SCOTUS Nominee
Last comment by Helphand 1 year, 11 months ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form

An open letter to Sens.Perdue and Isakson,

Dear Sirs:

I am greatly offended at your refusal to carry out the Constitutional duties each of you were elected to perform. Your stance that the American people need to have a voice in the next nominee is disingenuous. The American people exercised their voices four years ago. The political posturing and partisan bickering are not worthy of my legislators.

Judge Garland appears to be an excellent jurist. Moderate on issues and devoted to effective application of Constitutional principles. I would like to hear what he has to say in hearings. I would like even more to hear what types of questions the Senators ask him? Are they partisan and intended to disqualify him for a single viewpoint? Are they political and intended only to make the questioner look good to his or her constituents? Or do they reflect a concern for the American people and the need to have a full complement of justices on the Supreme Court?

Is this cowardice on the part of Senate Republicans? You still have the votes required to block confirmation so why this adamant position not to hold hearings? The immediate knee jerk reaction of the Republican presidential candidates and Sen McConnell should not hold sway. It is time for the Senate to uphold its responsibilities and hold hearings on Mr. Garland's nomination. What are you scared of?


Latest Activity: Mar 17, 2016 at 10:30 AM


Bookmark and Share
Forward This Blog
Print Blog
More Blogs by Bryant
Send Bryant a Message
Report Inappropriate Content


Blog has been viewed (1474) times.

Ironside commented on Thursday, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:51 PM

The Republicans are following the Joe Biden rule. You should have sent your letter to Joe Biden.

FrankCostanzasLawyer commented on Friday, Mar 18, 2016 at 08:24 AM

Ironside's right. Once someone else does something that's wrong, you should do it too and not rise above it and do the right thing.

Scindapsus commented on Friday, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:30 AM

I find it most odd that Ironside supports the notion that Joe Biden's opinion would supercede the Constitution!

In any case, as I'm sure he well knows, there is no such thing as "the Joe Biden rule." The Republicans have taken three sentences out of a 20-page speech made at the end of June, 1992, out of context. Biden made the observation (not a rule!) that when a President tried to appoint a justice in the last few months before a presidential election, he usually wasn't successful:

"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed. The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

Since when is "you should consider" the same thing as "you must"? And again, since when do you consider one man's opinion, which was never even put to the test, more important than the Constitution?

Ironside commented on Friday, Mar 18, 2016 at 15:43 PM

I love all the talk about the Constitution. However, the Left only invokes the Constitution when they can't get their way. The Republicans are not violating the Constitution nor was Biden. If both Republican and Democrat Presidents selected someone who kept their personal views out of the decisions that they make and simply followed the law and the Constitution, we would not be having this discussion. Biden used his argument to deny President Bush his nominee when the Democrats controlled the Senate. Now the tables are turned and the Democrats scream foul. This is politics and how it is played. This is why voting matters.The American people will resolve this issue at the polls in November. The next President will fill this seat.

spellbound commented on Friday, Mar 18, 2016 at 16:11 PM

Ironside: Biden's speech denied President Bush nothing. When he gave his speech, it was at the end of a Supreme Court session--when Justices who are considering retirement often announce. There was no opening at the time. I must "compliment" McConnell on his statement to the press WITHIN HOURS of Scalia's death. I don't think he showed much class there.

Scindapsus commented on Friday, Mar 18, 2016 at 17:48 PM

Exactly right, spellbound. Exactly wrong, Ironside. There were no Supreme Court openings during Bush's last year as president, so Biden couldn't possibly have done anything remotely comparable to what the Republicans in the Senate are (so far) doing.

Incidentally, the Constitution actually does say that the President shall nominate and appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, various public officials, including Supreme Court justices. Now do you interpret this to mean that according to the Constitution, the Senate has no obligation to provide said advice and consent?

Ironside commented on Friday, Mar 18, 2016 at 20:56 PM

You can thank your man for what is going on. Send your letter of complaint to him. P.S. read the Federalist Papers on this issue. The argument at that time was to have the people vote on each nominee, but was rejected because of the difficulty of national voting at the time. This is not a special vote by the people, only a required vote for the next president. When ever the people can have a say in the selection of these nine un-elected judges with the power to alter the lives of millions of Americans, that's a good thing. You will get your nominee only if Hillary wins the election. This will become the largest issue by the left to try and put some excitement in Democrats to turn out and vote, because Hillary brings no excitement to her campaign. Democrat voting in way down while Republican voting is way up.If she is such a shoe-in, what are you worried about?

Scindapsus commented on Saturday, Mar 19, 2016 at 00:08 AM

Not sure who "my man" would be; Obama? If so, what would my letter of complaint say?

"Dear President Obama, My conservative friends tell me that the people, who elected you president, only had a say in the various folks whom you nominated for your first three years, not in any nominees you would be making in the fourth year of your term. Conservatives make this claim with so much confidence that it must be true, logic be damned. Clearly, then, after three years you no longer have this Constitutional right or responsibility. So please stop pretending that the Senate is not doing their job!”

Bryant commented on Saturday, Mar 19, 2016 at 12:53 PM

Ironside, your claptrap truly wears thin, particularly when you have nothing meaningful to say. Both sides have plenty of blame to share in the current political climate and neither has the moral standing to say it is the others fault. But your wearying polemic does not address the issues I raised.

Judge Garland has excellent credentials and wide ranging experience. A jurist of his caliber deserves a hearing and an up and down vote by the Senate. The end.

Helphand commented on Sunday, Mar 20, 2016 at 07:11 AM

It is The Presidents Job and Duty to nominate a SCOTUS nominee, It is the senates Job and Duty to have hearings and vote on them. If This nominee is not the Constitutionalist we need vote him down and push for the President to Nominate someone who is. There is 34 Senate seats up for reelection. Queen Hilary may not be so kind and Republicans may not have the majority.


Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by Bryant
 
Nothing changes, yet
February 19, 2018
I originally posted this February 13, 2017. Today, February 18, 2018, nothing has changed. Our Senators remain tongue tied and Mr. Allen crows about actions which will increase our already crushing debt and endanger the health of rural Georgians. Our President remains a liar, concerned more with the failure of ...
Read More »
 
Financial quid pro quo?
January 25, 2018
The following is from International Business Times (www.ibtimes.com). If you believe Trump is looking out for the masses I encourage you to read this. Deutsch Bank was one of many players in the financial meltdown in 2008. And all you folks who complained why no one went to jail or ...
Read More »
 
Guns again, again
November 08, 2017
In case you missed it the first time: Texas, dead church goers, 30 round magazines, failure to report to FBI, and the beat goes on... I thought the time for gun control debate was after more than twenty innocent five and six year old children were killed in Sandy Hook ...
Read More »
 
Guns, again
October 05, 2017
I thought the time for gun control debate was after more than twenty innocent five and six year old children were killed in Sandy Hook using a military style assault weapon and a high capacity clip. I was wrong. And after Gabby Giffords was almost killed using a pistol with ...
Read More »
 
President Pinocchio
February 13, 2017
The following was sent to both Senators and Congressman Allen. I am extremely concerned about the current President's callous disregard for the separate but equal parts of our government. His crude, insulting comments about judges and members of the Congress who dare to disagree with him, not to mention members ...
Read More »
 
[View More Blogs...]





 
Powered by
Morris Technology