BLAST FROM THE PAST: WHEN OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IGNORE REASON, EVERYONE SUFFERS. #3.

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

So, What Could Be The True Purpose behind the Republican Parties Leadership not wanting to hold FORMAL SENATE HEARINGS ON JUDGE GARLANDS NOMINATION FOR THE OPEN SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUIDELINES THAT OUTLINE THE PROCESS TO FILL THE VACANCY?

-  They want the Next President to Address the Situation, BY PERSONALLY SELECTING THE NEXT NOMINEE.

There is no where in the BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT EVEN HINTS THAT SUCH A DECISION IS VALID AND LEGAL. In Addition, NO LEGAL PRECEDENT, SET BY JUDICIAL REVIEW, CAN BE CITED TO SUPPORT THIS ACTION.

Even if this is THE TRUE EXPLANATION, HOLDING THE HEARINGS, AND VOTING DOWN THE NOMINATION, WOULD ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING.

-  There is a Lack of Support in the SENATE, WHICH MEANS DENYING JUDGE GARLAND THE OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN THE COURT.

AGAIN, HOLDING THE HEARINGS, AND REQUIRING A VOTE, WOULD END WITH THE SAME RESULT: JUDGE GARLANDS NOMINATION FAILING TO GET APPROVAL.

However, what happens if the HEARINGS ARE HELD, AND A VOTE TAKEN, THAT DOES NOT OCCUR IF THE NOMINATION IS KILLED BY A REFUSAL TO FOLLOW PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES?

-  AN OPEN FORUM TO ASK JUDGE GARLAND QUESTIONS REGARDING HIS 

CAPABILITIES, ATTITUDES, AND BACKGROUND THAT WOULD SHED LIGHT ON HIS FITNESS IN FILLING THE VACANCY.  THIS WOULD REVEAL, TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, THE TYPE OF PERSON JUDGE GARLAND IS, AND WHAT HE REPRESENTS, MORALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY. 

-  THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE WHO APPROVE OF JUDGE GARLAND, TO QUESTION AND PROBE THE REASONS GIVEN BY THOSE WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION. THIS WOULD REVEAL TO CONSTITUENTS THE REASONING BEHIND DENYING JUDGE GARLAND A SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT.

-  FINALLY, A VOTE, ON THE RECORD, THAT EACH SENATOR WOULD HAVE TO CAST, WITHOUT HIDING BEHIND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND OBSTRUCTIONIST TACTICS.

HOWEVER, THE REAL REASON MAY BE AN ATTEMPT TO SUBVERT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITIONS.

LOOK FOR THE NEXT POST.

Date-  5/6/2016.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: WHEN OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IGNORE REASON, EVERYONE SUFFERS. #2.

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

If we want to find the Most Probable Reasons for the REPUBLICAN PARTIES refusal to hold Hearings for JUDGE GARLANDS NOMINATION TO THE SUPREME COURT, WE MUST ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. By doing this, IT WILL NOT MATTER WHAT THE RESPONSES ARE, FOR WE WILL BE ABLE TO JUDGE THE VERACITY, AND CREDIBILITY OF THE ANSWERS GIVEN.

Here is What we know to be True.

1)  The SUPREME COURT CURRENTLY HAS ONLY 8 MEMBERS. THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE HIS DUTY ACCORDING TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND NOMINATED A CANDIDATE.

2)  The REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED SENATE HAS REFUSED TO HOLD HEARINGS THAT WOULD ALLOW QUESTIONING OF JUDGE GARLAND, REGARDING HIS CAPACITY TO FULFILL THE INTELLECTUAL AND MENTAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPOINTMENT. THIS WOULD ALLOW THE SENATE, AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THAT HE HAS, OR DOESN'T HAVE, THE REQUIRED TRAITS. 

(This Refusal is Contrary to any Reasonable Interpretation of the Wording Contained within the Constitution, and may force the President and other Members of the Senate to seek a Solution to overcome this Obstructionist Tactic. I have covered this part of the controversy in other posts, so I refer you to Them for more information.)

3)  There has never been a single case in U.S. History of the Senate not holding Hearings to question, and consider a Supreme Court Nominee. So, setting aside the Constitutional Question of failing to fulfill Their Oath, why are SENATE REPUBLICANS DOING THIS?

Let us consider the Answer that has been used from the Beginning:

THAT JUDGE GARLAND DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH SUPPORT TO PASS A  

NOMINATION VOTE.

Whether that is True or Not, means nothing if it is not a vote Taken within the 

BODY OF THE SENATE ITSELF.  Officially, answers given to the News Media

have no value.

However, let us Take This Conclusion of Lack of Support as True, and see what we have:

-  IF THIS IS SO, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LOSES NOTHING BY HOLDING THE HEARINGS, AND HAVING AN OFFICIAL VOTE. THE OUTCOME WOULD REMAIN THE SAME, BUT NOW THE ACCUSATION OF FAILING TO UPHOLD THEIR OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION WOULD DISAPPEAR.

-  FURTHER, THE SENATE, AND ALL OF ITS MEMBERS, WOULD BE ABLE TO EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS AND REASONS FOR NOT APPROVING JUDGE GARLAND. THIS WOULD AID THE PRESIDENT IN NOMINATING A MORE APPROPRIATE CANDIDATE.

-  IN THE END, IT WOULD ALLOW THE OPPOSITION AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION JUDGE GARLAND. THEY WOULD LISTEN TO, AND DRAW CONCLUSIONS FROM HIS ANSWERS, WHICH THEY COULD USE TO VALIDATE THEIR REJECTION OF HIS NOMINATION.

These seem to be perfectly reasonable, and I cannot see any possible objections,

if JUDGE GARLANDS LACK OF SUPPORT IS THE ANSWER FOR NOT HOLDING THE HEARINGS.

HOWEVER, WHAT IF THAT IS NOT THE CASE...?

Date-  4/24/2016.

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.

CONSUMER GUIDE TO AVOIDING SCAMS AND SCOUNDRELS. GOING ON A DIET? YOU CAN LOSE MORE THAN JUST WEIGHT. PT 3.

( This Post deals with U.S. Law.  Readers in other Countries should research similar legal guidelines within their own Criminal or Civil Codes of Law.)

Here is a tip that everyone should know, especially if their looking to start a new Diet and/or Exercise regimen.

How many times have you opened a Magazine, or turned on the T.V., and were greeted by ADs that said things like;

-  "The Ancient Weight loss secret."

-  "The Super Fruit that melts fat away."

-  "Drink the pounds away."

-  "The Diet THEY don't want you to know about."

"The secret of staying slim, used by HOLLYWOOD STARS, NOW AVAILABLE TO YOU."

Sound familiar?  How lucky we are to live in an era where Fitness and Weight loss are just a phone call away or,  just a trip to the Super Market.

However, have you ever looked closely at the bottom of the page or screen, and read the following:

 The statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.  This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Just a simple disclaimer right?  Wrong.  This is required to be placed in every single advertisement, by the Food and Drug Administration, for every product that CANNOT SUPPORT ANY OF THE CLAIMS OR STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE BODY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT.  THIS ALSO INCLUDES ANY ANECDOTAL TESTIMONY PROVIDED BY THOSE WHO "TESTED" THE PRODUCT.

To put it more bluntly, there is no reason to believe these products can do anything at all.  The secret of these products success, in sales, is to quickly get them before the public, with a slick marketing campaign that promises nothing of actual value, but encourages the consumer to act quickly.

Haven't you wondered why these "BREAKTHROUGH" PRODUCTS disappear after a number months.  It is simply that "WORD OF MOUTH" has spread, and the average consumer realizes that they do nothing of real value.  Often, they are gone for good, other times they are repackaged as "NEW AND IMPROVED" or "MAXIMUM STRENGTH."  Doesn't this imply that this "ADVANCED FORMULA", is the real deal, and previously the buyer had purchased and used an inferior product? 

However, there are even more "SALES STRATEGIES", that play on the gullibility

of a society desperate for the "EASY WAY OUT."

LOOK FOR PT 4.