Democrats Love Precedent, Except When They Don’t

Precedent –

1:  an earlier occurrence of something similar

2a: something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind

b:  the convention established by such a precedent or by long practice

3:  a person or thing that serves as a model

Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Democrats shouted the word “precedent” from the mountain tops all of last year before the SCOTUS Dobbs Decision.  They screamed it almost as much as they screeched “democracy”, as in a threat to our… Of course, these were just words and crocodile tears, nothing more.  Political convenience to them is what they are all about.  Don’t get me wrong, Democrats love abortion, but they don’t really like precedent. 


Precedents are not laws.  They are traditions, just examples from the past to help guide us in the future.  The Father of our country, George Washington set many precedents as our first President.  His most enduring (until 1940) was being elected to only two terms as President.  The Democrat, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, smashed that precedent and never looked back, running for and being elected to four unprecedented terms in office.  So much for precedent.  Afterward, Congress passed term limits on the presidency set at two terms.  Unfortunately, they haven’t felt the urge to limit themselves in a similar manner.  Precedent for thee, not me.  


Plenty of other precedents have been broken, most notably in legal cases, one way or another:  Dred Scott with a civil war; Plessy v. Ferguson with the Brown v. Board of Education decision; Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs decision.  As much as Democrats scream about them, it seems precedents were meant to be broken eventually.


Proof of the Democrats’ false affection for precedent is evident in their supposed loathing of the Senate filibuster rule.  From National Geographic:

“Appropriately, its name comes from a Dutch word for “pirate”—because the filibuster is, in essence, a hijacking of debate in the U.S. Senate. It’s also one of the most controversial traditions in American politics.”


Notice that “controversial” conveniently attaches only to things Democrats don’t like. The Senate filibuster rule allows the minority to block legislation by prolonging debate and delaying votes by forcing a 60-vote majority to end debate and vote on legislation.  Basically, the filibuster prevents majority mob rule (which Dems really love).  The Democrats used the filibuster to great effect to stall civil rights legislation in the 1950’s and 1960’s.  Democrats always seem to forget that.  Harry Reid (D-NV) while Senate Majority Leader broke the filibuster precedent and lowered the bar to 51 votes (nuclear option) for approving federal judgeships and low-level nominees so as to push through as many leftwing Democrats onto the federal benches while Dems held the Senate and Presidency.  Republicans warned Reid not to set a new precedent by breaking the old precedent.  He didn’t listen.  To the Democrats chagrin, we now have a mostly conservative Supreme Court.  Thanks, Harry!


Likewise, Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker followed in Reid’s leaden footsteps.  Against warnings from Republicans, she disallowed the minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, to appoint his own choice for members on the January 6 Select Committee.  Instead, she chose which Republicans would sit on that committee.  The breathtaking, precedent breaking, audacious irony of her power-grab is lost on the squealing Democrats, Adam Schiff and Eric Swallwell, both of California.  Over the objections of the very partisan House Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Kevin McCarthy has exercised the new Nancy Pelosi Rule and refused to seat both California Congressman on the House Intel Committee, where both previously held seats, Schiff being the Committee Chairman. 


Pelosi had no valid reason to overrule McCarthy in placing members on that bogus “insurrection” committee, except pure partisan politics.  On the other hand, Kevin McCarthy has very valid reasons for removing both Schiff and Swallwell from the intel committee.  Schiff has been credibly accused by former CIA Director and Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, of leaking classified information to the press for political gain.  In addition, he has lied on many a TV program about having seen intel that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians.  He still clings to that debunked hoax.  Swallwell has been linked to a verified Chinese spy named Fang Fang, who has since fled back to China.  Well founded sources have him sleeping with her during his time as Congressman.  Neither Congressman can be trusted with the nation’s top classified information.


What about all the other precedents Democrats have tossed to the four winds?  Such as jailing criminals, free and fair elections, men are not women, not discriminating based on race, securing our borders and our sovereignty, spying on foreign countries not on Americans, one-tier justice system, strong military training to fight our enemies rather than gender studies and CRT, to name but a few.


As expected, Democrats are hollering and screaming about McCarthy breaking precedent.  But he’s following precedent, the precedent set by his immediate predecessor.  Thanks, Nancy.  Democrats just love precedent, except when they don’t.



If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at

Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA


2 thoughts on “Democrats Love Precedent, Except When They Don’t”

  1. I wonder if Schiff and Swalwell still have their security clearances, and if so, why? Neither should have ever had those clearances, at least from the moment they were outed as ones who compromised themselves as they did.

Leave a Comment