Staff Reports
In the waning days of their majority, Democrats have made their priorities painfully clear, and it’s enough to make any patriotic American shake their head in disbelief. While the clock ticks down on an essential piece of legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which has supported American military interests for more than sixty years, Democrats have chosen to turn their focus to confirming a parade of judicial nominees. Instead of supporting national security, their last acts of power seem to be more about stacking the courts with partisan judges.
Recent Senate sessions have turned into a spectacle of late-night votes and holiday-season theatrics, all while critical defense measures languish. Despite the pressing need for funding and support for military initiatives, Chuck Schumer and his allies have prioritized nonstop judicial confirmations over their legislative duties. The message is clear: party allegiance trumps national interest, and the defense of the nation’s backbone is merely an afterthought.
Democrats Prioritize Partisanship Over National Defense in Waning Days of Power – RedState https://t.co/pZSQACNLsn
— Not Enough Dogs (@DogsEnough) November 21, 2024
While the Senate Appropriations Committee has shuffled spending bills around like hot potatoes, none have actually gone to a vote. Instead, the Democratic leadership remains laser-focused on their judicial agenda, as Schumer made abundantly clear. With Thanksgiving and Christmas approaching, discussions of holding votes during the holiday season are on the table, all in the name of pushing through nominees that are far from mainstream.
Consider some of these nominees whose records concern any sensible American. For instance, Judge Mustafa Kasubhai has advocated for sidelining traditional standards of proof when it comes to heaping praise on equity, diversity, and inclusion. This begs the question of whether he can uphold impartiality in the courtroom or if his tenure would succumb to social and political agendas. The legal system must be centered on facts, not the latest ideological buzzwords.
Moreover, Brian Murphy’s actions speak volumes about his suitability for a judicial role. His ties to organizations that advocate for leniency on serious crimes and his involvement in supporting a bail fund that released a registered sex offender into the community only deepen concerns over his judgment. Would anyone trust someone with such a record to dispense justice fairly? Clearly, the Biden administration’s choice of judges reflects a disturbing trend of prioritizing ideology over the rule of law.
Sparkle Sooknanan’s history is another glaring example of Democratic priorities gone awry. In addition to having served on the board of an organization that openly criticized police during nationwide riots in 2020, she misled the Senate Judiciary Committee about her sketchy dealings in debt collection. Such behavior reveals a lack of transparency and integrity—traits that should be non-negotiable for lifetime appointments to the bench.
This desperate last-minute push for judicial nominations does more than showcase Democratic priorities; it sheds light on fundamental ideological flaws. Instead of working towards bipartisan solutions for the NDAA and addressing other vital pieces of legislation, Democrats are intent on embedding partisan judges into the system. Amid ongoing inflation, security challenges, and rising crime rates, the continued focus on partisanship over practical governance is a betrayal of the American electorate. History will judge these final acts harshly, branding them as a shameful retreat from their responsibilities to prioritize the nation’s security and welfare.
