Ignore the Polling on Who Should Replace Ginsburg

Not even 24 hours after Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, multiple media outlets were telling us that on the question of who they prefer to replace Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court, voters prefer Joe Biden to President Trump.

The Fox News headline Saturday afternoon declared that “52% trust Biden over Trump on Supreme Court picks.” The Fox News question on the Supreme Court was included in its regular Trump-Pence vs. Biden-Harris poll and was conducted days prior to Ginsburg’s death. The Fox poll gave Biden a 52%-45% edge on who people trust “to do a better job on…SCOTUS nominations.”

On early Saturday afternoon, a New York Times headline read, “Polls Have Shown Voters Prefer Biden to Pick Next Justice.” The Times article reported on the Fox poll and also reported on its own New York Times/Siena College three-state poll. The Times article states, “In Times/Siena polls of Maine, North Carolina and Arizona released Friday, voters preferred Mr. Biden to select the next Supreme Court justice by 12 percentage points, 53 percent to 41 percent.”

A Saturday headline at The Hill read, “Majority of voters say Trump should not nominate a Supreme Court justice.” This article reports on “a snap poll released Saturday by YouGov.” According to The Hill,

The poll found that 51 percent of voters believe Trump should not nominate another justice this year, while 42 percent said he should move forward with a nominee. A slight majority, 48 percent, believe the Senate should not confirm a nominee this year. Forty-five percent said the upper chamber should.

Of course, all of this is meant to discourage President Trump, Senate Republicans, and their supporters from moving forward with a nomination to replace Ginsburg prior to the November elections. In other words, these polls are like most every other election-related poll in this modern drive-by media era. They are meant to shape opinions instead of merely reporting on them. Events in 2016 again provide an informative lesson here.

After the death of Antonin Scalia in February of 2016, the media put tremendous pressure on the Republican-led U.S. Senate to give Obama nominee Merrick Garland a Senate hearing and a vote. Part of this pressure included numerous polls that supposedly showed Americans were overwhelmingly in favor of Garland receiving a Senate hearing and a vote. Polling Report reveals this to be the case.

Just days after Scalia’s death, Pew Research Center asked, “In thinking about how the Senate should deal with the Supreme Court vacancy, which of the following statements comes closer to your view? Do you think the Senate should hold hearings and vote on whomever President Obama nominates, or not hold hearings until the next president selects a nominee?” Pew reported that “Hold hearings on Obama’s nominee” got 56% support while “Wait for the next president” got only 38% support.

In late February of 2016, a CNN/ORC poll asked, “President Obama has said that he will nominate someone to fill the vacancy. Do you think the Republican leadership in the Senate should or should not hold hearings on the nominee?” According to this poll, “should” hold hearings was at 66% while “should not” was at 32%.

Likewise, in early March of 2016, an ABC News/Washington Post poll asked, “The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has opened a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. After Obama nominates someone to replace Scalia, do you think the Senate should hold hearings and vote on whether to accept the nomination, or should the Senate NOT hold hearings, which would block the nomination and leave it to the next president?” Again, support for holding hearings was supposedly at 63% while those against holding hearings came in at only 32%.

Similarly, in the middle of March in 2016, Gallup asked, “Now turning to the U.S. Supreme Court, as you may know, Merrick Garland is a federal judge who has been nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. Would you like to see the Senate vote in favor of Garland serving on the Supreme Court, or not?” According to Gallup, those wanting the Senate to vote “in favor” was 52%, while those wanting the Senate to “not vote in favor” was at 29%.

And so on it went for the weeks and months leading up to the 2016 elections. What’s more, liberal pundits across the U.S. ran hundreds of editorials calling for Mitch McConnell to allow hearings and a vote on Garland. Even individual GOP Senators—including Susan Collins—called for the Senate to grant Garland Judiciary Committee hearings.

Of course, refusing to acquiesce on Garland hearings was supposed to cost republicans in the 2016 elections. No less than a former executive editor of The New York Times thought so. Writing in The Guardian, Jill Abramson called Garland’s nomination a “political gift” for Hillary Clinton and added that “Garland’s temperate record and demeanor also magnify the extremism of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, the leaders for the GOP presidential nomination who could make their own court nominees if Garland is not confirmed by the election. That could further scare off moderate Republicans.”

Of course, after holding up Garland’s nomination in 2016, Donald Trump became the U.S. President, the republicans held on to the U.S. Senate, and even gained two seats in the 2018 midterms. There’s nothing in politics—or, more importantly, in the U.S. Constitution—that says republicans can’t or shouldn’t replace Ginsburg prior to this November. Don’t let the drive-by media lead you into thinking otherwise.

Additionally, any threats of violence, mayhem, and destruction, or any acts of violence, mayhem, and destruction that result from Trump and Senate Republicans acting to replace Ginsburg will not be the fault of the President and the GOP. Like the rest of the violence and mayhem currently plaguing the U.S., the blame will lie squarely on Democrats and their voters. And remember, it was Democrats who turned the courts into “super legislatures” in order to achieve what they otherwise could not get through actually winning elections and passing legislation. If the courts were what our Founders intended, these battles to replace Supreme Court Justices would not be so contentious.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2020, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith and Reason.
www.TrevorGrantThomas.com 
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@TrevorGrantThomas.com

Why Doug Collins Needs to Win the Georgia Senate Race

As is well known, Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson resigned in December due to health issues. He never should have run for reelection in 2016, but that's another matter. He had three years left in his term, and Governor Brian Kemp solicited applications from Georgians to fill his seat for 2020. Kemp received over 500 applications, one of which was from Representative Doug Collins, of my congressional district—the Georgia 9th. Collins was President Trump’s choice to replace Isakson. The president reportedly asked Governor Kemp on several occasions to appoint Collins to the senate, but Kemp bucked the president and chose political outsider and multimillionaire businesswoman, Kelly Loeffler, co-owner of the WNBA team, the Atlanta Dream.

Loeffler will serve as senator during 2020, and then there will be a special election this November in which the voters will choose who will serve the last two years of Isakson’s term. Georgia has a strange way of electing replacements to Congress when there’s an opening mid-term. All of the qualifying candidates will be on the ballot in November—democrats, republicans, and independents—a “jungle” election. If no one receives a majority of the votes, the top two will face a runoff in December to decide the winner. Some of our state legislators attempted to pass legislation to enact a spring primary and avoid the “jungle” vote so that the parties could unite behind their one candidate, but Governor Kemp threatened to veto the measure. The change would likely have favored Collins instead of Kemp’s pick, Loeffler. As of today, there are five declared republicans in the race (Collins and Loeffler are the most notable) five democrats, and one independent.

I don’t always agree with Doug Collins’s voting record, and in fact, I helped to manage my uncle’s congressional campaign when he ran against Doug in the GOP primary in 2012 and 2016. However, one thing that I love about Doug is that he has been an absolute bulldog when it comes to supporting and defending President Trump during the impeachment nonsense. He seems to have Trump’s back wholeheartedly, and that goes a very long way in my book. Doug has an established record of protecting the unborn, defending our 2nd Amendment rights, and exposing the corruption that plagues those who are opposed to the truth. He is a proven commodity, he is honorable, and I believe we can trust him to stand on conservative principles as long as he serves in Congress.

From a peek into her past, it appears that Loeffler is no reliable conservative. She uses the correct talking points now, but what I’ve been reading lately from some trusted friends who know the politics of Georgia quite well is that she’s a “globalist,” along the lines of the George Bushes and Mitt Romney, or worse.

Reportedly, Governor Kemp’s motivation in appointing Loeffler was two-fold: 1. She can pour millions of her own dollars into her re-election campaign, and 2. He hopes she will attract women voters who have supposedly left the party and ensure that republicans keep the seat in November. Those seem like pretty shallow reasons to me. As a woman, I don’t trust Kelly Loeffler to be the true conservative that she needs to be, once the pressure is off and she is sitting comfortably in her senate seat.

I couldn’t care less whether my senator is male or female, so her gender holds no sway for me. What matters is whether he or she is principled, trustworthy, and has a proven history of supporting conservative values. I simply don’t see that in Loeffler, who cozies up to the likes of Democrat Stacey Abrams, donates thousands of dollars to democrats like Senators Chris Dodd, Debbie Stabenow, Tom Harkin, and so forth, organizes her team against Georgia’s religious freedom legislation, and supports Planned Parenthood with revenue from her team’s ticket sales. The WNBA is a terribly liberal organization, so it begs the question why and how someone with strong morals and conservative principles would co-own one of the teams. Loeffler simply doesn’t pass the smell test, in my humble view.

According to a statement from Concerned Women for America in late November, shortly before Governor Kemp announced that Loeffler would assume Isakson’s senate seat:

Governor Kemp needs to know Kelly Loeffler would be the wrong choice for conservatives in Georgia and supporters of President Trump on several fronts. She sits on the board of a hospital in Atlanta that employs five abortionists and actually runs the largest training program for abortionists in Georgia. She is also part owner of the WNBA’s Atlanta Dream franchise. The WNBA has been an outspoken supporter of Planned Parenthood, even partnering with the pro-abortion organization in opposing President Trump’s pro-life policies. Likewise the WNBA has remained disturbingly silent about China’s persecution of the citizens of Hong Kong, even after an NBA general manager courageously spoke out about it. Ms. Loeffler also sits on the board of a psychiatric treatment facility that provides transgender affirming counsel to minors. Likewise she has given thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to liberal and pro-abortion candidates. There are better choices for Gov. Kemp when it comes to the next U.S. Senator from Georgia. Gov. Kemp has a list of fantastic pro-life candidates. We hope he doesn’t pick the one the pro-life community will have to oppose.

We can’t take chances with something as important as a U.S. Senate seat, and we certainly don’t need any more Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski-types there. This position is too important to the future of our nation. We need someone to represent Georgia who has proven that he or she will stand for life, biblical marriage, the family, the 2nd Amendment, border security, national sovereignty, religious liberty, and so on. Governor Brian Kemp disappointed much of his conservative base when he went against President Trump’s wishes and chose Kelly Loeffler for U.S. Senate, and we voters need to send a strong message in November that we won’t stand for playing patty cake with our senate seats.

What we absolutely need to avoid in November is splitting the republican base and ending up with a democrat senator from Georgia. Since this is a jungle vote and there is no primary to allow us to choose one candidate, conservatives need to unite behind the only reliable candidate in the race. Not only does Doug Collins need to win, but he needs a landslide of republican support. There needs to be a clear mandate from the conservative base that we want a proven, principled conservative. Doug Collins needs to defeat Kelly Loeffler so we can keep Georgia solidly, reliably red and maintain the republican majority in the U.S. Senate.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Michelle Thomas is a Christ follower, wife to Trevor Thomas, and homeschooling mom of four. Her books include Lord, I Need You, Through Deep Waters, and Debt-Free Living in a Debt-Filled World. Her website is KingdomCrossing.com, and her email is michelle@kingdomcrossing.com.

Election Repsonse

To borrow from Charles Krauthammer, this was not a rebuke, it was a restraining order. Many Americans simply want the Democrats to go away--far away. Many have characterized this as a rebuke of Obama, but I think it goes further than that. To a significant extent, liberalism was on trial and was found wanting. As of this writing, according to the Real Clear Politics numbers, republicans added seven seats in the U.S. Senate, with Alaska and Louisiana likely making the final result a +9 for the GOP, giving them a total of 54 Senate seats. The Republicans have added 13 seats in the House, with about a dozen races--almost all Democrat seats--still undecided. Most are projecting the Republicans to hold about 250 House seats.

Additionally, and I think certainly the most surprising outcome of the night, the GOP defied the odds and actually added to their gubernatorial total across the U.S. Wins in deep blue states such as Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland made such gains possible. At this point, with a couple of races yet to be called, Republicans now control 31 governor's mansions. According to Hot Air, "Republicans now control governorships and state legislatures in 24 states while Democrats control those in only 7 states."

Certainly the republicans are, minus occupying the White House, in perhaps the greatest position of political power they have ever experienced. We'll see what they do with it.

In closing, as I've implied before, whatever the outcome of any election, Christians should never be too elated or too downtrodden. Politics is a realm occupied by men and women, who will almost certainly let us down. This is not to say that Christians should not be involved in, or concerned with, politics. We most certainly should. However, we must live knowing that our hope is not in any individual or institution in this world. As S.M. Lockridge put it when it comes to the One Christians serve, "You can't impeach Him, and He's not going to resign."

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Bust the Filibustering

Now that the current election cycle has come and gone, what are the talk shows going to talk about? What are Rush, Hannity, Al Franken, and Michael Moore going to do with their time? What are editors going to editorialize about? I believe one of the more interesting things to watch politically for the next several months will be the battle over the federal judiciary that will take place in the U.S. Senate.

There has been much talk lately concerning the process of approving federal judges. The president nominates judges at the federal level, and the senate must approve them (by a simple majority). As has been frequently noted in the media recently, democrats in the senate have been filibustering some of the nominees, not allowing them to come up for a vote. Republicans, with a slight majority in the senate, have had the necessary votes for approval, so the democrats see this as their only method to keep certain judges off the bench.

Republicans have been unable to muster the 60 votes necessary to break the filibuster, so they have been at the mercy of the democrats when it has come to particular judicial nominees. However, the dynamics of the recent election may bring an end to this filibustering.

I don’t think the fact that Bush won the election, with a majority of the popular vote, is the most significant factor in sending a message to democrats in the senate. I think it helps, but I think the fact that republicans gained four seats in the senate, and defeated Tom Daschele (the minority leader and chief architect of their policy of blocking judicial nominees) in the process sends the most powerful message to democrats. That message is: democratic senators from largely conservative states, as Daschele was, may not want to find themselves labeled as Daschele was—a liberal and an obstructionist.

The republican gains still give them only 55 senate seats—not enough to overcome a filibuster. The measures they take to combat the filibustering will be very fascinating to watch.

President Bush won 31 states in his successful reelection bid. These states represent 62 senate seats. In addition, there are nine current republican senators from states the president lost. That means, of the 55 republican senators, 46 are from states he won. Therefore, there are 16 senators that are democratic but are from states that Bush won. Five of these won in this past election, so that leaves 11 as targets to pressure to stop the filibustering.

Five of these 11 will be up for reelection in 2006, so they will be the ones really feeling the heat. They are: Nelson (FL), Conrad (ND), Nelson (NE), Bingaman (NM), and Byrd (WV). Not all of these represent states won soundly by Bush, but the senators from Nebraska and North Dakota will probably especially take note of what happened to Senator Daschele. The remaining six, up for reelection in 2008, are from AK, IA, LA, MT, SD, and WV. So, most of these 11 are from states that went solidly for Bush. It would appear that the president might find it a little easier to get the 60 votes it seems he now needs to get his judges approved.

However, there are other factors to examine. Some of the nine republican senators that are from states Bush lost are not solidly behind his agenda. Republican Lincoln Chafee (RI) reportedly didn’t even vote for George W. Bush. In protest of some of the current Bush’s policies, he said he would cast his vote for George Bush I. Nevertheless, when it came to judicial nominees these nine always backed the president.

Also, it may not be easy to sway voters in certain states based solely on how their senator voted in the judicial nomination process. What they’ve done for their state will weigh heavily. However, the defeat of Daschele almost assuredly emboldens republicans when it comes to their efforts to defeat democrats in solidly red states.

There is still another option open to republicans. If they are unable to sway enough democrats to their side they can invoke what has been called the “nuclear” option. Under this procedure, the senate's presiding officer, Vice President Cheney, would find that a supermajority to end filibusters is unconstitutional for judicial nominees. Democrats would certainly challenge this ruling. But it takes only a simple majority—or 51 votes from the senate GOP's new 55-vote majority—to sustain a ruling of the chair. This is a rarely used maneuver and has explosive potential, hence the “nuclear” tag.

Whatever method the republicans use to push through Bush’s judicial nominees, the political intrigue should be high. Stay tuned.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com