Liberal hypocrisy on display once again

Obama has announced his nominee for the Supreme Court to replace Antonin Scalia. He has put forth the name Merrick Garland who is presently the Chief Judge on the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He was appointed to a judge position by Bill Clinton in 1995. He has been Chief Judge since February 2013. Garland is a Harvard graduate and clerked for Justice William Brennan in 1978-79. Garland worked under Assistant Attorney General Jamie Gorelick at the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Even though Garland is a native of Chicago, Obama and his liberal supporters claim he is a moderate. Garland claims that his mentors and role models were Justice William Brennan, John Marshall, and Oliver Wendell Holmes. He is a member of the American Law Institute. He is a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers. He is a member of the Temple Sinai Reform synagogue. His grandfather was a judge and special counsel to Presidents Harry S. Truman and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Garland’s daughters are both graduates of Yale University. He is being endorsed by Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT rights advocacy group. I guess they know something about him they like.

At this point I’m going to discuss Garland’s mentors and role models. His mentor Assistant Justice William Brennan served on the Supreme Court from 1956 to 1990. Brennan was very outspoken about his progressive ideology and was known as the leader of the court’s liberal wing. Justice John Marshall served on the Supreme Court from 1801-1835. He helped the Federalists (present-day liberals) build a strong federal government in opposition to the Jeffersonian Republicans who favored stronger state governments. Oliver Wendell Holmes served on the court from 1902-1932. Holmes considered the U.S. Constitution “an experiment”. He advocated for freedom of speech under the First Amendment but that is one of the few non-progressive ideals that he trumpeted. He was an icon in the progressive movement of his era. He supported the liberal New Deal laws (present-day welfare systems). He was not a believer in God-given rights. Holmes stated: “men make their own laws”. If he were a modern-day progressive he would be of the opinion that the Constitution is a living document and can be adjusted at man’s whim. Garland worked for Assistant US Attorney General Gorelick who served under Bill Clinton (no pun intended). She was a main player in building the intelligence wall between the FBI and CIA which many claim was instrumental in allowing the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade towers in New York City.

I am not a psychologist nor do I claim to be able to read people’s minds but I am intelligent enough to say with certainty that your mentors, political employers, historical idols, and the person who wants to appoint you to a lifetime position on the United States Supreme Court are going to have a lasting and deep-seated influence on your ideology. Merrick Garland may be a moderate on the surface but he has been ruling on man’s laws. If seated on the United States Supreme Court and ruling on Constitutional law there is little doubt in my mind that his liberal ideology would surface each time he ruled. He would be an unwavering progressive vote giving control to the liberals. Also, please note that I am not under any illusion that I am smarter than Garland or his mentors/role models nor do I disregard the fact that all three of the aforementioned Supreme Court Justices are significant historical figures.

With all of that said what am I about to say will make all of my research on this topic worthless. Obama has no intentions of putting an old white Jewish guy on the United States Supreme Court. As I had said in one of my earlier blogs Obama would appoint what many would consider a moderate to test the resolve of the Republican leadership in Congress to prevent any Obama nominee being considered. It also is a set up in an attempt to embarrass the Republicans by being able to claim they are still impeding Obama’s wonderful fundamental changes to America. The liberals are already claiming that the Republicans are disregarding their constitutional duty by not allowing an up or down vote on an Obama Supreme Court nominee. The liberals are “crying foul” because the Republicans have instituted the “Biden Rule”.

The Biden Rule is based on a then Senator Biden speech made in 1992 that was intended to prevent President George H. W. Bush from making a Supreme Court nomination in his last year in office. On March 3, 2016 VP Biden offered up an exclamation to why he proposed the opposite position that he now takes: “it was late June, and at the time there was much speculation that a sitting justice would retire, leaving President George H. W. Bush to appoint a successor in the final months of his first term. We had been through several highly contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearings during my tenure, and I feared that a nomination at that late date, just a few weeks before the presidential conventions, would create immense political acrimony... I recommended that the judiciary committee not hold hearings until after the political campaign season is over”. So, let me get this straight, it was fine for the liberals to prevent a sitting Republican president from appointing a Supreme Court justice in the final year of his term but now it is a Constitutional disaster that the Republicans want to prevent a liberal president from appointing a Supreme Court justice in the final years of his term. That is liberal hypocrisy in its finest form.

Here’s more liberal hypocrisy. In 2006 Senator Obama made every effort to block George W. Bush’s last year appointment of Samuel Alito. Obama is now saying he regrets his decision to block Bush’s appointment. Having presented his regrets he now claims that the Republican’s efforts to block his last year appointment to the Supreme Court is unconstitutional. You can’t make this stuff up.

Here’s yet another liberal hypocrite. Senator Chuck Schumer said in 2007 “if any new Supreme Court vacancies open up, Democrats should not allow George W. Bush to fill it”. Senator Schumer now claims that the Republicans failure to consider Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a complete failure of their constitutional duties.

If you have read my book Freedom Permits you’ll understand why I consider Senator Harry Reid of Nevada to be a complete disgrace to his constituents, the United States of America, and mankind in general. Reid is nasty, senile, delusional, and completely ignorant of the intent of the Biden Rule. On March 17, 2016 he called on the Senate Republicans to confirm Obama’s nominee by adhering to the Biden Rule. We all know he does not want the Senate Republicans to adhere to that rule but unfortunately Senator Reid has lost all touch with reality. Ladies and gentlemen that is an example of our current liberal leadership.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is still claiming the Senate will not hold a hearing to consider Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley claims his committee will not hold hearings to consider Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Based on past actions I have no confidence in Mitch McConnell keeping his word and I have no reason to believe Grassley won’t keep his word. But the linguini-spined members of the Republican Senate are already whispering, some even saying it out loud, that we should allow an up or down vote on Obama’s nominee. Ladies and gentlemen that is an example of our current Republican leadership.

God Bless America!!!