by Ruth A. Sheets
I find it interesting the way Republicans just change the rules to fit whatever they want to do. It reminds me of the old "Truth or Consequences" game. Contestants were supposed to answer a question correctly or face the consequences. The questions were outrageous, of course, but if a contestant guessed the right answer, another question would be added, then another until they could no longer answer correctly because the question had no answer, SO they faced the consequences, usually a silly game or stunt. That was OK for a TV game show, but not for real life. Republicans don't like the “truth” part, so they change the question so we, the contestants will face the “consequences.
Republican Senate leaders now get to approve a lifetime appointment supreme court justice who is really not qualified but has proven she is amenable to whatever Republicans want her to do, and, just a few weeks before a presidential election.
The question to Mitch McConnell and his club, why will you not give Merrick Garland a hearing to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court? The answer, “because it is an election year. OK, possibly true, so, there is a next question which came an hour after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Why are you planning to approve a nominee for the Supreme Court when it is only weeks until the election, in an election year. The answer because we can. That’s the wrong answer, so we get the consequences, ultimately , loss of our right to choose, loss of health care, expulsion of immigrants, and so much more.
Those consequences also immediately involve a Senate procedure the American people don't want. It turns out though, Democrats can’t even claim it’s unconstitutional because, as “newsman” Jake Tapper pointed out. The displeasure of the American people is only a poll and those in power can do pretty much whatever they want since they were elected and it’s not exactly in the Constitution.
So, before Justice Ginsburg was even in her grave, Republicans were working to continue their packing of the Supreme Court. I thought it interesting that during the Vice-Presidential debate on October 7th, Kamala Harris was asked about Biden and packing the Court when it was Pence, Trump, McConnell and their Republican allies who were already in the process of doing it. Yep, that was pretty brazen!
These Republican moves are Hypocrisy, of course, but hypocrisy has become the currency of the Republican Party. Its other denominations are lying, corruption, and deceit. They now do all of these right out in the open. For example, Attorney General William Barr has no trouble investigating those who focused attention on Republican cheating and corruption, hoping to find something to blame Democrats and others for, dragging issues through the courts hoping to get something to stick, to distract the people from the consequences of Republican practices, like a rushed Supreme Court appointment.
The Trump nominee for the Supreme Court, Amy Coney, Barrett, has been on the Republican radar for quite a while, after all, she was seen as fit to serve on a lower court by the Federalist Society, the conservative court packing clearing house and had no opposition from Republican senators.
One might wonder why she was and is such a good fit for Republicans. Well,
- She is a woman who has a record of dismissing women and their needs, an avowed pro-lifer. She does not believe women should be allowed to make their own decisions as to their bodies and their reproduction, no matter what the law says. CHECK!
- She has learned to hide her personal beliefs and opinions behind “the law” and makes it sound as though if you don’t go along with her, you don’t know the law. PERFECT!
- She is easily manipulated by men, forming her opinions to fit their wants through her religion. She formed basic opinions under Antonin Scalia, a justice who also hid his comfort zone behind the law. She learned well and can be counted on to do her Republican duty. YESSSS PERFECT AGAIN!
- She has ruled against desperate immigrants in her current position. She has the right view of immigrants and since the Constitution doesn’t say much about immigrants except that they can become citizens and should have full rights of citizenship, she can and will do everything she can to exclude as many as possible. HURRAY! RIGHT AGAIN!
- She has seven kids. That is great because that makes her look like the perfect mom. One wonders how she managed her law career while raising 7 kids. Is she supermom or one who had sufficient money and resources to have lots of help. She clearly didn’t think birth control was worth her time or perhaps thought it was a sin, who knows which, but it matters which, but not to Republicans. ALL GOOD SO FAR!
- She doesn’t think the Affordable Care Act should be legal even though she claims to believe the Courts should not be legislating and that that should be done through the Congress and executive branch. The ACA meets both those criteria, passed by elected persons in Congress and signed by the president. But, as with her former and current bosses, she doesn’t care because it isn’t what she likes, so she will make sure the law fits what she likes. THAT WAS EASY!
How do We the People deal with this? Well, it is unlikely Republican Senators beyond the two who have already declared they will not approve Ms. Barrett, can find their backbone in time to stop this sham appointment. So, I am thinking the only honest way to address this problem is to expand the Supreme Court, (and possibly other courts) to balance the Court toward more fairness. On the Supreme Court, we will need at least 4 new justices who actually care about the needs of the American people, not just the anti-woman, anti-people of color, anti-LGBTQ, forced birthers, immigrant haters, corporations, and planet destroyers for the money. We need people who are not ideologues whose views can be twisted into denying people their rights, using the law to justify their inexplicable rulings. They’re out there, those fair, qualified people.
A woman-resenting woman like Barrett is just like the Black persons-resenting Clarence Thomas. They'll make a great pair working together to try to set our nation back a century, back into a time when women only get the rights white men allow them and Black people, except for a few sports and entertainment figures. go back to the ghetto poverty of the past. Yes, a great team!
We need to stop this if we can, but expand the court if we can't. Limiting terms on the court would also help. I like John Paul Stevens' idea of 18 years on the Supreme Court, then move to one of the other federal courts for the rest of their lives. The court has just too much power for a lifetime appointment. The founders did not anticipate that. So much for originalism, a bogus concept that people who are extreme conservatives drag out to support their ridiculous rights-denying pronouncements. Justice Scalia was a master of the bogus originalism. Now his former clerk wants to do the women's side of it, the new Phyllis Schlafly. Shame on any senator who votes for her. She is neither qualified as a fair judge nor appropriate for the court. Her appointment is a bad consequence for most of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment