In the words of our 40th President, Ronald Reagan, "there you go again". Mitch McConnell may be one of the most duplicitous politicians I've experienced in my life time, and that's saying a lot.
Sunday, On Face the Nation, McConnell noted that "All of these little procedural complaints are related to their frustration in having not only lost the White House, but having lost the Senate. I understand that, but we need to sort of grow up here and get past that." This comment was in relation to concerns expressed by Democrats, that the Republican majority was forcing the consideration of administration nominees before ethics reviews were completed on any given nominee.
In 2009, McConnell was the Minority Leader in the Senate. Below is a letter that was written by Mitch McConnell to the then Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid regarding the confirmation process for President Obama's nominees (I apologize for the image size, it's the best I could do):
As you can see, this above letter was written by the Republican Minority Leader of the Senate, in 2009, to the Senate Majority Leader. Now it's 2017, and the very same letter has been slightly altered by the current Senate Minority leader to the Senate Majority Leader. The only differences are a few name changes.
Is this asshole kidding (I mean McConnell). Here he is, the majority Leader and he now derides the loyal opposition for demanding the same criteria that he demanded eight years ago when he was the Minority Leader. He is presented with HIS letter from eight years ago and then says, "All of these little procedural complaints are related to their frustration in having not only lost the White House, but having lost the Senate. ........ we need to sort of grow up here and get past that."
This made me immediately angry when I heard this on NPR (National Public Radio) on Monday. I even used a few 'bad words'. Then I started using my mind after exorcising my feelings. Mitch is the same guy that dictated (or was at least the mouth piece for his party) that they were not going to consider President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee, Chief Judge Merrick Garland. Democrats are, of course going to take part in the process of "advice and consent" as dictated by the U.S. Constitution. McConnell claims that not sending the nomination of Garland to Committee for consideration and not allowing a vote on the floor of the Senate was "advice and consent". What a load of crap.
Our country is a democracy. One of the checks and balances that takes place in a democracy (although not proscribed by our constitution) is that members of minority political parties use legal means to 'check and balance' the power of the the majority party. All members of our government are to follow the procedures set down in our constitution. Both of these are possible at the same time. As a reminder, The Constitution provides that ".......[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: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." (Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution).
As you can see, by reading this clause from our Constitution, McConnell and the Republican dominated Senate did not behave as The Constitution stipulated in relation to Judge Garland. There is no remedy for the Senate not doing its job in The Constitution, but there are rules that are set up at the beginning of each Congressional session and one of those rules involves "censure" of a member. Although I am not finding any specific infractions that can be addressed by censure, I do find the following information:
".....governmental censure is done when a body's members wish to publicly reprimand the President of the United States, a member of Congress, a judge or a cabinet member. It is a formal statement of disapproval. Members of Congress who have been censured are required to give up any committee chairs they hold, but are not removed from office."
Our country is a democracy. One of the checks and balances that takes place in a democracy (although not proscribed by our constitution) is that members of minority political parties use legal means to 'check and balance' the power of the the majority party. All members of our government are to follow the procedures set down in our constitution. Both of these are possible at the same time. As a reminder, The Constitution provides that ".......[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: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." (Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution).
As you can see, by reading this clause from our Constitution, McConnell and the Republican dominated Senate did not behave as The Constitution stipulated in relation to Judge Garland. There is no remedy for the Senate not doing its job in The Constitution, but there are rules that are set up at the beginning of each Congressional session and one of those rules involves "censure" of a member. Although I am not finding any specific infractions that can be addressed by censure, I do find the following information:
".....governmental censure is done when a body's members wish to publicly reprimand the President of the United States, a member of Congress, a judge or a cabinet member. It is a formal statement of disapproval. Members of Congress who have been censured are required to give up any committee chairs they hold, but are not removed from office."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure_in_the_United_States
While expulsion requires a two thirds majority, censure only requires a simple majority. I believe that a case can be made for censure of Mitch McConnell for refusing to perform his Constitutional duty to give "advice and consent" with reference to the nomination of Merrick Garland as a Supreme Court Justice. Maybe it's time for McConnell to "grow up".
While expulsion requires a two thirds majority, censure only requires a simple majority. I believe that a case can be made for censure of Mitch McConnell for refusing to perform his Constitutional duty to give "advice and consent" with reference to the nomination of Merrick Garland as a Supreme Court Justice. Maybe it's time for McConnell to "grow up".
No comments:
Post a Comment