Image 01 Image 03

Dishonest Kamala Lied About Honest Abe

Dishonest Kamala Lied About Honest Abe

No, Kamala Harris, Abe Lincoln didn’t avoid filling SCOTUS seat because It was close to the election

Kamala Harris tried to school Vice President Mike Pence to defend the Democrats’ fight not to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Harris avoided Pence’s question about Joe Biden, and the Democrats wish to pack the court and incorrectly explained why President Abe Lincoln didn’t fill a vacancy 27 days before the election.

From The Washington Post:

“There have been 29 vacancies on the Supreme Court during presidential election years from George Washington to Barack Obama, and the presidents have nominated in all 29 cases,” Pence said, failing to mention his party refused to vote on Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. “But your party is actually openly advocating adding seats to the Supreme Court, which has had nine seats for 150 years, if you don’t get your way.”

“I’m so glad we went through a little history lesson. Let’s do that a little more,” Harris responded. “In 1864 … Abraham Lincoln was up for reelection. And it was 27 days before the election. And a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln’s party was in charge not only of the White House but the Senate. But Honest Abe said, ‘It’s not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the United States, and then that person will be able to select who will serve on the highest court of the land.’”

Yes, Lincoln faced a SCOTUS vacancy 27 days before the election when Justice Roger Taney passed away in October 1864.

No, Lincoln did not choose to fill the vacancy because it was too close to the election.

Lincoln chose not to fill it to get Salmon P. Chase and other candidates to campaign for him (emphasis mine):

As ever, Lincoln was the shrewd politician and in October of 1864 he saw no profit in alienating any of the factions of his political support by making a selection before the election. There is no evidence that he seriously considered announcing his choice before he was re-elected.

Lincoln was not, however above using the enticement of the office to encourage campaigning on his behalf. The highest prize in that regard was the active political support of Salmon P. Chase, the former Senator, Governor, Secretary of the Treasury, and presidential candidate and a towering figure in the country. In the apt analysis of historian David Donald, after Taney’s death in October 1864 Chase took the “cue” and stumped for Lincoln throughout the Midwest in marked contrast to his earlier maneuverings in 1864 to replace Lincoln as President.[22] (Of course, Chase’s unusual behavior did not go unnoticed and rumors of a bargain surfaced.)[23]

Lincoln won the election in early November. He nominated Chase right after the Senate reconvened in December.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Let us “mansplain” this to you Kamala….. Being so averse to being lectured to, you obviously avoided all history lectures in college. So you make it all up.

I am not convinced that Harris is committed to the legacy of Lincoln. ‘To bind up the Nation’s wounds… with charity to all and malice towards none…’

Nice try. Unfortunately for her argument, she undercut it by admitting that Lincoln as POTUS had the authority to nominate someone to fill the vacancy. That he decided to exercise his authority by declining to make a nomination for political expediency simply shows that the choice is up to the POTUS.

Confirmed: Michael Beschloss is a tool.

Barry Soetoro | October 8, 2020 at 12:03 pm

Only a fool would believe anything uttered by a Democrat.

Funny, I didn’t see any of the “fact checkers” pick this up.

    henrybowman in reply to Massinsanity. | October 8, 2020 at 4:33 pm

    Snopes rated it a flat “False.” For them to do this to a Democrat means the Democrat was caught on video being handcuffed at the bank exit with the bag of cash and a revolver.

The Senate was an almost completely Democrat-free zone in 1864, so confirmation of a justice would be an entirely Republican affair no matter when it was done.

All Senators from slave states—with the sole exception of Andrew Johnson of Tennessee—resigned when their states seceded. So Democratic Senators were not a significant political factor in Washington during Lincoln’s terms. And, obviously, even Democrat Johnson left the Senate when he was elected as Lincoln’s VP.

2smartforlibs | October 8, 2020 at 12:18 pm

Like anyone going to fact check a liberal in the propaganda machine.

Aside from dangling it for Chase, the Senate was in recess. There is no way that Lincoln would have waited until after the inaugural because at that time the delay between the election and inauguration was four and half months. The President dodn’t take office till March. That interregnum and Polk’s behaviour during it was one reason that the civil war happened.

But here is my first reaction Harris. If I were debating I would have asked who the judge being replaced was. Taney would have been a pleasant surprise. Then he should have pointed out Lincoln delayed changing the ideological bent of the SCOTUS that crafted The Dred Scott decision . Much less replace the judge that was mostly responsible for that decision.

    alaskabob in reply to thad_the_man. | October 8, 2020 at 12:40 pm

    Yes…Taney, who only recently had his statue removed in Maryland. Taney who noted that if Negros were afforded the rights of whites they would be able to “keep and bear arms”. That Taney…a Democrat then, a Democrat today… a Democrat forever.

I found both debates mostly annoying.
They are trying to run them like a game show.

Black lies matter

Black liars matter

Black olives on my pizza matter

History is about old stuff.
Besides, Lincoln is a dead white male.

Her gotcha line got her. Why didn’t she call out barryo for not naming an african american for a court seat?

What has she ever NOT lied about? I’ll wait.

Another Dem-Prog-Lefty distortion cum misrepresentation of the real, historical fact — is it exceptional or routine?

Hear and watch David Horowitz’s unique and masterly perspective in an interview led (sort of) by Minnesota-based Alpha News reporter (and St Olaf College sophomore) Kyle Hooten (who very politely and graciously tried to finish each of his many fine, illuminating questions, put to a rather garrulous and lively, and as usual, most informative and authoritative Horowitz, always at the ready to inform).

Hooten is a knowledgeable and insightful inquirer (and a really patient and accommodating, even magnanimous interlocutor). David Horowitz, as many of you might already know, is a venerable institution of freedom unto himself, a still-recovering radical leftist from the 60s and 70s, whose parents were early Cold-War American Communists, being ardent, long-time supporters of Josef Stalin. Horowitz knows the Left’s motivations and aims, their Uncle Joe, whether Stalin or Biden’s, appeal notwithstanding, from the inside out. It’s just a matter of degree, rather than core-quality or nature.

The story of Democrat-Progressive-Lefty lying as a matter of policy and more — in relation especially to the upcoming election — is laid out in clear and certain historical fact-patterns for the listener/viewer of this highly revealing and fascinating 47-minute Q & A.

Harris lied. Color me surprised. Not.