Mark Meadows Discusses The SCOTUS Nominee and Process…

President Trump has said he will announce his nominee for the supreme court tomorrow at 5:00pm.  Chief of Staff Mark Meadows appears on Fox News this morning to discuss the anticipated announcement and the predictable political response from the leftists.

This entry was posted in Big Government, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Election 2020, Legislation, President Trump, Press Secretary - Trump, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

172 Responses to Mark Meadows Discusses The SCOTUS Nominee and Process…

  1. mallardcove says:

    Does anyone here predict the democrats will launch a character assasination campaign against the nominee like they did Kavanaugh?

    Liked by 6 people

    • bocephusrex says:

      Pretty sure EVERYONE HERE KNOWS they will-

      Liked by 4 people

    • Fubu says:

      Go ahead punks, embarrass yourselves and make my day.

      Liked by 5 people

    • MaineCoon says:

      Surely, this is a rhetorical question.

      Liked by 3 people

    • pigletrios says:

      They should open the hearings by thanking her for coming, announce the general floor vote will happen in one hour, and close the hearing. No need for democrats to try to drag another nominee through the mud. We saw enough of that crap with Kavanaugh to last a lifetime. Fill the vacancy. Now.

      Liked by 18 people

    • mallardcove:
      With each passing year, it’s become more apparent that the Democrat Party feels obligated to ‘bloody up’ every Republican Supreme Court nominee. This ‘bull fight’ of a confirmation hearing (the nominee being the ‘bull’) also lacks any real judicial or constitutional justification in that no judge should ever prejudge the merits of any case, or even hint at possible future rulings; or the worst of the worst: to make promises to Senators that they will or will not give due consideration to some sanctimonious political doctrine or other from the Sacred Scriptures of Unholy Progressive Misconceptions.

      Other hearing considerations off-limits are those privileges afforded by The Constitution itself regarding religious liberty, race, gender etc. leaving thus a very narrow window of inquiry on judicial temperament, philosophy, and general knowledge of the law: in other words, 4 to 5 hours at most (one single day of committee hearings).
      However, if Dems want a carnival, adjourn the hearings immediately and schedule a day of floor speeches only in favor of or against the nominee, and vote the next day.

      Like

  2. The Akh says:

    The move to confirm must come quickly. Let the left go into hysterics and embarrass themselves again. They are losing their minds already.

    Liked by 11 people

  3. L4grasshopper says:

    The “process” had better have a hard goal of taking the Senate vote by about Oct 27th…..

    Liked by 5 people

  4. Nigella says:

    I really like Mark … Great choice

    Liked by 6 people

  5. UniPartySlayer says:

    The Angelic ACB!!

    Like

    • bocephusrex says:

      Yeah listening to the non-stop ‘mansplaining’ from the Dem senators is gonna be great-they should simply say what RBG did at her hearings–“I don’t wish to answer that’–I believe it was HUNDREDS of times-

      Liked by 1 person

      • This is what is so infuriating: Even after that she was voted in by the right. No matter how bad they are the Republicans confirm the choice of a Democrat President. You never see pushback.

        But Constitution-adhering judges are torn apart by the left and barely get confirmed.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Nora Redondo says:

      I heard yesterday she was open borders and her rulings were not very conservative. It’s that true? Some twitter said that she ruled several times like democrats.

      Like

      • vikingmom says:

        Barrett or Lagoa? To whom are you referring when you say “she” voted open borders?

        Like

        • “To whom are you referring when you say ‘she’…..” Want to see some real exploding lefty heads? The President nominates a man!

          Liked by 1 person

        • Sentient says:

          I worry that Amy Coney Barrett thinks that antipope Gomer is worth paying a moment’s attention to. If she doesn’t know that Gomer’s not the real pope, I question her intelligence.

          Liked by 1 person

          • vikingmom says:

            Agreed! She is honestly NOT my preferred pick…

            Like

            • fionnagh says:

              Nor mine. Here’s why:
              Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
              Am predicting a vaccine will be mandatory post-election. Hundreds of thousands of citizens will say no and probably have to sue individual states for the freedom to choose. If the suits go all the way to the SC, Barrett will say “yes.”
              She already cited this archaic ruling in a decision regarding Covid lockdowns. Jacobson would work equally well with regard to vaccines.
              I’m already trying to figure out how PT’s “Right to Try” law might be interpreted to the advantage of those who refuse vaccines. As in … the “right to try” alternatives.
              The fact that vaccine manufacturers have immunity from suits is just as egregious as the Jacobson decision.

              Like

              • vikingmom says:

                That’s very concerning… I really wanted Lagoa, for many reasons. I am afraid that Barrett is going to be a grave disappointment to true originalists and conservatives. I pray that I will be proven wrong!

                Like

  6. realeyecandy1 says:

    Mark is coming into his own in this role. I think he was overwhelmed at first but he is really getting good.

    Liked by 8 people

  7. Mike in a Truck says:

    Attention Mitch, Lindsey and all the rest of you Repub Senate squishes: your party owes the DemCongs nothing! Remember Kavanaugh! Should be your battle cry. No friggen hearings. No friggen last minute “witnesses” with beach friends dredged out of some smelly hole. Come out from hiding under your desks for once.VOTE…thats all you need to do.

    Liked by 20 people

  8. bruzedorange says:

    5:00pm Saturday. Considerate.
    ESPN will be able to offer commentary during multiple halftime reports.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Nepanyrush says:

      Hah! Yeah, I decided against an ESPN package a few years ago because of their politics and am so glad that I did. Now, I cannot even go to their website, because it is BLM 24/7.

      Like

  9. bocephusrex says:

    Like Rush said: After what they pulled at Kav’s hearings and then with the faux-impeachment, Mitch should simply throw his weight around and simply VOTE to confirm-no games, no soundbites, no BS lawfare cartoon characters–JUST DO IT AND GET ON WITH IT!

    Liked by 11 people

  10. SomeDemsDidSomething says:

    I wish a Christian nominee would say something like this:

    ” Each of us has a belief system, a system of right and wrong, of acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior. My belief system is based on thousands of years of Judeo-Christian philosophy, including the Ten Commandments. What is your belief system, and what is it based on?”

    By the way, what is Progressivism based on, 100 years of New York Times editorial pages?

    Liked by 10 people

    • Кomrade Яetslag says:

      Or MoDo (Maureen Dowd) OpEd pieces . . .

      Or the Oprah Winfrey show . . .

      Liked by 1 person

    • Kroesus says:

      Its a veil for a 174-year-old philosophy called MARXISM. It was first introduced by Teddy himself and made massive inroads under Wilson. Progressive should more appropriately be called “regressive” because their policies would take civilization back to a simpler less capable era of history. Just as true love can only be derived from God, so too with liberty and wisdom. The Bible speaks of professing to be wise, they are fools. Could you find any greater example of this than the newspeak radicals we regularly see and hear from?

      Liked by 1 person

  11. AussieJo says:

    Our former Ambassador to the U.S, Joe Hockey is a regular on a programme here. He was talking to the host of the programme last week and he said even if Donald Trumps pick isn’t installed before the election, the President has the authority to install an interim Justice and it doesn’t even have to be a lawyer. So if that were to happen, wonder who he would pick.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. I’m sure they’ve got a number of degenerates willing to testify to the nominee’s morals……..
    The no good rat bastards.

    Liked by 1 person

    • WRB says:

      In 2018, the repubs held the Senate, and it is reasonable to suppose that one reason is the voters did not like how Kavanaugh was treated.

      So I am hoping this is a heads, we win, tails you lose situation: the dems either make it a circus (and still fail to stop the nomination, but irritate voters like in 2018) or they don’t, in which case the nomination sails through.

      Like

  13. Magabear says:

    We’ll see how much weight Meadows has with PDJT on this selection. We know who he’s pushing for (good choice). 🙂

    https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/business/article245947040.html

    Liked by 4 people

  14. elgato2020 says:

    Create a commercial using the clips of what they did to Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh and then juxtapose that with how Repubs have treated the Dems nominees. Then explain this is why you won’t hold hearings. Most of the American people have no idea of how nasty the Dems are.

    Liked by 12 people

  15. ROBERT PILCHMAN says:

    Liked by 3 people

    • Nepanyrush says:

      Who exactly is Barnes? He lives on the twitterverse, has a constant campaign against Barrett, always with the broad generalities. I seriously doubt he has gone through all her cases, or that he puts decisions in context. He had one post that was clearly shown a few days ago on CTH as being misleading and I saw a clearly anti-Catholic tweet from him, where he complained she would put her Catholic faith and listening to the Pope above the constitution.

      Robert Pitchman has posted his twitter comments several times. Maybe he can enlighten us of Barnes credentials, other than that he is a lawyer with a constant twitter presence. (I had to block his stuff myself yesterday, he is on such a campaign.)

      Personally, i will trust President Trump, with whoever he picks, over someone trying to fit their thoughts into 280 characters. I expect that the President and his staff have gone in detail through all her decisions, since she was also considered the last time for an open seat.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Magabear says:

        Actually, Barnes says he’s gone thru over 60 of her previous decisions/writings. One may not agree with his reasoning, but he lays out in detail his thoughts on her.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ROBERT PILCHMAN says:

        According to my recollection POTUS Trump retweeted at least once Robert Barnes. So POTUS Trump seems to respect Barnes. Also Alex Jones had him on about this ( https://2020electioncenter.com/watch?id=5f6d2de7ab9d44099a996102 )

        Liked by 1 person

      • Crusty says:

        I don’t know Mr. Barnes from Adam … but I have seen him as a guest on various YouTube video’s. For example, he appears on “The People’s Pundit” series every Monday:

        In addition, he makes a regular appearance on David Freiheit’s daily law-commentary:

        I don’t know the first thing about the law. But it seems like he does.

        Like

      • Newhere says:

        Please take some time to listen to Barnes’s informed and in-depth critique. He actually HAS read her decisions, while many people advocating for her have not.

        Barrett voted to uphold the governor’s draconian lockdown in Illinois. Even worse, the decision embraced a terrible precedent in the Jacobson case, which justified mandatory vaccines. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas and Bill Barr have all criticized that very old decision. But Roberts recently cited which is extremely worrying and Barrett’s recent lockdown decision suggests she’d join him.

        People are making excuses (like she didn’t write the decision, or she was just applying precedent), but Barnes’s point is that a courageous judge in PA applied a different set of jurisprudence to rule AGAINST the governor’s arbitrary draconian measures (in particular the crackdown on church attendance).

        We can’t make the mistake of thinking that the Decepticons don’t get a grip of the SCOTUS pipeline and know how to line up authoritarians who send the right “bat signals” before confirmation. Barrett is being celebrated and pushed by the same people who got behind Fauci and Bolton. She’s a darling of DC intelligensia much like Roberts.

        If she’s nominated, I hope all the GOOD indicators bear out as correct. But we can’t be blind and need to consider other candidates who have good traits and fewer red flags.

        Liked by 5 people

      • stella says:

        One thing that Barnes doesn’t mention is that Barrett was never on the bench before her appointment three years ago. She spent all of her legal life either in private practice or teaching.

        Lagoa, by contrast, has been a judge since 2006.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Old School says:

        Here’s an interview betw Alex Jones & Robt Barnes. Not too long, lays it out pretty plainly. Actually, he paints ACB is downright scary. (And I’m a traditional Catholic; not of the ‘Francis ilk’.)

        Like

        • Nepanyrush says:

          Well, lot of informed responses here. I appreciate the attention to detail. CTH is always the best source for information.

          But, Fox News is reporting the President’s selection will be ACB. If that is the case, time will show whether Barnes and those criticizing her are accurate or the President got it right. I will be curious to see if Barnes stays with his criticism during what will be a contentious process.

          Like

  16. freepetta says:

    Not a word about these newly released documents!!
    Sickening!!

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Dee Paul Deje says:

    Comment deleted by Admin…

    Like

  18. FL_GUY says:

    Perhaps even the RINOs realize if they don’t stop the D-rat vote fraud by supporting President Trump, THEY will lose their place at the trough. Just sayin.,…..

    This election tampering that the D-rats have pulled in key states must NOT stand!

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Ninja7 says:

    Never realized how much humor Mr. Meadows.
    ?As chief of staff you know how many candidate PDJT has interviewed ?

    That is a good question coming from a journalist, as a GOOD chief of staff I am not going to answer that🤗😁🤔🤔

    Like

  20. Magabear says:

    So this is as good a place as any to ask the ACB advocates: Besides her confrontation with Feinstein at her previous confirmation hearing, what is your reasoning for wanting her to be the pick? What rulings of hers stand out as making her the choice? I’ve yet to hear a compelling case made for her but am open to hearing it.

    I so wish this pick didn’t have to be a women. Judge Stickman, who wrote the opinion striking down Herr Wolf’s lockdown on gatherings was a thing of beauty.

    I’m hoping for Rushing, expecting Lagoa and fearful of ACB.

    Liked by 3 people

    • WeThePeople2016 says:

      Tweeted by Trump’s lawyer.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Magabear says:

        See, that article kind of sums up my above question. The article sites her education (all the people on PDJT’s list are tops in their class), her judicial philosophy (everyone on the list is there because they fit the philosophy PDJT wants) and a few cases that were really just slam dunks for any right of center judge. And then it mentions the flap with Feinstein.

        I just fail to see what sets her apart from the others.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Newhere says:

          I agree with you. She joined a decision validating the Illinois Covid lockdown. To me, that’s disqualifying.

          It’s perfectly reasonable that governors would need tools to address a pandemic. What we’ve seen this year is a travesty, and jurisprudence endorsing it should be swept into the dustbin of history, not elevated to the Supreme Court.

          Liked by 5 people

        • Raghn Crow says:

          What is supposed to set her apart from the others is Abortion. She’s got five kids of her own and adopted two. Everyone (Left, Right, Center) expect her to toss Roe. I’m dubious. It is next to impossible to predict which way a justice will decide, though one can bet most of them drift Left over time (therefore Alito and Thomas stand out as true Rocks of Gibraltar, by not doing that).

          My opinion is not worth anything, but I’d say pick Barbara Lagoa to secure Florida and as much as the Latino vote as possible. Then, after the President is re-elected and in control, “pack” the Court with two more justices, extremely secure ones who aren’t professional judges. (There are plenty of great conservative lawyers to choose from.) After all, the Court as been nine justices since the Civil War era. It makes sense to add a couple (not four or six, just two).

          Liked by 2 people

        • stella says:

          There’s the Illinois lockdown decision (negative) and the fact that she only has three years experience as a judge (negative.)

          Like

      • OANN interviewed Jenna recently on “the pick.” I have not watched it yet. Will schedule it in.

        Like

    • Dave Crawford says:

      Sidney is a great American. I agree, based on the Dems disgusting treatment of Kavanaugh, screw them. Pull the scab and just vote. They are going to be apoplectic either way. Why care what they say any more? Only idiots (and I know a lot of them) believe a word they say. Liars, cheats, power-hungry pieces of garbage. That includes the MSM.

      Liked by 1 person

      • G. Alistar says:

        The Kavenaugh hearings cost the dems millions of votes. Let’s give them another opportunity to dork it up again on the eve of the 2020 election.

        Like

        • Fubu says:

          I agree. Let’s let Kamala see how many women she can get pissed at her.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Didn’t Republicans lose the house a month after K’s confirmation?

          Liked by 2 people

          • bessie2003 says:

            Yes, think they did. I had a friend, never voted in her 60+ years of life but made a point of registering and voting Democrat for every candidate on the ballot because she was convinced that President Trump had just put a serial rapist on the Supreme Court, i.e., Kavanaugh.

            She said a lot of friend did likewise, which is why I don’t believe ACB will be the nominee because that will bring every remaining non-registered, non-historical voting liberal out of the closet that the Dem. Party can find in order to save their precious baby-killing abortion game.

            Liked by 3 people

            • TarsTarkas says:

              That’s giving into a threat, same as if POTUS held off making the pick because the Democrats threaten to burn the f**ker down if he does.

              That’s no way to govern. And that’s no way for a political party that wants to govern should act.

              I would go with Lagoa, simply for politics and experience.

              Liked by 1 person

              • bessie2003 says:

                To them, they weren’t giving in. In fact, they believe to this day they are defending the United States by voting against, even hating our President.

                My hope is that neither ACB or Lagoa are the choice; but rather are distractions for the media while the real choice, one who is easily consented to by the full Republican led Senate can cast a quick and sure vote for.

                Whoever it is needs to get in place before the elections. Both these lady Judges would most likely be excellent choices, but not if the Left has already begun ginning up the smear machines.

                Like

          • jeans2nd says:

            Not relevant.
            The House has nothing to do with SCOTUS confirmations. The Senate has total control.
            Pres Trump picked up 4 Senate seats in the 2018 election.

            Liked by 2 people

    • Newhere says:

      IMO, holding a hearing is Mitch’s leverage to be sure Trump picks the candidate he wants. He wants ACB, who I think is apt to turn out like Roberts. If Trump picks her, it’ll go smoothly. If not, Katie bar the door.

      Think about it: Schumer, Feinstein and Pelosi have huffed and puffed but effectively already relented. Mittens has already assented. What is the natural inference? A Uniparty candidate. They all think it’s ACB and are ready to play their roles.

      Liked by 3 people

      • stella says:

        Could be, but I hope not. I don’t know what they would have to dig up to vote down Lagoa, for instance. The Senate confirmed her for the Court of Appeals less than a year ago by a vote of 80-15.

        Liked by 1 person

    • stella says:

      I agree, and poking around I found out the following:

      1. No hearings were held before a SC appointment vote until 1916 (Brandeis). Brandeis did not attend the hearing. I have read the concern that he was Jewish.

      2. No appointee even attended a hearing until 1939 (Frankfurter.) Frankfurter, like Brandeis, was a controversial appointment, especially for his defense of Sacco and Vanzetti during the ’20s, and he was Jewish. Frankfurter attended but took the position that his public record spoke for itself, and he wasn’t going to add to it.

      3. The turning point was Potter Stewart’s nomination in 1959. By that time, southern Democrats were fully hostile to the Supreme Court because of its desegregation decisions, and conservative Republicans were worried about the Supreme Court over national security issues, and Stewart got a fair grilling. But like other nominees, he didn’t provide them any answers.

      4. In the history of the Supreme Court, there have been 114 justices since 1789. Only ELEVEN have been rejected by a roll-call vote, and six of them were nominated again and confirmed to other seats on the court. Only TWO were rejected on roll-call vote in the past fifty years – Bork (Reagan) in 1987, and Carswell (Nixon) in 1970.

      Doesn’t seem to me that the Judiciary Committee hearings accomplish much more than political grandstanding.

      Liked by 2 people

      • GB Bari says:

        Doesn’t seem to me that the Judiciary Committee hearings accomplish much more than political grandstanding.

        Exactly. Great reason to ditch the camera & mic-ready theatrics and get on with a vote.

        Like

  21. rustybritches says:

    How can you trust the Republicans when they just signed a bill with the dems to say they will go along with the peaceful transfer of power If Joe Biden Wins? How about some of these idiots just saying because of what the Dems and Obama and his goons did to the President, They would not sign anything until the election is over .. My gosh, Why do these people not stand up for the President He works his butt off to help them and this is what they do to him over and over again/

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Skippy says:

    Meadows is great!

    Like

  23. Skippy says:

    Meadows is great!

    Like

  24. Leon Brozyna says:

    Let’s really give those Schumer thugs a real fit … skip the hearings dog-and-pony show … do it like during the FDR years and go straight to a floor vote to confirm.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Magabear says:

      Dear Sen. Shumer:

      Due to the worst virus ever to visit the USA (I mean, isn’t that what you and your fellow party members tell us every day?), the vote will be done on conference call. Safety first!

      With warmest regards,
      Mitch McConnell

      😁😁😁😁😁

      Like

  25. Guyski says:

    The dimms will b!tch, whine and moan then do nothing to delay this nomination. 🤔

    Like

  26. ..yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees…straight to a floor vote….past more than 3.5 yrs show theatrics of democrats party is over…

    Liked by 2 people

  27. trapper says:

    The US Supreme Court is currently comprised of:
    5 Catholics,
    2 Jews,
    1 Protestant, an Episcopalian who was raised Catholic

    This is totally out of whack. The US has twice as many Protestants as Catholics, and 20 times as many Protestants as Jews. The next FOUR picks should all be Protestant Christians and one should be Baptist. Catholics have taken over the Supreme Court. NO MORE CATHOLICS. And just to be clear, Muslims don’t even belong on the list.

    Like

    • IdahoDeplorable says:

      Why are there so many Catholics and only one Protestant? Are all those on the short list also Catholic? Apparently, the two front-runners are.

      Like

    • Raghn Crow says:

      Religious affiliation means little. First of all, legally, there’s specifically a no religious test clause in the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 3). Barrett should have slapped down Feinstein when the latter said, “The dogma lives loudly within you.” “Senator, you don’t know squat about the Constitution. Read Article VI, Clause 3. Educate yourself, you old trout.”

      And then there are “Catholics” and there are “Catholics.” Thomas and Alito seem to be strong ones, Anthony Kennedy of the gay marriage vote was a bad one. Kavanagh, Kennedy’s chosen replacement, does a lot of social work/soup kitchen stuff, but seems a squish. Roberts is a scoundrel, pure and simple. Gorsuch, the Episcopalian, wrote an opinion that any man can claim to be a woman, thus legally negating the entire female sex. One of the Jews is a Lesbian and both Jews are very Left. So is Sotomayor, a Catholic.

      Bottom Line: An Orthodox Jew or conservative Protestant or Trad Catholic would never get confirmed. Simple as that.

      Liked by 1 person

      • TRAPPER says:

        So ….. the last sentence of your argument, which you omitted, goes something like “so we have to nominate another Catholic.” No. I’m not buying it.

        Like

      • trapper says:

        “An Orthodox Jew or conservative Protestant or Trad Catholic would never get confirmed. Simple as that.”

        If it is impossible to confirm a practicing believing Protestant to the Supreme Court, then this country has a hell of a lot worse problems than we realize. There was a John Cleese skit about the various countries’ terrorist alert levels in which he stated that Scots had only two levels : “pissed off” and “let’s get the bastards.” Well, America’s Protestants have been cruising at the upper limit of “pissed off” for quite a while but we are too polite and self-controlled to let you see it.

        This nominee should be NOT Catholic, Jew, Black or Latinx.

        Like

        • Magabear says:

          Your second to last paragraph is spot on, IMO. As an evangelical, I really do get tired of being treated like a step child by the people we do so much work for.

          Like

  28. Walt says:

    The left in Chicago is pushing for Barrett. That is not a positive.
    We’ve had enough of Chicago lawyers.

    Like

  29. stella says:

    The President will choose who he thinks is best politically and for the Court.

    My favorite at the moment is Barbara Lagoa. Here’s why:

    1. She was confirmed to the 11th Circuit Court with a vote of 80-15 in the Senate less than one year ago. Judiciary Committee vote 18-4. Barrett’s votes were 55-43 and 11-9. It will be harder for the Senate to reject Lagoa this time.

    2. Lagoa is a Latina from a working class background. A Florida Cuban pick is good in an election year.

    3. Lagoa has 14 years experience as a judge. Barrett only has 3 years.

    4. Lagoa is also a conservative judge (and a Catholic) who will do well on the SC.

    5. We need to get a quick confirmation, so that we have nine justices when the election related cases hit the court. Can’t risk a 4-4 tie on any of them. If there is a tie, the lower court decision will stand.

    Liked by 4 people

  30. Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

    No matter who is put forth tomorrow there is no good reason why the confirmation process has to last more than a week. No need to give the democRATS any more free television facetime to rant on and on with their lies and obfuscations about the state of the nation and orange man bad.

    Put it on the fast track Mitch!

    Liked by 2 people

  31. Bubby says:

    I just hope whoever is nominated that become the next Scalia!

    Like

  32. Newhere says:

    For those cheering “straight to the floor” and uncritically gushing over ACB — need to let the (justified) euphoria wear off, drink some hot coffee and sober up.

    The Uniparty remains the Uniparty. SSCI and leadership of both parties remains criminally compromised, and remember, there are TRILLIONS AT STAKE.

    A SCOTUS pick is as important as AG or DNI or NSA. More important. To the extent the dems will DO ANYTHING to protect themselves, so will McConnell and the gaggle he controls.

    Why hasn’t Mitch ALREADY set out a schedule — or better — declared it’s going straight to a floor vote? Leverage. He needs to make sure Trump picks the right person, and all signs indicate that person is ACB.

    It’s a mistake to get reflexively protective of ACB. Bear in mind, all of the Beltway, cocktail party, think tank GOP is fawning over her. That’s a red flag. Honest, small government patriots are sounding the alarm on recent approval of Illinois lockdown, which validates the unconstitutional notion that a gov can declare an emergency and ignore the Constitution. That’s bad. She’s only been on the bench for a few short years, and prior to that is through-and-through gilded DC elite (clerk, corporate practice, academia). A lot like Roberts.

    Watch what the Uniparty is doing: it’s positioning itself for an easy confirmation before the election. Dem leadership has already conceded its whacko options. Pelosi said no impeachment and ruled out holding the debt ceiling hostage. Feinstein crapped on the idea of ditching the filibuster as retribution. Those are reasonable things. But why are the DEMS being pre-emptively reasonable? Why are Mittens and Lamar Alexander already voicing support?

    Taken together, the Uniparty has signaled an unimpeded path to confirmation. It’ll be ugly, sure, but unimpeded.

    But notice that in an interview with Bartiromo, Meadows casually let slip that they look forward to a vote before OR SOON AFTER the election.

    WTF???????

    He’s giving away the game right there. McConnell is holding them hostage with process and votes. Mitch is keeping his options open on schedule, process and final votes to be sure Trump picks the right person, and that right person is ACB.

    This election very well could hang in the balance of judicial decisions, meaning this Justice could decide the next President. Roberts is unreliable to say the least, meaning this seat could be the tie breaker. Does anyone think Mitch has lost sight of that? Does anyone think Mitch is thinking about what’s best for Trump or MAGA? There are trillions at stake, and criminality to protect.

    An open SCOTUS seat is elating and a huge morale boost, but we’ve got to stay focused on the big picture.

    Like

    • Magabear says:

      You make some good points above, but I think Turtle, Meadows and others are deliberately being somewhat vague so as to keep the demonrats off balance as much as possible. Mitch is very good at playing that game with the dimms.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Newhere says:

        Yes …. but Mitch is good at playing this game with Trump, too. Think about impeachment. Mitch could have acted quickly while Pelosi was still mulling over when to actually send over the articles. He could have whipped his caucus to vote immediately once she finally did send over articles. He could have ensured Eric Ciaramella’s name made it to the public record. At each point or question, he interpreted norms and decorum AGAINST Trump’s interests, but didn’t have to. His decisions helped drag it out and helped keep key facts off the Congressional record.

        Mitch may be toying with dems. But Trump is the one who’s a threat to Mitch’s interests, and process/votes are his leverage.

        Like

  33. Guyski says:

    President Trump can nominate, but he can also withdraw that nomination at anytime.🤔

    Like

    • WRB says:

      That does not sound practical with such a short window.

      Before the election, even the squish repubs will stick together. But if e.g. Collins loses in Maine, and the other squishes decide the “voters have spoken”, any nomination that remains open after the Nov 3 election could fail. And if the POTUS loses (i.e. fraud carries the day) or the Senate flips, then no (decent) nomination will survive. Then you can say, Hello Merrick Garland (as a best case scenario).

      Like

  34. BruceC says:

    Ok, it’s 8:20 am Saturday morning here in Oz, and yet the morning news is already saying that Pres. Trump has selected ACB. I went searching for this ‘breaking news’ and the only news article I could find was from … you guessed it … the NYT.

    Like

  35. secund2nun says:

    I hope it’s Lagoa. ACB has been a judge for only 3 years and she already has several bad decisions like the forced vaccinations and pro-lockdown rullings. Also the establishment wants her, which is a bad sign. Lagoa has 14 years of experience and she has no bad decisions. Also she is Cuban, latina, and a Floridian so she will give an election boost. She is also easier to confirm than ACB. ACB could be a snake like Roberts. I also don’t like how ACB is in that handmaiden religious cult and I don’t like her writings about the pope, even if they are old.

    Another good thing about Lagoa is that she was part of the decision affirming the fact that the felons in Florida have to pay their fines and court costs before they can vote, which will prevent many democrat votes in Florida. She is a true conservative and this presidential election could go to the SC. Lagoa will be in Trump’s corner if that happens. I can’t say for sure if ACB would.

    Trump should trust his instincts. Go with Lagoa. Stop listening to the swamp with personnel decisions. That’s how he selected trash like Wray, Rosenstein, etc.

    As for Mitch there is no way he leaves the SC seat open past election day because he is up for re-election himself and an open SC seat will increase dumbocrat voter turnout. He will get it filled even if Trump picks someone that he does not prefer.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Y2K says:

    If it is Amy she was just confirmed three years ago

    I wonder how Mitch can leverage that to speed up the process?

    Like

  37. Magabear says:

    It mau be Barrett……or maybe not. Anonymous sources…….where have we heard this before? 🤔

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Amber says:

    I think POTUS’ camp leaked that Barret is his pick and he’ll end up picking Lagoa

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s