More Losing: Biden Won't Release List Of SCOTUS Contenders

Ha ha! That was a bit of clickbait. You thought I'd be quoting Biden, but you shoulda known better--he's been incommunicado for what seems like days, now. Instead, it's nameless Dems who are refusing to release that list. Zerohedge covers it here--Biden Refuses To Release List Of Supreme Court Contenders:

Biden is reportedly refusing to release a list of potential nominees, should he ever get the opportunity to fill the vacancy left by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Get that? It's a report. Dementia Joe has had any good enough days recently that would allow him to appear in public and attempt to read from a teleprompter.

While Biden himself was silent publicly, his campaign was laying plans to shift the focus of the looming Supreme Court nomination fight toward a referendum on the Affordable Care Act, according to his advisers. The high court is scheduled to hear the fate of Obamacare after the election.

In other words, Biden is simply a puppet of "his campaign." Whatever that means.

Shift the focus to a referendum on the ACA? Are you kidding me? Or, rather, Who does "his campaign" think they're kidding? That's a total loser as a campaign. Yes, people care about health care, but that's not gonna be the big issue of this campaign. The big issue won't even be the SCOTUS, because aged Senate Dems savaging accomplished, youngish, conservative women judges is another losing proposition.

The real issue will end up being Joe Biden's dementia. And that will be one more in a series of losers.

How Bad Is The Ginsburg Succession War For Dems?

This bad.

In a story put out by the Washington Examiner, a poll conducted by Marquette University (that's in Milwaukee and, no, it's not conservative) showed that overwhelming majorities of voters of all categories--Dem, GOP, Indy--favor doing a confirmation between now and the election.

That poll was taken three days before Ginsburg died.

Some details:

A new poll conducted shortly before the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed that an overwhelming majority of U.S. adults of all political stripes supported holding hearings for a nominee if a vacancy opened on the nation's highest bench.

Marquette University released the survey results on Saturday that showed 67% of adults believed the Senate should hold a hearing if a vacancy occurred during 2020's race, with only 32% opposition — and similar strong numbers across Republicans, Democrats, and independents, who supported holding confirmation hearings at 68-31%, 63-37%, and 71-28% respectively. The poll was completed three days before the death of Ginsburg, the 87-year-old liberal icon who was nominated by President Bill Clinton and confirmed in 1993. Ginsburg earned praise from Democrats and Republicans upon news of her death.

It seems there's no way they'll win. 

BREAKING: Attempted Assassination Of President Trump

Is there anything that could be more predictable, after four years of over the top vilification of President Trump?

I can't embed tweets in the new Blogger composer, but if you go to Red State you'll find the CNN video report in an embedded tweet there: Concentrated, Deadly Ricin Sent to White House, Addressed to President Trump.

Apparently some one sent Ricin addressed to Trump at the White House. Those types of packages are handled at an off site. This happened a few days ago. Over the succeeding days the substance in the package was tested enough times to determine that it really was a deadly form of Ricin.

Sage Advice From Senator Cruz--With A Warning

I'm glad Ted Cruz lost to Donald Trump. If Cruz had been the GOP nominee I think there's little doubt that we'd be ruled by a President Hillary and the country would be rapidly descending the tubes. However, Cruz seems to have found his spot in the Senate. Last night he offered this advice to Trump via the Sean Hannity show:

And I’ll tell you one reason in particular, Sean, why it is tremendously important that, not only does the nomination happen next week, but that the confirmation happen before election day. Because Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear they intend to challenge this election. They intend to fight the legitimacy of the election. As you know, Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden, “under no circumstances should you concede, you should challenge this election.” and we cannot have election day come and go with a 4-4 court.

A 4-4 court that is equally divided cannot decide anything. And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine-justice Supreme Court, particularly when there is such a risk of a contested litigation and a contested election.

We all knew that, but he said it well. It's the kind of voice we need in the Senate. 

UPDATED: Conventional Wisdom: Amy Coney Barrett Will Be Nominated

I've heard various views on this, including that Trump was underwhelmed with Judge Amy when he interviewed her last time. Still, I believe there's truth in the conventional wisdom. Barrett may be the right nominee at the right moment. And it's not just that she'd be replacing a woman. Trump needs a nominee with the intestinal fortitude to go through a brutal process. Barrett went through that during her last confirmation and appeared to show that she has what it may take. Beyond that, her persona should resonate throughout the land. The usual vicious Dem rhetoric will backfire in the face of what seems to be Barrett's sheer normality.

There's a good overview of who Barrett is at the American Spectator this morning: 

Amy Barrett — Immediately, If Not Sooner

President Trump has the right nominee at the right moment in American history.

The article starts off with a fairly long section on Ginsburg's arrogant miscalculation that she could go out in a blaze of glory under a President Hillary. Then after a bit on the political dynamics of the moment, the author gets into the specifics on Why Amy.

Amy Barrett is neither East Coast nor West Coast. She grew up outside of New Orleans, attended elementary and middle school at St. Catherine of Siena Catholic School in the middle-class suburb of Metairie, St. Mary’s Dominican High School in the city, graduating in 1990, and then Rhodes College in Memphis. Barrett obtained her law degree from Notre Dame, then after a pair of clerkships for distinguished jurists Lawrence Silberman and Antonin Scalia and a couple of stints at well-respected private law firms, became a law professor at Notre Dame for several years before her nomination to the 7th Circuit in 2017.

Barrett’s confirmation to the 7th Circuit was a disaster for the Left. It included the famous gaffe by California’s Dianne Feinstein in which the latter essentially attempted to disqualify Barrett for having deeply held Catholic beliefs, as though that made her akin to a cult member. “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for for years in this country,” Feinstein told Barrett during the confirmation hearings, in a moment most Democrats would like to forget.

...

It was an excellent performance, one which put Barrett on the map as a potential Supreme Court justice, and Barrett’s demeanor and poise in handling Feinstein’s rather obnoxious assault was eye-opening in a positive way. ..., it became quite clear that Amy Barrett is not someone the Democrats can beat down in a confirmation hearing.

Presenting Amy Barrett to the Senate for Supreme Court confirmation would tee up yet another potential disaster for the Democrats just like her confirmation for the 7th Circuit was, and it would do so when virtually every American is watching intently.

She’s young, in her late 40’s. She’s a mother of seven, including two adopted children from Haiti, she lives a middle-class lifestyle (her husband Jesse Barrett is a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Chicago), she’s attractive, she’s exceptionally well-spoken and an excellent, compelling speaker on the law and the Constitution.

She also boasts an outstanding perspective, as a mother of seven who’s been a lawyer, a law professor, and a federal appellate judge, on the question of how women might balance a career and a family. ... That’s a healthy viewpoint the majority of American women, and particularly middle-class or upper-middle-class women in the suburbs, will find wisdom in.

 

The author finishes with some perspectives on the prospects for Barrett's confirmation. That includes some interesting ideas on possibly prying away a couple of Dems. Really. And that's part of how Barrett's normality could come into play.

Trump likes to surprise, but this seems like a reasonable guess.

UPDATE 1: Reports are that Trump spoke with Cocaine Mitch today and that the choice is narrowed to Amy Barrett or Barbara Lagoa from Florida. I don't know much about Lagoa, a Cuban American, but she gets very high marks from conservatives in Florida. She also has a tremendous amount of experience.

One indication of her views comes from the preface to a series of questions that Dianne Feinstein presented during Lagoa's confirmation hearing when Lagoa was appointed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Feinstein said:

When you were appointed to the Florida Supreme Court in January 2019, the president of the Florida Family Policy Council issued a statement praising your judicial appointment as a “home run” and describing you as having “a conservative judicial philosophy that appreciates the limited role of the court.” According to its website, the Florida Family Policy Council is a state-based policy council that has, among other things, organized a statewide campaign to defund Planned Parenthood, and encouraged attendance at “pro-life events” that are “mourning Roe v. Wade,” with the assertion, “We are winning this battle but the pro-life abolitionist movement needs your help and support.”

UPDATE 2: should have pointed out what's pretty obvious. Florida is a hugely important state in presidential elections. Trump is courting Hispanics nationwide, not just in Florida, and making headway. A Lagoa nomination would seem to really put the Dems in a box.

UPDATE 3: Politico is claiming that Lagoa is at the top of the list.

UPDATED: RBG Puts The Left On The Spot

Any hopes that the electorate would forget that the Dems are the party of riots and looting seem to have gone out the window. There has been a temporary lull in the riots, urged by Dems, with even Pelosi calling for prosecution of violent offenders--a sure sign that polling is trending very strongly against the Dem rioting tactic.

Now, however, Dems (prominently, Reza Aslan) are calling on each other to "burn the entire f*cking thing down" if Cocaine Mitch holds a vote on a replacement for Ginsburg. But to stop the confirmation hearings and vote that Cocaine Mitch has pledged to hold, the prepatory rioting--prepatory to burning the whole country down--will need to start soon. Of course the Dems are trotting out Ginsburg's dying wish, Obama, and Chuck Schumer to make various statements. But Cocaine Mitch has already drawn a line and you can go to the bank that he'll stick to it.

That puts the Dems in a tough spot, just when they were hoping they could reform their image. Trump has the Constitution on his side, so he'll be making his nomination very soon. Thanks to Ginsburg, the entire country will be reminded just how important this election is, what it's all about. That was good for Trump in 2016 and should be even better in 2020. And now it looks like we'll all be reminded that the Dems are the party of "burn the entire f*cking thing down."

UPDATE: Monica Showalter has a nice sample of Dem "commentary": The left threatens death, destruction and fire if President Trump dares nominate a replacement for RBG on SCOTUS.

Basically, it amounts to: Democracy = we win. Or else.

I see the hand wringing in the comments over the usual RINOs making their announcements. FWIW, Shipwreckedcrew believes Cocaine Mitch can pull this off--if necessary, with the help of Mike Pence. SWC asks, Where Will His 50 Votes Comes From? and offers some answers. I'm not into that kind of prognosticating, but I do think it's possible.

Interesting Discussion On Chris Wray's Future

This afternoon there was an interesting discussion that I've excerpted below from Shipwreckedcrew's twitter thread. It features mostly SWC, but additional comments are from Andy McCarthy and two former Bureau guys: James Gagliano and Jim Casey. So, you have a bit of a balanced perspective--two DoJ guys and two Bureau guys. We all know McCarthy and SWC, but here's some background on Gagliano and Casey. I think the background is important in assessing their views as expressed here. 

UPDATED: BREAKING: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Dead

What can I say? This really stirs the waters for the election.

Overall, I think this helps Trump. It's puts pressure on Biden--or whoever tells Biden what to say--to name his candidates for SCOTUS. Trump has already done so.

The real question is--does Trump have a charismatic candidate for the SCOTUS who would be up for a confirmation fight at this juncture? Even without a hearing or vote at this point, it would focus the entire campaign. We've seen what that has meant in the past with Kavanaugh--big plus for Trump.

UPDATE: Per Justin Miller:

@justinjm1

Justice Ginsburg dictated a statement before her death: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."

 Per Steve Sailer:

I don’t know as much about the ins-and-outs of the Constitution as the late Justice Ginsburg did, but I could swear the Constitution does not grant Supreme Court Justices their own Dying Wish …

I guess lockdown is over for the duration of the Ruth Bader Ginsburg funeral orgies.

It will be interesting to see how extravagant, prolonged, and shameless they will be:

John McCain-level?

John Lewis-level?

Or thermonuclear George Floyd-level?

Suicide Of The Liberals?

Earlier this week emailer George sent me a link to a new article by Gary Saul Morson, a professor of Humanities at Northwestern University. As many of you will already know, Morson is fascinated by parallels between the current crisis of our constitutional order and the pre-Revolutionary period in Russian history. His latest article focuses on the almost mind boggling upsurge of revolutionary terror in Russia during the first decade of the 20th century--and the liberal embrace of this virtual orgy of violence. That liberal reaction--which Morson wants us to see in our current "mainstream" progressives and liberals--led directly to the Bolshevik Revolution, with violence on a scale unparalleled in previous history.

I'll provide some fairly extensive excerpts and you can judge for yourself as to the aptness of the comparisons between Russian liberals and those of our own day and in our own country. For all the historical, social, and political differences between then in Russia and now in America, I do find the parallels to be striking. Morson clearly wants us to consider those parallels and to find common elements that underlie revolutionary violence, and it's there that I question whether his explanation of the common elements is completely satisfactory.

What I'd like to do here is to point out elements of current events that remind one of central themes in the thought of Mircea Eliade. Eliade saw many parallels between the thinking and acting of "archaic man," the man of "traditional" societies of any age, and the ideologies of the modern Western world. Thus:

Eliade notes that, in traditional societies, myth represents the absolute truth about primordial time. According to the myths, this was the time when the Sacred first appeared, establishing the world's structure—myths claim to describe the primordial events that made society and the natural world be that which they are. Eliade argues that all myths are, in that sense, origin myths: "myth, then, is always an account of a creation."

That may seem abstract, so let's draw out some more concrete implications. For "archaic" man, the ordered, structured world is brought forth by the gods from a primordial chaos. Creation or, better, origin myths expresses this worldview. However, for the man of any society, we are faced with the reality that our existence always threatens to slip back into chaos--more so at some times than at others. Thus, a key part of traditional religion has always been to seek to "regenerate" the ordered world through rituals. Those rituals typically occur at the New Year--or other significant times, such as the spring planting or harvest. The rituals often include elements that invoke an overturning of the entire order of the world or of human society, to make way for the new creation or regeneration of a perfect order. Such disorder can obviously lapse into outright violence.

So, for example, in The Myth of the Eternal Return (1949), Eliade describes the ancient Babylonian New Year rituals:

The first act of the ceremony ... marks a regression into the mythical period before the Creation; all forms are supposed to be confounded ... every feature suggests universal confusion, the abolition of order and hierarchy, "orgy," chaos. We witness, one might say, a "deluge" that annihilates all humanity in order to prepare the way for a new and regenerated human species. (p. 57)

I suggest that what we are seeing in the chaotic riots and "peaceful" violence is an unconscious reenactment of these types of rituals--indeed, the ritual element in Leftist demonstrations should be very apparent. The prominence that sexual disorder has for the modern Left--the "trans" movement (I think 'movement' is the right word) epitomizes and evokes the 'abolition of order'--is a strong indication of what's going on: a ritual evocation of chaos that will, by magical reenactment, lead to a 'regenerated human species.'

A Shipwrecked Theory Of Russia Hoax Prosecutions?

Today is all Bill Barr--and rightly so, after Barr's fine Hillsdale college address Former federal prosecutor Shipwreckedcrew has come away from Barr's address with a theory of what types of prosecutions we should expect to see as a result of John Durham's Russia Hoax investigation. SWC's theorizing comes at an opportune time, since some of us were discussing this very issue earlier today--but based on Senate actions with regard to their own investigations of the Russia Hoax.

Obviously, it's misguided to expect the results we hope for from Congress. Congress serves many governmental purposes, but prosecution isn't one of them. One hears--and reads in comments--that, for example, "McCabe will walk" because he hasn't been subpoenaed and hasn't agreed to testify voluntarily. I won't belabor the obvious--this type of thinking, even if it were to hit on correct results at times, is simply misguided. And especially so when dealing with a highly principled AG like Bill Barr.

Now, SWC has developed a theory of what to expect that runs basically like this. Barr will make the big decisions. Barr will not go for what I've called a "big picture conspiracy" prosecution but will instead opt for what might be called nickel-dime "false statement" type prosecutions.

SWC bases this theory on a brief passage from Barr's address. I will say this--as one who hopes for that big picture conspiracy prosecution. SWC may turn out to be right. If he is, I'll be disappointed because in my view it would do the country no service to pretend that something that actually did happen didn't. Here's SWC's reasoning:

SDNY: This Bears Watching

Emailer Jim brought this NYT article to my attention. The title struck me as somewhat odd in tone. Maybe it's just me, but it struck me as, I dunno, just a bit defensive--as if the NYT thought it had something at stake here, too:

U.S. Prosecutors’ Bid to ‘Bury’ Evidence Draws Judge’s Wrath

In an unusual opinion, a federal judge criticized the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan for its handling of a high-stakes Iranian sanctions case.

What I mean is this. The NYT seemed to regard this opinion as unusual coming from this judge. The judge in question, it goes without saying, is as liberal as you can imagine: Alison Nathan. And the context in which this opinion has to be considered is the fact that the US Attorney's Office for Southern District of New York (SDNY) has been:

1) Over the years, a feeder for the Deep State, and

2) Most particularly, a thorn in the side for the Trump administration.

The article itself characterizes the USAO as:

known for its fierce independence and ... once described as a steppingstone for law’s best and brightest. Its alumni have gone on to become F.B.I. directors, New York police commissioners, a United States attorney general, Supreme Court justices and partners at New York’s premier law firms.

FBI Directors, the law's best and brightest? Oh, that would include the disgraced former FBI Director Jim Comey, but that's omitted. Nevertheless, you get the picture.

In particular, the NYT seemed to find the opinion "unusual" because it came, more or less, on the heels of the Trump/Barr ouster in June of then USA Geoffrey S. Berman. If you want to refresh your recollection regarding that episode, I refer you to The Meaning Of The Berman Firing. That post quotes at length from a blog entitled The US Is In A Civil War (And Why Berman's Firing Matters), as well as other commenters who saw the importance of what was going on. It's worth the time to reprise that episode.

While the planned replacement for Berman was thwarted, Berman was removed. So, with that in mind, get a load of this ... Oh, and don't forget that another hearing in the Flynn case is coming up.

Chairman Bill Speaks, Lib Heads Explode

 From AG Barr's prepared remarks at Hillsdale College on Constitution Day, via Breitbart:

The most basic check on prosecutorial power is politics. It is counter-intuitive to say that, as we rightly strive to maintain an apolitical system of criminal justice. But political accountability—politics—is what ultimately ensures our system does its work fairly and with proper recognition of the many interests and values at stake. Government power completely divorced from politics is tyranny.

Isn't that what the Progressive project all about? They claim to be aiming for an apolitical government of experts. What they really mean is that all politics except theirs will be banned--a one party state. And we now find ourselves faced with a weaponized media/technology sector with unprecedented powers that is openly siding with that agenda.