|Thune And Mitch McConnell|
Which One Represents South Dakota?
(photo from dailysignal.com)
Both of these tools of national Republican Party politics are completely ignoring their responsibilities to represent us South Dakotans by blowing off the prospect of even meeting with the President's nominee for the court vacancy. It's ironic that both these Stepford Senators make a big show of their attachment to our region's values, Thune through his affiliation with Heartland Values PAC and Rounds via his campaign rhetoric about being "most in line with South Dakota values." In both cases, I think this categorical rejection of any consideration of Obama's nominee Merrick Garland for SCOTUS is utterly unrepresentative of South Dakota values as I've seen them displayed. Some outstanding South Dakotans I've come to know are keenly reflective and aware, looking at all sides of situations before reaching decisions. Unlike our Senators and their brush-off of Garland, they never say no to a proposition (or appointment) without close examination. How can anybody know if Garland is fit for the Supreme Court without vetting him first? A priori rejection is supposed to be a South Dakota value? Please. The people I know who most consistently espouse South Dakota values are successful entrepreneurs and professionals who independently examine and analyze their options before coming to conclusions and decisions. That, to me, is the essence of successful decision-making and leadership.
I also contend that the approach is the essence of the South Dakota way of doing things, the most defining value of all. How that jibes with the yes-men we sent to the Senate is a mystery to me. Thune in his statement issued yesterday claims that "the American people deserve to have their voices heard" on this nomination. That's ridiculous because the process insures that Americans have their voices heard. A President elected by the people and charged by Article Two in the U. S. Constitution (". . . he SHALL nominate," with "shall" being the controlling word in this compound verb) to make this appointment with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, a body filled with elected officials, does not fall short of Thune's standard for what the American people deserve. If Thune and the rest of the Senate don't think Garland makes the SCOTUS cut, so be it. The American people have had a hearing, loud and clear, via their elected reps.
Fact is, Thune got sent to the Senate on the expectations that he'd do his job, not jawbone with rhetoric cleared by GOP Central. It's a shame that our senior senator is making himself such
|Why Is This Man Laughing?|
Mike Rounds Misquotes The Constitution
(photo from argusleader.com)
Senator Rounds comes up even shorter, actually having the gall to misquote the Constitution. In his statement issued yesterday, Rounds, reciting from a letter sent by Mitch Mconnell to the President, claims that the Constitution says that "the President "may" nominate judges of the Supreme Court." This is such an awful misrepresentation of the Constitution that it calls Mike Rounds' competence into question. As I noted above, the Constitution is clear. The President "SHALL" nominate, Senator Rounds. It doesn't say he MAY nominate. Get it? There's a difference between "shall" and "may." Obama is only following through on his Constitutional mandate. It would be nice if Senators Rounds and Thune would stand up for themselves and us South Dakotans and do the same.