Today the hearing for the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett begins, and Kamala has said that she will follow the debate remotely.
You might be excused if you think that she does so because she was such a ***BITCH*** the last time, that she is now fearful of even showing her face in person.
Still, it is not for this reason, or so she says. It is, she says, because no sufficient precautions were taken to avoid her taking the Chinese Virus.
This is interesting.
Whilst I do not know the details of the “precautions” that the Senate is taking, I can easily imagine that they are stronger than the average polling place will be able to adopt.
Therefore, Kamala is sending a clear message to her voters: going to the polls is dangerous; you should think twice before doing it; you might have to stay home if you don’t like the measure taken.
Well done, Kamala. This will scare more people from going to the polls and voting for a useless hag like you.
The suspense came and went. The candidate is Amy Coney Barrett. This is the hand of cards we have been given and we now need to make the best of it, that is: win.
If you ask me, my idea of winning would have been this: three days of barrage about what indecent swine the Democrats were to Kavanaugh, follow by the announcement of a vote without debate immediately after the candidate reaches the Senate floor. This would have achieved the following aims:
- Show to the Dems that being a swine has consequences. In this case, utter loss of credibility, being treated like the mob (which they are) and humiliating defeat.
- Fast victory in the pocket, followed by a 5 weeks long victory lap as the Dems smash and burn other things because of the very appointment.
- Focus on law and order besides SCOTUS in the last weeks of the campaign.
Perhaps McConnell and Graham tried and did not succeed in persuading their Senators to adopt the hard line. Perhaps they did not try at all. What we have here is a mud fest that will go on for weeks. It will, I want to hope, not involve rape or drunkenness, but it might involve anything else, because the Democrats are not interested in their slander being even remotely connected to reality.
I fear that, beside the desire of the weak, virtue signalling senators a’ la Romney not to appear “dictatorial”, there is another motivation at play: the Republicans – who have found, in recent years, an energy totally absent before – actually *want* a harsh confrontation, by which desperate Democrats throw all the mud they can at a person enjoying (as a woman) “Panda Status” among their very own. This mud-slinging will, so the Republicans think in this scenario, persuade more women to vote for the Republicans, at the same time keeping the victory lap and the vote-winning effect of the appointment as near as possible to Election Day.
I can’t say I agree. Firstly, a victory for KO at the first round will always be better than one at the end of the twelfth, no matter how much audience the latter gets. Secondly, it is a rather cynical play to allow for all that time to pass, knowing that the Democrats will use to try to destroy ACB’s family. I am sure ACB is fully ready for this, but still… Still, I will give you this: that the Democrats will not be able to attack the Panda without looking bad. Whatever they throw at Coney Barrett, they will be reminded that they unconditionally support criminals like Jason Blake, and horizontal careerist like kamala Harris. Plus, they will have some difficulties in discounting her rebuttals, because #believeallwomen, remember?
I short, this could, likely, have been a fast victory, with the Democrats tased to the ground and reduced to screaming “Dictatorship!!”. This, they are doing 24/7 now; therefore, it would not get any traction. On the contrary, a massive barrage of replays of the Kavanaugh days would make them look like losers at their losing worst.
Sadly, it’s not going to be.
But I wanted to have this said, because I see dark clouds at the horizon, made exclusively of mud.
So, we are told that Judge Amy Coney Barrett is “mind-blowingly intelligent” and “humble”.
Perhaps I should address a couple of issues that humble, mind-blowingly intelligent people should actually have figured out for themselves.
The first one is that no Catholic, no matter how mind-blowingly intelligent, can think that he can reshape Catholic doctrine. Smart or dumb, a Catholic must believe everything that the Church believes and profess everything that the Church professes. This means, of course, not the blind following of what Francis, or some leftist theologian of questionable virility, states, because they are not the Church. It means, on the contrary, the unconditional adherence to the Depositum Fidei. If this is not understood, no discussion is possible, because you can’t talk Catholicism with a person who does not agree with you on the simple fact of what it means to be a Catholic.
The second, which follows straight from the first, is that a Catholic is in favour of Capital Punishment, full stop. Again, no mind-blowing intelligence is necessary to understand this, but humbleness certainly is.
Amy Coney Barrett is, unless I have been reading fake news, on record with being personally opposed to Capital Punishment. This means that either the mind-blowing intelligence or the humbleness are just not there. She is also not twenty anymore, and as a professed Catholic with a high degree of education, and accustomed to the legal and historic evisceration of the issues she has to deal with, you would expect that she actually knows what the stance of the Church on Capital Punishment is.
I don’t want to say that I smell a rat here, and I will say in her defence that she has refused to stand in the way of capital punishment in her professional capacity. However, I would say that I certainly smell a mouse.
Still, politics is, as Giulio Andreotti used to say, “the art of the Possible”. Trump needs a fast appointment, and he does not want to offer the flank to virtue-signalling, closeted anti-Trumpers, who would ask for nothing better than show the nation their wonderful independence of mind, whilst kow-towing to the mob and looking good in their wealthy Washington circles.
We will know tomorrow. I think it will be Coney Barrett.
I’d have preferred the judge version of Clint Eastwood, or Tom Cotton, or Ted Cruz. But I honestly don’t think any Clint Eastwood-esque judge would make it to Justice before the elections, so this is where we are.
President Trump will announce his candidate to the appointment as Supreme Court Justice on Saturday, 5 P.M. I fear it will be Amy Coney Barrett.
Let us disabuse ourselves of the idea that she would be the ideal candidate. Her Catholicism is, from what I read, creepy; she belongs to some strange group of “novelty Catholics”; she is the cafeteria, “I oppose the death penalty” kind of gal; she has not given any indication of espousing freedoms in the robust way necessary today to counter the massive push towards government omnipotence. Possibly the worst of all, her Originalism is, some say, not so strong as advertised. I hope Trump will select somebody else, with a more clearly right wing record and unchallenged Originalist credentials.
Still, I profit from the occasion to remind my reader that God never lays a straight road in front of us. Progress is never a luminous process by which lights dispels the darkness whilst all the world watches in astonishment. Rather, it is a curvy, bumpy, often messy process, which requires a big picture mentality to see what is happening behind the drama of the day.
Take Trump. The best President that anybody could reasonably wish, and one who delivered beyond my wildest expectations, he is not without substantial flaws. I am not talking here of his Twitter behaviour, which is likely necessary and for which I do not care. I am talking of stuff like the occasional pro-alphabet rhetoric, the two years of deep sleep on the Wall, the unwillingness to go hard against illegals (the court haven’t helped him, but I never saw the kind of ruthless determination he could have showed, for example greatly increasing the budget and activity of the ICE in problem cities). I never liked the DACA rhetoric, either. The list can go on. Still, this guy is, on the whole, simply stellar.
Coming back to us, if Amy Coney Barrett is appointed, we would not have the dream candidate. But a huge improvement on RBG she would be for sure. Plus, she could improve with age.
In the end, it’s always a risk. Even Gorsuch proved much less reliable than expected. You never know how these things go. I for myself would wish for the Supreme Court to be moved to Boise, Idaho, far removed from the toxic Washington D.C. mentality and social environment. Let your average Justice keep some horses, sheep, hens and rabbits (if Anglos keep rabbits for consumption) in his farm 15 minutes of driving away from the job. We would see a different mentality at play, one much nearer to the one of the Founding Fathers.
Still, this is what we have. I think we are progressing, bumps and all. No, do not expect a repeal of Roe vs Wade with her nominated. Probably, do not expect it in the next years anyway. The Supreme Court will, I suspect, only change the Country when the Country has already changed. It starts from the grassroots, it ends with the Justices. We can dream, but we need to be realistic.
My bet is that Roe vs Wade will start to be eroded, slowly and methodically, but without the fatal blow for many years, possibly in my lifetime. But again, I saw the fall of the Berlin Wall and the deposition and execution of Ceausescu in a matter of hours. Providence orders everything in a wonderful way.
I will await the announcement with a moderate optimism, thinking that things are going the right way.
It will never be 6-3. Roberts is actually a fake conservative, and a very real progressive and part of the Champagne Court Circuit.
But it will be much better than now.