By Wallace Bruschweiler and William Palumbo
Now that Justice Antonin Scalia has been found dead with a “pillow over his head,” the showdown is set between the administration of Barack Hussein Obama and the GOP-controlled Senate. Who will Obama nominate, and will he or she be approved by the Senate?
Consider the history of this present administration, coupled with what constitutes a “qualified” résumé for the Supreme Court – at least on paper.
Who is a possible, perhaps even likely, nominee?
- Was it not the Department of Justice (DoJ) that ordered that the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers be dismissed – why?
- Was it not the DoJ stonewalling justice in the ATFE gun-running scandal known as Fast and Furious – why?
- In fact, was not the DoJ regarded as the supreme gatekeeper of the scandal-ridden Obama administration?
- In August 2014, Barack Hussein Obama flew back from Martha’s Vineyard to Washington for a mysterious 48-hour trip for what the White House claimed to be a series of important meetings. Who were these meetings with, what was discussed, and specifically promised?
- Strangely enough, a month later, in September 2014, Eric Holder announced his resignation as Attorney General. Could he have been the mysterious person involved in the meetings the month before?
- Today, Eric Holder is successfully employed by a private law firm as partner specializing in “complex investigations and litigation matters … that are international in scope and involve significant regulatory enforcement.” Would he be willing to leave this comfortable, plushy, and cushy job?
- Potential scenario from the point of view of Barack Hussein Obama – if he nominates Eric Holder to the Supreme Court, he would achieve simultaneously two major objectives: 1) To politicize the Supreme Court beyond description for years to come, and 2) As a means to reward his long-time ally and personal friend.
Is this the unfortunate and inevitable scenario we are faced with?
Keep in mind that this year the Supreme Court is scheduled to judge critical cases that will decide issues related to race in college admissions, abortion, union rights, gun control, immigration and the status of illegal aliens, as well as religious freedom.
In today’s political environment, do you think that the above scenario is really far-fetched?
