QUICK HITTERS. POST #51. THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. PART 3.

(THIS IS PART 3 IN A SERIES OF ARTICLES I WROTE CONCERNING

THE CONTROVERSY CREATED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTIES 

TREATMENT OF MERRICK GARLAND, BARACK OBAMAS CHOICE 

TO FILL THE VACANCY ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.)

What is Even More Frightening Than a Few MEGALOMANIACS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY REFUSING TO UPHOLD THEIR LEGALLY SWORN OATH TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, IS THAT IF IT IS ALLOWED TO STAND WITHOUT A LEGAL CHALLENGE, WE MAY END GOING FROM AN "OLIGARCHY," WITH POLITICAL POWER RESTING IN THE HANDS OF A FEW, TO A "DICTATORSHIP," WITH POWER RESTING IN THE HANDS OF ONE.

Remember, the Nomination of a CANDIDATE FOR A SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT, AND FOR NUMEROUS OTHER POSITIONS IN GOVERNMENT, RESTS WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, IN PRACTICAL TERMS?

"...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for..."

Do you see it?  If Refusing to Act on a DUTY THAT IS PART OF THE OATH OF OFFICE ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, IS ALLOWED TO STAND WITHOUT SANCTION OR PENALTY, A PRECEDENT IS SET THAT CANNOT COMPEL ANYONE TO BE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO ACT IN A SIMILAR MANNER PROSCRIBED BY THE DOCUMENT.

THE PRESIDENT ALONE NOMINATES CANDIDATES, NO ONE ELSE.

What is to Stop a U.S. PRESIDENT FROM DELAYING, OR REFUSING TO NOMINATE, CANDIDATES FOR POSTS THAT ARE VACANT, IF THE SENATE DOES NOT CONTAIN A BODY OF MEMBERS THAT ARE SYMPATHETIC TO APPROVING THOSE NOMINEES THE PRESIDENT FEELS ARE THE "RIGHT CHOICES?"