Saturday, October 1, 2016

LOGIC. WHEN OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IGNORE REASON, EVERYONE SUFFERS. #2.




Image result for JUDGE GARLAND PICTURES

If we want to find the Most Probable Reasons for the REPUBLICAN PARTIES refusal to hold Hearings for JUDGE GARLANDS NOMINATION TO THE SUPREME COURT, WE MUST ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. By doing this, IT WILL NOT MATTER WHAT THE RESPONSES ARE, FOR WE WILL BE ABLE TO JUDGE THE VERACITY, AND CREDIBILITY OF THE ANSWERS GIVEN.
 
Here is What we know to be True.

1)  The SUPREME COURT CURRENTLY HAS ONLY 8 MEMBERS. THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE HIS DUTY ACCORDING TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND NOMINATED A CANDIDATE.

2)  The REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED SENATE HAS REFUSED TO HOLD HEARINGS THAT WOULD ALLOW QUESTIONING OF JUDGE GARLAND, REGARDING HIS CAPACITY TO FULFILL THE INTELLECTUAL AND MENTAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPOINTMENT. THIS WOULD ALLOW THE SENATE, AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THAT HE HAS, OR DOESN'T HAVE, THE REQUIRED TRAITS. 
(This Refusal is Contrary to any Reasonable Interpretation of the Wording Contained within the Constitution, and may force the President and other Members of the Senate to seek a Solution to overcome this Obstructionist Tactic. I have covered this part of the controversy in other posts, so I refer you to Them for more information.)

3)  There has never been a single case in U.S. History of the Senate not holding Hearings to question, and consider a Supreme Court Nominee. So, setting aside the Constitutional Question of failing to fulfill Their Oath, why are SENATE REPUBLICANS DOING THIS?

Let us consider the Answer that has been used from the Beginning:

THAT JUDGE GARLAND DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH SUPPORT TO PASS A  
NOMINATION VOTE.

Whether that is True or Not, means nothing if it is not a vote Taken within the 
BODY OF THE SENATE ITSELF.  Officially, answers given to the News Media
have no value.

However, let us Take This Conclusion of Lack of Support as True, and see what we have:

-  IF THIS IS SO, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LOSES NOTHING BY HOLDING THE HEARINGS, AND HAVING AN OFFICIAL VOTE. THE OUTCOME WOULD REMAIN THE SAME, BUT NOW THE ACCUSATION OF FAILING TO UPHOLD THEIR OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION WOULD DISAPPEAR.

-  FURTHER, THE SENATE, AND ALL OF ITS MEMBERS, WOULD BE ABLE TO EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS AND REASONS FOR NOT APPROVING JUDGE GARLAND. THIS WOULD AID THE PRESIDENT IN NOMINATING A MORE APPROPRIATE CANDIDATE.

-  IN THE END, IT WOULD ALLOW THE OPPOSITION AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION JUDGE GARLAND. THEY WOULD LISTEN TO, AND DRAW CONCLUSIONS FROM HIS ANSWERS, WHICH THEY COULD USE TO VALIDATE THEIR REJECTION OF HIS NOMINATION.

These seem to be perfectly reasonable, and I cannot see any possible objections,
if JUDGE GARLANDS LACK OF SUPPORT IS THE ANSWER FOR NOT HOLDING THE HEARINGS.

HOWEVER, WHAT IF THAT IS NOT THE CASE...?

Date-  4/24/2016.