MAINSTREAM: The Liberal Code Word

Everything_mainstream_logo

On Sunday, (January 30, 2017) Senator Charles Schumer voiced his opinion of the President’s nominee for SCOTUS. In his speech, he said,

Will Donald Trump win the 2024 election?

“…if the nominee is out of the mainstream, we will do our best to keep the seat open. Let’s remember that, of the last four Supreme Court nominees, two nominated by a Republican president, two by a Democrat, they had bipartisan support. What I said — you didn’t show it on the air there — is, if the nominee is not bipartisan and mainstream, we absolutely would keep the seat open.

I’m hopeful that maybe President Trump would nominate someone who is mainstream and who could get bipartisan support. We shall see. But, if they don’t, yes, we will fight it tooth-and-nail, as long as we have to.”

Schumer spoke these words before he knew that Trump would nominate Neil Gorsuch to the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. But Schumer had made it clear by his omission that our Constitution meant nothing, but the “mainstream” – his code word – meant everything.

Stop and think of how this word, mainstream, is used in politics. The liberals have forced it into our political system, so much so that it takes the place of the Constitution in their application of law, in their measurements of political matters, and worst of all, in their oath of office

What is the mainstream anyway, and why does it take priority over our Constitution with people like Senator Schumer? Why isn’t anybody else asking this?

For the answer, we need to examine the obvious: When our Constitution is the foundation of all our laws, it should logically be the foundation of all political measurements. But the liberals have mutated that logical system by replacing the center of politics with their creature called the mainstream, which is the mob of people they created who ignore prudent, constitutional government so they can drive up the debt, increase the involvement of government in more of our lives, torture the application of law, and vilify all the people who believe in a constitutional government.

Their concept shoves the Constitution so far off to the right that it does not appear on most political maps. Look at the various diagrams have been recently offered (such as in the New York Times and National Review) that measure each Supreme Court justice in a liberal-to-conservative position within the court. Most of these graphs put Justice Clarence Thomas on the right wing and cluster the liberal justices together in a group just left of the undefined center. But the diagrams are comparisons between the judgements of the Justices; they do not have a constitutional benchmark for their measurements, so the comparisons have nothing to do with our constitution—and everything to do with promoting liberalism. It is not by mistake; it’s by design!

If our constitution was the basis of their measurements, all justices would be to the left of the constitution’s mark, including Justice Thomas. The liberal justices would be positioned somewhere further to the left, most likely between the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter. That is how far to the left the Democrats have traveled from a constitutional foundation.

The Democrat’s mainstream political animal has reduced our Constitution to a fringe, right-wing element in politics—and those who believe in the constitutional rule of law are portrayed as extremists. This perception allows groups, such as the New York Times, to wail that the open seat on the Supreme Court was “stolen” and that the Senate did not perform its duty in allowing a mainstream justice, Merrick Garland, into a seat of judgment.

But the Senate did exactly what their oaths required, they protected our constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

We have a fresh start in politics, so it is up to all of us to start challenging the liberals, especially the politicians, to obey their oath of office and honor the Constitution—instead of finessing their wording with terms such as “mainstream.” That word should have no bearing on the selection of a Supreme Court Justice.

We now have the advantage, don’t waste it.

Steven Maikoski

Steven Maikoski is an avid constitutionist, speaker, and writer of the tactical book “Arguing for the Constitution.” In that book he explains his belief that since the Constitution is the foundation of all law, it should be the foundation of all political measurements. He worked for a time with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other political influence groups, and has done photography at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs for 35 years. He currently lives in La Palma, California.

Related Articles

Back to top button
Close
Close

Please disable ad blocker.

We work hard to write our articles and provide you with the content you enjoy. The ads on the site allow us to continue our work while feeding our families. If you'd please whitelist our site in your ad blocker or remove your ad blocker altogether, we'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you!