QUICK HITTERS. POST #49. THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. PART 1.

(THIS IS PART 1 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.)

If there is one thing that is even Scarier than the U.S. SENATES LEADERSHIP REFUSING TO MEET WITH THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE, AND NOT EVEN DISCUSSING IT IN COMMITTEE, IS THE POWER THAT IS BEING HANDED TO ONE OR TWO POWER HUNGRY POLITICIANS.

CONSIDER THIS.

NOT ONLY IS THE PRESIDENTS CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION AND DUTY TO SELECT AND NOMINATE A SUCCESSOR TO THE COURT BEING IGNORED, BUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WANTS THE FUTURE OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM TO BE PLACED IN THE HANDS OF 1-2 SENATORS. 

THE SENATE LEADERSHIP WAS ELECTED TO REPRESENT THEIR HOME STATES. HOWEVER, THIS POLICY ALLOWS THEM TO IGNORE THOSE REPRESENTING THE OTHER 48 STATES, BY DENYING SENATORS FROM BOTH PARTIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE AND VOTE ON THE SELECTED PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE.  THE ONLY OPINION THEY CARE ABOUT, AND WILL ACT ON, IS THEIR OWN. 

ANY SENATOR THAT ALLOWS THIS TO GO UNCHALLENGED, HAS BETRAYED THEIR CONSTITUENTS IN FAVOR OF A DICTATORIAL POLICY THAT GRANTS OTHER STATES A POWER THEY HAVE NOT EARNED, AND DO NOT DESERVE. (THROUGH THE ELECTORAL PROCESS). 

THIS IS A CLEAR ABUSE OF POWER, AND AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTEMPT TO BYPASS THE ROLE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN THE SELECTION PROCESS.

SEE PART 2.

AUDIO/VIDEO POST. THE MYSTERIOUS WORLD- AMONG THE MISSING. PT 1. WHAT ARE WE LOOKING FOR?

FEATURE ARTICLES. LOOKING AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: APPOINTING A NEW MEMBER, WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY? PT 3.

"...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..."

This is the part of the U.S. CONSTITUTION THAT DIRECTLY AFFECTS HOW FUTURE APPOINTEES FOR CERTAIN GOVERNMENT POSITIONS ARE TO BE NOMINATED, AND APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED, FOR SAID POSITIONS.

There is no NEED FOR CONTROVERSY. THIS IS A DIRECT AND UNCOMPLICATED GUIDELINE, EXPLAINING HOW THE  PROCESS IS TO WORK. To Turn this into A POLITICAL DISCUSSION ABOUT WHICH TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL, WITH SPECIFIC BELIEFS, OPINIONS, AND A CERTAIN BACKGROUND SHOULD BE NOMINATED AND APPOINTED, MISSES THE POINT COMPLETELY.  The Who and Why don't Matter.

ONLY THE HOW.

The President of United States has the POWER, OR RESPONSIBILITY TO SELECT A NOMINEE, And No One Else, because it is a FUNCTION OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT.

Once this Done, the PROCESS MOVES ON TO THE SECOND STEP.

THIS STEP, "...Advice and Consent of the Senate,...."  

Is Very Specific, and REFERS TO THE "SENATE" NOT AS A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, OR A SELECT GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS, BUT AS A "BODY." THIS MEANS NO ONE SENATOR, OR SENATORS, HAS THE POWER TO DISREGARD WHAT ARE CLEARLY WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS, WHICH OBLIGATE THE SENATE TO ACT AS ONE FOR "...ADVICE AND CONSENT..." 

FOR ANY SENATOR(S) TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT OR POWER, TO PREVENT THE "BODY OF THE SENATE" FROM FULFILLING ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BY SAYING "WE JUST WON'T MEET TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION", IS GIVING THEMSELVES A POWER THAT IS NON-EXISTENT, AND IS CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

LOGIC. THE FALLACY OF ANSWERING THE UNASKED QUESTION. #1.

This could be considered a form of the FALLACY OF MISDIRECTION, BUT IS OFTEN USED TO ATTACK THOSE WHO EXPOSE, OR REVEAL THE WEAKNESSES THAT ARE PRESENT IN THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS BEING INTERVIEWED, QUESTIONED, OR DEBATED.

To illustrate this particular FALLACY, let us create an example from Politics:

"Mr. Candidate, your Opponent says that the Economic Policies that are part of your Campaign Platform will lead to Increased Taxation on the Middle Class, while allowing increased Tax Breaks for the Wealthiest 2%. Further, that your opposition to an increase in the Minimum Wage will drive even more Families into Poverty, Due to Recent Changes in the Consumer Price Index. How do you Respond?"

Answer- "It is Well Known that my Opponents Economic Policies are Anti- Business, and will lead to Many Corporations Seeking to move Operations to other Countries. It is this Attitude, that has made Corporate America Very Hesitant to back his Candidacy. We must find more ways to encourage the Private Sector to Invest More Capitol into New and Expanding Technologies."

How about this one from the World of Finance.

"You claim that your Business Model will create great profits for all Investors, but your Critics say that the Bottom Line Depends upon Recruiting New Individuals to Sign Up, so that Their Membership will inject New Money into a Fund to pay off the Older Investors. Is this so?"

Answer-  "When I first started my Company, attracting Initial Investors was Tough, because very few believed in my vision. However, for the Few who were Far-Sighted enough, an Investment of a Few Thousand Dollars has paid off more than Ten Fold. Don't Talk to my Critics, listen to Those who were here on the ground floor."

You can see the following:

While the Question is Direct, and asks for Specific Information,

the Answer Often:

-  HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING THAT WAS ASKED.

-  IS MEANINGLESS, BECAUSE IT IGNORES THE SUBJECT

MATTER CONTAINED IN THE QUESTION. 

-  IS VAGUE, AND BASICALLY AN OPINION THAT RELIES ON 

SUBJECTIVE ASSERTIONS THAT AVOID ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS.

-  APPEALS TO THE IRRATIONAL AND SELF- SERVING MEMBERS

OF THE AUDIENCE, WHO COULD CARE LESS ABOUT TRUTH, OR 

ACCURACY, BUT ARE LOOKING FOR EXCUSES TO JUSTIFY THEIR

SUPPORT FOR THE PERSON ANSWERING THE QUESTION.