Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Facebook Members Weigh in on Whether or Not President Obama Has A Duty, A Right to Appoint Justice Scalia's Replacement.

We, members of Facebook use many forms of communication to exchange information, ideas or news, i.e. humor, quotes, headlines, petitions, articles, videos, images, opinions, etc. to convey what we feel and believe to be reality. In fact, my first morning task (after coffee) is to open Facebook and view the posts of the day from the people I respect. (It really does make my day and yes, I do have a life.)
Today's posts opined the President's right to pick a Supreme Court Judge to replace Antonin Scalia who recently died. The party of NO, NO, NO are out in force trying to make us believe Barack Obama does not qualify for this constitutional right, even though he is our President and will be so until January 2017.
The appointment and confirmation of Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States involves several steps set forth by the United States Constitution, which have been further refined and developed by decades of tradition. Justices are appointed by the President of the United States, and must be confirmed by the United States Senate. This is done following a series of hearings in which both the nominee and other witnesses make statements and answer questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirm
Somehow, this party of spoiled brats has managed too often, to get what they want even if it is bad for the country. They believe it's their prerogative, their entitlement to have it their way or the highway.
Well, THIS TIME, you can stomp your feet, hold your breath and turn blue, while screaming NO, NO, NO but THIS TIME, dear GOP children in grownup bodies, THIS TIME, your success, using this worn-out and infantile manipulation will elude you.
ONE CAN ONLY HOPE... thinkingblue
Another Facebook Member Posts This:

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."
~ Sen. Mitch McConnell KY

"I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate."
~ Sen. Ron Johnson WI

"We're in the midst of a consequential presidential election year, and Americans deserve an opportunity to weigh in given the significant implications this nomination could have for the Supreme Court and our country for decades to come. I believe the Senate should not move forward with the confirmation process until the American people have spoken by electing a new president."
~ Sen. Kelly Ayotte NH
~~~~
Notice what all three of those statements have in common (other than 'hell no')? They all appeal to We the People to decide on Scalia's replacement. It's right there in black & white. "The American people should decide." Someone, most likely Frank Luntz, the GOP's author of Wordsmithing for Dummies, came up with this strategy. The hope being, it psychologically insulates the party dingbats from criticism, while on its face, ostensibly tries to involve the other 320M of us in the peanut gallery as players in this game.
BREAKING NEWS America: The President of the United States ALWAYS appoints Supreme Court Justices, not you and me, and the Senate ALWAYS presides over the confirmation process. Nobody else. Not one thing you, me or anyone else can say or do will change that, and it's bullshit to suggest that the public will suddenly be called upon to settle this.
If you'll recall, there was an event around three years ago, where We the People were given a chance to decide... It was called the 2012 General Election. And with 5M more votes than were garnered by Mitt Romney, the American People empowered Barack Obama to carry out the duty of appointing new Justices; as is detailed in the U.S. Constitution.
But this bulwark is nothing new. It's just the latest attempt by Luntz & Co. to brainwash the terminally stupid into thinking they actually mean something to the Party of No, other than a vote for oligarchy.
In my 6.4 decades on this planet, I've never seen anything quite like the past .7. This President since literally Day One of his administration, has been treated like the bastard child who showed up at Thanksgiving dinner. Even as he was being sworn in on Abraham Lincoln's Bible seven years ago last month, Frank Luntz himself convened a conference with several other high-ranking Republicans—including the current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan—the agenda of which, was to plot a course of obstruction for the duration of the Obama presidency. And true to their resolve, that's exactly what they've done. Said one attendee later; "If he (Obama) was for it, we had to be against it. Even if we were privately in favor of it."
These same (all white) men later went on to try to scuttle an international effort to rein in Iran's nuclear program by sending a letter to Iran's Supreme Leader, informing him that President Obama's a short-timer, and that they don't stand with their President. Then adding insult to injury, they invited the Rottweiler of Tel Aviv to come and speak against the President... again, to SPEAK AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, from the well of the People's House. And these same people consider themselves "patriots."
Why this level of animus? Has Barack Obama really been such a divisive figure that he should be treated with such outright contempt? Does he lose his cool and throw tantrums when things don't go his way as John McCain does? Is he a smug, sarcastic jackass at press conferences as his predecessor was? Is he arrogant and condescending as Mitt Romney was three years ago? No. He's the most likable, even-tempered and reasonable politician I've ever seen in my life. A lesser man would have lost his cool long ago.
Considering the absolute phalanx of resistance he's had to endure, it just seems like it might have to do with something other than pure politics. Something unspoken. Something inherent. Something unique. So what is it about Barack Obama that makes him SO detestable in the eyes of the GOP that they'd treat him with such disrespect? Something worthy of stalling a Constitutional obligation until he's gone? That is UNPRECEDENTED.
There must be something about him personally that repulses them that didn't apply to the previous 43 Presidents of the United States. Gosh... I wonder what it might be?

posted by thinkingblue at 9:00 AM