Resist

Resist

Monday, February 15, 2016

Why do Republicans hate the Constitution?


One of Justice's Scalia's bedrock principles was following his interpretation of the original intent of the Constitution. Conservatives who follow this idea call themselves strict constructionists and frequently accuse liberal judge's of "legislating from the bench". Of course, this is all nonsense, because the framers of the Constitution would have nothing to say about abortion, or net neutrality, or even civil rights (considering that slavery was in the Constitution).

But, okay, you're a conservative and you're for following the strict text of the Constitution.  Here's what the Constitution says about putting people on the Supreme Court:
[The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: 
The President shall nominate.

It doesn't say, The President shall nominate unless he's in the last year of his term.

It doesn't say, The President shall nominate unless Congress is controlled by the other party.

If you claim to be all high and mighty about following the Constitution, then you cannot hold the position that the Senate should filibuster or ignore the President's nominee. You can't have it both ways.

And for those Republicans who are saying that we should wait until after the election "for the voters to decide", they already did. The voters elected President Obama to be the person to nominate Supreme Court Justices until he leaves office in 2017. That's reality. That's the Constitution.

Suck it up, put on your big boy pants and do your damn job.

3 comments:

Tony said...

I sure wish the so-called Liberal Media would call them on this. Not every time, that's too much to expect. I'd sure like to see it once or twice a day though.

Eric Haas said...

Not that I want another conservative on the bench, but:

“If you claim to be all high and mighty about following the Constitution, then you cannot hold the position that the Senate should filibuster or ignore the President's nominee.”

Actually, yes they can. The Constitution does not specify how the Senate is to indicate its consent, or lack thereof. The Constitution does say that each House determines the rules of its own proceedings. So, it is constitutional for the Senate to deny its consent by simply refusing to vote on a nominee. Which, btw, is something some Democrats were arguing in 2007 when they didn’t want a Bush appointee on the Supreme Court.

Ipecac said...

Sure, the Constitution doesn't forbid them sitting on their hands. But there has never been this level of "we're not even going to hold hearings, let alone bring it up for a vote" before (at least within the last 100 years). Suggesting that the Republicans are not being inconsistent in their application of the Constitution by refusing to do anything is a little (just a little) disingenuous. Plus, Alito was confirmed. (Also, the Democrats of the mid 2000s weren't the ones bleating about strict construction all the time).