Democrats Want Civil War — But They’ll Blame Republicans

By CHRISTOPHER MANION

Last Saturday, Democratic Cong. Jamaal Bowman of New York predicted trouble if Republicans take over the majority on Capitol Hill in the November midterm elections.
“Far-right extremists and white nationalists” have advocated “civil war,” he told MSNBC, and a GOP victory would “embolden” them.
Bowman, an ally of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.), warned that they would “impeach President Biden as quickly as possible and they will continue to find ways to impeach him going forward.”
In other words, Bowman feared that Republicans would act like Democrats.
But the salient — and dangerous — ingredient of his prediction comes in his branding “far-right extremists and white nationalists” as the belligerents in this war.
Those very terms — “extremist,” “supremacist” — are central to the lexicon of Attorney General Merrick Garland’s war on Joe Biden’s critics, known as American families and Deplorables in general.
Bowman’s message was clear: Garland should begin now to prepare for investigations of Republicans as soon as they take the House majority. Yes, they might dissolve the January 6th Committee, but the sole purpose of that squalid Kangaroo Court was to prepare the groundwork for prosecution of the entire GOP leadership on and beyond Capital Hil anyway.
And who prosecutes those cases?
Not Congress, but the U.S. Department of Justice.
Bowman might be a screaming Marxist whacko, but Marxist’s plan, and Nancy Pelosi’s diktat rule:
“Forget history. We’re talking future.”
And both Bowman and Pelosi are planning for the future. They know full well where the violence is going to come from — and it isn’t going to wait for next January.
Remember “Ruth Sent Us”? The radical and pro-violence pro-abortion group that has fomented violence, firebombs, demonstrations, and threats to Supreme Court justices?
The group has successfully inspired a broad community of abortion supporters to cross the line from protest to violence.

It Starts Getting Real

This past Wednesday, a Federal Grand Jury formally accused 26-year-old Nicholas Roske, of Simi Valley, Calif., of attempting to kill Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
ABC News reports that “according to the indictment, prosecutors will also seek to have Roske forfeit various property if convicted, including the firearms and other equipment that authorities said he carried on him at the time of his arrest on June 8.”
Roske took a cab to Kavanaugh’s home after midnight with the intention of killing all the Kavanaughs. Perhaps his guardian angel nudged him just enough, who knows, but he walked a couple of blocks away and called his sister.
When she heard his grisly plans, she convinced him to call 911. He told police of his location, they picked him up, and he was arrested.
It was that close.
The criminal complaint’s details are stunning. “An inventory search of the seized suitcase and backpack revealed a black tactical chest rig and tactical knife, a Glock 17 with two magazines and ammunition, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, screwdriver, nail punch, crow bar, pistol light, duct tape, hiking boots with padding on the outside of the soles, and other items.”
By the way, Roske had flown to Washington from California. Did the TSA see none of that equipment in his baggage? Did he buy it all after he landed?
We don’t know. But we do know that there were only two Federal Marshals guarding the Kavanaugh home at 1:00 a.m. that morning. Had Roske had three accomplices, those Marshals would have been outgunned.
I’ve had protection from Federal Marshals in the days that I was targeted by the Cali drug cartels. They are terrific and devoted public servants. But they’re human. A terrorist cell of five hardened killers would well have overpowered them.
That prospect is designed by the Left to discourage any sane admirer of Brett Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett to ever dare to consider serving on the Federal Bench.
Let’s face it. In Mexico, judges are second only to Catholic priests as targets of the killer Cartels.
And those Cartels extend throughout the United States. And they work for hire.
The Left dismisses the serious character of the threat. Nancy Pelosi sat for days on a Senate bill authorizing more serious protection of members of the Court. When she finally allowed a vote, 27 House Democrats opposed it.
Which raises a question for Mr. Bowman: Who really wants a “civil war”?

Origin Of The Court Wars

The contemporary battles over Supreme Court nominations can be traced back to the 1980s. They reached their peak when Robert Bork’s last name entered Webster’s Dictionary as a verb identifying the destruction of a good man’s name.
Indeed, for the past 35 years, commencing with the Bork hearings in 1987, the Left has done everything it can, not only to defeat good candidates to the federal judiciary, but to dissuade good lawyers from even entertaining the idea of becoming a federal judge.
The Bork hearings — and those of Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh — illustrate the ferocity of those efforts. At the time, the Federalist Society, the brainchild of Steve Calabresi and Dave McIntosh, was beginning to get traction and offer solidarity to law students and young lawyers who embraced a sensible approach to the Constitution.
Those budding lawyers scared not only their professors in law school, but the Democrat members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
So Democrats sent a message to the new generation of lawyers and law students: “Don’t even think of being a federal judge. This is what we’ll do to you.”
In the early days of that effort, Senate Democrats treaded softly. They condemned Judge Bork’s New Haven parking ticket when he taught law at Yale. At his confirmation hearing, Ted Kennedy even complained that, years before, Bork had done legal consulting on the side to pay for his wife’s cancer treatments.
Such harassment was nothing new. A year before, in February 1986, Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden were advised by Ralph Neas, a brilliant pro-abortion lawyer who had graduated from Notre Dame with me in 1968.
Neas was the most effective leader of the pro-abortion movement of his generation. He recognized the national prominence of Fr. Ted Hesburgh, president of the University of Notre Dame, and suggested that Kennedy, who had directed considerable federal funding to the university over the years, should recruit Hesburgh in their first serious effort to stop a Reagan judge.
So Kennedy called Fr. Hesburgh for help in stopping the nomination of Notre Dame grad Daniel Manion, a South Bend, Ind., lawyer, to the Federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
“Father Ted, you’ve gotta help us get Dan Manion,” Kennedy said, as Fr. Hesburgh recounted to me in 1988.
“Sorry Ted, he’s family,” Fr. Hesburgh replied.
In July 1986, Manion went on to be confirmed by one vote in the Senate, but that body was Republican at the time. When Bork was defeated in 1987, again with Ralph Neas at Ted Kennedy’s side, Democrats controlled the Senate, and the Bork nomination failed.
Since the Senate confirmation of California Gov. Earl Warren in 1954, the legal Left has dominated constitutional law. Virtually every lawyer in the country today has grown up in that culture, either putting up with it or simply embracing it with the passing years.
With the advent of the current membership of the Supreme Court, the ground has shifted radically.
We don’t know where it will go from here — it is uncharted territory. But one thing is certain:
All bets — and gloves — are off.