Crying boy in glasses

Over a year after the untimely passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court once again has nine justices, as Neil Gorsuch was given the oath of office by Justice Anthony Kennedy – for whom he clerked after law school – in the White House Rose Garden on Monday.

You can watch the full ceremony here:

But now, in the same spirit as the president’s countless unhinged opponents, who’ve wailed “Not My President” well after the election, the cries that Gorsuch is somehow an illegitimate justice have begun. It began shortly after Gorsuch’s confirmation Friday, but has carried on through his swearing-in this week.

(Author’s note: This particular tweet got trolled in a truly beautiful fashion.)

Self-styled constitutional scholar George Takei also managed to drop this analysis on the eve of the vote:

But what precisely is so illegitimate about Gorsuch’s nomination? For all of the screeching and mewling that the seat was somehow stolen from Obama-nominee Merrick Garland, the screechers and mewlers have yet to point to anything remotely unconstitutional or delegitimizing (aside from some nebulous Russian conspiracies) about the process by which we got from nine to eight and back to nine again on the SCOTUS bench.

So, to clarify, here’s a quick recap, from the beginning …


In the 1780s, a group of men drafted a national constitution in Philadelphia because the Articles of Confederation were a train wreck. This framework gave the president the power to nominate judges and the Senate the power to confirm them to the Supreme Court.

Democrats lost the Senate majority in 2014.

This means that they no longer had the ability to push their party’s nominee through the hearing process.

(The power to advise and consent isn’t a rubber stamp; this is part of that checks-and-balances thingy that you’re really going to want to brush up on for the next four years, at least.)

Antonin Scalia passes away in his sleep last year.

GOP leadership decides it will not hold a hearing for Scalia’s replacement during Obama’s lame-duck year.

The issue of which president and Congress would be given the duty of filling the seat became one of the biggest issues of the 2016 general election.

And – by the rules of the game – the people chose Donald Trump’s vision over that of Hillary Clinton’s.

President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch.

A Republican Senate confirmed him by a parliamentary procedure pioneered by Democrats in 2013. (If Gorsuch is illegitimate because of the nuclear option, so are quite a few Obama appointees on the federal circuit.)

Judge Neil Gorsuch was sworn in by his former boss in the White House Rose Garden on a sunny Monday morning.


If you can, with a straight face, claim that any of this process was illegitimate or unconstitutional, congratulations; you stand as a living testament to the absolute failure of American civic education.

Contrary to the bastions of progressivist autocracy that liberals have built up in the courts and federal bureaucracy for decades, Gorsuch’s nomination proves that elections, in fact, still come with consequences.

If you can’t deal with the consequences of said elections, you should stop your party from being a regional voice for coastal elites and figure out where you went wrong in 2016. If you see these consequences as illegitimate, then maybe a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” just isn’t your kind of thing.


Views: 9

Reply to This



Bill and Hillary Clinton Brutally
Mocked After Defending

View image on Twitter

Crooked Bill and Hillary Clinton were brutally mocked Monday after defending the Clinton Foundation on social media.

The Clinton Foundation’s official Twitter account tweeted Saturday, “ICYMI: President @BillClinton wrote on Facebook this week about our work improving lives in the United States and around the world, from fighting climate change to combating the opioid crisis.”

Former President Bill Clinton’s Facebook post served to correct the record about so called fake news smearing the Clinton Foundation. Naturally, he linked to far left sites such as Snopes and Politifact to debunk the smears.

After touting all the charity the Clinton Foundation brings to hurricane victims, farmers in East Africa and combating Climate Change, Bill Clinton unleashed on Breitbart News for spreading conspiracy theories and false information about the Foundation.

Nevertheless, spreading false information about the Foundation continues, apparently as part of an ongoing strategy to distract attention from real problems and, over the long run, to completely erase the line between fact and fiction.

For example, just a few weeks ago on MSNBC, during a discussion of the President’s disparaging remarks about Haiti, his designated defender repeated the ridiculous assertion that I had taken money raised for Haiti for personal use and was responsible for the apparent suicide of a Haitian who knew all about it. Thankfully, the host cut her off, refusing to provide a forum for known false conspiracy theories. I’m proud of the work the Foundation and I have done in Haiti and will give you a more detailed report on that soon.

These attacks on the Foundation began in earnest with the 2015 publication of the Breitbart-inspired book, Clinton Cash. I thought the Foundation staff did a good job debunking the book’s charges, but they were published as written even in “mainstream” outlets, and even now the charges continue to be repeated online and in forums favorable to those who make them.

I have never responded personally to these charges, but out of respect for our donors, partners, and those who work at the Foundation, I think I should—because as we see, attacks, no matter how outrageous, can have a long life.

Bill Clinton also argued Chelsea’s wedding wasn’t paid for by Clinton Foundation donations nor do any of them receive salaries.

No, Foundation funds were not used to pay for Chelsea’s wedding. It’s not only untrue, it’s a personal insult to me, to Hillary, and to Chelsea and Marc. It was a wonderful day that Hillary and I were grateful to be able to pay for.

Clinton also argued the foundation was given 4 out 4 stars from Charity Navigator, Platinum from GuideStar, A from Charity Watch, and a 20 out of 20 score for meeting all of the Better Business Bureau’s good practice standards.

Hillary Clinton tweeted: Want to hear the real story of the @ClintonFdn? Read this: 

 Trump supporters savaged the Clintons.

How about when Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Oman donated MILLIONS to your foundation when you were Secretary of State and then you conducted official US business with them? 

What about how Haitian villages that you raised money for are STILL without the homes, schools and infrastructure you promised for them? Where did it go Hillary? Where's that money? Why did you plunder the great people of Haiti? 


Unless it explains

Benghazi 33,000 missing emails  Haiti  Destroyed electronics  Missing money
Uranium One Etc

Then no. Nope.  
Not on Presidents day.  

Care to tell us how much the Foundation pays out in salaries each year? 


Slush fund? Pay-to-play? Salaries for Sid Blumenthal?
Fraud in Haiti?  The vast majority of funds don't reach people in need?
That's the real story, right?   



© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service