Tweets of the Day: Merrick Garland

 

6 thoughts on “Tweets of the Day: Merrick Garland

  1. Dear Jim in STL,
    I agree that there is a Constitutional mandate to examine the fitness of nominees. The operative term in your posting is “credible accusations.” In this current case, we see an anonymous letter (at least to everyone but the senator) which sat in Senator Feinstein’s “hold box” for more than two months. It appears that the letter was saved as reserve ammunition if nothing else negative about Judge Kavanaugh could be produced. When in September it started to appear that Kavanaugh would be confirmed, the scurrilous letter surfaced. It appears that even Feinstein knew it was weak, but nothing else had worked to derail the nomination. Were it not presumably for a staffer lacking integrity, the acuser’s name would have been kept secret.
    Again this is the sort of thing we saw in the Soviet Union in 1930s. “Comrade, I have affidavits from two of your unnamed coworkers who saw you reading a book by Leon Trotsky.” This sort of thing could happen to any of us, and it will discourage good people from entering public service.
    As far as Judge Garland, I am sure he has a sterling character. Accordingly, how would you feel if he made it to the Supreme Court confirmation process yet at the 11th hour he was named by “an unknown accuser” as a pervert or a thief? Something like this violates a fundamental sense of fairness.

    Sadly, character assination of nominees began with Judge Bork, continued with Judge Thomas, and is now on display with Judge Kavanaugh. The anonymous letter attack we currently are witnessing is a new low. Of course, now that the accuser has been unmasked she is apparently reticent to testify openly. At least Anita Hill appeared willingly in public.

    Let’s be honest. This whole thing is not about Judge Kavanaugh’s character but instead about keeping a conservative off the Supreme Court. Why can’t we be honest?

    Like

  2. Hello Jimmy Dick,
    We all remember Barrack Obama’s arrogant comment after the 2008 election but prior to his assumption of the presidency. To paraphrase it, he said, “We won, and they did not.” The context of the comment was his left-leaning agenda.
    The fact that the ACA was “opened up” is meaningless. Even Nancy Pelosi said she did not read the voluminous contents. But let’s say that a few Republican staffers did have time to read it. The DEMs were not open to meaningful changes. The ACA was railroaded through Congress and signed into law. But not to worry……..Obama was afforded latitude to make executive changes and exceptions when the law began to falter at points or when certain of pet DEM interest groups had a beef with select provisions of the law.

    Like

    • We saw more conservatives complain about the ACA because it negatively impacted their self-centered ideology. It was opened up and the GOP hated it because they objected to spending money on something that did not benefit themselves, just other people.

      I liked Obama’s left-leaning agenda. The more I examine it, the more I want a government that doesn’t just lean to the left, but moves completely over to it and throws the self-centered conservative ideology into the trash bin of history. I do believe we are going to see that happen soon enough.

      Like

  3. Both parties play hardball when they have power. We all remember the Democrat steamrolling of legislation during the early Obama years when there was a DEM majority in both houses. No bipartisanship at all. In the case of Merrick Garland his nomination wasn’t formally considered, but Mitch McConnell took a real gamble on that move. After all, if Mrs. Clinton has been elected, her nominee would have been far more liberal than Garland. In my opinion the Democrats have stooped far below mere political hardball in their character attacks on a decent man, Judge Kavanaugh. They tried it with Clarence Thomas and are just following the same essential script this time. These tactics loosely follow the model of the Stalinist show trials in the 1930s. At least Judge Garland’s character was not impugned.

    Like

    • That is incorrect, James. The ACA was opened up to scrutiny by everyone for an extended period of time. The GOP did not support it but they had every opportunity to view the bill and comment on it. They chose to go against it for their reasons.

      Now we see the ACA gaining popularity and I think that’s what the GOP feared the most. To get rid of it they offered no opportunity for the Democrats to examine the bills they were putting forth.

      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aca-versus-ahca/

      Like

      • “At least Judge Garland’s character was not impugned.”

        If there were credible accusations of attempted rape or acts of lewd and indecent behavior in the professional workplace then he should have been exposed. These issues are probative with respect to the moral character and fitness of someone up for a lifetime appointed position who will be sitting in judgement of others. There is a Constitutional mandate to examine areas of fitness for the purpose of responsible advice and consent as opposed to a pass through for political expediency.

        Like

Comments are closed.