The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Sunday, July 08, 2018

Shots on Goal

Nearly two years after the upset of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, we still hear Clinton, her supporters, and most Democrats tell us that she won the majority of all votes cast nationally and therefore, Donald Trump should not be president. It's a meme that has become as tiresome as it is ridiculous.

Following the illogic of that argument, the people of Brazil should be outraged at the fact that Belgium recently beat their national soccer team to advance in the World Cup. After all, although Belgium prevailed 2 goals to 1, Brazil had 9 shots on goal to Belgium's 3, therefore getting a clear majority of shots; Brazil possessed the ball 59 percent of the time and had a clear majority of time of possession, its passing accuracy was higher and it made more passes, meaning it won the majority of passing stats.

So we should forget the FIFA rules—Brazil really did win and Belgium is a fraud. Umm, I'm not sure FIFA or the people of Belgium would agree.

Since the Dems actually believe that the constitutionally mandated rules of the election (a vote of the electoral college) are irrelevant and that their claim of a win out of a loss is meaningful, they've decided to go a step further along the same rule-changing path. Jenna Ellis comments:
As liberal fury over Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement continues to escalate, there's a clear mindset behind the Left's opposition tactics: "If we stop winning, we want to immediately change the rules." In the week after Kennedy’s retirement was announced, some Democrats have revived their calls to “court pack”— increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court and fill those seats with justices sympathetic to their social agenda. This is something they also called for during the confirmation hearings for Justice Neil Gorsuch ...

What I find most incredulous about liberals’ argument is how they feign disgust at conservative originalist justices for “literal interpretation” but then their very own plan recognizes they have to interpret the Constitution literally and textually to achieve their results. In other words, they are actually using the very text of the Constitution to recognize it gives Congress power to set the number of justices on the Supreme Court, and it further gives power to the president to nominate a new justice and confirm with advice and consent of the Senate.
But here's the thing—since Trump lost the national vote and the electoral college is a very, very bad idea, the Dems believe Trump really isn't president. Therefore, he has no constitutional right to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. Ahhh, now I get it.