Matt Walsh:
I’m not often “shocked” by the deaths of famous people, particularly if they’re 79-years-old, but when I read that Justice Antonin Scalia died, I actually let out an audible gasp. He was one of our nation’s last true constitutionalists, a just man, a godly man, a great man, and his passing will leave a great hole in the conservative movement, the nation itself and especially the Supreme Court court. And that hole will be made even bigger if Obama is allowed to appoint the person who fills it.
Some notes on the jumbled mess left in the wake of this national tragedy:
Dark Explosions of Satanic Joy
Aside from being a good title for a death metal album, that about summarizes the way many liberals reacted to Scalia’s passing. Yes, yes, it’s the Internet and these are leftists, what else would you expect? Not much else, to be sure, but we shouldn’t reach a point where the predictability of deplorable behavior suddenly becomes its own excuse.
Within minutes of the man’s death — and this, by the way, is a man with a wife, nine kids and dozens of grandkids — progressives erupted with applause and jubilation all over social media. Plenty of outlets have compiled some of the celebratory remarks, but that probably isn’t necessary. If you didn’t see it, you can imagine. And keep in mind, these weren’t just a few scattered bad apples, but thousands and thousands of human beings gloating over the still warm corpse of a man so decent and admirable that some of his closest friends belonged to the ideological group now exalting in his demise. And these weren’t merely anonymous trolls on Twitter, but famous folks and folks in media and seemingly regular folks who used their real names and real pictures to post triumphant and sarcastic obituaries. Then, not satisfied with ghoulishly dancing on a freshly dug grave, thousands more began offering their fervent prayers that Clarence Thomas die next.
t was an insane, subhuman display. Evil, and proudly so. Another moment — one of many, often provided by leftists — that made me utterly ashamed of what this country has become.
I took about 50 screenshots of Tweets and messages sent directly to me and thought about posting them, but I’ve decided against it. Many of the comments cannot be published — like the fantasies about defecating on Scalia’s grave and defiling his corpse in various explicit ways — and the rest are from other callous hobgoblins too consumed by their own hatred and idiocy to feel shame anyway. Suffice it to say, American liberalism defied all odds Saturday night and somehow managed to reach an even lower low than the last low it reached. Liberalism is a religion of contempt and envy; each day it sinks deeper into moral oblivion, and upon Scalia’s death it plunged to new and terrifying depths.
What made the elation of liberals so sickening and grotesque wasn’t just the fact that they were delighting over a man’s death, but why. This a crucial detail. Those looking to mitigate the guilt of liberals by drawing irrelevant comparisons have pointed out that conservatives have themselves allegedly reacted inappropriately in similar situations; many argued that, for instance, right-wingers celebrated Ted Kennedy’s passing. But these two scenarios are quite distinct when you consider the motivations behind them.
Ted Kennedy — if this is the equivalence we’re settling on — was a drunken bully. He was deeply corrupt, scandal-plagued, and so lacking in courage and character that he left a woman to drown to death after driving her over a bridge. He was also a staunch opponent of the Constitution, the rule of law, and anything resembling the principles that lay at the foundation of this country. He was so cowardly that, for political reasons, he became a radical advocate of abortion despite knowing it to be a terrible evil. He left death, corruption and deceit in his wake, and his legacy will be forever marked by crime, exploitation and his active endorsement of child murder and other atrocities.
Though these sad truths obviously do not mean we should take pleasure in his death, they do lend a certain context to any conservatives who let their anger get the better of them when he departed a few years ago. For Scalia, the context is very different. Scalia was, objectively speaking, an honorable, honest, courageous man. Moreover, he was right. I’m not going to say he was right about everything he ever said — nobody is, although Scalia likely came closer than most — but he took truthful, important, noble stands on a whole host of decisive issues. He stood for the rule of law, for the Constitution, for human life and for the family.
He was right. These were the right positions. Not right in my opinion or in his opinion, just right. Correct. True. So when liberals hate Scalia, their hatred is made all the more reprehensible and absurd because they hate him for being right and for being courageous and for being decent. It’s like the difference between hating Osama bin Laden and hating Mother Teresa (many liberals do in fact have more hatred for Mother Teresa). We shouldn’t hate anyone, but if you lapse into hating a man like bin Laden, it just shows you are a human being who struggles to mentally separate his numerous wretched deeds from his humanity. I think, in context, it’s understandable if one were to lose that internal battle on occasion.
But if you hate Mother Teresa, it means, rather than hating evil and failing to properly distinguish the evil act from the evildoer, you actually hate goodness. And you hate goodness so much that you hate anyone who does what is good. In other words, the man who hates bin Laden at least hates him because he hates evil, but the man who hates Mother Teresa hates her because he loves evil. There is no moral equivalence here.
Liberals celebrating Scalia’s death aren’t just celebrating death, but evil. They aren’t just wrong in what they do and say, but in the reason why they do and say it. They hate a man because he protected the law, justice, human life, marriage and truth. They hate him for his rightness, and they’re happy he’s dead so that wrongness may win. That’s what makes this all so demented.
If Republicans Lose This Fight, They Lose Me
There are 11 months until we have a new president, praise the good Lord. That means Senate Republicans must spend 11 months rejecting Obama’s Supreme Court nominations. They’re saying now they’ll hold the line, but forgive me if I feel some skepticism. I’d love to believe they’ll hold the line, but I can’t quite get past the unfortunate detail that they’ve never held the line on anything.
If that’s going to suddenly change — and it must — they have to be prepared for a bloody, dangerous battle. Obama will likely put their heads in a vice, politically speaking, by picking a nominee who’s “mainstream” and “moderate” and has some tenuous connection to the Republican Party. It will all be a ruse, of course. There is no possible way — literally zero chance — that Obama nominates a constitutionalist judge with a record of defending life and liberty. Whoever Obama picks will be pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-big government, anti-gun and pro-judicial activism. That means whoever he picks will be unacceptable. There is no point in saying, “Yes, but what if he makes a good pick?” He won’t. Certainly we’ll be told it’s a good pick; we’ll be told the pick is “appealing to both sides,” “non-partisan,” so on and so on, but that will be a lie. The only thing that should be appealing to our side is another Scalia, and he’s not going to put another Scalia on the bench. It won’t happen.
Yet we need another Scalia. Not want. Not hope for. Not in a perfect world. Need. If the Democrats succeed in establishing a full blown liberal court — leaving only Alito and Thomas as the reliable conservatives, with Roberts playing the part when he feels like it — the consequences will be unspeakable. Overturning Roe v. Wade will be out of the question for another generation, signing the death warrant of millions of yet-to-be-conceived children. States that have succeeded in passing laws and regulations curtailing the procedure will eventually be overruled by judicial fiat. Meanwhile, of course, states will never be freed from the requirement that they recognize the court’s perverse and unconstitutional redefinition of marriage. Worse, when the government moves to coerce churches into performing gay “marriages,” the Supreme Court will be there to officially codify the oppression into law, finally eradicating religious liberty in America once and for all.
Amen. If the GOP fails to prevent Obama from padding SCOTUS with another unworthy leftwing activist hack – exactly as the scumbag Schumer said the dems would do regarding not just SCOTUS but all federal judicial nominees by Bush in his last year – then the GOP is dead. The entire grassroots conservative movement will leave the GOP and form a new conservative party that will have no fear of knifing the left in exactly the manner the left has been knifing their political opponents for the last 70 plus years.
The ag-lynch is a scum sucking idiot. dumb and not versed in constitutionals law.
a long democratic lunatic on the take. she prosecuted big money cases for her and hilliary know how to steal and burry monies.
In the highly unlikely event that Obama nominates a qualified candidate that not only is not a far left zealot, but actually moderate and open-minded (historically documented), I would hope the Republicans would give it due consideration. If he nominates what I would assume he would favor, then there is no excuse for not shutting the nomination down.
Senate GOP to Obama: Don’t bother nominating to Supreme Court
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and company have just handed the Democratic Party another election year issue with which to beat them over the head. This is so obvious that I can’t imagine what they’re thinking. They could have waited to see who President Obama would nominate before announcing their intention oppose his choice, then the motive for their resistance could have been passed off as legitimate philosophical differences with a particular individual candidate rather than as obstructionism. That would have been the smart approach.
Instead, they’ve drawn a battle line before Justice Scalia’s funeral arrangements have even been worked out, publicly asserting that Obama should leave the nomination of his replacement for the next president. That assertion is absurd, and the case for it’s absurdity can be very easily made:
There’s nearly a year still remaining in Obama’s term of office. It’s not like he’s in the final days of his presidency. It’s crazy to suggest that a sitting president should refrain from performing presidential duties during the final year of office. Perhaps Congress can get away with doing little or nothing, but the Executive Branch actually has to govern.
Further, Obama has an unambiguous constitutional obligation to nominate someone to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.
Maybe anti-Obama posturing has become so reflexive that republicans have forgotten it can sometimes do the GOP far more harm than good.
I have read on-line all the contorted reasons the GOP should just cave and allow the SCOTUS position to be filled quickly. Its for our own good they say, the people want the job filled and will be mad and vote against republicans for being obstructionists. I hope they obstruct this and more as much as possible. Really the less government does that is new the better.
@Greg:
That’s really all liberals care about, isn’t it?
Aside from being the most unqualified person ever in the White House, Obama has a terrible record of selecting personnel for specific tasks. Case in point, Kevin Jennings for “Safe Schools Czar”. Sebilius as HHS Secretary. Hillary as Secretary of State. Van Jones as Green Jobs Czar. The list goes on… forever.
We’ve seen his taste in Supreme Court Justices. Unless the earth suddenly begins rotating backwards, Obama is NOT going to select a competent jurist for the Supreme Court. If he DID, McConnell would be wrong to block the nomination.
Given that winning the upcoming election seems to be all republicans care about, the fact that they would do something so obviously counterproductive makes one wonder about their competence.
Opinions vary. I believe Obama is eminently qualified for the office he holds. If he was not to begin with, after 7 years in office he has come to be so. That thought occurred to me as I watched the presidential news conference that just ended. In my opinion, the man is every inch a president.
If you want an example of truly appalling selections for a specific task, consider the two current republican presidential front runners. In my humble opinion, neither of those guys should be allowed any closer to the Oval Office than the fence surrounding the White House. Something is lacking. They almost seem like cartoon characters. I think their supporters are projecting something onto them that really isn’t there.
@Greg:
Which just shows the contemptible worthlessness of your collectivist, idiotic opinion , Greg…particularly coupled with your stereotypical leftist hypocrisy.
When Obama was a senator one of the very few things upon which he voted something other than “present” was opposition of Bush SCOTUS nominees. Additionally, the video from 2007 of the despicable asshat Schumer stating that all Bush SCOTUS and federal judicial nominees be opposed by the Senate – specifically stating that any SCOTUS appointment be delayed for over a year for the next president to make. So all you anti-American leftists can pound sand with your false sanctimony over the very appropriate act by the GOP to refuse to allow the scum Obama to replace a Constitutional scholar like Scalia with a pathetic leftwing hacktivist like Lynch (who is laughably being trial-ballooned as a potential SCOTUS nominee).
Appoints Kagan: SO CORRUPT, she didn’t recuse herself EVEN THOUGH she worked on #ObamaCare
Give him another chance to appoint a no ethics hack…dont think so.
@Greg:
Something Obozo is aspiring to be. Did you see his speech about Scalia? He couldn’t even read the teleprompter. I think he was either drunk or on drugs. Take your pick, either one of those makes him more mentally capable.
Yeah, right. Compare Obama’s presidential demeanor and presence of mind at today’s press conference with the juvenile behavior of the two clowns republican voters are most likely going to have to choose between. It isn’t a teleprompter talking from the 7:45 mark on.
It might be interesting to see how either of these characters would fare against Hillary Clinton in a one-on-one debate. We’re probably going to get the chance.
@Greg: “counterproductive”? Keeping a liberal, activist, revisionist judge off the Supreme Court is counterproductive? With the array of Obama’s illegal, ill-conceived and harmful EO’s to be decided on, the fate of the nation hangs in the balance.
It will be the Democratic super delegates who choose who is going to be on a debate stage it will be Hillary, she can bark and lose in every state and will end up debating the Republican candidate. I would much rather see Cruz debate her than Trump, and Cruz choose the next Supremes than Trump. The dottering old slacker hacktivist Sanders wont see the oval office. Judgements now can still be made or delayed til the seat is filled there is nothing so earth moving that needs to be decided by the Court. We dont need another Kagan.
@Pete #8:
If Schumer was wrong to make this statement, how is McConnell right in making the same statement?
If Republicans intend to honor Scalia, wouldn’t they do better sticking with what the Constitution says on the subject instead of inventing a novel rational? Note also that Schumer DIDN’T get what he asked for, and then explain why McConnell SHOULD.
@George Wells:
Nice try, George. The problem with the way you are looking at this is you are making the incorrect assumption that Schumer (and the left in general) was ever acting from principles based on the US Constitution and the good of the nation. Schumer is every bit as slimey and corrupt as Weiner and Spitzer…he just hasn’t been caught yet.
Scalia was a jurist who interpreted the Constitution as it was actually written. Obama (and all anti-American leftist totalitarians) view the Constitution as an obstacle to their ensconsment as the commissars at the top of a collectivist dystopia. Obama wants to appoint another leftwing political activist with no respect for the founding document of our country so as to make it easier for imposition of greater government control over citizens.
It is entirely appropriate for McConnell to prevent Obama from packing a 3rd undeserving political hack onto SCOTUS. As unfaithful as he and the rest of the GOPe have been to conservative principles over the last 7 years, he seems to understand that failure to stop Obama from replacing Scalia will result in the destruction and replacement of the GOP. The grassroots have had enough.
Furthermore, it is a sign of the outrageous arrogance of Obama and the left to demand their extreme leftist nominees be allowed deferential acceptance when Obama, Biden, Schumer et al were filibustering and obstructing conservative nominees. Screw them and their double standards.
Perhaps if the left hadn’t produced the likes of Clinton (both of them), Edwards, Obama, Carter, Holder, Kerry, Schumer, Emmanuel, and produced the absolutely disasterous social, economic and national security situations that are the direct result of their insane leftist ideology, then the left wouldn’t be viewed by mature, historically aware individuals as the disgusting opportunistic immoral scum they choose to be.
@Pete: KISS—Obama has a Constitutional obligation to appoint—Senate can vote up or down.
Why the rant?
You still like Cruz?
If Trump can bash “W” in S.C. and still get a double digit win–Cruz is through–Rubio on life support and must win Fla. Bush-dead man walking—Carson drops out.
Kasich awaits in non Dixie states
@Pete #15:
That might be what Obama WANTS to do, but it isn’t what he WILL do. He’ll appoint someone sufficiently conservative that it will be politically painful for the Senate to not at least go through the confirmation motions. If McConnell refuses to review, the charge of obstructionism will stick more surely than if Obama nominates a raging liberal. Obama might not be your pick for smartest president ever, but he IS smart enough to play this opportunity to its maximum political advantage, and he doesn’t get that with a liberal nominee.
And screw you with your, too. If Schumer and Co. were wrong when they asked to delay judicial nominations until the next presidential term, then so is McConnell. It doesn’t matter whether one OR the other person making the request is corrupt. The request is either constitutionally supportable, or it is not.
You DO understand that, especially at this point in history, ours is a fairly evenly divided nation, with liberals and conservatives sharing power, more or less alternately from one election cycle to the next. Used to be, a measure of political compromise insured that at least a fair amount of the most important problems were addressed. Recently, that moderate approach to problem-solving has given way to an epidemic of self-destructive brinkmanship, with each party jockeying to appear slightly less complicit than the other while the nation’s vital functions grind to a halt. It should by now be painfully obvious to BOTH parties that this harsh and inflexible approach to governance produces no winners in the long run, but each side seems perfectly content with small, temporary advantages gained at the expense of future generations. At some point, SOMEBODY is going to have to begin the process of healing. I appreciate that being the first side to pull a punch pretty much insures that your opponent is going to connect with his next, and it’s going to sting. But imagine a follower asking Jesus “When is it OK for a person to NOT turn the other cheek until the other guy does so first?” Now, I’m not suggesting that the party that is currently making a big fuss over “Religious Freedom” legislation might also be composed of actual “Christians.” What I AM suggesting is that SOMEBODY has to begin the healing process, and it sure ISN’T going to be the dumber or the more immature among us to take the first step. It’s going to take courage and the confidence that what is being done is the right thing to do.
What are the chances that political “peace” might be achieved? Pretty slim, I suspect. I’m a big believer in trends, and we’re “trending” toward civil war, not peace. We’re talking about “nuclear options,” and obstructionism (“delay, delay, delay”), and shutting down the government, and bankrupting the nation with tax cuts that will insure that there is no way to pay for social programs currently legislated. We’re in the process of nominating the most divisive presidential candidates imaginable – and the most childishly un-presidential ever. Nobody’s going to turn a Christian cheek, not this time, maybe never. We’re screwed. And I sure don’t hear anything in YOUR posts to suggest otherwise.
@George Wells:
Why would he do that? A person like that only fulfills the Constitutional requirement; Obama seeks an ideological solution.
Obama’s quest has been to “fundamentally change” the United States. 7 years later, we have a clear view of what that is; an entitlement state, fueled by income redistribution that utilizes the powers of the federal government to force behaviors upon citizens and punish political enemies. Without an unbreakable liberal bloc on the Supreme Court, this will not happen.
Obama may, indeed, nominate Scalia, Jr. as his choice. But, I doubt it and until that actually happens, criticizing the Senate for not considering his nominee is rather moot.
@Bill #18:
EVERYONE knows (including Obama) that the Senate won’t confirm a liberal nominee. Also, finding an exact Scalia match is probably impossible, so even a reasonably conservative replacement will be a gain for the liberal side. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.
No, what McConnell said was stupid. It plays into the hands of Democrats crying obstructionism. Better to say nothing until a nomination is offered, and then do what is needed. The Senate’s nix was premature.
@kitt, #13:
If republicans don’t pick a better candidate than Trump or Cruz, it will be Clinton who will do the choosing. The republican problem is that they’re methodically narrowing things down to a nominee that non-republicans won’t take seriously. The present front runners are a Canadian-born weasel who freely engages in political fratricide, and a former reality television host whose current success is based on pitching a list of angry one-liners to receptive audiences.
Jeb Bush might actually pose a problem for Hillary Clinton with middle-of-the-road voters, but the far right will make sure he never gets the chance. Jeb lacks the qualifying symptoms of histrionic personality disorder, which are apparently mistaken for indicators of energy and philosophical commitment. His personality would be well suited to the Oval Office of an earlier era. He would probably appeal strongly to traditional conservatives who appreciate a thoughtful, low-key approach and value decorum. Trump and Cruz probably make such people cringe.
@Greg: I have no time to have a battle of wits with an unarmed liberal. pfft
@Greg:
It’s very unlikely that an ‘open border’ ‘ amnesty for all’ candidate would be favored by conservatives.
@kitt: excellent comment
@George Wells: Democrats shouting “obstructionism” is about as meaningless as Democrats shouting “racism”. They do it so often and so universally that the accusation has lost any impact. Too much crying wolf.