Elder Patriot – The chairman of the Democratic National Committee Tom Perez told an audience on Sunday that Republican lawmakers must “pay a price” for confirming Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court.
Perez is using Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation to stoke the raw emotions of his his rank and file solely for the purpose of fundraising.
The fact is Republican senators used their majority – a majority the voters bestowed on them out of disgust with the new radicalism that has consumed the Democratic Party – to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the high court as voters authorized them to do.
Democrats who argue that this was payback for the Republican senate rejecting Merrick Garland after Barack Obama nominated are way off base.
Charles Hurt explained the difference:
If you go back and consult the Constitution, you will remember that the president is charged with nominating Supreme Court justices. The Senate is charged with providing “advice and consent,” meaning confirmation or rejection.
Merrick Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court at a time when American voters had expressly put Republicans in charge of the Senate. If voters wanted Mr. Obama to have a free hand in selecting a Supreme Court nominee in his final two years in office, they would have elected Democrats to control the Senate.
They did not. As such, a majority of the Senate declined to confirm Merrick Garland. That is democracy at work.
Remember, during the 2016 campaign Donald Trump made his intention to appoint conservative judges a central focus of his campaign. And Republicans ran on the importance of who would be appointing the new Supreme Court justices.
After Obama nominated him, Senate Republican did not engage in a smear campaign to destroy Merrick Garland and his family solely to achieve their ideological ends. They were simply exercising their constitutional authority and left it to the voters to vote them out if they were unhappy with them.
Would Democrats have thought it okay if Senate Republicans brought forth allegations that Garland was a sexual predator, went through a sham prosecution of him, and then voted no?
Merrick Garland suffered the lawful will of a Republican-led Senate. Filibusters against judicial nominees, on the other hand, are carried out by rogue insurgencies inside a Senate minority, preying on the long-outdated mannerly customs of a collegial U.S. Senate.
By definition, filibusters are not expressing the will of the elected Senate. Rather, filibusters thwart the will of the Senate by a guerrilla minority.
In other words, Democrats hijacked the Senate and handed it over to “tyranny of the minority.”
Hurt hit the nail square. Add to that the despicable way Senate Democrats manufactured the sordid two-week delay and you can see how Perez and elected Democrats are essentially campaigning against the proper exercise of power as outlined in the Constitution.
This has become standard operating proceeding for Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee as former conservative Supreme Court nominees, Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito can attest to.
The Democratic Party will continue employing these tactics as long as their rank and file continue sending them money.
As far as the exercise of raw political power, that’s what the Marxist Democrats employed during Obama’s first two years when Democrats controlled governing majorities in both Houses of Congress.
Democrats used that to shove Obamacare and Dodd-Frank down our throats without a single Republican vote.
All of this says more about who party leadership is courting than anything else.