BLAST FROM THE PAST: WHEN OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IGNORE REASON, EVERYONE SUFFERS. #1

WHEN WE NEEDED THE DEMOCRATS TO MAKE A STAND AGAINST UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR BY THE GOP.
...AND THEY DID NOTHING...

If there is One Thing we can learn from SENATE REPUBLICANS REFUSING TO HONOR THEIR OATH OF OFFICE, IN HOLDING HEARINGS TO DEBATE PRESIDENT OBAMAS NOMINATION FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, IS THAT THE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE RULES OF LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING IS PERVASIVE, EVEN AMONG THIS COUNTRIES LEADERS.

How so?  Read the following STATEMENT VERY CAREFULLY, AND YOU WILL 

SEE THE PROBLEM. (I believe this release by U.S. SENATOR JERRY MORAN, 

SUMS UP THE REPUBLICAN PARTIES STAND ON THIS ISSUE ACCURATELY.)

Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Morans Statement, given by an aide, on why he changed his mind on holding the Hearings:

(4/1/2016.)

"He has examined Judge Garland's record and didn't need hearings to conclude that the nominee's judicial philosophy, disregard for Second Amendment rights and sympathy for federal government bureaucracy make Garland unacceptable to serve on the Supreme Court ... Senator Moran remains committed to preventing this president from putting another justice on the highest court in the land."

Put aside the Hyperbole that lies within the Statement, and you may notice that the SENATOR IS ACTUALLY TAKING A POSITION ON TWO DIFFERENT, AND SEPARATE ISSUES.

"He has examined Judge Garland's record and didn't need hearings to conclude that the nominee's judicial philosophy..."

This is Clearly a Judgment made by the Senator that any HEARINGS WILL NOT CHANGE HIS POSITION.

FINE, BUT NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THEY COULD, SHOULD, OR WOULD. HIS SUPPORT, OR LACK OF, IS NOT DEPENDENT ON WHAT OCCURS DURING THE HEARINGS. HE IS FREE TO IGNORE, OR DISREGARD ANYTHING SAID, OR TESTIFIED TO, AND MAKE HIS JUDGMENT ON HIS INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE CANDIDATE.

THIS GOES FOR ANY EXCUSE BEING USED TO OPPOSE THE HEARINGS.

Such as:

"Most Senate Republicans say a nomination...should be made by the next President."

Very Well. Even though this Opinion is not backed up by any RULING OR PRECEDENT BASED IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CURRENTLY IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE ANY SENATOR FROM MAKING A DECISION ON THAT BASIS.

IT COMES DOWN TO THIS:

-  HOLDING THE SENATORIAL HEARINGS REGARDING JUDGE GARLANDS NOMINATION,

AND

-  APPROVING THE NOMINATION, 

ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES, AND TRYING TO PLACE THEM TOGETHER IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF DISTORTING THE TRUTH TO HIDE THE REAL REASON FOR THE OPPOSITION TO THE HEARINGS...

Date-  4/6/2016.