this article sounds like a cheap shot by sojmeone who has an axe to grind. I
think the issue of the integrity of the supreme Court is most important
here.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 1:54 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Merrick Garland, What's the Point?
Ash writes: "Who cares about Barack Obama or his right, duty, to choose a
Supreme Court nominee? Longtime conservative power-broker Senator Orin Hatch
of Utah picked Merrick Garland and Obama obeyed. End of story."
Republican Senator Orin Hatch of Utah. (photo: Charles Dharapak/AP)
Merrick Garland, What's the Point?
By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News
16 March 16
The mantra from the DNC for weeks, since Antonin Scalia died, has been
"Fight for President Obama's Supreme Court pick!" What they should have said
is "Ratify Orin Hatch's Supreme Court pick that Obama will announce."
Who cares about Barack Obama or his right, duty, to choose a Supreme Court
nominee? Longtime conservative power-broker Senator Orin Hatch of Utah
picked Merrick Garland and Obama obeyed. End of story.
Hatch said:
"[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man ... he
probably won't do that because this appointment is about the election. So
I'm pretty sure he'll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants."
Obama apparently took Hatch's cue and complied.
Battle? Ideological confrontation? Reshaping of the Court? Forget it -
Garland is a safe pick for America's ruling class. Obama punted. Hatch
defeated him without a fight.
Better than Scalia. Sure, but that really doesn't say much. Scalia was
arguably the most purely politically-motivated Supreme Court justice in
American history. A ham-fisted, ideologically driven, right-wing operative
who came to the court every day with a clearly defined agenda. Will Garland
be better? Yes. Will Garland show any courage in moving the country forward?
Not likely.
Why would anyone who understands the scope of the problems facing the
country today fight for this Hatch-Obama offering? They should not. To those
who would argue that Obama had to do this to get a nominee, any nominee,
approved: That's absurd. It's not about getting "any nominee" approved. We
don't "fight" for approval. We fight for a better, more just nation.
Something no one in the nation's capitol has any apparent concern for.
Obama will leave the Presidency as he began it, wrapping his policy and
legacy around not offending white Republicans.
It's a travesty and an abdication.
Would a President Hillary Clinton show more courage? She couldn't show less.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Republican Senator Orin Hatch of Utah. (photo: Charles Dharapak/AP)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
Merrick Garland, What's the Point?
By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News
16 March 16
he mantra from the DNC for weeks, since Antonin Scalia died, has been
"Fight for President Obama's Supreme Court pick!" What they should have said
is "Ratify Orin Hatch's Supreme Court pick that Obama will announce."
Who cares about Barack Obama or his right, duty, to choose a Supreme Court
nominee? Longtime conservative power-broker Senator Orin Hatch of Utah
picked Merrick Garland and Obama obeyed. End of story.
Hatch said:
"[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man ... he
probably won't do that because this appointment is about the election. So
I'm pretty sure he'll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants."
Obama apparently took Hatch's cue and complied.
Battle? Ideological confrontation? Reshaping of the Court? Forget it -
Garland is a safe pick for America's ruling class. Obama punted. Hatch
defeated him without a fight.
Better than Scalia. Sure, but that really doesn't say much. Scalia was
arguably the most purely politically-motivated Supreme Court justice in
American history. A ham-fisted, ideologically driven, right-wing operative
who came to the court every day with a clearly defined agenda. Will Garland
be better? Yes. Will Garland show any courage in moving the country forward?
Not likely.
Why would anyone who understands the scope of the problems facing the
country today fight for this Hatch-Obama offering? They should not. To those
who would argue that Obama had to do this to get a nominee, any nominee,
approved: That's absurd. It's not about getting "any nominee" approved. We
don't "fight" for approval. We fight for a better, more just nation.
Something no one in the nation's capitol has any apparent concern for.
Obama will leave the Presidency as he began it, wrapping his policy and
legacy around not offending white Republicans.
It's a travesty and an abdication.
Would a President Hillary Clinton show more courage? She couldn't show less.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize