Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia had been dead about 36 hours when liberals started
to explain that Senate Republicans had a duty to confirm whomever President
Obama nominated as Scalia’s replacement.
Liberals are really big on explaining etiquette to conservatives,
etiquette they would never follow themselves if anything important was at
stake. In all situations, but especially
in this situation, Republicans should play by the rules that the Democrats
apply to themselves.
Antonin
Scalia was the voice of reason on the Supreme Court. He believed the Constitution had to be
interpreted according to how it was understood by the people who wrote it. He also believed that a judge had a duty to
rule on what the law was, not on what the judge wanted the law to be.
In
contrast, “living Constitution” liberals believe the Constitution changes based
on what people believe is a reasonable interpretation today, without regard to
what the people who wrote it understood it to mean. “Living Constitution” is how the 14th
Amendment, passed in 1868 when homosexual acts were illegal in every state, is
interpreted to require gay marriage in every state under the Equal Protection
clause. Whether you like the outcome or
not, how “living Constitution” Justices got there is ridiculous.
Scalia
was the best jurist on the court for upholding the rule of law and making the
law understandable and predictable.
Replacing Scalia with a “living Constitution” liberal will allow the
Supreme Court to destroy what little remains of structure of checks and
balances during the appointee’s time as a justice. Republicans can’t allow that and preserve the
United States as a Constitutional Republic.
From
the chatter on liberal media on the morning of the 15th, it's
obvious that Obama is considering a recess appointment. The Senate is in recess
now until February 22. Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell should call an emergency session of the Senate
immediately to remove the any plausible argument that a recess appointment of a
Supreme Court Justice would be valid now. Any and all complaints about short
notice should be met with the explanation that 5 Justices can change the
Constitution anytime, even if one of the 5 is a recess appointment temporary
hire.
All whining about how the Senate needs to
confirm Obama's pick for the court should be met with a quote. I agree with
President Obama when he said, "Elections have consequences." We won
the 2014 elections. Under the Constitution, the Senate's consent is required to
confirm a Supreme Court Justice. We do not consent. That's the end of it.
The article starts to surrender already by
saying Republicans could allow a recess appointment to escape pressure from the
press. It's time to stop escaping. Hit the Pravda Press right in the teeth. If Trump can do it for his ego, we can do it for our principles. It’s
easy to state why we will not confirm Obama’s nominee, and we should do so
until everyone in the country can recite it like an advertising slogan. We believe, as Justice Scalia believed, that
the Constitution should be interpreted based on what the people who wrote it
understood it to mean. We also believe, as Justice Scalia did, that a Justice should
decide what the law is, not what the Justice would like the law to be. These
principles are more important to us than skin color, gender or ethnic
background. We should make this perfectly clear to the Pravda Press. We should
refuse to engage on any smoke screen questions. We should respond to red
herrings by repeating our reasons for refusing to consent.