Your disagreement doesn't make them disqualified. Let me repeat that again, for those in the back. Your disagreement doesn't make them disqualified. When you're arguing with someone on an opinion-based platform, you can't discount what they say as wrong or unqualified simply because you disagree with it. This is something Republicans seem to have forgotten in the Trump Terror of 2016.
Republican senators, this message is for you. So many of you are fond of carrying around miniature little pocket constitutions. Can I direct you to a little section in there, it's important and seems to be lost on you lately. Get out your reading glasses now if you need them, the print on those pocket-sized versions must be tiny. Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution says that it is the President's job to nominate, with advice and consent of the senate, a bunch of important people including Supreme Court Justices. It doesn't say that the Senate is supposed to decide the candidate is against their views and refuse to confirm them. It doesn't say that you're supposed to throw a hissy fit and claim that a President in the last two years of his term is incapable of choosing an appropriate nominee. It says you're supposed to advise the president and confirm the damn nominee. See, advising a President who is against your party might seem difficult, but it's really not. In Merrick Garland, Obama gave you just about everything you could ask for from a guy who is so far from your political base. Garland is 63 years old, very close to the ages of several justices like Kagan, Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor, who was in her 50s when she was confirmed as a SCOTUS justice. He also tends to be more moderate. He's not a clear "victory" for the democratic party as a justice, and he's not a clear "loss" for the republican party. He's not exactly a wildcard, but more like a swing state that could be persuaded either way depending on the circumstances. Still, you decided Obama was unfit to make that decision and stalled and stalled, twiddling your thumbs, hoping no one would notice.
It almost worked. I didn't write about this at the time and after the smoke cleared, didn't imagine I would be writing about it anytime soon. The thing is, your friend John McCain, who I actually respect for a lot of reasons, lost some of his brownie points. In my daily scroll through NPR, I discovered McCain had made the comment that if Clinton is elected, he and the Republican senators will block any nominees brought forward by Hillary. My question to Senator McCain is, where in your job description does it state that disagreement with an individual gives you permission to ignore your duties. The problem here isn't that you're rejecting qualified individuals, but rather that you won't hear anything they have to say. We don't know how qualified Merrick Garland or any of the other SCOTUS nominees Clinton might bring forth could be. We never checked. You wouldn't let us. If Clinton is elected, you absolutely should not and can not block a vote on the nomination for 4 to 8 years. There is already a vacancy and the likelihood of vacancies to come in the following years in the Supreme Court. Do we really want the highest court in our nation to be running low on justices? Do we want it to slowly shrink into nothingness? For the party represented by the "law and order" presidential nominee, you sure seem to be advocating chaos.
I understand that, at this point, McCain has walked back on his comments. Sadly, this wasn't a mere Freudian slip that can be so easily overlooked. This was a statement McCain said and, at least at the time, meant. Republicans, obviously I'm not your biggest fan. I'm not going to agree with you or the justices your presidents nominate. I will, however, fight tooth and nail against my own party if they decide to dissolve into a ridiculous toddler fit over doing what they're supposed to be doing. Get your shit together. Realize that disagreeing with someone doesn't mean they're disqualified. Let our country run the way it's supposed to with a fully staffed and functioning Supreme Court that can help us to interpret our constitution and uphold the laws of this nation. Disagreement is not equivalent to disqualification. It just means you don't see things the same way.
