Newsline

Newsline , Society

Justice Breyer Goes – Now What?

Posted on Wednesday, February 2, 2022
|
by AMAC, Robert B. Charles
|
14 Comments
|
Print
Breyer

Incredibly, despite saying he would never cave to political pressure from the rising left – he did. Justice Breyer, a congenial, occasional offbeat, but invariably collegial liberal – who got along with others on the court and did not throw jurisprudential bombs – will soon be gone, likely rolling off the High Court in June. What now?

What comes next will be one of the biggest political food fights in decades. Since the Filibuster is busted for judicial appointments, a decision that began with Senator Schumer busting it for those below Supreme Court under Obama, and Senator McConnell busting it the rest of the way for Supreme Court Justices under Trump, we are now standing in a pile of broken procedural glass – traditions are gone.

In practical terms, this means no 60-member vote of cloture is needed to get a new justice on the bench, just 51 votes. To get there, every Democrat must pony up, or one Republican for every lost Democrat, under current numbers, assuming Harris is the 50-50 tiebreaker as president – and is not, which would be awkward, the nominee herself.

Smart money says, the food fight will start right away, a shark feeding frenzy, and get worse as the year progresses. Mumbling will come out of the White House about consensus, being reasonable, creating unity, and other tried-and-true lies. The promise of a black woman on the court is out there.

In truth, the left will publicly and privately push Biden hard for a leftist, likely a neo-Marxist bomb-thrower, disguised as moderate until confirmed. The beleaguered, shrinking Democrat moderates will ask a reasonable candidate, one who comes off the bench, can build consensus.

Meantime, all the interest groups affiliated with so-called “identity politics” will push their own candidates. Most vocal minority groups will angle for firsts, even beyond the “first black woman,” perhaps also “LGBTQ,” “Transgender,” maybe a former illegal alien-Dreamer, non-lawyer professor, or socialist politician. All bets are off, especially if the first nominee folds.

Most of these will get lots of press, setting up the idea that a simple leftist is a great compromise candidate, halfway between the not-now-but-someday candidate and the liberal-but-not-liberal-enough (too old-fashioned) candidate. We shall see.

Republican voices will be given scant coverage, considered irrelevant. The current Supreme Court term will be used to showcase how terrible reading the Constitution as written can be, how much we need a leftist antidote to the non-activists – the current majority.

Cases to highlight how radical the current conservative majority is will include those imagining that the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments mean what they say. How radical is that?  

These cases could in 2022 expand gun owner rights, end the idea that abortion appears in the Constitution, return the country to college admissions on merit, assure religious liberty, free speech, protection of private property, block open-ended federal mandates, end High Tech political manipulation (even if in a statute), and restore confidence in elections.

These cases – even one offending the left – will be used to justify the need for a leftist on the bench. Of course, cross-currents may upset the leftist push. One or two moderate Democrat Senators, a word or two from Breyer, sense that picking a leftist will motivate Republicans to turn out in 2022, or a general sense that polls are against Democrats might alter things, or not.

The only other factors to consider are ones that remain unknown. Could a leftist have ethical issues, embarrass the Democrats who are centrists, cause a balk? Could we find a nominee who has hidden foreign ties, was not well-vetted, stumbles?

Some random ideas are afloat, flavoring the food fight. Some say, appoint Harris (a former prosecutor, objectively poor Senator and VP), since that opens the VP slot for another. Except she could lose, creating another food fight – for 2024.

Some say, put Hillary in as VP, give her what her twisted, craven mind wishes for, forget the impact on the Democrat Party of 2024. Some say, do not go there, but set up the first gay, transgender Democrat for president via opening the VP slot, since Biden is fading.

Some say, think harder about options, do not waste this on Harris or a good jurist, be more realistic. Harris might not accept the slot, anyway – even if Hilary salivates over a VP slot.

In the end, what we know is this:  A sitting liberal justice who swore he would not leave is resigning in June – to make way for a left-leaning justice. That means the left pushed him out. They could as pack the court in 2022, delegitimize it over abortion, gun rights, elections.

The left is powerful, and High Court – trying hard to stay away from politics – is being drawn into the vortex. Much about America and the Democrats will be revealed in what happens next, between now and summer. What happens in that food fight will affect Midterms, and America.

If the left overplays its hand, the vast center – already leaning center-right – will react with revulsion, and both 2022 and 2024 will tip hard to reason and conservatives. This decision – by a liberal justice to resign under leftist pressure – is revealing. “What now?” is the question.

Share this article:
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
14 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kenneth babick
kenneth babick
2 years ago

error in the article- The Constitution does NOT allow for the VP to cast a tie breaking vote for appointments-Only Legislation

PaulE
PaulE
2 years ago

RBC,

You write “Incredibly, despite saying he would never cave to political pressure from the rising left – he did. Justice Breyer, a congenial, occasional offbeat, but invariably collegial liberal – who got along with others on the court and did not throw jurisprudential bombs – will soon be gone, likely rolling off the High Court in June. What now?”

Your first mistake was taking any liberal at his or her word. We’ve all been around long enough to know not to trust anything any liberal says one way or another and that there are no absolutes in anything controlled by politics. Justice Breyer no doubt was being pressured by the hard left from all sides to step down. As you suggest, he was not always a consistent vote for the left, which in relation to where the Democrat Party stands today, essentially being America’s Socialist party, that is no longer acceptable.

One of the things that so enraged the left during the Trump presidency, was that Trump managed to get 3 Justices onto the Supreme Court that weren’t what the Democrats wanted. I think most of us remember the spectacles put on by Senate Democrats and the MSM as to how each Trump nominee was the worst thing on earth. It’s what they do. So now that the Dems control the White House, Congress and they need to distract the public from what they are doing on all fronts, so it’s time for Breyer to be shown the door one way or another. They also are planning for future Supreme Court fights that will invariably be coming down the road, as the Democrats push harder and harder to reach their final goal.

The Democrats want, at a bare minimum, someone at least in the mold of Sotomayor or Kagan. If not even much farther left, if at all possible. The Democrats want a rubber stamp, far left ideologue, who will ALWAYS vote in favor of whatever the Democrats are doing. No matter how unconstitutional. A good analogy of what the Democrats are aiming for would be the justice system, from top to bottom, mirroring under the old Soviet Union or today’s CCP system. If the State charged you, you were convicted because every Judge was a member of the communist party in good standing. It was a glorified rubber stamp, with ruling being a mere formality for show. Trying to appeal the verdict all the way up the judicial chain was useless, because the communist party had already spoken. That, whether or not we want to acknowledge it, is what the Democrat Party in this country wants to ultimately emulate here. That is the whole reason for their push earlier in 2021 for floating the idea of packing the Supreme Court.

As for the Senate Republicans, we already have 3 RINOs (Graham, Murkowski and Collins) who have publicly said they will vote for at least one of Biden’s Supreme Court picks. I’m sure other RINOs in the Senate will join them by the time it is time to approve whomever Biden ultimately selects. Anyone on the Republican side bringing up either qualifications, past rulings or adherence to the Constitution will be called a racist and shouted down. So whomever Biden selects will be approved on the schedule the Democrats have already put out. The rationale from the RINOs who approve this nomination will be that Biden is just replacing a liberal Judge with another liberal Judge. All while completely disregarding the larger question of whether the nominee will honestly fulfill her obligations and oath to defend the Constitution as written.

PaulE
PaulE
2 years ago

Yet another censored comment for no valid reason AMAC. Your hypocrisy is showing.

Dan W.
Dan W.
2 years ago

Look, Reagan promised to nominate a woman to the Court, he did; Trump promised to nominate a woman to replace Ginsburg, he did (and for that matter, Bush decided to nominate a black man to the Court to replace the first black man on the Court).

Now, Biden has promised to nominate a black woman and likely he will. If he nominates Michelle Childs a federal District Court judge for South Carolina, she already has the support of both South Carolina Republican Senators.

A Childs nomination could lower the food fight nature of the nomination hearings but Biden is not that clever and is more likely to nominate someone who will aggravate some moderate Dem Senators as well as all of the RINOs. Stay tuned.

kyle stolarick
kyle stolarick
2 years ago

Justice Brier fully deserves to retire and I believe that each Judge should have a definite retirement date which might be chosen only by the judge themself at their placement on the seat, and would not be revealed to anyone.

kenneth babick
kenneth babick
2 years ago

error in the article- The Constitution does NOT allow for the VP to cast a tie breaking vote for appointments-Only Legislation

PaulE
PaulE
2 years ago

RBC,

You write “Incredibly, despite saying he would never cave to political pressure from the rising left – he did. Justice Breyer, a congenial, occasional offbeat, but invariably collegial liberal – who got along with others on the court and did not throw jurisprudential bombs – will soon be gone, likely rolling off the High Court in June. What now?”

Your first mistake was taking any liberal at his or her word. We’ve all been around long enough to know not to trust anything any liberal says one way or another and that there are no absolutes in anything controlled by politics. Justice Breyer no doubt was being pressured by the hard left from all sides to step down. As you suggest, he was not always a consistent vote for the left, which in relation to where the Democrat Party stands today, essentially being America’s Socialist party, that is no longer acceptable.

One of the things that so enraged the left during the Trump presidency, was that Trump managed to get 3 Justices onto the Supreme Court that weren’t what the Democrats wanted. I think most of us remember the spectacles put on by Senate Democrats and the MSM as to how each Trump nominee was the worst thing on earth. It’s what they do. So now that the Dems control the White House, Congress and they need to distract the public from what they are doing on all fronts, so it’s time for Breyer to be shown the door one way or another. They also are planning for future Supreme Court fights that will invariably be coming down the road, as the Democrats push harder and harder to reach their final goal.

The Democrats want, at a bare minimum, someone at least in the mold of Sotomayor or Kagan. If not even much farther left, if at all possible. The Democrats want a rubber stamp, far left ideologue, who will ALWAYS vote in favor of whatever the Democrats are doing. No matter how unconstitutional. A good analogy of what the Democrats are aiming for would be the justice system, from top to bottom, mirroring under the old Soviet Union or today’s CCP system. If the State charged you, you were convicted because every Judge was a member of the communist party in good standing. It was a glorified rubber stamp, with ruling being a mere formality for show. Trying to appeal the verdict all the way up the judicial chain was useless, because the communist party had already spoken. That, whether or not we want to acknowledge it, is what the Democrat Party in this country wants to ultimately emulate here. That is the whole reason for their push earlier in 2021 for floating the idea of packing the Supreme Court.

As for the Senate Republicans, we already have 3 RINOs (Graham, Murkowski and Collins) who have publicly said they will vote for at least one of Biden’s Supreme Court picks. I’m sure other RINOs in the Senate will join them by the time it is time to approve whomever Biden ultimately selects. Anyone on the Republican side bringing up either qualifications, past rulings or adherence to the Constitution will be called a racist and shouted down. So whomever Biden selects will be approved on the schedule the Democrats have already put out. The rationale from the RINOs who approve this nomination will be that Biden is just replacing a liberal Judge with another liberal Judge. All while completely disregarding the larger question of whether the nominee will honestly fulfill her obligations and oath to defend the Constitution as written.

PaulE
PaulE
2 years ago

Yet another censored comment for no valid reason AMAC. Your hypocrisy is showing.

Dan W.
Dan W.
2 years ago

Look, Reagan promised to nominate a woman to the Court, he did; Trump promised to nominate a woman to replace Ginsburg, he did (and for that matter, Bush decided to nominate a black man to the Court to replace the first black man on the Court).

Now, Biden has promised to nominate a black woman and likely he will. If he nominates Michelle Childs a federal District Court judge for South Carolina, she already has the support of both South Carolina Republican Senators.

A Childs nomination could lower the food fight nature of the nomination hearings but Biden is not that clever and is more likely to nominate someone who will aggravate some moderate Dem Senators as well as all of the RINOs. Stay tuned.

kyle stolarick
kyle stolarick
2 years ago

Justice Brier fully deserves to retire and I believe that each Judge should have a definite retirement date which might be chosen only by the judge themself at their placement on the seat, and would not be revealed to anyone.

Uncle Sam Set Against The American Flag. An image of Uncle Sam set against a grunge textured U.S.A. flag.
Man with cardboard sign, Take Back Our Government, with American Flag,. Man with cardboard sign, Take Back Our Government, wearing jeans and sandals, with American flag
Student Loan Debt Trap With Tuition Fees Compounding In Interest From High Interest Loan Rates On The Loan

Stay informed! Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter.

"*" indicates required fields

14
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x

Subscribe to AMAC Daily News and Games