No Hearings, No Votes On Obama’s Supreme Court Nominees
Hendersonville, NC, 9:00A.M.: Asheville Tea Party, with help from Heritage Action for America and Tea Party Patriots, is delivering a letter to Senators signed by 150 individuals who represent tens of thousands of Americans concerned with the politicization of the Supreme Court urging the Senate to allow the next President to nominate the next Supreme Court nominee.
Every Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has signed a letter agreeing to no hearings, no votes on any potential Supreme Court nominee put forward by President Obama. A lame duck president should neither fill a Supreme Court Seat nor make lifetime appointments to the federal bench. The nomination process is at issue, not the merits of any potential nominee. Next November, the voters get to decide upon a new President who should legitimately nominate Supreme Court justices. A lawless President should not be nominating judges.
While the U.S. Constitution clearly gives the President the power to nominate federal judges, the Constitution clearly gives power to the Senate to approve. The voters also gave the Senate a Republican majority. The Constitution calls on the President to adhere to the “advice and consent” of the Senate. Moreover, there has also been a long history of the Senate to end consideration of nominees in the last few months before an election. This President’s long track record of executive action overreach proves he cannot be trusted to nominate judges who obey the Constitution because he himself does not.
North Carolina Senator Tom Tillis (R ) who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has encouraged his colleagues to keep their promise to agree to no hearing, no votes. We look forward to other Senators following that lead.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I understand the ramifications of this Supreme Court nomination. I also understand that the rule of law does not apply in this country. Isn’t the above such an admission? They don’t want to allow the Constitution to function as designed so they will twist it to what they want. For their side. For their glory. Is this a winning strategy? Joining forces with Tom Tillis to promote a campaign issue?
Do I want the pResident to nominate a Supreme Court justice that will rewrite the Bill of Rights? No. Will I compromise my beliefs in order to do so? Or is this the real question? As of today, Hillary Clinton is favored to become the next pResident. The Department of Justice will not indict her for treason. So is postponing the inevitable a valid course of action? Are you tired of the continued failures of the Republican party and their lackeys? Do we live under the rule of law now? Should we adopt the same philosophy as the government in order to achieve a set of goals at the expense of honor?
If this “strategy” is successful, what precedent does this set? The information sent out that the Democrats started this should do more research into Eisenhower’s Supreme Court appointments. Stop begging your masters for crumbs. You either understand the cost of freedom or you can accept the chains imposed by the government. The real question is which masters will you serve? I see no strategy above that will do nothing more than promote an agenda for a political party, not the country.
Real patriots do not use the “law” to suit their own agendas or goals. Real patriots will not obey an unConstitutional law no matter what a group of nine unelected justices opine. No real patriot will hand over their 2nd Amendment rights to the government, political party or organization. Because that path always leads to mass graves.
David DeGerolamo
I see your point and would prefer Congress do it’s duty and hold the hearings. It would be a simple matter to follow the Constitution and vote the man DOWN. The problem is, as you suggest, political expediency rather than duty.
While I am an advocate of the least amount of government possible, meaning we should cut roughly 80% of it at the Federal level as well as 70% at the state and local level, it is also my belief government is a as Washington put it, a necessary evil.
In an earlier post there was a sherrif who proposed making every citizens a deputy in an effort to help deal with government abuses. From this he gave the impression of being a man who understood liberty and accepted the premise of limited government. If everyone did as has been suggested, meaning refusing to participate in the election process, how would such men gain office?
A man that blows in the wind cannot be trusted. He will sell his soul to anything that pleases him at the moment.
Tom…pardon my ignorance…but how does someone tell when a man is blowing in the wind?
It is when they shift position all the time or justify breaking the law because the other side does or if it is a benefit to them.
Tom…thanks for taking the time.