Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Here we go again:

President Biden said Thursday that he will announce his nominee to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer before the end of next month, and that that candidate will be a Black woman.

‘I’ve made no decision except one: The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court,’ Biden said. ‘It’s long overdue, in my view.’

Biden also said Vice President Harris will advise him in the selection process.

Of course she will, because who better to advise on Supreme Court nominations that a woman who failed the bar?  Actually, pretty much everything she achieved, she achieved on her back, which when you think about it, might support the idea women have to work harder than men to accomplish the same things, but still, doing the horizontal Macarena with sleazy politicians doesn’t translate all that well to legal, constitutional wisdom.  I mean, who can’t do that?  Even Chinese spies do that all the time, and with congressmen!

Interestingly, it appears Justice Breyer is a bit testy about the whole thing:

Earlier Wednesday NBC reported liberal Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer would be retiring after 27 years on the bench.

Justice Breyer however has not officially released a statement announcing his retirement.

Or perhaps he’s just “surprised”:

When I was in high school in South Dakota, Roman Hruska was a Republican Senator in next-door Nebraska.  When President Nixon nominated a candidate for the Supreme Court who was pretty much universally branded as mediocre, Senator Hruska spoke up in defense of the mediocre everyman:

To my teenaged way of thinking, that sounded awfully fair–“equitable” before it’s time–until my social studies teacher, Burt Elliott, explained the Supreme Court was not the place for mediocrity.  It was a lesson, unlike much of what was thrown at me in high school, that stuck.

With an opening for a new associate justice, all the usual, dim-witted suspects are talking about how a black woman is “overdue” on the Court, why, we need a Supreme Court that “looks like America,” because “diversity is our strength,” “we need a black woman to represent blacks and women and black women and women who are black or identify as black, and women, and…” and all the rest of those brains-leaking-out-the-ears ejaculations.

I’m about to make Mr. Elliott proud: the members of the Supreme Court represent the Constitution and no one, or thing, else.  That’s their constituency.  They are not there to ensure equity, but equality under the law, to ensure all laws are constitutional.  They’re not there to hand out reparations to people who have never suffered, torn from people who have never inflicted suffering.  They are not there to vindicate the whims of genders/sexes that do or don’t exist.  They are there to uphold, defend and interpret the Constitution in accordance with the plain meaning of the text, and the clearly recorded intentions of the Founders.

Were the blatherings of idiots true, if they actually reflected the Constitution, we’d need a Supreme Court larger than the Congress.  At least 50% would need to be female, but we’d also need lesbians, trans of all flavors, and female Hispanics, blacks, whites, Asians, Pacific Islanders, American Indians, Indian Indians, Vietnamese, Chinese, representatives of the 57 or so genders—surely more next week—and on and on.  And then we’d need to ensure all the male sets and subsets are represented, and then all manner of other made-up beings, including “birthing people,” and “pregnant people,” and “chest feeders,” and furries, and the list would be endless, because doesn’t everyone, and everything, deserve “representation” on the Supreme Court?  How can the Supreme Court “look like America” without all the colors and races, and sexual orientations, and fleeting whims that make up America, which isn’t a mixing bowl, but a salad bowl, or maybe just a block of Tofu or a plate of wings of various flavors?  How can we be sure all their concerns and non-rights are addressed if they’re not all “represented” on the nation’s highest court?

And what about children?  When politicians are pushing something they can’t possibly defend with logic—or basic sanity—they always demand it be done “for the children!”  Don’t they deserve representation on the Court?  And since children at various ages have such different needs, shouldn’t we have at least one child associate justice of every age, and of course, all the various races, sexual orientations, genders, etc.?

And of course we’d need all manner of illegal immigrants in order to represent all of those constituencies, because their rights are far more important than the rights of citizens.  Fundamental transformation, you know.

Why would anyone think the justices of the Supreme Court should represent various political, pseudo-sexual, racial constituencies?  That makes no sense; it’s nuts!  Of course, but only if one actually understands and acknowledges history, the nature of our representative republic and the roles and limitations of the three, co-equal branches of government.  If one rejects all of that, if one is determined to “fundamentally transform” America, the America and Americans they think systemically racist, the America they loath, it makes perfect sense to turn the Supreme Court into a super legislature even more unanswerable to the people than the Congress.

Their Supreme Court would be populated with reliable representatives not of the people—no one would vote for them—but of the Congress, and with the right mix of exquisitely representative justices, the new, improved America, the fundamentally transformed America, would immediately become a one-party, Marxist state, just like the Founders intended.  But they never intended that!  They would if D/S/Cs got their way and properly expanded the court.  Marxists always rewrite history, and often.

A black, female Supreme Court justice?  Aren’t there laws about equal employment, about not using race as hiring criteria?  Why yes, there are!  But get the right—left—people on the Supreme Court, and they’ll take care of that too.

I know this is heresy, but I’m a white, privileged, systemically racist veteran who inexplicably worked hard for everything I’ve ever had, so you know I’m a white supremacist, domestic terrorist, insurrectionist, poopy face.  You’ve got to expect I’d write this: only the most intelligent, capable, experienced people, men and women—sorry, only two genders/sexes/whatevers—should ever be nominated for the Court.  Oh, and only people who will be telling the truth when they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution.  That one should probably be first.  Too many D/S/Cs justices lie about that, such as former justice John Paul Stevens, who in retirement in 2018, advocated for the repeal of the Second Amendment.  Here’s an excerpt from the article I wrote on that occasion:

Most Americans naively think judges, particularly judges of the United States Supreme Court, rigorously honor their oath to support and defend the Constitution. A reading of the dissents in Heller will disabuse them of that notion. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, on March 27th, explained in a New York Times op ed why none should look to the courts to defend the Constitution, and particularly the Second Amendment. Stevens, who is 97, was particularly impressed by teenaged useful idiot’s emotionally overwrought gun control demands.

I suspect Justice Breyer would do the same; he’s all but done that already.  Never mind that’s a tacit admission the Second Amendment actually does affirm an unalienable, fundamental individual right.  Were that not so, why would D/S/Cs, including Stevens, think it necessary to repeal it?  The point is far too many justices—even one is far too many—see the Court as an opportunity to further political policies, particularly those unlawful under that annoying, systemically racist Constitution.  In case you’d like to see what D/S/Cs who’d rather the Constitution didn’t say what it does say think, take this link to the Heller dissent.

Is it possible Joe Biden will nominate a black, female candidate who just happens to be the single most qualified jurist in America?  A jurist who will not lie when they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution?  No.  Next question?  But why not?  Because he’s Joe Biden and what’s left of his brain is primarily focused on TRUNALIMUNUMAPRZURE! and ice cream, and because “most qualified” is fourth, at best, on his list of qualifications.  What’s third? Absolute fealty to D/S/C policy over the Constitution, which means they can’t be the most qualified candidate, or even pretty much sane.  And of course, because it won’t be Joe Biden making the decision anyway, though he will badly read the teleprompter speech announcing “his” decision.

But isn’t anything possible?  No.  It’s not.  Defense lawyers are fond of that one.  They’ll spin an entirely impossible tale for a jury and exclaim “anything’s possible!”  No, it’s not.  Monkeys are not going to fly out of my butt.  I’m never going to give birth.  I’ll never play in the NBA or any other alphabet sport.  I’m not going to be “chest feeding,” and Mrs. Manor isn’t ever going to get a penile erection.  I’m not going to sprout wings and fly to Venus.  Because we live in a universe with immutable physical laws, many things are not possible, and it’s equally not possible Joe Biden is going to nominate the most qualified, loyal to the Constitution and America, candidate–of any gender or color.  Limiting it to a tiny portion–black, female lawyers/judges, though one need not be a lawyer to be a Supreme Court justice–of the population tends to drop the odds a bit.

One thing we do know is whoever he nominates, whoever is confirmed, will absolutely vote a straight D/S/C Party ticket.  They will absolutely be aligned with Kagan and Sotomayor, the not-so-wise Latina.

Tragically, too much to hope…

It’s not about nominating and confirming Republicans or D/S/Cs.  It’s about justices who won’t lie in taking their oaths and those who will.  It’s about either fidelity to the Constitution, or to woke political purity.  But don’t trust me, trust Joe Biden, who in 2003 and 2005, filibustered–I guess the filibuster wasn’t a threat to democracy then–Janice Rogers Brown’s nomination for the federal bench.  Of course, she’s one of those “fidelity to the Constitution” types so no wonder Joe had to filibuster her.

Janice Rogers Brown–she’s black
credit: acton.org

Unless, of course, Republicans are not, for once, The Stupid Party, and play by the D/S/C’s new rules, refusing to seat anyone until after the midterms, and perhaps not until a Republican becomes POTUS.  D/S/Cs would absolutely do that.  And yes, Republicans should be better than that, but we’ve seen what good that kind of lame moral posing has done the country.  Perhaps it’s time they cowboyed up and demanded whoever is nominated for Burt Elliott’s–and our–Supreme Court actually be the single best qualified–and honest–person in constitutional America, regardless of gender or race.

It’s the American thing to do.

And thanks, Mr. Elliott; you did make a difference.