‘Forget about’ nominating a Supreme Court justice right now
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