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
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.
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
"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
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
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 Republicansincluding the current
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the
House Paul Ryanthe 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
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
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?