One need not be gullible or weak to acknowledge when previously frustrating “reporters” engage in the surprising, but gratifying, act of actually presenting facts and questioning propagandists. And that was the case over the weekend as CNN’s Jake Tapper and FoxNews’ Chris Wallace pressed leftist fiction-pushers trying to sell the false idea that by nominating Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States, President Trump was either breaching the Constitution, or “packing the courts.”
Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Tapper pressed Joe Biden’s deputy campaign manager, Kate Bedingfield, to back up Joe Biden's Saturday claim that Trump’s work with allies in the GOP-dominated Senate was somehow “unconstitutional.”
As Justine Coleman writes for The Hill:
’His point is that the people have an opportunity to weigh in on this constitutional process through their vote,’" she said on ‘State of the Union.’ ‘And we are now in the midst of the election. Millions of people have already cast their votes.’
Which is incredibly insulting, an attempt to overlook the fact that people already voted, and under the rules of the so-called rule book called the U.S. Constitution, Trump, the one for whom they voted, is supposed to nominate someone to fill the vacant SCOTUS seat.
But Bedingfield went on:
’And you see that the vast majority of people say that they want the person who wins the election on Nov. 3 to nominate the justice to take this seat,’ she added.
To which Tapper responded with:
That's a poll. That's not the Constitution.
Which, in fairness, was pretty good of him to note.
It’s particularly laudatory because Mr. Tapper’s wife, Jennifer Marie Brown, once did a great deal as a field manager for Planned Parenthood, of Washington, D.C. Thus, it is a nice surprise that Tapper did not reveal any bias in favor of his wife’s former employer, despite the fact that Amy Coney Barrett could be a deciding opinion to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that overrode state abortion laws.
When it comes to Chris Wallace, he does deserve some pointed criticism. For example, early in his exchange with Democrat Delaware Senator Chris Coons, who is on the Judiciary Committee and undoubtedly will be oh-so-fair to Barrett and the Constitution as her nomination hearings begin this week, Wallace said:
Based on her writings and even some of her votes as a judge in the Seventh Circuit, do you have any doubt that a Justice Barret would vote to overturn Obamacare, and would vote to either overturn or restrict a woman’s right to abortion.
We can dispense with the Obamacare part right away by saying there is absolutely no provision in the Constitution allowing the Federal government to mandate health insurance purchases, to mandate that health insurance companies offer what politicians want to make them offer, or allowing the feds to hand out their own health insurance or subsidies. Period.
But the key error Wallace makes is to say that there is a “right” to an abortion. No one has a right either to kill another human being – and at conception a fetus is human, with its own distinct DNA, and “being”, in the process of life we ALL enjoy – or to ask someone else to do so, or to get money forcibly taken from others to pay for the murder.
Humans have right ONLY to life, property retention, and FROM: from aggressive violence, theft, and attacks on their lives by other people.
Wallace can skip hosting another debate and brush up on those fundamentals sometime.
But, that said, he did score one small star.
After Coons offered the incredibly insulting statement, “This is hard for your average American to follow, I think,” -- implying we’re just to super-chunk thick to grasp how the Constitution lays out the workings for what has morphed into this monstrous government – and he went on talking about how terrible it would be if Obamacare actually got a critical look on a constitutional level, Wallace focused on Joe Biden’s recent insinuation that he would pack the courts and his subsequent claim that people would have to vote for him before they could find out what he would do to the SCOTUS.
Wallace wanted Coons, who’s a close confidant of Biden's, to answer a simple question. And Coons would not, dodging into things like COVID19, instead. Said Wallace:
Senator, with all due respect, you’re not being straight with me, and you’re not answering my question. We have 23 days left until the election. Can Vice President Biden, can Senator Harris, as running mate, can they continue to stonewall on a perfectly legitimate question. Biden says its legitimate. ‘If you’re elected, will you try to change one of the three branches of government by adding Justices to the Court?’ There haven’t been any more than nine justices, I think it’s since the 1870s. It’s a pretty important question. Can he hold out, and stonewall on that issue for three weeks?
Well asked. And, of course, Coons gave yet another non-responsive answer, focusing instead previous activity when Republicans tried to delay the hearing for judge Merrick Garland to the federal appellate court in 2016.
Wallace came back with:
I’ve just gotta say, that’s a different issue than ‘packing the court.’
Spot-on. And one can’t often say that about Mr. Wallace or many folks in high-profile positions on network newscasts.
But it’s important to give credit where it’s due, and both Mr. Wallace and Mr. Tapper handled their respective exchanges with leftist propagandists very well.
One can only hope that they do that more often, because there are a lot of propagandists out there, and they prefer easy rides as they barrel towards us in their machines of theft and tyranny.