Image 01 Image 03

The Godfather Part SCOTUS: Preparing for Democrats to “go to the mattresses” over Trump pick

The Godfather Part SCOTUS: Preparing for Democrats to “go to the mattresses” over Trump pick

NY Times Editorial Board calls on “Democrats and progressives to take a page from ‘The Godfather’ and go to the mattresses” to prevent conservative shift in Supreme Court.

There is unhinged.

And then there is NY Times Editorial Board unhinged.

The Editorial Board issued a call for Democrats to go all Godfather in fighting whomever Trump picks to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy:

With Republicans controlling the Senate and the judicial filibuster dead, the Democrats’ odds of denying President Trump a second Supreme Court appointment are slim. Barring some unforeseen development, the president will lock in a 5-to-4 conservative majority, shifting the court solidly to the right for a generation.

This is all the more reason for Democrats and progressives to take a page from “The Godfather” and go to the mattresses on this issue. Because this battle is about more than a single seat on the nation’s highest court. With public attention focused on all that is at stake with this alignment, this is the moment for Democrats to drive home to voters the crucial role that the judiciary plays in shaping this nation, and why the courts should be a key voting concern in Every. Single. Election.

This call to arms may sound overly dramatic. It’s not….

The Godfather reference of “going to the mattresses” refers to a total war between the crime families.

This certainly sounds like eliminationist rhetoric.

It’s a sign of just how insane the reaction is going to be regardless of who Trump picks among the likely contenders. There will be a vicious smear campaign, and in the current climate, we can expect attempts at intimidation.

The pick comes Monday night. Get ready.

I don’t have a personal favorite on the merits. It seems that all of the names near the top of the list would be okay, and the differences are nuances.

I received the compendium of columns below from an email list I’m on, and it seemed like a good summary and links to the case for each of the top contenders:

The Case for Brett Kavanaugh – by J.D. Vance
James David “J. D.” Vance is an American author and venture capitalist known for his memoir Hillbilly Elegy.

From the start of his career, he’s applied the Constitution faithfully, even when that made him a lonely voice. … The through line in Judge Kavanaugh’s jurisprudence is his capable and committed defense of the Constitution and other laws—as written. His 12-year record is one of consistent textualist and originalist jurisprudence. … Judge Kavanaugh’s record shows him to be a jurist who adheres to his principles and can influence his future colleagues on the bench.


Here’s who Trump should pick for the Supreme Court – by Hugh Hewitt
Hugh Hewitt is an American radio talk show host with the Salem Radio Network and a lawyer, academic, and author.

So the first question is: Has the nominee ruled steadily in a fashion consistent with the original intent of the Constitution and its amendments and faithful to the statutes passed by the executive and legislative branches? Kethledge’s record shows that in his case, the answer is a resounding “yes.” He has stood strongly with free exercise rights, siding for example with a church and its volunteers against the Labor Department’s bureaucrats, writing a separate concurrence to emphasize “The Department should tend to what is Caesar’s, and leave the rest alone.” He has an exemplary record on Second Amendment rights, concurring with his colleague Judge Jeffrey Sutton’s declaration of the right to bear arms as “fundamental” in a crucial en banc case on the amendment. … In these and many more cases, Kethledge has been faithful for more than a decade to the originalist approach.


Trump should nominate Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court – by Richard Garnett
Professor Richard W. Garnett teaches and writes about the freedoms of speech, association, and religion and constitutional law more generally.

Crucially, Barrett was already confirmed by the Senate eight months ago by a 55-43 vote for her seat on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. She secured the votes of a few critical Democratic senators from moderate states, including Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Joe Donnelly of Indiana. Winning the support of a few Democrats could be the key to winning Senate confirmation for Barrett if she is President Trump’s pick to replace Kennedy. Senators Manchin, Donnelly and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota are three Democrats facing tough difficult re-election races who could find it difficult to oppose Barrett. All three have already met with President Trump to discuss his upcoming Supreme Court nominee. … Barrett is careful, conscientious, civil, and charitable, and blessed with an unusual combination of decency, grace under pressure, kindness, rigor, and judgment. If nominated and confirmed, she would be an outstanding justice, committed to the rule of law and to the faithful performance of her judicial duty.


Trump should take a serious look at Amul Thapar for the Supreme Court – by Ilya Shapiro
Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.

Thapar’s background suggests he shares the values of ordinary citizens, including a deep appreciation for America’s opportunity. Thapar was on a plane on 9/11. After learning of the attacks mid-air, he vowed that if his plane landed safely, he would dedicate his career to serving the country he loved. Thapar promptly left his elite law firm and began what has now been 12 years of his public service. … Over the last decade, Thapar has issued over 600 opinions, being reversed only 11 times. He even wrote 36 opinions (and joined 84 others) as an appellate judge “sitting by designation” while he was still on the trial bench — meaning that he sought out and was asked to undertake far more work and greater responsibility than was required. Choose one of his writings at random and the same principle always shines through: a judge holding himself to the judiciary’s proper role by hewing closely to the text of the law.


Judge Kethledge Faithfully Applies Immigration Laws — by Roger Meyers
Roger Meyers clerked for Judge Kethledge from 2009 to 2010, and now practices law in Troy, Mich., at Bush Seyferth & Paige, PLLC, a firm in which Judge Kethledge was a founding partner in 2003.

According to former clerk to Judge Kethledge, Roger Meyers, “Judge Kethledge approaches immigration cases the same way he approaches every case: by focusing on the ordinary meaning of the laws that were enacted by the politically accountable branches, without fear or favor.”


With Brett Kavanaugh, America will have a bold, brilliant Supreme Court Justice – by Matt Schlapp
Matt Schlapp is the chairman of the American Conservative Union and CPAC

Over his 12 years on the D.C. Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh has consistently, boldly, and fearlessly applied textualism and originalism to a striking range of legal issues. Even more impressive is that, during the past decade, the Supreme Court has adopted Kavanaugh’s position an astonishing 11 times. He literally wrote the book on judicial precedent, with Justice Gorsuch as one of his co-authors. … Judge Kavanaugh’s demonstrated record of bold constitutional conservatism means we don’t have to be told or to take on faith how he will make determinations. His more than 300 written opinions reveal his trust in the words of the Constitution and its application to government actions.

Mark Levin adds Mike Lee to the mix:

One thing this compendium shows is that conservatives have a deep judicial bench from which to fill this vacancy, and the additional vacancies that very easily could happen in the near future given the ages of the Justices.

That’s what really scares the NY Times Editors. To them, the barbarians already are inside the gates.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I hope they don’t mind being overwhelmed by the the deplorable bedbugs.

Call me petty but I want Trump to pick Amy Coney Barret. Why?
because it sounds hse will create the greatest amount of fireworks.

Getting the popcorn ready.

    Jackie in reply to RodFC. | July 7, 2018 at 11:03 pm

    Same here. Democrat heads will explode. They will look for something insignificant on her and play it up. At least she is immune from the race card having adopted 2 black children.

      NavyMustang in reply to Jackie. | July 8, 2018 at 1:08 am

      “At least she is immune from the race card having adopted 2 black children.”

      The progs will say it’s cultural appropriation.

        Actually, what they will say (because they’ve said it repeatedly about multi-racial conservative couples / families) is that the non-minority member(s) of the family is just a raaaaacist, and the minority member(s) of the family is (if adult) an *insert race appropriate term* race traitor little brown f*ck machine / if child a stage prop for raaaacism.

        These people are disgusting.

        amwick in reply to NavyMustang. | July 8, 2018 at 4:17 pm

        Actually somebody made a comment about her adopting black children so she could have slaves. I don’t think you can get much lower than that.

      dmo in reply to Jackie. | July 8, 2018 at 9:49 am

      Jackie: At least she is immune from the race card having adopted 2 black children.

      For some reason, I see a “High-Tech Lynch-Mob” in these kids’ future, if she is nominated.

“Senator? You can have my answer now, if you like. My offer is this: nothing. Not even the fee for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally.”

First we did Harry Potter analogies.
Then we graduated to A Handmaid’s Tale.
Now, it’s The Godfather.

If I were the Left’s mom, I’d take away their Netflix privileges for a month and tell them to go outside and interact with actual human beings for a while. The longer they stay in their Hollywood-Media Complex bubble, the bigger a surprise 2020 is going to be for them.

Don Corleon

“I’m a superstitious man, and if some unlucky accident should befall Michaell – if he is shot in the head by a police officer, or found hung dead in a jail cell…or he is struck by a bolt of lightning – then I’m going to blame some of the people in this room and then I am not going to forgive.

But with that said, “I pledge – on the souls of my grandchildren – that I will not be the one to break the peace that we have made today. “

True liberal insanity on display here.

Kennedy had said that he was planning on retiring in 2017 or 2018. This was known two whole years ago. when he scheduled a reunion of his former law clerks before its usual five year anniversary. In 2016, it was not of overwhelming importance to the liberal elite, as they all thought that HRC would be the next President. The Dems were not too worried about the GOP holding up the Garland nomination as HRC would get to name the Scalia successor and the successor for any other SCOTUS opening for the next four years. Surprise!!! HRC lost and Trump won. Now, all of the chickens are coming home to roost. And, there is really nothing that they can do stop it, legally.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Mac45. | July 8, 2018 at 1:00 am

    “Legally”. Since when does the law impede the Left’s quest for absolute power?

They’ll wind up on mattresses in prison. Or coffins.

Enslaving us won’t be a winning game for anyone trying it.

Mark Michael | July 7, 2018 at 10:49 pm

The statists see their elevated, superior branch of government, the SCOTUS, being downgraded to mere equal status with the Congress and the executive branch. They not only see their ability to write legislation from the bench which they were unable to get thru the Congress & have whoever is President sign, but – horror of horrors – may see some of the previous SCOTUS legislation repealed by an originalist S. Court. So their nightmares are legitimate.

But as a freedom-loving, limited government person, I temper my excitement over this justice appointment. Chief Justice Roberts had the chance to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional – at least its mandate, and he caved in/weasled out and rewrote the law to pretend it was constitutional. (You all recall that disappointment. Sen. Ted Cruz had worried that Roberts would do something like that.) ObamaCare is driving up many folks’s health insurance costs unmercifully. It (mostly) remains on the books. That old bugaboo, stare decisis, may inhibit the new justice along with Chf. Justice Roberts once he or she is sitting on the bench.

Heck, I’d like to see the vast array of federal domestic programs declared unconstitutional, but I strongly doubt that’s going to happen. There’s not an “enumerated” word about education, charity (“means-tested” welfare programs), HUD projects, energy projects, etc. in the U.S. Constitution.

    tom_swift in reply to Mark Michael. | July 7, 2018 at 11:09 pm

    The statists see their elevated, superior branch of government, the SCOTUS, being downgraded to mere equal status with the Congress and the executive branch.

    Unfortunately, there’s no sign of this happening, or even being taken seriously, in the near future. The Leftoids are hysterical not because SCOTUS über alles is at risk, but because it might not be an activist left-wing SCOTUS. The US will still be left with the absurd condition of a few lifetime appointees, answerable to no one, deciding questions of national policy at their sole whim. The fact that a few originalists might be able to reverse, even if only slightly, the horrific damage SCOTUS has inflicted on American law & order over the past half-century, is not really a durable fix.

“Going to the mattresses” means, among other things, criminal (as in homicidal) activity. What are they planning to do, start shooting at Senators? (They’ve already used Representatives for target practice; is it time to branch out?) It would be nice if someone took this seriously.

Breitbart has a theory that Kethledge is a bit squishy on illegal immigration, albeit nowhere near “emanations of penumbras” territory, and has some documentation to back that claim up.

The history of women on the Court has been disastrous, and the Senators who will be voting on confirmation know this. So nomination of Barrett brings some obvious risks. The fact that she would annoy the Leftoids no end, while no doubt true, would be a frivolous justification for her nomination. Let’s leave the frivolous indulgences to the D’rats.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to tom_swift. | July 8, 2018 at 1:06 am

    The New York Times is, in fact, calling for the murder of political opponents. They are changing the rules. They think that the change will be unilateral. They are not going to be happy if they are proven wrong.

      tom_swift in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | July 8, 2018 at 1:53 am

      They think that the change will be unilateral.

      There’s little reason to believe that conservatives are particularly violent, even when they might have justification for it. Sure, if I was attacked, I’d not only blow holes in somebody, but I’d give them the choice of caliber they want to be ventilated by. But I’m not going to be attacked, as I’m a target of no political significance. And I’m not going to shoot at any Democrats just for general principles, even if they’re practicing baseball.

      No, I’m afraid the violence initiative will remain with our wacko Left.

I see the King of Swamp Creatures, Hugh Hewitt, is pushing Kethledge. That’s the Kiss of Death in my book.

Anything and I do mean ANYTHING he recommends, do yourself a favor and consider a 180.

    Matt_SE in reply to MMinLamesa. | July 8, 2018 at 9:50 am

    Unless it’s a double bluff!
    But seriously, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Kethledge is actually my current favorite too, mainly because he’s not from Harvard or Yale. That sounds silly, but it’s actually very important. Very important.

Unknown3rdParty | July 8, 2018 at 9:02 am

From other sources, McConnell appears to want Kethledge because he’s not a “consistent conservative”.

If that’s the case, I would recommend dropping Kethledge from consideration like a hot potato.

I’m just going to drop this here. The New York Times is busy turning people into cave-dwellers.

Close The Fed | July 8, 2018 at 9:30 am

With all due respect to Professor Jacobson, when it comes to illegal aliens and legal aliens, “nuance” is exactly what those cases turn on for Kethledge and Gorsuch, for that matter.

It will be breaking his single greatest campaign promise. Deporting aliens is too hard- PRECISELY because of judges creating all manner of “nuances” to allow them to stay.

Close The Fed | July 8, 2018 at 9:34 am

Also, I see no actual downside to a judge being denied confirmation. Trump just nominates someone even Stronger after the midterms. Who knows how many Senate seats we will pick up?

Plus, it’s always possible one Senator will succumb to illness and a conservative Senator will replace him. We know Flake will be gone.

    txvet2 in reply to Close The Fed. | July 8, 2018 at 12:07 pm

    I’ve been thinking along the same lines, but that’s risky strategy. Trump could put up a weaker candidate first expecting the Senate to reject the nominee, so that there would be a better chance that a stronger candidate would have less of a hill to climb. That strategy fails for a few reasons: One, that there’s no guarantee that the second candidate would fare any better than the first, and two, although the odds seem against it, we could end up with a Democrat majority Senate who wouldn’t seat ANY conservative leaning justice, and third, that the first nominee might actually be seated, leaving us with a weaker than necessary court. And then obviously there’s the fourth reason, which is, why would any candidate allow him/herself to be put up as a stalking horse, with all the personal attacks and negative press effectively ruining their reputation, if not their career, with the expectation of being defeated?

      Close The Fed in reply to txvet2. | July 8, 2018 at 1:50 pm

      I hear what you’re saying. I’m not suggesting a nominee as a stalking horse, merely that if not confirmed, it’s not the end of the world, there is another bite at the apple.

      McCain, if he could be present, would vote against Trump because that’s the way McCain rolls.

      As for the RINO female senators (who are Convinced that women need abortion!! Amazing – – – – ) I don’t think anyone will satisfy them unless the nominee come out and say they will support Roe v. Wade.

      The idea we shouldn’t know these positions is laughable. The only time you shouldn’t ask a nominee their policy positions is when it applies to specific parties in a specific case.

      There’s zero justification for letting these 9 lawyers without narrow life experience to rule 280 million Americans (okay, I’m not counting the damn illegal aliens here, all of which seem to be in my state’s schools).

I think you are all misunderstanding. “Go to the mattress” isn’t a Godfather reference, it refers to their reporters and sources.

Michael – How bad is it going to be?

Pretty G—d—m bad. Probably all the other families will line up against us. That is all right. These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years. You gotta stop them at the beginning. Like they should have stopped Hitler at Munich. They should never have let him get away with that. They were just asking for trouble.

It is no secret that many voted for Trump because of the SC. If the Democrats and Collins were smart they would let this go without burning their bridges with swing and religious voters.

If they were to smoke this nominee there wouldn’t be any survivors in the TEN (10) states Trump won in 2016. The next nominee would then face 60-61 Senators and this game played with the first nominee will not only be pointless but provide a Senate majority through many election cycles for Trump.

The best counter to this would seem to schedule the vote in the Senate for the week of July 16-20, i.e. NEXT week. This prevents the Dems from spending weeks burning the nominee’s reputation and hyping up their legions of perpetual outrage. The end quotes write themselves

“The nominee X has already gone through a Senate confirmation vote to go onto the Appellate court, and there were no real issues at that time. Besides, he/she has been on President Trump’s public list of nominees for Y months, and none of the Senators raised any solid objections during that time, so there’s no reason not to bring them up to a vote now so the Senate can continue with our important work. (Unspoken: Instead of listening to the Dems whine and posture on national TV for endless weeks)

Hopefully Don Willett to replace Ruth Bader Gasbag when the time comes.