How many times have you heard, either in person, in a book, on TV or the movies – that that guy is the greatest salesman to walk the planet. He can sell ice cubes to Eskimos, or some such nonsense – and also that he will never take no for an answer. That is to say, the salesman never leaves his customer without the customer agreeing to purchase something.
This sounds great but is an obvious embellishment. Even the best get turned down from time to time. They may not like it, but it is a fact of life. Eventually every salesman has to accept no as the answer and move on.
The phenomenon is not peculiar to sales people. It happens in every walk of life, from the time we are children, assuming the parents have the backbone to stand up to their kids, through adulthood. Everyone has to accept “no” from time to time. Everyone but the left that is.
When was the last time anyone on the political left ever took no for an answer and simply let it go? I’ll give you the answer – NEVER. They never have and they never will. No matter how illogical, absurd or even unconstitutional, the political left will always find a way to use, abuse or even usurp the system to get what they want.
As we’ve already witnessed umpteen times over, Obama is the king of this tactic. He’s said on a number of occasions that he can’t and won’t wait for Congress to act in order to “get things done.” He has a pen and a phone is not shy about using either, or both.
And if he can’t get it done on his own, he will employ the stenographers in the press to push his position – the democrat drones in the House and Senate, the courts and even private citizens to do his bidding. For Obama, tradition means nothing, nor does the law or the Constitution. And a private citizen is doing just that.
A private attorney is suing to compel the federal courts to force the Senate to vote on Obama’s choice for supreme Court, Merrick Garland.
The Constitution Center blog reports that on August 25, 2016, Steven S. Michel, a Santa Fe attorney, filed a federal lawsuit in Washington D.C. He, as a voter, is “seeking to compel the Senate to take some action on the Supreme Court nomination made by President Obama. The lawsuit does not demand a particular outcome, but only that the Senate be ordered to end its refusal to take any action until after the presidential election in November.” Be ordered – really?!
Recall the saying about today’s America – that you can sue a ham sandwich. Well, this may be more ridiculous and a waste of time than the sandwich.
The Constitution Center writes: “WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…The Founders who wrote the Constitution wanted the powers of the national government’s three branches to be kept separate, but not entirely free of being checked by each other’s powers. Even so, any citizen seeking to get one branch to act against another faces a number of significant obstacles – not least, proving that he or she has a personal stake in that goal.” This of course is utterly immaterial.
Lawyer Michel claims that “that there is a crisis that threatens the balance and separation of power among our three branches of government,” and that, through the Senate’s non-action, they have, “divested the President of his constitutional power to appoint justices to the Supreme Court.” The lawsuit actually has four points – this is just the first. I won’t even bother with the other three, for they are completely irrelevant being that no court should even consider the first.
The fact is that no one or court can possibly confuse or read anything further into the very simple and straightforward statement in Article II, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution. It reads:
“He [the president] shall have 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 Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…”
That’s it – there is no other mention regarding the nomination and appointment process. There doesn’t need to be because it’s clear a bell! Nowhere in the Constitution is there any “timetable,” or that the Senate is “compelled” to act at any time.
In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution that says how many justices there should be. The first supreme Court, nominated by George Washington in 1789, had but six. It wasn’t until 1869 that nine justices became the norm – and it’s just the norm – not the law.
This lawsuit is waste of time, but there is no such thing to the rabid left. They just want what they want and will never take no for an answer. Let’s hope the court rejects the suit entirely – at least slow them down a bit.