Amy Coney Barrett needs to recuse herself!

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, a Democrat who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told NBC's Meet the Press that he would be willing to meet with Barrett ahead of the committee hearings for her confirmation that will start next month.

"I think you know my spirit, which is to sit down and meet with people and talk to them. And I'm going to make it very clear, one of the things I want to ask her is will she recuse herself ... in terms of any election issues that come before us, because if she does not recuse herself, I fear that the court will be further delegitimized," Booker said on Sunday.

The Democrats could not be more predictable. The left aren't going to be able to stop her nomination in the Senate, so they have to grasp at the next straw! This was the first think that came to mind, as soon as I heard that Trump had nominated a woman.

It didn't take long.

There is no legal precedent for Amy Conney Barrett to recuse herself either.

“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned," the Code of Conduct reads.

The code of conduct then proceeds to list off the many reasons one might be required to recuse themselves, including the following:

* If the judge has "a personal bias or prejudice" concerning the case.
* If the judge "served as a lawyer in the matter."
* If the judge has a "financial interest" in the subject matter.
* If the judge or the judge's family member is involved in the case
* If the judge "has served in governmental employment and in that capacity participated as a judge (in a previous judicial position), counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding..."

Our legal experts emphasized that these rules are not constitutionally binding. While judges in lower courts can be reprimanded by a committee on ethics if they fail to follow these rules, there is nobody policing Supreme Court ethics.

“The ethical rules do not apply to the Supreme Court of the United States," said Nourse. "They help administer these rules.”

Nourse said that justices will often recuse themselves, but this is a personal decision. Recusals are not mandated for these justices.

"They do it as a matter of grace (as) they call it," she said. "Or a matter of wisdom.”

Within political and legal circles, there's still considerable debate as to whether Barrett should recuse herself in such a situation. But there is a consensus that she would not be required to recuse herself by the Constitution, if the Supreme Court were to hear a case, regarding a disputed 2020 election.

This is just wishful thinking on the part of Democrats. There is absolutely no possibility that a Democrat appointed SCOTUS member would EVER recuse themselves for any reason.

To put the icing on the cake. Biden last night in the debate, wouldn't answer as to whether or not he would stack the court. Increasing the number of justices to offset a conservative legal presence.

Biden declined to tell debate moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News whether he would support adding justices to the court if Trump’s conservative pick, Amy Coney Barrett, is confirmed to replace liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“Whatever position I take on that, that’ll become the issue. The issue is the American people should speak. You should go out and vote. You’re in voting, now vote and let your senators know how strongly you feel. But vote now,” Biden said.

Democrats are floundering. They won't answer questions that are very much a reason to vote or not vote for a presidential candidate. Then Joe goes a step further and tells people to, "Go out and vote." He's been speaking out about how it's not safe to vote in public since the COVID-19 issue started. Biden is even talking about shutting down the country again!? But not before you go vote!

As I stated in my previous posts about vote buying and ballot stuffing; courts are making these methods increasingly hard for Democrat operatives to accomplish. Pair that with Project Veritas and the actual audio and video evidence of vote buying and fraud.

Democrats are now pushing for people to get to the polls. Even a stacked court might not help them.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

This further backs up what I was saying in an earlier post, the virus could have been here much longer than is being reported.

The CDC COVID-19 fatality numbers show that the number of people who have actually died from the virus are extremely low.

Pay close attention to Scenario 5 as it is the current best estimate.

In order to get the percentages representative of the number of people who were infected and survived, just multiply the Infection Fatality Ratio by 100 to make it a percentage, then subtract the value from 100. You can do the math in a spreadsheet and you end up with:

= 100 - (Fatality Ratio*100)

This is one of the best examples of why very few people trust the media these days. The original estimates were incredibly high. Then when the real numbers come out, the media is nowhere to be seen.

In Florida they are entering phase 3 of reopening, meaning that bars and restaurants are opening back up. This is long overdue as the numbers now prove. The threat was GROSSLY overestimated.

Now that mail-in voting is not going to benefit the Democrats as much, how long will it be before this comes out in the media? It's going to be widely reported very soon. Then there will be no need for the masks, and they will be pushing for people to get to the polls. It will happen very quickly.

Soon you'll see "experts" claiming that the threat was real, and it's never a bad thing to be cautious. But now we know that it's nowhere near as deadly as was purported. Then you'll see stories about how polling booths that are hypoallergenic with Micoban surfaces. This is so predictable!

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

I found this interesting, but it gets to a larger point. Why DON'T leftists believe that leftists will actually do what they say they will do?

One adviser’s left-leaning clients don’t think a Biden win will negatively affect their finances, but the adviser’s right-leaning ones think a Biden win could send their portfolio to ‘hell in a hand basket.’

Here is where this gets interesting. The only way that you can believe that Biden won't negatively affect your finances, is if you don't believe that a Biden administration is going to do the things they have campaigned on.

What these people don't understand is that this isn't the same Democrat party from years past. They aren't the Democrats who say radical things, but govern from the center. These bunch ARE the radicals. The Black Lives Matter website's donation page links to ActBlue, which is a Democrat website. They donate exclusively to Democrat and far left candidates all across the US.

Click the image below to view in full size.

*** UPDATE ***
The BLM website has removed their donate button -- which linked to ActBlue a Democrat political action committee.

No one appears to have been in charge at Black Lives Matter for months. The address it lists on tax forms is wrong, and the charity's two board members won't say who controls its $60 million bankroll, a Washington Examiner investigation has found.

BLM's shocking lack of transparency surrounding its finances and operations raises major legal and ethical red flags, multiple charity experts told the Washington Examiner.

This man's clients aren't really leftists, or at least they don't think that the leftists are really leftists. Notice they didn't say that they were worried about Trump winning. But they said that they didn't think that Harris/Biden would negatively affect their finances. Meaning that they admit that there's concern there, they just don't buy into it.

The other school of thought on this, is that Congress will most likely go to the Republicans. Stopping Harris/Biden from being able to effect too much change due to gridlock. However, this scenario is another win for Democrats. Democrats can and will make small incremental changes, they are winning because they keep moving the pendulum farther to the left each time.

Republicans have to be careful with the sky is falling scenario, I think that the Democrats are smart enough to keep the ball moving ever so slightly. Even if they gain power, I don't think they'll go too far too fast. And that is a problem because it will discredit those who are pointing out what the Democrats end game is. They just have the timeline a little too accelerated.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

I know that there are lot of people worried about Climate Change / Anthropocentric Global Warming / Global Dimming, or whatever else they can come up with. So how come most of the politicians are talking about things other than the climate?

Just the other day 09-12-20 Nancy Pelosi said this in a joint statement at the Virtual G7 Summit.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the parliamentary leaders of the G7 countries issued a joint declaration Saturday warning, "the climate crisis is the existential threat of our time."

"Climate policy can end the perpetuation of systemic inequalities," the leaders wrote in their joint statement.

But I thought that we were all going to die if we didn't solve the "Climate Crisis." Well now that's changed and we're supposed to battle "systemic inequalities," but first let's boil that down. Systemic inequality implies that the inequalities are built into the system.

You start by admitting that there is systemic inequality, from there you can see that the unmet needs are never going to be met. Why? Because there is a power imbalance between those who have access and those who do not. The problem here is that the issue is almost never defined. When Pelosi references, "Systemic Inequalities," she doesn't reference what is unequal. Sure there are inequalities, there always will be, but to which is she referring?

But that's the idea. Now we have a bunch of world leaders claiming that there are "System Inequalities" around the world. And the way to fix those inequalities has nothing to do with freedom or education, it has to do with climate change legislation?" Is climate change legislation going to help water come out of the ground in villages where there is no well? Is climate change legislation going to stop wars in Africa? Because we all know those people are fighting over different view points on climate change.

The answer is simple. Give us "world leaders" more power, and we'll make sure that you have more access to something. You have to give us more power first then you'll see what that is.

But, then it's always that way isn't it. These people who want more power are claiming to use it to equalize something, level the playing field, spread the wealth around. I have a better question, when do those who claim to equalize anything actually do it? Did Obama spread the wealth around like he told Joe The Plumber? Did Nancy Pelosi help the healthcare system by pushing Obamacare through on Christmas Eve?

The short answer is NO, but it's always NO, isn't it.

Climate Change is a buzz word for global income redistribution!

I wrote about this years ago in 2009.

Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen has described the UN climate summit in Copenhagen as an "opportunity the world cannot afford to miss".

The African Union has threatened to walk out of the talks if industrialised countries do not agree to help poor states pay for the transition to cleaner economies.

Any agreement made at Copenhagen is intended to supplant the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which expires in 2012.

Connie Hedegaard, conference president and Denmark's former climate minister, said: "This is our chance. If we miss it, it could take years before we got a new and better one. If we ever do."

To stress the importance of the summit, 56 newspapers in 45 countries published the same editorial on Monday, warning that climate change will "ravage our planet" unless action is agreed, the London-based Guardian reported.

It was a shakedown then and it's a shakedown now. People all over the globe loose their individual freedoms for the promise of a better life. A promise made by those who could have already made things better with the power they have, but didn't. Why give them more!?

But, but, maybe this time they really care... I seriously doubt it...

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

The last 20 minutes of this video explains, in detail, exactly what is happening in the USA right now.

Note: This video interview is from 1984.

If it won't play, search for:

"FASCINATING - KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov reveals Russian Subversion Tactics - Full Interview" The poster is someone named "Wise Wanderer."

Here is the URL: https://youtu.be/zgmg2VFX058?t=3650

Note: The person who posted the video linked above had their account terminated!

You can go here on Rumble to watch the video. Fast forward to the 1 hour mark if you want to hear the parts that most apply to what's happening now.

Tell me what you think...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.