Lunatic Fringe May Cost Democrats in November [OPINION]
The whackos being sent to assault the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, now in process on the floor of the U.S. Senate's Judiciary Committee hearing, may be the cause of some unintentional consequences. Code Pink and other extreme pro-abortion types are interrupting the proceedings by shrieking and heckling. Predictably, the Democrats are demanding a recess. Committee chairman, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), wishes to move forward.
Democratic Senators Kamala Harris, Corey Booker and Richard Blumenthal immediately interrupted Grassley as he welcomed Judge Kavanaugh and his family to the Capitol.
Last night, some 42,000 pages about Kavanaugh were released by the White House legal team, and the Democrats complained that they did not have the proper time to review them. I'm inclined to agree that they didn't. But so what? All they are looking for is to find questions to ask Kavanaugh about how he would legally preside over specific cases.
Also in recent history, the Democrats smashed right by the ability of Republican minorities to do the same thing, and also shoved the 100,000 pages of "Obamacare," or the Affordable Care Act (ACA), into law with less than 48 hours of releasing those. That's a promise President Obama broke when he assured Americans they would have five full days to review all bills before he signed them into law.
Let us use Senator Grassley's examples, titled The Ginsburg Standard.
Flash back to the hearing for President Clinton's nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on July 20, 1993, while Democrats were the majority:
“There is a grand tradition that I support that you can't ask a judge who’s nominated for a -- or a potential judge who is nominated -- for a judgeship about a specific case that might come before them.” (Sen. Chuck Schumer Press Conference, 2/7/2017)
“You are well aware that I came to this proceeding to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate. Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues; each case is based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives choose to present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.” - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/20/1993)
Or a more recent hearing for President Obama's nominee:
“The Senate has a very significant role to play in picking Supreme Court Justices...and part of that is getting some sense, some feel of how a nominee approaches legal issues...But I would say that there are limits on that. Some of the limits I talked about in a law review article...I mean, that article makes very clear that it would be inappropriate for a nominee to talk about how she will rule on pending cases or on cases beyond that that might come before the Court in the future.” - Justice Elena Kagan (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 6/29/2010)
Q: “Was Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), an example of the Supreme Court properly reinterpreting the Constitution in light of its timeless principles?”
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): “Well, then maybe it would be fair for me to ask you what is your understanding of the constitutional limitations then on government entity -- any government entity taking land for public purpose?”
JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR: “...As I've indicated to you, opining on a hypothetical is very, very difficult for a judge to do. And as a potential justice on the Supreme Court but, more importantly, as a Second Circuit judge still sitting, I can't engage in a question that involves hypotheses.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009)
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: “What my experience on the trial court and the appellate court have reinforced for me is that the process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind. It's the process of not coming to a decision with a prejudgment ever of an outcome, and that reaching a conclusion has to start with understanding what the parties are arguing, but examining in all situations carefully the facts as they prove them or not prove them, the record as they create it, and then making a decision that is limited to what the law says on the facts before the judge.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009)
So kindly spare us the Jedi mind trick of trying to get us to forget the 180-degree position change by Democrats in recent history.
The foolishness and immaturity demonstrated today by both elected Democrats and those sent to disrupt by the same elected, are potentially dangerous to the momentum they apparently have (or had) for the upcoming elections in November.
In the early days of the Obama administration, President Obama rubbed Senator McCain's nose in reminding him of his electoral defeat, saying, "Elections have consequences."
I think what he meant to say for his fellow liberals is, "Elections should only have the results and consequences liberals prefer. Otherwise, we will abandon laws, processes and allow the mob to rule."
The undecided are watching--always watching. And this, too, will have consequences.
Ken Pittman is the host of The Ken Pittman Show on 1420 WBSM New Bedford. He can be heard Saturdays from 9 a.m. to noon. Contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org and follow him on Twitter @RadioKenPittman. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.