Biden and Harris never gave voters an answer on court packing

By John Ruberry

Election Season is almost over–Election Day of course is on Tuesday.

Amy Coney Barrett is now America’s newest US Supreme Court justice, there is a solid 6-3, or mostly solid, conservative majority on the nation’s highest court.

Here’s something to think about now that November is here: we never got a solid answer on whether Joe Biden and Kamala Harris favors packing the Court with liberals.

Harris was particularly shameful in discussing court packing, claiming the Donald Trump has been doing that for the last four years. That’s a lie. Harris is hoping that enough uneducated voters fall for her pack of crap explanation that filling judicial vacancies, one seat for one seat, is court packing.

Court packing as a strategy goes back to Franklin Roosevelt’s second term. Frustrated by Supreme Court rulings against parts of his New Deal, FDR proposed adding seats to the Court. The Supreme Court has been fixed at nine seats since 1869.

Last month Harris and Biden hemmed and hawed over court packing and the subject was brought to them by by local reporters, not the elite media. Finally Biden said we’d get our answer on court packing after the election.

This is leadership?

Last week, in a 60 Minutes interview, Biden said if elected he would for a commission whose focus would be on “how to reform the court system.”

Meanwhile the next day far-left member of Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in a Tweet phrased her opinion, “Expand the court.”

To my knowledge no one has publicly asked Biden or Harris if they support packing the US Senate with two more states, Puerto Rico and the the District of Columbia.

Both states are heavily Democratic.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Six Amy Coney Barrett Thoughts Under My Fedora

I keep seeing tweets like this from the left:

Now maybe it’s just me but doesn’t the fact that this is a woman who has had a decades long career as a Law Professor and is a current sitting judge logically blow away the whole idea that she is into women being some kind of submissive servants?

“Liberal logic” is an oxymoron.


There also seems to be a lot of worry about how she is going to handle all of these attacks.

Please.

Any woman who can balance a career like hers AND raise seven kids isn’t going to be phased by any of the hysterical nonsense that the Democrat / Media / Liberal left is going to throw at her.

Plus she was also the oldest of seven kids herself. She has a lifetime of dealing with childish brats like Democrats.


From what I’ve heard the Barrett announcement was supposed to be earlier in the day but was moved back several times.

I guess getting seven kids ready for an appearnece with the President while their mother is nominated for SCOTUS might be a bit of a pain.

Where’s your tie. I just put your tie on the chair a minute ago”

“Dad I can’t wear this all the other girls will think I’m a loser”

“Get that frog out of your sister’s shoe!”

“Ma do I have to stand next to HIM, can’t I stand on the other side?”

“Turn out your pockets we aren’t leaving this house till I KNOW you don’t have that thing with you that makes the farting noise.”

I have a feeling each day sitting on SCOTUS in session will mean several hours of blissful peace and quiet for her by comparison.


Long before anyone knew the good Lord had decided to grant Justice Ginsberg’s wish not to see Donald Trump appoint her replacement to the SCOTUS Franklin Graham, the great Protestant Minister and son of Billy Graham, had scheduled a day of prayer in DC for the 25th of September.

So on the day that Amy Comey Barrett was announced as the President’s pick to fill the open SCOTUS seat flocks of the faithful in the tens of thousands will be on hand to pray for her.

Talk about working in mysterious ways.


There is also one other bit of irony here.

Reverend Graham is likely one of the best if not THE best known protestant ministers in the US if not the English speaking world.

And yesterday he led a huge flock of protestant in prayer while at the same time celebrating the appointment of a faithful Catholic woman to the Supreme Court.

Given the history of America’s founding all the way through today the degree of irony involved in such a thing is off the scale or as I put it on twitter:

While a lot of liberal are tearing their hair out today centuries worth of Anti-Catholic bigots are rolling in their graves.

Never forget that while you might not know what God is doing, he always does.


Speaking of irony, last night I watched two speeches by Amy Coney Barrett one after she was appointed by President Trump to the Federal counts at Hillsdale here. and a 2nd while she was still a law professor that she gave just a week before election 2016 at the Public Policy Institute at Jacksonville University at a time when just about everyone thought Hillary Clinton was going to win. She delivered a line that I found incredibly ironic.

“What would we have in a Trump court? Who knows?” [audience laughs]

Here is the delivery:

The irony overload is huge but it also illustrates why the left is so angry. They thought they were going to secure the court for generations to come.


Let me close with my favorite of all the tweets I saw on the subject yesterday.

Questions the mainstream media needs to be asking Biden

By John Ruberry

Last week CNN hosted a town hall for Joe Biden where he was given softball questions. No, on second thought they were T-ball questions. 

The demands on whoever is president are brutal. If CNN believes that Biden can’t handle challenging queries then that in my opinion disqualifies him to be leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. And if CNN is just shilling for the Democrats, then no one should take them seriously as a news outlet. Based on their poor ratings, most people already do not. 

Here are some questions that responsible reporters should be asking Biden. The wonderful thing about the questions I’ve devised is that most of them can be posed to President Trump. Yes, a few of these queries have been given to Biden, but generally only once and with dismissive answers from the Democratic nominee.

Here we go:

  • Will you be releasing the names of your potential Supreme Court nominees, as President Trump did as a candidate in 2016 and did earlier this month?
  • Do you support “packing the Supreme Court,” that is, nominating additional justices to the court to go beyond nine members?
  • Where’s Hunter?
  • Do you unconditionally oppose Antifa?
  • Will a Biden administration investigate plots by Antifa and other groups to incite riots in cities such as Portland?
  • You favor a nationwide mask mandate to fight COVID-19. What is your legal basis for instituting one?
  • Do you support statehood for the District of Columbia? And for Puerto Rico?
  • Many states, such as Illinois, Kentucky, and New Jersey, have public-sector worker pension plans that are essentially bankrupt. Do you support a federal bailout of these and other state worker pension plans?
  • Numerous cities also have similarly under-funded pension plans. Will you back a bailout of those plans?
  • What is your position on bailing out states whose tax revenues have plummeted because of COVID-19 lockdowns?
  • Do you favor allowing states to declare bankruptcy?
  • Speaking of Illinois, in 2008 the US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Patrick Fitzgerald, was in the midst of a corruption investigation of Rod Blagojevich, the governor of the state, and Tony Rezko, a member of Blago’s inner circle who donated large sums to the campaigns of Barack Obama. Your ticket mate kept Fitzgerald in his post after becoming president. This year John Lausch, the current US Attorney in Chicago, is in the thick of investigating more public corruption. The center of this scandal appears to be longtime Illinois state House speaker Michael Madigan who is also the chairman of the state Democratic Party. If elected will you keep Lausch in his post?
  • Where’s Hunter?
  • If elected you will be older than Ronald Reagan, the oldest person to serve as president, was when he left office after two terms. Are you physically and mentally up to the office? If you are now what will happen if you one day are not?
  • Do you support the Green New Deal?
  • Do you support fracking?
  • Do you support nuclear power?
  • Do you support coal power?
  • Do you back amnesty for illegal immigrants?
  • Do you utilize teleprompters during interviews and question-and-answer sessions?
  • Where’s Hunter?

I’m sure there are many more questions readers can come up with.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

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.

Three Reasons Why The Left Might Be Better Off with a Trump SCOTUS appointment NOW vs Later

Yesterday I talked about the reasons why the GOP should be happy to ignore Democrat Pleas to wait on replacing Ginsberg, now here are a couple of reasons why the Democrats might wint Trump to replace Ginsberg NOW!

Reason one  Murkowski and Collins

Right now the GOP has only a single seat majority in the Senate and the key swing votes are Murkowski and Collins.  Of all the senators in the caucus they are the most likely to force President Trump into a more moderate choice for SCOTUS.

If Donald Trump wins (likely) and has coattails (likely) the Democrats are apt to find themselves in a position where the votes of Murkowski and Collins (if she survives) are not needed to get a conservative judge across the line, particularity since Alabama is unlikely to stay Democrat and Manchin is very likely to vote his state rather than his party.   If that is the case you might see a Justice that makes Antonin Scalia look like Earl Warren.

Reason Two Turnout

Since the best chance for Democrats to win in 2020 is to further motivate potential Democrat voters.  Nothing would do so more than a successful replacement of Justice Ginsberg with a conservative, particularly as a club to use against GOP senators in states like ME and COL

Given that the primary reason for Democrat power IS power the short term gain from such an event is likely to pay high dividends at a time when they need such a thing to counter the Trump economy.

Reason Three Breaking the cycle of dependence 

One of the reasons why the Democrat party has pretty much become an urban regional party has been their reliance on the courts.  Namely why bother to try to win over the people when you can count on the courts to legislate your agenda for you.

If Ginsberg is replaced by a solid conservative now it will finally force the Democrat party to do what it needs to do to survive long term, actually connect with voters and serve their needs.  The president’s inroads with minority voters demonstrates the dangers of relying on a race based coalition and of course any splits in the various groups (see the Tom Hagen Math posts) are likely to isolate the party even more.

The party can’t wean itself out of it’s dependence on the courts and re-connect with the actual votes until that break is complete.  A Trump appointment would do that.

Of course this point assumes party leaders care about the future and when your party is about narcissism and not having children that’s a rather big assumption isn’t it?