Much of the rhetoric that supports postponing an immediate appointment to the Supreme Court denies the U.S. constitution. A headline reads “Sen. Hirono: Dems Will Explore ‘Every Tool to Keep McConnell from Shoving This Nominee Down Our Throats’.” Doesn’t that mean that the constitutional procedures don’t count or are somehow out of bounds? Doesn’t her statement mean that shoving down the throat replaces law in her mind? Does Hirono have no respect for constitutional procedures?

Hirono also says she won’t meet with Barrett, and she’s on the Senate Judiciary Committee. And she’s joined in this by Sen. Blumenthal from Connecticut. He tweets “I will refuse to treat this process as legitimate & will not meet with Judge Amy Coney Barrett.” He calls it an “illegitimate sham process”.

Can you dig it? Two U.S. senators are claiming that a constitutional process, which this confirmation 100% is, is a violent fake. This is what they are conveying to American citizens.

Americans should be dismayed that there are people holding top elective offices who think this way, which is with utter contempt for the constitution they’re supposed to know something about and uphold. The case of Obama’s anti-American statements will be addressed toward the end of this blog.

A leftist coalition has formed to demonstrate against confirmation, and their rhetoric is easily as anti-constitution as that of Hirono and Blumenthal. They say “It is unjust and unacceptable to try to rush through a nomination less than 40 days from the election.” The U.S. constitution is the supreme law of the land, but they do not accept it as such. According to them “we must…let the people decide on the next Supreme Court Justice of this country. We must demand no nomination before inauguration. It’s our future and we should get to choose our justice.”

This group denies the Constitution altogether. They want a popular vote for Supreme Court justices.

MoveOn houses a petition with almost 7,000 signatures. It simply says “We should not have a defeated President naming a Justice for life in the last few months of his term.” (This means in case Trump loses. That part isn’t the problem.) The problem with this rhetoric, as in all such instances, is that it proposes an ad hoc standard that’s supra-constitutional. One cannot simply make up a condition that negates constitutional law and demand that it be adhered to. That destroys the constitution altogether.

Here’s another example, which is a small rally urging delay. It’s the rationale that’s again important. One articulate person said “We want to put someone on the Supreme Court for this lifetime appointment that is representative of what we need as people to have equality, to have justice.” Obviously, this isn’t how our constitution directs a Supreme Court appointment to be done. We the people get to talk but the senators get to vote. If delay or the lack thereof traces back to rules of procedure, and they are constitutional, that’s how the game is played. We do not have a system in which justices are selected by “what we need as people to have equality, to have justice.”

Obama, our former president, disrespects the U.S. constitution too. He’s making up irrelevant conditions for delay like “[S]he [Justice Ginsburg] also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored…” Since when does the constitution say that an outgoing justice gets to narrow the field of replacements so as to fit her politics? This is an emotional appeal. Obama then accused the Republicans of seeking unfair advantage. What’s unfair about using the power they have? Didn’t Obama do that for 8 years? And didn’t Obama even try to castrate Trump’s power unfairly via a soft coup?

Obama ended his call for delay by making justice arguments similar to those being made by the less august leftist commoners:

“The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process.”

This is another anti-constitution appeal. Obama asserts that an appointment now that follows the rules laid down by the constitution is somehow “impeachable”, or invalid because the court will be considering weighty issues.

Obviously Obama’s saying that a Trump appointment will cause an unfair economy, an unjust society, unequal treatment of women, the planet’s destruction and a fatal blow to “our democracy”. This is all political garbage. It has nothing to do with the constitutional validity of a Trump appointment being made before he leaves office and before the election.

Obama openly speaks as if the constitution were irrelevant and didn’t matter. In his mind, what then does matter? He has told us clearly. It’s his leftist agenda as he and other Democrats in power understand it and see it. Their ends matter to them, the constitution be damned. What matters to them are their ideas of a fair economy, just society, equal treatment of women, climate change, and democracy. They believe in making these things happen, as they understand them, in a never-ending process of legislative “law-making” that’s rubber stamped by the Supreme Court. They do not believe in rights and fixed laws within which people freely decide their own lives in pursuit of their own happiness. And above the agenda, which is necessary for them to articulate in order to gain and hold power, they are after their own power. That is their real aim, their own power.

The left-wing rhetoric of Supreme Court appointment delay reveals how leftists, Democrats included, think. They think with disrespect and disregard for the constitution. Obama makes this clear. This thinking is part of a more general disrespect and disregard of any objective or even semi-objective idea of law and rights that constrains their grasp of any powers whatsoever that they can wield in the name of their leftist agenda.

If traditional America means an America of rights, individualism and rule of law, if it means a land of opportunity and capitalism, however imperfectly realized, the leftists hate America even as it succeeds in achieving these ideals. Obama leads the parade of anti-American Democrats in wanting to replace it by a socialist America that they rule.

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff