Advise, Consent or Dissent

But Don’t Obstruct!

Written by JB Williams


Even Democrats are beginning to sense that the American people have had about enough of their mindless obstructionist tactics. Most of us know what the Constitution says. The President has the sole right to appoint Supreme Court nominees and the Senate has the obligation to offer advice, then their consent or dissent as the case may be.

We understand that the Democrats power is limited to underhanded character assassination leading up to another abuse of the filibuster. Who do you think removed them from all other forms of power in Washington? But despite the recent “damn the torpedoes elitists” mindset of today’s Democrats, elections do have consequences and it’s all about the will of the people, not the will of the DNC or their special interest groups.

Judge John Roberts might not be the right nominee to filibuster, since you would be hard pressed to find anything the least bit “extreme” in his personality, nature or resume. Fact is most experts seem to think that few in America are better qualified for the job than Roberts.

But ideologues on both sides of the aisle are concerned and gearing up for a fight, if they can just find some basis for the fight.

Socialist Liberal ideologues are not concerned with protecting, defending or upholding the Constitution, but rather with protecting, defending and upholding Roe vs. Wade, promoting gay marriage rights and advancing central power of the federal government, all of which is at odds with the Constitution actually. Their agenda requires another liberal Supreme Court activist.

A few Right-wing ideologues are praying for a miracle too. They seek a Justice that will actively pursue reversing Roe vs. Wade, the trend towards ultimate federal power over the states and the people and the destruction of the traditional family unit. Though the Constitution better supports their agenda, upholding the Constitution may be a secondary issue for them as well.

It seems true conservatives actually have the right answer this time. True conservatives are the middle of America today. We have seen it in the last four elections. True conservatives have but one qualification for a Supreme Court nominee, outside the basic resume requirements for every nominee that is…

True conservatives simply seek to “conserve”. Bush’s nominee is simply expected to “protect, defend and uphold” the Constitution of the United States and apply its written principles evenly. Roberts is not expected to be an “activist” of any type. This alone might make Roberts a wonderful nominee for Supreme Court Justice, at least for those of us more concerned with justice than activism.

Any process intended to thwart the Constitutional confirmation process is by definition, unconstitutional.

As Democrats and their special interest constituents fine-tune their litmus test for Roberts, they engage in the dangerous practice of subverting the Constitutional process itself. The last time they tried this, Republicans developed a plan of their own, labeled by liberals the nuclear option, which amounted only to enforcing the Constitutional process itself.

The simple truth is the Constitution clearly outlines the methods by which a Supreme Court Justice is to be nominated and confirmed. It details the respective roles of the legislative and executive branches in that process. If the system is ever deemed by the people to be deficient, the Constitution provides a method by which even the Constitution itself can be changed.

But to work against these processes, is to act at odds with the Constitution itself.

We the people have systematically removed Democrats from power in Washington over the last four elections. If they once again proceed with attacking the legitimate processes of governance for purposes of personal political gain or special interest activism, they risk losing what little trust and power they have left.

The choice is clear and it is theirs to make. Bush sought the advice of 75 out of 100 Senators from both sides of the aisle, an unprecedented effort on his part. Senate Democrats must now make an unprecedented effort in response in order to be taken seriously by anyone.

They won’t, but they should abandon any form of a litmus test. They can and should fully study this or any other nominee’s technical qualifications, professional demeanor and even personal character, but they must do it in a fair non-partisan timely fashion.

Then they must offer the nominee their consent or dissent as prescribed by the Constitution. Our system of self-governance doesn’t get any more basic than this. Anything else is obstruction of the process and a clear effort to circumvent the Constitution.

The White House and the halls of congress are both full of partisan politicians. The Supreme Court was not intended to be just another home for wayward partisans. Rather the last bastion of reliable justice, an insurmountable wall of impregnable protection around the Constitution and the fundamental principles of self-governance, freedom and liberty in America.

No matter ones personal social ideology, the first oath of every office is to protect, defend and uphold the Constitution. It is nothing short of high treason to do otherwise.

Democrats have lost significant power over the last four elections because they have lost the trust of the majority of Americans. The majority of Americans believe in the Constitution as it was written and they understand that the preservation of their nation is fully dependent upon the protection of that Constitution.

Democrats have repeatedly proven themselves willing to negotiate the Constitution via liberal re-drafts from the bench. Most Americans are not in one of the special interest clicks running today’s DNC and they don’t buy it.

An obstructionist move against this particular nominee could seal the fate of a beleaguered Democratic Party and it should.

The New Society

China Examined

"Newspaper look" derived from work ©Seattle Sentinel