‘For­get about’ nom­i­nat­ing a Supreme Court jus­tice right now

Maryland Independent - - Community Forum -

This let­ter is in re­ply to the let­ter by the Rev. Charles Hof­facker that was pub­lished in the Mary­land In­de­pen­dent on Wed­nes­day, March 23 [“Senators vi­o­lat­ing Con­sti­tu­tion by re­fus­ing Supreme Court nom­i­nee hear­ings”].

Isn’t it amaz­ing to see Obama show­ing sud­den zeal in per­form­ing his Con­sti­tu­tional du­ties as well for those on the left? Here, I re­fer to the re­cent let­ter of the Rev. Charles Hof­facker’s con­cern about fill­ing the Scalia Supreme Court va­cancy. Al­low me for a mo­ment to give some back­ground to this man­u­fac­tured con­tro­versy.

The Demo­cratic Party now has more in com­mon with Karl Marx than with Thomas Jefferson, whom they once claimed as their founder. The left’s la­bels have evolved from “lib­eral,” to “pro­gres­sive”, to “so­cial­ist,” and we can make an ed­u­cated guess as to where they want to take this coun­try next. Hil­lary is be­ing shy about it, but Bernie not so much. If up to him our U.S.A. would be­come the U.S.S.A. to be oth­er­wise known as the United So­cial­ist States of Amer­ica and vaguely mod­eled af­ter the U.S.S.R. We are be­com­ing the gov­ern­ment our founders warned us about.

Let’s con­sider our rogue pres­i­dent Barack Hus­sein Obama. When has he ever demon­strated any con­cern for our coun­try’s Con­sti­tu­tion? He has vi­o­lated it at ev­ery op­por­tu­nity. Like any tyrant, he re­sents any re­stric­tion on his power and prefers rul­ing by edict, or in his case, by ma­nip­u­la­tive ex­ec­u­tive ac­tion. This brings us back to the orig­i­nal sub­ject of the Supreme Court va­cancy and Obama’s mo­tive and in­ter­est in de­ter­min­ing its out­come. His trans­par­ent goal is to em­power the Supreme Court to be­come a su­per leg­isla­tive body so that it can ul­ti­mately dis­pense with the Con­sti­tu­tion and the Bill of Rights. He sim­ply does this by fill­ing the va­cancy by in­stalling one more left lean­ing judge.

Now let’s re­turn to Hof­facker’s let­ter. If the rev­erend wants to take is­sue with Se­nate rules maybe he’d like to study the ca­reer moves made by Harry Reid while act­ing as Se­nate leader. Senators Joe Bi­den and Chuck Schumer ar­gued that Supreme Counrt nom­i­nees should not be made dur­ing the last year to year and a half of a pres­i­dent’s last term. So where was the rev­erend’s in­dig­nant let­ter to the edi­tor about their pro­pos­als?

The rev­erend quotes Ar­ti­cle II, Sec­tion 2, of the Con­sti­tu­tion re­gard­ing the Supreme Court con­fir­ma­tion pro­ce­dure. He writes, “There is no elec­tion year ex­emp­tion to his re­quire­ment.” True. How­ever, nei­ther is there one mak­ing it manda­tory. In fact, the Con­sti­tu­tion is silent in es­tab­lish­ing a time­frame in com­plet­ing the ap­point­ment process. Yes, the pres­i­dent has the right to ap­point Supreme Court jus­tices with the ad­vice and con­sent of the Se­nate. Re­s­tat- ed, the pres­i­dent has the right to nom­i­nate Supreme Court jus­tices and the Se­nate has the right to ad­vise the pres­i­dent be­fore con­sent­ing to its agree­ment. Both sides are agreed that this par­tic­u­lar Supreme Court se­lec­tion is of para­mount im­por­tance be­cause it di­rectly im­pacts the crit­i­cal bal­ance of power of the court. Given that the very life of the Con­sti­tu­tion and the Bill of Rights hangs in the bal­ance, should a mod­er­ate to lib­eral Supreme Counrt jus­tice be cho­sen, the Se­nate has ev­ery right, and a duty, to ad­vise that the process be post­poned un­til this elec­tion is de­cided, so that it can prop­erly de­lib­er­ate on this de­ci­sion. The Se­nate needs to be clear that it will not tol­er­ate be­ing stam­peded or co­erced into mak­ing a wrong ap­point­ment.

Per­son­ally, I’m en­cour­aged that the Repub­li­can Party has fi­nally de­vel­oped a spine and told this pres­i­dent and his co-harts to pack sand and my fer­vent hope is that they stand strong in de­fend­ing what lit­tle re­mains of our rights as pro­tected by our Con­sti­tu­tion. Obama’s fa­mous ut­ter­ance that “Elec­tions have con­se­quences” may be ap­plied here. So what is the les­son this teach­able mo­ment con­veys to our newly con­verted cham­pi­ons of the Con­sti­tu­tion? Sim­ply this: Stop your whin­ing, do not rush the process, and in the words of The So­pra­nos, “for­get about it.”

Mike Turner, La Plata

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.