Trump Must Put a Real Conservative on the Supreme Court

The death of far-left Supreme Court associate justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which has been anticipated for several years due to her adverse health conditions, is like a bomb going off in the midst of the election.

President Trump reacted with class when he heard the news. He said, “She was an amazing woman who led an amazing life.” All conservatives were respectful in their remembrance of Ginsburg.

Liberals, leftists and Democrats, on the other hand, are going insane rather than honoring Ginsburg. Many are saying “f…, f…, f…” over and over. Some are suggesting that there will be riots and arson if a conservative is elevated to the Court.

There is one video of a female flipping out over the news while driving her car. It is funny as heck. This is going to be the most famous video about the death of Ginsburg. This female is going to regret this video for the rest of her life. It is monumentally embarrassing.

If Ginsburg had not died but simply gone into a nursing home in a debilitated state, she could have tied up the whole Supreme Court by not resigning and leaving the Court at 8 justices. After all, she is appointed “for life” and would not be under any obligation to resign for health reasons. is warning: President Trump must nominate a CONSERVATIVE replacement for Ginsburg, not a Constitutionalist. And I expect president Trump do so.

The difference is this: A Constitutionalist applies the Constitution to Court rulings. A conservative, on the other hand, applies the Constitution and then sees it through a conservative lens.

This is important since Democrat-appointed judges never rule based on the Constitution alone in major cases unless it goes their way. They always vote liberal. So our side should do the same thing.

For instance, justice Neil Gorsuch, who is called a Constitutionalist, has voted liberal on several important decisions since he was appointed. This would be fine if both sides did it, but since the Democrats don’t, we need someone who will vote conservative every time like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both do.

Democrats are totally melting down over the death of Ginsburg. The internet is full of rage and hysteria including fury toward Ginsburg for not retiring when Obama was president, since she was sick even back then. But then again they all thought that Hillary was going to win.

On her deathbed, Ginsburg said, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

This is a joke. First, she cannot dictate events from the grave. Second, Trump is going to do what he wants to do, which is to get a replacement before the election if possible, since the Supreme Court may have to rule on Democrat fraud tactics in the election. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has indicated that he will expedite the process.

Third, there is plenty of time for a new justice to be elevated to the Court before the election. And with a 53 to 47 Republican majority in the US Senate any Trump nominee is virtually sure to be approved.

Democrat Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer said, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

Again, they are stalling for time. How about when Trump is re-elected? Does that mean that we have to wait until 2025, or after, for a new Supreme Court justice?

That is what Democrats are suggesting. Otherwise they are praying that Biden wins, which believes wholeheartedly is not going to happen.

Top candidates for the High Court include judges Amy Coney Barrett, Britt Grant, Amul Thapar, Steven Colloton, Allison Eid, Raymond Gruender, Thomas Hardiman, Raymond Kethledge, Joan Larsen, Barbara Lagoa, Thomas Lee, David Stras, Allison Jones Rushing and Don Willett.

The smart money is on conservative Catholic Barrett, who has seven children. And it will be hard for Democrats to come up with a fabricated allegation that Barrett sexually assaulted anyone.

Barrett has previously written that Supreme Court precedents are not sacrosanct. Liberals have seized on those comments as a threat to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide.

Barrett wrote that she agrees “with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution, and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it”.

This entry was posted in Current Events (More than 1,500 previous editorials!) and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.