(THIS IS PART 4 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.)
In the End, the IMPLICATIONS OF NOT ALLOWING A SENATE HEARING FOR A PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE GOES EVEN DEEPER THAN MANY THINK, BUT I THINK THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS AWARE OF THIS, AND IS WILLING TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES.
- THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, (EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIAL), HAS BEEN USURPED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, IN THE FUTURE IT MAY BE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH REFUSING TO NOMINATE ANYONE AT ALL, UNLESS CERTAIN CONCESSIONS ARE MET.
- GIVEN THE COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, YOU ARE LEFT WITH A SYSTEM THAT ENCOURAGES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO BEHAVE IN THE SAME MANNER, IF THE POSITIONS ARE REVERSED. DO YOU REALLY EXPECT ONE PARTY TO BE FAIR AND OPEN IN THE SELECTION PROCESS, IF THE OTHER IS JUST GOING TO DISCARD IT ANYWAY?
- IN ANY CASE, THE FUTURE OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM WILL BE PUSHED TOWARDS TOTAL CHAOS, WITH RANSOMING THE LEGAL SYSTEM A GIFT LEFT TO FUTURE GENERATIONS. NO LONGER WILL THERE BE A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES, WITH NEITHER THE WHITE HOUSE OR THE SENATE CONTROLLING THE FATE OF OUR SYSTEMS OF LAW.
- EVEN IF THE REFUSAL TO HOLD A HEARING IS SOMEHOW ALLOWED TO STAND, BUT A DEMOCRAT WINS THE PRESIDENCY, WE COULD STILL BE LEFT WITH THE SAME PROBLEM. THEY WILL HAVE DONE IT ONCE, WITHOUT SANCTION, WHAT IS TO STOP THE REPUBLICANS FROM DOING IT AGAIN?
AND AGAIN...AND AGAIN...AND AGAIN.
SO THE BIG QUESTION IS: WHY?
No comments:
Post a Comment