I always like a good turn of phrase even if, at times, it is pointed at me. Clever is clever and others doing the nice wordsmithing work is fun to see. The Internet has given a lot of people a new avenue for either a pointed message or hilarious ones. Bring’em on!
But given the meme above, in this closed mixed-politics group, there’s always a grouch with a grudge to bear, so on with the Doodling:
Ann, so how do.we remedy the denial of the Republicans to hold hearings for Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland? He had 8 months left in office (President Obama) at the time and Mitch said it was too close to the next election. Personally, I do believe Trump has a right to nominate someone right now, exactly because of RBG’s logic that he is still officially President at this point but before we put forth a new nominee under that rule we need to remedy the wrong from 2016.
Do these kinds of folks ever read the plain text of the Constitution before blithely grudging away? At least M.N got the point that Trump is still President and there is that word “shall” in the Constitution. A word that means he has no choice in the matter – he MUST put forward a nominee. Just like Obama did with Garland.
And then doesn’t go the next step in actually knowing what’s in the Constitution:
The Constitution says “Advice and Consent of the Senate”. That can either be by a positive action (hearing, votes) and arriving at either a yes or no vote. Or, given that the Constitution has said that the Senate can make its own rules, and as duly elected by the Senate, the Senate Leader has the Power to set the calendar that sets no hearings at all.
Like it or not, that is a form of Advice and Consent – a negative one. One that says we don’t like this candidate. And it is perfectly legal.
A “null” answer is still an answer – one that means No.
I’ve listened to Democrats whining about “what about Garland and not vote???” until my ears have started to bleed. And I’ve noticed that the word “Precedent” is forever coming up from the DC Swampers and the pundits that opine about it.
Ditto about legal “precedents”; it’s the same with “guidelines” nowadays in that both seem to be able to trump any law or Article of the Constitution. They’ve gotten into their pin-headed minds that what was done before now MUST be followed again.
Nonsense on a stick. Government operates (or should) on Law, not just what some people decided. What was done in Garland’s case was a political power play. Perfectly legal, too – the “null” answer above. All made possible by the former Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry “One Eye” Reid, who killed off the filibuster rule when it came to handling judicial nominees. The Democrats nuked that rule so that THEY could do power plays.
Now they’re kvetching because the Repubs have finally gained some backbone and brass ones to finally say “hey, we can play this game too” and following Conan’s admonition:
“To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.”
Doing nothing is perfectly acceptable. In fact, in a lot of times, I wish that our elected representatives would realize that “doing nothing” is perfectly acceptable – and that “null” action should be employed more.
Let We the People figure things out – after all, those elected representatives do not have any kind of Divine Knowledge from Heaven simply because they won a political election – the only people who have a monopoly on good ideas are those that have good ideas.
And for a Government that was instituted to protect our Liberties, many have proven, with their legislation and votes, that they wouldn’t know what a good idea was it if bit them in their (often ponderous) butts.
Remember, every law that is passed, by definition, removes a slice of liberty from each of us.