Supreme Over-Reaction – USA Gov Policy

The response to the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has been, to say the least, over the top.

To be clear, whether it is an election year or not, the President has the absolute, constitutional right to nominate a candidate to fill the vacancy. The Appointments Clause, found in the Constitution’s Article II, Section 2, clause states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court.” There is no prohibition on doing so in an election year. The Senate has the right to accept or decline the candidate. Both parties have played the game of trying to either rush to the finish line or wait out the clock, depending on whether they control the White House or not.

In 2016, when the tables were reversed and Obama was in the Oval Office, Joe Biden said that it was the “constitutional duty” of the president to fill the vacancy, even in an election year. He has reversed himself. The Republicans have also taken the opposite position this year.

Normally, one would call this politics as usual, except for the extreme and verbally violent nature of the Democrat response to the White House announcement of its intention to engage in the process before the election. It brings up the uncomfortable reality that the current crop of Democrat Party leaders are more than willing to burn down the Republic in their bid to gain power.

“Squad” leader Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said the President was “Playing with fire” if he proceeds with a nomination, and openly implied that violence in the streets was an appropriate response. Nancy Pelosi, in complete defiance of the Constitution, threatens to impeach Trump—again!—for merely doing his constitutional duty. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, (D-NY) who famously introduced legislation to weaken the First Amendment, warns that if his party regains control, it will “pack the court” with justices exceeding the tradition-honored number of nine, in an effort to ensure that justices with his point of view gain the majority. Demonstrators have gone to the home of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) in an effort to intimidate him.

cialis for cheap price This sexual disorder can bring a number of factors. Healthy nerve order levitra online amerikabulteni.com cells are very important for normal erectile functioning. Medicines that interfere with nerve cialis no prescription check out this link impulses cause erectile dysfunction. If you are unable to find the pleasure, then you can satisfy his urge by using a strapon. viagra online in uk shop at link

These inappropriate moves must be seen in combination with other wholly unacceptable acts and comments that have unfolded during this election season. Former Secretary of State John Kerry, the architect of the Obama Administrations’ still unexplained tilt away from traditional American allies in the Mideast and towards the terrorist-sponsoring nation of Iran, has said that “all bets are off” if Trump wins. Hillary Clinton has urged Biden to “never concede under any circumstances” the election.

In several states, Democrats have pushed the notion that signatures need not be verified on mail in ballots, an open invitation to fraud.

None of these inflammatory statements and actions can be seen as business as usual. They are a profound and extreme break from the time-honored American tradition of a peaceful transition of power, which has kept the nation intact since its founding, except, of course, for when, in an effort to preserve slavery, Democrats split from the Union and commenced the Civil War.

Politics is certainly a rough endeavor, and tempers can and will flair. But not since the Civil War has the rhetoric been so violent, and, frankly, so wrong. The nation could never have lasted for so long had the willingness to put party ahead of country, clearly demonstrated by the use of outrageous rhetoric and the condoning of violence in the streets by leading leftist and progressive politicians, been utilized as it is currently.

Photo: U.S. Supreme Court (Pixabay)

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.