Thursday, February 25, 2016

Let's Talk About SCOTUS Baby

Let's talk about you and me AND HOW THE SUPREME COURT AFFECTS OUR DAILY LIVES.  

(PS there are sources at the bottom of this post for all my facts and quotes)

Alright, puns aside, let's talk about the Supreme Court of the United States, the American Constituion and how frustrating the American political system has become over the last 250 years. 

Here's a fun history lesson.  Since 1969 (almost 50 years ago) the longest vacancy on the Court was 391 days, this was due to the first two appointees being rejected.

If you look at the past 30 years the longest vacancy was 237 days, again because the first two people selected were rejected.  

The average time to fill a vacancy on the Court is under 80 days, but let's not forget that we're currently in an election year and that means one thing - people are going fucking crazy. 

People *cough Republicans cough* are saying that if President Obama nominates a replacement that it would be a lame duck appointment. For those of you who don't know, a lame duck is a person who has been voted out of office but still has time left on their term.  To clarify, Obama has not been voted out of office, he has reached his term limit.  Also to be clear, the elections for his replacement haven't even begun, we are still in the primary phase of the 2016 election cycle and nominees for each party won't be officially selected until this summer. 

A quick breakdown of the timeline:
There are just under 11 months until Obama leaves office. 
There are just over 8 months until the general elections are held. 

There are months until candidates are officially selected.

Even if the new president nominated someone to the bench on their first day in offices, by the time the hearings and the vetting process is over it would mean there was a vacancy on the bench for over a year.  That's unacceptable.  The Supreme Court is the last line of defense of the Constitution and we are asking them to rule on cases that will determine the future of this country without firing on all cylinders.

The majority of the  Senate GOP is currently saying that they will reject anyone that Obama nominates, citing a speech Joe Biden made during the 1992 Presidential Elections about Bush Sr. appointing someone to the bench.

There's why that's a bullshit reason to reject an appointment: BUSH WAS RUNNING FOR RELECTION IN 1992.  THERE WAS A REAL CHANCE HE WASN'T GOING TO BE RELECTED (spoiler: he wasn't). 

Obama isn't running for reelection.  Obama is serving the last year of his 4 year term and he can't be reelected.  He isn't a lame duck, he is a sitting President with a Constitutional right and duty to appoint someone to the court. 

“This is his moment,” Mr. McConnell said on the Senate floor, addressing the president. “He has every right to nominate someone. Even if doing so will inevitably plunge our nation into another bitter and avoidable struggle, that is his right. Even if he never expects that nominee to actually be confirmed but rather to wield as an electoral cudgel, that is his right.”

> Hey Bitch McConnell, here’s a thought - you have the power to actually hold a hearing for the fucking qualified candidate that the President nominates, if you have legitimate issues with the candidate's qualifications or ability to rule then don't approve him or her.  You know damn well you’d hold a hearing if it was a Republican president you narrow minded, party lined,  anti-choice, anti-progress, bigot. <

Republican's, such as Mitch McConnell (R KY) and John Cornyn (R TX) are refusing to even meet with a candidate, saying they think it would be pointless as they won't hold hearings for them. Oh, I'm so sorry Mitchy, is doing the job you were elected to do TOO MUCH TO ASK?  Refusing to even consider a candidate is absurd, at least have the decency to do what the Senate Democrats did to Nixon in the 1960s and block the nomination.

“What is remarkable is the opposition is not to a particular candidate or even to the notion Obama will only nominate someone too extreme, but that he should not have any right to have a nomination considered,” said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.

Let's recap.  Mitch McConnell (my mortal enemy) said that the President has every right to nominate someone (good job Bitch McConnell, someone read you the Constitution) but that if Obama did nominate someone the Republicans would refuse to even meet with the nominee and would not hold hearings. But any animosity and struggle would be Obama's fault for even nominating someone, not the Senate for reusing the hearings.

AND BY THE WAY - ever Supreme Court Nominee since 1875 has received a hearing or a vote.  

The Senate isn't fulfilling its Constitutional duty to hold hearing for Presidental appointees.  It isn't Obama's job to sit on his hands for the last 11 months of his term, it isn't the Senates job to intentionally create more animosity in American politics, it isn't Mitch McConnell's job to decide who does and doesn't deserve the right to nominate someone.  The American people decided who had that right and duty in November of 2012 - sorry you didn't like the outcome. 

Oh, and in case you were wondering what the cases the Supreme Court is ruling on this year that will greatly affect millions of lives check out this list.   I'll save my angry pro-choice rant for another time. 

THANK YOU TO ANYONE WHO READ THIS WHOLE POST AND I'M SO SORRY THAT I HAVEN'T BEEN POSTING MORE.

XXX

Sources:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/18/richard-blumenthal/sen-richard-blumenthal-correct-longest-supreme-cou/

http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi1

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/us/politics/supreme-court-nomination-obama.html

https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/702264712570863616

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/01/five-supreme-court-cases-to-watch-in-2016/