The hilarious cartoon below shows how despicable Democrats plan to be at hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, Trumps second SCOTUS pick.
They have zero plan to ask fair questions.
Nor are they looking for answers to their concerns over Roe v Wade or other issues.
It really doesn’t matter who Trump would have picked to replace Kennedy, the attacks and smears would be the same.
That really sums it up.
Democrats have no due diligence plan, only a character assassination and obstruction attack plan.
The good news is Trump made an excellent choice in Brett Kavanaugh and there is almost nothing Democrats can do to change the outcome.
They have zero leverage and have to resort to lies because the truth is, they have no argument.
The story below perfectly illustrates Democrat’s powerlessness:
Chuck Schumer straightened his tie, adjusted his glasses and headed out to the floor of the Senate to tell a series of big, fat lies.
The New York Democrat is in a pitched battle against D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who he and his leftist minions have sworn to oppose.
Nothing is off the table. Dragging Kavanaugh through the mud is par for the course, as is lying on the floor of the Senate.
Schumer was going to demand an “affirmative statement of support” for Supreme Court precedents – ostensibly to uphold Roe v. Wade.
Of course, this is preposterous.
Supreme Court nominees are not going to prejudice themselves by announcing how they’ll decide on any case, but that didn’t stop Schumer. He said he will oppose Kavanaugh unless he can swear to uphold “precedent.”
How can he make this demand? Because – he said – previous Supreme Court nominees “swore to obey precedent” in their confirmation hearings – Justice John Roberts specifically.
Of course, this isn’t just a lie, it’s complete fiction.
No nominee ever swore to obey precedent in their hearings.
What Schumer’s suggesting is that these people promised to never reverse any precedent – ever. It’s never happened.
The Daily Signal picks up exactly what happened:
Like Kavanaugh, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor each served on the U.S. Court of Appeals at the time of their respective Supreme Court nominations.
At his 2005 confirmation hearing, Roberts said that “precedent plays an important role,” and he described how recognized “principles of stare decisis” guide how a court handles its own past decisions.
Similarly, Alito acknowledged that the practice of following prior decisions is “very important.” He discussed how “the doctrine of stare decisis” includes criteria or considerations that courts use to decide whether to overturn a precedent.
At her 2009 confirmation hearing, Sotomayor described her “great respect for precedent” and said that “all precedent of the [Supreme] Court is entitled to the respect of the doctrine of stare decisis.”
Like Roberts and Alito, she discussed how that doctrine includes factors that the court will use in deciding whether to reverse a precedent.
Did you get that?
They all pretty much said the same thing: precedent is important, but not absolute.
The difference between “the doctrine of stare decisis” and “the principles of stare decisis” are zero.
But Schumer’s lie is even more brazen: It’s demonstrably false.
It never happened.
John Roberts confirmation hearing is public and easily accessible. So are Samuel Alito’s and Sonia Sotomayor. It’s a provable falsehood.
On the floor of the Senate – the world’s most august body.
By a sitting United States Senator.
Maybe he was hoping nobody would check.
He was wrong.