Assault on America, Day 635: Wouldn’t Barrett on the Court be a ‘peaceful transfer of power’?
In selecting Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, Trump kept another solemn promise to 2016’s voters
With all the pomp and circumstance you’d expect from a showman like President Donald Trump, the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court was announced on Saturday night. The message was delivered at five o’clock (EDT) on an otherwise light news evening. Trump’s final choice surprised no one, thrilled millions and infuriated the dark forces of the left who would oppose any name that came out of the president’s mouth.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the earth didn’t cave-in and the sun still rose on Sunday morning. A glance at Barrett and her background reveals nothing but sheer “normal-ness” and a steely conviction to do the right thing -- interpret the law. She could easily be the hardest nominee ever to assail as lacking character and temperament to serve on the Court. Good luck, liberals. The left loves abortion -- and we’re about to see how much the rest of the country is willing to go all-out for the uterus-sucking faction.
Barrett was the third name from President Trump’s famous Supreme Court list to be appointed to the great marble building. The list itself was a stroke of genius for a number of reasons, not the least of which was giving the decider a thoroughly vetted candidate pool of qualified conservative Constitution-revering originalists from which to pick from. The roster saved time and allowed for a quick turnaround when circumstances called for it, like they do now.
The whole notion of a list surfaced in 2016 when there was a sure-shot Court vacancy created by Antonin Scalia’s death. Therefore everyone -- the high, the low, the quick and the slow -- knew that one of the new president’s first duties would be to appoint Scalia’s successor. The opening wasn’t simply the product of speculation like in “normal” years.
Because of the backlog of unfilled judge positions created by then Majority Leader Democrat Harry Reid (during George W. Bush’s years), conservatives pushed Mitt Romney to make a bigger deal out of court appointments in 2012, to no avail.
Romney chose the easy, content-free road to campaigning, seeking to make the election mostly about Barack Obama and not the issues that separated the parties. To this day, Mitt’s apparent refusal to hammer Obama on the Benghazi fiasco baffles conservatives, who were forced to endure four more years of the liberal community organizer-turned world’s most powerful man because of it. Rather than expand the electoral landscape to encompass the hopelessly depleted judiciary, Romney focused on Russia and shoring up entitlements, two issues that didn’t get anyone excited in GOP-land.
You can never outbid Democrats on welfare programs. Republicans shouldn’t even try.
Trump probably introduced his 2016 list because of wavering social conservatives who were suspicious of his ideological bona fides. The lifelong, thrice married real estate developer and reality TV star with a gold-plated toilet seat didn’t exactly present himself as a crusader for traditional values. The #NeverTrump movement was in its infancy back then and threatened to derail Trump’s candidacy because of a lack of reassurance that the candidate would keep his promises. Because of his high public profile and somewhat loose tongue, Trump had been all over the map on social issues, ranging from a libertarian approach to suggesting he’s a flat-out liberal.
Many, many conservatives suspected Trump of being a big government trojan horse who would ride into Washington under the guise of conservatism and then unleash himself as a swamp perpetuating creature. Republicans worried he might end up a federal version of California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger, a man who said the right things about limiting government but then turned to the dark side once in power.
What to do? It wasn’t like many Republicans were contemplating wholesale dumping the primary tested party leader, but there were persistent rumors of possible independent candidates and even whispers of trying to throw-in with the Libertarian Party (this wasn’t taken seriously because of Gary Johnson’s support for abortion and other questionable causes).
Someone convinced Trump that the key to winning over conservatives, shoring up his base and perhaps beating the awful Hillary Clinton in the general election was producing a list of judge candidates he would use to not only fill Scalia’s seat, but others that might arise once in office. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was 83 years-old and in questionable health (yes, even back then). Justice Anthony Kennedy was almost 80. Stephen Breyer was almost as old as Kennedy. All were more senior (or about the same age as) than Scalia, who passed away at 79.
Therefore, the reasons for compiling a list were many. And even better, Trump called on Leonard Leo at the Federalist Society to do the hard work of poring over potential justices, assessing their records and either adding them to the list or rejecting them. Leo himself was in his early fifties and might be considered for the Court. He looked like the kind of guy (not nerdy -- scholarly!) who would perform a task thoroughly, and clearly, he wasn’t the least bit interested in tripping up Trump.
From my personal standpoint, Trump’s Court list helped seal the deal for me. I never considered switching to the Democrat side, but there was discussion of joining the “resistance” to Trump from within the GOP. Any realistic hope to sneak Ted Cruz through at the party convention vanished when conservatives got a look at Trump’s Leonard Leo created and honed list of candidates. Not all of them made everyone happy, but there was enough depth to make it a deal-sealer.
If you had a fantasy team full of judges, this would be it. The candidate didn’t add his liberal sister to the grouping of names, either. There was no longer any reason to believe he would appoint any of his real estate buddies or some guy or gal he’d met on “The Apprentice.” Daughter Ivanka wouldn’t be considered and there would be no rumors of Don Jr. receiving the nod because he looked good in a black robe.
Now, over four years later, we have Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and by all appearances, we’ll soon be hearing “Justice Amy Coney Barrett.” The “list” provided all the pre-selection publicity Trump needed for introducing her. Most of America -- the part that pays attention -- already knows her. Liberals will find excuses to trash her. Conservatives have plenty to like, and it’s a cinch to support her. Let the process begin!
Like with everything else, Trump simply kept a promise he’d made to the American people. And the country will definitely be better off for it.
What exactly does it mean, the “peaceful transfer of power”?
Democrats have been doing it for some time, but their recent hyperventilating over President Trump and the predicted post-election turmoil has reached a fever pitch. For unspecified reasons, liberals are convinced that Trump won’t go easily into the night if and when the democratic throngs turn out to cast ballots for ol’ doddering Joe Biden.
The media seems to love the concept. They’re bandying about the “peaceful transfer of power” a lot these days. The Trump people aren’t quite as enthusiastic about spreading rumors, however. W. James Antle III reported at The Washington Examiner, “The White House sought Thursday to tamp down a firestorm over whether President Trump would commit to a peaceful transfer of power if defeated in November, as the president’s allies argued his comments were misconstrued and it was the Democrats who failed to accept the 2016 election results.
“Trump told Fox News he would accept if the Supreme Court ruled he had lost to Democratic challenger Joe Biden. ‘The president will accept the results of a free and fair election,’ said White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany in Thursday’s briefing. ‘But I think that your question is more fitting to be asked of Democrats.’ ...
“[T]he criticism of Trump’s approach to questions about leaving power after a loss is not limited to liberals. ‘What surprises me is that anyone is surprised,’ said Christian Ferry, a Republican strategist who has endorsed Biden. ‘He has been laying the groundwork for this argument for months, and this time, finally said exactly what is on his mind.’”
There you have it, a legitimate, card-carrying member of the GOP establishment fanning the flames of frenetic conjecture over what Trump intends to do in four months. Gee, we haven’t even held that little ol’ election and already Democrats and their anti-Trump bunkmates are in full crisis mode over something that likely will never happen. Trump basically brought up the very real concerns over mail-in balloting and predicted there would be no “peaceful transfer of power” necessary -- because he felt he would win and power would stay right where it is.
What’s he supposed to say, anyway? Something like, “Yeah, I’m gonna lose, so I’ll leave the front door unlocked when I depart for the airport”? Or, “Call off your Democrat lawyer dogs because I don’t plan on challenging anything that comes out of one of the blue states. Everything’s on the up and up and ballot harvesting is more productive than in-person voting.” Perhaps, “The Democrats’ celebratory attitudes and their kindness towards me all these years compels me to give up before the results are certified. Here ya go, Joe, take it away.”
As though liberals are so anxious to entrust Biden to lead the country. The man barely emerges from his Delaware basement hole and already they’re convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Grampa Joe’s going to win and Trump’s intending to hide behind his army of loyal military members and various bands of redneck militia to force a “Constitutional crisis” on America. Sure, he’s all in it for himself and doesn’t give a hoot what anyone else thinks, including his own party.
Then the media runs to people like Mitt Romney and begs him to say something stupid about “peaceful transfer of power”. Mission accomplished!
Why all the fixation on “peaceful transfer of power” anyway? Many outgoing presidents could hardly wait to get out of town.
Do it. Name a president who actually wanted to stay after eight years of swamp politics
Historians give George Washington much credit for voluntarily giving up power after his second term, setting a precedent that lasted nearly a century and a half until Franklin Delano Roosevelt used the Great Depression and the increasingly noisy menace from overseas to justify breaking tradition and running for a third (and then fourth) term. Did all of the presidents from Washington to FDR simply seek to “peacefully transfer power” by opting not to run again?
The question is worth asking, and would require delving into the mindset of every chief executive who’d been elected to two terms and then left without being forced from the White House at gunpoint. Washington himself retired after eight years because he was thoroughly sick of the backbiting and malicious bickering between the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian factions. No one wanted to serve in his second term’s cabinet -- they were all too busy scheming to see who’d pick up the pieces after the great man left.
If Washington had actually wanted to hold onto power, scholars would question why it was so. Holding sway over a bunch of squabbling ideologues isn’t much fun. The fact that Trump is volunteering to endure another four years of this partisan circus is a credit to the man. Only Democrats seem immune from the sting of persistent criticism and over-the-top media insults. But then again, they have the journos on their side, reporting things like how Obama’s administration was “scandal-free”. What a crock.
Presidents are limited to two terms and here’s thinking the great preponderance of office holders are more than happy to get out, Obama included. “Peaceful transfer” is within their minds long before the limo departs to go to the next president’s inauguration. I’ve always thought mandatory term limits were a little like chemotherapy. Sure, the drug kills the harmful cancerous cells, but it also takes an awful lot of healthy “normal” cells down with it (my apologies to the medical community if this isn’t an accurate comparison).
The notion that Trump desperately wants to hang onto power is entirely within the Democrats’ and their media pals’ minds. They simply want him to say he’ll concede if their shenanigans and election fraud schemes bear fruit. He won’t do it. Let the process do what it will and then we’ll worry about a “peaceful transfer of power” when the moment presents itself. Until then, the question is ludicrous and Trump’s response is more than satisfactory.
President Trump fulfilled his constitutional duty to the country by selecting Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy created by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. Barrett will provide a sense of normalcy to the Court despite the certain leftist-perpetrated fury and threats swirling around her. Let’s see how willing liberals are to engage in a “peaceful transfer of power.”
Supreme Court nomination
Ruth Bader Ginsburg death
Amy Coney Barrett