The Process Matters
Coaches always tell their players that the process matters, that the fundamentals are important, because in the most pressurized situations of the game, the process, the fundamentals are what we rely on to succeed. It is a natural tendency in critical situations for the player to divorce himself from his fundamentals, from his technique, and do things outside of himself, which invariably causes failure. The process matters. How we do things is as important, if not more than the results that we get. It’s always bad practice to sacrifice our principles for short term gain.
In the 2020 election, major changes were made to our election system in many states, most particularly, the battleground states, which eliminated many of the election integrity processes. These states instituted universal mail-in ballots, unsecured drop boxes, no signature match, and no voter ID. By doing all this, they opened the door to the potential for massive voter fraud, and whether Joe Biden would have been elected legitimately or not is less important than the damage those changes will have on all of our future elections, and the future of our democracy.
As a result of making it so easy to commit voter fraud in those states, many of the future representatives we “elect” will not be the ones who the majority of the voters voted for, but the ones who were the most effective cheaters. So, the most dishonest and manipulative candidates will be our “elected” representatives, which should not be the criteria we use to entrust a person with political power. The Democrats compromised the integrity of our election system for the short-term gain, to defeat Donald Trump in 2020, but by doing so, they opened the door to the destruction of our election system and of our democracy.
On top of these changes, the American people have been told in no uncertain terms, that even questioning the results of the 2020 election is tantamount to an insurrection and should be punished accordingly. The potential destruction of our elections and of our democracy, is brushed off as a far-right conspiracy. In response, Joe Biden and the Democrats are creating a Disinformation Governance Board to deal with people who may post opinions on social media they don’t like, such as the 2020 election was fraught with voter fraud. Once again, the Democrats are sacrificing a vital principle, the principle of freedom of speech, for a short-term gain. And anybody who understands how our democratic republic works knows that this will end badly for everyone.
But we have seen this sacrificing long term principles for short term gain play itself out in the past. On November 13, 2013, Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats decided to eliminate the filibuster for the confirmation of Federal Judges in response to a number of Barack Obama’s more extreme appointees being filibustered by the Republicans in the Senate. So, Harry Reid triggered the “nuclear option” which lowered the threshold to a simple majority, not a super majority for confirmation. Harry Reid sacrificed the important principle of bipartisan consent in our judiciary for their short-term political gain getting more extreme justices on the court to push through their radical agenda.
Ironically and predictably, this change is what allowed all three of Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed even though the Republicans did not hold a super majority in the Senate. The addition of those three Justices is the reason why the Supreme Court is about to overturn Roe v. Wade and turn the question of abortion back to the states. The principle of bipartisan support for Federal Justices by requiring confirmation by a super majority helps ensure the stability of our democracy because it prevents the extreme from seizing power. But this was Harry Reed and the Democrats doing.
Last week, in an unprecedented turn of events, Justice Samuel Alito’s draft of the court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade was leaked to the public. White House press secretary, Jen Psaki refused to condemn the leak, and called focusing on the leak, a “distraction”, and went on to espouse her beliefs regarding abortion. The leaking of the document is not a distraction. It is of vital importance. The person who leaked the document was attempting to politicize the Court, so the public could influence the Justices’ decision which is the exact opposite of the true nature of the court. If the person who leaked this document is not revealed and disbarred for life, if they’re allowed to continue on without punishment, it will destroy one of the most vital institutions in our country, and completely upset the balance of power that has kept our country so strong and stable for the last 240 years.
The reason why the draft of the opinion was leaked two months prior to officially being released was to give people who disagreed with the decision the ability to pressure and intimidate the Justices into changing their opinion. As expected, a far-left wing group, Ruth Sent Us, posted the street addresses of the six Supreme Court Justices who are planning on voting to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, encouraging mobs to show up at their homes to protest, to shout, to threaten in order to influence their decision. Sam Alito had to cancel a public appearance and be moved to an undisclosed location for his safety, after receiving death threats. Jen Psaki speaking on behalf of the White House, refused to condemn pro-abortion protests outside of Supreme Court Justices’ homes. Once again, the Democrats are sacrificing the process, the principal, the necessity to keep the Supreme Court an apolitical body, so they can make decisions outside of the emotion and pressures of the politics of the day, for their short-term gain.
Is this the way the court will behave moving forward? If some law clerk disagrees with a pending Supreme Court decision, he will leak the draft to the public so the people who disagree with the decision can pressure and intimidate the Justices to vote the way they want. Is that the system we want? Supreme Court decisions made by mob rule? Whoever screams the loudest or is the most intimidating gets their way on Supreme Court decisions? So, if the segregationist had the home addresses of Supreme Court Justices, they could have intimidated them into voting against Brown versus Board of Education to keep public schools segregated? Is this what we want? Is this the way to make important Constitutional rulings? Do we want the rulings of the Supreme Court to favor the side that intimidates and threatens them the most? Or do we want the Justices to make their decisions based on their knowledge of the Constitution, the case, and legal precedent?
Congressman Adam Schiff said, “I don't care how the draft leaked”, because the leaking served his purposes. He also went on to say, “we must expand the court.” Senator Elizabeth Warren echoed that sentiment by tweeting, “We must #ExpandTheCourt to rebalance it and defend our basic rights, including the constitutional right to an abortion”. In a response to a decision they do not like, the Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court which would allow them to add enough justices to swing the philosophical balance of the Court to their side and overturn this Supreme Court decision. Once again, they are advocation the destruction of a vital process of our country for a short-term political gain, without considering the long-term consequences.
If the Democrats add four justices, so they would have the majority in this abortion case, what will stop the Republicans from adding four more if they happen to take over the White House and the Senate in 2024? So instead of having nine justices we will have 17? And if the Democrats win back the White House and the Senate in 2028, will they add four more? And will the court just keep expanding and expanding with each change of administration until the court has 50, 60, 100 members? And no one takes it seriously anymore?
They are playing a never-ending game of Whack-a-Mole. You make one change to fix one so-called “problem”, and create two more problems, so you have to make more changes to deal with the consequences of those problems, and those changes create more problems that you have to make further changes to address. And the problems continue to get worse and worse and worse, the further away you get from the principles that make this country great, and stable, and prosperous.
What kind of country do we want to live in? Do we want to live in a country where the President is elected because he is the best cheater or the best candidate? Do you want to live in a country where Constitutional rulings are determined by threat and intimidation or by legal scholarship? The processes of our government are vital to the strength and stability of our country, that is why they are detailed so clearly in our Constitution. The founders understood that maintaining the processes were necessary for the long-term success of our country.
But the process doesn’t matter to the Democrats. They are only concerned with getting the short-term gain by any means necessary whether it is destroying our election system, upending our Supreme Court, or burning down our cities. They are like little children. If they don’t get their way, they are willing to blow up the entire system. What they are all saying is, “If I don’t get what I want, nobody does.” They are the most selfish, self-centered, arrogant and ignorant people in our country. And after they destroy everything that makes America great, makes it unique in their attempts to seize power, will there be anything left of America worth ruling? Who would want to live in a country without freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, without an independent judiciary? Who would want to live in a country where they are ruled by authoritarians? No one. And only after the Democrats destroy everything that is great about America, at that point, they will finally be worthy of ruling it.
Judd Garrett is a graduate from Princeton University, and a former NFL player, coach, and executive. He has been a contributor to the website Real Clear Politics. He has recently published his first novel, No Wind.