Defective Democrat Nominees Provide Absolute Proof of Leftism's Smugly Destructive Cult

By Kelly O'Connell ——Bio and Archives--July 16, 2021

Cover Story | 5 Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

(Editor's Note:  Ignore the video as it appears someone messed up and the address to this video isn't the correct address as it has nothing to do with the article.    However, here are  three videos that cover this issue involving Cotton's questions, Grassley's questions, Hawley's questions, all of which  are pertinent to this article. RK)

Having watched a number of Biden court nominee hearings, you can’t help but admire the incisive questioning by Senators Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz. And nothing is more entertaining than John Kennedy’s homespun wit, when to leftist advocate Myrna Perez he remarked: 

“And I understand you’ve been advised to say ‘precedent’. Precedent, precedent, precedent. When in doubt. Is it raining outside? ‘Precedent!’ But it inhibits our ability to have a rational discussion.” 

So the grilling of Pérez, and her impressive helmet of hair, may have seemed like a moment of transcendent wit and chess playing to progressives. 

Smug Nominees Expose Biden

Yet, in reality it was a bad moment for leftism. On leave from the Brennan Center, Ms. Perez, in her gorgon-like locks, invoked “precedent” for nearly every question. She refrained from commenting on most cases because the issue could be litigated in her court. Perez also stated that rights emanated from the legislature not court opinions—in direct contradiction to recent US history. But listening to Perez one felt her non-responsive, repetitive, smug replies were a criticism and insult to Republicans. 

While her previous activist published articles often criticizing cases she then refused to comment upon months later made her sound disingenuous, overly partisan, doctrinaire and ultimately foolish. It would be like Rosie O’Donnell going in for a Biden Cabinet interview for ATF Head, pretending she had no strong opinions on guns.

Perez refused the obvious point that judicial activists regularly find new rights in cases, like “privacy” to support abortion in Roe v. Wade. And, Perez wasn’t being cut off because she was giving substantial answers which Senators didn’t like. She was offering a false Catch-22: She couldn’t comment on any subject which could theoretically be heard in her court. If that was really true then you couldn’t hold such hearings. But she made a fool of herself by first voicing various political legal opinions which she then pretended she couldn’t comment upon. If you’re a leftist marinated in socialist cant and love ostentatious displays of resistance to the GOP, this was tofu turkey for vegans. But if you’re a normal patriotic American, it was an asinine display of “up-yours” by an already out-of-the-closet radical leftist who thinks she’s smarter than Einstein..........To Read More.....