The Republican Party has not ruled out a filibuster to prevent President Obama's first Supreme Court nominee from being seated. Let's hope they show some backbone and, depending on exactly who gets the nod, fight it tooth and nail.
Why not filibuster? They have nothing to lose. In fact, the party likely has more to gain by engaging the President, particularly if he selects someone outside of the mainstream. It could become another talking point in the coming bi-elections if the GOP gained another harsh liberal issue and made hay of it. Any attempt to land a socialist of sorts on the Bench would be one more godsend in a year already filled with much that the opposition party could use against the embattled Chief Executive and his minions.
As to anyone who says that the Republicans ought to 'play fair' and give the President, elected by the people of course, whoever he wants, there are two names to remember: Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork. The Democrats went out of their way to defame now Justice Thomas, and as to the incredibly well respected jurist Bork, under the very well liked President Reagan, well, the opposition liberals of the time simply said no, with no consideration of what the people thought.
It will be hypocrisy of the Democrats to cry foul if the GOP actually does go full on after whoever Mr. Obama puts before the Senate. But we should be used to that by now. Those scions of fairness are the least fair themselves. It is high time they get a dose of their own medicine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment