Opinion

Where Is Joe’s SCOTUS List?

|
Posted: Sep 24, 2020 12:01 AM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Where Is Joe’s SCOTUS List?

Source: AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

Look, if this election is a referendum on the direction of the Supreme Court, doesn’t Grandpa Badfinger owe us a list of the people that his puppet masters might appoint given the chance? He says he won’t because reasons and because. What’s he hiding?

Oh, right. He’s hiding the fact that his string-pullers would nominate some arch-commie who would treat your First and Second Amendment rights like the nominal nominee treated his staffers when he thought no one was looking.

Of course, any such list would not be scribbled down by Bad Touch Biden himself. He’s an unsteady conduit, the terminal soup can for the feverish leftist dreams of the folks talking into the tin cylinder at the other end of the string. The only list Oldfinger could put together himself would read:

  • Oatmeal
  • Ensure
  • Gruel
  • Depends
  • Mush

And it would include a drawing of a happy face.

But we have a right to know what the wizards whose spells animate him have up their sleeves. As instructed, Gropey Joe promised that he would appoint a black woman to the Court. Well, who? It’s already pretty lame to pick someone based on where her great-great-great-grandfather came from, but isn’t it super condescending and… racist…to assume that her race is all that matters? He’s really saying, “Relax. Black women judges are fungible. It doesn’t matter who she is, only what she is.”

Frankly, I’m thinking this is just further proof that the entire Harris-Biden campaign is based on white supremacy. And talk about white fragility – if Biden was any more brittle he’d shatter if someone hit a high note. 

It’s also obnoxiously deceptive, as is the mainstream media’s adherence to the “WHATEVER YOU DO DON’T ASK HIM ABOUT HIS SCOTUS CHOICE OR ANYTHING THAT GETS HIM TALKING ABOUT WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT MINORITIES” gaffe-avoidance guidelines. They want to impose another hard-left justice who will be untroubled by irritating obstacles to their prog utopia, like the text of our Constitution.

Let’s be clear about RBG. She was beloved by Antonin Scalia, which counts for something, and she was nice to people in person (she treated Hugh Hewitt very kindly when he was a law clerk, for example). We conservatives should respect her toughness as an opponent, and we should appreciate her fight against her illness. But she was not as much a judge as an unabashed advocate for her political preferences. She was not a great legal commentator or analyst. She was a reliable liberal vote who, every single time, would vote the way the left wanted. No one can name a single time where her vote was unexpected or went against expectations (Scalia, for instance, famously rejected flag burning laws). Without that slavish conformity to the party line, all her personal qualities would be irrelevant. There’d be no t-shirts or slobbering fawning. There’d be no more very, very disappointed frat boys who didn’t read past the title and downloaded On The Basis of Sex. No, she’d just be another rando judge that no one could name without thinking about it.

And that’s the kind of justice that Biden will be instructed to choose, should America be dumb enough to elect that desiccated weirdo – an absolute liberal vote who will rule exactly how the swells in DC, NY and LA demand.

But the Biden Bunch does not want to say that part out loud. To name the nominee, or to even list potential nominees, which President Trump has done repeatedly, is to open them up to scrutiny. Tellingly, the GOP wants the scrutiny. It has eagerly published the potential picks, knowing that the American people prefer justices who like freedom and order rather than fascism and chaos. 

Here’s what a Biden justice would uphold. On free speech, the government (read “the Democrat-loving bureaucrats”) will be able to limit what you say in the name of “campaign finance reform." Remember, the Citizens United case was a ruling that said the government could not ban a negative movie about Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit. On religious freedom, get ready for the government to tell your church how it must operate. And your religious rights will be secondary to government prerogatives. Sure, you can freely exercise your religion, if it doesn’t annoy the liberals too much.

And that stuff about not infringing upon your right to keep and bear arms? The Founders were just kidding. That right can totally be infringed. But as for killing babies, well, it’s open season. Because the right to have guns that is actually in the Constitution is not a thing, but the right to kill babies that isn’t in the Constitution is a thing.

Sounds awesome, huh?

So, what are you hiding, Joe?

Oh wait, I’m misaddressing my question.

What are you hiding, people who control that senile old puppet?

Help us fight the Left. Join Townhall VIP.

My best-selling conservative thriller series about America splitting into red and blue is coming true in real time. Check out People's Republic, Indian Country, Wildfire, and Collapse! Also, check out my new intentionally non-fiction book The 21 Biggest Lies about Donald Trump (and You!)!