So I’m guessing that Barry might have picked up a
few pointers from the Castro Boys during his recent stopover in Cuba. You see since his efforts to pressure Senate
Republicans to confirm Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court seem
to be coming up empty, at least for now, liberal White House allies have become
quite busy in floating a trial balloon of installing Garland on the Supreme
Court without Senate confirmation.
All of the recent Democrat bluster about being able
to break Republican resolve over Barry’s Supreme Court pick seem to have been,
for the most part, all for naught. White House allies spent millions of dollars
and made a full-court press for three weeks, which perennial Democrat asshole
Chuckie Schumer had confidently claimed would break Senate Republicans and
force confirmation of Garland. So far the
Republicans have manages to hold firm.
In fact, the Democrats’ efforts have fallen so flat
that liberal newspapers have had no choice by to publish statements such as
“Senate Republicans hold fast against Garland after two weeks of Democratic
fury” (Washington Post), “On blocking SCOTUS pick, GOP estab’t &
anti-estab’t conservative groups are united” (New York Times), “Prospects for
Garland dwindle as two GOP senators revoke support for hearings,” (New York
Times), “Meetings but no movement on Garland nomination,” (Roll Call).
However, that being said there has now been close to
a dozen or so Republican senators who are either scheduled to have, or already
have had, one-on-one meetings with Garland.
But with only two exceptions, these senators remain fully committed to
not voting on the Supreme Court nominee and said they will explain that
position to Garland during their meetings.
Frankly I’m rather shocked, I would have thought that many more would
have already wilted under the pressure.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley
is meeting with Garland for breakfast—for the sole purpose of explaining to the
nominee face-to-face that Grassley will not hold a single hearing on his
nomination or allow a committee vote, because Grassley has concluded that,
pursuant to the Biden Rule first announced by Joe Biden in 1992, the next
president should fill the seat left vacant by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death.
And it was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who
told Hugh Hewitt on radio that Grassley had been “the Rock of Gibraltar” on
sticking to his position that, as chairman, Grassley would not schedule any
hearings or votes on Barry’s nomination.
McConnell has said that he, too, will follow the Biden Rule, under which
Supreme Court nominations made during a presidential election year should not
be acted upon until after the election is over.
But history tells to watch out for McConnell.
Republican senators in tough reelection fights such
as Rob Portman, Ron Johnson, Kelly Ayotte, Pat Toomey have all said they would
privately meet with Garland, and explicitly affirmed, then reaffirmed, their
support for Grassley’s decision not to have any committee hearings or votes, as
well as McConnell’s decision not to allow any action on the Senate floor on
Garland’s nomination. But you can never
trust that what is being said out in the open is what’s being said behind
closed doors.
Even the most blatant of RINOs, Lindsay Graham,
seems to have, at least thus far, held the line. It was Graham’s spokesman, Kevin Bishop, who
had stated in a public email that: “Senator Graham remains opposed to moving
forward with the Garland nomination.”
And he went on to say, “He continues to believe the next president
should pick the next nominee for the Supreme Court.” But look, Graham hasn’t exactly got the
reputation for having a spine.
And then, it was just last week that Barry returned
to the University of Chicago where years ago he was a lecturer, and not a professor,
as some outlets have been misreporting (Barry never published a single piece of
legal scholarship, nor did he ever hold a tenure-track professorship). And it
was there that he again lectured the law students, condemning Republicans’
refusal to vote on Garland’s nomination, alleging that “our democracy can’t
afford that.”
Yet it would seem that back in 2005 and 2006 our
democracy was, in fact, more than able to afford that as then-Senator Barry
“Almighty” chose to filibuster President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees,
including trying to keep the Senate from voting on the Supreme Court nomination
of Samuel Alito. The Senate finally confirmed Alito in January 2006, overcoming
Barry’s efforts to block that confirmation vote. But, as they say in politics, that was then
and this is now.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) responded to
Barry’s lecture last week, condemning Barry’s blatant hypocrisy with a press
release entitled, “Obama’s Real Message Today: I Was a Phony Then, Not
Now.” Meanwhile, increasingly desperate
to take control of the Scalia seat, Democrats are now resorting to some rather
extreme, and rather unorthodox legal arguments to say the least. Democrats can be quite creative when
searching out ways to circumvent the Constitution.
The group Common Cause is what is frequently
referred to as being a stridently liberal ‘advocacy’ group. And it is one of its board members, some kook
by the name of Gregory Diskant, who is now arguing that the Constitution
empowers Barry to appoint Garland to the High Court without any vote in the
U.S. Senate. It’s amazing what liberals
can find written between the lines when we have a Democrat in the White House
that is nonexistent when a Republican is in the Oval Office.
So it is then that despite the fact that for the
last 227 years, each of the 112 justices to serve on the Supreme Court—along
with thousands of federal judges on the lower courts—was confirmed by a vote of
the Senate as the exclusive means by which the Senate exercises its power of
“advice and consent.” But according to a
Washington Post op-ed authored by Diskant, the Appointments Clause of the
Constitution grants the president two separate powers, one to “nominate,” and
the other to “appoint.”
So I’m guess he’s attempting to make the point here that
such a vote is not really needed, that it’s nothing but a formality that we
could easily live without. Diskant
claims that when the Senate does not vote up or down on a judicial nominee for
a “reasonable amount of time,” which Diskant believes for some conveniently
arbitrary reason to be 90 days, “It is altogether proper to view a decision by
the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent.”
So long as the Senate was given a “reasonable
opportunity to provide advice and consent,” Diskant argues that senators
forfeit their constitutional power, allowing Barry to unilaterally appoint
Garland to a lifetime position on the nation’s highest court. Diskant assures readers that this tectonic
shift in constitutional power “should not be viewed as a constitutional
crisis,” and is instead merely a “healthy dispute between the president and the
Senate about the meaning of the Constitution.”
Although such a thing has never once happened in the
history of the United States, Diskant again assures readers that, “This kind of
thing has happened before.” However he neglects to provide any relevant
examples. That would only be, of course,
because there are no examples that can be provided, relevant or otherwise. This guy is doing little more than grasping
at straws out of what is nothing more than desire to slant the court sharply to
the left for, what could be, decades.
While it is plausible to regard his op-ed as the
radical position of a single lawyer—who cleverly tries to mask this extreme
argument by saying at the outset only that “it is possible to read” the
Appointments Clause this way, not that it must be read this way—there is a
serious possibility that he is floating a trial balloon for the White House,
gauging the public’s willingness to accept such a fundamental change in the
Constitution’s separation of powers and system of checks and balances.
It’s this argument that is strikingly similar to
Barry’s argument regarding his own recess-appointment power. He argued before
the Supreme Court he has power to fill vacancies during recesses of the Senate,
including those for federal courts, any time there is not a sufficient number
of senators on the Senate floor. Going
by Barry’s argument it’s on any night at 3AM, he could set his alarm to wake
up, and fill any vacancy among senior executive-branch positions, or any
federal court.
In NLRB v. Noel Canning, the Supreme Court in 2014
unanimously rejected Barry’s position with a 9-0 ruling. The Court held that
the power to appoint is jointly held by the president and the Senate. Only the
president can put forward a name, and only the Senate can install that nominee
in office. It would appear that Barry may
once again be considering going that route yet again. The lawlessness of this president would seem
to know no bounds.
Let’s face it, if what we had now was a white guy
trying to pull the type of maneuvers that we have seen coming for our first
black president, he would likely have been impeached long ago. But as we all know, along with Barry’s race
comes a certain level immunity against such an act. Frankly I’m sure if there’s anything that
Barry could do that would earn for him what he so richly deserves. Because you can't simply cannot impeach the
first Black President, I thought everyone knew that.
It doesn’t matter how many laws he breaks, how bad
of a job he does, or how many lies he tells, because he is the first black
president he has the equivalent of a get out of jail free card. You have to
learn that lying, stealing, and breaking laws are a cultural attribute, so
punishing somebody for their culture is un-American. Even suggesting impeaching
Barry should get the police investigating you and whatever career you have
should be destroyed.
No comments:
Post a Comment