WhatFinger


Barack Obama and the Democrats have largely destroyed our Constitutional system, Millhiser. Funny you are worried about that now.

Progressive Lies and Hypocrisy on Court Nominees



Here is an infuriating and ridiculous essay by Ian Millhiser from the Center for American Progress in the notoriously leftist New York Daily News. Millhiser has the nerve to demand the GOP roll over on Obama's replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away on February 13th. From the juvenile mind of Millhiser:
" Remember that time when Republicans threatened to toss America into a catastrophic debt crisis if President Obama didn't agree to a long list of economic demands? Or when they shut down government because they were upset that millions of Americans were about to receive health insurance? The same brand of responsible governance that brought you these failures of government is about to take on the Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court's most outspoken conservative, has died. His seat remains vacant, and the constitutional duty to name his successor falls to President Obama. Whoever Obama chooses, that person will likely give liberals a majority on the Supreme Court for the first time since the early days of the Nixon administration." [...] "It wasn't always this way. Indeed, it wasn't this way very recently. Seven years ago, President Obama named Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill a seat on the Supreme Court. Nine Republicans broke with their party to confirm Sotomayor. That's nothing to write home about, but it was a sign that there was a critical mass of Republicans who understood that presidential elections have consequences, and that the wheels of constitutional government must keep turning even if that means that individual lawmakers will not always get their way."
How very short is the memory of liberals like Millhiser; he reminisces about the GOP rollover for Obama just a few years ago and fails to mention the litany of GOP nominations over the years that the Democrats torpedoed. Has he really forgotten Judge Robert Bork? His leftist buddies turned Bork's name into a verb, meaning to smear and destroy. Robert Bork was eminently qualified, so qualified that President Reagan did not feel compelled to hang around and defend him - and the media spin machine and their Democratic buddies went after Bork with great anger and furious wrath. In the end Bork was, well, borked. He withdrew his name from consideration.

Support Canada Free Press


Bork wasn't the only one. Reagan had nominated a guy named Douglass Ginsberg for a Supreme Court position. The Democrats destroyed Ginsburg because he once had taken a toke of a doobie! Yes, they demanded his withdrawal because he once smoked marijuana like the rest of them! Only a few years later William Jefferson Blythe Clinton admitted to smoking dope and was given a pass by the same sanctimonious liberals. In fact, the fence sitting Anthony Kennedy was Reagan's THIRD choice for that seat, but he ended up giving the liberals a moderate since his other two choices were butchered by liberals, who have conveniently forgotten that fact. Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman counseled the Democrats to filibuster any judicial nominees by George W. Bush after the election of 2000 in an essay in the American Prospect Feb. 2001 edition. Does Millhiser remember that? Guess what; they did it, too. Chuck Schumer worked tirelessly to stall judicial nominees in the Judiciary Committee during the 107th Congress. And in the 108th the Democrats filibustered. Any of these names sound familiar? Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown? All of these nominations were filibustered by the Donkeys. But Millhiser tries to claim only those mean Republicans stop judicial nominations. How about Terrence Boyle, William J. Haynes, II and Michael B. Wallace who were filibustered in the 109th? Don't tell me you liberals are lily white in this. What of Peter Keisler, Robert J. Conrad, Steve A. Matthews and Glen E. Conrad. whom Harry Reid blocked in committee after he assumed power in the Senate? The Senate rejected two Nixon SCOTUS appointees; G. Harrold Carswell and Clement Haynsworth. I would also like to remind our Progressive friends that in August of 1960 the Democrats in the Senate passed Resolution 334 "Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court's business." thus attempting to prevent the GOP from filling a vacancy on the Court before John Kennedy assumed office. All of this is apparently lost on Millhiser;
"sufficient power to fill it will only drive home the political nature of the Court. It will also maximize the likelihood that a party that finally has the chance to fill vacant seats will stack the Court with party loyalists. Why risk appointing an independent thinker when you may not be able to fill another vacancy for years or decades to come? How the Senate responds to Scalia's vacancy, in other words, could decide whether the Supreme Court remains a viable player in our constitutional system. Why, after all, should a future president feel bound by the Court's decisions if they know that every member of its bench was appointed via a partisan knife fight?"
Doesn't Millhiser remember Franklin Roosevelt stacking the Court? The Court was an is a political vessel, one the Democrats politicized long ago. And what does he mean "independent thinker"? Every Democratic nominee is the antithesis of independent thinker, moving in nearly unanimous lockstep on every decision. When has Kagan, or Ginsberg, ever written a separate opinion when the liberal side wins? It happens all the time among the conservative wing, but hardly ever on the liberal side. These justices are purely political animals, guaranteed votes to make straight the path of liberal triumphalism. Barack Obama and the Democrats have largely destroyed our Constitutional system, Millhiser. Funny you are worried about that now. In fact, SCOTUS has ruled that your savior Obama has overstepped his Constitutional authority 13 times now, with nary a peep out of you. If Obama gets his pick for the Court he will put in a yes man so he can exercise imperial power. Is that somehow Constitutional? And Obama has simply disregarded court orders when it suits him. See here. for an example. I don't believe Millhiser believes a word of that lying essay. He is simply trying to find a way to argue the inarguable. Were things reversed he would desperately be campaigning to deny, say, President Bush his pick. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Recommended by Canada Free Press



View Comments

Timothy Birdnow -- Bio and Archives

Timothy Birdnow is a conservative writer and blogger and lives in St. Louis Missouri. His work has appeared in many popular conservative publications including but not limited to The American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Intellectual Conservative and Orthodoxy Today. Tim is a featured contributor to American Daily Reviewand has appeared as a Guest Host on the Heading Right Radio Network. Tim’s website is tbirdnow.mee.nu.


Sponsored