The differences between 2016 and 2020

If I had $10 for every time I've heard or read the names "Merrick Garland" or "Mitch McConnell" since the weekend, I'd never have to worry about money again.

The premise being, of course, that there's something hypocritical and inconsistent between McConnell having the Senate sit on Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016 after the death of Antonin Scalia, and his planning to proceed with confirming a nomination that President Trump will soon submit to replace the deceased Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Anyone who cannot see the obvious differences between then and now is either ignorant, or being intentionally intellectually dishonest.

In 2016, President Obama was the definition of a lame duck. He was in the final months of his last term as president. It was a certainty that he would no longer be in office the next year since he was term-limited.

In 2020, President Trump is running for re-election with a very good chance, despite what the liberals in the press tell you, that he'll be inaugurated for his second term in January. There is no certainty that he will no longer be president next year.

It would be different, and like 2016, if Trump had chosen not to run for a second term. But he's on the ballot, and that changes everything.

Besides, in 2016, Trump was such a long shot to win the presidency that it could be argued that McConnell was saving the appointment of Scalia's replacement for Hillary Clinton. After all, just about everyone expected that she would win the election. According to those who know McConnell, even he was surprised at Trump's victory and was in fact already preparing to do business and make deals with her.

The statements that are being made about the Senate and presidency being controlled by different parties in 2016 and being controlled by the same party this year really shouldn't factor into the discussion. They are irrelevant, and McConnell does himself no favors by bringing this up.

If this was Trump's second term and he was for sure on his way out the door, then things might be different. If that was the case, as it was with Obama, then there would be merit to the argument that McConnell is being hypocritical. But the circumstances this year are completely different. And if you don't recognize that, you're either clueless or willfully blind.

For reasons known only to her, which she seemingly has taken to the grave, RBG chose to hold on to her associate justice position until her death. She battled cancer for years, and had a number of other health issues as she got older. She could have retired during Obama's presidency, giving him a chance to appoint another radical leftist in her place, but she hung on. It's been said that Obama himself made overtures to her that perhaps she should retire and step aside in favor of a younger liberal who could serve for decades. But mention that, and you get accused of being a conspiracy theorist and spreading baseless rumors by the same people who insist that Trump blackmailed Anthony Kennedy into retiring.

Trump has shown a knack for getting RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and COINs (Conservatives Only In Name) to expose themselves, and he's done it again with his stated intentions to move forward with nominating a replacement for RBG. The usual suspects, Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski, have indicated they want to wait until after the presidential election to confirm an appointee.

Let that sink in: These supposed conservatives are willing to take the risk of allowing Kamala Harris (or whomever would actually be running things behind the scenes in a Joe Biden presidency, since he's obviously not capable of dong the job) to nominate a Supreme Court justice for a lifetime appointment, instead of giving Trump the chance to name a constitutional originalist. And odds are they'd side with Democrats to approve a Biden appointee.

I've felt from the start that McConnell mishandled the 2016 situation. Instead of sitting on the Garland nomination, he should have allowed the Senate to vote on it. But he was probably afraid that he couldn't keep the Republican caucus together to reject Garland or any other Obama nominee. Romney wasn't in the Senate then, but Murkowski, the late John McCain, Susan Collins, and a number of other squishy RINOs/COINs were. Even Lindsey Graham, who's emerged as an unlikely Trump ally, indicated that he would have been inclined to vote for Garland's confirmation. So there's certainly no indication that a GOP-controlled Senate in a Biden/Harris administration could be counted on to hold the line. Too many Republicans, especially a majority of those in the Senate, are of the "go along to get along" mentality, and it's why conservatives have such contempt for the establishment. It speaks volumes that McConnell is disliked by conservatives more than he is liberals.

My preference on a nominee? Of course, I like Ted Cruz. He's the personification of a constitutionalist. But I still want him to be president someday. Truth be told, I wish he was president now. And he's indicated he prefers to remain in the Senate, which is probably the best place from which to launch another future presidential bid.

Not knowing that RBG would die scant days later, Trump recently released a short list of potential appointees. In remarks since RBG's death, he's indicated that he will appoint a female to the seat. Amy Coney Barrett, a federal appellate judge, Scalia protege, and Notre Dame law professor, is frequently mentioned. Trump's list got a lot of attention in the Bluegrass State because it included Attorney General Daniel Cameron, but there's little chance Cameron will be considered. He's still early in his career and is being groomed to replace McConnell in the Senate when he likely retires during or after his next and final term.

(Possible scenario: McConnell goes all-in on the 2023 Kentucky governor's race, with the expectation that if the GOP ousts Andy Beshear, Cameron will be appointed to fill the vacancy when McConnell announces his departure from the Senate.)

But the fact remains, the circumstances surrounding this year's Supreme Court vacancy are vastly different than those from four years ago. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. There's nothing hypocritical about the way McConnell is handling this situation. And given that it's rare for me to praise anything McConnell does, that's saying something.

Why court protests shouldn't matter

Tomorrow morning (Thursday, Sept. 17), the Kentucky Supreme Court takes up a very important case. The court will be hearing oral arguments on a lawsuit that challenges the legality of several of the executive orders Gov. Andy Beshear has issued since the first Wuhan Chinese virus case was reported in Kentucky in March.

The governor argues that his actions have been necessary to save lives. The plaintiffs in the cases, which were originally two separate actions filed in Scott County and northern Kentucky but were consolidated for purposes of the appeal due to their similar issues, say that no matter how well-intentioned the governor's edicts have been, that doesn't matter because he exceeded his authority as outlined in the federal and state constitutions.

A protest rally has been scheduled tomorrow morning to coincide with the hearing. And while I agree with the plaintiffs that the governor's executive orders have been outside the scope of his legal authority -- and I further believe that the actions have been unnecessary overkill that have strangled the state's economy to the point where it may never recover at the cost of essential freedoms and liberties -- I don't agree with the premise behind the protest.

"We need a massive turnout of patriots at 9:30 a.m. at the capitol to show the court Kentuckians have had enough! This will influence the court's decision," states one promotional effort for the rally.

This is where I disagree. Courts should never rule on any case based on public opinion. Their judgments should solely be on the facts of the matter and the applicable laws and constitutional provisions.

We've all seen the footage of protestors in Washington, D.C., anytime the Supreme Court takes up a controversial case. We saw it in Kentucky a few years ago when federal courts were hearing matters dealing with former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It's long been my belief that these protests are futile. As they should be. The Constitution is not subject to public opinion. So, why should its application be based on public whims?

There's also been a letter-writing campaign to contact Supreme Court justices to urge them to rule a certain way on this case. It's a safe bet that most of those writing are not lawyers, so they can't speak to the issues in an informed manner that centers on constitutional issues. They can only offer lay opinions. Attorneys could, of course, offer amicus (friend of the court) briefs if they so desired, but only one has been entered, from Senate President (and attorney) Robert Stivers.

Judges are unique government officials. In Kentucky, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court members are elected on non-partisan ballots, from districts that look as if a drunk monkey drew them on the map. Most of them make less sense, geographically or socioeconomically, than does the state's 1st Congressional District, which stretches from the Mississippi River all the way to the Appalachian Mountains and was drawn 30 years ago for political reasons to keep Owensboro (Daviess County) and Bowling Green (Warren County) in the same district. (An abbreviated explanation for that can be found in the penultimate paragraph here.) Federal judicial appointments are also often emphasized in presidential and senatorial elections. So it's naive to assume that partisan or ideological factors don't come into play, especially when in Kentucky, an elected judge or justice that makes an unpopular decision can find themselves with an opponent the next time they're on the ballot. That seems to be the pressure that's being put to bear on the Supreme Court justices as they hear Beshear's challenge to lower court orders that struck down some of his executive decisions.

Lots of people I've come to know and respect over the last couple of years are promoting the protest and are urging people to attend. While I hope for the same judicial outcome as they do, I hope they'll understand why I can't join them in supporting this action. If the ends don't justify the means for the governor's executive orders, they also don't justify the attempts to influence what's supposed to be an impartial decision based on constitutional principles. I'll be praying for a certain outcome, but I won't be rallying for that outcome. To do so would violate my ideals as a constitutional conservative.

Some very capable attorneys are handling the case against Beshear's orders. Chris Wiest, in particular, has been extremely effective. He's spanked the administration in every case in which he's been involved, including at least one administrative action that isn't public knowledge. Attorney General Daniel Cameron may have been late to the game in pursuing legal action, but he's been on point with his arguments once he did join the fray.  They will be bolstered by a federal court decision, handed down just this week, invalidating many of Pennsylvania's executive orders. The plaintiffs have offered hard-hitting briefs in support of their positions, and have practiced and are ready for the oral arguments. They'll make a persuasive case. We have to have confidence in them that they'll convince the Supreme Court justices of the constitutionality of their positions.

Justice should never be meted out based on public outcry, especially if it comes at the expense of the facts or of due process of law. It would be wrong for Cameron to pursue criminal charges against the Louisville police officers involved in the death of Brionna Taylor simply because of loud, visible protests. It would be equally wrong for the Supreme Court to rule based on a crowd of protesters gathered outside while they're hearing the case.

I realize the foregoing opinion will not be popular in "reopen our economy and let's get society back to normal" circles, of which I'm a member. But it's the only logical opinion I can have, based on my principles and ideological beliefs.

Clearing up some misconceptions about some misconceptions

There's been quite a bit of misinformation, and a lot of misconceptions, floating around over the Wuhan Chinese virus.

No, not the stuff that typically gets flagged or censored on social media -- such as when doctors tout the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating the virus -- but in what people mean when they make certain statements.

As usual, liberals have twisted some statements made by those who don't view the world the same way they do to try to make it sound as if others are making outlandish remarks that are severely distanced from reality, when such isn't the case at all.

Let's take a look at a few of them and deconstruct the remarks. It's time to delineate what the speakers are implying and what some are inferring.

"The virus is a hoax."

I know of no one who doesn't believe that the virus is real, and that it's harmful. By now, most of us probably know someone who's contracted the virus. I personally am acquainted with at least four people who've had it or tested positive for it.

When someone says the virus is a hoax, they aren't saying they don't believe the virus is real. What they're saying is that they don't think the virus merits the over-the-top response that so many states have instituted. They don't think a disease with a survivability rate of 99.96 percent is cause to choke a thriving economy, kill businesses, and restrict everyday activities to the point of pain. They're saying that they believe the virus is being exploited for various reasons, social and political reasons being two of them.

Need evidence? Just look at the adjustments that have been made to the election process this year. Liberals have long advocated for expanded universal mail-in voting and lengthening the timeframe for early voting. They've actually found willing co-conspirators in Republicans like Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams, who seems to know but not care that his actions have cost him support among the GOP base that got him elected over a better-known opponent (former Miss America Heather French Henry). The irony here is that early voting probably cost the far left their wet-dream U.S. Senate candidate, Charles Booker, his primary race against Amy McGrath for the nomination to oppose Mitch McConnell this fall.

"Never let a crisis go to waste," former Obama administration official Rahm Emanuel famously once said. That's been evident in how officials have responded to the Chinese virus.

People are intelligent enough to make their own decisions on how far to go to protect themselves and their loved ones from the virus. The idea that they can't process available information and come to a reasoned determination is the true hoax in this matter.

"The virus will disappear after the election."

Sure, it seems like there are some who believe the virus is an sentient, intelligent organism. It spreads at small retailers but not at huge big-box chain stores. It spreads at churches and parties, but not at protests. And it only spreads at certain types of protests (such as rallies to reopen businesses) but not others (Black Lives Matter and Antifa demonstrations). In Kentucky, it only spreads in bars and restaurants after 10 p.m., which is why those establishments are now operating under curfews.

At least that's the impression one might get after reviewing various government edicts in response to the virus. The seeming arbitrary standards are the basis of a court case, to be heard later this week in the Kentucky Supreme Court, that could strike down most of the governor's executive orders that have been issued since March.

But no one truly believes that the virus is going to magically go away after Nov. 3. Liberals like to make fun of conservatives who voice that sentiment, claiming that they really believe people think that.

Therein lies another misconception. Of course, no one believes that the virus can read a calendar and keeps up with the news and knows when Election Day is.

The motive behind this statement is that the virus is being used for political reasons, and after the election is over, its dominance in the headlines will fade because it will no longer be an issue for the voters. Referencing Emanuel's quote about letting a crisis go to waste, the opportunity to use the virus for political means will be past, so the public can expect to hear a whole lot less about it.

This virus is probably going to be around from now on. We've had centuries to work on a cure for the common cold, but that hasn't turned out so well. The virus won't disappear, but its usefulness among those of a certain ideological mindset will diminish.

No, silly leftists, we don't believe the virus is just going to go away. Don't act like we're too dumb to know that.  We just know that it won't be as hot of a topic after Election Day as it is now.

"People aren't really dying of the virus."

There are plenty of other misconceptions out there as well. One of the most offensive is "coronavirus deaths aren't real." That one's gaining traction because of recent reports that only 6 percent of reported deaths are directly attributable to the virus alone; the other 94 percent of reported fatalities have other causes, and the virus may or may not have been a contributing factor.

Look at it like this. Let's say I have cancer. (I don't). But I succumb to a fatal heart attack. I didn't die FROM cancer. I died WITH cancer. There is a difference.

Similarly, there's a distinction to be made between someone who dies FROM the virus and someone who dies WITH the virus. By now we've all seen reports of those who perish in fatal vehicle accidents, but who tested positive for the virus, being listed as having died of it.

There's a benefit to having high death numbers. Politicians use those figures to justify their dictatorial edicts curtailing businesses and restricting everyday activities. And the more cynical will point to federal relief funds that flow to governments and health care facilities for every virus death.

All deaths are sad. They are very real to the relatives and friends of the deceased. No one is making light of those deaths when they question the numbers. Yet Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear recently accused some state legislators of doing just that when they queried state officials during a committee hearing and the 94-6 statistic was brought up.

Don't let these misconceptions go unchallenged. Don't let someone call you a science denier if you say the hype around the virus is a hoax, that it's being used as an election issue and its dominance of the headlines will fade after November, or that it's not as deadly as some say it is. You have the facts on your side. Don't let their interpretation of your wording of your thoughts sway you. You don't really believe the virus will vanish after the election. If the left thinks you do, that says more about them than it does about you.