| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
If Chuck Schumer Is Who Defines ‘Mainstream’, I May Have to Go Full Hipster
If Schumer is the arbiter of “mainstream” thought, then I may have to go full hipster. Bring on the lumbersexual fashion and music on vinyl. When it comes to Constitutional jurisprudence, I only like the early stuff. Of all the voices from the far left hypocritically demanding judicial nominees who are “mainstream,” Schumer is by far the most irritating.
Peering over his reading glasses like some angry school librarian lecturing you about proper page-turning etiquette, Schumer loves to repeat his warnings against Republican Presidents picking judicial nominees “outside the mainstream” as if that term were his to define.
“If the nominee is out of the mainstream, we will do our best to keep the seat open,” Schumer, D-New York, told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” of the Supreme Court vacancy that Trump will get a shot at filling after majority Republicans blocked former President Barack Obama’s nominee for a year.
(Republicans “blocked” while Democrats will “keep the seat open.” That’s the sort of bias that comes from our so-called “mainstream” media.)
Schumer seems to think that he alone gets to decide what is or is not mainstream. Did Republicans think that Merrick Garland was outside the mainstream? Of course not, they were merely being obstructionist, because they’re Republicans, and probably racist.
“I’m hopeful that President Trump may nominate someone who is mainstream and could get bipartisan support,” Schumer said. “But if they don’t, yes, we will fight it tooth and nail, as long as we have to.”
I don’t recall him complaining when Barack Obama said that “empathy” was the key criteria for choosing a Supreme Court Justice.
“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook,” he said. “It’s also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives — whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.”
If that is mainstream then the mainstream has no idea what the Supreme Court’s purpose is. This has been Chucky’s mantra for more than a decade at least.
The day the Senate voted to confirm Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called Brown “so far out of the mainstream that she makes [conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin] Scalia look like a liberal.”
Even then-Senator Barack Obama parroted it.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., also attempted to toss Brown out of the mainstream, saying he hoped the California Supreme Court judge wasn’t getting “a pass” because she is a black woman.
“I hope we’ve arrived at a point in our country’s history where black folks can be criticized when they hold views that are out of the mainstream,” Obama said.
After 8 years worth of racism accusations for opposing President Barack Obama’s outside the mainstream views, I think it’s safe to say that we have not arrived at that point.
We have arrived at the point where Democrats and their media partners, in a Goebbels-like manner, repeatedly tell us that the hard left is really the middle of the road. Why should we want a judicial system that values mainstream thought over the Constitution and rule of law anyway? The mainstream doesn’t always flow in the right direction. One can list numerous times in history where the mainstream was dead wrong about all manner of things. As Chesterton said, “A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.”
Somebody pass me a PBR.
The post If Chuck Schumer Is Who Defines ‘Mainstream’ I May Have to Go Full Hipster appeared first on RedState.
Source: http://www.redstate.com/jimjamitis/2017/01/22/chuck-schumer-defines-mainstream-may-go-full-hipster/
nice… Chesterton.
Good post!