THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. PART 4 of 4.

(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.)

WHAT DID WE END UP WITH? 

THE DEMOCRATS GIVING UP WITHOUT A FIGHT, AND DONALD TRUMP FILLING 2 SEATS 

ON THE SUPREME COURT.

REMEMBER THAT...

n the End, the IMPLICATIONS OF NOT ALLOWING A SENATE HEARING FOR A PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE GOES EVEN DEEPER THAN MANY THINK, BUT I BELIEVE 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?

THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. PART 3 of 4.

(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 DID WE END UP WITH? 

THE DEMOCRATS GIVING UP WITHOUT A FIGHT, AND DONALD TRUMP FILLING 2 SEATS 

ON THE SUPREME COURT.

REMEMBER THAT...

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 PRESCRIBED 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?"

THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. PART 2 of 4.

 

(THIS IS PART 2 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 DID WE END UP WITH? 

THE DEMOCRATS GIVING UP WITHOUT A FIGHT, AND DONALD TRUMP FILLING 2 SEATS 

ON THE SUPREME COURT.

REMEMBER THAT...

WITH PRESIDENT OBAMAS SELECTION OF CHIEF JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND, A HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND VERY CAPABLE CANDIDATE WHO CANNOT REASONABLY BE CONSIDERED TO FALL AT EITHER END OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, THE CLOCK IS NOW TICKING FOR THE U.S. SENATE TO NOW FOLLOW ITS OATH OF OFFICE TO "SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION."

CONSIDER THE IMPLICATIONS IF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY STILL REFUSES TO HONOR THEIR DUTY TO THE PEOPLE OF THE U.S.

#1-  IF THIS IS ALLOWED TO STAND, IS THE DOCUMENT NOW A "PICK AND CHOOSE" PIECE OF PAPER, THAT PERMITS A "FOLLOWING ITS DIRECTIONS IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT" MENTALITY, WHERE OBEYING THE GUIDELINES AND INSTRUCTIONS WRITTEN INTO THE BODY OF THE DOCUMENT ARE NO LONGER COMPULSORY?

IN OTHER WORDS-  THESE DIRECTIVES ARE NO LONGER UNIVERSAL, EQUALLY APPLIED TO EVERYONE IN EVERY CASE.  THEY NOW BECOME CONTINGENT UPON THE PERSONAL WHIMS, PREJUDICES, AND SELF-INTERESTS OF ANY POLITICIAN OR ELECTED OFFICIAL.

ONE OF THE STRENGTHS, AND ENDURING LEGACIES OF THE CONSTITUTION IS ITS SYSTEM OF "CHECKS AND BALANCES."  NONE OF THE THREE PARTS OF GOVERNMENT:

EXECUTIVE.

LEGISLATIVE.

JUDICIAL.

...WOULD HAVE UNCHALLENGED AUTHORITY OVER ANY PART OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM. HOWEVER, BY DISREGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP IS DESTROYING THE VERY FABRIC OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM. THEY WILL HAVE USURPED THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT, BY REFUSING TO MEET AND CONSIDER HIS NOMINEE.

If this sounds good to you, RESEARCH THE WORD "OLIGARCHY", AND GET 

USE TO IT.

SEE PART 3.

THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. PART 1 of 4.

(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.)

WHAT DID WE END UP WITH? 

THE DEMOCRATS GIVING UP WITHOUT A FIGHT, AND DONALD TRUMP FILLING 2 SEATS 
ON THE SUPREME COURT.

REMEMBER THAT...

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.