Supreme Court nomination by Obama is constitutional

It is an amazing thing to see those who took an oath to defend the Constitution continually find reasons to ignore it.  Since the tragic loss of Justice Antonin Scalia there have been calls from republicans to hold any nominations until the new president is sworn in.  Democrats, naturally, decry such calls as…of all things…unconstitutional.  It has become quite political yet a Supreme Court nomination by Obama is constitutional.

We now have the republicans demanding the current president (a big fan of abusing and ignoring the constitution throughout his seven plus years in office) not fulfill one area that Article II requires him to fulfill.  Democrats, who join with most republicans in taking a perfunctory approach to swearing an oath they never plan on upholding, now are suddenly turning into constitutionalists.  In the bizarre twist of polar politics the people clearly can see just how little the Supreme Law of the United States is defended and just how much it has devolved into nothing more than a paper football kicked about by two parties waning in their ability to help govern.

Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution does not state a sitting President, in his final year, shall not nominate, nor shall the Congress cease to advise and confirm, Supreme Court justices.  It states, “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, and which shall be established by law….”

As some of the republicans spit out precedence as an excuse for ignoring the law it calls to mind someone being pulled over for speeding and the reasoning is everyone else is speeding too.  What these politicians are really attempting to do is set precedence for the future by ignoring the law today.  It’s an old game these two parties have used over time to erode constitutional governing.  It is this type of willingness to neglect the law that leads closer to true socialism every day despite having a Supreme Law still in place that abhors centralized government planning.  Neither party, nor very few bureaucrats, have many people who truly hold their Oath of Office in esteem.  Citizens fail to even consider the abuses allowed and damages created when the oath is not carried out.

It is sad this country has lost one voice who still clung to originalist views of our Constitution.  How nice it would be to find another originalist to replace him so his great efforts do not get undone.  However, Justice Scalia’s passing should not be used to set new precedence for ignoring the Supreme Law of the land under the guise of doing so to insure an originalist is found (there is not insurance for that, look at some of the other so called conservative choices).

What history may well write about this time is how it fully exposes the fact neither party cares more about the law than their own political agendas and those of their special interests and lobbyists.  Neither party cares about upholding justice or even operating within the law.  Both parties clearly desire control and power to further their own adulterated vision for the future of the United States and neither vision includes operating within current law.  Neither upholds the Oath of Office and members of both parties continue to follow paths leading away from liberty and do so with the approval of their members.