Senate Hearing On Supreme Court Was “Bad Faith” By “Angry, Bitter Democrat Senators Who Are Furious” There’s A Conservative Majority
My appearance on Chicago’s Morning Answer: “They lost that fight, but they’re not giving it up. This is because they are furious that there is an institution left in this country. All the rest have been gutted by the left. There’s one institution that hasn’t been, and so they’re gonna take it down.”
I had the pleasure to appear on one of my favorite radio programs, Chicago’s Morning Answer with Dan Proft and Amy Jacobson (no relation), to talk about the attacks on the Supreme Court.
The interview took place in the morning before the Senate hearings, but those hearings (which I watched most of) didn’t change anything, it was just people giving speeches with no new information. We also touched at the end of the interview upon the challenge by the Equal Protection Project of a program at Missouri State University that excluded white males.
Partial transcript (auto-generated, may contain transcription errors)
Proft (04:16): So the attacks in the direction of Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch, you know, have sort of no foundation, they certainly wouldn’t survive a motion to dismiss. This is an attempt to de-legitimize the court. It’s an attempt to stage a hostile takeover of the court. How do you view this coordinated effort against against the justices who are not nominated by a Democrat president?
WAJ (04:49): Well, it’s all of the above. It is an attempt by democratic senators and activist groups to de-legitimize the one institution they don’t control and are unlikely to control in the near future because of a six-three conservative majority. It’s completely bad faith. It is a continuation of the sort of a vile attacks that you saw against Justice Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings, lie after lie, exaggeration after exaggeration. It’s bad faith, and people should recognize it for what it is.
The Supreme Court is not beholden to the Senate after the Justices get confirmed. They don’t like a Justice,they can not confirm that Justice. There is an impeachment process for Supreme Court Justices, but what the Senate doesn’t get to do is nitpick what the Supreme Court does. It has that independence. This is an attempt to intimidate and disrupt and I believe force out of office due to harassment of Supreme Court Justices by Democrats.
Amy Jacobson (05:59): I mean, just never in my lifetime or did I think that this would happen, that the media would try and smear Supreme Court justices. What’s the endgame?
WAJ (06:09): I believe the endgame is that the Democrats know that unless they can force one or more of the conservative Justices off of the court by making their life so miserable, by harassing their family, by protesting outside their homes, by inciting their lunatic followers to attempt to assassinate a Justice which happened with Kavanaugh, I think that the end game here is to free up one or more Supreme Court seats while Joe Biden is still in office, before the 2024 election, so that they can fill it. I think that’s the end game here.
***
WAJ (07:49): …. Again, the key term here is bad faith. This is a completely bad faith move by Democrats who are furious that Mitch McConnell stopped the confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland, who are furious at Ruth Ginsburg for not resigning earlier in her career and allowing that seat to be filled by Donald Trump, by a nominee of Donald Trump, I should say. And so they’re just angry. These are angry, bitter Democrat Senators who are furious that they couldn’t stop Brett Kavanaugh from getting on the court, were furious that they couldn’t stop Amy Coney Barrett from getting on the court and having lost that fight. They’re not giving up. They’re inciting people to protest outside Justice’s homes, something that’s unthinkable and unheard of….
Proft (08:59): And potentially illegal
WAJ (09:02): And potentially illegal, it certainly violates the statute. Some people question whether the statute is constitutional, but it clearly violates the statute that’s on the books to try to intimidate a judge, a Supreme Court Judge, by protesting out the outside the Justice’s home. So this is a charade. This is the sort of charade they pulled at the Kavanaugh hearings they’re talking about now reopening the investigation of Kavanaugh.
…. They lost that fight, but they’re not giving it up. This is because they are furious that there is an institution left in this country. All the rest have been gutted by the left. There’s one institution that hasn’t been, and so they’re gonna take it down.
As to the Senate Hearing, I recommend Senator Kennedy’s statement:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This so called hearing was a clear attempt at intimidating the conservative majority of SCOTUS
Is the average age 80?
Asking for a friend
Well, Senate comes from the Latin Senex, meaning Old Man, so there’s a long history of Geriatric representation in Senatorial groups.
Why? You support someone for president who is currently 76 years old. Or is it different for Trump. Because reasons?
Trump is 76 going on 60. Biden is 79 going on 90.
Sheldon Whitehouse is about 70 going on 10. He belongs in central casting for the next Airplane! movie.
LOL, I loved that movie back in the day!
“They lost that fight, but they’re not giving it up.”
Fabian Socialists never give up.
OMG, find another drum to bang. This Fabian Socialists thing is wearing thin.
You have a point they’re just plain communists
They are the “nonbinary” of Communists. Or Fancy Asians. Whatever.
It makes them sound “intellectual”.
Maybe, but it is as good a label as anything for what has been going on in our institutions for decades.
Jacobin with a heavy mix of Luddite seems more accurate IMO.
I’ll go with that, too
Cool with me either way; Cray Cray mobs don’t really need labels beyond that anyhow.
Why is it always Fabian with you? How about Dion, Avalon, or Rydell?
Or Hasbro, Mattel, or Tyco?
So the Senate wants to draw up a code of ethics for the Supreme Court justices?? I’ll grant they have moral standing (but not legal standing) to do that after they first make all federal law applicable to themselves the way it is to their constituents, when they live with the same Social Security system and retirement funding options that the rest of us must do, and when they recuse themselves from voting on any measure in which they have a financial or personal interest in the outcome.
Never gonna happen.
I’d love to see the records from that Congressional sex abuse slush fund
We really need an amendment requiring all laws to apply to Congress first and foremost.
Seems a violation of Separation of Powers.
Modern Democrats are unethical and will go down in infamy for their destructive role if America fails. They are fundamentally anti-American and anti-human at this point. They believe they are the chosen people, and they are the ones that have the rights to choose.
At some point, people must decide if they want to keep being dumped on by “empathetic” and “tolerant” pretenders and their henchmen.
Top photo needs a caption. I suggest:
An Angry, Bitter Democrat Senator Who Is Furious
“An Uninformed Democrat Senator Sounds Off On Something He Knows Nothing About”
Sheldon Outhouse
Wheldon Shitehouse
“Angry Senator Who Belongs To Segregated Beach Club Attacks Black Judge”?
Kennedy was wrong to qualify his harshest criticisms and assertions multiple times with “some, but not all, Democrats….”
As Glenn Greenwald has been pointing out, Democrats are in lock step on all the big issues. There is no dissent in the Democrat Party. Even AOC and Bernie follow the party line.
Roberts destroyed all faith in the court when he reversed himself and altered his Obamacare decision in a totally ridiculous fashion, based solely on nonlegal concerns.
I wonder if Whitehouse who is smearing a black Supreme Court Justice member still belongs to that segregated beach club. Someone should ask him
Please, sir, the man’s name is “Whitesonly”. 🤣
I thought “bad faith” was the default setting for anything democrats do.
The Democrats who are most zealous about ethics for SCOTUS are hardly paragons of ethics themselves.https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/05/01/6-scandal-plagued-senate-democrats-attack-clarence-thomas-over-ethics/
Some Dem legislator managed to dump her failing bank stock just days before the govt took over and then managed to invest in the bank that acquired it–nothing to see here
Lois Frankel D- West Palm Beach is the house rep
The pool of candidates for supreme court justice comes basically from just two law schools in this country, no need to mention them here. Those justices become friends with people from those same elite schools and run in the same social and business circles, many of whom are quite wealthy and can afford to live a life of luxury. Then people complain about them because they spend their free time on trips and vacations with that same class of people.
If they want to address the problem start getting justices who are from the elites of the country.
There is one who bucked that trend
Amy Coney Barrett is certainly the outlier among the current group. She studied law at Notre Dame, I used the term basically knowing full well that she did not fit the mold. You won’t see some justice with a second or third level law school degree sniff the supreme court in todays environment. Even the box checkers are from Harvard and Yale these days.
I noticed this morning that there was a story that the SCOTUS had decided to take up a case involving the ‘legality’ of the administrative state.
I’m sure this is the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Since 1984, when the court decided that when technical areas of a given law were not flushed out by Congress, that the proper place to determine how to resolve these vague spots was the executive branch agency themselves, the left has had a ‘back door’ to making laws without Congress.
Called “chevron deference” for one side in the case that set the precedent.
Net, an agency can expand it’s authoritah to anything vaguely related to it’s mandate provided 1) not explicitly excluded by the authorizing statute and 2) might be “reasonable” in some sense.
Of course the agencies like to claim “Seems reasonable to us.” and “You didn’t exclude this right, so of course we can.”
If the Left really wants to free up seats on SCOTUS, they need a new pandemic. A real one, not the dry run we experienced in 2020.
Of course they have to be careful here. If they make it too virulent, they could lose Biden and the quorum in both Houses.
So, what event is going to finally trigger the start of a hot civil war?
Guess it’s one of those, you’ll know it when you see it things? Like porn. 😉
Coffee rationing.
Never accept their framing. Not “conservative” as in policy positions, or a side in the culture war. Calling the court “conservative” is just a part of the attempt to paint them as illegitimate.
They aren’t deciding based on policy preference; they’re deciding based on how the policy is justified, or was made. Like agreeing with The Notorious RBG on Roe, for example.