Why would any Republican Senate confirm any Democratic President's SCJ nominations ever then? And vice versa? Are Supreme Court Justices only to be appointed when both the Presidency and Senate are controlled by the same Political party? Anything else is going to demand "compromise" of some sort, and those involved labeled by some as "traitors".For me, I am sick period of adjusting the rules to suit. Things like suspending the Constitutional process in order to save the Constitution. Stuff like that.
On top of the doing of the Constitutional process, I personally feel that an Election for President and members of Congress would go badly for us if characterized solely as a vote for balance of power on the SCOTUS. That makes everyone running for elected office (at least as far as President and Senate) a vicar for an unelected position. That kind of election would empower votes for something that is not stated in the Constitution.
You claim to worry about following the Constitution or else being called a "traitor". Leave aside for the moment the obvious point that you are operating from a position of fear of what the opposition will say. That is no way to operate.
But you are actually wrong about the Constitutionality. The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint, and the Congress the power to advise and consent. Those are two separate branches, the Executive and the Legislative, with a separation of powers firewall. They are not obligated to approve his nominations. You are describing a rubber stamp found in the Politburo or a banana republic.
Furthermore, you describe smokey backroom cooperation between these two separate branches which takes We The People right out of the loop leaving the substance of the matter to the cloistered class of bureaucrats in the District Of Criminals. This is how the uniparty already operates, and how we got $20 Trillion debt and a Hundred Trillion in obligations. What's it gonna take for you to get tired of such "cooperation"?
And before you worry about what they might do why don't you try to remember what they already did to the overwhelmingly popularly re-elected Reagan in mid-term by blocking and destroying Bork solely on ideological grounds. That is how we wound up with that bastard Kennedy who still pollutes the Court to this day.
As another FReeper said somewhere above, this is the hill to die on. And unless you are trolling here with a clever (D)ummycrat psyop, you better wake up to the fact right this minute that this will be the final nail in the coffin of the United States Of America. When the bullets start flying after the Second Amendment is destroyed in a future decision, you will have no-one to blame but those like yourself who are willing to surrender ( even before Scalia is buried! ). Even the French don't wave the white flag this fast.
Anyone who disagrees with you must be from DU, or even Lindsey Graham himself I guess.
I cannot even begin to untangle your post. The very first sentence is completely disconnected from anything I “claimed”. I don’t feel the urge to clarify it with you further since every post of yours to me has been a direct and personal insult. You can jam it as far as I m concerned. No sense discussing it with you.