When it comes to setting the national narrative for the perpetually angry Left, look no further than The New York Times. The latest outrage de jour is that Senate Republicans “stole” a Supreme Court seat from former President Barack Obama so that they could have it filled by President Donald J. Trump.
In a piece by the paper’s editorial board that is replete with constitutional ignorance, baseless insinuations and outright lies, The Times, like Senate Democrats in the last session, claims that the chamber has some inherent duty to do the bidding of the president – that is, as long as the president is a Democrat:
“It’s been almost a year since Senate Republicans took an empty Supreme Court seat hostage, discarding a constitutional duty that both parties have honored throughout American history and hobbling an entire branch of government for partisan gain.”
First of all, a lesson in political science seems apropos. The editors are referring to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, the “advice and consent” clause. It states: “[The President,] by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law … .” (RELATED: Learn more about constitutional rights and liberty at Freedom.news)
There is absolutely no language mandating that the Senate give its advice or consent – merely that that is the process to be followed. The president submits a nominee, and Senate either confirms said nominee or it doesn’t – or it doesn’t take up the nominee at all. Obama did nominate Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often called the second-most powerful court in the land after the Supreme Court because it hears all cases involving federal rules and regulations. And by the way, it’s a court that Obama and Democrats sought to pack with Left-wing jurists, without a peep from the self-righteous NYT editorial board.
But you know what The Times did report? That former Vice President Joe Biden, as a U.S. senator in the fall of 1992, with a presidential election looming, recommended the Democrat-held Senate do the same thing the GOP-controlled Senate did with the Garland pick: hold the seat open until after the November election.
Times editors then go on to make ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims about what actions the Supreme Court, with Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch, of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, would take:
“For starters, that spells big trouble for public-sector labor unions, environmental regulations and women’s access to contraception. If Trump gets the chance to name another justice, the consequences could be much more dire.” [Emphasis added]
Just how SCOTUS will stop women from purchasing pharmaceuticals, destroy the environment and throw millions of federal workers out on the street is of course not explained. Normally, such occurrences would be legislative in nature, if they were to happen at all, not judicial. But hey, ’tis better to scare the sheep than to be honest about what the high court can and cannot do. (Find more news about deliberate media disinformation at Disinfo.news.)
The piece rambles on further about how “these are not normal times,” and complains mightily that Republicans are mean, evil obstructionists who had no right to thwart the great and mighty Obama. But perhaps the most dishonest part of the entire piece is this passage:
“So what might a Justice Gorsuch mean for the court? Like Justice Scalia, he is an originalist, meaning he interprets the Constitution’s language to mean what it was understood to mean when it was written — an approach that has led both men to consistently conservative results.”
Isn’t that what Americans should want in a federal judge – a strict adherence to the Constitution, the guiding law of the land? After all, it’s not a document of suggestions that should fit the times; it’s the core governing doctrine of our republic. (RELATED: Find out what the mainstream media is complaining about today at MediaFactWatch.com)
No matter what Trump has done or plans to do, neither he nor the Republican Party will ever get any support or relief from the angry Left-wing ideologues at The New York Times. Nor should they try; after all, they are the ones who keep winning elections. To me, that sounds like a mandate to govern, just like Obama claimed in 2009 when he took over with a Democrat-controlled Congress.
The vacant SCOTUS seat Trump is attempting to fill wasn’t “stolen” from anyone, as The Times has ridiculously claimed. By leaving it vacant, the Senate has performed its “constitutional duty” in the very same way as if members had decided to vet Obama’s pick.