It seems republican voters have voiced their opinion on the nomination.

Will the republicans in Washington that they elected listen to them?

http://news.yahoo.com/even-republican-voters-want-gop-162300417.html

Or not . . . I'll say they won't let the voters' opinions get in the way of their partisan politics.

Do you think Mitch McConnell is being insincere in his reasoning behind blocking any nomination to the Supreme Court? The Miami Herald editorial board sure thinks so:


Sen. McConnell is a liar — and not a very good one, at that

A few words about the pious insincerity of Mitch McConnell.

As you are no doubt aware, McConnell, the Senate majority leader, announced on the very day that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died that he would refuse to hold hearings on any replacement nominated by President Obama. McConnell’s “reasoning,” if you want to grace it with that word, was that since the president has less than a year left in his term, the appointment should be made by whomever the American people choose as his successor.

Last week, after Obama fulfilled his constitutional duty by nominating respected federal judge Merrick Garland to the post, McConnell renewed his refusal. “The Biden rule,” he said, “reminds us that the decision the Senate announced weeks ago remains about a principle and not a person. It seems clear that President Obama made this nomination not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election.”

President Obama nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court. He called Garland "one of America's sharpest legal minds." Garland is Obama's pick to fill the vacant seat left after Justice Antonin Scalia died.

The American people, added McConnell, should have a say in this. “So let’s give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide.”

There are four lies here, each more threadbare and cynical than the last:

1. The Biden rule? There is no such thing. There is only an opinion Vice President Biden expressed 24 years ago as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that if a vacancy opened on the top court during convention season — which is still several months off — the president should “consider” not nominating a replacement until after the election. It bears repeating: Biden never said the president should not nominate or the Senate should not vote; he only suggested waiting until “after the election” to do so.

2. It’s the president who’s politicizing this? In psychology, that’s known as “projecting.” Around the way, it’s known as the pot calling the kettle black.

3, “A principle and not a person?” No, it’s about a person — the same person, the president — toward whom McConnell and his party have expressed such unremitting disrespect the last seven years.

4. The voice of the people? The people have already spoken — twice — in elections that were not close. For that matter, they are still speaking. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll says 63 percent of us want the Senate to hold hearings and vote.

McConnell should just claim he’s too busy arranging his sock drawer. That would be more credible than the excuses he’s given.

The quality of a lie is a direct reflection of the respect the liar has for the person being lied to.

That will seem counter intuitive, but consider: You put effort into a lie, work to make it plausible, credible, believable, when you have regard for the recipient, when his good opinion matters or his discovery of the truth would be disastrous.

That being the case, what does it suggest when you put as little effort into a lie as McConnell has?

Indeed, while he has been roundly condemned for disrespecting the president, let’s spare some outrage for the way he is also disrespecting us. Not just in failing to do his job, but also in offering such a transparently dishonest rationale for it.

He knows he’s lying, you know he’s lying and he knows you know he’s lying. But you get the sense he doesn’t care. Why should he? Those who need to believe there’s a noble principle behind this obstructionism will be willingly gulled. As to the rest of us, so what?

That’s not statesmanship. It is not even politics. It’s just contempt — and not only for the president. If we cannot count on McConnell and his party to do the country’s business and behave in a manner befitting serious people in positions of responsibility, perhaps it’s not too much to ask that they at least spare us that.

Tell better lies next time.

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article67628897.html?ref=yfp

Last edited by Rongone (3/23/2016 9:23 am)

Here is Senator Toomey's response to my letter questioning why he initially refused to meet with Judge Garland or take any action on this nomination. From my perspective, this was merely the filing cabinet approved political paper on the party position. I followed up on his response with my reply which follows his letter.


Dear Mr.
Thank you for contacting me about the Supreme Court. I appreciate hearing from you.
As you know, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away on February 13, 2016. He was a great public servant, principled jurist, and tireless defender of the Constitution. My prayers are with Justice Scalia's family during these difficult times.
With Justice Scalia's passing, there has been much discussion about how the nomination process for this vacancy should be addressed. For me, I have long believed that objective qualifications, character, and adherence to the rule of law matter more than ideology in evaluating judicial nominees. Accordingly, during my five years in the Senate, I have worked across the aisle with Senator Bob Casey and the Obama White House to fill 16 vacancies on the federal bench in Pennsylvania-14 on district courts and two on the court of appeals. Only two other states-California and New York-have had more vacancies filled during this time. I also have voted to confirm over 100 of President Obama's judicial nominees, and I supported the confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
The current vacancy on the Supreme Court, however, presents an unusual situation. In the final year of a presidency, it is extremely rare for vacancies that arise on the Supreme Court to be filled. In fact, the last time such a vacancy was filled was 1932. The vacancy created by Justice Scalia's passing is especially sensitive because it will fundamentally affect the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation or more.
Given that we are already well into the presidential election process and that the Supreme Court appointment is for a lifetime, it makes sense to give the American people a more direct say in this critical decision. I believe that the next court appointment should be made after the upcoming elections by the next president. If that new president is not a member of my party, I will take the same objective, non-partisan approach to that nominee as I have always done.
Under the Constitution, the power to appoint federal judges is a shared one. The Constitution vests the president with the power to nominate judges, and President Obama certainly has the authority to nominate someone to the Supreme Court. The Constitution vests the Senate with the power to grant or withhold its consent to a nomination. It does not require the Senate to provide any particular process or follow any particular timeframe when considering a nominee. In fact, Vice President Joe Biden and other prominent Democrats have argued that the Senate should exercise its constitutional power to withhold consent for Supreme Court nominations made during presidential election years, and that such nominees should not be confirmed by the Senate or receive a hearing. I believe this approach is as sensible now as it has been during previous presidential elections.
On March 16, 2016, President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to serve as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. The White House's team asked if I would meet with Judge Merrick Garland, and I have agreed to do so out of courtesy and respect for both the President and the judge.
Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Pat Toomey
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania


My reply to his above letter:


Mr. Toomey,

Your response is basically your party approved partisan rhetoric.

Exactly how long does it take for a person of your vast resources to objectively "consider qualifications, character, and adherence to the rule of law" of a nominee? If, as you contend, those characteristics are more important than "ideology in evaluating judicial nominees" the consideration of Judge Garland's nomination and his qualifications for performing the prescribed duties should be more than a "courtesy" meeting on your part.

The judicial branch of the federal government is supposed to be free of and above petty partisan politics. The antics employed by republicans to ignore their constitutional duties have already resulted in 4 - 4 ties in SCOTUS decisions. The excuses for not properly handling this nomination are constitutionally weak or non-existent. Once again, I implore you to put politics aside and engage in collaboration, cooperation, and compromise to perform your duties for the benefit of the majority of Americans. In this particular case it is clear that the vast majority of Americans, regardless of party affiliation, expect their elected representatives to do their jobs, consider the nomination and vote on Judge Garland's appointment ASAP. If you do nothing, it is at your own peril with your re-election looming. With this type of inaction accompanied by purely partisan political rhetoric that earns you and your colleagues an approval rating of less than 12%.

I am a registered independent, veteran of the U.S. Navy, and retired small businessman.

Last edited by Rongone (4/09/2016 2:19 pm)