Sen. Daines shirking his constitutional duty - By Dan Lourie

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------

Sen. Daines, again displaying allegiance to party rather than to Montanans and the American people whom he purports to represent, has bought into what the New York Times has called “a losing of their minds” on the part of Senate Republicans. In doubling down on Republicans’ refusal to take action on a replacement for Justice Scalia, as the Times correctly observes, the majority leader “seems to have lost touch with reality and the Constitution.” (Once again the Left is in a lather regarding those eeevil Republicans. If only they would stand down and give President Obama everything he wants. That apparently is their role.

Unfortunately for the author, there has been no candidate presented by the President. Therefore, there is no constitutional violation. The Constitution tells us that President "...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." Should the President actually offer a candidate, the Senate shall advise and consent to the nomination in a manner of its choosing.

If the Senate declines to consent the nomination fails. There is no constitutional provision that commands the Senate to hold immediate hearings, interview the nominee, or discuss or debate the nominee's fitness for the office. The Senate simply advises and consents.

The author acts like the Senate is acting in an unprecedented way, but we remember Joe Biden in 1992. We remember what happened to Judge Bork. We haven't forgotten what happened to Clarence Thomas. Clearly many nominees have been rejected for various reason.

And we are left to wonder why the Constitution is suddenly so important? The Left seems to pick and choose its Constitution depending on the issue at hand. It's either a living document that was written by slave owners who couldn't have anticipated the situations of contemporary society, or it is inviolate authoritative law.

The reason is, the Left invests a lot of faith in the Court to advance their agenda. The Left frequently cannot get the people to vote their way, so the only way to remedy this is to get judges to overrule the people. You see, there's nothing more important to a leftist than the agenda.)

Of course the power to nominate new justices to the court is vested in the president. In electing Obama twice by large margins, the people have clearly decided who should be doing the nominating. (No one has suggested the President doesn't have such power. He can act as he chooses in accordance with those power. The Senate likewise has power itself to decline the nomination or delay consideration, as it chooses.)

The Senate Republican majority’s preemptive decision to block any nominee sight unseen has shown once again that “Obama is the only adult in the room, carrying out his constitutional obligation.” (NYT)

Ironically, this Republican stance could cost their party control of the Senate, thereby putting an end to their obstructionism. (One might wonder how the majority party is obstructionist. The Senate Republicans have their agenda, and the President has his. They obstruct each other, that is what they do. One side views the other as wrong or misguided, and opposes the other. This is how our system works.)

Voters throughout the country are sufficiently outraged, (Indeed they are. They are outraged that government has wasted trillions of dollars, is actively oppressing its citizens, and both parties are tone deaf to the point that they are ignoring them. The voters are fed up with big, wasteful, and heavy-handed government.)

therefor (sic) incumbent Republican senators up for re-election in Democratic-leaning states could well lose their seats. (It's so wonderful the author cares about the fortunes of Republicans...)

That makes the possible loss of the GOP’s Senate majority a likely reality. Indeed a just reward.

The NYT also remarks that, “for too many Republicans moderation now equals apostasy.” They’ve taken a position so far to the right for such a long time, that we really don’t know whether they understand the extremity of their derangement. (If there is a poster boy for derangement, it is the Left. JFK wouldn't recognize his own party, they are so extreme.)

Unfortunately, we have a senator who is always at the forefront of reactionary thinking and action. He now gives irrational knee-jerk support to Republicans’ subversion of their constitutional duty to consider the president’s nomination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. Sen. Daines is saying once again that he supports blatant obstructionism. We’re counting the days until we can send him packing.