That's all, folks!

For all my Facebook friends who INSIST that Democrats are every bit as recalcitrant in their politics as the current Republican party, here is a simple fact - there is no record of any Dem saying at any time, in any century, that it is worth losing a Senate majority rather than to let a principle exercise his constitutional right & responsibility. 

Hey, understand - it's perfectly okay for the GOP to refuse so much as a hearing to any name President Obama puts forward to fill the SCOTUS seat left vacant by Justice Scalia's death.  That's not outrageous.  In politics, that's called "business as usual." 

When the popular blog, Outside the Beltway, writes, "If it were Ruth Bader Ginsburg who had suddenly passed away during the final year of a a Republican Presidency, there would be plenty of Democrats calling on the Senate to forego action on a nomination until a new President takes office," it makes total sense. I could fully understand any Republican saying that very thing.  But the party doesn't stop there - they don't want the president to even submit a name.

The Federalist, another popular blog, is 100% correct - there are countless examples of Democrats blocking conservative justice nominees for a range of federal benches.  But that is NOT what Republican leadership is demanding.  It's not simply that they don't want to give any name or any candidate, regardless of their voting record, so much as a single hearing.  They don't want the president to even submit a name.
  

 

The very popular conservative radio talk show host, Hugh Hewitt, originator of the gone-viral hashtag #nohearingsnovotes, threatens to vote for support the opposing Democrat of any GOP senator who doesn't go to the mat of refusing so much as a hearing to any Obama nominee - for him, it is worth losing the Senate majority rather than back down from the principle of... what?  Over the constitutional right of a sitting president to name someone to the SCOTUS bench when a seat is vacated?  My head is still spinning - he's willing to LOSE the Senate to Democrats over a constitutional principle that only exists in the fevered brain of a shocking number of Republicans.  And people find that rational?  Sheez...

The following two points will get no argument from me:

• The Republican-led Senate can refuse a hearing to any presidential nominee requiring its approval - totally within the Senate's constitutional rights.  

• The Senate Majority Leader can refuse to schedule a vote - again, totally within Sen. McConnell's constitutional rights.  

But to get bent out of shape over the president following his constitutional right & responsibility of putting a name forth for consideration?  

To say it's better for the GOP to lose the senate rather than to have so much as one Republican senator speak in favor of giving the name due consideration in the Senate Judicial Committee?    

Sorry, that sort of looney tunes thinking posturing demanding is only found in today's Grand Old Party.

Credits:

skepticalactor.com

kitchendebates.blogspot.com

heardcitizens.com

rampages.us