Babylon bee Intelwars Ninth circuit court Ruth Bader Ginsburg Satire Usa today fact check

USA Today actually fact-checked a satire piece about RBG’s death being ‘overturned’

Nothing gets by the fact-checkers at USA Today.

In a fact-check article posted Sunday, USA Today writer Chelsey Cox and other staffers unironically determined a story published by the Babylon Bee, a well-known satire site, to be — you guessed it — “satire.”

What are the details?

The Babylon Bee story, titled Ninth Circuit Court Overturns Death Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” jokingly suggested that the historically liberal Ninth Circuit of Appeals ruled the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death unconstitutional in attempt to block President Donald Trump from nominating a conservative replacement.

Ginsburg died earlier this month due to complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer.

The satirical article quipped that Trump slammed the ruling as “idiotic” and called the judges “a bunch of morons.”

Justice Kim McLane Wardlaw, in an obviously fake response, vowed to “block any attempt [to replace RBG] until we figure out a way to resurrect her or maybe clone her and restore her to her already ‘legally alive’ state. We’re still figuring that part out.”

The story should have been an obvious joke to anyone who read it, especially considering that the Bee advertises itself with the Twitter slogan, “Fake news you can trust.” USA Today appeared to acknowledge as much: “The Babylon Bee is ‘the world’s best satire site,’ according to its website,” the report said.

Yet instead of laughing if off and going about their day, USA Today fact-checkers decided to forge on and submit a lengthy rebuttal to the story.

They actually checked the records

They even went so far as to check the Ninth Circuit’s website for past rulings about Ginsburg’s death. To no one’s surprise, there aren’t any.

“There is no record of any Wardlaw opinion on Ginsburg’s death on the website for the 9th Circuit, but she participated in a panel discussion Friday about Ginsburg’s life produced by the UCLA School of Law,” Cox wrote. “There was no mention of ‘reviving’ Ginsburg during the discussion.”

The report went on to note at length the history of the West Coast-based court’s opposition to Trump before finally delivering its determination.

“We rate this claim SATIRE, based on our research,” the fact-check concluded. “A satirical article about the 9th Circuit ‘overturning’ Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death has no basis in fact. It is true that the 9th Circuit has ruled against many Trump-era policies.”

The news outlet cited a whopping 15 trusted sources to support its determination. The fact-checkers could have saved precious time, however, if they would’ve just read the Bee’s bio and moved on.

architects battle distraction Force Government Headline News Intelwars Justice Laws left vs. right paradigm lie LIES no rights Police State political theatre Politicians ruling class Ruth Bader Ginsburg Secret Service Supreme Court Violence wake up

Justice Sleeps and ‘We the People’ Suffer: No, the U.S. Supreme Court Will Not Save Us

This article was originally published by John W. Whitehead at The Rutherford Institute. 

“The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.”—Justice William O. Douglas

The U.S. Supreme Court will not save us.

It doesn’t matter which party gets to pick the replacement to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. The battle that is gearing up right now is yet more distraction and spin to keep us oblivious to the steady encroachment on our rights by the architects of the American Police State.

Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice.

Although the courts were established to serve as Courts of Justice, what we have been saddled with, instead, are Courts of Order. This is true at all levels of the judiciary, but especially so in the highest court of the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, which is seemingly more concerned with establishing order and protecting government interests than with upholding the rights of the people enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

As a result, the police and other government agents have been generally empowered to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip, and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Rarely do the concerns of the populace prevail.

When presented with an opportunity to loosen the government’s noose that keeps getting cinched tighter and tighter around the necks of the American people, what does our current Supreme Court usually do?

It ducks. Prevaricates. Remains silent. Speaks to the narrowest possible concern.

More often than not, it gives the government and its corporate sponsors the benefit of the doubt, which leaves “we the people” hanging by a thread.

Rarely do the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court— preoccupied with their personal politics, cocooned in a world of privilege, partial to those with power, money, and influence, and narrowly focused on a shrinking docket (the court accepts on average 80 cases out of 8,000 each year)—venture beyond their rarefied comfort zones.

Every so often, the justices toss a bone to those who fear they have abdicated their allegiance to the Constitution. Too often, however, the Supreme Court tends to march in lockstep with the police state.

In recent years, for example, the Court has ruled that police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits; police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips; Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they’re done in the name of “security”; citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it; police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes,” justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside; police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime; police can stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike; police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the “offense”; police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home; and it’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name.

The cases the Supreme Court refuses to hear, allowing lower court judgments to stand, are almost as critical as the ones they rule on. Some of these cases have delivered devastating blows to the lives and rights enshrined in the Constitution. By remaining silent, the Court has affirmed that: legally owning a firearm is enough to justify a no-knock raid by police; the military can arrest and detain American citizens; students can be subjected to random lockdowns and mass searches at school; and police officers who don’t know their actions violate the law aren’t guilty of breaking the law.

You think you’ve got rights? Think again.

All of those freedoms we cherish—the ones enshrined in the Constitution, the ones that affirm our right to free speech and assembly, due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause—amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will.

This is the grim reality of life in the American police state.

In fact, our so-called rights have been reduced to technicalities in the face of the government’s ongoing power grabs.

In the police state being erected around us, the police can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip, and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

This is what one would call a slow death by a thousand cuts, only it’s the Fourth Amendment being inexorably bled to death by the very institution that is supposed to be protecting it (and us) from government abuse.

Remember, it was a unanimous Supreme Court which determined that police officers may use drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. That same Court gave police the green light to taser defenseless motorists, strip search non-violent suspects arrested for minor incidents, and break down people’s front doors without evidence that they have done anything wrong.

Make no mistake about it: this is what constitutes “law and order” in the American police state.

These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state, where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip-searching motorists on the side of the road, in a police state such as ours, these instances of abuse are not condemned by the government. Rather, they are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

The system is rigged.

Because the system is rigged and the U.S. Supreme Court—the so-called “people’s court”—has exchanged its appointed role as a gatekeeper of justice for its new role as maintainer of the status quo, the police state will keep winning and “we the people” will keep losing.

By refusing to accept any of the eight or so qualified immunity cases before it this past term that strove to hold police accountable for official misconduct, the Supreme Court delivered a chilling reminder that in the American police state, ‘we the people’ are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to ‘serve and protect.”

This is how qualified immunity keeps the police state in power.

Lawyers tend to offer a lot of complicated, convoluted explanations for the doctrine of qualified immunity, which was intended to insulate government officials from frivolous lawsuits, but the real purpose of qualified immunity is to rig the system, ensuring that abusive agents of the government almost always win and the victims of government abuse almost always lose.

How else do you explain a doctrine that requires victims of police violence to prove that their abusers knew their behavior was illegal because it had been deemed so in a nearly identical case at some prior time?

It’s a setup for failure.

A review of critical court rulings over the past several decades, including rulings affirming qualified immunity protections for government agents by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order, protecting the ruling class, and insulating government agents from charges of wrongdoing than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Indeed, as Reuters reports, qualified immunity “has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.”

Worse, as Reuters concluded, “the Supreme Court has built qualified immunity into an often insurmountable police defense by intervening in cases mostly to favor the police.”

For those in need of a reminder of all the ways in which the Supreme Court has made us sitting ducks at the mercy of the American police state, let me offer the following.

As a result of court rulings in recent years, police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless searches. Police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless arrests based on mere suspicion. Police can claim qualified immunity for using excessive force against protesters. Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a mentally impaired person. Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. Police can stop, arrest, and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.  Police officers can stop cars based on “anonymous” tips or for “suspicious” behavior such as having a reclined car seat or driving too carefully. Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime.  Police can use the “fear for my life” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals. Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes.” Not only are police largely protected by qualified immunity, but police dogs are also off the hook for wrongdoing.

Police can subject Americans to strip searches, no matter the “offense.” Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. Police can use knock-and-talk tactics as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment. Police can carry out no-knock raids if they believe announcing themselves would be dangerous. Police can recklessly open fire on anyone that might be “armed.” Police can destroy a home during a SWAT raid, even if the owner gives their consent to enter and search it. Police can suffocate someone, deliberately or inadvertently, in the process of subduing them.

To sum it up, we are dealing with a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out with impunity against individuals posing little or no real threat. In this way, the justices of the United States Supreme Court—through their deference to police power, preference for security over freedom, and evisceration of our most basic rights for the sake of order and expediency—have become the architects of the American police state.

So where does that leave us?

For those deluded enough to believe that they’re living the American dream—where the government represents the people, where the people are equal in the eyes of the law, where the courts are arbiters of justice, where the police are keepers of the peace, and where the law is applied equally as a means of protecting the rights of the people—it’s time to wake up.

We no longer have a representative government, a rule of law, or justice.

Liberty has fallen to legalism. Freedom has fallen to fascism.

Justice has become jaded, jaundiced, and just plain unjust.

And for too many, the American dream of freedom and opportunity has turned into a living nightmare.

Given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, profit-driven prisons, and corporate corruption, the need for a guardian of the people’s rights has never been greater.

Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, neither the president, nor the legislatures, nor the courts will save us from the police state that holds us in its clutches.

So we can waste our strength over the next few weeks and months raging over the makeup of the Supreme Court or we can stand united against the tyrant in our midst.

After all, the president, the legislatures, and the courts are all on the government’s payroll.

They are the police state.

The post Justice Sleeps and ‘We the People’ Suffer: No, the U.S. Supreme Court Will Not Save Us first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Barack Obama Intelwars New York Times Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court

Report: Obama once tried to persuade Ginsburg to retire before crucial election, but she refused

Former President Barack Obama attempted to persuade Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire prior to his presidential tenure ending, according to a new report.

The New York Times reported that Obama privately met with Ginsburg in July 2013 in an effort to curry favor with the Supreme Court justice, with the hopes of setting the foundation to Ginsburg’s retirement.

According to the Times, the looming 2014 midterm election is what jolted Obama into action.

From the Times:

Mr. Obama had asked his White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, to set up the lunch so he could build a closer rapport with the justice, according to two people briefed on
the conversation. Treading cautiously, he did not directly bring up the subject of retirement to Justice Ginsburg, at 80 the Supreme Court’s oldest member and a two-time
cancer patient.

He did, however, raise the looming 2014 midterm elections and how Democrats might lose control of the Senate. Implicit in that conversation was the concern motivating his
lunch invitation — the possibility that if the Senate flipped, he would lose a chance to appoint a younger, liberal judge who could hold on to the seat for decades.

But the effort did not work, just as an earlier attempt by Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who was then Judiciary Committee chairman, had failed. Justice
Ginsburg left Mr. Obama with the clear impression that she was committed to continuing her work on the court, according to those briefed.

Securing Ginsburg’s retirement would have allowed Obama to appoint his third Supreme Court justice, a likely left-leaning jurist who would have sat on the court for decades.

Unfortunately for Democrats, Obama’s political instincts were correct. Democrats lost their Senate majority in the 2014 midterm election, preventing Obama from filling the Supreme Court vacancy left by Antonin Scalia’s sudden death in February 2016. That electoral loss, coupled with Ginsburg’s refusal to retire, means Obama’s legacy on the federal judiciary will be overshadowed by Trump’s.

In fact, Trump has already had two Supreme Court nominees confirmed to the high court, and he is widely expected to announce his third nominee on Saturday: Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Barrett’s confirmation is almost guaranteed as Senate Majority Mitch McConnell has already announced he has secured the votes necessary to confirm whoever Trump nominates.

If Barrett is, in fact, Trump’s nominee, and if she is confirmed to the high court, Trump’s presidency will have reshaped the Supreme Court for decades — and he still has potentially four more years to further that legacy.

Andrea Mitchell Reports Intelwars MSNBC Ruth Bader Ginsburg Videos viral videos

MSNBC interviews 10-year-old girl about the significance  of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing

MSNBC recently interviewed a 10-year-old girl on the legacy of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ginsburg died on Friday at the age of 87 following several bouts with cancer.

What are the details?

According to a Thursday report from Newsbusters, MSNBC’s Geoff Bennett took to the streets of Washington, D.C., where he encountered a family with two young children.

Bennett, who was outside the Supreme Court, spoke to the many mourners gathered to pay their respects to the late justice.

Speaking to the child’s mother, Bennett asked, “Why was it so important for you to be here, to bring your kids, and to participate in this?”

The woman, identified as parent Meredith Becker, responded, “Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an absolute living legend. She did so much in her time here on this earth. And I thought it was only responsible as a parent to be respectful and pay respect to her for all of the amenities that she has allowed us, particularly as women, particularly as Jewish women, and also men, too, have afforded us opportunities in fights that we will never know from.”

What did the kids say?

Bennett then turned to Meredith’s children, 13-year-old Sam and 10-year-old Alana.

Bennett asked Sam, “What does [Ginsburg’s] passing mean to you, what is her legacy as you see it?”

The 13-year-old responded, “So first off, it’s really, really sad that she had to go, especially right before the election. She’s done so many great things for this country with equal rights and all. So just really, it’s tragic altogether.”

Bennett then turned to Alana, and asked her how she felt about the passing of the longtime justice.

The 10-year-old responded, “This is going to be the beginning of an absolute nightmare because she is no longer here to help the world.”

He concluded, “Thank you, thanks to your mom and your brother for your time this morning. … These are perspectives that we’ve been hearing all morning as we’ve talked to people paying tribute to the late justice as a trailblazer, an icon, a defender of human rights, women’s rights, and a defender of liberal ideals, a protector of progressive policies.”

2020 Conspiracy Fact and Theory election chaos elections are selections fall of the country Forecasting Headline News Intelwars President Donald Trump Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court United States

More Preplanned Election Chaos: Trump Says The Supreme Court Will “Sort Out” The Election

The preplanned election chaos is ramping up.  President Donald Trump says it’s important to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court because the “highest court” will have to “sort out” the presidential election, and it’s important to have nine justices.

They are advertising an election that will be the fall of this country. It will not matter who wins.  This will be ugly, they have promised us that already. Neither side will accept defeat, and both sides are going to make sure this plan plays out.

Trump has also made comments calling the Democrats’ efforts to expand voting by mail “a scam” and “a hoax,” adding that having the full Supreme Court bench would be “very important” because of that. “I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. And I think it’s important we have nine justices, Trump told reporters on Wednesday, at a roundtable with state attorneys-general at the White House.

Trump seemed determined to fill Ginsburg’s seat before the election because he wants to make sure the court is on his side if/when this contested political theatre goes all the way to the top. When asked about the timing of the confirmation, he said it was “better if you go before the election” and that it would be “fairly quick.”

Democrats are opposed to any nomination, arguing that Republican refusal to consider President Barack Obama’s nomination in 2016 has set a precedent for SCOTUS nominations in an election year. Republicans have countered that their refusal to consider Merrick Garland was different, because the Senate and the White House were not controlled by the same party, as they are now. RT

Trump will likely be successful in filling Ginsburg’s seat which will cause an uproar and further advance the division between the right and left. This could end in horrible violence if we don’t realize what’s going on.  Both sides in the left vs. right paradigm are saying that they won’t accept the election results and their followers will get overly angry about which president is selected this November.

And it’s all preplanned. This is by design.

The post More Preplanned Election Chaos: Trump Says The Supreme Court Will “Sort Out” The Election first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Intelwars Joy Behar Meghan McCain Ruth Bader Ginsburg Scotus nominees Supreme Court The View Videos

Joy Behar concedes Democrats’ SCOTUS loss: ‘We’ve lost that battle’

Joy Behar, co-host on “The View,” said Tuesday that Democrats have lost the fight for the Supreme Court.

What are the details?

Behar said on the daytime show that Republicans won the battle for the control of the Supreme Court during a segment about replacing late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday.

“You know, I was thinking about the Supreme Court, because we’ve lost that battle,” she admitted. “I don’t want to talk about the Republicans anymore. We’ve lost the battle. That doesn’t mean we lost the Senate. There are states up for grabs — Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas … and Arizona, too.”

Behar added, “Those states could become Democratic, help the Democrats win the Senate.”

She insisted that she personally doesn’t need to worry too much about what the Supreme Court does because she’s “white.”

“I don’t have to worry about the Supreme Court that much because I’m white. Because I’m post menopausal so I can’t get pregnant, thank God,” she continued. “I happen to be straight. I have money because I’ve been working on ‘The View’ for so many years.”

Behar pointed out that those in more precarious situations should worry about what the Supreme Court will be like in the coming years.

Co-host Whoopi Goldberg voiced her agreement and admitted that she didn’t want to think about the Supreme Court all that much, either — but she couldn’t help taking a backhanded swipe at purported top SCOTUS pick, Amy Coney Barrett.

“Well, here’s what I’ll say about — you know, talking about the woman who has the seven kids,” Goldberg said. “She’s up for becoming a justice. You know, you can’t really Kavanaugh her because Kavanaugh was Kavanaughed because he was accused of rape and people wanted to make sure that that wasn’t the case. No one’s going to accuse her of anything. And I haven’t really seen people going after her for her religion.”

Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney indicated Tuesday that he would vote to confirm a qualified Trump nominee, which would likely kill any chances Democrats had of obstructing the nomination.

(H/T: The Daily Caller)

Campus Reform Intelwars Professor sarah parcak Ruth Bader Ginsburg Ruth bader ginsburg successor Sarah parcak Social Media Twitter

Taxpayer-paid leftist professor uses Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death to attack ‘M*GA f*ckstick bootlicker’ Trump supporters

A professor at the University of Alabama is under fire after using the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to insult supporters of President Donald Trump.

Ginsburg died on Friday at the age of 87 after a lengthy battle with cancer.

What are the details?

According to a Tuesday Campus Reform report, University of Alabama-Birmingham professor Sarah Parcak made the inflammatory remarks on her personal Twitter page.

On Friday, Parcak — an archaeologist and professor in the school’s department of anthropology — wrote, “[Ginsburg] hung on as long as she could. Icon. Genius. Loving wife, mother, grandmother. Beloved wearer of Egyptian menat collars adorning Pharaohs of old. Powerful arbiter of truth and justice, even when she was in the minority. In her honor, dig deep, fight like hell, VOTE #rbg.”

She later added, “RBG planked for a minute for multiple sets at AGE 86 and did tons of pushups. She was stronger in her mid 80’s [sic] than any M*GA f*ckstick bootlicker could ever dream of. Take that energy with you tonight and always into the voting booth, the polls, and online to donate.”

Her Ginsburg-centric diatribe didn’t end there, and two days after Ginsburg’s passing, she wrote, “You know what happens when the most brilliant ethical judges with huge hearts and love for this country get nominated+confirmed to the Supreme Court? When they die, our country weeps. Imagine an entire SCOTUS with RGBs.”

In an apparent jab referring to the allegations made against Trump-nominated Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, she added, “Imagine a SCOTUS filled with qualified judges and not rapist drunken abusers[.]”

A spokesperson for the school told Campus Reform that Parcak’s comments “reflect poor judgment.”

“Comments such as these reflect poor judgement and do not represent the opinions of our university,” the spokesperson told the outlet. “Our 45,000+ students, faculty, and staff often use social media to express thoughts that do not necessarily reflect the voice of the university.”

burn it down Civil War court reform division Donald Trump election Elizabeth Warren escalation Headline News IMPEACHMENT Intelwars left vs. right paradigm lie looting Mitch McConnell Nancy Pelosi promises Rioting Ruth Bader Ginsburg social media warnings this is war Threats Violence vows

Democrats Promise Violence: “This Is WAR!”

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has prompted President Donald Trump to act quickly to secure a replacement before the election. That decision has upset the left and they are promising violence in increasingly concerning statements such as “this is war!”

We may not be able to escape a civil war in this country. There’s simply too much division. Even though Donald Trump has vowed to replace Ginsburg with another female justice, those on the left feel that it should be put off until after the election.

The fight over the 2017 Kavanaugh nomination already looked tame by comparison Sunday as Democrats geared up to block whomever President Trump picks to fill the seat left by the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to the Washinton Times. 

Calls of “burn it down” and “this is war” raged on social media as activists held weekend protests outside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s homes in Louisville, Kentucky, and Washington, D.C., and a rally outside the Supreme Court featuring Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s body isn’t even cold and Mitch McConnell is dancing on her grave. This is war. Dems have powerful weapons. Now is the time to use them,” tweeted progressive Hollywood director and actor Rob Reiner.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday warned that another impeachment attempt of Trump is on the table. They have also suggested making big changes and expanding the government, which is never a good idea for the public.

“If in fact, they are successful in placing a justice on the court, I think that what Democrats have to do, assuming that Biden is president and there is a Senate majority in for the Democrats, we need to think about court reform,” said former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on MSNBC. “And at a minimum, as part of that reform package, I think additional justices needed to be placed on the Supreme Court.”

The election has already been promised to be one of complete horror.

Brace For The Worst Election In U.S. History

Systematic Collapse of Society: Manufactured Election Crisis & FAMINE

Now is the time to ensure you have adequate protection. Violence appears inevitable and if we can trust anything, it’s that violence and looting and rioting will all be on the table this year no matter what. Brace yourselves, it will get uglier.

The post Democrats Promise Violence: “This Is WAR!” first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Intelwars Mitt Romney Ruth Bader Ginsburg SCOTUS Scotus nomination

BREAKING: Mitt Romney indicates that he would vote to confirm a qualified nominee from Trump, likely dooming Democrats’ obstruction chances

As President Donald Trump quickly moves ahead to nominate a replacement for the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Democrats had hoped to halt that process in its tracks by convincing at least four Republicans that Trump’s nominee should not even receive a vote before the election. Those hopes likely took a mortal blow on Tuesday when Utah Sen. Mitt Romney (R) announced that he is not opposed to confirming a nominee in an election year and that he would vote on Trump’s replacement “based upon their qualifications.”

Thus far, Democrats have only been able to secure “no vote” commitments from Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski and Maine Senator Susan Collins among all the Republicans in the Senate. Democrats had hoped to secure similar commitments from Senators Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), or Chuck Grassley (Iowa), but one by one those hopes have been dashed. Democrats had remained hopeful that Romney might defect, given his contentious relationship with Trump (and his willingness to cast a “yes” vote on Trump’s removal from office after the post-impeachment trial in the Senate earlier this year), but Romney issued a statement on Tuesday indicating that he intends to give the nominee a fair hearing and that he will not object to confirming a qualified nominee.

In his statement, Romney said, “My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent. The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.”

Romney continued, “I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.”

It remains possible that one or more Republican defections may emerge during the confirmation process, particularly if Democrats are able to unearth previously unknown damaging information about the eventual nominee. However, it appears certain for now that the nominee will at least be given a full hearing before the Senate.

Amy coney barrett Barbara lagoa Intelwars Ruth Bader Ginsburg SCOTUS Scotus nomination

President Trump announces when he plans to name his nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg

President Donald Trump announced on Twitter Wednesday that he intends to announce his nominee for the vacant Supreme Court seat formerly held by Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Saturday.

In a statement posted from his Twitter account, Trump stated that he would announce his nominee from the White House, but noted that the specific time is yet to be determined.

It is widely anticipated that Trump’s nominee will be either Amy Coney Barrett, who currently serves as a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, or Barbara Lagoa, who currently serves as a judge on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Most observers believe that Barrett is the favorite to receive the nomination, particularly after news broke that Trump met with her on Monday. Trump has indicated that he also might have a face-to-face meeting with Lagoa when he travels to Florida later this week.

Regardless of who Trump ultimately picks, his nominee is sure to be fought tooth and nail by Democrats, who remain furious that Merrick Garland was not given a hearing after former President Barack Obama nominated him to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia after Scalia’s death in 2016. Democrats have already begun to attack the records of Barrett and Lagoa, and Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) have promised that they will not support any nominee until after the election.

Despite those defections, it looks increasingly likely that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will be able to cobble together enough votes to ensure that President Trump’s nominee will receive a full hearing and floor vote, absent any surprise defections or damaging revelations during the confirmation process.

Chris matthews msnbc Chris matthews trashed Chris matthews trump Intelwars Ruth Bader Ginsburg Ruth bader ginsburg dies Social media backlash Twitter outrage

Chris Matthews calls Trump ‘presidential’ for his response to Ginsburg death, and liberals are melting down online

Former MSNBC host Chris Matthews was the object of a furious backlash after he offered praise for President Donald Trump and his response to the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The iconic liberal pundit offered his appraisal of the president in a short tweet on Monday.

“Trump is right to show respect for RBG. True presidential behavior. Far too rare,” said Matthews.

The president was first made aware of the death of the women’s rights advocate on Friday when asked by reporters about it after he spoke at a campaign rally in Minnesota. The president called Ginsburg an “amazing woman who led an amazing life.” The White House later released a statement praising Ginsburg for her lifetime of accomplishments.

‘Pathetic suck-up!’

Despite the muted criticism tacked on at the end of his tweet, Matthews immediately faced the ire of liberals and other critics of the president on social media.

“Oh geez, @HardballChris, give me a f**king break. Really, you’re such a pathetic suck-up!” replied Democratic strategist Jon Cooper.

“Oh look, it’s Chris Matthews being terrible, how shocking! I’m so glad you’re not on TV anymore #stfu,” said writer Tara Dublin.

“I swear to god that Chris Matthews never really made it past 1996 in terms of his perception of American politics. The man seems to be stuck in a time when the national discourse was shaped by white men saying things about each other,” replied LGBT advocate Charlotte Clymer.

“When you’re desperate to be even more of a joke than you already are,” said Democratic strategist Adam Parkhomenko.

“So glad you aren’t on the air. Some people never learn,” said screenwriter Bruno Amato.

Others made biting references to the accusations of sexual harassment that forced Matthews to leave his MSNBC show in March after two decades.

Gonna just throw it out there that Chris Matthews isn’t exactly an expert on respecting women,” said disability advocate Kendall Brown.

Here’s more on the death of Ginsburg:

Who are the women on Trump’s SCOTUS short-list? Fox News breaks it down

Good morning mug club Intelwars Ruth Bader Ginsburg SCOTUS

Left threatens violence if Trump nominates SCOTUS judge

On Monday’s episode of “Good Morning Mug Club,” Steven Crowder gave his take on the recent death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Black Lives Matter riots, and much more. Watch the clip below for details.

Weekend Violence Update: Ruth Bader Ginsburg RIOTS | Louder With Crowder

Use promo code LWC to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.

Donald trump interview Fox and Friends Fox News IMPEACHMENT Intelwars President Donald Trump Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme court nomination

Trump suggests Democrats? made up Justice Ginsburg’s reported dying wish about her replacement

President Donald Trump on Monday questioned the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s reported dying wish that her replacement on the Supreme Court not be nominated by Trump, wondering aloud if her alleged statement was “written by Adam Schiff, Schumer, or Pelosi.”

Ginsburg, 87, died Friday evening of complications from a long battle with pancreatic cancer. According to NPR, days before her death, she dictated a statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera, saying, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

As Democrats are threatening to impeach President Donald Trump should he move forward with a Supreme Court nomination before the election, the president questioned whether those words were said by Ginsburg or, he suggested, written by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of House Intelligence Committee and leader of the drive to impeach the president earlier this year, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

“I don’t know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff and Schumer and Pelosi?” Trump said during an interview on “Fox & Friends.”

“I would be more inclined to the second. That came out of the wind. It sounds so beautiful, but that sounds like a Schumer deal or maybe Pelosi or shifty Schiff … maybe she did and maybe she didn’t,” the president continued.

There is no evidence that the Democrats fabricated Ginsburg’s statement.

“Look, the bottom line is we won the election,” Trump said, adding, “We have an obligation to do what’s right and act as quickly as possible.”

The president on Monday declared his intention to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court on either Friday or Saturday, after funeral proceedings for Justice Ginsburg have concluded.

Democrats have threatened to restart impeachment proceedings against the president if he moves forward with a nominee. Asked by reporters Sunday evening whether impeachment was under consideration, Senate Minority Leader Schumer nodded in agreement as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, “We must consider, again, all of the tools available to our disposal, and that all of these options should be entertained and on the table.”

Speaker Pelosi also suggested retaliatory impeachment is among Democrats’ “options.”

“We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now,” Pelosi said.

Trump predicts that any impeachment action taken by Democrats will help him win the election.

“I heard if I [nominate], they’re going to impeach me,” Trump said. “So they’re impeaching me for doing what constitutionally I have to do.”

“If they do that, we win all elections,” he said.

before election burning confirmation CORRUPTION Death division Headline News Intelwars left vs. right paradigm lie party lines Reza Aslan Ruth Bader Ginsburg Senate supreme court justice Violence

New Events: Political Violence Is Likely BEFORE The Election

With the death of Supreme Court justice and liberal hero, Ruth Bader Ginsburg comes the possibility of election violence beginning early. Brace for a reaction, as President Donald Trump has insisted on filling Ginsburg’s seat while the left threatens to “burn it down” if he does.

The division is too immense to break through at this point.  Far too many are firmly rooted in the left vs. right paradigm lie and it’s going to manifest unless we open our eyes. Unless a lot of people realize what’s going on and realize how divided we’ve allowed ourselves to become, this political violence could escalate to devastating explosive events.

Almost immediately after the news of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, some verified Twitter users threatened arson and apparent violence in order to block Senate Republicans from replacing her before the elections.

“If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f—–g thing down,” author Reza Aslan tweeted, according to Fox News.


He later responded to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s vow to hold a vote on President Trump’s nominee. “Over our dead bodies, literally,” he tweeted. Author Aaron Gouveia similarly blasted McConnell’s statement, saying: “F–k no. Burn it all down.”

Ginsburg’s death seems to have only ramped up the rhetoric and forced the divide between the left and the right further apart.

Please be prepared, because neither side will be backing down. We could very well experience massive violence even before the already promised election violence. This is not meant to be anything other than a warning.  If you take this as fear-mongering, I suggest you harness that fear and brace yourself while continuing to prepare. Be able to protect yourself and your family especially if you live in or near a big city.

The mainstream media is telegraphing that this violence is coming. It seems to be pushed forward in time, though, because of the death of Ginsburg.

The post New Events: Political Violence Is Likely BEFORE The Election first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Amy coney barrett Barbara lagoa Intelwars Politics President Donald Trump Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court Supreme court nomination

Trump says to expect SCOTUS nominee Friday or Saturday, after Justice Ginsburg’s funeral

President Donald Trump says he will announce his nominee to fill the United States Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death by this weekend.

In an interview on “Fox & Friends” Monday morning, the president said he will announce his decision “Friday or Saturday,” after funeral services for Justice Ginsburg.

“I think it will be on Friday or Saturday,” Trump said. “We want to pay respect; it looks like we will have, probably, services on Thursday or Friday, as I understand it. I think, you know, with all due respect, we should wait until the services are over for Justice Ginsburg.”

“So we’re looking probably at Friday or maybe Saturday,” Trump added.

Brian Kilmeade asked the president about three of his rumored top choices for the court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barbara Lagoa of the Eleventh Circuit, and Judge Allison Jones Rushing of the Fourth Circuit. The president confirmed that Lagoa is under consideration.

“Well, she’s excellent. She’s Hispanic. She’s a terrific woman from everything I know; I don’t know her,” Trump said, noting that Lagoa is from Florida and “we love Florida.”

Lagoa is one of the recent additions to President Trump’s Supreme Court list, along with Rushing. The president said he’s narrowed his choices from that list down to five.

“They’re all very smart,” Trump said. “There are actually five I’m looking at; it’s down to five. It could be any one of them; they’ll all be great. These are really top people, if you get on that list — I created a list, and Biden should do that too.”

Trump criticized Biden’s potential Supreme Court nominees as all “major radical left players,” saying Biden would upset his base if he appointed a centrist judge instead of a member of the “AOC plus three crowd.”

“He’s got a problem. If he puts somebody on that is not going to be popular with a certain group of people, they will all run away from him like the plague,” Trump said.

Trump declined to reveal who else is under consideration when pressed.

“I’d rather not say, but they’re two fantastic people,” Trump said. “So I’m looking at five, probably four, but I’m looking at five very seriously. I’m going to make a decision on either Friday or Saturday. I will announce it either Friday or Saturday, and then the work begins. But hopefully it won’t be too much work, because these are very qualified people; no matter how you would look at it, these are the finest people in the nation. Young people, pretty young, for the most part.”

Steve Doocy asked the president whether electoral politics is influencing his decision, noting that Lagoa being from Florida may sway Florida voters in November. “Is politics gonna be part of it?” Doocy asked.

“I try not to say so,” Trump replied. “I think, probably, automatically it is, even if you’re not wanting to do that, it becomes a little bit automatic. A great one from Michigan; as you know, Indiana represented very well; we have from all over the country.”

“These are the smartest people. These are the smartest young people. You know, you like to go young, because they’re there for a long time,” Trump said.

“You could have somebody be on the bench for 40 or 50 years, you know, these are big decisions,” he continued.

“We’re looking for somebody who is brilliant, really understands the law and abides by the Constitution, and a good person. We’re looking for a good person, a person who’s really been somebody that has very, very high moral values,” Trump said.

After news of Ginsburg’s passing on Friday, Democrats called on the president and the GOP majority in the Senate to refrain from nominating a judge to fill the Supreme Court vacancy until after the election, when a new president might be installed in office next year.

The Republicans intend to move forward with a nomination with no regard to complaints from Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declared Friday that Trump’s nominee “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Two Republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) are opposed to moving forward with a Supreme Court confirmation before the election. The GOP holds a 53-seat majority in the Senate. If two more GOP senators join Murkowski and Collins in opposition, then Trump’s nominee, whoever he or she is, will have difficultly getting confirmed.

The president called on all Republicans to consider a nominee “without delay.”

CURRENT EVENTS Intelwars Judiciary Rbg Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court

Bigger Problem Underlies Supreme Court Fight

Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away last week, opening up a spot on the Supreme Court even as election day looms. The fight over her replacement is already heating up. But there’s a far bigger problem underlying the battle over which politically connected lawyer sits on the Court next.
Regardless, let the political theater begin.

I’m already enjoying watching Republicans do rhetorical gymnastics to explain the difference between blocking Obama’s nominee during an election year and rushing a Trump nomination during this election year.

“This is different!”

Yes. Whatever.

Here’s the thing — it doesn’t really matter.

As I explained recently, you shouldn’t be depending on federal judges to protect your liberty or the Constitution. They aren’t committed to your liberty. They aren’t even committed to the Constitution. They are mostly committed to precedent. And most precedent is unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, we will see significant wailing and gnashing of teeth as this SCOTUS hubbub plays out. To most Americans, there is nothing more politically significant than who sits on the Supreme Court.

And that reveals a big problem.

No sane political system vests so much power in nine politically-connected lawyers.

The American founding generation certainly didn’t. In fact, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Court would be the weakest branch of the federal government. But here we are – living in a world where nine lawyers in black dresses wield almost absolute power.

I kind of think maybe we should rethink this.

I’m reminded of a pretty prescient observation by Littleton Waller Tazwell, who served in the U.S. House and Senate, and as the 26th governor of Virginia.

“For the Judiciary of the United States, I entertain at least as much respect as I do for any other Judiciary. I will not say more; and I cannot say less. With the individual Judges, I have nothing to do. They shall all be, if any one thinks so, what some of them certainly are, ‘like Mansfield wise, and as old Foster just.’ But all must know that the robes of office do not cover angels, but mere men, as prone to err, as any other men of equal intelligence, of equal purity, and of equal constancy.

We all know, too, that some of the supreme Judges of the United States have not thought it unbecoming their high places, to accept Foreign Missions, to present themselves as candidates for other offices, and to enter into newspaper disquisitions upon party topics. I do not mean to blame them for such things, but merely to shew from such facts, that the rights of sovereign States, when assailed by the government of the United States, could not be safely confided to a forum so constituted, even if it was possible that it could take cognizance of the subject.”

The root of the problem is that so many people have embraced this absurd system that empowers judges to run their lives. As a result, many will view this SCOTUS appointment as very nearly a matter of life and death.

I don’t. And I won’t. I refuse to get caught up in D.C. political theater. I think there’s a better way forward.

Court packing FDR Intelwars Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court

Ginsburg’s own words fire back at Democrats threatening to pack Supreme Court with liberal justices

In retaliation for President Donald Trump filling a Supreme Court vacancy just months before Election Day, Democrats are threatening to expand the high court and pack it with liberal justices once they regain control of the White House and Senate.

But even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the respected Supreme Court justice who died Friday, thought court-packing is not a good idea.

What did Ginsburg believe?

In an interview with NPR last July, Ginsburg made herself clear: Nine justices on the Supreme Court works for the United States.

“There is no fixed number in the Constitution. So this court has had as few as five as many as 10. Nine seems to be a good number and it’s been that way for a long time,” Ginsburg said.

In fact, Congress is responsible for establishing the number of justices on the Supreme Court. The guidelines of one chief justice and eight associate justices was made law in the Judiciary Act of 1869.

But there have been attempts to change the composition of the court. Former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt attempted to pack the court with justices favorable to his political ideology with the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 after parts of the New Deal were ruled unconstitutional. His effort ultimately failed.

Ginsburg bluntly told NPR that Roosevelt’s attempt at Supreme Court reform “was a bad idea.”

I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt pack the court. His plan was for every justice who stays on the court past the age of 70, the president would have the authority to nominate another justice. If that plan had been effective, the court’s number would have swelled immediately from nine to 15, and the president would have six appointments to make.

You mention before the quote of appearing partisan. Well, if anything would make the court appear partisan then it would be that, one side saying, “When we’re in power we’re going to enlarge the number of judges so we’ll have more people who will vote the way we want them to.”

“So, I am not at all in-favor of that solution to what I see is a temporary situation,” Ginsburg added.

As TheBlaze reported, Ginsburg also advocated for filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year, a prospect Democrats are now furiously fighting.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year,” Ginsburg said in 2016 after Antonin Scalia’s sudden death left the Supreme Court with just eight justices less than one year before the election.

“Eight is not a good number,” she later said.

ABC News Donald Trump George Stephanopoulos IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Mainstream media Media Bias Nancy Pelosi Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court

Pelosi admits retaliatory impeachment on table if Trump fills SCOTUS vacancy: ‘We have our options’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi revealed Sunday that impeaching President Donald Trump is one option of retaliation Democrats are considering if the president fills the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

During an interview on ABC “This Week,” show host George Stephanopoulos — who served as a senior adviser to former President Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s — floated the possibility that Democrats respond to Trump filling the vacancy during an election year by once again pursuing his impeachment.

Stephanopoulos said, “Some have mentioned the possibility, if they try to push through a nominee in a lame duck session, that you and the House could move to impeach President Trump or Attorney General Barr as a way of stalling and preventing the Senate from acting on this nomination.”

Pelosi responded by refusing to rule out impeachment as a retaliatory measure.

“Well, we have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now,” she told Stephanopoulos.

The ABC News host then followed up, “But to clear, you’re not taking any arrows out of your quiver, you’re not ruling anything out?”

Pelosi responded:

Good morning. Sunday morning. We have a responsibility, we take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people, uh, that, uh, is, uh, when the we weigh the equities of protecting our democracy requires us to use every arrow in our quiver.

House Democrats, who hold a majority in the lower chamber, voted to impeach Trump last December. However, the effort, widely seen as driven by partisan politics, ultimately failed once it reached the Senate.

The Senate officially acquitted Trump in February.

What else are Democrats threatening?

Aware that Trump has the possibility to nominate his third Supreme Court justice, altering the ideological composition of the Supreme Court for a generation, Democrats are furiously fighting back against a nomination prior to Election Day.

However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said the Senate will vote on Trump’s nominee prior to the election, and the president has said that Republicans will act “without delay” to fulfill their constitutional duty by filling the vacancy.

In response, Democrats are threatening to expand the Supreme Court — and the federal judiciary — and pack the courts with liberal justices.

“If he holds a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021. It’s that simple,” Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) said Saturday.

‘We have our options’ if GOP push a SCOTUS nomination before election: Speaker Pelosi | ABC News

Campaign 2020 Chuck Schumer ed markey Intelwars Joe kennedy Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court

Democrats threaten retaliation if Trump fills SCOTUS vacancy, promise to expand, pack court with liberals

Democrats are threatening to expand the Supreme Court and pack it with liberal justices if the Republican Party moved forward with filling the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

The process, known as “court-packing,” could forever alter the shape of the Supreme Court. The move, although not likely politically advantageous in the long run, is not actually constitutionally prohibited. Congress, not the Constitution, dictates the number of justices who sit on the Supreme Court.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt attempted to pack the court in 1937 to obtain favorable outcomes after parts of the New Deal were ruled unconstitutional. His effort ultimately failed.

What are Democrats saying?

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said, “Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.”

Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) said, “If he holds a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021. It’s that simple.”

Markos Moulitsas, founder of multiple left-wing news websites, said, “If Republicans refuse to follow their own McConnell Rule, about confirming a justice in a presidential election year, then Democrats should, with zero ambiguity, promise to expand the court if they win this November. Expand it to 15.”

Moulitsas added, “This is the equation: Wait until next year to fill RGB’s seat, and conservatives maintain a 5-4 advantage. Replace her with a conservative this year, and it’s 6-3 for a short time, but Dems increase court size by at least four, and it’s a 7-6 liberal court.”

John Dean, who served as White House counsel for Richard Nixon, said court-packing should not be limited to the Supreme Court. He urged Democrats to expand the lower federal courts and pack them with liberal justices, too.

“@JoeBiden must announce that if the GOP rushes to pack the Court, the Dems will expand the SCOTUS to 11 justices, and expand the lower federal courts by 70 to 100 new judgeships, which have long been needed. In short, he will depoliticize the federal judiciary!” he said.

Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told Democrats on a conference call Saturday that “nothing is off the table next year” if Republicans move to fill the Supreme Court vacancy.

However, contrary to claims made by Markey and Moulitsas, the “precedent” that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell followed in 2016 — when he blocked then-President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill a vacancy left by Antonin Scalia’s sudden death — was that Supreme Court confirmations should wait until after an election when different political parties control the Senate and the White House.

At the time, Republicans controlled the Senate and Democrats controlled the White House. Now, the Republican Party controls both.

McConnell has already said Trump’s nominee will receive a vote before Election Day.

Intelwars Rbg Ruth Bader Ginsburg Scotus nomination Scotus nominee Supreme court nomination supreme court nominee Susan Collins

Republican Sen. Susan Collins breaks with party, says presidential election winner should make Supreme Court nomination

Republican Senator Susan Collins (Maine) said that the next Supreme Court nominee should be selected by whoever wins the November presidential election, breaking rank with the GOP leadership and President Donald Trump on the replacement for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“In order for the American people to have in their elected officials, we must act fairly and consistently — no matter which political party is in power,” Collins wrote in a statement released on Saturday afternoon. “President Trump has the constitutional authority to make a nomination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, and I would have no objection to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s beginning the process of reviewing his nominee’s credentials.”

“Given the proximity of the presidential election, however, I do not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election. In fairness to the American people, who will either be re-electing the President or selecting a new one, the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected in November 3,” Collins said on Twitter.

On Friday, Collins paid tribute to RBG.

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a trailblazer for women’s rights, a fierce champion for equality and an extremely accomplished American who broke countless barriers in the field of law,” Collins said in a statement. “Throughout her life, Justice Ginsburg surmounted discrimination and sexism through her brilliance, tenacity and wit, becoming one of the most prominent legal luminaries of our time.”

“I had the great honor of getting to know Justice Ginsburg personally when the women Senators twice had dinner with her and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor,” Collins continued. “She has been a role model to generations of women, and her legacy will live on in the countless people she inspired.”

Collins, who is seeking a fifth term, is facing a tough reelection battle. A poll from The New York Times and Siena College released on Friday has Collins trailing her Democratic challenger, Maine state House Speaker Sara Gideon, 49% to Collins’ 44%. A Quinnipiac University poll released earlier this week showed Gideon with a wide 54% to 42% lead over Collins.

In 2018, Collins voted to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and has received blowback in Maine for her decision.

Hours after the announcement of Ginsburg’s death on Friday night, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) vowed to hold a vote for Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

“The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life,” McConnell said. “In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise.”

“President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” McConnell said.

On Saturday, Trump showed that he would go ahead and nominate a Supreme Court justice despite the election being only 45 days away.

“@GOP We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices,” the president tweeted. “We have this obligation, without delay!”

Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also said that she would not support voting on a Supreme Court Justice this close to the election. Murkowski reportedly said, “Fair is fair,” a reference to Republican senators not allowing a hearing for former President Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland before the 2016 election.

The Republicans hold a 53-47 Senate majority, and McConnell can only afford to lose the support of three GOP Senators, which could include Mitt Romney of Utah. If a 50-50 tie happens, Vice President Mike Pence could break the tie and allow Republicans to nominate a SCOTUS justice.

Alexandria ocasio-cortez AOC Campaign 2020 Intelwars Radicalize Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court

Ocasio-Cortez says Ginsburg’s death should ‘radicalize’ Democrats: ‘We can, and must, fight’

Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Friday that Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “earth-shattering” death should “radicalize” Democrats.

What are the details?

Speaking to followers in a lengthy Instagram video, Ocasio-Cortez said, “Let this moment radicalize you.”

“Let this moment really put everything into stark focus because this election has always been about the fight of and for our lives. And if anything, tonight is making that more clear to more people than ever before,” she added, the Washington Examiner reported.

Despite being a stalwart progressive who supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for the Democratic nomination, Ocasio-Cortez also urged supporters to immediately check their voter registration — so they can vote for Joe Biden in November.

“Voting for Joe Biden is not about whether you agree with him. It’s a vote to let our democracy live another day,” she said. “We need to act in solidarity and protection for the most vulnerable people in our society who have already experienced the violent repercussions of this administration.”

“We need to focus on voting for Joe Biden. I don’t care if you like him or not,” she added, Fox News reported.

Later, Ocasio-Cortez suggested the American democracy hinges on whomever fills the Supreme Court vacancy.

“This kind of vacancy and this kind of tipping point is the difference between people having reproductive rights and the government controlling people’s bodies for them,” she said. “This kind of vacancy is the difference between us having healthcare and not. It’s the difference between us having a future and our climate or not, and the timing of this vacancy is extremely unsettling and scary to a lot of people.”

Meanwhile, on Twitter, Ocasio-Cortez wrote, “I want to make one thing clear: we can, and must, fight.”

“Our first, no 1 priority is to do everything possible to secure electoral college victory in Nov. This is the fight of and for our lives. That has always been true, & it becomes more true each day,” she added.

However, any fight that Democrats initiate may not succeed.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced late Friday that the Senate will vote on President Donald Trump’s nominee before the election.

Trump similarly said Saturday that Republicans must respond to the vacancy “without delay.”

“@GOP We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!” Trump said.

Intelwars Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court

Here’s what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said about voting on Supreme Court nominations in election year

News of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death has triggered further division in an already fractured political world: Democrats say the Supreme Court’s new vacancy should not be filled in an election year, while Republicans are vowing to hold a vote on whomever President Donald Trump nominates.

But how did Ginsburg feel about election year Supreme Court nominations?

Fortunately, she made it clear in 2016 when Republicans and Democrats fought over filling the vacancy left by Antonin Scalia’s sudden death nine months before the election.

When asked if the Senate should consider then-President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, Ginsburg said, “That’s their job,” the New York Times reported.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year,” Ginsburg added.

Several months later, Ginsburg said having only eight justices on the Supreme Court is not good.

“Eight is not a good number,” she said, the Washington Post reported.

And there you have it.

Barack Obama Campaign 2020 Intelwars Joe Biden Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court

Barack Obama, Joe Biden perform total 180 on filling Supreme Court vacancy in election year

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and former President Barack Obama declared Friday the Supreme Court vacancy caused by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death should not be filled until after the election.

Their position is a complete reversal of what they said in 2016, when Antonin Scalia’s sudden death left a vacancy on the high court just nine months before the presidential election.

What did Biden say in 2016?

In response to Republicans who vowed to not consider Obama’s nominee — Appellate Judge Merrick Garland — Biden said it is acceptable to move forward with Supreme Court hearings even just months before an election.

Biden’s comments,
made in March 2016, came in response to Republicans citing a speech he delivered in 1992 about election year Supreme Court nominations. He said:

They completely ignore the fact at the time I was speaking of the time of the dangers of nominating an extreme candidate without proper Senate consultation. They completely neglected to quote my unequivocal bottom line. So let me set the record straight as they say. I said, and I quote, “If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selection then nominees may enjoy my support as did Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter.”

I made it absolutely clear I would go forward with the confirmation process as chairman, even a few months ahead of a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advise and not merely the consent of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires.”

But Biden said on Friday: “Let me be clear: The voters should pick a President, and that President should select a successor to Justice Ginsburg.”

What did Obama say in 2016?

Obama stated plainly that the Constitution requires the Senate to consider Supreme Court nominees, declaring that no rule exists stating that such consideration may only happen in non-election years.

“When there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the president is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination, and either they disapprove of that nominee or that nominee is elevated to the Supreme Court,” Obama said in February 2016, just days after Scalia’s death.

“Historically, this has not been viewed as a question,” he continued. “There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That’s not in the constitutional text.”

But on Friday, Obama said: “Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in. A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment.”

Intelwars Riots Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court Violence

Democrats threaten violence if GOP fills SCOTUS vacancy: ‘Burn the entire f***ing thing down’

Democrats, members of the media, and Hollywood figures threatened violence on Friday if the Republican-controlled Senate moves to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

Reza Aslan, a former CNN host, said, “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f***ing thing down.”

In response to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s commitment to vote on President Donald Trump’s nominee prior to the election, Aslan said, “Over our dead bodies. Literally.”

Hollywood screenwriter Beau Willimon said, “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election.”

Dr. Jessie Christiansen, an Australian astrophysicist who works at the NASA Exoplanet Science Institute, said, “IF THEY RAM THROUGH AN APPOINTMENT IN THE NEXT TWO MONTHS I WILL RIOT.”

Emmett Macfarlane, a political science professor at the University of Waterloo in Canada, said, “Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS.”

Author Aaron Gouveia responded to McConnell’s commitment by saying, “F*** no. Burn it all down.”

Laura Bassett — who has written for GQ magazine, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone, Cosmopolitan, among other outlets — tweeted, “If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots.”

She followed that tweet by saying, “*more, bigger riots.” She has since deleted her clarification.

What’s the background?

With the 2020 election less than two months away, Democrats and Republicans disagree on whether the vacancy should be filled. Democrats advocated filling a high court vacancy in 2016 when Barack Obama was president, while the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.

However, Democrats now say the vacancy should be filled after Election Day, while McConnell has already said the Senate will vote on Trump’s nominee.

Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) warned a “constitutional crisis” may unfold if the vacancy is not filled prior to the election, considering the increased likelihood of a legally contested election.

“We cannot have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 court,” Cruz said Friday. “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’s such a risk of a contested litigation and a contested election.”

“Twenty years ago, I was part of the legal team that litigated Bush v. Gore and went to the Supreme Court. Thirty-seven days the country did not know who the president was going to be, and if we had a 4-4 court it could have dragged on for weeks and month,” he explained.

Trump said Saturday that Republicans have an “obligation” to fill the Supreme Court vacancy “without delay.”

“@GOP We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!” the president said.