The GOP has now embraced Crime

The GOP in the Senate has refused to have hearings if Obama presents them with a nominee.

The GOP is refusing to do what is not just their ethical duty as Senators, but their LEGAL duty.  “he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court.” (Article 2)

There is a danger here that is not to be ignored.

The entire government of the United States is based on the legal power of the Constitution.  When one of the most powerful parts of the government decides not follow the Constitution, to break the law, we are facing a terrifying future.

Because if the people we elect are not constrained by the constitution then they can do whatever they want.  They have no limits.  We will be paying them to follow whatever base desires for power, or destruction, or greed that they choose.

We are facing a critical juncture here.  No matter what your politics, the constitution is the spine of our freedom, our rights and our country.  It cannot be ignored merely because it is not convenient or for ANY reason.

Even if they wait until after the election, what is the precedent?  Where is the cutoff?  Does it set up a future payback from the Democrats if the Senate Majority changes.  Its insanity that must be cutoff at the knees.

We must not allow the Senate to pretend they have the right to do this.  We ought to stand in the streets all over this country protesting the criminality of a group of people who have so lost touch with reality that they think they can rewrite their constitutional obligations.  That they can be criminals and its OK because they are Senators.

We need to wake them up.  Please write your senator and object to this.  Do not let the Senate ignore their legal obligation.

 

16 thoughts on “The GOP has now embraced Crime”

  1. I’ll have to disagree with you. First of all, Obama has shown complete disregard for the Constitution up to this point with use of executive order. It’s use designed to circumvent Congress, and thereby constitutionally mandated powers separation. Secondly, Obama himself filibustered a Supreme Court nominee in 2006. He was clearly obstructionist when it suited him. Not only did Obama filibuster Alito, but Biden and Clinton. Also, Schumer wanted to block a Bush nominee in 07 because it was his last year. I say, practice what you preach and these things won’t come back to bite you in the posterior when the political situation favors you.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I am not sure how pointing to things Obama did, some of which are dubious, some of which aren’t, is refuting the absolute LEGAL requirement to uphold the constitution.

      There are 3 strong branches of government. When you deliberately hamstring the SCOTUS what you are doing has a VERY large impact on the workings of the US.

      In fact who is going to rule on whether they are being unconstitutional in refusing to nominate? SCOTUS. But now its possibly been hamstrung by the very thing they might need to rule on.

      I won’t spend time debating whether or not Obama’s use of executive order or the filibuster practice generally. It is not today’s issue. Today’s issue is whether or not the Senate is choosing to break the law by NOT performing their legal obligation.

      We call it obstructionist, to make it sound like its NOT criminal. But in my opinion when you strike at something as large as this, its criminal.

      I would have this opinion whether it was Democrats or Republicans doing this. Its very problematic because it has larger implications. Its also symptomatic of our current state of politics, but that isn’t what bothers me. What bothers me is the decay of the foundation on which this government is supposed to lay.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. The reason that I bring up Obama’s past is that it was suited to him politically and he did it. Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and he’s now stuck with the prospect of being a hypocrite. As far as criminal behavior , from powerline: Presidents have made 160 nominations for the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed only 124 of them. And of the 36 failed nominations, the vast majority of them (25) received no up-or-down vote.
        So, not receiving an up or down vote is not without precedent. While you may not have a partisan bone to pick here, it’s clear that those government leaders who are quibbling have occupied the opposite position when it suited them.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. That is interesting information. Were the 25 not even debated or vetted by the Senate’s committee, or were the they vetted and withdrawn when it was obvious that it wasn’t going well.

        I’m going to have to look into that.

        I think we let our politicians get away with too much. We treat the whole thing like its entertainment instead of reality.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. I agree with you, but would add that this whole nomination discussion seems to be just one more in a long line of Constitution-skirting ploys that we citizens allow the politicians to get away with – or did I miss the discussion about how banning Muslims – and Trump is by no means the only Republican to flirt with this idea – would require changing (or ignoring) the Constitution?
    The Senate is free to filibuster and/or to vote down any nominee from President Obama, they are not free to close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and say “La la la la…” – simply pretending the nomination didn’t happen.
    And when it comes to arguing that this is some kind of deserved quid pro quo for executive orders, numbers become interesting:
    Reagan – 381
    Bush Sr. – 166
    Clinton – 364
    Bush Jr. – 291
    Obama – 231

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  4. You may want to check out what Joe Biden did not allowing SCOTUS for over a year in lame duck republican presidential terms. This is an old rule and started by democrats.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I think he just delivered a speech about how they should change the rules to delay the nomination when the President is within a year of election. At the time that he made the speech there was no nomination or seat open in SCOTUS. Unless you are referring to a different situation?

      In any case, he was wrong. The post should be filled as soon as possible because SCOTUS is an important part of our government process and we create potential issues by leaving it at 8.
      And delaying it makes it even more of a political prize fight than it already is. The ideal candidate would be non political but that’s just me dreaming.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Biden was the senator who implemented the rule that his Democratic senate enforced…Made speeches regarding the rule to make sure that no Republican president could act on such a situation. As VP. He is also president of the senate to enforce the rules. Which now, he is crawfishing not to have to enforce.
        Biden is now having to Eat his own words. Democrats at their unfortunate best…Crying over situations they create because it doesn’t work for them now.
        No long term thinking. No logic. Just politics, and cry baby antics.

        Like

      2. Which is definitely part of my point. When we don’t follow the constitution, we get into a payback politics situation. Which is not great.

        Which nominations were effected by Biden? I was looking at the average times it appears that in the last 30 years the Senate has taken anywhere from 62 to 99 days to deliberate/confirm. With Clarence Thomas being the longest at 99.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. I agree with your point to stick to the constitution. Where does it say in the constitution that the Senate had to change their rules to suite the President? He’s not the Emperor, regardless of his Executive orders.
        My point on Biden is,that while the senate he never had to face the death of a Supreme Court Justice in their term, the eventuality of resignation was a possibility. Sandra Day O’Conner comes to mind. Which was why they implemented the rule to cover their power. Which is why the current media clamor and political whining….. all pointless.

        There are 2 cases currently that might be effected by a delay, (one from Texas on fetal ultrasounds before termination) but in most legal situations…continuances rule they day, and delays of court are the norm.

        Why not let the politicians lie in the crappy bed they have made?
        Why not let the current administration suffer from the rules they helped implement?
        Everything is political. The current situation is political justice, or Karma.

        Like

      4. I think us looking at it as just political justice instead seeing the big picture of having a SCOTUS that many be hamstrung, and a Legislative body that no longer values the law of the land above their own political gains. Those are dangerous things.

        The worst part is that it isn’t even an ACTUAL rule. Its just a tradition that gets pulled out by which ever party is in opposition of the President. And the longest its been referred to before this was 6 months before the election.

        Where is the cut off? Next time its inconvenient the opposing party will make 15 months or 2 years. Its nuts.

        We are so used to looking at the political mud slinging as a form of entertainment that we have gotten out of the habit of recognizing that these people, idiots – most of them, have our future in their hands.

        And they know we don’t pay enough attention. There are people in congress right now who have charges of tax evasion against them. They get brought up in front of the congress in a session few if any congress people attend and they get read a letter of censure. And then they get re-elected. Rangel comes to mind, but he’s not unique, its rampant. We don’t pay attention and they are just playing around like its a game of darts at happy hour.

        We need to hold them accountable. To show them that we ARE paying attention and we care whether or not they do the job well.

        Like

Leave a comment