Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has appropriated a page from President Trump’s primary playbook while scribbling in her own “they’re all a bunch of sexists” screed.
Speaking at a forum in Iowa on Sunday, Warren attacked Trump’s executive branch appointments, quickly zeroing in on his judicial picks. “I think what’s at the heart of it is who you ask to be a judge,” Warren told the crowd gathered in advance of the Iowa caucuses. “And I’ll tell you what the answer has been for Donald Trump, cause I’ve seen these guys,” Warren added, “Homophobic, that’s in. Racist, that’s in. Sexist, oh yeah, most definitely. And anti-voter. That’s been a big qualification. He has named one person after another.”
Warren’s tirade came less than a week after she confronted Vermont socialist and fellow primary contender Bernie Sanders at the conclusion of the Democratic debate. With hot mics conveniently at the ready, Warren spat at Sanders, “I think you called me a liar on national TV.” Sanders had unequivocally denied Warren’s charge that he said a woman could not be elected president. The tense post-debate exchange revitalized Warren’s efforts to showcase Sanders’s supposed anti-woman views, at least for a few more days.
Then came Warren’s charge against Trump’s judicial appointments. While she hit the big three slurs (racist, sexist, and homophobic), the liberal senator made sure to stress the supposed sexism of Trump’s judges, with her “oh yeah, most definitely.” The senator’s diatribe worked well to focus caucus-goers on her sex, a gambit on full display in the Warren campaign in Iowa. From handing out jars of “liberty green” nail polish to joining with Planned Parenthood activists at a late-added Iowa event, Warren played the sex card with no sign of finesse.
Whether Warren’s attempt to capitalize on her sex brings her any returns remains to be seen. But Warren’s politicizing of Trump’s judicial appointments will play well for her Democratic base, as meritless as her charges are. And they are indeed meritless — just as meritless as the last-minute accusation of attempted rape Christine Blasey Ford leveled at Brett Kavanaugh.
Sound bites to the side, Warren’s problem with Trump’s judicial nominees concerns their judicial philosophy and not any -isms or phobias. Trump has appointed originalists and not activists, and lots of them: two Supreme Court justices, more than 40 federal appellate judges, and more than 100 district court judges.
While Democrats obsessed over the Russia collusion hoax and the impeachment sequel, Trump methodically remade the federal judiciary. And Democrats are afraid, understandably so. Lacking the votes or the public support to enact laws befitting a leftist utopia, Democrats need activist judges to impose by judicial fiat their preferred liberal policy preferences.
The Democratic primary-voting base knows this reality, and Warren has no problem pandering to their predilections, even if it means slandering honorable men and women along the way.
However, with the Iowa caucuses appearing to be a contest between Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden, Warren’s generic attacks on Trump’s picks is unlikely to provide much pull for her faltering campaign. After all, when it comes to judges, there’s no light between Warren’s perspective and those held by Sanders and Biden.
Maybe Warren needs to study Trump’s approach more closely and start naming some names — and if she does, watch for them all to ring a familiar feminine sound.
Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct professor for the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.
