Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – breaking an oath

It seems that the Republicans in the Senate only want to pay attention to the US Constitution when convenient for them.  To refuse to accept a nominee from the US President just because they don’t like it is very unconstitutional.  They are refusing do to the job they swore to do.  It’s pretty damn amusing when they do this upon the death of Scalia, who was all about the Constitution in its original form.  One wonders if Scalia would counter this nonsense or decide to ignore his own principles as long as it got him what he wanted.

“He[The President] shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, 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: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” Article 2, section 2, clause 2

Pretty clear, isn’t it?  It seems Scalia would agree.

“The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don’t care about the intent, and I don’t care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.^{” – A. Scalia, A Theory of Constitution Interpretation, speech at Catholic University of America, 10/18/96.}

This is the oath that these men and women took to become senators.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

For all of the claims of how the Republicans are so for the military and so religious that they wouldn’t consider ignoring their oaths, their actions show that they have no problem in ignoring anything as long as they can show how much they are afraid of President Obama.  My husband is a veteran, as are my father and my brother.  They served to uphold the Constitution.  It is a shame that Republicans wish to disregard it whenever they feel like it, ignoring the basis of law in the US.

Hypocrites?  Shucks, why would you think that?  (and yes, both parties do this.  it doesn’t make it right).

Addendum:   wonder what the excuses are being offered by those Republicans who claimed that their god picked them personally to be president?