The Nuttiest Things the Left Is Saying About Brett Kavanaugh’s Nomination
Liberals have quickly left logic behind in their frenzied fit over President Donald Trump's new SCOTUS selection
Some liberals — given the SCOTUS announcement Monday night — appear to be losing their grasp on reality.
After President Donald Trump’s selection of Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, folks on the Left melted down at record speed.
Some even prepared their statements of outrage and predictions of doom in advance of the announcement of the actual nominee.
And one accidentally let the cat out of the bag.
Check out what Fox News shared in the tweet below.
— FoxNewsInsider (@FoxNewsInsider) July 10, 2018
The Women’s March, apparently in a rush to express hostility and to discount any nominee the president put forward, issued an official statement with “XX” showing there clearly — in place of the name of the eventual nominee.
Doubling down on what can only be described as casting judgment without knowledge, the professional protest outfit shared the following thoughts:
THREAD: We knew Trump would nominate a #SCOTUS justice openly hostile to a women’s right to choose—it was one of his primary campaign promises. We were ready for anything, but here’s why Kavanaugh is especially dangerous…#DefendRoe #SaveSCOTUS
— Women's March (@womensmarch) July 10, 2018
Those who are part of the Women’s March group, of course, were only one voice in the cacophony.
The anti-nominee bandwagon rapidly overflowed with doomsayers.
#Kavanaugh's first words to the American people are an absolutely bald-faced lie. You all wanna argue about his legal principles, his past decisions, his judicial philosophy, go ahead: but that's it right there. He serves Trump. pic.twitter.com/2MsjVkpNMP
— Philip N Cohen (@familyunequal) July 10, 2018
Wait, what? Thanking the president for his nomination constitutes “serving Trump”? Expressing respect for his approach to ensuring the pool of potential nominees is highly qualified and diverse is a “bald-faced lie”? How does that work?
There was also this:
We have never had a justice nominated by a president in this position criminally—and with the power to sit in judgment over his patron's personal fate. If that's not a conflict, what is. What then? Extrarordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures. #Kavanaugh
— Norm Eisen (@NormEisen) July 10, 2018
Eisen, once the “ethics czar” during the Obama administration, is citing the nomination of the Bush-appointed D.C. Federal Appeals Court judge and lifelong public servant as an “extraordinary circumstance” calling for “extraordinary measures.” Taken to its logical conclusion, Eisen’s statement would disallow all presidents in essence from putting forward any SCOTUS nominees. After all, it is theoretically possible that at some juncture, some president could be personally involved in a case that could ultimately be decided in part by a justice he or she once nominated. And “patron” — seriously?
Then there was this commentary by Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who offered her particular take on the “automatic disqualification” of the new SCOTUS nominee via Twitter. She suggested that espousing a belief that contradicts her own — in this case, on whether a sitting president is indictable — automatically renders one ineligible to serve on the nation’s highest court.
Except, no — that’s not how this works.
The fact that #ScotusPick Kavanuaugh believes that a President cannot be indicted is an automatic disqualification from Supreme Court consideration.
Plain and simple. https://t.co/3h2k2rTYVI
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) July 10, 2018
By that way, Ocasio-Cortez misspelled Kavanaugh’s name in her tweet.
For his part, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who may well be planning a 2020 run, was apoplectic.
The fact that Kavanaugh believes that a President should not be subject to civil litigation or criminal investigation while in office means that Trump just nominated a justice who has already reached conclusions on these serious questions. That should raise enormous red flags.
— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) July 10, 2018
I'm going to do everything I can to stop Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination—but there are also strong reasons why this president shouldn't be able to nominate, nor should the Senate even debate a nominee at this time.
— Sen. Cory Booker (@SenBooker) July 10, 2018
And in her zeal to oppose the Kavanaugh selection at all costs, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) seemed to forget what she learned in law school about how that pesky “separation-of-powers” thing works.
Calling the judge a “political animal,” she not once, but twice, expressed grave concerns about the nomination, noting that SCOTUS, after all, “makes laws.”
Every single judge on @realDonaldTrump’s short list for the Supreme Court has been pre-approved by right-wing extremists. They've shown their willingness to side with the wealthy & powerful over the rights of women, workers, voters, & minorities. But we're ready to fight back. pic.twitter.com/CBhSw91Y8K
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 9, 2018
The Supreme Court, of course, does not make law.
And how about this? The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), promoting the #SaveSCOTUS hashtag, was spinning Kavanaugh’s record so fast it should’ve handed out anti-dizziness remedies. Instead of “pro-life,” the FFRF called Kavanaugh “anti-woman.” Instead of crowing about his staunch advocacy for First Amendment rights — it cast his stance as “pro-religious privilege.”
And then there was this, from a political analyst at NBC — and particularly this line: “We are becoming the kind of country we used to invade to prevent it from becoming like this.” What?
All I know is, we are becoming the kind of country we used to invade to prevent it from becoming like this.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) July 10, 2018
Michele Blood is a Flemington, New Jersey-based freelance writer and a regular contributor to LifeZette.