their credibility over the last four plus years

If the Democrat / Media / Academic / Hollywood left had treated Donald Trump as a normal regular president they might have been in a position to stop a vote on a Trump nomination to SCOTUS before the election or perhaps even the nomination itself.

Instead they spent all their credibility on the Russia business, impeachment, the Steele Dossier, Mueller and a million other phony stories to try and bring him down to the point where their latest pre-October surprise only ended up causing Tara Reade to trend again (oh and btw any other October surprise they had in mind is now toast).

Chuck Todd recently hit the nail on the head when he said

As I’ve said, the only way to understand this is to realize he doesn’t have shame about it. And when we lose our ability to shame a politician we lose a lot of our power. That’s for sure,”

As Glenn Reynolds has put it for years: “All they had to do is not be crazy” If they had followed that advice then we would be waiting till the election to fill that seat, instead Trump will fill that seat before the election and that conservative majority in the court will be in no matter what happens on election day.

That will be the final stake in the heart for Democrat on election day in terms of demoralizing their voters and it will be the end of John Roberts as a useful idiot for the left.

The Left’s Ginsberg Argument is Fair, but Irrelevant

Vincent Gambini: I object to this witness being called at this time. We’ve been given no prior notice he’d testify. No discovery of any tests he’s conducted or reports he’s prepared. And as the court is aware, the defense is entitled to advance notice of any witness who will testify, particularly those who will give scientific evidence, so that we may properly prepare for cross-examination, as well as give the defense an opportunity to have the witness’s reports reviewed by a defense expert, who might then be in a position to contradict the veracity of his conclusions.
Judge Chamberlain Holler: Mr. Gambini?
Vincent Gambini: Yes sir?
Judge Chamberlain Holler: That is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought out objection.
Vincent Gambini: Thank you, your honor.
Judge Chamberlain Holler: Overruled.

My Cousin Vinny 1992

Our friends on the left are getting increasingly worried about Justice Ginsberg’s health and are terrified that Donald Trump will get a chance to replace her when she dies.

In this panic they are making an argument that because the GOP congress decided to use what they called at the time the Biden rule namely to, with an election pending, wait till the results of the election so the decision will have the sanction of the people and they point to the “fairness” argument that if Garland didn’t get a hearing during such a year then neither should a Trump nominee.

It doesn’t happen often but that final argument is actually not an unreasonable one, here is why we should ignore it:

1.  It’s not yet the election year

Justice Scalia died on Feb 13th 2016 and Judge Garland was nominated on March 16th 2016.  2016 was an election year 2019 is not.

If Justice Ginsberg hangs on till then then call me

2.  The election is not in full swing.

Debates not withstanding, by the time Justice Scalia died the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primaries had taken place meaning the election had offically begun.  As of today, debates not withstanding it has not.

If Justice Ginsberg hangs on till Iowa votes then call me

3.  Obama was a lame Duck Trump is not

In the 2016 election the person picking the nominee would regardless of the result be gone and unaffected by the people’s decision.  Donald Trump will not be a lame duck so his decision would have consequences for him

4.  It would be a valid voter metric for him and others

Not quite a separate point but because he Trump on the ballot his pick would be a valid metric for voters to decide on his re-election just as the Senate’s decision to not have a vote was a valid metric for their election or re-election

5.  Democrats crying fairness NOW?

Am I to understand that after 3 years of treating this president in ways unprecedented from the day of his election from trying to game the electoral college to the with help from the Obama administration trying to frame him as a Russian against they expect to have him answer the “fairness” argument.

6.  They would do it in a second. 

Does anyone seriously believe that if in the same position the Democrats would hesitate for a moment to use this power if they had it?

And the final and clinching argument….

7.  We CAN!

One of the things about elections is they give confer certain powers, those powers do not expire until the said people are officially replaced.  Donald Trump holds the power to appoint a person to fill a Supreme Court Vacancy.  The Senate holds the power to move forward a nomination or to hold it up that power is not dependent on Democrat outrage.

Tomorrow I will explain why democrats might be smart to go along with such an appointment.