Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    New Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham “Hell-Bent” on Getting Another Conservative on Supreme Court

    New Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham “Hell-Bent” on Getting Another Conservative on Supreme Court

    Dems changing the confirmation rules “has come back to bite ‘ em. I predicted it would.”

    As Ruth Bader Ginsburg watch continues, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says he’s “hell bent” on replacing her—or any Justice who leaves the Supreme Court—with a conservative.  As the new chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, he’s in a position to follow through.

    Graham was absolutely horrified and incensed by the way the Democrats treated now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and he is obviously still angry and indignant about it.

    Fox News reports:

    South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told “Fox News Sunday” that he is “hell-bent” on ensuring that the next Supreme Court vacancy — whether it is ailing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat or otherwise — is filled by a conservative, regardless of what outrage follows from the left.

    Graham, the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee committee, emphasized that former Democratic Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid had eliminated the Senate filibuster for federal appellate judicial nominees in 2013. Republicans later retaliated by eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments, meaning that a simple majority — rather than a 60-vote supermajority — is sufficient to confirm new Supreme Court nominees.

    . . . . Following the contentious confirmation hearings of now-Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which were marked by a series of lurid, uncorroborated sexual misconduct allegations, Graham asserted that there would be “pushback from the left” regardless of whom Trump nominates.

    . . . .  “If there is an opening, whether it’s Ginsburg or anybody else, I will urge the president to nominate a qualified conservative and hopefully those people will get through – that person will get through,” Graham continued. “And I expect it to be along party lines, and this is what happens when you change the rules. This has come back to bite ‘ em. I predicted it would. And we’ll see. I hope Justice Ginsburg serves for a long time. But if there’s an opening on this court, I’m going to be hell-bent to put a conservative to replace whoever steps down for whatever reason.”

    Pressed by Wallace as to whether it was appropriate to nominate a conservative to replace a liberal icon like Ginsburg, Graham again said liberals have only Reid to blame — and he suggested Kavanaugh’s treatment meant that all bets are off.



    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Mark Michael | January 13, 2019 at 11:33 pm

    Chris Wallace is a liberal Democrat, that’s why he asked Sen. Lindsay Graham if he won’t replace RBG with another Democrat – or face another Brett Kavanaugh-like donnybrook. (Some commenters were wondering why Wallace would ask such a silly question. That’s why.)

    I wonder if RBG is that likely to fully recover so she can perform her duties “full steam” as she likes to say. If not, she’s promised to resign.

    tom_swift | January 14, 2019 at 4:55 am

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says he’s “hell bent” on replacing her—or any Justice who leaves the Supreme Court—with a conservative.

    There may be no such thing as a “conservative Justice”. And relying on such a mythical creature to ride to the rescue may be pure futility.

    I’ve written before about the fictional belief that SCOTUS was ever intended to be the guardian and ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Now consider the improbability that it can ever reliably perform such a function.

    Justices have extraordinary and arbitrary (albeit not unlimited) powers, and they themselves are the only ones who determine the limits of those powers. The ultimate controllers of many other offices—the voters—have no say in the matter.

    Now, what are the chances that a person in a position of such Olympian grandeur will give serious consideration to a document written specifically to limit his powers?

    We know very well. Lord Acton said it best.

    But Justices are unlikely to think of their state as “corruption”; they’re not likely to think of it at all. After a career building up to that reward, there’s little need for reflection; they’ll just accept their just deserts and dream up emanations of penumbras.

    This is not the formula for a republic. It is an oligarchy.

    What is a possible solution? Maybe term limits . . . for everyone. Including judges and bureaucrats. It’s the only protection—even if not a very good one—against “empire builders” or a corrupt, self-serving and self-perpetuating oligarchy.

    This is why they’re all—both parties—terrified of DJT. He’s not part of the oligarchy; he’s above that already, even higher than their thrones on Olympus, he’s Donald Trump, he always was, he always will be. The Presidency is just a another job to him, not an ultimate reward for being a good servant of the other oligarchs. He’s not an oligarch, and there’s no room for him in their world.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend