Posted on 07/23/2019 10:06:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
President Donald J. Trump was not only open about it — he aggressively campaigned on the need for conservative, Constitution-abiding judges to serve on our nation’s federal courts and the United States Supreme Court. And voters enthusiastically embraced Trump’s pledge with exit polling confirming the president was elected in large part due to his bold promise to appoint judges who would uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.
“The freedoms we cherish and the constitutional values and principles our country was founded on are in jeopardy,” President Trump said in a statement released prior to his election. “I will appoint justices who, like Justice Scalia, will protect our liberty with the highest regard to the Constitution.”
Along with that statement came a list of 21 potential Supreme Court nominees Trump would choose from if elected president. It’s among the most transparent Supreme Court-nomination process in American history but, unfortunately, not the type of process liberals are eager to live up to even though they should.
In stark contrast to Trump’s campaign, Democratic presidential hopefuls along with dark monied liberal advocacy groups are keeping their lists of potential judges completely hidden from public view. “Unlike the unprecedented Trump list, the liberal groups do not intend to make their recommendations public,” reports The New York Times.
Why are Democrats playing hide-and-seek with their judicial nominees? The level of transparency President Trump afforded the country when he named prospective Supreme Court appointees was bold and refreshing. It is disappointing to see liberals stuck in the past.
President Trump gave voters four months to investigate, vet, and debate the merits of the men and women on his Supreme Court short list before ultimately announcing the nomination of now-Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. He gave voters more than eight months to review the careers of those on the short list published ahead of now-Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Men and women from both sides of the political aisle had nothing but glowing things to say about Gorsuch and both sides had plenty of time to debate his credentials. Arguably one of the best pieces to come out of President Trump’s first Supreme Court nomination is a column by Washington Examiner Commentary Editor Timothy P. Carney.
Carney, who titled the piece “Actually, Neil Gorsuch is a champion of the little guy,” masterfully analyzes the court decisions handed down by the Ivy League-educated lawyer and, in so doing, demonstrates Gorsuch’s fidelity to the Constitution.
“The rule of law doesn’t care if you’re powerful or powerless; it applies to all. Gorsuch has spent his years on the bench reading the law and applying it without animus or favor,” says Carney.
The role of our federal judiciary should not be mired in politics or become the product of cloak-and-dagger tactics. So liberals should be open about who is on their short list for the Supreme Court. Are they nominees who will faithfully interpret the Constitution as written or are these judges with a record of projecting their political views via their rulings from the bench?
Their lack of transparency, in light of President Trump’s upfront dealings with voters, will not be received well.
It certainly goes right in line with their rumored plans to pack the courts with liberal appointees who will do their bidding, but it will be a losing argument with mainstream voters.
President Trump not only change the game by being so transparent on the campaign trail, he then followed through and kept his word on the type of judges he nominated. He has shown himself trustworthy in this area.
If the Democrats truly believe they have a better plan for America, then they should put an end to the silly smokescreens and secrecy games that only serve to undermine a critical branch of government. Let’s debate the candidates and their judicial philosophy and then let the American people decide the type of judges they want.
The headliner is a rhetorical question, right?
During the Obama years, libs often left home without their masks on as they acquired boldness. Now, they are dusting of the masks to once again hide their true identities, to prevent loses during the elections.
“...If the Democrats truly believe they have a better plan for America, then they should put an end to the silly smokescreens and secrecy games that only serve to undermine a critical branch of government....”
They do have a plan. Destruction of the United States, its laws, its legal system is a part of their plan. Totalitarianism. Militant socialism. And secrecy and deceit have always been the way they work. Hiding is essential to their efforts.
bttt
The Democratic plan to stuff the Supreme Court with six more leftist judges is public knowledge.
It is based on Roosevelt’s plan of 1937.
Their plan is international socialism, with all the faults of fascism and communism combined.
The plan is to expand the court to 15 members and then pack it with radical Leftists.
Independent voters need to be educated about the dangers our nation faces.
I voted for Trump and the RINOs not out of love for them, but out of fear of Democratic totalitarianism.
“President Trump not only change the game by being so transparent on the campaign trail, he then followed through and kept his word on the type of judges he nominated. He has shown himself trustworthy in this area.”
Yes, indeed!
For starter’s, their news media cohorts haven’t asked the Demonic-Rat candidates about their choices for SCOTUS except to get a few to say that they will only nominate “pro-choice” judges.
No mention of court packing or specific names of judges candidates have in mind.
I suspect several candidates have a list of judges, which include several minorities, several women minorities, and several must have a list of a few male judges who are extremely radical.
I’m certain all their nominees will be activists, rabid climate change supporters and bitter racists.
did anybody catch that “hokie” proof of life video showing RBG standing by the casket as mourners walked in front of her???
found it down some rabbit hole that little jeremiah, bitt, TruthWillWin, or generally pointed me to yesterday & can’t remember where I saw that.
RBG needs her dirt nap. Thank God that Clinton was not elected president or we would have the Supreme Court from hell right now.
here’s the link to RBG “proof of life” vid found it on “rod sneaky” clandestine blog:
https://twitter.com/paulmuaddib61/status/1153432787308994560
let me know what you think???
"International Socialsim" IS "communism". "Fascism" is "national socialism". Both are socialism with all its faults.
The demoncrats cannot make their list public until all the potential nominees have been paroled from prison, smuggled across the southern border, or they give up their memberships and/or ownership in all those bathhouses...
So, give them a break..
Guys, this is really dumb. Okay. This is not a deep fake video.
Shit like this makes us look dumb.
The red rope is not blocking the front of the casket, it’s running parallel to the justices.
This isn’t fake.
Please don’t fall for this. https://t.co/BvXHmGmKvT— Clandestine (@RodSneaky) July 23, 2019
p
They hide their true plans for the same reason last election they told voters they were going to work on THEIR problems and not spend the whole time going after Trump.
Because if they had told the truth they would not have been elected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.