Carrie Severino: Why is Biden still stonewalling on the Supreme Court?

By: - October 1, 2020

Tuesday night’s presidential debate—the first between Donald Trump and Joe Biden—began with a question about the Supreme Court, not surprisingly given the pending nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. President Trump has been transparent on the issue. Regrettably, transparency continues to be a one-way street. 
 
In 2016, then-candidate Trump released a shortlist of prospects he would consider nominating to the Court. He subsequently added to that list, including during his re-election campaign.

Every step of the way, he has let the voters know what they would get by voting for him: constitutionalist prospects who recognize a judge’s duty to apply the law in accordance with its original meaning.

He kept his promise: President Trump’s judicial appointees have shown that originalist dedication to the rule of law. Litigants across the country can increasingly trust that federal judges will give them a fair shake in court.

MATT GORMAN: TRUMP HAS A NEW RUNNING MATE NOW
 
In contrast, for well over a year, Biden has refused calls to release his shortlist—despite saying in June that he was compiling a list he would release once he went “further down the line in vetting them.”

Just last week he explained going back on his word by his concern that “they would be subject to intense criticism for a long time.”

On Tuesday night, he continued to dodge, weave, and refuse to talk about how he would handle the Supreme Court, wallowing instead in criticism of his opponent. 
 
What an insult, given that Biden’s argument against filling the current vacancy is that “the voters of this country should be heard.” There is a world of difference between criticizing his opponent and voicing his own position.

Biden owes voters specifics about what type of judge he would nominate. It should come as no surprise that he fears having his shortlist scrutinized.

Answer the question, Mr. Biden. Are you going to say “no” to court-packing and destroying the institution of the Supreme Court? And are you going to release your shortlist?   

Biden rose through the ranks of the Democratic Party to become its standard-bearer as a champion of a party orthodoxy that views the Constitution as a garment the country has outgrown.

Democrats want to replace our current Supreme Court with a liberal super-legislature, stacked with politicians-turned-judges in the mold of AOC, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. All with lifetime appointments, rewriting the law and Constitution.

More from Opinion

Left-wing groups have already issued a proposed SCOTUS list, and it’s loaded with progressive activists. Have no doubt, the so-called “judges” on a future Biden Supreme Court/super-legislature will rubber-stamp a radical liberal agenda, circumventing the democratic process. 
 
That means using the courts to diminish protections that are actually in the Constitution—such as political speech, free exercise of religion, and the right to bear arms—while overriding the people’s ability to make policy choices in areas that the Constitution leaves to elected representatives.

Don’t like the death penalty for the most violent criminals? Abolish it by fiat.

Don’t like laws that restrict late-term abortions? Strike them down, all the way up to the time of birth.

The list goes on. What else a liberal justice will say the Constitution means in the future is as unlimited as liberals’ changing policy preferences. That is what happens when courts behave like legislatures. And the sky’s the limit for a party that seems to have shed its belief in borders and become reflexively hostile to law enforcement.

It gets even worse. There is a strong drive among Democrats to get their way by packing the Court with additional seats if they win the White House and both houses of Congress.

Biden’s running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., stated last year that she was “open to increasing the numbers on the Supreme Court,” as did several of her colleagues. Biden has repeatedly refused to answer the question of whether he would consider expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court. He refused again on Tuesday night. 
 
We should not let him get away with his dodges. Answer the question, Mr. Biden. Are you going to say “no” to court-packing and destroying the institution of the Supreme Court? And are you going to release your shortlist?

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
 
If Biden believes the people would have more confidence in his agenda for the Supreme Court than in Trump’s, these would be easy questions to answer. Don’t be surprised that he continues to stonewall: His refusal to reject court-packing and release a list shows his low opinion of the American voter. 
 
The voters of the country do need to be heard, but first they need to be respected.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM CARRIE CAMPBELL SEVERINO

Source link

  • RSS WND

    • 'The great replacement'? Hell yes
      I recently gave a speech about open borders, why it's happening, who benefits and what's behind it – "the great replacement." My speech was delivered at a conservative conference put on by and attended by sheriffs from across the USA. My speech brought down the house and ended with a standing ovation. That's what happens… […]
    • Who is shaking the jar ... and killing America?
      The seventh book of C.S. Lewis' "The Chronicles of Narnia" is titled "The Last Battle" and depicts the end of the magical realm presided over by Aslan. As the remnant witnesses the destruction of their beloved land, one of the characters (Lord Digory) – who had witnessed the birth of Narnia – makes the remark:… […]
    • Biden campaigns on killing babies
      "Abortion," "women's reproductive health care," "freedom of choice," "my body my choice," "it's only a fetus" – all these nice little terms and sayings in reality represent the surreal, unnatural, against nature "right" for a mother to have her baby killed in her womb. Even the term "fetus" is a Latin work for "offspring," which… […]
    • Is climate change spurring child labor? No, but EV batteries are
      By Linnea Lueken Here we go again. Among the most annoying trends in media is one where a journalist will take any random topic, be it "trans sex workers" and their struggles in Indonesia, predatory loan practices, human trafficking – pick your poison, and connect it to climate change. My theory when it comes to… […]
    • Presidential contest turns into 'Saul vs. David'
      He's called the "Ragin' Cajun" for a reason. Watching Democratic strategist James Carville's recent expletive-filled rant, blasting "You little f–-ing 26-year-olds!" in response to recent polling showing Trump's healthy rise in support from young voters, I thought of King Saul's reaction to the future King David's mounting popularity, "an ugly mood" consuming Saul so that… […]
    • Confessions of a 'hate criminal'
      The remnant of Western civilization, which still values freedom of speech and other classical ethics and virtues, is aghast at Canada's Stalinesque "online harms bill," which would punish so-called "hate speech" with penalties up to life imprisonment, offers both cash incentives and legal anonymity for "whistleblowers" and would retroactively cover speech that occurred even decades… […]
    • It's simple: Let the Bill of Rights rule
      Years ago, a committee of lawyers from the Los Angeles County Bar Association gathered to discuss the issue of a "fair trial." Invited to the discussion were various leaders of the newspaper industry in Los Angeles County. The lawyers were in search of support of their idea to regulate the reporting on criminal defendants. The… […]
    • The deadly cost of lesbianism and feminism
      According to a major study by the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, "bisexual women die, on average, nearly 40 percent younger than heterosexual women, while lesbian women die 20 percent sooner." These are tragic numbers, numbers that should concern all of us, regardless of our attitudes towards lesbianism and bisexuality. If you care about people,… […]
    • Psalm 27: Encroaching End Times darkness
      Editor's note: The following video is presented by Pastor Daniel Joseph, president and founder of Corner Fringe Ministries. Subscribe to the Corner Fringe YouTube channel here. The post Psalm 27: Encroaching End Times darkness appeared first on WND.
    • Israel: Christians' past, present and future
      The name Jerusalem means "city of peace" or "habitation of peace." Yet ironically, more wars have been fought at the gates of Jerusalem than that of any other city on the face of the earth. For Christians, Jerusalem and Israel are part of our past, present and future. We're connected to Israel. And we're connected… […]
  • Enter My WorldView