Constitution, not threats, dictates how to fill vacancy
So, Conservatives have the opportunity to fill Justice Ginsberg’s seat with a jurist more aligned with their view of the Constitution. Is anyone surprised they intend to do just that? Predictably, Democrats point to Republican hypocrisy. After all, Republicans did oppose seating Merrick Garland in 2016 because of the pending Presidential election. Of course, Democrats argued pretty forcefully back then Garland should be seated, election or no election. No one in Washington holds a monopoly on hypocrisy.
This is why we have the Constitution. It determines beforehand how situations like this will be handled. The Constitution doesn’t care what the political whims or motivations of the day happen to be. It sets the rules in advance, and I don’t think the Constitution offers any restrictions concerning Supreme Court vacancies that occur during an election year. I suppose the founders could have included one if they wanted.
Unfortunately, “Do what we demand or we’ll destroy the country and it’s institutions,” seems to be the clarion call for Democrats these days. Their newest target? The Supreme Court itself. Fill the open seat, and we’ll pack the court. “Nothing is off the table,” Sen. Schumer declares. “We have lots of arrows in our quiver,” Speaker Pelosi says with a smile, with many speculating one of those arrows is a second run at impeaching the president. Now, that would be good for the country.
Is this what a Democrat majority in the Senate would look like? Do Democrats think this sort of “burn the house down” rhetoric makes it more likely reasonable people will vote them into power? Who knows, maybe it will. I don’t understand half of what goes on in the world anymore. When I was younger, I was taught to believe there were some things that were just bigger than partisan politics. That our country and it’s institutions should be revered and protected. It seems today those institutions are seen as just seen another “arrow in a quiver.”
I fully expect Democrats to oppose the president’s choice to fill the open seat on the Supreme Court. For the time being, we’re still a democracy and they have every right to their opinions. In fact, they have a duty to represent the views of the people who elected them to office. That said, they have no right to threaten destruction of government institutions that have guaranteed our freedoms for almost 250 years.
Democrats may not get their way this time around, and that’s just something they’ll have to learn to live with, much like Republicans had to live with Justice Ginsberg’s 27 years on the bench.
Stealing Biden signs won’t help on Election Day
This is for whoever stole our Biden signs from our property in New Windsor.
Do you really think that removing political signs is going to make any difference? Like maybe if no one sees Biden signs, they won’t know about him so they won’t vote for him?
Come on, get a grip. Taking the signs is theft, pure and simple, and it won’t make any difference in the election. Political signs represent free speech. You’re in favor of constitutionally protected freedoms, aren’t you?
Note that for every Biden sign that’s stolen from us, we will be making a minimum $100 contribution to the Biden campaign.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Patriotism different from nationalism
It appears there is confusion about the meanings of patriotism and nationalism. I recently came across the following quotation which might help clarify them. The definitions seem applicable to America today.
“Patriotism is proud of a country’s virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country’s virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, “the greatest”, but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.” — Sydney J. Harris, journalist and author (1917-1986).
One might want to consider these definitions prior to casting his or her vote.