Laura Ingraham said that if moderate Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., vote for a hard-left Supreme Court nominee, their political careers would effectively be ended — as they “should” be — on Wednesday’s “Ingraham Angle.”
“Now, as a man who has some semblance of common sense, Joe Manchin should never go along with Biden’s court charade. Now, what are the odds that the state of West Virginia would ever win a case in front of a hard-left court? Voting for one of these picks would end Manchin’s political career in West Virginia — … a state that is in an open rebellion now against Biden’s policies.”
“If any of these so-called moderate Dems were living up to their campaign pledges to work with Republicans, they’d demand that Biden’s nominee be someone who could actually win real support, not just a couple of votes from the Republicans,” Ingraham continued.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, is reportedly slated to retire, giving Biden the opportunity to fulfill a campaign promise to nominate a Black woman to the nation’s highest court.
“If I’m elected president and have an opportunity to appoint someone to the courts … I’ll appoint the first Black woman to the courts. It’s required that they have representation now. It’s long overdue,” Biden said in March 2020.
Ingraham said one thing America can be sure of is Biden will prioritize finding a nominee who will side with the left, not one who values the Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended it to be interpreted.
“It’s really no different than … hiring a new DNC chief, the only measure that matters for [the left] is a political measure. In other words, will this person stick with the left’s ever-evolving political priorities? If the answer is yes, that’s all the qualification they need. All that matters is that that person replacing Breyer is a rock-solid, reliable vote for their cause du jour,” Ingraham said.
Ingraham explained the liberal perspective is not originalism, but “something called the living Constitution.”
“That just means that they treat the Constitution like silly putty so they can stretch its words to mean anything or nothing at all. The interpretation [is only] dependent on what … the progressives of the day demand. Then it becomes that,” she said.
“On our side, we actually have arguments about what the Constitution means, how its words should be applied to the case at hand, but their side believes the Constitution is meaningless at best and racist at worst,” she said. “Our side respects the judiciary and the constitutional role it has. The left just sees it as a tool to give them more power. And when the court doesn’t give them what they want, they threaten to destroy it.”