BloggeRhythms

As mentioned here previously, the new POTUS has come up with another superlative choice by selecting Neil Gorsuch as a Supreme Court nominee. Yet, beyond the impact of Judge Gorsuch’s selection itself, the confirmation hearings are exposing the Democrats as a politically weak and confused group desperately grasping to find any morsel upon which they can make a rational point. However, to date, they simply cannot.     

In that regard, yesterday Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News’ “Special Report with Bret Baier” that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch “beautifully” evaded tough questions from Democrats during his confirmation hearing which is exactly what he should be doing."

Krauthammer went on to say: “Refusal to answer questions. No supreme court nominee answers questions who has any hope of getting on the court. The whole idea is not just to be calm and collected and knowledgeable, but to be nimble. This is an exercise in obfuscation.”

When heavily pressed by Democrats on abortion, guns, campaign spending and a host of other issues Gorsuch explained that it was improper to discuss subjects that might come before the court in the future, “including whether or not he would overrule the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.”  

According to Krauthammer: “When democrats complain about not taking stands you go back to Ruth Bader Ginsberg who made it a principle of her nominating process that she would not in any way telegraph where she would stand on anything. Ever since the Bork nomination and the fiasco of the attacks on him it’s understood your job up there is to dance, to express a fealty to the constitution. You will say you will be independent and that's it and he did that beautifully.” 

While Krauthammer’s assessment of the confirmation hearings is factually accurate, his description of Judge Gorsuch’s handling of answers make the judge sound like someone purposefully evasive and trying to avoid presenting factual reality. However, that’s clearly not the case, whereas the judge is a consummate, well-credentialed and certainly worthy candidate which, once again, readers confirmed in their comments.   

ralph5 wrote: “Never take anything Charlie says seriously.  He was outed by O'Reilly how much he hates Pres. Trump and will do/say anything to discredit the President on anything/everything.  His ego has gotten totally out of control.” 

BobEngineer1 opined: “Gorsuch did not evade critical or any questions. A good judge looks at the law and the evidence without predetermining the case or having an established bias. The two federal Judges that have placed an injunction on Trumps increased constraints on countries that do not provide sufficient or reliable information on immigrants is a legal travesty. These judges once overruled by Supreme Court should be sanctioned or disbarred.” 

DC2NM2 added: “Evading questions is not the purpose of these hearings.” 

While readers established again that they are well aware of what transpires on major issues, Rush covered the topic too, offering his conclusion that Democrats involved in the hearings are overwhelmed and unable to present substantive opposition to the judge at all.      

Rush said: “There’s no conversation taking place. The senators on the Democrat side are not discussing the law. They’re asking gotcha questions, and Gorsuch is at least two times as smart as any of these Democrats, at a minimum, on the committee."

He went on: “It has been amusing, satisfying, pleasing to watch a little bit of the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justice nominee Neil Gorsuch, because the man really is coming across as Jimmy Stewart — calm, kind, mannerly, brilliant, untrickable, and committed. And the Democrats on the committee have been reduced to simply reading questions, obviously written for them by their staff. I swear. I watched Senator Dianne Feinstein; I don’t think she understood half of what she was asking.” 

Rush then presented an example of Feinstein’s political questioning where she asked: “Um, y’know, President Bush tortured and President Trump has said that he likes torture and he thinks torture works.” And Gorsuch said, “Well, Senator, the law of our land currently proscribes of use of torture.” (stammering) “Y-y-yeah, I know, but — but do you think Trump’s right? Did — did — did — did — did you have to promise Trump anything? Did you have to promise anything before you were picked?” 

“I didn’t speak to President Trump before I was chosen.” “Well, what about the circuit? What did the circuit…? Did you promise anybody?” “No, Senator, I was not asked anything prior to being selected to be on the circuit, appellate court, or the Supreme Court.” “What do you think about…? What do you think about Plessy v. Ferguson and the precedent of stare decisis?” “Senator, the law is my client. I do not do what you do. We on courts do not do what you do. We judges are not equipped to do what you do. We simply follow the law.” 

As a result, Rush was particularly impressed with the judge’s ability to sift through what he’d been asked by Democrats and then respond particularly as his job relates to the interpretation and upholding of the law as it is written. Most importantly, he is certainly not a politician nor does he think like one.   

Next, Rush presented the judge’s explanation that there are no little guys, big guys, rich guys, poor guys in court. “Well, of course the Democrats, they don’t think that. They think when you’re a judge, you automatically rule against big corporations just because you do. And you automatically stand up and rule in favor of the minority, because that’s just what you do. And Gorsuch said, “No, I don’t even see that, Senator. I see a litigant. 

“I see a person with a case — and my client, Senator, is the law. As a judge, my client is the law. And I owe my client the best deference and honesty I can provide.” And then he said — and this just shocked ’em. They were dead silent. There was not a Democrat that had a word to say for at least five seconds. He said, “Equality…” This rings true because this is… Folks, this is right out of my own heart, I have to tell you. “Equality before the law was the most radical thing in the world when it was incorporated here in the United States.” 

All of which comes down to the judge having placed Democrat panelists in the position that if they find him unacceptable, what they are really opposed to is what’s written in the U.S. Constitution and all other laws that citizens live by. Which is a lose/lose situation for them altogether. 

On another subject, Hannah Williams, Reporter @cbronline.com in the UK covered a study that “found that 42 percent of UK consumers believe their job is likely to be replaced by a robot in the next 30 years, while 25 percent think that this could happen within the next 10 years.”

Considering today’s opening topic, political aspects of Supreme Court nominees, “the surprising, or not-so-surprising (depending on your opinion of politicians) findings from the report reveal that consumers would entrust the running of the country to robots. 66 percent of UK citizens expect that robots will be working within the government by 2037, with 16 percent believing this could happen in the next one to two years. 

“A further finding which may cause concern for Number 10 is that one in four think robots will make better decisions that elected government representatives, mainly in regards to the economy. However, a further 35 percent of UK citizens say robots would not be able to assess the cultural aspects when it comes to decision making.” 

Thus, although roughly a third of UK citizens say robots would not be able to assess cultural aspects of government, today’s theme applies again. Because, the laws that citizens live by aren’t necessarily “cultural,” but the agreed upon standards that apply to all, regardless.

And then, the new POTUS gained another solid endorsement, this one coming from a truly surprising source. 

According to Jeff Poor @breitbart.com this morning: “[O]n MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” former Obama administration Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said that although he was “concerned” about President Donald Trump’s tweets, he believed Trump has the potential to be a “great president.” 

“I actually believe that Donald Trump — and I told him this when I met with him in December,” he said. “I actually believe Donald Trump has the potential to be a great president in sort of the Nixon goes to China way or Reagan goes to the Soviet Union way. If he can find a way to rein in some of — some of the more unhealthy impulses, listen to his staff, bring on a full complement of political appointees who will help him govern.” 

So, here we have a different kind of proof that the coalition amassed by Trump has broad-based appeal as opposed to the traditional party-line overall approach taken by most politicians. Which is another reason that Democrat hostility is dampened because independents make up the difference in numbers. 

And as far as Jeb Johnson’s worries about Trump’s tweets are concerned, whereas Johnson’s a Democrat himself no one would expect him to grasp the concept of Trump’s 
electronic strategizing whereas it’s simply too complex for his mentality. Nonetheless, Johnson’s endorsement is surely appreciated regardless of his minimal IQ. 

That's it for today folks. 

Adios