BLAST FROM THE PAST- Friday, November 6, 2020: HOW HAVE WE COME TO THIS? THE INCOMPETENCE, IRRATIONALITY, CRIMINALITY, AND BETRAYAL THAT HAS LEAD THE U.S. TO EDGE OF THE ABYSS. PART 1.

  

Since the Democrats are continuing their efforts to make things as easy as possible for TRUMP to add another Mediocre Legal Mind to the Supreme Court, furthering the FASCIST AGENDA THAT IS THE REAL GOAL OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, it is time to lay out the INCOMPETENCE, IRRATIONALITY, CRIMINALITY, AND BETRAYAL THAT HAS LEAD THE U.S. TO EDGE OF THE ABYSS.

#1- WHY DID THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BLOCK PRESIDENT OBAMAS CHOICE FOR THE SUPREME COURT MERRICK GARLAND?

The simple answer is to block a Well-Respected, Deserving, and Highly Regarded Legal Mind who would not blindly obey their Fascist Ideology. However, it was more than just that;

A TEST:
IT WAS TO SEE HOW MUCH, AND WHAT TYPE OF OPPOSITION REPUBLICANS WOULD FACE IF THEY DECIDED THAT REGAINING POWER AND KEEPING IT, COULD BE ACHIEVED THROUGH UNCONSTITUTIONAL METHODS. WITH A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COMING UP, JUST HOW FAR COULD THEY PUSH THE DEMOCRATS (ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE SENATE), INTO GIVING UP POLITICAL GROUND WITHOUT A FIGHT.

Again, here is the Text from SECTION 2 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; 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, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

That's it. There are no Qualifications, What-Ifs, Different Scenarios etc; TO DO CONSTITUTIONALLY WHAT MCCONNELL DID WOULD REQUIRE AMENDING THE DOCUMENT. THERE ARE NO PRECEDENTS THAT WOULD ALLOW THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER TO DO WHAT HE DID. NONE. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CASE WHERE A PRESIDENTIAL SUPREME COURT NOMINEE WAS DENIED A HEARING AND VOTE BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE.

I can understand why REPUBLICANS didn't object, (HONOR AND DUTY IS NOT PART OF BEING A REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS), BUT FOR SENATE DEMOCRATS TO ACCEPT THIS IS INEXCUSABLE. EVEN IF THEY ACCEPTED MCCONNELL'S EXPLANATION THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT SHOULD MAKE THE CHOICE, A LAWSUIT TAKEN INTO COURT WOULD HAVE SET LIMITS AND GUIDELINES. LIKE THE FOLLOWING:

"THAT IN FUTURE ELECTIONS, SHOULD A VACANCY OPEN UP, THE COURT REQUIRES THAT THE SAME STANDARDS AND PRECEDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SET IN THIS CASE MUST BE FOLLOWED." 

THIS TYPE OF RULING WOULD PREVENT CONTINUOUS PERSONAL PREJUDICES, PARTY POLITICS, AND CRIMINAL INTENT FROM TURNING THE PROCESS INTO A 3 RING CIRCUS.
LIKE MCCONNELL AND TRUMP ARE DOING NOW.

HOW LUDICROUS IS THIS? IF WE, AGAIN, ACCEPT MCCONNELLS EXPLANATION THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT SHOULD MAKE THE CHOICE, THEN GIVING JUDGE GARLAND THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME. WITH A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY VOTING NOT TO APPROVE PRESIDENT OBAMAS CHOICE, (WHICH THEY CAN DO CONSTITUTIONALLY), THEY COULD HAVE FORCED A DELAY UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION. 

THIS WAS THE REAL TEST, AND SENATE DEMOCRATS FAILED MISERABLY. 

TO BE CONTINUED...