CNN Guest Floats Idea That'll Make Kamala More Powerful
Nov 10, 2024 0:02:47 GMT -5
Post by maybetoday on Nov 10, 2024 0:02:47 GMT -5
'Chaos Has Not Ended Just Yet': CNN Guest Floats Idea That'll Make Kamala More Powerful Than Ever Before
By C. Douglas Golden
November 9, 2024 at 8:44am
Sure, Vice President Kamala Harris is on her way out of Washington, D.C. — at least in an elected role. But for many Democrats — including a prominent liberal pundit and party operative — this could be only the beginning for the failed presidential candidate, should Joe Biden be so bold.
During a segment on Donald Trump’s transition on CNN, Bakari Sellers, a political analyst for the network, offered up a possibility that many online have been talking about: Supreme Court Justice Kamala Harris.
Again, this isn’t a new idea, as a look around X will quickly confirm:
Now, these are just voices on social media — and, as anyone who’s looked at that side of the internet since Donald Trump won on Tuesday can likely corroborate, there are still bitter clingers who believe that Kamala still somehow has a chance at the Oval Office.
However, there’s some logic — poor logic, but logic nonetheless — to the decision. For right now, the Democrats control the White House and the Senate, which would allow them to confirm a justice.
Sotomayor, one of the three remaining liberal votes on the court, is 70 and has a history of health problems, including type 1 diabetes. Harris is 60 and has no known health problems. She’s also a lawyer and former prosecutor, which means she has legal experience.
However, for the most part, this is just a weird cross between pie-in-the-sky thinking and Chicken Little-ism about the future of the Supreme Court, which will almost certainly see the older conservative justices — 76-year-old Clarence Thomas and 74-year-old Samuel Alito — retire for younger nominees once Trump takes office, lest they become the new Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Sellers, however, became one of the most prominent Democrats to actually give voice to this theory during a CNN segment Friday.
Related: Watch: Trump's Win Has the Ladies of 'The View' Screaming at Each Other 3 Days Later
“I think it’s something that should happen,” Sellers said of swapping out Sotomayor during the lame duck months.
“You know, Justice Sotomayor has been a more than able justice. I know that she may be having some personal issues that she contends with while serving on the bench. But, you know, I don’t want Justice Sotomayor to be another Ruth Bader Ginsburg in terms of staying too long.
“What does this mean for the for the dynamic of the court? The court is six three now. If we’re able to replace it with a Biden justice, there will still be six three. The possibility of Justice Sotomayor having to resign or retire in the next four years is extremely high.”
As for her replacement: “And you know, one more thing, John, is you have a hell of a vice president right there who has a legal pedigree to sit on a Supreme Court. And let Republicans go crazy, ape, I’m even mentioning that option.”
“You’re floating – are you floating this? – you know, 7:39 a.m. on the East Coast? Did Bakari Sellers just float Vice President Kamala Harris as a potential Supreme Court nominee?” host John Berman, slightly disbelieving, asked.
“Not only am I floating it, but I want to stir up everything. I want people’s heads to explode this morning so we go into the weekend just knowing that the chaos has not ended just yet,” he added.
Now, let’s just get the positives out of the way: Thanks to the fact that she’s been through two presidential campaigns — one of which didn’t even get to the primaries — and one vice presidential campaign, she’s been as thoroughly vetted as it gets. That’s where the pros end.
As for the cons, where do we begin? I could go on endlessly, but I think two points stick out above all else regarding why this is an abysmal idea.
First and foremost, while technically anyone can be nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court, generally one has to be a judge at some level — usually a very high one — to be considered.
Harris has never held a judgeship. She was, once upon a time, the attorney general of California. That’s it. I understand that we’ve lowered the bar a bit when Biden’s sole appointee to the bench couldn’t even tell Congress what a woman was, but this is ridiculous.
And that brings us to the second point: This would destroy all illusions about the left viewing the Supreme Court as anything more than a political tool to accomplish legislation that can’t pass the legislature by bypassing Congress.
Does this have anything to do with Harris acumen in the arcana of constitutional precedent? No, in bolded, underlined italics. She’s just a reliably liberal vote sent there to create as much “chaos” as possible. And just wait to read her decisions! “This case is big, because it’s a big case. And because it’s a big case, we must use big legal reasoning. We must be unburdened by small cases, because this is big, right? Insert cackle here.”
Realistically, this won’t happen; it would be such a naked power grab that even some Democrats would likely be turned off, realizing how terrible for America this would be.
However, it’s indicative of just how desperate the left is: Even in defeat, they don’t seem to be learning any lessons other than that the American people just don’t understand how great they are, and the Democrats will just keep causing “chaos” until voters get it through their thick skulls.
link
By C. Douglas Golden
November 9, 2024 at 8:44am
Sure, Vice President Kamala Harris is on her way out of Washington, D.C. — at least in an elected role. But for many Democrats — including a prominent liberal pundit and party operative — this could be only the beginning for the failed presidential candidate, should Joe Biden be so bold.
During a segment on Donald Trump’s transition on CNN, Bakari Sellers, a political analyst for the network, offered up a possibility that many online have been talking about: Supreme Court Justice Kamala Harris.
Again, this isn’t a new idea, as a look around X will quickly confirm:
Now, these are just voices on social media — and, as anyone who’s looked at that side of the internet since Donald Trump won on Tuesday can likely corroborate, there are still bitter clingers who believe that Kamala still somehow has a chance at the Oval Office.
However, there’s some logic — poor logic, but logic nonetheless — to the decision. For right now, the Democrats control the White House and the Senate, which would allow them to confirm a justice.
Sotomayor, one of the three remaining liberal votes on the court, is 70 and has a history of health problems, including type 1 diabetes. Harris is 60 and has no known health problems. She’s also a lawyer and former prosecutor, which means she has legal experience.
However, for the most part, this is just a weird cross between pie-in-the-sky thinking and Chicken Little-ism about the future of the Supreme Court, which will almost certainly see the older conservative justices — 76-year-old Clarence Thomas and 74-year-old Samuel Alito — retire for younger nominees once Trump takes office, lest they become the new Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Sellers, however, became one of the most prominent Democrats to actually give voice to this theory during a CNN segment Friday.
Related: Watch: Trump's Win Has the Ladies of 'The View' Screaming at Each Other 3 Days Later
“I think it’s something that should happen,” Sellers said of swapping out Sotomayor during the lame duck months.
“You know, Justice Sotomayor has been a more than able justice. I know that she may be having some personal issues that she contends with while serving on the bench. But, you know, I don’t want Justice Sotomayor to be another Ruth Bader Ginsburg in terms of staying too long.
“What does this mean for the for the dynamic of the court? The court is six three now. If we’re able to replace it with a Biden justice, there will still be six three. The possibility of Justice Sotomayor having to resign or retire in the next four years is extremely high.”
As for her replacement: “And you know, one more thing, John, is you have a hell of a vice president right there who has a legal pedigree to sit on a Supreme Court. And let Republicans go crazy, ape, I’m even mentioning that option.”
“You’re floating – are you floating this? – you know, 7:39 a.m. on the East Coast? Did Bakari Sellers just float Vice President Kamala Harris as a potential Supreme Court nominee?” host John Berman, slightly disbelieving, asked.
“Not only am I floating it, but I want to stir up everything. I want people’s heads to explode this morning so we go into the weekend just knowing that the chaos has not ended just yet,” he added.
Now, let’s just get the positives out of the way: Thanks to the fact that she’s been through two presidential campaigns — one of which didn’t even get to the primaries — and one vice presidential campaign, she’s been as thoroughly vetted as it gets. That’s where the pros end.
As for the cons, where do we begin? I could go on endlessly, but I think two points stick out above all else regarding why this is an abysmal idea.
First and foremost, while technically anyone can be nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court, generally one has to be a judge at some level — usually a very high one — to be considered.
Harris has never held a judgeship. She was, once upon a time, the attorney general of California. That’s it. I understand that we’ve lowered the bar a bit when Biden’s sole appointee to the bench couldn’t even tell Congress what a woman was, but this is ridiculous.
And that brings us to the second point: This would destroy all illusions about the left viewing the Supreme Court as anything more than a political tool to accomplish legislation that can’t pass the legislature by bypassing Congress.
Does this have anything to do with Harris acumen in the arcana of constitutional precedent? No, in bolded, underlined italics. She’s just a reliably liberal vote sent there to create as much “chaos” as possible. And just wait to read her decisions! “This case is big, because it’s a big case. And because it’s a big case, we must use big legal reasoning. We must be unburdened by small cases, because this is big, right? Insert cackle here.”
Realistically, this won’t happen; it would be such a naked power grab that even some Democrats would likely be turned off, realizing how terrible for America this would be.
However, it’s indicative of just how desperate the left is: Even in defeat, they don’t seem to be learning any lessons other than that the American people just don’t understand how great they are, and the Democrats will just keep causing “chaos” until voters get it through their thick skulls.
link
