"The Democrats are lying..." and you can complete that sentence in so many ways: "...about a great many things." But today we're going to talk about their massive resistance against a Supreme Court Democrats are calling "illegitimate."
They've sent protesters to pound on the massive doors at 1 First St NE; Eric Holder has questioned the legitimacy of the one and only Constitutionally-mandated federal court, making him the most cynical person ever to have occupied the office of Attorney General of the United States.
The truth is that Democrats don't believe their own lies here. They don't like the result of the 2016 election, and they still can't accept that the credibly-accused rapist's wife and co-conspirator in the cover-up ("Put simply, you can’t believe Ford if you don’t also believe Broaddrick") they wanted in the White House is now reduced to sniping from the gallery.
Instead of just doing what political parties are supposed to do when they're in the minority, which is to be the "loyal opposition," Democrats have gone back to the 60's to pretend they are some kind of counter-cultural force they've labeled "the Resistance" when in fact they represent the most oppressive progressive moral busybodies to haunt this nation since the temperance movement 100 years ago. They are bullies and thugs in the physical, political, and economic senses of the word.
And here's how we know they're lying (besides the fact that they're speaking words):
On January 4, 2017, when Barack Obama was still president, and was still consulting as to how best to knock Trump out of the White House with some kind of smoking Russia gun if the FBI could dig it up, and Peter Strzok was texting away with his mistress Lisa Page, Ian Reifowitz wrote in the Daily Kos: "The Supreme Court is illegitimate. We must massively resist any 5-4 ruling decided by Trump pick."
It didn't matter what pick Trump made, because Trump published a list vetted by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society of consistently either textual or originalist jurists of respectable pedigree. Anyone on this list was by definition unacceptable to Democrats, who want the Supreme Court to be all-powerful and to become even more powerful than the Executive or Legislative branches of our government. That is, as long as they own it.
Instead of arguing to strip the power of the high court, Democrats want to have their cake and eat it: the Supreme Court should be a dictatorial body, a paramount lawgiving organ, yet it's illegitimate if the "wrong" justices sit on its bench. They don't want to denude the bench-legislative privileges of the Court, but claim that its members have attained their position by corrupt means, rendering decisions made by the Court corrupt and illegitimate. When the "proper" justices are restored to replace the corrupt ones, then the Court will return to its pristine condition.
The New York Times editorial board began the "stolen seat" chant the day before Christmas 2016, as if the Senate itself, being controlled by Republicans, was a corrupt body. They foresaw a Trump-appointed Court as they gleefully made themselves into his opposition.
> Americans must remember one thing above all: The person who gets confirmed will sit in a stolen seat.
> [snip] The shameful, infuriating actions of the Senate Republicans won’t be ignored in the history books. In a desperate effort to keep a conservative majority on the court, they rejected their own professed values of preserving American institutions.
ThinkProgress editor Ian Millhiser (the one who tweeted how proper it was to confront Republicans where they live, eat, or in elevators) wrote that "Neil Gorsuch is the most illegitimate member of the Supreme Court in U.S. history." He wrote this on August 23, 2018, when the Kavanaugh spectacle had not reached peak three-ring fantasy.
In June, when two 5-4 Supreme Court rulings by the Court, including Gorsuch, were handed down, the left went apoplectic. Of course, Gorsuch was arguably less conservative than the man he replaced, Justice Antonin Scalia, so these decisions would have gone the same way regardless. I could even argue that Obama's pick, Merrick Garland, would have ruled against California's truly fascist "FACT Act," and ruled in Trump's favor on the so-called "Muslim ban."
But because Garland was not on the Court, they called it illegitimate.
And on September 4, before Sen. Dianne Feinstein released her bombshell (Q: "Where is Christine Blasey Ford now?" A: "It's a mysterious mystery."), MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski called Kavanaugh "illegitimate."
> "What we see here is an illegitimate process that will yield an illegitimate Supreme Court justice and further degrade in the public's mind the legitimacy of the institution of the Supreme Court itself," [analyst Steve Schmidt] said on "Morning Joe."
Note that it's the process that they call illegitimate. Note that Democrats claim the Court's inherent power should not be stripped, because Democrats want them to be lawgivers, not constitutional arbiters of federal law and disputes between states.
Democrats and their media dog-walkers are lying about the Supreme Court. They don't think it's illegitimate. In fact, they want it to be ultra-legitimate, beyond what it should be or ever was designed to be, but only if they control it.