Sunday, March 26, 2017

QUICK HITTERS. POST #52. THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. PART 4.


Justice, Right, Case-Law, Court


(THIS IS PART 4 IN A SERIES OF ARTICLES I WROTE CONCERNING
THE CONTROVERSY CREATED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTIES 
TREATMENT OF MERRICK GARLAND, BARACK OBAMAS CHOICE 
TO FILL THE VACANCY ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.)

In the End, the IMPLICATIONS OF NOT ALLOWING A SENATE HEARING FOR A PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE GOES EVEN DEEPER THAN MANY THINK, BUT I THINK THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS AWARE OF THIS, AND IS WILLING TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES. 

-  THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, (EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIAL), HAS BEEN USURPED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, IN THE FUTURE IT MAY BE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH REFUSING TO NOMINATE ANYONE AT ALL, UNLESS CERTAIN CONCESSIONS ARE MET.

 GIVEN THE COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, YOU ARE LEFT WITH A SYSTEM THAT ENCOURAGES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO BEHAVE IN THE SAME MANNER, IF THE POSITIONS ARE REVERSED. DO YOU REALLY EXPECT ONE PARTY TO BE FAIR AND OPEN IN THE SELECTION PROCESS, IF THE OTHER IS JUST GOING TO DISCARD IT ANYWAY?  

-  IN ANY CASE, THE FUTURE OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM WILL BE PUSHED TOWARDS TOTAL CHAOS, WITH RANSOMING THE LEGAL SYSTEM A GIFT LEFT TO FUTURE GENERATIONS. NO LONGER WILL THERE BE A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES, WITH NEITHER THE WHITE HOUSE OR THE SENATE CONTROLLING THE FATE OF OUR SYSTEMS OF LAW.

-  EVEN IF THE REFUSAL TO HOLD A HEARING IS SOMEHOW ALLOWED TO STAND, BUT A DEMOCRAT WINS THE PRESIDENCY, WE COULD STILL BE LEFT WITH THE SAME PROBLEM.  THEY WILL HAVE DONE IT ONCE, WITHOUT SANCTION, WHAT IS TO STOP THE REPUBLICANS FROM DOING IT AGAIN?

AND AGAIN...AND AGAIN...AND AGAIN.

SO THE BIG QUESTION IS: WHY?


QUICK HITTERS. POST #51. THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. PART 3.

Rules, Word, Cloud, Word Cloud, Agency

















(THIS IS PART 3 IN A SERIES OF ARTICLES I WROTE CONCERNING
THE CONTROVERSY CREATED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTIES 
TREATMENT OF MERRICK GARLAND, BARACK OBAMAS CHOICE 
TO FILL THE VACANCY ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.)

What is Even More Frightening Than a Few MEGALOMANIACS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY REFUSING TO UPHOLD THEIR LEGALLY SWORN OATH TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, IS THAT IF IT IS ALLOWED TO STAND WITHOUT A LEGAL CHALLENGE, WE MAY END GOING FROM AN "OLIGARCHY," WITH POLITICAL POWER RESTING IN THE HANDS OF A FEW, TO A "DICTATORSHIP," WITH POWER RESTING IN THE HANDS OF ONE.

Remember, the Nomination of a CANDIDATE FOR A SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT, AND FOR NUMEROUS OTHER POSITIONS IN GOVERNMENT, RESTS WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, IN PRACTICAL TERMS?


"...and he shall nominate, and 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, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for..."

Do you see it?  If Refusing to Act on a DUTY THAT IS PART OF THE OATH OF OFFICE ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, IS ALLOWED TO STAND WITHOUT SANCTION OR PENALTY, A PRECEDENT IS SET THAT CANNOT COMPEL ANYONE TO BE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO ACT IN A SIMILAR MANNER PROSCRIBED BY THE DOCUMENT.

THE PRESIDENT ALONE NOMINATES CANDIDATES, NO ONE ELSE.

What is to Stop a U.S. PRESIDENT FROM DELAYING, OR REFUSING TO NOMINATE, CANDIDATES FOR POSTS THAT ARE VACANT, IF THE SENATE DOES NOT CONTAIN A BODY OF MEMBERS THAT ARE SYMPATHETIC TO APPROVING THOSE NOMINEES THE PRESIDENT FEELS ARE THE "RIGHT CHOICES?"


Saturday, March 25, 2017

QUICK HITTERS. POST #49. THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. PART 1.

(THIS IS PART 1 IN A SERIES OF ARTICLES I WROTE CONCERNING
THE CONTROVERSY CREATED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTIES 
TREATMENT OF MERRICK GARLAND, BARACK OBAMAS CHOICE 
TO FILL THE VACANCY ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.)


Image result for obama's supreme court nominee


If there is one thing that is even Scarier than the U.S. SENATES LEADERSHIP REFUSING TO MEET WITH THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE, AND NOT EVEN DISCUSSING IT IN COMMITTEE, IS THE POWER THAT IS BEING HANDED TO ONE OR TWO POWER HUNGRY POLITICIANS.

CONSIDER THIS.

NOT ONLY IS THE PRESIDENTS CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION AND DUTY TO SELECT AND NOMINATE A SUCCESSOR TO THE COURT BEING IGNORED, BUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WANTS THE FUTURE OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM TO BE PLACED IN THE HANDS OF 1-2 SENATORS. 

THE SENATE LEADERSHIP WAS ELECTED TO REPRESENT THEIR HOME STATES. HOWEVER, THIS POLICY ALLOWS THEM TO IGNORE THOSE REPRESENTING THE OTHER 48 STATES, BY DENYING SENATORS FROM BOTH PARTIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE AND VOTE ON THE SELECTED PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE.  THE ONLY OPINION THEY CARE ABOUT, AND WILL ACT ON, IS THEIR OWN. 

ANY SENATOR THAT ALLOWS THIS TO GO UNCHALLENGED, HAS BETRAYED THEIR CONSTITUENTS IN FAVOR OF A DICTATORIAL POLICY THAT GRANTS OTHER STATES A POWER THEY HAVE NOT EARNED, AND DO NOT DESERVE. (THROUGH THE ELECTORAL PROCESS). 

THIS IS A CLEAR ABUSE OF POWER, AND AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTEMPT TO BYPASS THE ROLE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN THE SELECTION PROCESS.

SEE PART 2.

QUICK HITTERS. POST #50. THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. PART 2.

(THIS IS PART 2 IN A SERIES OF ARTICLES I WROTE CONCERNING
THE CONTROVERSY CREATED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTIES 
TREATMENT OF MERRICK GARLAND, BARACK OBAMAS CHOICE 
TO FILL THE VACANCY ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.)

Usa, Court, Right, Paragraphs, Hammer


WITH PRESIDENT OBAMAS SELECTION OF CHIEF JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND, A HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND VERY CAPABLE CANDIDATE WHO CANNOT REASONABLY BE CONSIDERED TO FALL AT EITHER END OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, THE CLOCK IS NOW TICKING FOR THE U.S. SENATE TO NOW FOLLOW ITS OATH OF OFFICE TO "SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION."

CONSIDER THE IMPLICATIONS IF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY STILL REFUSES TO HONOR THEIR DUTY TO THE PEOPLE OF THE U.S.

#1-  IF THIS IS ALLOWED TO STAND, IS THE DOCUMENT NOW A "PICK AND CHOOSE" PIECE OF PAPER, THAT PERMITS A "FOLLOWING ITS DIRECTIONS IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT" MENTALITY, WHERE OBEYING THE GUIDELINES AND INSTRUCTIONS WRITTEN INTO THE BODY OF THE DOCUMENT ARE NO LONGER COMPULSORY?

IN OTHER WORDS-  THESE DIRECTIVES ARE NO LONGER UNIVERSAL, EQUALLY APPLIED TO EVERYONE IN EVERY CASE.  THEY NOW BECOME CONTINGENT UPON THE PERSONAL WHIMS, PREJUDICES, AND SELF-INTERESTS OF ANY POLITICIAN OR ELECTED OFFICIAL.

ONE OF THE STRENGTHS, AND ENDURING LEGACIES OF THE CONSTITUTION IS ITS SYSTEM OF "CHECKS AND BALANCES."  NONE OF THE THREE PARTS OF GOVERNMENT:

EXECUTIVE.

LEGISLATIVE.

JUDICIAL.

...WOULD HAVE UNCHALLENGED AUTHORITY OVER ANY PART OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM. HOWEVER, BY DISREGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP IS DESTROYING THE VERY FABRIC OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM. THEY WILL HAVE USURPED THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT, BY REFUSING TO MEET AND CONSIDER HIS NOMINEE.

If this sounds good to you, RESEARCH THE WORD "OLIGARCHY", AND GET 
USE TO IT.

SEE PART 3.


Thursday, March 23, 2017

Trumpcare: "Robin Hood in reverse." Senator Tom Udall.

"Trumpcare is Robin Hood in reverse. It robs from the elderly, people with disabilities, and poor children to give massive tax giveaways to millionaires and billionaires."
-- The Huffington Post, 3/15/2017

David,

That's the best description I've seen of Republicans' health care plan.

And today, on the 7th anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, House Republicans will hold a vote to repeal it and replace it with their own.

Trumpcare is a real disaster for New Mexico families who will no longer be able to afford to see a doctor, buy prescriptions, or go to the hospital... reject Trumpcare and protect the health care millions of Americans depend on.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has evaluated Trumpcare. They've found it would cancel health care for 14 million people in just one year, and up to 24 million by 2026. Combine that with the cruel cuts to Medicaid, women's health services, mental health and substance abuse services, and the inability to address glaring issues like the outrageous cost of prescription drugs, and there really is no doubt -- Trumpcare is a complete failure. Meanwhile, the plan gives "supersized" tax breaks to the richest Americans.

This isn't a health care plan -- it's a health care cancellation plan. It's inhumanely robbing many people of the security and stability that the Affordable Care Act has given them.

President Trump promised that Republicans would give every American health care. The plan the House is voting on today will not do that -- and as such, it should be scrapped right now.

When it comes to health care, I'm willing to listen to any ideas that will improve our system and expand coverage. What I will not do is let changes made in Washington hurt New Mexico families and rip their coverage away.

This is the 7th anniversary of the Affordable Care Act. Let's make sure there's an 8th.

Tom

They're voting to dismantle health care today Senator Jeff Merkley.


David: Seven years ago today, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law.  It was a historic moment – and my vote to support it was one of my proudest moments as a Senator. Today, the Republicans are voting on the House floor to dismantle it.
The ACA helped 23 million Americans get health insurance, bringing the number of uninsured to a historic low. For so many working people, the emergency room is no longer their only source of health care. That’s a big deal, and we can’t take it for granted.

I’m working every day to protect our access to affordable health care – and even expand it, like when I led the push last year for a resolution to add a public option to the ACA. Help me defend our health care...

The Affordable Care Act has proven to be a tremendous success – despite relentless Republican obstruction. After years of calling for repeal, Republicans are on the House floor today with the plan they scrambled to put together. So what’s their big idea all about?

Four words:  Pay More, Get Less.
The Republican Trumpcare plan takes away coverage from millions of the most vulnerable people in order to hand out massive tax breaks to the wealthy and big corporations.  It destroys access to health care for struggling Americans, puts working Americans at the mercy of insurance company bureaucrats, and makes insurance dramatically more expensive for older Americans. The only people it really helps are the super rich. Trumpcare is a shameless ploy to pad the bottom lines of the ultra-rich at the expense of everyone else.  It’s just wrong.
Together, we can fight for our right to quality health care and create an economy that puts people over profits – not the other way around.
Onward!
Jeff

Put the Gorsuch hearings on hold Karli Thompson, Democracy for America to you.

David --
BREAKING: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer just announced that he intends to filibuster the nomination of Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court -- and he said he expects to have the 60 votes he needs to halt the nomination and potentially spark a "nuclear option" showdown.
This is a HUGE victory for the progressive grassroots, including the tens of thousands of Democracy for America members who stepped up to tell their senators that they would accept nothing short of a "no" vote on Gorsuch. But we can't count on just one tactic to beat Gorsuch -- we need to use every tool at our disposal to derail this nomination.

In the wake of the House hearing on Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election earlier this week, Elizabeth Warren took to Twitter with a clear message to her colleagues in the Senate: There should be no further action on a Supreme Court nomination until the investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia is complete.
Last night, on a live call with DFA members from around the country, Sen. Jeff Merkley announced that he agrees with Warren -- and he said that Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is on board, too.
This should be a no-brainer. Under no circumstances should we allow a president to permanently alter the makeup of the Supreme Court while under active investigation by the FBI. We need to tell the Senate to shut this process down until we have all the facts about Trump and Russia.

Stand with Elizabeth Warren and Democracy for America... tell the Senate to put Trump's Supreme Court pick on hold until the investigation into his ties to Russia is complete.

There are already plenty of reasons to oppose Trump's choice for the Supreme Court seat, Neil Gorsuch. If confirmed, he would be a shill for big business and a disaster for workers, women and our environment. He will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and supports Citizens United.

But now that FBI Director James Comey has confirmed under oath that they are explicitly looking into the possibility that Trump colluded with Russia, we have further reason to be suspicious of Trump's motives. There's no reason to allow him to change the direction of the court and the country -- especially when we still haven't gotten to the bottom of this.

Republicans have already proven that they see absolutely zero harm in letting the Supreme Court operate with only 8 justices for an extended period of time. After all, they blocked President Obama's pick for this seat for months. It can sit vacant for a little bit longer so these investigations into Trump can finish -- and for us to force Trump to pick a Supreme Court nominee who will protect our rights, rather than side with big business.

Stand with Elizabeth Warren at this critical moment...calling on the Senate to halt the Supreme Court confirmation process until the investigation into Trump's ties to Russia is complete.

Thanks for being a part of the resistance to Donald Trump.

- Karli

Karli Wallace Thompson, Campaign Manager
Democracy for America