Jul 3, 2018

GOP's Height Of Hypocrisy Series Part 9: The Supreme Court Hypocrisy & Why Approving Any Trump Nominee To The Supreme Court Is A Bad Idea!

Background:
1. Height Of Hypocrisy 6: GOP & Fox News Helps Trump In Obstruction Of Justice Showing They Don't Care About The Rule Of Law... And Now, The Nation Is in A Constitutional Crisis!
2. Height Of Hypocrisy 7: The Executive Order & Dictator/Tyrant Hypocrisy
3. GOP's Height Of Hypocrisy Series Part 8: Being Civil To The Uncivil Would Be An Atrocity! Fearing the Backlash the Trump Administration Calls For Civility After Showing None Since The Campaigning Days!
4. Trump's "Mitch McConnell" Strategy & Trump's Parade Of Shills

The arguments for appointing a Supreme Court now, despite the horrible poll numbers and attacks on the economy, shows the GOP's continuing hypocrisy which this series is outlining in detail. This one is one of the more obvious hypocrisies that has become the GOP's bread and butter. Indicating truth isn't a dominate factor for a large segment of the population which is a National Security disaster as these people are expected to vote for intelligent and capable leaders. The following outlines the GOP's Supreme Court hypocrisy.

 Democrats face Day 1 of winnable fight for Supreme Court's future Rachel Maddow outlines the position Democrats are in and what it will take for them to block Donald Trump's next Supreme Court pick, noting the feasibility of a four-month plan to make it through the election.



Democrats aim to hold Trump to McConnell's Garland standard Senator Chris Murphy talks with Rachel Maddow about the Democratic strategy to block Donald Trump's next Supreme Court pick until at least after the midterm elections.



Maddow; Dems press McConnell to honor his principles (which he’ll ignore)

 When Justice Antonin Scalia died on Feb. 13, 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wasted no time in making clear that the Obama White House would not fill that vacancy. When the Democratic president chose a centrist, compromise choice for the Supreme Court, McConnell ensured that Judge Merrick Garland be treated in ways no high court nominee has ever been treated.
Senate Republicans, at McConnell’s insistence, would not speak to Garland. Or give him a hearing. Or vote on him in committee. Or consider him on the Senate floor.
It was therefore difficult to stifle laughter yesterday afternoon when the GOP leader told reporters that it’s “imperative” that Donald Trump’s next Supreme Court nominee “be treated fairly.”

The Senate Democrats’ strategy for the upcoming fight is taking shape, but part of the minority party’s pitch is calling out McConnell for his breathtaking cynicism, and demanding that he honor the standards he set just two years ago.
As Democrats geared up for an epic fight they’re not likely to win over the next Supreme Court nominee, they spoke with one loud voice: Wait until after the midterm elections. […]
Democrats cried foul as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., vowed Wednesday to push ahead with the confirmation of Kennedy’s replacement before November’s elections — despite refusing to advance President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee ahead of the 2016 presidential race.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke on the Senate floor yesterday, and argued that the vote on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s successor should wait until after the midterm elections. Using a phrase several Democrats used, the New York senator added, “Anything but that would be the absolute height of hypocrisy.”

As a simple matter of propriety, the Democratic argument has merit: if nine months before an election is too soon to consider a Supreme Court nominee, then four months is, too. The arithmetic is tough to argue with.

But there’s a reason this argument will fall short: Mitch McConnell doesn’t care.
Articles about this hypocrisy;

Rolling Stone: Republicans Are Huge Hypocrites About Merrick Garland Republicans who refuse to hold a hearing on Garland have in the past lavished praise on the judge

 The Hill: Schumer: 'Height of hypocrisy' to vote on Supreme Court nominee this year

 Washington Post: Opinions It’s time to make Republicans pay for their supreme hypocrisy

 Huffington Post: In A Realm Filled With Hypocrites And Liars, Mitch McConnell Is King

Carbonated TV: Mitch McConnell Has No Answer For His Hypocrisy On Merrick Garland - Mitch McConnell has the stupidest (non-)explanation for why he refused to allow even a vote on President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.


This week: Mitch McConnell says with a straight face that 'it's imperative that the president's nominee be treated fairly'
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that the Senate will "vote to confirm" the successor of outgoing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy "this fall," adding that "it's imperative that the president's nominee be treated fairly."
The comments have sparked frustration from critics, who point out that McConnell blocked former President Barack Obama's nominee for months after the February 2016 death of Antonin Scalia. Obama's pick Merrick Garland was never granted a Senate confirmation hearing, and as a result, the selection ultimately went to President Trump, who nominated the conservative-leaning Justice Neil Gorsuch.





MSNBC: Throwback: The fight against Merrick Garland Intense political battles surrounding Supreme Court nominees are nothing new, so we dug into our vault for a newsreel on a previous Supreme Court opening – and the chaos that ensued.



 This hypocrisy is only amplified by Trump allies int he media (Hannity changes his positions based on party over country or truth all the time);

 Sean Hannity: Democrats "don't want the president to fulfill his constitutional duty and appoint the next Supreme Court justice" Hannity attacks Democrats who might oppose Trump's pick: The nominee "is going to be smeared, slandered, besmirched"

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): They want to impeach, they want open borders, they want Obamacare, they want the crumbs back, and the last item is they don't want the president to fulfill his constitutional duty and appoint the next Supreme Court justice with the vacancy of Anthony Kennedy. And whoever that person ends up being is going to be smeared, slandered, besmirched, the character assassination of that person will begin. 
Previously:

To look at this from another angle, look how the GOP tends to choose ideology over scientific fact and how this could make our courts unconstitutional dens of illogical and backwardness;




Media Matters: The Supreme Court just made it easier for states to kick people off of voter rolls. Media should let voters know.

On June 11, the Supreme Court handed down its decision on an Ohio voting rights case that will make it easier for the state to purge infrequent voters from its voter roll, a process that tends to disproportionately hurt young people, people with low incomes, and people of color. This is a victory for Republicans, who for years have waged a war on voting rights in an effort to suppress voting by populations that tend to pick Democrats. Media should be reporting on this case and on voter suppression measures more broadly, both as a policy issue and to inform people of what they need to do in order to vote.


 Media Matters: The Supreme Court just enabled fake health clinics to lie to patients Right-wing media are calling it a "win" for the First Amendment

 On June 26, the Supreme Court decided National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra in favor of a network of fake health clinics. Right-wing media and anti-abortion organizations framed the decision as a “win” for the First Amendment, but those outlets (and even some more mainstream ones) ignored that these clinics are harmful and actively deceive people seeking abortions.

The Supreme Court decided that fake health clinics may continue to deceive patients seeking abortions

The Supreme Court’s decision in NIFLA paves the way for California’s law to be overturned. On June 26, the Supreme Court decided NIFLA v. Becerra, a case involving a California law called the Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency (FACT) Act. The law requires anti-abortion pregnancy centers to post a certain type of notice, depending on whether not the center is licensed by the state. Licensed clinics are required to post a notice informing clients that California provides low-cost or free reproductive health care. Unlicensed clinics are required to post a notice informing people that they were not a licensed medical facility. As BuzzFeed News reported, “The court held in a 5–4 majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas that the notice required of licensed clinics under the law ‘likely violates’ the First Amendment, but the notice required of unlicensed clinics ‘unduly burdens speech’ and is unconstitutional.” The court sent the case back down to the lower court for further proceedings. [Supreme Court of the United States, accessed June 2018; BuzzFeed News, 6/26/18]
Before the decision, right-wing media and anti-abortion organizations pushed myths about the NIFLAcase. Media Matters noted a number of myths that right-wing media and anti-abortion organizations were pushing before oral arguments began for the case. These myths included that anti-abortion clinics would be forced to “advertise” for abortions, that these clinics do not engage in deceptive tactics to stop people from obtaining abortions, and that the case would have far-reaching impacts for the First Amendment if the Supreme Court did not decide in NIFLA’s favor. [Media Matters, 3/16/18]
Fake health clinics are known to engage in deception and manipulation in their advertising and interactions with clients. Anti-abortion fake health clinics use multiple deceptive tactics to pose as comprehensive reproductive health providers in order to dissuade individuals from obtaining abortions. A yearlong investigation by Cosmopolitan found that these fake health clinics (also called crisis pregnancy centers or “CPCs”) “increasingly look just like doctor’s offices with ultrasound rooms and staff in scrubs. Yet they do not provide or refer for contraception or abortion. Many pregnancy-center counselors, even those who provide medical information, are not licensed.” Teen Vogue reported that some fake clinics also lie about the accessibility of abortion in a state, or about the risks of abortion procedures -- including making inaccurate claims that abortion makes a person infertile or causes breast cancer. Some fake clinics mislead potential clients before people even get in the door -- suggesting in their advertising that they offer abortion services or contraceptives, when in reality many fake clinics provide neither. Some fake clinics also receive direct funding from the states. As Lizz Winstead explained in HuffPost, “CPCs are NOT health care centers, yet many states divert Medicaid, TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), and other government funding designed to help low income people into these fake clinics.” [Cosmopolitan, 7/14/15; Teen Vogue, 6/21/17; National Institute for Reproductive Health, accessed March 2018; National Women’s Law Center, accessed March 2018; Truth In Advertising, 10/15/15; Salon, 7/14/15; HuffPost, 7/31/17; Media Matters,12/28/17, 3/22/18]

Right-wing outlets and media figures framed the decision as a “win” for the free speech of all Americans

The Daily Signal: NIFLA decision is a “win for free speech.” In a June 26 article, The Daily Signal wrote that the Supreme Court’s decision in NIFLA was a “win for free speech” against “California’s attempt to force pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise the state’s free or low-cost abortion program.” The outlet also said that the ruling was “a victory for all Americans because regardless of whether you agree with the message these pregnancy centers stand for” everyone should feel “wary of government compelling dissenting voices to communicate a message that directly contradicts” their own beliefs. [The Daily Signal, 6/26/18]
National Review: The Supreme Court decision is “a considerable victory for … the right to free speech.”National Review’s editors wrote that they “applaud [the NIFLA] decision, which represents a considerable victory for both the right to free speech and the conscience rights of pro-life Americans.” The editors lamented that the vote was only 5-4, writing that it “should not have been a narrow one,” but said that the closeness occurred because “four of the Court’s justices were so hell-bent on promoting the manufactured right to abortion that they were prepared to jettison” the right to free speech. The editors called the California law “an obvious and malicious violation of the First Amendment” and argued that it was “perhaps the best example of the rapidly growing extremism of the abortion-rights movement.” [National Review, 6/26/18]
Wash. Examiner: “If we take a moment to take the emotion out” and “fairly apply the rules, … the outcomes here are very simple.” Washington Examiner’s Jenna Ellis compared the California law to purely hypothetical laws that would force an Alcoholics Anonymous group “to advise every person coming through its doors where that person could obtain state-sponsored alcohol.” In another example, Ellis argued that the California law was akin to “if a Democratic speech writer were compelled by the government to write only Republican policy views in speeches.” Ellis wrote, “If we take a moment to take the emotion” out of the NIFLAcase, and “fairly apply the rules, … the outcomes here are very simple” because the ruling was based on what “the Supreme Court may constitutionally do” under the First Amendment. Similar to what other right-wing outlets said, Ellis also remarked that the 5-4 ruling “told us more about the political activist view of the left-leaning justices on the Supreme Court.” Ellis concluded by calling for “more conservative justices” because they would be “constitutional umpires that are willing to fairly call balls and strikes.” [Washington Examiner, 6/26/18]
National Review's Alexandra DeSanctis:
[Twitter, 6/26/18]
The Daily Wire's Ben Shapiro:
[Twitter, 6/26/18]
The Federalist's Sean Davis:
[Twitter, 6/26/18]

 Demonstration:

 MISSISSIPPI'S LAST ABORTION PROVIDER Niccole Thurman and Laura Grey visit Mississippi's sole abortion provider to uncover the obstacles women face when trying to seek reproductive health care.



Trump SCOTUS threat to abortion rights prompts wave of organizing Cecile Richards, former president of Planned Parenthood, talks with Rachel Maddow about how Americans are already organizing to protect abortion and reproductive rights in the face of Donald Trump's likely replacement for the retiring Justice Kennedy.
Conclusion: The GOP don't represent the will of the people and have lied again and again thus making their actions a danger to democracy and National Security. Even when some of their constituents think their politicians are doing what they want its still an elaborate con as Fox News has ALWAYS been a lying mouthpiece of the GOP to spread their lies and then say "hey! My constituents believe this!". Well who convinced your constituents of these lies anyways? Fox news in collaboration with the GOP while being funded by Kochs, Mercers/Sinclaire, Adelson etc. to get some people to vote against their and America's interests in favor of a bunch of policies that attack America in multiple ways from the economy to women's rights. Here are some of the proofs for this argument;

Lied on the national debt and 8 years of GOP arguments turned out just to be lies;


While debt increases Trump proposes a "Space Force" for which we don't even have the money much less the technology (indicating extreme levels of stupidity or obliviousness);




Human Rights violations;


Using Christianity as defense for thier human rights violations (clearly they want to take us back to the medieval age!);


Lying about political opponents;


Americans feel threatened by the GOP's Trump Administration of tyrants (& thus he should not be appointing a Judge for them!);


After months of calling the "travel ban" a Muslim Ban, Trump added North Korea to the mix and the Supreme Court ignored the entire Trump presidency to approve it;



Continuous obstruction of justice & constitutional violations by the GOP showing that don't stand for rule of law (how could a Judge they appoint be better?);


Long investigations of small events that are conspiracy free while wanting to shut down investigations that have produced indictments and indications of serious crimes;


After the FBI doing investigations of foreign powers attacking our elections and thus our National Security;

Fake and hypocritical "Civility" debate;



Trump's attacks creating right wing lies;


Don't seek to protect the country from foreign attacks if it happens to benefit them;


Another good reason to not let this President nominate a Supreme Court justice (he is under active investigation that has already produced indictments!);


Courts can be used for treason (as the GOP has done in the past already! Not to mention its anti democratic push to reduce voting);



How Fox news talks of other channels as mainstream while its the biggest station indicating its cult like mentality is base don provable lies;

GOP's "Height Of Hypocrisy" Series

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)