The front page of The Washington Times sums up what’s happening in the Trump White House & beyond. For the most part, I am happy with the news. We, the conservatives, just need to keep moving. Slow, steady progress is the key, I think.
I am totally on board with Mitch McConnell et al not giving Judge Garland an up-or-down vote or even a hearing. But let me take some of the pressure off of them. I’ll have lunch with Judge Garland.
First, however, let’s clarify the situation. President Obama wants a “moderate liberal” — as multiple folks on NPR described him — to succeed Antonin Scalia, one of the most important and consequential justices ever to sit on the Supreme Court in the modern era? Not gonna happen, if I have anything to do with it.
The Senate Republicans better stick with the plan. Screw the political pressure.
But, that said, I’d still sit down with Judge Garland. I’d love to invite him for lunch and see what he has to say. There’s no reason we can’t be nice, but firm in our positions.
Republican politicians too often think that bipartisanship and collegiality means caving — all the damn time. I like the concept of Senate collegiality. So, we should say “No” with a smile and an offer to do lunch.
Hopefully Garland wouldn’t be all tight-lipped and overly careful. I have a few questions for him. Where did the name Merrick come from? What’s your judicial philosophy? What are your views on Scalia? Roe v. Wade? Citizens United?
Of course, he won’t answer most of the legal questions. But I am curious to know more about him.
I was listening to NPR the morning Obama announced the pick. Nina Totenberg and company were sycophantically enthusiastic, sickeningly so.
“He’s so accomplished. He’s such a middle-of-the road jurist. How could anyone say no to this nomination?”
Talk about being a propaganda organ of the state, that’s NPR.
Well, I’ll tell you what, Nina and friends, just watch us.