Democrats have spent months trying to find new ways to make President Donald Trump and the Republican party out to be the ‘bad guys’ in every situation, hoping to score cheap political points. They’ve often been helped by the media in this endeavor, with the media acting almost as the propaganda arm of the DNC.
However, Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat Senator from Connecticut, has found a new tactic. Since the Democrat party is incapable of filibustering judicial appointees, Blumenthal suggested that Democrats should ‘reveal and shame’ the appointees on Twitter.
Blumenthal is angry because the Senate Judiciary Committee approved 17 of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees recently. He hopes to take aim at the 12 nominees recently proposed by the President in order to prevent them from being appointed. In other words, Senator Blumenthal hopes to bully these lawyers into withdrawing from consideration.
Senator Blumenthal has stated that he believes President Trump is “seeking to radically reshape our judiciary,” and continued on to make claims that this will threaten “individual rights and liberties.”
Senator Blumenthal doesn’t care about ALL rights and liberties, however; just reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, workers’ rights, and other similar rights. He makes no mention of concern for First, Second, or Fourth Amendment rights.
To substantiate his fears, Senator Blumenthal mentioned the confirmation of Judge John Bush for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals last summer. The hyper-partisan Blumenthal also mentioned Mark Norris, and claimed Norris made a career out of “hyper-partisanship.”
When asked how the Democrats should respond to Presidential appointees to judiciary positions, he stated that his preference would be that the DNC resorts to responses that “reveal and shame” nominations, citing Brett Talley as an example of when such a strategy paid off.
Democrats attempted to demand Brett Talley, suggesting he was also ‘hyper-partisan’ and unfit for the position. The American Bar Association (which leans left) sent a letter from its Standing Committee to the Senate Judiciary Committee about Brett Talley, saying that though they didn’t doubt his temperament or integrity, they feared Talley didn’t have the trial experience for the position.
Senator Blumenthal, showcasing that ‘hyper-partisanship’ that he claims to be so worried about, also dragged identity politics into the debate, stating that President Donald Trump isn’t appointing enough women or ‘minorities’ for his liking.
Senator Blumenthal complained that, according to his numbers, 91 percent of President Trump’s appointees are white and 81 percent are male. Just one was African-American, meaning that President Trump isn’t choosing enough nominees based on the color of their skin to satisfy Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal says that because the news media isn’t interested in the judiciary as much as they are in the legislature and executive branches of government, Democrats need to talk “directly to the people” when they complain about judicial nominees.
However, Senator Blumenthal is not discussing an intelligent debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees. He’s talking about slinging mud at these individuals until they don’t want to deal with it anymore.
This is nothing new for the Democrat party, however. Perhaps most famously, when Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was nominated, the Democrat party brought forward Anita Hill. Hill made claims, which she failed to substantiate, that Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her. Her claims of ill-treatment were made much less believable by the fact that she followed Clarence Thomas to another job AFTER the alleged ‘harassment’ took place.
However Senator Blumenthal may want to explain his desire to ‘shame’ President Donald Trump’s appointees to the judiciary, the truth is that his response is simply the continuation of a fit the DNC has thrown since President Trump was inaugurated.
The DNC has found itself unable to debate President Trump on results (as his results have been shockingly positive), so they attempt to find something wrong, whatever it can be, with the process. However, the reality is clear.
They’re not so much mad that he’s not appointing the ‘right’ people, they’re mad that it’s not Hillary Clinton appointing activist leftist judges who will make openly biased decisions. If that as the case, they’d probably have no problem with appointing a blogger with a law degree or a ‘hyper-partisan’ judge.
President Donald Trump’s most recent list of nominees, however, includes people with long histories in the legal profession and some of the brightest legal minds in the country. If the Democrats can’t debate their merits, and they can’t simply filibuster the judges they don’t like, then they’ll be left with only one card to play.
So let the smear campaign commence, as the Democrats have nothing else they can do to prevent President Trump from appointing another twelve judges.