Democrats prefer wishes and feelings to constitution and law

THE Democrats – in opposing the nomination of a new Supreme Court judge until after the November 3 election – want to turn the United States Senate into the Make-a-Wish Foundation.

“Democrats are united in fighting to honor Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s last wish,” tweeted Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer.

Joe Biden’s running mate Kamala Harris said:

“We must honour that wish and fight for her legacy.”

Elizabeth Warren spelt it out:

“With voting already underway for the 2020 elections, Ruthie’s ‘most fervent wish’ was for her replacement not to be named ‘until a new president is installed.’ We must honour her wish.”

Well sure.

And Abraham Lincoln’s death bed wish was for the Senate to confirm Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court justice. Several anonymous sources have confirmed it.

And I read somewhere that George Washington’s last words were “Build that wall!”

But unfortunately, there is no “most fervent wish” clause in the United States Constitution.

The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 87, on Friday sent the Democrats into a terrible panic.

President Trump now has the opportunity to nominate a pro-life judge to replace the pro-abortion, left-lurching Ginsburg. This would tilt the court’s balance firmly in favour of conservative judges.

“If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f*ing thing down,” tweeted left wing writer Reza Aslan.

Aslan also claims to be a “scholar of religions” – having converted from Islam to Christianity and back to Islam again. It seems that in all that chopping and changing, he missed the “love your enemies” part. But I digress.

Another leftist, with more than 15k followers, tweeted:

Punctuation is difficult when you’re so worked up.

And I could quote the reaction of other prominent leftists to RBG’s death, but you get the idea.

Once the temper tantrum was exhausted and the leftist tears had dried, the Democrats had to find an argument as to why Donald Trump should not be allowed to nominate a replacement as the Constitution empowers him to do.

Unable to find any reason in law – a common but never insurmountable problem for the Left – progressives did what they always do; they urged people to think with their feelings and to reason with their emotions.

After all, who would not be deeply moved by an NPR story telling how “just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera:

“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

The revelation was followed by a parade of caring, compassionate Democrats solemnly insisting that the only decent thing – the only humane thing – to do was to honour Ginsburg’s dying wish.

Actor Kumail Nanjiani said:

“No matter where we go from here, this is a remarkably selfless statement to make on your deathbed.”

Nanjiani – who would be better advised to stick to reading a script rather than writing his own material – did not say whether Ginsburg’s “remarkably selfless” wish would have been the same had Obama been president.

Nor did he explain how using one’s dying breath to engage in political plotting rather than to farewell family was “remarkably selfless”.

But don’t think. Only feel.

Author and feminist activist Gloria Steinem wrote:

“We each can honour Ruth Bader Ginsburg by asking ourselves, ‘What would Ruth do?’”

And don’t think what Ruth would do. Feel it.

The danger of thought is that you might recall that Ruth was asked, just months before the 2016 election, if the Senate had an obligation to consider Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court to replace the deceased Antonin Scalia.

Ruth Ginsburg told The New York Times:

“That’s their job. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being the president in his last year.”

But who wants to believe verified quotes advocating the law when you can instead choose to believe dramatic last gasp words and wishes based on hearsay? Remember, ‘truth’ is felt.

The Founding Fathers had wishes. They wrote them down. We call it the Constitution.

And the Constitution of the United States doesn’t play second fiddle to Ruth Ginsburg’s last wish, because the Supreme Court seat didn’t belong to her.

But if you practice feeling rather than thinking, you can so cloud your judgement that it is possible to imagine Trump is a dictator for wanting to do what the Constitution says, while a Supreme Court justice is supreme leader who gets to decide who replaces her.

In a bid to safeguard abortion, the Democrats would taint the legacy of a revered Supreme Court justice by propagating a story that the judge’s dying wish was for people to ignore the Constitution. Let that sink in.

And if we want to talk about dying wishes, we might consider that every aborted child’s “dying wish” is for the Supreme Court of the United States to stop facilitating their painful, gruesome murders.

Meanwhile, given Joe Biden’s condition, voters have a right to know his most fervent wish and which grandchild he has dictated it to since that is now the basis by which Democrats want to govern.

Be part of the solution

This content is produced and published without censorship or paywall by the team at The Good Sauce, thanks to Good Sauce Supporters. If you’d like to be part of the independent media solution by helping us produce more content like this, become a Good Sauce supporter today.

James Macpherson is a sought after international speaker with a background in journalism at the Courier Mail and Daily Telegraph. He previously pastored a significant church in Australia and South Africa. James' weekly Good Sauce podcast comes out every Tuesday. He also writes regularly for The Spectator.