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

Russian-Belarus Preparations for an Attack on the West

While Russia is celebrating May Day at home this week, it is also growing closer to breaching the threshold triggering a nuclear event in Western Europe. Military analysts in Washington consider the recent deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus a political sign designed to unnerve the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) easternmost flank. Alexander Taranov, of the Jamestown Foundation calls it “practical preparation for nuclear escalation.” Last week the Kremlin publicly repeated its threat of nuclear war against the West. It immediately followed the US Congress’ vote to provide $61 billion in military assistance to Ukraine. Up for debate is whether Russia’s storage of nuclear warheads in Belarus is short-term preparation for their operational use. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov openly declared that increasing aid to Ukraine increases the threat of a direct military clash. From Moscow’s perspective, he points out, Ukraine is backed by three nuclear states, including the US, UK, and France. He uses it to justify the Kremlin’s moves in Belarus as Russia considers the situation a serious strategic risk. The nuclear environment in Europe is moving beyond simple rhetoric this spring. Russian-Belarus preparations for an attack on the West include war gaming a simulated nuclear event in Ukraine and Eastern Europe. The operating assumption for the games is that the West is “morally too weak to respond with retaliatory strikes,” according to Taranov. The representative for national defense of the Belarusian opposition-in-exile’s United Transitional Cabinet and former commander of the Belarusian 38th Separate Guards Air Assault Brigade (Brest), Valery Sahashchyk, says that the militaries are war-gaming and preparing for an attack on Lithuania. Last week the publication RIA Novosti suggested that the Kremlin may take matters into its own hands and that Russia is fighting a “long war” against the collective West and Ukraine. Just over a month ago, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) confirmed the establishment of a nuclear warhead storage facility near Asipovichy, Belarus, where, according to Taranov, the 1405th Artillery Ammunition Base is located. The 465th Missile Brigade is almost co-located and supplied with Russian Iskander-M operational-tactical missile (RMB) systems that are also known as TNW carriers. Pre-deploying tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) raises the potential that Russia could choose to use them should the war in Ukraine go badly this summer. Western powers are divided on how to view the Russian nuclear moves. Some military planners are arguing that the West needs to be prepared, despite the possibility that Putin is simply posturing and not preparing for war. Other Western commentators suggest it is only posturing since prior to the recent nuclear deployment in Belarus, Russia already had the capability to launch a strike in Eastern Europe using its modernized nuclear weapons storage facilities in Kaliningrad. Taranov points out that the Belarusian nuclear site is only modernized with added perimeter security and an access point and that “No underground bunker-type fortifications, designed for the long-term storage of TNWs… were built on the Belarusian base’s territory. Instead, the nuclear warheads were placed in one of the arsenals of the ammunition base, which also stores operational-tactical missiles for the Iskander-M system.” He says this co-location with their launch vehicles is an indication that a repair and maintenance base has been organized there to support and prepare the TNWs for operational use. Personnel on the site are likely tasked with fitting the nuclear warheads on the missiles. What makes this more concerning is that during a peacetime environment, the standard Russian practice is to store TNWs in a special bunker-type fortified facility while RMBs typically are located off base. Military procedures in the past called for moving TNWs off base to the TNW carrier and delivery vehicle site only after receiving an order or special command from: 1) the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, 2) the Minister of Defense, and 3) the Chief of the Russian General staff. Co-positioning marks a change in standard operating procedures that indicates the weapons are, essentially, in field-ready conditions. This reduces the time to place the nuclear warheads on the missiles. This “indicates preparation for operational use,” according to Taranov. There are additional signs that Putin is prepping for an escalation in the Ukrainian conflict. The Polish government says Russian Aerospace Forces are using Belarusian-based Kh-55 nuclear-capable cruise missiles with imitators of nuclear warheads against targets in Poland and Ukraine. This points to Russia’s practicing for at minimum of a tactical nuclear strike. The summer months may become very active in Europe if Putin sees it as an opportune time to act while the US is in the middle of a presidential election. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept. Photo: RS-24 Yars (SS-27 Mod 2) ICBM. Photo: Wikimedia Commons / Vitaly V. Kuzmin