This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion
Get The Real News Delivered To Your Inbox
Senator Harris is No Honest Abe
“Abraham Lincoln was up for reelection and it was 27 days before the election. And a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln’s party was in charge not only of the White House but the Senate. But Honest Abe said it’s not the right thing to do.”
Democrat Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris during live broadcast
Tuesday, October 7, 2020
The fact that Harris deliberately distorted historical evidence to suggest Lincoln acted otherwise reveals she will stoop to sully the truth in order to achieve her political goals. Given the same exact opportunity, the left would act immediately to fill an open vacancy on the Supreme Court had their party held a majority in the U.S. Senate. All’s fair in politics and war.
Another disturbing byproduct of the Justice Barrett appointment during this ardently fought presidential campaign is that neither Biden nor Harris will address or answer the direct query if their anticipated administration harbors an unscrupulous strategy to enact a plan to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with new seats in order to reverse the court’s current conservative view.
President Lincoln’s SCOTUS Appointments
The Judiciary Act of 1837 established a total of nine Justices on the United States Supreme Court. With Lincoln’s Inauguration in March of 1861, he sought to fill open seats on the court with Justice’s who would sanction the advancement of federal war policies and seek to eliminate to the institution of slavery.
Abraham Lincoln was busy during his first term as President in nominating a total of five Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. During his tenure, the Supreme Court incurred four vacancies and welcomed the creation of a tenth seat that was ultimately only temporary as Republican partisan government exercised immense influence in Lincoln’s truncated Oval Office occupancy.
Noah Haynes Swayne Ohio January 24, 1862
Samuel Freeman Miller Iowa July 16, 1862
David Davis Illinois December 8, 1862
Stephen Johnson Field * California March 10, 1863
Salmon Portland Chase Ohio December 6, 1864
In 1866, Congress acted to reduce the number of seats on the court by attrition to seven to prevent President Andrew Johnson from appointing any new Justices on the Supreme Court. In 1872, Congress rescinded this law and returned the Supreme Court to nine Justices. If Biden should somehow prevail as President, the democrat party would violate a 148-year tradition of the U.S. Supreme Court hosting nine seats with an unprincipled partisan court-packing scheme.
An Election during an Embattled Civil War
Harris is attempting to twist history to conform to her fabrication, but researching the facts of President Lincoln’s 1864 Justice nomination reveals a different story. November 8, 1864 was election day, but Lincoln was prudent in his decision to delay naming a successor to the highest court. Lincoln was running for a second term and had to contend with a coalition of Republican factions and hawk democrats to carry him through the election.
History indicates that Lincoln preferred not to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court in order to avoid causing any ripples among those who were supporting his reelection bid. Lincoln did not choose to withhold any nomination because he thought it was too close before an election. Lincoln was thinking of his own political survival rather than granting the people a say via the next presidency.
Ultimately, Lincoln chose to nominate Salmon Portland Chase, a major Republican rival of his and Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, to the Supreme Court following the November 1864 election. Chase was both nominated and ratified on December 6, 1864, to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.
The Injustice of Roger B. Taney
In February of 1856, the case of Dred Scott verses Sanford appeared on the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court. Scott has sued in two lower courts asserting that he was a slave residing in a slave state who was later taken onto free-soil territory where slavery was illegal. Thusly, Scott claimed he should be considered to be emancipated upon returning to a slave state.
As this landmark case before the high court was making headlines, it was argued once in February and then again in December of 1856. Following the election of Pennsylvanian James Buchanan that November, the President-Elect directly contacted Chief Justice Roger B. Taney asking him to rule in favor against Scott in what is an egregious conflict of interest.
Buchanan was a Northerner who demonstrated personal sympathies toward the South. Chief Justice Taney wrote the majority opinion that Constitutional liberties and citizenship did not apply to black people regardless of whether they be enslaved or free. Taney’s bogus decision stands as one of the worst examples of judicial folly in the court’s esteemed history.
The Founding Fathers deliberated over abolishing the inhumane practice of slavery during the drafting and ratification of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the USA. John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay were all proponents supporting the abolition of slavery in the colonies.
United States history is littered with exemplary examples of Founding Fathers fighting to abolish this evil institution. The colony of Pennsylvania abolished slavery early in 1780. President George Washington freed his slaves upon his death on December 14, 1799. NY Governor John Jay during his second term signed into law the eventual abolition of slavery on July 4, 1827.
Americans today regardless of race do not have a command or accurate understanding of American history as it applies to slavery. Misconceptions about the origins of slavery, about the factors that resulted in the prosecution of the Civil War, and about race relations itself generate the friction and turmoil that American society is undergoing today. Required reading would surely educate those expressing the most ignorant of uniformed opinions.
Justice Mini Van Prevails
Judge Amy Coney Barrett was successfully ratified by the United States Senate to take the vacant seat on the Supreme Court of the United States on October 26, 2020. Justice Barrett is a model addition to the highest court. Her appointment just a scant eight days before a hotly contested presidential campaign is both controversial and constitutional.
Supreme Court nominations have only become partisan wrestling matches in our nation’s recent history. It is rather amusing to witness the media praise Biden for his Catholic beliefs while leveling derision directly toward Justice Barrett for her faith in Catholicism. The left will not recognize the fact that the 1973 court decision Roe verses Wade is actually a state issue, not a federal court case.
Heresy: Media Hides Harris Family History of Slavery
Facts are an inconvenient truth. The parents of Kamala Harris are Jamaican born Donald Harris and Indian born Shyamala Gopalan. Harris and her sister are first-generation Americans. Professor Harris published an article in September 2018 claiming to be a direct descendant of Hamilton Brown who was an Irish plantation owner and slave holder residing in Brown’s Town.
Having roots that reach back into a previous century of slave ownership is not welcome news in the middle of a divisive presidential campaign. Senator Harris is not bothered by these allegations nor offered an explanation. Exactly how relevant is this fact to her career in politics? If the media is willing to forget the Harris family for their tenure having owned slaves, then maybe Americans should be willing to forgive President George Washington in kind.