"Listen up Prez O'Bama....I know the Constitution says the President has the privilege of nominating Supreme Court Justices and we, the United States Senate, have the responsibility to interview and ultimately approve or disapprove your nomination, but screw that shit. Don't waste your time. I don't care who you send us the answer is 'no'. NO, NO, NO! Got it?" Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Sadly the United States Supreme Court yesterday lost a Justice who was, by all accounts, a brilliant legal scholar, Justice Antonin Scalia (front row, second from left). He also happened to be a staunch Constitutional conservative. By all rights the sitting president, Barack Obama, should immediately begin the search for a possible replacement, and he probably will, but his nominee will be a non-starter, whoever he/she might be.
That's because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, backed by virtually every Republican Senator, says he won't even schedule a hearing on a replacement, much less allow a vote. He says the next president (he's assuming he will be a Republican) should have the right to nominate a replacement. I get it....he wants to replace a conservative with another conservative. But I'm pretty sure the Constitution does not allow such blatant cherry-picking.
It seems to me, and I'm pretty sure if he was still here Justice Scalia would agree, the Senate is REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION ("speedy trial", speedy hearing...same thing) to schedule a time to consider the president's nominee, followed by an up or down vote. No where does the Constitution say a lame duck president should forfeit his right to offer up a nominee. It just doesn't say that!
Now if President Obama is dumb enough to nominate some radical extreme left-wing pseudo-commie, the Senate Judiciary Committee should be able to call a hearing to order, ask a couple of questions, ask for a show of hands, and still be able to make their 11am tee time. I have no problem with that.
But what if President Obama were to find several sitting federal judges with plenty of opinions to their credit, who have shown they can fairly and without prejudice or political ideology decide a case based on the principles of the Constitution? Should he not be able to even nominate one of them?
And to be fair, a lame duck President Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Kasich, etc should be able to send a nominee to the Senate, and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer should be obligated to give him/her a fair hearing, too.
This is what it's come to my friends: the people we sent to Washington to represent us, in other words our EMPLOYEES, have just told us fuck off!
THEY HAVE SHOWN THEY ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO THROW US ALL UNDER THE BUS, AND TRAMPLE ON THE CONSTITUTION THEY TOOK AN OATH TO UPHOLD, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEIR OWN POLITICAL POWER AND POSITION.
What's next? The burning of courthouses, state houses, or our capital building in Washington when words spoken there offend a certain power class? Assassinate candidates who seem a little too independent minded? Maybe call in citizens for IRS harassment who dare make eye-contact with elected officials?
This has GOT to stop or else the coming revolution (?) won't be the polite garden-party type Bernie Sanders has in mind.
S
