This page was last updated on August 15, 2016.
Senate Republicans refuse to do their jobs; Jonas Rushman; Beaver County Times; July 31, 2016.
This is the 13th letter since 2004 I’ve noticed from Mr. Rushman (JR), though it’s the first in over five years. In addition to being a consistent Bush basher, two of those letters claimed there is no liberal bias in the media and that “Fahrenheit 9/11” is a good source of documented facts. In a 2008 letter, Mr. Rushman told us “We have become the USSR.” The 2009 Rushman letter was “Hold right-wing pundits responsible.” The last Rushman letter I reviewed was “Republicans remain Wall Street lapdogs.”
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“For some unknown reason, the Democrats are giving a free pass to the Senate Republicans refusing to hold a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.”
[RWC] If “the Democrats are giving a free pass …,” perhaps it’s because then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) proposed doing the same thing in 1992 should the opportunity arise.
I don’t like the idea either. That said, leftists look at the Supreme Court as another way to enact policies they like and shoot down policies they don’t. Those non-leftists among us also must face the facts. Known leftist nominees always remain lefties as justices. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for non-lefty nominees.
According to lefty Jeff Greenfield, “Starting with [President John] Kennedy’s second appointment, every justice named by a Democrat has been a reliably liberal vote. From Arthur Goldberg to Elena Kagan, these justices have reflected the essential ‘judicial liberal’ consensus.”
And Republican appointees? “Richard Nixon made the Court’s liberalism a campaign issue in 1968; but one of his appointees, Harry Blackmun, became one of the most liberal justices ever.” Ronald Reagan appointees Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy became “swing justices.” Though President George H.W. Bush’s pick of Clarence Thomas was excellent, David Souter ended up in the leftist bloc. I generally liked Chief Justice John Roberts, but he twisted himself into a pretzel to rule the obviously unconstitutional Obamacare was constitutional, not just once, but twice (here and here).
When the Supreme Court ruled (Kelo v. City of New London) eminent domain can be used to take one person’s property and give it to another person, two of the justices (Kennedy and Souter) appointed by Republican presidents voted with the lefty bloc to expand the Fifth Amendment’s taking clause (“No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”). In this specific case, the city of New London, CT, took private property and wanted to sell it to a developer because it would increase tax revenue. In case you’re wondering, the taken neighborhood was not “blighted.” Incredibly, the story got worse. In a “gee, who saw that coming” moment, the redevelopment never happened and, as of 2015, the one-time neighborhood is a vacant, weed-covered lot.
I don’t want Democrat or Republican judges. I want judges who will interpret law based on what the law says, not what they want it to say. If necessary, the intent of the legislators can be included to deal with legitimate – not manufactured - ambiguity. If we constantly reinterpret laws based on current politics, those laws mean nothing.
“Although he has been praised by Senate members on both sides of the aisle, they steadfastly refuse to even consider his nomination out of pure political partisanship. It is their sworn Constitutional duty to vote on the president’s nominee. Therefore, since they are refusing to execute the duties of the office to which they have been elected, they should be recalled immediately.”
[RWC] “pure political partisanship?” Absolutely, and that includes President Obama. Mr. Garland may be a good guy, but does anyone think Mr. Obama would appoint someone unless he was absolutely sure the appointee would vote with “the essential ‘judicial liberal’ consensus.”
No, “It is [NOT] their sworn Constitutional duty to vote on the president’s nominee.” The “advice and consent” clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) says, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; 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, …” Nowhere does the Constitution say the Senate must act on a nominee or specify the form of the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” if it chooses to act on a nominee. Further, the Constitution does not say the President must complete the process and appoint a nominee approved by the Senate.
I didn’t see JR complain when House Democrats staged a sit-in in June or in 2011 when Indiana and Wisconsin Democrat legislators fled their states so their legislatures could not vote on bills the Democrats didn’t like.
“I can imagine how fast I would be in the unemployment line had I told my boss, ‘I am refusing to do my job because I don’t like you.’ If Hillary Clinton wins, are they going to wait until 2020 to start doing their job?”
[RWC] No.
© 2004-2016 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.