Pro-Life President Trump moves up day of announcing Supreme Court nomination to Tuesday

By Dave Andrusko

If you think the Establishment Media’s coverage of President Trump has been over-the-top hostile thus far, wait until you see the reaction to whomever the President nominates tomorrow night at 8 pm.

If you’ve been around as long as I have, you know there are absolutely no depths to which pro-abortion Democrats and their associates in Big Media will not sink. No matter who it is, the vitriol will begin early.

The attacks will be intensely personal. The assaults will be vicious and they will never pause except to reload. Even his or her own mother won’t recognize the ugly caricature that pro-abortion Democrats and their buddies at NARAL and Planned Parenthood will paint.

Granted, that’s like announcing the sun rises in the East. But with that in mind, let’s recall a couple of truths.

I heard pro-abortion Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on the way into work this morning. He was blathering about the need for a “mainstream” nominee–in other words, someone a Democratic president would choose–and then added that the last two justices nominated by Republican presidents had “bipartisan” support.

This is colossally disingenuous, even by Schumer’s standards. Let’s just take the last Republican nominee, Justice Samuel Alito.

Never mind the attacks during the confirmation process. The vote to confirm was 58-42. All but four Democrats voted against Justice Alito.

“Bi-partisan”? Please.

President Trump has reiterated on many, many occasions he will nominate to the Supreme Court only jurists in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. That promise was instrumental in Trump’s ability to carry 81% of the White Evangelical vote and tens of millions of single-issue pro-life voters. Mr. Trump fully understands that.

At his first formal post-election press conference, Mr. Trump told reporters

I think it’s one of the reasons I got elected, I think the people of this country did not want to see what was happening with the Supreme Court, so I think it was a very, very big decision as to why I was elected.

How important was the question of appointments to the Supreme Court? One of the exit poll questions asked just that.

About 12% (56% times 21%) of those who voted for Trump said Supreme Court appointments were the most important factor, compared to about 8 % for Hillary (41% times 21%), a little over a three point advantage in one of the closest presidential elections of all time.

What else? The eventual nominee may well have been approved overwhelmingly for their current judicial position. But that will make no difference to pro-abortion Democrats. They will announce that this was a vote in favor of a secondary judicial position, not the ultimate: the Supreme Court.

There are two other points very much worth mentioning. Currently, it would require 60 votes to break a pro-abortion Democratic filibuster in the Senate. An alternative would be to change the rules so that a nominee to the High Court would require a simple majority. (There are 52 Republican senators.)

Finally, if throwing mud and filibustering isn’t enough, pro-abortionists will attempt to divide supporters of whomever it is President Trump nominates Tuesday. The divide-and-conquer strategy is as old as the hills and works only if supporters allow themselves to be duped.

More tomorrow.