As cliche' as it is, this is the cost of elections. I'd like to see Republican officials respect the separation of powers included in the Constitution, and confirm the President's appointee. But, I'd also like to see these same Congressman vet this (surely "progressive" and half-mongoloid) appointee thoroughly and publically.
These two steps would go a long way to illustrating the great difference between Conservativism and Liberalism.
First, I'd like to see more than the 9 votes Sotomayor got from Repbulicans when she was confirmed in 2009. By voting overwhelmingly for the confirmation of the appointee, Conservative Senators can be more respectful of the process than former progressive senators (such as Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden) who voted against both President George W. Bush's appointees Roberts and Alito.
Second, a thorough and public grilling of any appointee(s) has many benefits for Conservatives. It draws attention to the Constitution itself, which is great in an election year considering that Liberals see the Constitution as an obstacle, and Conservatives view it as the basis for our expiremental form of government. It will keep the conversation on and about Obama politics and policies up to the November elections, when I'm certain incumbent Democrats would rather be talking about anything else.
So, don't get too fired up about this process over the summer. President Obama's appointee will be confirmed, so Republicans should vote for confirmation in support of protocol. But, I also hope this is used as an opportunity to further reveal Liberal Democrats and their statist agenda to Americans who are just now starting to really understand that.
5 comments:
Why should Constitutionally-driven conservatives vote in favor of a fanatical lib? Sotomayor should have been given 0 confirmation votes from the Republicans. I am not trying to making a point here, I legitimately want Duck of Death to better explain his position so I can join his team.
His argument makes no sense. I could understand it for other positions but the Supreme Court sets precedents that will never be overturned. It is THE spot to fight. This country is just a few more decisions from the point of no return.
I am surprised at your use of the term Progressive instead of Liberal. The Left thanks you.
I am also surprised I agree with just about everything you've said here. This is the cost of elections, and the appointee will most certainly be a progressive. I hope it will be a raging leftist to continue to counter-balance the lunacy of Scalia and Thomas.
Washington has become too polarized to think this nominee will get any votes from the Right, though. Their philosophy won't even matter. Voting for an Obama appointee in an election year is too risky for most Republican legislators.
I've since revised the post, thank you for bringing my mistake to my attention.
Yes, Republicans should vote to confirm the appointee. They need to continue to separate themselves as far from the Left as possible, and following protocol is an excellent way to do that after the health care debacle.
In this instance, the Justice will be appointed either way, so a vote in favor in no way actually helps the President or his appointee.
I say Republicans should try their damndest to delay that shit till the midterms...
Then if they Republicans can somehow take back the Senate...
Then Bork his ass.
Post a Comment