Why Nominate a SCOTUS Justice?

       With the passing of Justice Scalia, a firestorm has erupted. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, stated flatly that the Senate would not even consider any nominee of Pres. Obama's. Now, to vote not to consent to an appointment is the choice of the Senate and it is theirs to make. But to refuse to even consider a nomination flies in the face of the Constitution. It is the responsibility of a sitting president to nominate a replacement to any vacancy for the Supreme Court.
       It is not the right of the Senate to tell the President not to fulfill his responsibility. The Senate's responsibility is to advise and consent. Even in the case of the nomination of Robert Bork by Ronald Reagan, that is being used as a reason to ignore the process, Bork did, in fact, receive the hearings and debate. He was voted down in the Full Senate, but he had his day.
       In fact his own words defeat the notion that the Senate should not even consider his appointment. After the Senate Judicial committee voted to disapprove, Bork stated that "There should be a full debate and final Senate decision", which he did receive. He further stated "If I withdraw now, that campaign would be seen as a success, and it would be mounted against future nominees. For the sake of the Federal judiciary and the American people, that must not happen. The deliberative process must be restored.
       So, in other words, a man who understood he would not gain the appointment he so greatly desired, nevertheless demanded that he get a fair hearing from the whole Senate. Now the threat is that no nominee of Barak Obama's will receive any kind of hearing whatsoever. That smells bad. It smells like the majority in the Senate has more of an agenda against Obama than just a justice. There is no Justice in that.

A Person Is A Person.

       I'm sitting here trying to make sense of the idea that corporations are persons. Now I've always thought it was a silly idea, but it is the law. Even though Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg continues to say "If there was one decision I would overrule it would be Citizens United", which was made possible because of the personage decision, in my opinion. I understand that it gave corporations certain financial and tax advantages to be classified as persons, but it allowed other backdoor advantages like the right to outspend any other person in election campaign donations.
       The most egregious among these rights is the one of  Social Welfare PACs. When you say to a tax exempt organization that they can spend a portion of the donations they receive on political ads and that they don't have to announce who made those donations, a can of worms, half baked, smelling like death warmed over, is opened up. That allowed "portion" becomes almost all the money they can get their hands on. At that point corporations and extremely wealthy donors found an opportunity to gain access to the electoral process even if their pet politicians didn't win.
       Ya see, if a politician knows a certain corporation or billionaire is willing to support members of their party, those donors are sure to be an influence on any decisions made by that party and it's members. Now why would a major corporation or billionaire want to be able to influence government decisions? HA! The question reads 'Why wouldn't they!' After all we're talking about tax breaks, contracts, leases, and on and on. And the beauty is that nobody, except the politicians, will know the donations came from them. Its all secret.
       What's wrong with that? Secrets breed corruption. Corruption breeds more of the same. After a while you get the kind of government we have now, dysfunctional. I don't know why it happens that way, but it does, it did. I'll bet if you could actually smell secrets, corruption and dysfunction, it would smell a lot like a skunk. No, when you come right down to it, corporations aren't persons. But God help us when they demand the vote.

Remember The Constitution?

       Ya know what we should do? We should do exactly what Republicans and even Democrats have been telling us to do for quite a while now. We should do exactly what the Constitution says we should do. We should have the President of the United States of America nominate a successor to the Supreme Court and we should demand that the U.S. Senate "advise and consent".
       No, we shouldn't wait until a new President is elected because that's not what the Constitution tells us to do. Both the Constitution and precedent show us that it doesn't matter if its an election year or not, the sitting President gets to nominate an new justice to the SCOTUS and the Senate must then act on that nomination, either to approve or disapprove.
       Forget what either party tells you we must do. The parties don't rule our country, the voters select individuals to rule this country, not the parties. Political parties have a lot to do with who we select, but we decide and the people we select are then expected to do the job they were elected to do.
       If you don't like that arrangement then change the Constitution, but until you are able to change the Constitution, you'll just have to live with it. Because we are a nation of rules. There are lots of things our country does I'd prefer it didn't do, but its still better than the alternative. Which is no rules.
       There is a way to always get things your way. That way is to find an uninhabited island somewhere in the Pacific ocean or somewhere like that and form your own government and require that everything be done your way. Good luck with that. Of course you could always ask America for some foreign aid. If they won't help and if you have something someone wants then ask them for help. But of course such requests are always met with demands. Are you ready for that?

All In Favor, Vote Now.

       Who will be the next Supreme Court justice? Well I can report that it definitely won't be a confirmed ultra-left wing Liberal. And I'm pretty sure it won't be confirmed ultra-right wing Conservative, but I am pretty certain it'll be somewhere in between. How's that for a prediction?
       The real question comes down to when we can expect the U.S. Senate to consent to the appointment of a justice. Let's suppose that President Obama chooses a clearly capable, qualified moderate with the potential for by-partisan support. And if Mr.Obama is interested in the well being of the country and the people, that's exactly the kind of person he should nominate. Then what's the likelihood that nominee will be confirmed? Unfortunately the likelihood is nobody will get confirmed and that is not in the best interests of America.
       So who would vote against such a person? Well, I believe both of the Republican Senators who are running for President have said they would not vote for anyone submitted by President Obama even though he clearly has the right and responsibility to nominate someone. But what about Senator Sanders? He would probably vote to confirm. And what about Senators from so called purple states like Pennsylvania? Casey would vote to confirm. Toomey? Since he's so very close to the Tea Party, my guess is he won't. But that's not in the best interests of Americans or Pennsylvanians.
       And why would Senator Toomey vote against anyone Obama would nominate? In the hopes that a Republican would get elected president in November. But that would mean a wait of over a year. More than a year before any controversial court case would be decided. It would keep the coal industry in limbo all that time. Same with voting rights for lots of people. And what about cases not even scheduled yet?  So Senator Toomey, will you vote the best interests of your fellow Pennsylvanians or will it be the Tea Party wing of the Republican party?

More Scotus Pocus.

       Well now the flowers are wilting. There'll be no more friendly skies or campaign debates. The fur has already begun to fly. Depending on who you listen to, either Obama has no business nominating a successor to Justice Scalia or it is the responsibility of Obama to nominate a successor. Either way, our current Senate is not going to confirm any nominee he may put forwards.
       That decision must be made by the people, that is unless a Democrat is elected president in November. In which case, every Republican elected to the Senate will explain that his or her election proves the new president should not nominate anyone unless first selected by them. And there will be some who wouldn't vote to confirm even if the Republican caucus approved the candidate.
       The thing is, though, if the situation were reversed, the two parties could simply swap speeches and rhetoric with each other. But just how important is it to have a replacement in place in the next year or two? Here's the thing, with only eight on the court, every politically motivated and related case brought to the Supreme Court will wind up giving the decision of the lower court the nod. And that means that closer and closer scrutiny will be given to which lower court gets the question handed to them.
       Ya see, some of the courts just under the Supreme Court are friendlier to conservative ideals and others favor Liberal ideals. What it means is that for nearly all these cases, the Supreme Court will be of little use since it will be unable to determine winner or loser. But what happens when a Liberal court rules one way and a Conservative court rules just the opposite, and the Supreme Court ties? Yeah, what happens? That's why the court has an odd number of members, except when it doesn't.

Well At Least It Ain't Food Stamps.

       Karl Rove Bamboozles The I.R.S. reads the headline in an editorial in the New York Times today. And that he did. He got the I.R.S. to grant tax free status as a social welfare organization to his Crossroads America, dark money political machine. Now his is not the first such political Super Pac to gain this coveted classification and I suspect it won't be the last, but it certainly is one of the most high profile such organization to be awarded the money tree designation.
       The Tax Exempt Social Welfare Organization designation was created for groups who's primary function is to provide, guess what, welfare to society. It means they can collect donations from anyone in any amount without telling anyone who the money came from. Now if that money is used to serve society for the betterment of society, then that's not too bad an idea. But if it then can be used to support politicians in elections, then that's not so much a good idea. In fact as an idea it stinks.
       Suppose you are someone from, oh I don't know, say Russia or China, and you wanted to get a certain politician elected president, you would not be allowed to donate money to that election. Its illegal. But since nobody knows who gives to a "Social Welfare" Super Pak, you could give any amount you want to be used to help get your favorite politician elected. Of course the leaders of the Super Pac would know it was you that gave that money and I'll bet that sometime in the very near future, in friendly conversation, he might mention your name to that politician. It's how things are done in polite society. That is to say that's how things are done in polite political society. Even impolite political society.
       But it isn't just foreigners, it's multi-billionaires who want to buy politicians so they'll get extra tax cuts and privileges, like denying climate change or special leases on national park lands to dig up coal or drill for oil or oh so many other ways to help themselves even if it hurts you and me.  It's the government's definition of Social Welfare that isn't food stamps.

Why Do We Hate Eachother?

       Do you wonder where all the vitriol in American politics comes from? How can so many people have such strong dislike and distrust for so many people? The nearly violent clashes between opposing views are a serious problem for the future of America. We can't fix what's wrong if two mechanics are trying to turn the same bolt in opposite directions.
       We neither respect nor trust Muslims, blacks, Hispanics, whites, politicians, scientists, or each other. We've got a plethora of publications, radio, television, internet media and quasi-media, each telling us how horrible the other side is. Conservatives are haters of all that is good about America, Liberals are destroyers of all that is good about America. And really, its all hogwash.
       If you pay attention to only one side of these commentaries or one side of the news, from only a liberal or conservative viewpoint, you will be poorly informed. Just because you agree with one side or the other is an uneducated, poorly thought out reason not to listen to the other point of view and try to understand why they think that way.
       In the current primary season, the two leading candidates are leading their respective parties because so many of the electorate are completely dissatisfied with the way things are going. In Congress, there doesn't seem to be any way for the two parties to work together or with the President. Even the Supreme Court doesn't seem to be able to do their job in any coherent way.
       Internationally, many other countries are facing similar problems. And while many will disagree with me, I think much of the instability comes from the fear that the future for most people is slipping away from them. People have less. Less opportunity for the young, less security for the old, fewer jobs except for the wealthy for whom the world is bright and getting brighter all the time. Inequality is leaving most of us in the dust to scramble for the crumbs off the tables of the rich. Wall Street and the Banks cheat, get caught and get a slap on the wrist, but nobody goes to jail. It sure pays to cheat if you're rich. Not so much if you're poor.

SCOTUS, POCUS.

       Regardless od what you may think of Jimmy Carter, you have to admit he's a smart guy. Here's a recent quote of his to prove it.  He said "The erroneous ruling of the Supreme Court, where millionaires, billionaires, can put in unlimited amounts of money, giving legal bribery the chance to prevail... As the rich people finance the campaigns, when candidates get in office they do what the rich people want. And that's to let the rich people get richer and richer and the middle class get left out."
       It's the "legal bribery the chance to prevail" part that's so pertinent. Every candidate to any office will assure you they cannot be bought, but they don't say they can't be swayed.  What we have to remember though is that they're all human. And being human, they are all susceptible to influences. The influences we want them to be susceptible to are the voters. After all, it's the voters, the people, to whom they must serve. Of course a rich man deserves to be served as much as a poor man, but not more so.
       The problem that the SCOTUS ruling in the citizens united case provides is the opportunity for the legal bribery to take place, to prevail. Its the very real appearance of impropriety that is allowed to flourish. And, for the candidate, its the very real temptation to appease the one who feeds you. The voters make the final decision, but unfortunately, too many voters are swayed by too much advertising and the lies purchased by the big money from who knows whom.
       Why the Supreme Court couldn't have foreseen such an obvious outcome brings into question their ability to make wise decisions. The decisions made throughout history that are most remembered are the smartest and the dumbest. Guess which this one will be remembered for.

American Socialism.

       I was reading an article in the Daily Kos this morning about Socialism. I'd never thought about how much socialism there is in America. The piece points out 75 ways Americans enjoy socialism. What got me the most is how Republicans in Congress tell you to hate socialism. Yep, Obamacare is socialism and that's a hateful thing, except they don't tell you that the healthcare they enjoy is completely free. To them. That's the definition of Socialism.  Of course it's not quite free to us since taxpayers pay for their healthcare.
       So what I can't figure out is why socialist healthcare is a bad word (or two words) for us, but its a good thing for them. Or take subsidies for farms or corporations or complete industries, which they will tell you are good things, but any kind of welfare to help unemployed or working poor people is socialism. Which are bad things, why?
       How about the military? Did you know that is actually a product of socialism? And highways and bridges, they're all socialist endeavors. Who thinks that local folks just get together and build a mile or two of highway? Imagine what that would look like. Some folks would build concrete while others would use blacktop and a few would be satisfied with dirt.
       Ya see, socialism isn't a bad thing just because a few countries used it in a bad way. Heck, if you went to college and got a government grant to help pay for it, you're a participant in socialism. So should you be ashamed of that? Are you kidding? Socialism is a way for the people of a country to pool their resources in order to accomplish some good for everyone, rich or poor. And that, my friends, is what's known as socialism. There's a huge difference between Communism and Socialism, night and day difference.
       And did you know that socialism allows for those capable and fortunate enough, to become millionaires and billionaires? And yes, helping someone not as capable or fortunate is also socialism. Why do these folks who hate helping the poor and unfortunate in our society, jump at the chance to take advantage of socialistic opportunities offered to them by government?

Is It Benghazi or Flint?

       The GOP has held more investigations into the Benghazi tragedy then I can count. Unfortunately or fortunately all have proven there to have been no American personal responsibility for the deaths of our three State Department leaders. No matter how hard they've tried to lay this at the feet of the former Secretary of State. But its good that there have been these in-depth investigations to resolve any question of impropriety, no matter continued attempts to find fault.
       My hope is that here at home in America, the same GOP will dig deeply into the Flint Michigan tragedy concerning the poisoning of the residents of that impoverished city. Its been pointed out that over 10,000 children will potentially face a life of diminished capabilities. How can our government spend so much time and money trying to blame one person for an attack by foreign terrorists and not expend an equal effort to bring to justice the perpetrators who caused this led exposure to the sufferers of that whole city.
       I understand it was not done intentionally, but it was caused by a poorly though out plan to save a relatively small amount of money without clearly understanding the potential risks. This is along a similar vein as the attempts to sully the previous Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Now, nobody is claiming this as an opportunity to get a Republican governor defeated in his next election as was the admitted case in several of the investigations of Clinton.
       The GOP has a responsibility not to appear improper. Thus far, the appearance of impropriety is still up for grabs. Now properly, the Flint situation has been handled by those institutions responsible for such investigation. Interestingly however there has been no outcry in either house of Congress. No Special House Committee on Flint. Doesn't that sound like a double standard? Perish the thought.