Dems Don’t Like the Way Democracy Works: Here’s the Latest Proof
Leaders on the Left are increasingly eschewing the Constitution — these five recent examples make that crystal clear
The “dem” in “Democrat” may align etymologically with the “dem” in “democracy” — but the two are increasingly straying in terms of the principles that define them.
In a frenzied furor to run away from losing political strategies, many Democrats are running toward principles that fly in the face of everything it means to be a part of our constitutional republic.
In other words, they are overtly eschewing core tenets that make America uniquely American.
Judge the evidence for yourself, including these examples:
1.) Hillary Clinton’s jabs at our election process — and her repeated rejection of her defeat in the 2016 presidential election. Instead of examining how her own behavior and choices drove her failure nearly two years ago, Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, has chosen instead to attack the process our founders put in place to ensure that the “tyranny of the majority” would never afflict our country.
The electoral college system ensures that every state in our constitutional republic is fairly represented. It gives a voice and a choice to citizens in smaller states and to those who live outside big cities, where candidates would likely and understandably focus their campaigning.
But despite the wisdom our founders demonstrated in devising this brilliant system, Hillary Clinton isn’t having it. She would prefer a risk-fraught, Democrat-favoring popular vote system, apparently, and it’s no secret why after Trump’s victory.
The kicker? She delivered her recent smack at the American electoral college in late June at Oxford University in England.
2.) Cory Booker’s gravely mistaken “immunity” comment — which flies in the face of how the separation of powers plays out. Well before confirmation hearings begin for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has already made up his mind. His reasoning should be an affront to every American citizen who values our Constitution.
“President Trump chose the one justice on his lists provided for him by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, who he knew would give him immunity to any matters that come before them. And to me, it’s almost outrageous,” Booker told MSNBC.
“We do not have a judicial system in which someone who is the subject of a criminal investigation can choose the judge that might have to preside over them. That’s not our criminal justice system. And the president is not above the law,” he added.
Booker ended with this head-scratcher: “The president should not choose somebody who has made it clear to the world where he actually stands.”
He was referring to Kavanaugh’s storied piece in the Minnesota Law Review in 2009, in which he set out his stance on the separation of powers and how that impacts presidencies.
Booker likely takes issue with Kavanaugh’s well-reasoned argument for providing sitting presidents with a “temporary deferral of civil suits and of criminal prosecutions and investigations.” Nowhere in the review article did Kavanaugh deny that presidents can be prosecuted after they leave office.
The president, indeed, is not above the law. Neither is Booker. The senator has not been imbued with the power to decide whom the president may or may not nominate as Kennedy’s replacement on the Supreme Court.
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, he certainly will have his say, but the power to appoint that nominee isn’t Booker’s — it’s the president’s and the president’s alone.
3.) Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s confused notion that the Supreme Court makes laws. The Massachusetts Democrat senator, a Harvard Law professor, could perhaps use a refresher course on the function of our Supreme Court.
There are three branches of government. The legislative branch makes the laws; the judicial branch interprets the laws; and the executive branch carries out the laws.
Warren’s lack of understanding was on full display for the consumption of MSNBC’s viewers soon after Trump announced his nominee for SCOTUS.
During the interview, Warren said — twice — that SCOTUS makes the laws. To add context, she was bemoaning the president’s SCOTUS choice because she believed the judicial body would be pressed upon to make laws around the current situation with immigration. That is not how it works.
Some resisters simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the sobering reality that their preferred candidate failed.
4.) Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Tom Perez’s recent introduction of Barack Obama as the “real president.” At a Democratic Party fundraiser in Beverly Hills, DNC chairman Tom Perez introduced Barack Obama by saying, “Let’s give it up for the real president of the United States,” Politico reported in late June.
Almost two years after the presidential election, some resisters simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the sobering reality that their preferred candidate failed.
The former president appeared to agree, at least at some level, on the risks of pining after a president who is not president.
At that fundraiser during which Perez introduced him, Obama said he regretted people were so focused on him during his administration, saying it caused folks to stop “paying attention up and down the ballot,” as The Hill and others reported.
5.) Assorted Democrats’ seizing on the long-discredited “Russia-collusion” charge in an ill-advised bid to impeach President Donald Trump. As an extension of the resistance holdouts’ refusal to acknowledge their 2016 loss, a select bunch have taken it to the next level.
Though Article II of the Constitution makes clear that articles of impeachment are appropriate only for high crimes and misdemeanors (e.g., treason, bribery), this group of people has taken it upon themselves to invent a “charge” (it’s not actually a thing) that they hope will meet muster.
Michele Blood is a Flemington, New Jersey-based freelance writer and a regular contributor to LifeZette.