Posts Tagged ‘election 2020’

Yesterday I talked about the reasons why the GOP should be happy to ignore Democrat Pleas to wait on replacing Ginsberg, now here are a couple of reasons why the Democrats might wint Trump to replace Ginsberg NOW!

Reason one  Murkowski and Collins

Right now the GOP has only a single seat majority in the Senate and the key swing votes are Murkowski and Collins.  Of all the senators in the caucus they are the most likely to force President Trump into a more moderate choice for SCOTUS.

If Donald Trump wins (likely) and has coattails (likely) the Democrats are apt to find themselves in a position where the votes of Murkowski and Collins (if she survives) are not needed to get a conservative judge across the line, particularity since Alabama is unlikely to stay Democrat and Manchin is very likely to vote his state rather than his party.   If that is the case you might see a Justice that makes Antonin Scalia look like Earl Warren.

Reason Two Turnout

Since the best chance for Democrats to win in 2020 is to further motivate potential Democrat voters.  Nothing would do so more than a successful replacement of Justice Ginsberg with a conservative, particularly as a club to use against GOP senators in states like ME and COL

Given that the primary reason for Democrat power IS power the short term gain from such an event is likely to pay high dividends at a time when they need such a thing to counter the Trump economy.

Reason Three Breaking the cycle of dependence 

One of the reasons why the Democrat party has pretty much become an urban regional party has been their reliance on the courts.  Namely why bother to try to win over the people when you can count on the courts to legislate your agenda for you.

If Ginsberg is replaced by a solid conservative now it will finally force the Democrat party to do what it needs to do to survive long term, actually connect with voters and serve their needs.  The president’s inroads with minority voters demonstrates the dangers of relying on a race based coalition and of course any splits in the various groups (see the Tom Hagen Math posts) are likely to isolate the party even more.

The party can’t wean itself out of it’s dependence on the courts and re-connect with the actual votes until that break is complete.  A Trump appointment would do that.

Of course this point assumes party leaders care about the future and when your party is about narcissism and not having children that’s a rather big assumption isn’t it?

Vincent Gambini: I object to this witness being called at this time. We’ve been given no prior notice he’d testify. No discovery of any tests he’s conducted or reports he’s prepared. And as the court is aware, the defense is entitled to advance notice of any witness who will testify, particularly those who will give scientific evidence, so that we may properly prepare for cross-examination, as well as give the defense an opportunity to have the witness’s reports reviewed by a defense expert, who might then be in a position to contradict the veracity of his conclusions.
Judge Chamberlain Holler: Mr. Gambini?
Vincent Gambini: Yes sir?
Judge Chamberlain Holler: That is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought out objection.
Vincent Gambini: Thank you, your honor.
Judge Chamberlain Holler: Overruled.

My Cousin Vinny 1992

Our friends on the left are getting increasingly worried about Justice Ginsberg’s health and are terrified that Donald Trump will get a chance to replace her when she dies.

In this panic they are making an argument that because the GOP congress decided to use what they called at the time the Biden rule namely to, with an election pending, wait till the results of the election so the decision will have the sanction of the people and they point to the “fairness” argument that if Garland didn’t get a hearing during such a year then neither should a Trump nominee.

It doesn’t happen often but that final argument is actually not an unreasonable one, here is why we should ignore it:

1.  It’s not yet the election year

Justice Scalia died on Feb 13th 2016 and Judge Garland was nominated on March 16th 2016.  2016 was an election year 2019 is not.

If Justice Ginsberg hangs on till then then call me

2.  The election is not in full swing.

Debates not withstanding, by the time Justice Scalia died the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primaries had taken place meaning the election had offically begun.  As of today, debates not withstanding it has not.

If Justice Ginsberg hangs on till Iowa votes then call me

3.  Obama was a lame Duck Trump is not

In the 2016 election the person picking the nominee would regardless of the result be gone and unaffected by the people’s decision.  Donald Trump will not be a lame duck so his decision would have consequences for him

4.  It would be a valid voter metric for him and others

Not quite a separate point but because he Trump on the ballot his pick would be a valid metric for voters to decide on his re-election just as the Senate’s decision to not have a vote was a valid metric for their election or re-election

5.  Democrats crying fairness NOW?

Am I to understand that after 3 years of treating this president in ways unprecedented from the day of his election from trying to game the electoral college to the with help from the Obama administration trying to frame him as a Russian against they expect to have him answer the “fairness” argument.

6.  They would do it in a second. 

Does anyone seriously believe that if in the same position the Democrats would hesitate for a moment to use this power if they had it?

And the final and clinching argument….

7.  We CAN!

One of the things about elections is they give confer certain powers, those powers do not expire until the said people are officially replaced.  Donald Trump holds the power to appoint a person to fill a Supreme Court Vacancy.  The Senate holds the power to move forward a nomination or to hold it up that power is not dependent on Democrat outrage.

Tomorrow I will explain why democrats might be smart to go along with such an appointment.

My post on Canon Turner’s 1st Mass got a lot of attention considering it wasn’t instalanched and I wanted to make a point that might have been unclear.  I have been to the Latin mass before just not a high mass of the type that was on display.  Personally I think it would be healthy for both the vernacular and the Latin masses to both be offered in all parishes.  It would be a perfect illustration of Christ as fully human and our brother while also fully Divine as our God.  I think it’s healthy to remember both.


I don’t see why anyone is surprised that Joe Biden got the decade wrong that RFK & MLK were assassinated.  Given the historical ignorance of the young who tend to vote democrat these days and the attempts to re-write history such a mistake makes perfect sense.  Of course, maybe 1968 identifies as a year in the 70’s


Speaking of re-writing history the NYT 1619 project attempt to reframe a false history as true has actually been going on for a long time by the left.  It’s been a full generation since Mary Lefkowitz Not out of Africa and the backlash she got for refusing to teach myth as history the only difference is now their bold enough to admit it and no amount of facts such as the Vice President of the Confederacy’s attack on the founding fathers for opposing Slavery and considering it evil will stop it.  What happened with Lefkowitz was the broken window theory of this type of thing


On a similar subject that’s a pet peeve of mine on twitter this week the subject of Transgenders altering their birth certificates to change their birth sex/name is something I think is very wrong.  A birth certificate is a legal document recording an actual event.  Namely a person was born of a particular sex to a particular set of parents on a particular date at a particular place.  These are all facts and are not subject to the whims or vanity of others.  Now if you wanted to create a document that was a “certification of live birth”  where a city can certify that a person who has a different legal birth name and a different legal birth sex was in fact born at a particular place on a particular year that would be a fair compromise but we have no business changing the written record.


Finally there is word that Dicks Sporting goods which made a big deal about being woke on guns is considering discontinuing guns altogether.  It actually makes perfect sense when you consider the reaction by gun owners to the company’s previous move:

“I’m not furious, not at all. They made a business decision. I get it. They want to step out of their non-political lane and become corporate activists. I can calmly step out of my lane, too. And given every chance I get, I will not use their products,” he said.

If buyers of guns with long memories are still angry and not going to your stores and you have no interest in getting their business back it’s a logical business decision to stop carrying items that might appeal to that customer base, the remaining guns and hunting items in this case,  and move to a set of items that appeal to the customers you still have.

It’s the same principle that MSNBC and the NYT is using when moving away from reality why give facts when your remaining base will only pay for propaganda?

Via Kurt Schlichter I saw this thread concerning responding to this Washington Post story about these anti Trump republicans efforts to find a primary challenger to Donald Trump. My answer to the thread is that not only does it not surprise me in the least but I’d be shocked if they gave it up.

At first I was going to compare them to Dick’s sporting goods dumping guns, after all if you have a different customer base there is no point it trying to cater to the old one but on sober reflection this is more analogous  to this question as to why dissident Catholic groups and theologians remain in the church. 

Someone once asked a famous dissenting theologian why she remained in the Church if she found so much of its doctrine and practice so detestable.

She answered, “It’s where the Xerox machine is.” In other words, she remains b/c the Church butters her bread and pays her rent. The Church provides her with the resources she needs to undermine the Church.

as I put it in another post about a dissident group of protestants:

If they join other denominations they’re just another face in the crowd and are no longer significant, if they form independent churches they become a small congregation that won’t last a generation but as long as they remain dissenters within the the UMC then they are assured of getting attention, fawning press and financial support from outside organizations opposed to this vote and anxious to redefine sin for their own purposes.

As long as they are still nominally republican they remain newsworthy, once they decide to leave the party then they aren’t worthy of coverage or financial support from the left.